New video of all three towers

reply to post by esdad71

---

Sure thing.
Sometimes even basic chemistry and a little common sense can go a long way. If those that claim to have "extensively studied" 9/11 and are convinced it was an "inside job", I wonder how they could miss this basic info?

reply to post by esdad71

---

That's very nice and not convincing at all.

The buildings didn't budge when the plane hit, fracuturing some main rebar but not enough to bring the entire buildings down. Period.

Two.

Any building in construction in New York has extremely high standards to begin with. Posted above, a 3.5 earthquake is not enough to bring down metal and cement columns. Period.

Three.

Osama Bin Laden was a trained CIA Tactician.

Do your research. You can call yourself not ignorant, I just call you arrogant.


[edit on 9-1-2009 by Revolution-2012]

reply to post by bsbray11

---

There is NO evidence for demolition, BS. None. No residue of explosives. None. No pile of hacksaw blades. None. The only evidence we have is what was witnessed and recorded. Logically, until other evidence is brought forward, we have the evidence for the cause. The existing evidence doesn't require repeal of any physical or chemical laws. It shows nothing that might not have happened as explained. Nothing. We don't need to invoke any secret weapon. We don't need to invoke a conspiracy so complex, tortuous, unrealistic, and without reason to explain terror attacks.
It is apparent that #1 and #2 fell due to the aircraft strikes. It was not possible to arrange for the impacts on #7 that destroyed a large part of one face and tore a chunk out of a corner. Were the fires set? No evidence, just speculation. Exactly like your speculation without evidence.

reply to post by Revolution-2012

---

Osama was a well trained tactician and his attacks brought down the buildings. The CIA trained him better than they knew.

The buildings had more than enough energy to crush concrete and drywall during the fall. Explosives were not needed or witnessed nor did they leave any physical evidence.

Earthquake damage was not an issue.

reply to post by Revolution-2012

---

I would suggest you go and read the eyewitness accounts of those that survived the impacts inside the WTCs. You will get an idea of just how bad the Towers were struck. The whole damn thing twisted and swayed like a drunken sailor and people thought it was going to tip over in the tower. And enough reports of just how much damage was done as well. Pipes bursting, hearing the steel beams twisting and snapping. not very pretty.

There is absolutely no truth to the "Osama worked for the CIA" claptrap that is continually spewed on here. Anyone that does a little honest research will discover this.

A small example of the truthful information available online...










Holy War, Inc by Peter Bergan

reply to post by Revolution-2012

---

Look up the name Brian Clark, a survivor on 9/11 who was above the floor it hit. This is what he said in a Nova special



You can find this story from many others. Have you ever been to the top of the WTC? They were designed for the wind and sway so please do not state tall buildings are stable unless you were up 90 stories on a windy day.

Osama is not a trained CIA operative. A claim like that is arrogant ignorance to take your jab a step further. Do some research? You're kidding me, right? Do you know who OBL is? His roots? How he got to where he was, a second tier handler of terrorists? It makes me laugh to think some of you actually believe some of the stuff you write.



for the last time, Prisonplanet is a CIA disinfo site.

Blah. It's useless to render information against information.

Proove you're right proove I'm right.

I don't care.

I believe what I believe you believe what you believe. IMHO the whole world is a pile of crap with lies and deceit you couldn't dig through with an oil drill.

Honestly -- Believe what you want.

The twin towers obviously 'peeled like bananas' in that video. Something extremely powerful from within caused that.

reply to post by Nonchalant

---

It was the floors coming down from within that peeled the outside. It was much slower than freefall.

I don't believe that any more than I believe the 'Oswald single bullet' conclusion put forward by the warren commission...

[edit on 10-1-2009 by Nonchalant]

reply to post by Nonchalant

---

What don't you believe?

Fall speed or floors doing the peeling?

Have any evidence of that?



Compared to what? It was only seconds off. That's still really damned fast for a building that size, and you could see it was really moving the whole time. How exactly do you know how long a collapse like that is supposed to take, even given your own opinion of how they came down?

reply to post by bsbray11

---

You asked: "Compared to what? It was only seconds off. That's still really damned fast for a building that size, and you could see it was really moving the whole time. How exactly do you know how long a collapse like that is supposed to take, even given your own opinion of how they came down?"

Compared to free-fall, of course. "Only seconds off" is hardly the way to compare times unless you have a basis to compare to. You know this. Four seconds extra on an eight second theoretical time is an increase of 50%. Some say 15 seconds was the fall time; almost double. Yes, it was fast but was it too fast? Perhaps a leisurely catastrophic collapse of ten to fifteen minutes is what people expected. In fact, there is nothing to compare it with.
Given that there is no evidence for any conspiracy, no rationale, and really no way for the proposed actions to be carried out, I would say that what you saw was a collapse "like that." My guess would be 12 to 15 seconds not counting the core. The interior core lasted longer but that collapse time wasn't considered. Apparently, the grand conspiracy didn't need to take out the core when they collapsed the exterior.

That should be stating the obvious after reading what I just posted. I was going the other way with it, as opposed to your saying it was "much slower" than free-fall. Like I asked, compared to what? I love how when you respond to me half the time you just take what I say and repeat it to me. So you can't just compare like that, which was the entire point of my post. But if you want my opinion, you are still wrong, and only a few seconds is NOT much time. Do you want to qualify what you said as also just being your opinion?

[edit on 11-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

---

You said:"But if you want my opinion, you are still wrong, and only a few seconds is NOT much time. Do you want to qualify what you said as also just being your opinion?"

In this case, a few seconds is 50 to 100% more than theoretical. I know you understand the concept.

In case it escaped your notice, this entire site is about opinions. My opinion is based on what was seen, recorded and witnessed. With a complete lack of evidence for any other causes, we must examine what we have and see if there are any events that cannot be explained by the evidence at hand. I think that all events are consistent with two airplanes doing the damage and we do not have to invoke anything else. I considered other theories and find them lacking. The proposers have no knowledge of high energy compounds and what would be required to place and ignite such devices.
Your opinion is based on feelings that something is wrong because the towers didn't collapse in the leisurely fashion that you expected they should. I understand that you are applying an experience, real or video, that says they should take a while to fall. When I asked you for evidence of conspiracy, you said you didn't have any, other than something didn't seem right. You postulated no mechanism. You provided no rationale for such a conspiracy.
You are free to invoke what you will as to the cause of collapse.

But I don't think you do. That's the theoretical value of free-fall in a vacuum you're talking about, not the theoretical value of how quickly they should have fallen with any given theory, which is not so easy to calculate. You are comparing apples and oranges mathematically.

If the towers fell at the rate of free-fall in a vacuum, then it goes without saying they would have been demolitions. That's where this entire issue came from the first place, the idea that the falling mass lost no energy. It doesn't work out for the Twin Towers but it still works out for WTC7.



Only as much as it's also about facts and straightforward logic, and more importantly, "denying ignorance."

Opinions are what you feel, btw.



So is mine. I look at the same things you do, I only interpret them differently. So we're trying to figure out why.



You still have things like melted columns in WTC7 before it collapsed, melting below its normal melting point because sulfur was somehow added to the steel in such a way as to allow a eutectic reaction. The sulfur (not usually found in steel, obviously, and anomalous in itself) actually lowered the steel's melting point by a few hundred degrees. That, for one, is completely unexplained, anomalous, and highly suspicious for that reason, because of how coincidental it is, and because it caused the column to fail before the building collapsed.

WTC7 dropped at free-fall. Even NIST has admitted this, and NIST admitted that their own theory and their own models do not predict that behavior and they do not know why this discrepancy exists. I think NIST's theories are bunkum anyway, but as bunkum as they are in trying simply to match the outside appearances, they still can't recreate what happened even theoretically. Falling at free-fall is direct evidence of additional devices or mechanisms bringing that building down aside from its own KE, which was not used.

When you talk about your opinion, I'm not sure what your opinion even is. I'm not sure that you even know what your opinion really is. If it's what agencies like the NIST are publishing, then they aren't even sure what they're saying. But you are somehow awfully damned sure of yourself. I guess you have to be to be a big man and come on the internet and argue with strangers, right?

[edit on 11-1-2009 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

---

You said: “You still have things like melted columns in WTC7 before it collapsed, melting below its normal melting point because sulfur was somehow added to the steel in such a way as to allow a eutectic reaction. The sulfur (not usually found in steel, obviously, and anomalous in itself) actually lowered the steel's melting point by a few hundred degrees.”
Remember that the building was severely damaged and the steel would have lost half its strength at the temperatures of the fires. Melting was not necessary for failure nor was failure caused by melting, per se. That said, what was the source of the sulfur? We need a good bit of sulfur. The interior of the building was lined with plasterboard. Plasterboard is calcium sulfate. Sulfates in the presence of reducing agents, such as burning paper and diesel fuel, can be reduced to sulfides at the temperatures reached in the fires. No one can be certain of the source or whether the corrosion occurred during the fire or while the wreckage smoldered for months. Given that, can you suspect thermate? You can, but the metallurgical evidence argues against it. This is the 2002 presentation by the WPI team on the metallurgy.
www.abmbrasil.com.br/cim/download/Vander_Voort.pps

You said: “That, for one, is completely unexplained, anomalous, and highly suspicious for that reason, because of how coincidental it is, and because it caused the column to fail before the building collapsed.”

You are correct, you would expect the column to fail before the collapse. Was the recovered column recovered long after the collapse? Do you think failure could have been the cause of the collapse? Were the planes hitting the building anomalies?

You said: “WTC7 dropped at free-fall. “
It may have, as best that it can be measured. So what?

Your claim: “Falling at free-fall is direct evidence of additional devices or mechanisms bringing that building down aside from its own KE, which was not used.”

What if the mechanism was the result of circumstance? What if it was unplanned by conspirators? Check your list of logical fallacies.

You said: “When you talk about your opinion, I'm not sure what your opinion even is. I'm not sure that you even know what your opinion really is.”

You are either trying to bait me or are dense beyond all belief. I hope it is the former, for your sake.

You said: “I guess you have to be to be a big man and come on the internet and argue with strangers, right?”
Aren’t you doing the same thing? Tell your kundalini to relax and use your brain.


[edit on 1/11/2009 by pteridine]

Lmao, seriously try to find another hobby. Analysing videos is definitely not your field of expertise.

[edit on 11-1-2009 by hackbart]

Not even the government reports claim that the columns failed from being weakened by fire. Again you have a more complex theory involving truss failures, if that is how you align yourself.



Now how does it become ingrained in the steel in the right proportions for the eutectic reaction to take place?



That's not what an engineer who studied one of the columns said. And in that case, you are still presented with an extremely suspicious reaction.



I don't "suspect" anything. There was something that caused holes to be melted through steel in WTC7 and compromise its structural integrity, and no one can explain how it could have just happened on its own. Beyond that, I don't care. I don't even need this fact, because WTC7 still didn't use its KE.




Why don't you show me which one you're talking about?

And can you elaborate on how losing no KE somehow equates to destroying a 47-story building as a "result of circumstance"?



Have you read any of the government reports as to the known damage to the buildings and what actually caused them to fail?