Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

a reply to: SyxPak

You obviously have not bothered to research the damage to 7. FDNY described a 20 story hole carved out of the heart of 7, they described pieces of the building falling off, and photos show massive damage to the southeast corner...not just a little damage. So, the people that were THERE report massive damage and that they were sure 7 was going to fall.

Why are you so unwilling to accept the evidence?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

First, to those that say the buildings fell at free fall speed, please explain this.

It clearly shows top sections that ARE falling free fall and the remaining building behind that is still suffering from a progressive collapse.

Second, the tower cores were NOT concrete reinforced. There were concrete NON load bearing components IN the core, but the structural steel that supported the tower, in the core, was not concrete reinforced. And this is to show you the tower was built in small sections, Neither the outer "tube" or inner "core" could support itself.




and here are a few examples of the collapse initiation. Does it really look like explosives?






I love this quote

Within an environment of confusion, people often tend to see what they want to believe, changing the collapsing buildings into whatever they need them to be to maintain ones sense of "reality", ones ingrained sense of "right and wrong" or "good and bad".

If you are really interested in truth, check out THIS WEBSITE

It points out the crap in BOTH NIST and CT theories.

And by the way ForteanOrg, Thank You for the civil response. It is refreshing in these forums.
I hope we are all after the truth.

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: ForteanOrg

First, to those that say the buildings fell at free fall speed, please explain this.

It clearly shows top sections that ARE falling free fall and the remaining building behind that is still suffering from a progressive collapse.

Second, the tower cores were NOT concrete reinforced. There were concrete NON load bearing components IN the core, but the structural steel that supported the tower, in the core, was not concrete reinforced. And this is to show you the tower was built in small sections, Neither the outer "tube" or inner "core" could support itself.

and here are a few examples of the collapse initiation. Does it really look like explosives?

I love this quote

Within an environment of confusion, people often tend to see what they want to believe, changing the collapsing buildings into whatever they need them to be to maintain ones sense of "reality", ones ingrained sense of "right and wrong" or "good and bad".

If you are really interested in truth, check out THIS WEBSITE

It points out the crap in BOTH NIST and CT theories.

And by the way ForteanOrg, Thank You for the civil response. It is refreshing in these forums.
I hope we are all after the truth.

Near free-fall speed.

What does it matter if there was a 3-5 seconds more than free fall?

And if you are questioning explosives, explain why the FOIA released video of the west side of WTC 2. Plumes of smoke start ejecting from the side of the building and the camera shows the impact zone in the same shot, no plumes of smoke coming out of the impacted walls so compression from the collapse causing it can be easily ruled out. At least 15 stories above the impact zone, smoke starts busting through window at almost the exact point of collapse.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: SyxPak

You obviously have not bothered to research the damage to 7. FDNY described a 20 story hole carved out of the heart of 7, they described pieces of the building falling off, and photos show massive damage to the southeast corner...not just a little damage. So, the people that were THERE report massive damage and that they were sure 7 was going to fall.

Why are you so unwilling to accept the evidence?

And yet the Marriot hotel still stood strong after the first tower debris fell right through the middle of it and the second took out a whole side of the building. Lasted longer than WTC 7 with a much much much higher percentage of damage.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Willing to accept it if I saw some evidence of that nature. The images I saw, were nothing like that. Will you Post some pics of this damage? Than I can get a better idea of what there is, or not, for said damages. Thanx, Syx.

As far as building 7, please watch the COMPLETE collapse, not the cut and doctored versions out there that try to make the video fit their paradigm.

This vid clearly shows the WHOLE collapse. It took about 15 sec from start to finish. Also notice the windows beneath the penthouse at collapse initiation. You can clearly see the damage by the blown out windows as the penthouse falls through the building.



Also, it was clearly not a "uniform" collapse, as many insinuate.



It goes much more in depth at THIS SITE

Just want people to get ALL the available info out there before coming to a conclusion.
Please don't base your conclusion on heavily edited youtube videos and feelings that these producers elicit.
They have an agenda!
Deny ignorance
May we all find the truth.
Steve

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Could you please post the video you are referring to?

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: ForteanOrg

First, to those that say the buildings fell at free fall speed, please explain this.

It clearly shows top sections that ARE falling free fall and the remaining building behind that is still suffering from a progressive collapse.

Second, the tower cores were NOT concrete reinforced. There were concrete NON load bearing components IN the core, but the structural steel that supported the tower, in the core, was not concrete reinforced. And this is to show you the tower was built in small sections, Neither the outer "tube" or inner "core" could support itself.

and here are a few examples of the collapse initiation. Does it really look like explosives?

I love this quote

Within an environment of confusion, people often tend to see what they want to believe, changing the collapsing buildings into whatever they need them to be to maintain ones sense of "reality", ones ingrained sense of "right and wrong" or "good and bad".

If you are really interested in truth, check out THIS WEBSITE

It points out the crap in BOTH NIST and CT theories.

And by the way ForteanOrg, Thank You for the civil response. It is refreshing in these forums.
I hope we are all after the truth.

Near free-fall speed.

What does it matter if there was a 3-5 seconds more than free fall?

I'm not a physicist but I would say that is the "resistance" that people guess about. How much did time did it take for the floors to collapse due to the resistance of each successive floor? About that long.

Another interesting vid of wtc7.

It shows the penthouse collapse and the resulting smoke being sucked DOWN as the penthouse falls through the building, not "exploded" out.

I don't think explosives "suck in" do they?

a reply to: MALBOSIA And we are back to comparing apples to oranges. The two buildings had very different designs, and suffice to say that you will never again see a building designed like 7, and have a large part of its mass cantilevered over another structure.

a reply to: SyxPak


www.911myths.com... I am on my phone, so I hope this works. This is a picture of the damage to the SE corner. It starts at the 18th floor, by the time the building disappears behind the other building, you can see that the damage extends past the second set of windows....more than 20 feet...which means....its gone, destroyed by WTC 1.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596
And

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Could you please post the video you are referring to?

Collapse is at the 50:48 mark. The west wall completely blew out ABOVE the collapse.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

Thank you.

Here is a better video to examine. Same view though.

The only "blow out" I see is after the initiation of the collapse. You can clearly see the collapse start, and building tilt, before anything is expelled.


Here are a few VERY CLEAR examples of the building failing at the initiation of collapse.
The exterior clearly buckles in at system failure. I wouldn't expect this of explosives.





It all goes back to this I think

Within an environment of confusion, people often tend to see what they want to believe, changing the collapsing buildings into whatever they need them to be to maintain ones sense of "reality", ones ingrained sense of "right and wrong" or "good and bad".

Please visit
A World Trade Center Collapse Investigative Resource
It really is an unbiased resource. It tries to cut through the BS from both sides.

a reply to: stosh64

Thank you for your informative posting. From what I've learned so far from your and other postings and related sources it is clear that indeed at least in the North tower the central core collapsed first, pulling down the floors and exoskeleton with it. I believe that to be beyond reasonable doubt. If you study the available materials you can see that the radio mast on top sinks in before the edge of the roof follows. Also, you can see the exoskeleton cave in (being pulled to the inside).

But that is a bit mystifying: what made the core collapse like it did?

The impact itself was not sufficient to bring the buliding down. If that had been the case you'd expect the building to come down almost immediately after impact. It did not.

So, something else caused the collapse. What was it? Intense heat? If so, what caused that heat?

To start an intense fire, you need a lot of fuel and large amounts of oxygen. Oxygen was available: the NW wind blew right into the holes caused by the impact. But where did the fuel come from? It is almost certain that the airplane fuel mostly shot right through the building where it exploded. So, that can't have been the fuel source.

Office furniture? There was none inside the cores, of course. There was stuff on the floors and it burned: we can see fires flaring out of some windows just before the building collapses. Not really impressive fires, though and certainly not the kind you would expect to be hot enough to weaken the core. At least on the place of impact the fires died out quickly. We all know the pictures of people standing in the hole where the plane had entered. Also we see thick black smoke. That's what you typically see when a fire is deprived of oxygen or fuel. As we already established there was plenty of oxygen available it seems logical to assume the fire was deprived of fuel instead. Any thoughts on that?

Let's assume there WAS plenty of fuel - even then: most of the building was intact. The exoskeleton and core were NOT damaged below the impact floors. So, WHY did the core buckle? And even so: why did the ENTIRE building collapse, when at least 75 percent of the building was intact? I would have expected the upper section to cave in, then being stopped by the rest of the building, which was still intact.

I think it is feasible that something destroyed the core. I also think it is infeasible to believe that fires did: in as far as I know there weren't any in the lower section of the building. So, inevitably, it is temping to conclude that something ELSE made the core cave in.

Are there any flaws in my reasoning so far?

a reply to: ForteanOrg
We know that the cores in both Towers were compromised by the aircraft strikes. Out of the 6 stairwells (3 in each Tower) five were damaged to the point they were impassable. The cores suffered massive damage, and most assuredly had shock damage for several floors under the impact areas.

We also know that in both Towers, jet fuel flowed into elevator shafts and exploded....even more damage to the cores.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: stosh64

Thank you for your informative posting. From what I've learned so far from your and other postings and related sources it is clear that indeed at least in the North tower the central core collapsed first, pulling down the floors and exoskeleton with it. I believe that to be beyond reasonable doubt. If you study the available materials you can see that the radio mast on top sinks in before the edge of the roof follows. Also, you can see the exoskeleton cave in (being pulled to the inside).

Thank you, It is refreshing to have a civil discussion about this. And your welcome, I feel we both just want the truth.
And I agree.

But that is a bit mystifying: what made the core collapse like it did?

The impact itself was not sufficient to bring the buliding down. If that had been the case you'd expect the building to come down almost immediately after impact. It did not.

So, something else caused the collapse. What was it? Intense heat? If so, what caused that heat?

Good question, I think I always figured it was the heat from the office fires, ignited all at once, over multiple floors, causing the trusses to buckle. Once they buckled there was nothing supporting the already damaged core and thus initiated collapse.
But seeing as it was inside we cant visually confirm that. My common sense tells me that's what happened, but that wont get me a cup of coffee.

So, I will be back later when I can take proper time to try and answer.
Thanks ForteanOrg,
Steve

ETA: I bet there are flaws in ALL our reasoning. I'm sure there are flaws in mine, ask my wife!

originally posted by: stosh64
a reply to: MALBOSIA

Thank you.

Here is a better video to examine. Same view though.

The only "blow out" I see is after the initiation of the collapse. You can clearly see the collapse start, and building tilt, before anything is expelled.

Here are a few VERY CLEAR examples of the building failing at the initiation of collapse.
The exterior clearly buckles in at system failure. I wouldn't expect this of explosives.

It all goes back to this I think

Within an environment of confusion, people often tend to see what they want to believe, changing the collapsing buildings into whatever they need them to be to maintain ones sense of "reality", ones ingrained sense of "right and wrong" or "good and bad".

Please visit
A World Trade Center Collapse Investigative Resource
It really is an unbiased resource. It tries to cut through the BS from both sides.

Look again at that segment of video. I ripped a bunch of still images from that footage that are pretty clear. Unfortunately my laptop has been reduced to a hard drive sitting on top of my fridge and have not got a new one yet. I had a lot of work on their. If you make me I will go through it again, but I would rather you saw it for yourself.

Damn laptop fan failure conspiracy!

"Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories"

Sound familiar?
a reply to: MALBOSIA
What becomes increasingly clear is that the most outrageous thing to happen is some cabal got away with a whole lot of murder….

This is the outrageous thing, imho.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

We also know that in both Towers, jet fuel flowed into elevator shafts and exploded....even more damage to the cores.

Actually we don't know that. That's just another one of various theories to explain the explosions, along with "molten aluminium coming into contact with water" and " exploding transformers" , and even "paint supplies". So basically, anything and everything could have caused the explosions......except, apparently, explosives......go figure.