CNN 9/11 footage that offers good non-conspiracy evidence

Originally posted by esdad71
I often ponder how people can say Bush is a tard in one breathe and the mastermind of 9/11 in another.

Wow, whoever told you Bush was the mastermind of 911 is a complete idiot. 911 was pulled off by many many people in a group. Bush was just the puppet that will take most of the blame.

there was no resistance because the floors collapsed in the morning otherwise it would not have fallen at free fall speed dough...
I think the same happened to the twin towers otherwise they would not have fallen at free fall speed.

Originally posted by Connected

Originally posted by whiterabbit
There WAS resistance.

No there WAS NOT. If there was, it wouldn't have fallen at free fall speeds.. DUHHHH

It didn't fall at free fall speed. It fell at near-free fall speed. It's not a pointless distinction.

Just because the floors gave almost no resistance--so little resistance that you can't even see it--doesn't mean they didn't. Each one gave out under the unstoppable force of all that weight crashing down on them.

Try dropping a bowling ball on a house of cards sometime. It will fall at near free fall speed. But that DOES NOT mean the cards gave no resistance. It just means they weren't strong enough to give any tangible resistance.

Originally posted by Connected
No there WAS NOT. If there was, it wouldn't have fallen at free fall speeds.. DUHHHH

Let me ask you this, Connected:

Say you took a world class sprinter and lined him up for the 100 yard dash. Now say you had a piece of string, loosely held, hanging across the lane he is running in.

How much time do you think that piece of string adds to his time?
Half a second?
One tenth of a second?
One one hundredth?

My point is that maybe the floors did encounter resistance...but maybe that resistance wasn't enough to take the fall out of the realm of "free fall speeds" (a conveniently vague label, you must admit).

whiterabbit, you cannot compare a bowling ball and a house of cards, with WTC 7 I'm sorry..

Essedarius, you can not compare a world class sprinter and a string, with WTC 7 I'm sorry...

...that is just outright rediculous.

Want to know why? Because the cards were not designed to hold the bowling ball up in the first place. The string was not designed to hold back the sprinter....

What you don't understand is that floor number 1 is built to hold floor 2 through 47's weight. The bottom floor is usualy the strongest. Do you understand that? These are structural steel beams, that take an absolutly unimaginable amount of force on them.

You see this wall of steel with cut beams from WTC 7?



This entire wall is still intact, it should have caused a LOT of resistance. The building should have partialy collapsed, not fully collapsed. There is no reason for a global collapse what so ever. On top of that, there is evidence of cut beams BEFORE cleanup. Please... dont even try to change my mind.... you are still 100% wrong.




[edit on 14-3-2007 by Connected]

Originally posted by Connected
What you don't understand is that floor number 1 is built to hold floor 2 through 47's weight. The bottom floor is usualy the strongest. Do you understand that? These are structural steel beams, that take an absolutly unimaginable amount of force on them.

You're still not getting it.

Take a long 2x4 and lay it across a gap. Now walk across it. That 2x4 is perfectly capable of supporting your weight.

Now walk out to the middle of the 2x4 and jump straight up once. The board will snap and your ass will go to the ground--at near free fall speed. You don't even have to jump high.

You're correct that the floors of the building were designed to hold up the weight of the floors above them.

What you're not getting is that those floors were NOT designed nor able to support the weight of those same floors falling violently down onto them. They didn't even come close to being able to support that.

One floor MIGHT have been able to support the weight of one or two floors falling onto it suddenly. But 20+ floors? Not a chance in hell. They weren't even close to that strong.

Originally posted by Connected
On top of that, there is evidence of cut beams BEFORE cleanup.

That's 100% false.

Any pictures of steel beams are from where they've cut them in a cutting torch. We've already debunked the heck out of that. You can see the frickin' grooves left by the torch.

Do you know how the WTC 7 was built. It was not a building, but at first a Con ed substation that was converted, with a building built on top of an existing structure. There were also modifications and design additions in the 80's to accomodate more commercial space.

There was resistance. the building actually took close to 30 seconds to fully collapse. In unedited video, you can see at the roof line and the windows give way prior to the near free fall collapse. It was destroyed from the inside out. Firefighters were told to let it burn out because of fear of collapse. Remember, just hours earlier to 110 story buildings fell.

Also, why wait till then to "pull it'. No one has given a good theory on that one. Why wait so long? Maximum effect would have been to demo the building when the towers were collapsing. Does not make sense.

Originally posted by Connected
Essedarius, you can not compare a world class sprinter and a string, with WTC 7 I'm sorry…that is just outright rediculous. …Want to know why? … The string was not designed to hold back the sprinter...

Of course not. Just like the floors toward the bottom of the building were not designed to support the wholesale collapse of the upper floors.

My example simply involves an object with a MASS and VELOCITY significant enough that its FORCE will overpower an object so easily that the resistance of the object might be interpreted as nonexistent.

What you don't understand is that floor number 1 is built to hold floor 2 through 47's weight. The bottom floor is usualy the strongest. Do you understand that? These are structural steel beams, that take an absolutly unimaginable amount of force on them.

I don’t know what makes your condescension more ironic…your multiple misspellings or your voodoo engineering concepts.

The floors support people, desks, a lot of paperwork…the superstructure does the heavy lifting. But I’m not a structural engineer, so I won’t pretend to know more about that than I actually do…that would be RIDICULOUS.

I will, instead, direct you to the American Society of Civil Engineers. Their official stance is that what we’re saying is…well…correct.

Please... dont even try to change my mind.... you are still 100% wrong.

A clever comeback...once you graduate high school I feel certain the Truth Movement will have a PR job waiting for you.

Originally posted by whiterabbit

Originally posted by Connected
On top of that, there is evidence of cut beams BEFORE cleanup.

That's 100% false.

Any pictures of steel beams are from where they've cut them in a cutting torch. We've already debunked the heck out of that. You can see the frickin' grooves left by the torch.

NO you must be lost.. really.. I just posted a picture of cut beams from WTC 7. There were taken BEFORE CLEANUP.

Should I post it again? Ok.. here it is...

Originally posted by whiterabbit
You're still not getting it.

Take a long 2x4 and lay it across a gap. Now walk across it. That 2x4 is perfectly capable of supporting your weight.

Now walk out to the middle of the 2x4 and jump straight up once.

No YOU aren't getting it.. THE BUILDING DIDN'T JUMP!!!!.

Those are clean up pictures. What is your stance connected, and why so pissed?

You are providing evidence that beams were cut after the collapse. Do you have any proof of demolition?

Originally posted by esdad71

Also, why wait till then to "pull it'. No one has given a good theory on that one. Why wait so long? Maximum effect would have been to demo the building when the towers were collapsing. Does not make sense.

So you totaly ignore all my posts???!?!?!?!?! Thats how you debate these days?!?!?!?

I told you already!! They wanted the media and cameras to go away before the demolitioned it. That is why there is very very few videos and pictures of WTC 7 before it collapsed...

Originally posted by Essedarius


Of course not. Just like the floors toward the bottom of the building were not designed to support the wholesale collapse of the upper floors.

What made the penthouse collapse??? What made "the upper floors" collapse on WTC 7? Please tell me...

..I bet you cant...

...supposidly debris and fire took out a collumn on the bottom floors, which chain reacted all the way up to the penthouse? Still this is no reason for the building to collapse.. If you recall WTC7 fell from the bottom, not the top...

Originally posted by esdad71
Those are clean up pictures. What is your stance connected, and why so pissed?

You are providing evidence that beams were cut after the collapse. Do you have any proof of demolition?

esdad do your damn homework... the picture is BEFORE CLEANUP.. Got that?!?!

Im pissed because all of you are so damn blind it makes me sick.

Originally posted by Connected
NO you must be lost.. really.. I just posted a picture of cut beams from WTC 7. There were taken BEFORE CLEANUP.

Should I post it again? Ok.. here it is...

I'm not denying those beams got cut "BEFORE CLEANUP."

I'm saying they were cut with a cutting torch.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by whiterabbit]

This picture is BEFORE CLEANUP. That is why the brick building above the cuts is NOT DAMAGED. If these beams were cut by a cleanup crew, then the brick wall would be damaged from the missing beams..

These are CLEAR PICTURES OF CUT BEAMS BEFORE CLEANUP.

Got it?

Originally posted by whiterabbit

I'm not denying those beams got cut "BEFORE CLEANUP."
I'm saying they were cut with a cutting torch.

So you agree that the beams were preped for a controlled demolition...

If it was after the collapse, yet, before cleanup, then they must have been cut with a plasma cutter or torch before the collapse... meaning controlled demolition.

so, why not drop it while the south tower was coming down then claim that debris from teh south tower destroyed it? it would have been the perfect chance to do that, and if i had rigged the buildings its exactly what i would have done.

furthermore, NO ONE, not one single person, has given me any reason at all to believe there was an ounce of high explosives in the biuldings.

you guys have your grainey wmv's and google. i have 12 years of experience working with explosives and other wmd's to base my opinions on. which should i believe?

i mean, c'mon, give me something tangible.

ive posted in the past how i 'could' have done those towers and in every theoretical model i tried, i still cant hide the evidence. im sorry, find me a REAL demo expert and ill discuss it with him and if he or she points out things ive missed ill reconsider my opinion but other than some guy who saw a video (that could have come from anywhere) who says "oh yeah controlled demo" ive yet to see ANYONE with REAL experience using high explosives agree that this was a cd.

why is that? govt paying us all off? wheres my check?

Originally posted by Connected

Originally posted by whiterabbit
Now walk out to the middle of the 2x4 and jump straight up once.

No YOU aren't getting it.. THE BUILDING DIDN'T JUMP!!!!.

whiterabbit, care you explain how you think WTC 7 "jumped" so to speak?