What never seems to be addressed by the advocates of the ridiculous "pancake" theory or progressive collapse theory for the two towers is what happened to the floors (and everything in them) above the impacts on each tower?

Why did these floors not pile up on the debris below (which should not have been rendered to flour-like dust anyway!)?  They were pulverized into fine powder within seconds.  How could this have happened?  In the case of the South Tower, we're talking about 30+ storeys.  

This is just not possible to explain given the Official Conspiracy Theory or the laws of physics.

by Paul Lefrak (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Apr 28, 2009 at 10:03:25 AM

  (0+)

While the official government account of the events of 9/11, continues to bamboozle millions, the utter absurdity, and impossibility of this tale, continues to be overlooked! This is the crux of the 9/11 case. The nation has apparently been rendered too dumb, to figure out the simple fact, that the official story is worthless, as an actual explanation for the events of 9/11. Any way 9/11 is sliced, and diced, there is no getting around this, except of course, by superhuman feats of denial!

by Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 11:02:45 AM

  (0+)

from

from http://911research.wtc7.net/

HEY TOLD US: No one had anticipated jets of that size crashing into the towers, let alone "fully loaded" with fuel. 

IN FACT: Each tower was designed to survive the impact and fire from a collision by a 707-340, only slightly smaller than the 767-200s used on 

9-11. A 707 can carry 23,000 gallons of fuel, over twice that onboardeither of the 767s at impact. The 767s were carrying less than half their 

maximum fuel loads. 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 11:56:30 AM

  (0+)

I meant to add, so adjust your quantity of available fuel to burn downward to about 10,000 gallons or so. Plus an assorted number of magazines, computers, and corkbord....... 

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 11:59:56 AM

  (0+)

I don't care if the whole building was filled up with jet fuel.  The important point is to realize that it is simply impossible to raise the temperature of almost 2 million kg of construction materials from ambient temperature to 700 degrees C (let alone 1000 degrees C) in the short time frame of only 56 minutes, in anything other than some kind of a specially designed high-tech monster furnace.

In order to release the huge amount of energy required to do this, you would literally need a dozen blowers the size of jet engines pumping air into the building...and when you factor in the heat you will also lose from all this convective flow, it gets even more ridiculous...we're talking about literally moving 20,000 cubic feet of air through the building, every second, for 56 minutes.

And this is completely physically unrealizeable nonsense.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 5:16:42 PM

  (0+)

the temperatures of hydrocarbon-based fires. I was in a hurry (between patients ) and failed to include that. The fires didn't 'melt' anything. The fires were not sufficiently hot to even seriously weaken the steel.... according to NIST's own research. The towers were demolished. On Purpose. By folks Other Than the 19 (+ or - ) Muslims......

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 7:28:01 PM

  (0+)

carried by one of the WTC jetliners, just for purposes of comparison?

by Richard Mynick (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1552 comments [255 recommended, 5 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 12:07:01 PM

  (0+)

The official version of most things the government is involved in generally turns out to be a lie in some way or another.  Only just last week I read that the metalurgy tests for the bullets in President Kennedy's murder were a flawed process and there were likely at least 3 bullets, which makes it impossible that one person did all the shooting.  At least 3 CIA operatives were photographed in the room of Robert Kennedy's murder, a simple fact that has never been addresses or explained.  Nor has the look on President sh*t-for-Brains face while he was reading the story of My Pet Goat.  Personally...I think he had just figured out who the goat was.

by Roger (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 465 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 1:20:10 PM

  (0+)

Misleading HOGWASH It's a mistake opednews published this article, because it spreads more smoke over the real issues. "Joseph Smith" and co. continue to peddle the wrong conspiracy theory, filling their arguments with so much junk. Smith admits his calculations are pretty well made up, and then draws conclusions! The towers were mortally wounded by the impacts, and the fires didnt "melt" the steel, but weaken the floor trusses which pulled away from the outer walls. You can see this in a great pbs documentary a couple years old... the heartbroken architect of the towers knows how his design failed, and the cameras catch it in slow motion. To save money during construction, they failed to put in solid bolts linking trusses to the outer frame. It's like pulling ribs out of your side... your body will double over. The towers didnt collapse neatly, you see them shearing apart as the kinetic force of the upper floors smashed each level. You can see part of the core standing separately quite high a moment after the outer parts had fully collapsed. The stongest bulding stands by it's weakest link, and the jet impact followed by truss-weakening fire, destroyed the integrity of the architecture. It's not about melting steel, it's about disrupting the integrity at the weakest link, which is what happened. Who knows if there was pools of molten steel after, that is not explained by Smith's argument. These stupid armchair conspiracy theories obscure the deeper issues, mainly how did the the very real 9/11 killers get through, and how was that event misused (like a date-rape drug) afterward. I hope oped news stops publishing rubbish like this, because it is a discrediting diservice to the tackling of real problems. ~Ann Jones.

by Ann Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 2:29:33 PM

  (0+)

The wind-load design goal of the towers was somewhere around 90 or 100 mph winds. IIRC, NIST determined that the towers significantly exceeded their design goal, and could handle something like 150 mph winds.

Now a 150 mph wind will exert a pressure of about 95 lbs/ft^2 on a flat surface. Being that the towers were 1368 ft high by 208 ft wide, a 150 mph wind would exert a lateral force of about 2.75E7 lbs.

Now what kind of impulse force can you get from a plane striking the bldg.?  A 250,000 lb projectile travelling at 500 mph would carry a momentum of about 5.7E6 slug-ft/sec. If all the mass were brought to rest in a few tenths of a second after striking the building, the forces generated would be about the same order of magnitude as the max as-built wind load forces.

So it's unlikely that the building suffered any severe global structral damage from the impact...and this would comport with the designers statements that the building could withstand an impact from an airplane.

I hope that clears things up for you.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 4:59:26 PM

  (0+)

Misleading HOGWASH It's a mistake opednews published this article, because it spreads more smoke over the real issues. "Joseph Smith" and co. continue to peddle the wrong conspiracy theory, filling their arguments with so much junk. Smith admits his calculations are pretty well made up, and then draws conclusions! The towers were mortally wounded by the impacts, and the fires didnt "melt" the steel, but weaken the floor trusses which pulled away from the outer walls. You can see this in a great pbs documentary a couple years old... the heartbroken architect of the towers knows how his design failed, and the cameras catch it in slow motion. To save money during construction, they failed to put in solid bolts linking trusses to the outer frame. It's like pulling ribs out of your side... your body will double over. The towers didnt collapse neatly, you see them shearing apart as the kinetic force of the upper floors smashed each level. You can see part of the core standing separately quite high a moment after the outer parts had fully collapsed. The stongest bulding stands by it's weakest link, and the jet impact followed by truss-weakening fire, destroyed the integrity of the architecture. It's not about melting steel, it's about disrupting the integrity at the weakest link, which is what happened. Who knows if there was pools of molten steel after, that is not explained by Smith's argument. These stupid armchair conspiracy theories obscure the deeper issues, mainly how did the the very real 9/11 killers get through, and how was that event misused (like a date-rape drug) afterward. I hope oped news stops publishing rubbish like this, because it is a discrediting diservice to the tackling of real problems. ~Anna Jones.

by Ann Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 2:30:18 PM

  (0+)

Anna/Mark Roberts lie:

She/He said:

"The towers were mortally wounded by the impacts, and the fires didnt "melt" the steel, but weaken the floor trusses which pulled away from the outer walls. You can see this in a great pbs documentary a couple years old... the heartbroken architect of the towers knows how his design failed, and the cameras catch it in slow motion. To save money during construction, they failed to put in solid bolts linking trusses to the outer frame. It's like pulling ribs out of your side... your body will double over."

But the above is an obvious lie. For example, from Hoffman to an obviously false Wikipedia entry:

The following debunking of the above 'design criticisms' was added to the Wikipedia article on 10/22/05, and and has since been deleted and restored a number of times.

The first criticism omits and the second criticism minimizes the massive core structures of the towers, which contained 47 steel box columns arranged in a footprint measuring 87 by 133 feet. Many of the box colums had outside dimensions of 54 by 22 inches. The denial of the existence of these massive structures is helpful in imagining the pancake-collapse of the floors. Perhaps it is for this reason that the 9/11 Commission Report stated "The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped."

The second criticism asks us to imagine that the towers employed an unusual design, atypical of skyscrapers. In fact, most modern skyscrapers employ this design, which groups load-bearing columns in the core and around the periphery in order to create unobstructed office space.

The fourth criticism is contradicted by NIST's report, which states that the web trusses were both bolted and welded to the external columns, and that the truss-to-column connections probably did not fail. The failure of these connections would invalidate NIST's theory, which depends on the floor trusses pulling in the external columns. It is interesting that the fourth design criticism (that only single bolts connected trusses to columns) was endorsed by a team of researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and then blatantly contradicted by FEMA's Report. 1   FEMA's Report showed that each truss was attached to the perimeter wall with it top chord connected with two 5/8" diameter bolts and a welded 3/8" gusset plate, and the bottom chord connected with two 1" diameter bolts. (See Figure 2-6 in the left margin.)

---------

The BushBots like Anna/Marky expect you to simply believe their falsehoods because you won't check them out. 

Anna/Marky write only lies.... That is all they have. That is all the Bushiebot apologist/shills have

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 6:54:54 AM

  (0+)

Bro, I am not a lying shill, and this isnt about spreading Bushiebot propaganda (which I detest, by the way).  I am merely telling you that the Towers' architect himself helped explain how his own design failed and helped kill many hundreds of people.  The video, in slow motion, shows anyone with open eyes how the trusses pulled away from the exterior columns at the moment of collapse, exactly at the level of plane impact.  The building's individual floors were not designed to resist vertical kinetic impacts from collapse, hence the "progressive collapse" phenomena captured for all to see (over and over!)  on video.  Rather than trying to protect a kneejerk belief system and labeling stangers like me as demons against your chosen belief (who is this Marky character?), why not be a real skeptic --starting with being skeptical of your own assumptions?  We all know there is alot of b.s. around 9/11 and the endless warz that have followed, but let's not lose the forest for the trees :  the Towers design failed because of physics, not from a hidden explosives conspiracy,... and the architect of the Towers knows this (and the slow-mo video shows this).  Good luck to you.

by Ann Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 10:12:34 AM

  (0+)

Why deliberately make your posts hard to read? That doesn't sound like something a "reasonable" person would do.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 4:41:18 PM

  (0+)

Evidence and reason, not lies and kneejerk Belief

Bro, I am not a lying shill, and this isnt about spreading Bushiebot propaganda (which I detest, by the way).  I am merely telling you that the Towers' architect himself helped explain how his own design failed and helped kill many hundreds of people.  The video, in slow motion, shows anyone with open eyes how the trusses pulled away from the exterior columns at the moment of collapse, exactly at the level of plane impact.  The building's individual floors were not designed to resist vertical kinetic impacts from collapse, hence the "progressive collapse" phenomena captured for all to see (over and over!)  on video.  Rather than trying to protect a kneejerk belief system and labeling stangers like me as demons against your chosen belief (who is this Marky character?), why not be a real skeptic --starting with being skeptical of your own assumptions?  We all know there is alot of b.s. around 9/11 and the endless warz that have followed, but let's not lose the forest for the trees :  the Towers design failed because of physics, not from a hidden explosives conspiracy,... and the architect of the Towers knows this (and the slow-mo video shows this).  Good luck to you.

by ditz99

by Ann Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 11:49:19 PM

  (0+)

If you had read my article, the article you were originally supposed to be commenting on, you would see that my whole point is that under the circumstances, it would have been PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for WTC2 to develop temperatures high enough to significantly weaken the steel.

You simply cannot burn enough fuel in 56 minutes to heat the massive amount of building materials present in any given, floor-sized, horizontal slice of the the building, enough to get temperatures up into the range where the various "official" collapse scenarios need them to be.

Do you understand that? That's physics.

So please don't obfuscate with ridiculous strawmen and tell me about "melting" the steel, etc.

And please don't tell me you remember watching some emotional video about the designer confessing to the world that his design was flawed, etc. If you have information that contradicts what I'm saying here, please cite specific refrences in support or provide links to the information. Thanks.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Friday, May 25, 2007 at 6:10:47 AM

  (0+)

Yes, she/he should be specific.  The buildings were actually three buildings on top of each other for added strength.  Each of those junctures had to be taken down in order to "collapse" the building.  Since she/he likes slow motion maybe an examination of the buildings as they actually exploded would be helpful.  

WTC7 was classic demolition (implosion). WTC1 and 2 were not classic, they were explosions with material flying out 300 to 500 feet.  Where did that force come from.  WTC 1 and 2 were very high tech demolition.   Steel beams flew as far as a football field and more.  Bodies were found on other building roofs.  Not an implosion or collapse. This was Explosion. 

Had the buildings actually "collapsed" they would have damaged the bathtub and flooded Manhattan.  The material from those buildings had to be pulverized and flung (exploded) out.  And all this happened in about 10 seconds.   The reason we can't get real debate in the media is because they are terrified of the facts.  If they thought they were right they would let it be debated in the sunshine and get it over with.  Instead they have to scream and run and cover their ears.  But we are NOT going away.

The longer they suppress the stronger we will get.

by BreezyinVA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Friday, May 25, 2007 at 10:07:38 PM

  (0+)

Seems you are the one demonizing.  Not a good start to a new relationship (as Anna).  We won't be taking you serious.

by BreezyinVA (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 16 comments) on Friday, May 25, 2007 at 9:52:55 PM

  (0+)

???

by Blue Pilgrim (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 997 comments) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 3:33:29 PM

  (0+)

Misleading Hogwash Indeed!

by Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 4:02:28 PM

  (0+)

I suggest you should read what scientists, military men and scholars have to say. Here are four links for a significant education on the topic. If you would like a sensible, clear statement of the belief that we do not know the truth, google http://www.911truth.org/ or http://st911.org/ For an impressive list of Military Men, Intelligence Service, and Government Officials Patriots Question 9/11 (linked below) http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Davis A physicist analyzes the collapse of the towers. Major New Paper Published by Dr. Steven Jones | 911Blogger.com http://www.911blogger.com/node/8573 If you really want a scientific article about the facts instead of uninformed emotional statements, access the Website above. Not easy reading. Very heavy on use of physics to analyze the situation.

by Christie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 143 comments) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 4:23:36 PM

  (0+)

exactly the same fallacious arguments that Mark Roberts uses. How can that be?

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1359 comments [399 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 7:32:20 PM

  (0+)

It seems I may be one of the first people to point out that the 56 minute impact-to-collapse time-frame for WTC2 poses a serious technical hardship for shills.

Who knows, maybe Shill-Central will now have to somehow reprogram all their 'bots, to better accomodate this novel argument.

It would have been nice if Rosie or someone could have brought it up for the first time while on the air, during a live confrontation with a shill.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 9:19:17 PM

  (0+)

by Ann Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 9:38:31 AM

  (0+)

Sorry, but if you want anyone to read your posts, you'll have to make them readable.

If you're not even sensible enough to create a readable post, why should anything you say be taken seriously?

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 3:18:24 PM

  (0+)

Ditz,  if it's THAT easy to bring buildings down, why not save the money and fly tanked up jumbos into buildings instead of going through all the trouble of calling demolition teams in ?

Those people cost REAL DOLLARS !

by Tony Forest (7 articles, 18 quicklinks, 166 diaries, 1429 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 1:51:35 PM

  (0+)

   Within the first month after 9/11, I realized there had to be government complicity in letting the hijackers reach the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when the civil air traffic control system can detect immediately when a plane deviates from it flight plan and the protocol calls for civil air traffic control to inform the military within minutes.  But then I remembered being surprised that it was possible to bring down buildings by controlled demolition when I first read about buildings being demolished by controlled demolition.  I also read how buildings brought down by controlled demolition fell into a pile on the surface area the building occupied instead of falling all over and devastating the surrounding area.  So within six months of 9/11, I realized that the Bush administration not only let it happen but made it happen through a controlled demolition.

   Only controlled demolition can cause a building to collapse on its footprint like this.  Although some of the components of WTC 1 and 2 were flung outward by the explosions, some girders even landing on the roof of the Winter Garden three and a half blocks away, the overwhelming majority of the buildings mass rested on their footprints.  The fact that seven stories of the central column were left standing is another detail that does not alter the fack that only a controlled demolition could have imploded the buildings down on their footprints.  And only the thermate explosives planted to cut the steel support beams could have pulverized the concrete and the rest of the buildings mass into a fine powder.

   And World Trade Center 7, which was not even hit by a plane, also imploded onto its footprint.  If you watch videos of the roof sinking vertically downward, anyone who has watched buildings brought down by controlled demolition knows that controlled demolition is the only way of bringing buildings down this way.

    Robert Halfhill   rhalfhill@juno.com

by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 8:58:54 PM

  (0+)

I respect your cynical skepticism, but you ignore the video evidence of the towers and the explanation of the architects.  The slow mo video shows the trusses pulling out from the tower sides at the microsecond of collapse start... and scores of stories of interior columns are visible a few moments after the 2nd (i think) towers' floors hit the ground... are you an architect and explosive expert able to state authoritatively that a jet flying 500 miles and hour viciously wounding several stories of a building and setting it afire cant weaken heavy architecture until it collapses of it's own doomed physics??? Please, friend, the real questions are who let the killers through, and what happened after the real collapses.  (Following your logic, why would the "demolition" people want to oh-so-neatly drop the the towers in their footprints if they wanted death and destruction? Why not go all-out?  How did such powerful explosives withstand the impact and fires for so long and allow the people to escape? How did the jets hit exactly where the supposed explosives were planted.. where the towers, on film for you to see, buckled into collapse?  ...please, you have swallowed alot of bait on this already, dont drive the hook deeper into yourself........................)

by Ann Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 11:45:25 PM

  (0+)

Get a grip, folks, they collapsed!

by Ann Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Thursday, May 24, 2007 at 11:31:38 PM

  (0+)

The essential issues of 9/11 are quite simple. They are so simple in fact, that one needs nothing more than common sense, and an unbiased mind, to understand them. One doesn't have to be an architect, or an expert of any kind, to know beyond all reasonable doubt, that some things are so well established in fact, that they are above question. Any rational, unbrainwashed individual, should be aware that on planet earth, the laws of nature themselves, make it impossible for steel skyscrapers to "collapse" due to fire, especially kerosene fire! There are no ifs, ands, and buts, about this. This fact proves utterly fatal, to the official version of what brought down steel structures, at the WTC on 9/11. Not only is the foregoing statement true, but irrefutable! Challenging it, is equivalent to challenging the fact that it's equally impossible, for pigs to fly! Any expert that supports the WTC collapse claims, of the official 9/11 story, is either a government propagandist, a damned fool, or both! There's nothing to debate on this point!

Modern propaganda, on the other hand, doesn't let things like rationality, the laws of nature, or the truth, stand in it's way! As an effective weapon for furthering covert government agendas, it has a great track record of convincing the public to disregard what we know to be true, by incessantly barraging us with lies, often humongous lies! Discombobulated by these lies, we're literally dared, to think independantly, while repeatedly being told we're crazy, if we do so! For most people, the combination of sheer audacity, absurdity, and authority, in hoaxes like the official 9/11 story, is just overwhelming! Hence the success of the official story, in spite of it's many absurdities! On the other hand, the truth is often brutal, never popular, and the last thing most people want to hear anyway! The public would much rather believe, what they want to believe, no matter how false, those beliefs may be! Propaganda therefore offers the public, a way to avoid unpleasant truths. It allows us for example, a way to block out the presence of 9/11 complicit spies, and traitors, in the U.S. government, by telling us that 9/11 was really all "Al Qaeda's" fault! This frees the government to pursue the illegal agenda of certain foreign, and domestic special interests. It also gives the public an excuse, for neglecting it's civic responsibility, to keep the government free of corrupt politicians, and traitors! One thing we can all be certain of however, without traitors in key positions, in government, the media, and the private sector, the attacks of 9/11, could never have taken place!

by Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments) on Friday, May 25, 2007 at 10:19:10 AM

  (0+)

ditz99, you wrote:

  "Smith uses specious calculations, like total heat needed to melt the total mass of steel/concrete within x time-frame, but that isn't what happened"

 you're contradicting yourself here. In saying that it is specious to talk about generalised heat, you're not helping your claim that the whole building collapsed due to a localised impact and a limited amount of time.     

 The WTC was one of the early big buildings to employ the matrix system, whereby, like poking a pencil through a flyscreen, if one part of the outer skin is punctured, the overall strength is not significantly affected. in at least one of the crashes, the plane was seen to go at an angle through the building, and most of its right side come out the other side. this would mean that either the left wing and part of fuselage hit the core (which is pretty strong) but the fact that there was bits of a plane coming through means that the building didn't absorb the impact - it doesn't work like that.this is a 500 000 ton building anchored to the ground.  

 how come the floors didn't land on top of each other in a 20 storey-odd pile, if  they came down without being demolished into dust. how come the pathtrain tunnel which runs near the "bathtub" in which the WTC sits, was unaffected? - you could only get that little damage below isf the mass of the building has been significantly reduced somehow....cue dust everywhere.time a pancake collpase - see how you can't walk through a closed door as quickly is if it was open...figure the 10 second collapse - multiply this by at least 5 or 6 for a pancake collapse.

by James (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Saturday, May 26, 2007 at 4:57:58 AM

  (0+)

The towers, by video evidence and testimony of the architect, collapsed from mortal wounds, a combo of impact and fire weakening the weakest points of the architecture. Look at this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bveri9gAd2g see the building collapse at the level of impact. My common sense shows me that concrete can and did pulverize itself through progressive collapse. I have no prooblem seeing such forces hurl iron and debris hundreds of feet away... alot of static weight is suddenly kinetic... crap happens at that level of failure (not demolition). The weight of the buildings was too much for the wounds and fire-weakened architecture. You conspiracists could be right, but your style of argument and so-called evidence looks self-righteoulsy silly to me. None of us were there, we just have the video and the estimations. I don't see explosives in the towers going off... i see a wounded building that couldn't handle it's sudden stresses... collapsing precisely from where the wounds were. How you can deny your eyes is for you to answer, but your arguments turn off the majority because they are simply self-righteous and flawed. Look. Scrutinze. Listen to the architects. Steel can and did collapse because of wounds and stresses at it's weakest links. The video shows this to me. If your belief system has become arguing conspiracies against evidence, you're wasting your life, imho. There's nothing compelling in the pro-demolition writers to this post... it's done, they collapsed, you can't change the facts. Keep arguing though... I am sure in a couple hundred years enlighten posterity will laud each of you as heroes...haha.

by Ann Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Monday, May 28, 2007 at 7:25:11 PM

  (0+)

Sorry if you have no appreciation or understanding of it.

For the reasons specified, I pointed out that fire-weakened-steel very likely could not have played a role in the collapse of WTC2.

If you have any kind of a relevant counter-argument, please submit it here; if not, then go away.

by jpsmith123 (3 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 286 comments [27 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, May 28, 2007 at 7:55:48 PM

  (0+)

Supporters of the official 9/11 fable, speak of collapses at the WTC on 9/11, as though this is what actually occurred! While that may be the claim of the government's absurd account of 9/11, it has no basis in reality whatsoever! While the idea of controlled demolition may not be acceptable to most Americans, such people entirely miss the point: The truth is not true, because people accept it, but because it is what actually occurred! So when someone speaks of "collapse", of the WTC twin towers on 9/11 for example, they're not only repeating false government propaganda, but mistaking what is popular but false, for that which is unpopular, but true! One must overlook a heck of alot of proven fact, in order to support the nonsensical "collapse" theory. First one must overlook the obvious impossibility of such a thing actually occurring. One may debate that the impossible occurred on 9/11, until hell freezes over. A better way to waste one's time and energy, would be hard to find. Then one must overlook the fact that all that remained after the alleged "collapse" of the WTC twin towers, was a massive hole seven stories deep, where the towers once stood, and relatively little debris!

If the twin towers merely "collapsed" as the government claims, instead of being completely demolished and largely vaporized, as proven by the evidence, where did the majority of the Tower's massive bulk in concrete, steel, and especially interior furnishings, go? In examing any photo or video, of the appropriately named "ground zero", immediately after the loss of the twin towers, one would be hard pressed, to find any trace of it!

by Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments) on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 11:22:37 AM

  (0+)

Acheh, you may be correct, because i doubt we are either of us omniscient, but your language is so reminescent of communist of fascist propaganda secretaries.  You state unproven and dubious opinions as exclamatory facts, no evidence or argument needed ("!").   It's silly.   The towers appear to my common sense (and information from the towers architect and investigators) to have been so wounded and weakened and to have self-destroyed, pulverizing concrete and pushing iron out far from the "footprint".  The collapse to  my naked eyes starts exactly at the impact points... i have seen plenty of controlled demo videos, and those hollowed-out buildings with their drilled-out support columns and numerous flashing lights of explosives resemble nothing seen in the towers videos..  Building 7 is more suspect to your argument, but it's consturction and diesel-fueled fires seem to invalidate the conspiracy theory, imho.  The danger for the minority conspiracists is the psycholgy of knee-jerk self righteousness, as seen in these posts.  In a cursory review on youtube of 9/11 conspiracy analysis of videos, there is an appaling and embarrassing array of silly theories based on blurry video evidence... alot of it contradictory and and nebulous at best.   It ultimately doesnt matter to me if the buildings were demolished because te real issue is who let this happen, and there just aint no conclusive evidence for the demolition theories as the video and architects pretty soundly show the collapses (of the 2 towers) starting /hinging at the impact points, thousands of tons of material overstressing and demolishing lower levels, ..as my commom sense and eyes show me. Again, and finally (because this is tiresome, boring and unproductive) a minority are pushing the demoliton theory with mostly hot air and mis-applied calculations, ignoring the visual ad architectural common sense (yes, steel bulldings fall when hit by fuel loaded jets flying near 500 mph... the towers prove this (!)).... the concrete self-destroyed, as you can watch over and over.  You waste our time, conspiracists... why not ask who let the real killers thru (israel? cheney?)  than discredit war critics with fatupus lines of reasoning?  Good luck, but your arguments fail video evidence, logic, and architect confessions.

by Ann Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 9 comments) on Tuesday, May 29, 2007 at 11:10:05 PM

  (0+)

One of the most notable features of the human mind, is it's ability to block out reality, and perform mighty leaps of blind faith, and flights of fancy. The widespread belief in the absurd WTC "collapse" theory, is a classic example of this. Experts too, are notorious for this shortcoming, and are therefore, only as trustworthy, as their conflicts of interest. For this very important reason, "expert testimony" can't always be taken seriously! It is not for experts to do our thinking for us, they can only offer their opinions, which we must then judge for ourselves. In any situation, where the government and it's experts, claim something as ridiculous as jet fuel fires causing the loss of steel skyscrapers, at the WTC on 9/11, it's a no brainer, to stick with established facts, while disregarding such nonsense! In an effort to deceive a gullible public, it's afterall far too easy, to bestow upon such absurd scenarios, the stamp of official sanction.

On the other hand, numerous independent experts today, also dismiss this WTC "collapse theory". The idea that fire induced collapses, actually occured at the WTC on 9/11, is ultimately not a scientific, nor an engineering argument, but a political one! It's based purely upon the propensity of the Orwellian state, to create it's own realities, in pursuit of it's nefarious agendas. Something that was impossible on 9/10/2001, remains impossible on 9/11, and on 9/12, etc! There were indeed no "collapses" at the WTC on 9/11, just as there have never been, any "collapses" of this kind due to fire, in any modern steel skyscraper! This is irrefutable fact, something which severely cramps the style, of the reality evading supporters, of the "collapse" theory! Since the dawn of the skyscraper era, many of these same structures, have burned far longer, and hotter, than the relatively insignificant fires, that existed in WTC 1, 2, and 7, on 9/11! None collapsed from these fires, and neither did the structures lost at the WTC, on 9/11! This is simply how this actually works, in the real world! Though there will always be plenty of people who succumb to officially sanctioned lies, such as the government's WTC "collapse theory", it none the less remains, complete and utter nonsense!

by Rasoul Acheh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 122 comments) on Wednesday, May 30, 2007 at 9:23:02 AM

  (0+)

It is really embarassing that the nation that put men on the moon can't soleve a problem this simple in 6 years.  I guess that is proof a lot of lying is going on.

The total impact mass  was somewhat less than 200 tons.  34 tons of that mass was kerosene, alias jet fuel.  For some reason people think kerosene burns 10 times as hot if it is called jet fuel.

Now if you have ever played  billiards it should be obvious that the mass of the struck object is important in figuring out what is going to happen.  One WTC tower was 500,000 tons.  200 tons vs 500,000 tons, it should be no contest.  But the WTC was a rather complex object.  People make a big deal of the upper floors crushing all of the lower floors.  But how much did each floor weigh, and I don't mean just the floor slab?  How much did the core and perimeter columns on each floor weigh?  Didn't the 4th floor have to hold a lot more weight than the 99th floor.  Didn't the top 30 floors have to weigh less than the bottom 30?  Didn't the top 30 have to weigh less than 31 to 60?

Didn't the people that designed the WTC back in the 1960's have to decide how much steel and concrete to put on each floor?  Didn't they have to figure out how much all of the floors above each floor they were designing would weigh?  Shouldn't that information be in the original documentation from the 1960's?  How is it that the NIST spent 3 years and $20,000,000 and they never tell us how many tons of steel were on the 80th floor of the south tower?  Why don't we have a table telling us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor in the buildings?

I have downloaded the NIST reports and burned them to DVD, 11,300 pages taking up 1.03 gigabytes.  It says one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other plane had 9 tons of cargo.  It does not specify the quantity of concrete in the entire WTC much less how much steel and how much concrete is on each floor.  

Anyone that watches those videos from 9/11 and believe a 200 ton plane can do that to a 500,000 ton building in less than two hours is intellectually impaired and has no business holding his head up in the country that put men on the moon.   Neither tower was finished on that day.

psikeyhackr 

by psikeyhackr (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, Jun 18, 2007 at 10:44:22 PM

  (0+)