For the WTC towers to be demolished with explosives the images we would have seen would have been TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what we saw.
For squibs to be going off in the buildings, you would not have as few as what has been pointed out on videos of the collapses. You would need HUNDREDS MORE. You would hear HUNDREDS of VERY LOUD explosions a few fractions of a second before the building starts to come down. Thousands of miles of wire would have had to be installed in HUNDREDS of places in each tower. And many TONS of explosives all over.
NONE OF THAT HAPPENS. IT´S SEEN NOWHERE. IT´S NOT THERE.

Sorry but NO.
The collapse wave is what it is, the collapse wave.
Squibs or explosives of any kind have to go off before the collapse.
They are very loud explosions, the building shakes a little and THEN starts to come down. Very different from what we see. I´m sure you´ve seen those videos of demolitions.

I'd call the three "unconventional un controlled" demolition.

Not a perfect demo, with thoudands of squibs, and 6 months of stripping to minimize damage. It wasn't neccesary.

If you look at what buildings were completely brought down, they have many things in common 2(the towers were worth more as powder than standing. (seeing as how Silverstein had a heft sum to pay to remove abscetos(sp?) from them. Building 7, reported by the BBC as collapsed 25 minutes prior ( you have to add up all the pieces in a circumstanstial case, and thats what this was.

7-Contained alot of banking info, other high profile componies that were under close scrutiny for fraud, insider trading ect.

But the military, black ops (yes contrary to popular belief 50 people can keep keep a secret when threats are made.

They used just enough explosives (and mind you military grade stuff that Joe Blow Demo Co. does not have.) Also it's not gonna look like any other Demo because no beuilding even 60% the size of the trade towers has ever been demo's. So it's apples and oranges. Just like the explosives, and WAY it was made sure to come down.

Just enough to MAKE sure the buildings came down Completely.



Also to the person who writes that it is FACT: We all saw a 757 hit the pentagon.....

How do you figure that? I didn't, I still haven't.

Plus why months later do we find pools of molten metal under 1,2, and 7. This is just irreconciliable with the theory that "just enough heat was there to cause weakening.

Turnbing 2- 110 storie buidling into a molten steelk foundary cannot be done by jet fuel or any of the items in the building, not to mention Black smoke, starved fire. S

This is is where military grade Theramate (perhaps mini nukes)came in maybe 10 to 15 mini Thermate nukes on the centail cores, utterly melting them to lava. That could be setup in a few weeks time3 during AM hours working in the driop ceiling. Wires??? are you kidding me, The military is long past that, remote control . So place your minu nuke, strap it to on of the core colums, turn on the remote activator, done. That take maybe 2 yhours at best.

So it's take about 3 weeks working from 11 pm, 5am, fast and very little chance of faiure, and if one of these devices did not go off, who cares, As long as most of them did nad the building came down.

If you all knew what the US military had at thier disposal to start a pretext for war, or what have you, the weaponry, the psyops, it would blow your hair back.

Again all of the above is my opinion except for the fact I did not see an AA 757 hit the pentagon ever. Plus it's pretty mush a closed case 93 was take out by a missile.

I respect all of the other opinions even if they contridict mine, sometimes I learn something. So please lets discuss this civily,and check our preformed ideas, and ego at the door.

Originally posted by rush969
But he is wrong when he makes a point of the toppling part having to continue toppling. This is actually not possible on such a structure, gravity takes over and it comes down instead of keeping moving to the side.

In physics, gravity causes the movement either way. If it starts leaning outward about a fulcrum, that's still caused by gravity, and it's still momentum, and it still has to be conserved unless balanced by equal and opposite force. It doesn't have to drop straight down to be falling because of gravity, and in fact falling straight down makes the least sense because thermodynamically that is the path of the absolute most resistance and it would require unbelievable luck for the collapse to have been symmetrical enough to prevent it from lop-siding for that reason. It would constantly be "trying" to tip over to find a quicker way to the ground.

But you know this is all just hypothetical, because really the towers didn't just fall down at all. They were being blown out in all directions the whole way down, so that when it was all said and done there wasn't any debris in either footprint reaching higher than the lobby, and the lobby itself was still intact. At the same time about 90% of the masses of both towers is laying all around the complex. Imagine how much energy that would have taken out of the collapse, to throw all of that outwards, and how much mass would no longer be available to fall into what was left.

There´s no hinge on which this portion of building would be supported, and it´s not constructed to remain in one piece and be inclined for any degree without suffering failure.

If you mean the leaning had no fulcrum, you're obviously wrong. It could never have leaned out like that in the first place if it didn't. And you're right, it would have "suffered failure," but that also means conserving momentum. That doesn't mean the momentum just goes away. In fact, the momentum is what "pulls" on the connections and causes failures in the first place.

If anyone thinks that 9/11 isn't a conspiracy, all you have to do is look at 1 thing that happened in plain site. The removal of ALL debris to an isolated location (and guarded location) and then done away with before anyone can examine it.

Just like the cleaning of JFKs car, the 911 site was cleaned to erase all evidence and to provide more questions then answers --as all cover ups go. If there's more questions than answers, it's probably a cover up.

The buildings were demolished to usher in the NWO's new monetary system --no one's life is the same as it was pre-9/11. All the bailouts, business "failures," State Billion dollar deficits, etc. are the beginning of the old system merging into the new.

The era of "Peace and security" in the Bible has begun. Once they put the "security" blanket over us, it's gonna get awefully toasty.

Originally posted by bsbray11
"""Falling straight down makes the least sense because thermodynamically that is the path of the absolute most resistance and it would require unbelievable luck for the collapse to have been symmetrical enough to prevent it from lop-siding for that reason. It would constantly be "trying" to tip over to find a quicker way to the ground."""

Two points:
1.- All things, when falling down, go in the direction of the center of the Earth. And this is caused by gravity. If the falling object or mass, hits something on the way down, it´s direction will be affected, but it will have the tendency to continue going down. The tilting of part of the building is caused in part because there´s NO DEMOLITION happening. The building starts failing in a way that would be undesirable in a demolition, but then gravity takes over and forces that mass to go towards the center of the Earth, instead of continuing to incline itself. This simply being IMPOSIBLE.

"""They were being blown out in all directions the whole way down, so that when it was all said and done there wasn't any debris in either footprint reaching higher than the lobby, and the lobby itself was still intact."""

2.- This is just confusing the progressive collapse, with a demolition.
That progressive collapse produces the extraordinary forces that you see in the video expelling, or throwing out some of the structure elements, and lots of debris.


[edit on 17-1-2009 by rush969]

excluding the some freight elevators, most elevators and all stairs only sent about 25-30 stories at a time, considering this when compressing the air, it would have traveled down these stories when reaching the end of the stairs per say it would have nowhere to go fast, at this point bursting out at the weakest point being a window

I've been a welder for over 20 years. Take a bit of railroad track. You can find them at swap meets or garage sales. Just a foot long. Take 20 gallons of kerosene / jet fuel and see if you can even get it to glow, let alone expand. You can't otherwise welders would use kerosene instead of acetylene, don't ya think?
Have a look at your stove top. Have you ever left it on all day? If you leave it on all day, the little black burner tops might get pink but they do not collapse or warp, or deform in any way. That steel is a much lower grade or less structurally competent than structural steel and your stove burns at or above any uncontrolled kerosene fire.
The idea that WTC Building 7 collapsed because of fire is just not structurally viable. Some of the core beams there were in excess of 30cm x 90cm solid tempered steel. How can anyone with even the most rudimentary exposure to construction materials think that jet fuel in an uncontrolled fire could cause a building, made of these materials collapse?