"Pancake collapse" proven possible

reply to post by _BoneZ_


And why am I supposed to believe the testimony of a soo called "investigator" such as you that jumps so quickly to such conclusions as YOU just have? Much less to treat that massive baseless assumption as fact? I do believe there is a conspiracy to be involved with the events that occured on 9/11 but that never crossed your mind did it? I, however do not believe that the conspiracy consists of Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers.
You sir, are full of it and are not anything close to an investigator as you show with your over eager jump to conclusion then treatment of said conclusion as fact. Which is what I am sure you are doing with your beliefs on Controlled Demolition and are refusing to see past said beliefs.

And neither did you even approach refuting my statement except to spout BS in an obvious attempt at a rather poor smoke screen and to attack me, poorly as well.

Ye gods please save me from faux investigators.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Eyewitness testimony..... Here's a little information about eye witness testimony.

Stress
The effect of stress on eyewitness recall is one of the most widely misunderstood of the factors commonly at play in a crime witness scenario.

Studies have consistently shown that the presence of stress has a dramatically negative impact on the accuracy of eyewitness memory, a phenomenon which is often not appreciated by witnesses themselves.

In a seminal study on this topic, Yale psychiatrist Charles Morgan and a team of researchers tested the ability of trained, military survival school students to identify their interrogators following low- and high-stress scenarios. In each condition, subjects were face-to-face with an interrogator for 40 minutes in a well-lit room. The following day, each participant was asked to select his or her interrogator out of either a live or photo lineup. In the case of the photo spread – the most common form of police lineup in the U.S. – those subjected to the high-stress scenario falsely identified someone other than the interrogator in 68% of cases, compared to only 12% from the low-stress scenario.

SOURCE:Eyewitness [email protected]

The latest form of evidence to come under scrutiny is eyewitness testimony. Psychologists have long known about the fallibility of human memory. As far back as 1971, England’s Criminal Law Review Committee warned that over-reliance on eyewitness testimony could lead to false convictions. Going back even to the 1800s, famed psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus’s memory research established the “Forgetting Curve,” which plots how human recollection fades over time, beginning within minutes of the creation of a memory.

Nevertheless, eyewitness testimony remains a vital part of the criminal justice system, and with good reason. It’s the most abundant form of evidence, and it would be nearly impossible to convict guilty people without it. The problem is that it has for far too long been used irresponsibly, without instituting proper controls to ensure that eyewitnesses aren’t prodded into false recollections, that jurors aren’t permitted to give eyewitnesses more weight than good science allows, and that jurors are made aware of the limits and fallibility of human memory.

SOURCE:www.reason.com...

Introduction to applied cognitive psychology:The Falliability of Eyewitness Testimony *A college textbook I might add.*

Studies have shown, for example, that if the police who conduct the identification procedures have knowledge of the case and its suspect, they will inevitably influence the eyewitness's memory of the perpetrator in the direction of identifying the suspect. A "double blind" investigation, where both the interrogator and the witness are unaware of the facts of the investigation or the identity of the suspect, is far more likely to produce a reliable identification.

Yale Law School:Eyewitness Testimony Doesn't Make It True--A Commentary by Steven B. Duke

Handbook for teaching introductory psychology:Using a videotape to Demonstrate the Falliability of Eyewitness Testimony *ALSO a textbook*

The acquisition of information into memory involves a three-step process. At each stage of the process, errors are possible. During acquisition, the first step in the memory process, an event is perceived and information "bits" are initially stored in memory.


In the second stage, information is held or retained in memory. In the final stage, memory is searched and pertinent information is retrieved and communicated. In the acquisition stage, information is "encoded" into a person's memory system. However, every detail of an experience is not encoded; the human mind can only process a fraction of the rapidly incoming physical stimuli. Both consciously and unconsciously, the observer determines which details are actually encoded according to where his or her attention is focused.
The physical aspects of an event are obviously compromised by the selective nature of the acquisition stage of memory. However, matters are further complicated by the fact that acquisition also involves a social component. Thus, a witness' ability to perceive accurately is affected by both event factors—those inherent to the event itself—and witness factors—those inherent to the witness.

SOURCE:faculty.law.wayne.edu: EXPERTS ON THE UNRELIABILITY OF EYEWITNESSES

Several studies have been conducted on human memory and on subjects’ propensity to remember erroneously events and details that did not occur. Elizabeth Loftus performed experiments in the mid-seventies demonstrating the effect of a third party’s introducing false facts into memory.4 Subjects were shown a slide of a car at an intersection with either a yield sign or a stop sign. Experimenters asked participants questions, falsely introducing the term "stop sign" into the question instead of referring to the yield sign participants had actually seen. Similarly, experimenters falsely substituted the term "yield sign" in questions directed to participants who had actually seen the stop sign slide. The results indicated that subjects remembered seeing the false image. In the initial part of the experiment, subjects also viewed a slide showing a car accident. Some subjects were later asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "hit" each other, others were asked how fast the cars were traveling when they "smashed" into each other. Those subjects questioned using the word "smashed" were more likely to report having seen broken glass in the original slide. The introduction of false cues altered participants’ memories.

SOURCE:Stanford University:The Problem with Eyewitness Testimony

Psychology Themes and Variations:Encoding Getting Information Into Memory *Guess what? Yep. Another TEXTBOOK.*

"Contrary to the popular conception that most people would never forget the face of a clearly seen individual who had physically confronted them and threatened them for more than 30 minutes, a large number of subjects in this study were unable to correctly identify their perpetrator," said Charles Morgan III, M.D., associate professor of psychiatry at Yale School of Medicine.

The study included 509 active duty military personnel enrolled in survival school training. The types of stress were modeled after experiences of military personnel who had been prisoners of war (POWs) -- food and sleep deprivation for 48 hours followed by interrogation.

There were two instructors in the room, a "guard" and an "interrogator." The high stress interrogation included physical confrontation. During the low stress interrogation, the interrogator tried to trick the subject into giving away information.

Twenty-four hours after being released from the mock POW camp, the military personnel were asked to identify the interrogator and guard in a live line up, a photo spread, and a sequential photo presentation. Regardless of the presentation, recognition was better during the low stress rather than the high stress condition. In some cases, those interrogated confused even the gender of the guard and/or interrogator.

"The present data have a number of implications for law enforcement personnel, mental health professionals, physicians, attorneys and judges," Morgan said. "All professionals would do well to remember that a large number of healthy individuals may not be able to correctly identify suspects associated with highly stressful, compared to moderately stressful, events."

SOURCE:ScienceDaily:Eyewitness Memory Poor In Highly Intense And Stressful Situations

Need anymore?

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

This building was prepared for demolition as is evident by the name of the video. There was also news cameras filming the crowd that gathered to watch it. Were explosives used to initiate the collapse? How much preparation was done before hand?

I counted 14 stories plus a 15 to 20' lobby so just by looking at the video I would guess it was around 160' tall and it took between 4 & 5 seconds to fall once collapse was initiated. Accelerating at free fall speeds between 4 and 5 seconds would gain 256' to 400' of distance. That means the rate of acceleration seen on this video is around 1/2 that of free falling (or 16ft^sec) indicating resistance, and this is after preparation for its demolition and possibly using explosives to initiate the collapse.

WTC 1 & 2 took between 8 & 10 seconds to fall not 22, meaning those towers are at, or very close to, free fall speeds. As for WTC 7 there is no questioning that it came down at free fall rate of acceleration and we were lead to believe this was only due to fire.

This video is proof against the original theory of collapse by fire from a physics point of view.. And BTW, where were the pancakes after the WTC collapsed?

reply to post by Devino


All "pancake collapse" means is one floor fell onto another then another then another *you get the idea*. Considering how much of that happend don't you think it's rather silly to expect anything less than what happend?

And the planes striking the buildings took the place of explosives to weaken the columns. Didn't need TnT.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

BUT three buildings in one day? One is possible. But three, with only two planes, it highly improbable.

reply to post by kenton1234


Now this person is bringing up an interesting theory, and just bringing in a counter arguement, which we need more of here.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Much less to treat that massive baseless assumption as fact?

How is it not fact? Can you produce a video right now where these jets/plumes are coming out of a building that is not controlled demolition???


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


Don't waste your time trying, I'll already tell you that not one single video exists showing the jets/plumes that I've pointed out above, in any other type of building collapse besides controlled demolition. Therefore it is a fact that these plumes are only ever seen in demolitions, not an assumption and obviously not baseless. You cannot prove that wrong and therefore what you say is theory, opinion, assumption.

Although I'm researched on just about every aspect of 9/11, my main course of study has been controlled demolition and for several years. I have videos of demolitions that have plumes that are identical to the WTC and I'm currently working on a movie about the controlled demolition of the WTC and will present this evidence in the movie.

I noticed that you use debunker tactics and decided to attack me instead of trying to prove me wrong. You even went further to dishonestly say that what I said was a baseless assumption, even though I provided evidence. It's only a baseless assumption to those who are unresearched or who just ignore evidence because it doesn't suit them. The difference between you and me is I backed my "baseless assumption" up with fact. What did you show? No images, no videos. Nothing but meaningless words.

I've shown in my collage above, a demolition along with the towers, to show how those plumes are seen in demolitions. Most demolitions have those plumes and those plumes are caused by high-powered explosives being detonated.

What have you shown? Instead of acting like a civil adult and backed up your "opinions", you attack me. How so very mature of you.

If you want to sit there and say the plumes are from air pressure, you'll have to back yourself up with evidence of such claims. If you cannot back your claims up, agree to disagree and move along. But to attack me because you disagree makes you look like a fool.


As far as your post about witnesses, it is true that witness testimony can many times be considered hearsay, unless backed up by other evidence or when multiple witnesses report seeing the same thing.

At the WTC, multiple first responders report seeing the flashes in the lower to middle levels of both towers and hearing popping or exploding sounds with these flashes, just as one would hear and see in any other controlled demolition like this one:

Google Video Link

Then I produced even more first responder testimony to pre-collapse explosions and even produced a video corroborating the witness testimony with the same exact pre-collapse explosions.

Sorry, but mulitple witnesses corroborate themselves and I produced a video that corroborates other witnesses, all of which are first responders who would tend to be more credible than your average Joe.

If you can't respond civilly and focus on the evidence as the forum rules say, don't bother responding. Also, if you can't produce any evidence to back up your opinions, don't bother responding. Typing a whole bunch of words on the screen is meaningless without supporting evidence to back them up.

reply to post by mike3

Demolition of the tower ABC Balzac Vitry-sur-Seine

The demolition is a step in the restructuring of the Cité Balzac, a "major event" for this area too often decried and yet so rich in skills, commitment, diversity of its people, their solidarity, "says Jean-Pierre Moineau, president of the OPHLM Vitry-sur-Seine.

The tower stood on ABC 14 storeys, and included 168 homes that have succeeded 841 families from 1 August 1967 to 4 September 2006.

This willingness to restructure the district was born out of listening to Balzac tenants and applicants for housing. The main desire of OPHLM de Vitry-sur-Seine is to improve the living conditions of tenants.

Relocation
A Memorandum of Understanding is signed systematically, with each tenant to formalize all the arrangements to support the relocation.
Learn more about the conditions for resettlement

4 The main objectives of this project are:
- Building homes,
- Ensure the requirements for relocation can damage anyone
- Promote urban and social mix (on site and throughout the city),
- Opening up the neighborhood

These objectives have enabled this project to receive a favorable National Agency for Urban Renewal (ANRU). The Convention was signed on 25 January 2007 in the City Hall by Bernard Vitry TOMASINI - Prefect of Val de Marne, Philippe Van de Maele - General Manager of the ANRU, Alain Audoubert - Mayor of Vitry

Technique

On 14 February, the Ferrari-Demolition proceeded with the demolition of 168 homes simultaneously, using a patented technique since 1997: the pressing.

It consists of a building collapse on itself by a horizontal thrust or oblique hydraulic controlled remotely.
Powerful actuators to move the upper part of the building by moving laterally its center of gravity of the fulcrum. The directional movement causes the collapse of the building on itself. This method of demolition is adapted to buildings, towers and industrial facilities that are confined in a dense urban fabric. The security is limited.

The choice of method of demolition was "against the nuisances of each of the respective methods and, while recognizing that whatever option is chosen, the act of destruction, in itself, is relatively violent and painful. Our choice is the one that seemed "less traumatic for the families who lived in these homes," says Jean-Pierre Moineau.

source translated from French

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
All "pancake collapse" means is

And we're still talking about "pancake collapses" even though NIST dismissed that theory long ago.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And the planes striking the buildings took the place of explosives to weaken the columns.

First and foremost, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner travelling at 600mph. Second, only 14% of the columns were damaged in the impact area and on one side of the tower. Not 100% of the columns and across an entire floor as is seen in the OP video.

I explain all of this in my previous post in this thread which you appear to have conveniently ignored:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

When you say things that are already disproven, that is disinformation.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Devino

 

All "pancake collapse" means is one floor fell onto another then another then another *you get the idea*. Considering how much of that happend don't you think it's rather silly to expect anything less than what happend?

And the planes striking the buildings took the place of explosives to weaken the columns. Didn't need TnT.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

The pancake theory uses conservation of momentum to explain the towers collapse and if the floors (pancakes) are not piling up for the momentum to be conserved then the energy must be coming from somewhere else. If the concrete in the floors and walls is being pulverized on the way down, as is apparent in the videos, then the question is where is the energy coming from that crushes all the support columns, steel beams and pulverizes the concrete? There seems to be a lot of missing energy.

reply to post by nixie_nox


I don't know about WTC 7 as I haven't looked into that aspect much. But WTC 1 & 2 in my opinion did not come down because of Controlled Demolition.

reply to post by Devino


Like I believe was spoken of earlier. What is the difference between holding a 50 pound weight in your hand and dropping on your hand from say about a foot or so above it. A world of difference, if you don't believe me try it.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by _BoneZ_

How is it not fact? Can you produce a video right now where these jets/plumes are coming out of a building that is not controlled demolition???

There are soo many problems with this statement I am at a loss how to type them all. But honestly, thanks for the laugh, it made my day. Reminds me of a joke saying from elsewhere "Draw me a diagram or it didn't happen!".


As for the rest, funny it it's own way but you sir started it, I merely fired back at your silly statement and pointed out how it shows your flawed investigatory approach. I've seen alot of eyewitness testimony too a lot of "It sounded like a bomb." but unlike you, I don't equate that to "It was a bomb." as the two words "sounds like" is not the same as "it was". But allow me to show you something else about memory, seeing as to how you think you found a loophole. You do realise there is a reason they cloisture jurors from the outside public right? But, I can tell from your response you didn't even check the material I provided as this was part of an article I cited.

This hints at it:

Post-Lineup Feedback and Confidence Statements
Any feedback from the lineup administrator following an identification can have a dramatic effect on a witness's sense of his or her own accuracy. A highly tentative "maybe" can be artificially transformed into "100% confident" with a simple comment such as "Good, you identified the actual suspect." Mere preparation for cross-examination, including simply thinking about how to answer questions regarding the identification, has also been shown to artificially inflate an eyewitness's sense of her own level of certainty; the same is true when a witness simply learns that another witness identified the same person. This malleability of eyewitness confidence has been shown to be far more pronounced in cases where the witness turns out to be wrong.
When there is a positive correlation between eyewitness confidence and accuracy, it tends to occur when a witness's confidence is measured immediately following the identification, and prior to any confirming feedback. In keeping with this finding, researchers suggest that a statement of a witness's confidence, in her own words, be taken immediately following an identification. Any future statement of confidence or certainty is widely regarded as unreliable, given the host of intervening factors that have been shown to distort it as time passes.

SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...-Lineup_Feedback_and_Confidence_Statements

Courts, lawyers and police officers are now aware of the ability of third parties to introduce false memories to witnesses. For this reason, lawyers closely question witnesses regarding the accuracy of their memories and about any possible "assistance" from others in the formation of their present memories. However, psychologists have long recognized that gap filling and reliance on assumptions are necessary to function in our society. For example, if we did not assume that mail will be delivered, or that the supermarkets will continue to stock bread, we would behave quite differently than we do. We are constantly filling in the gaps in our recollection and interpreting things we hear. For instance, while on the subway we might hear garbled words like "next," "transfer," and "train." Building on our assumptions and knowledge, we may put together the actual statement: "Next stop 53rd Street, transfer available to the E train." Indeed, we may even remember having heard the full statement.

So what is an "original memory?" The process of interpretation occurs at the very formation of memory—thus introducing distortion from the beginning. Furthermore, witnesses can distort their own memories without the help of examiners, police officers or lawyers. Rarely do we tell a story or recount events without a purpose. Every act of telling and retelling is tailored to a particular listener; we would not expect someone to listen to every detail of our morning commute, so we edit out extraneous material. The act of telling a story adds another layer of distortion, which in turn affects the underlying memory of the event. This is why a fish story, which grows with each retelling, can eventually lead the teller to believe it.

Once witnesses state facts in a particular way or identify a particular person as the perpetrator, they are unwilling or even unable—due to the reconstruction of their memory—to reconsider their initial understanding. When a witness identifies a person in a line-up, he is likely to identify that same person in later line-ups, even when the person identified is not the perpetrator. Although juries and decision-makers place great reliance on eyewitness identification, they are often unaware of the danger of false memories.

SOURCE:agora.stanford.edu...&tversky.htm

I could provide more if you wish.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by _BoneZ_

First and foremost, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner travelling at 600mph.

Yes because that was the claim made. It must be true. Funny that you accept that though considering your stances on other claims made by so called "experts".

And as for the rest you do not know how many columns were damaged as that information is not available beyond guessing.


[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I don't know about WTC 7 as I haven't looked into that aspect much.

Let me help you out:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]


For WTC7 to fall like it did, all support columns would have to be severed at exactly the same time.

The following videos show what happens when some of the explosives fail or not enough explosives are used:






MetaCafe video - Demolition Goes Wrong

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I merely fired back at your silly statement and pointed out how it shows your flawed investigatory approach.

Yet you still haven't posted anything to prove my "silly statement" to be incorrect. Since you've posted more than once after my post and still haven't attempted to post anything to counter my "silly statement" about the plumes, I'll accept your concession and we'll move on. Your continued dodging of my request to prove me wrong about the plumes is noted.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

First and foremost, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner travelling at 600mph.

Yes because that was the claim made. It must be true.

It wasn't just a "claim". It was a 1200-page report backed by many structural engineers. I'll take the word of many structural engineers, past and present, over any anonymous internet debunker any day of the week.

I don't believe for a second that you think there's a conspiracy concerning 9/11. I think that's just a front you use so that you can appear to be a "good" debunker.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And as for the rest you do not know how many columns were damaged as that information is not available beyond guessing.

No, you do not know. And the information is available if you actually look.

You can count how many exterior columns are damaged on each tower. NIST says 33 on the North Tower and 35 on the South Tower. We'll go with 34 since it's right in the middle.

Then NIST estimates 6-10 core columns were severed or severely damaged from the impacts (although I believe that number is significantly lower). We'll go with 8 since it's right in the middle.

The towers had about 240 exterior columns and 47 core columns. That equals 287 columns. Total damaged columns is 42. 42 divided by 287 columns gives us 15% of the total columns of a tower were damaged and only in a localized area. That means 85% of the structure in the impact areas alone, was intact. Not to mention the other 105 floors that had no impact damage and were completely intact (until the explosions started going off in the basement and other levels unrelated to the fires).




[edit on 9-8-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Yet you still haven't posted anything to prove my "silly statement" to be incorrect. Since you've posted more than once after my post and still haven't attempted to post anything to counter my "silly statement" about the plumes, I'll accept your concession and we'll move on. Your continued dodging of my request to prove me wrong about the plumes is noted.

Another sign of a flawed investigatory approach thanks for showing me. The first one I was talking about your spuriously jumping to conclusion than treating it as fact *saying I just didn't want to believe conspiracies*. The one I am talking about now is how you have managed to forget the basics of the conversation to apply comments made before a later statement to said later statement. Perhaps intentional misdirection though I rather doubt it, I am thinking topical passion which tends to make one a crappy investigator as emotion clouds reason.
And I have talked about the plumes and pointed out how air would naturally react in a collapse scenario. To which your response was largely an attack on me and how I was just not wanting to believe conspiracies while continuing with the "It look's like this so it must be this" line of thinking..

It wasn't just a "claim". It was a 1200-page report backed by many structural engineers. I'll take the word of many structural engineers, past and present, over any anonymous internet debunker any day of the week.

Provide me with a link to this report? Because I would imagine you are talking about claims from the architectural firm that designed the towers. To which my previous comment applies. Never occur you that may have lied? Or that perhaps corners had been cut during construction as does tend to happen? Or more than a few other comments I can think of but I will not waste my time as you are not listening.

I don't believe for a second that you think there's a conspiracy concerning 9/11. I think that's just a front you use so that you can appear to be a "good" debunker.

How droll, more assumptions. And a personality analysis from a complete
stranger to top the cake *calling me a liar*. That would be the investigatory flaw I was first talking about showing here, the inability to accept information refuting preconcieved ideas. We are not talking about the areas I believe there to be a conspiracy in. We are talking about the collapse of the WTC towers 1 & 2. But of course since I didn't spout off about that and derail the thread you will now call me a liar, as you wanted to anyway no doubt.

No, you do not know. And the information is available if you actually look.

Oh, so the magic ninjas got up to the damaged areas and saw through the smoke and etc to count the columns prior to collapse? Neat!

You can count how many exterior columns are damaged on each tower. NIST says 33 on the North Tower and 35 on the South Tower. We'll go with 34 since it's right in the middle.

Then NIST estimates 6-10 core columns were severed or severely damaged from the impacts (although I believe that number is significantly less). We'll go with 8 since it's right in the middle.

The NIST is obvious disinformation meant to encourage you *and those like you* but I won't go there except to say this.

The towers had about 240 exterior columns and 47 core columns. That equals 287 columns. Total damaged columns is 42. 42 divided by 287 columns gives us 15% of the total columns of a tower were damaged. That means 85% of the structure in the impact areas alone, was intact. Not to mention the other 105 floors that had no impact damage and were completely intact (until the explosions started going off in the basement and other levels unrelated to the fires).

1) Keyword estimates. There was no time for a damage assesment on the damaged areas of any depth before the buildings came down. Funny that you should blatantly state estimates as fact earlier.
2) Most of the support for the building came from the Core Columns.
3) That comment about 50 Ibs weights applies here once again, in reference to your "105 undamaged floors" comment.

[edit on 9-8-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

And we're still talking about "pancake collapses" even though NIST dismissed that theory long ago.

To be more clear, NIST ruled this out as cause of the collapse initiation.

It was theorized at first that the floors would have fallen onto others, which would have then failed other floors below, etc, resulting in long unbraced column lengths, which then buckled, which then led to the global collapse.

It is disinformation to leave this part out.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

What's not theory or opinion and what's real fact is that these concentrated jets/plumes that I posted in my last post, have only ever been seen in controlled demolitions and are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

While this may or may not be true, high power explosives are not the ONLY source of these plumes.

The Balzac-Vitry proves this point. No explosives were used, yet the jets are seen as the 2 floors meet. This proves that 2 objects coming together will force the air between them out at high velocity. The air then carries whatever dust is there, out with it.

To deny this is disinformation, and is the exact opposite of seeking truth. It is instead, seeking "troof".

reply to post by Joey Canoli


Its wonderful you noted this actually. The jets in the wtc collapses were far below the collapsing floors.

To deny this is disinformation, and is the exact opposite of seeking truth.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
I have talked about the plumes and pointed out how air would naturally react in a collapse scenario.

Yes, you've talked, or rather, typed a bunch of words onto your screen without a single source to back your claims up. Yet again another post dodging my request for sources to back up your claims. Although it's almost like talking to a wall as you won't be able to find any sources to back your claims up, so I guess I'm not surprised that you haven't posted any yet.