Does this really look like a "collapse" to you? The buildings simply disintegrated into fine dust from the top down. We are talking the mid-air pulverization of thousands of tons of concrete (each floor slab several feet thick, approximately 110 stories/floors). Do you see those massive dust clouds? That's concrete dust! All that shit that blew all over Manhattan and all the way to New Jersey, covering streets and cars several inches thick? That's concrete dust! Apparently, the amount of macroscopic concrete at the site that you could pick up and hold in your hand was negligible. What would cause thousands of tons of concrete to just jump up into the air and pulverize itself into fine dust?
Also, notice that many of the photos of the buildings disintegrating exhibit a "banana being peeled" type of effect, like peeling a banana from the top down. There are other photos that show the effect much better than these, but you can definitely see it here. What would cause this?
Notice the "cauliflower" shape of the dust clouds in the last photo. What would cause this? Is there any other phenomenon that you are familiar with that would produce this effect?
Question: If a tree converted itself into sawdust from the top down, would you say that the tree "collapsed?" If not, then why are buildings which disintegrate into dust from the top down described as a "collapse?" What part of "this is not a collapse" don't you understand?
No-planer??? What does that mean. And no I wont bother getting the information for you all of the time. In my point of view you just someone who is readily available to to accept and believe whole heatedly what ever the official story because it makes you feel comfortable, even though serious points and facts really cry out saying that what was told is not all that is at play here. You mock Philosophy, but that is the very and quite honestly the only thing in this world that seeks out the real truth about things. That philosopher is criticizing the official report about 911 because it has serious contradictions in it's self.
Now some facts about the report: It was indeed created by professional people who know and knew what they where doing. How ever the report we where given is not the full report. This report, before public release, was scrutinized by the high officials of the white house and they have completely removed parts of the report and rewrite other parts them selves. In fact the report does not mention building 7 at all since everything concerning building 7 was removed. Other information was also removed or edited. And people who wrote the initial report will confirm that the report released by the white-house is not the one they gave them and those people when questioned about their initial report are only allowed to say "I am not allowed to answer that question". So we had a bunch of politicians rewrite and rework an engineering report which to all accounts does not tell the truth. Yet you believe it as the truth. But the people who made the report tell you it's not.
To mean you sound like one of those GOD illuminated zealots.
I have to just laugh at you, Kharma. Making all these claims that things 'can't have happened that way'. Just watch the freakin videos & understand that what happened before your very eyes did indeed happen. Whatever your sad mind can conjure, there are no other explanations for the present absence of those WTC buildings that can pass the (any) plausibility test. Pointless to do the mental masturbation unless you have one - just one - plausible alternative explanation and real evidence to support it.
A huge jet with nearly full fuel load flew into each of the twin towers. They came crashing down after fire sufficiently weakened their structural integrity. The tower hit second, the one with the greater mass of building above the initial failure point, came crashing down first. Nearby buildings were damaged by the thousands of tons of falling debris, one sufficiently to come crashing down itself. End of story.
Building 7 collapsed before the 2 WTC towers not after.
There's several pictures in this thread that shows 7 WTC still standing moments after the 2 WTC collapsed.
yeah, like most things conspiracy theorists have to say about the day, he's completely wrong. only by about 7 hours! rofl.
Hey EadTes, Building7 came down around 5:30pm, give or take.
Kill the Messenger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOhyC2yG_kw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_V_Uu2ajMFU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQCuPZvkkq0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uQR7uFcKW0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyKkat6HEwY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCFioYtINgY
We're still waiting for that one, even after over 100 replies to the OP.
Kharma - put up, or shut up!
Myfist, the vast majority of these videos are only made to cash in on the government conspiracy craze after 9/11.
i felt that since no one decided to pay you any mind that i would have a greater chance of success. which i did. you of all people did
This is what a building collapse looks like. The building doesn't burst into fine powder. Steel is not ejected laterally the length of a football field or two. The building is recognizable as a building, not as something that looks like it went through a blender.
i hope the rest of stardock's users can see what kharma is doing (comparing apples to bicycles). none of those building were struck by big planes doing in excess of 500mph, none of those buildings were towering skyscrapers, none of those buildings had structural designs remotely similar to the WTCs, and none of those buildings had unfought fires. it is just dishonest to attempt such comparisons.
this is the typical disingenuousness you will find in virtually every 911 truther. i know, ive had the misfortune to have encountered far too many of them in the last 5 years or so. they ignore evidence, cherry-pick quotes, put their faith in false experts, and invent completely outlandish ideas in order to plug the gaping holes in their logic and evidence.
there isn't a single valid comparison that truthers can point to (with respect to the collapses), because it was the first instance of anything like this happening before. anyone else that tells you otherwise is a liar.
I really do think that "off topic" is a bit of a misnomer for this section of the forums... it is really meant for things related directly to the nerd/gamer community, not politics or current/historical events.
While I certainly agree that "trolling" has become an over-used term for random people whose ideologies other people don't agree with (heck, some guy called me a troll once for coming out in opposition to MARTIAL LAW!), I try to be fairly specific about where I use the term. Note that I said I only SUSPECTED you of trolling (and even then I said that if you were, you would have to be REALLY good at seeming like an honest poster), a suspicion I no longer have.
i would like to point out that i am neither american nor do i particularly care about the loss of life that occurred on 911 (anymore than i care about any other significant loss of life). i just can't stand liars and self-styled intellectuals who think "analysing" a few photos is somehow a reasonable substitute for the more robust studies that are readily available on a subject. and i flame them because after all these years, i am well aware that they are immune to reasoned and reasonable discourse. they don't deserve any better, and attempting to provide them with such is an exercise in futility.
Maybe we should ask Bin Ladin how it happened. He was a structural engineer, after all.
Yes this not a collapse
K first that is earthquake damage and one of those building just fell over the trade center was a whole different collapse more destructive
Because of its size and mass these buildings cant be used that what accidental or earthquake collapse looks like because controlled collapses are alot like wtc but controlled the stuff is usually falling in on itself not outward because its a controlled implosion.
the difference between a 4 story building and a 100 up story building coming down is insane u cant put them two right by each other and say this is how it would be.
oops quoted wrong person this was for agent
this is what happens when u rush lol
You're now into the realm of the pathetic, Kharma. Enjoy yourself in your alternative universe. I'll stick to the real one, thank you.
Well I might indeed have gotten the time on building 7 wrong.
And talking about people contradicting them selves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4&feature=related
And to help with thew final Enron possible link of convenience: http://documentarystorm.com/money-industries/daylight-robbery/
The government our days is ran by big business and they have no hesitation to drive a 2by4 up your read end when ever they get the chance. Weather they are democrat or republican the money come from the same place and they are there to protect those peoples interest and not the interest of the people of the nation.
none of that has any bearing on this discussion.
Eadtaes is well known for his view on the government. No matter which way you spin it you will always look like a "politicians boyscout" to him if you even attempt to show that the government, or anything pertaining to what you say, is irrelevant.
The fact that i say we should disregard conspiracies isnt because they are false or even because they are true. it is because they do not matter anymore. what happened happened. thats that. ill be a political boyscout only if that means im not sitting here debating about an incident from 9 years ago, and that ive moved on with my life.
Here's the thing though, palidins. Sure, the buildings are different. Any two things on earth are different, whether it be any two buildings or any two snowflakes. What you have to ask yourself is, "are there any general principles that are the same between these two different entities?" For instance, a normal snowflake and a 100 pound snowflake are different - sure. But both melt at the same temperature.
Ask yourself if there is anything so different in the design between a world trade center tower, and one of the buildings in those photos, that would cause the tower to burst into powder from the top down, all the way down to its foundation? The answer is, of course not.
But there was a shitload of fluorescent lights in WTC. That (and the gas inside the lights), a plane crash, and burning jetfuel ought to have done something.
Not to mention carpets, paper, wood, and potentially natural gas as well.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
