9/11

Scientific Study: ‘Towers Collapsed Due To Controlled Demolition’

What can I say, the idea that two planes caused three buildings to collapse due to fire has always seemed absurd to me. (Two of those buildings being the twin towers and the third being building 7 which just caught fire due to falling debris, presumably.) And then fell down. Uh huh. The first time in history a high rise has collapsed due to fire. Well, the first three times in history. Doesn't seem too likely to me. Multiple reports on the ground of huge explosions at the base of the towers after the planes hit from credible eyewitnesses. And just the common sense that enormous steel buildings don't sit on fire for an hour or two and then crumble into dust.

Fifteenth anniversary right around the corner.

 

liberty bridge steel buckled after fire from burning tarp...two days ago. .

https://twitter.com/IannottiRalph/status/771822436069183488/photo/1

 

The Twin Towers did not collapse, they were pulverized to dust before even hitting the ground in under 10 seconds. I won't debate 9/11 with people anymore. Either they see the obvious absurdity in the 19 hijackers with boxcutters story, or they don't. I have no wish to convince people who believe the official story, because most people will believe what they want to believe regardless of any evidence that challenges their induced reality. Regardless of what someone believes about 9/11, it's obvious it is exactly what the the government wanted and needed to happen in order to carry out their foreign and domestic agenda. The neoconservative think tank which was filled with members of the Bush administration, called the Project for the New American Century, released a document entitled 'Rebuilding America's Defenses', which said that a "New Pearl Harbor" would be necessary for the US to carry out their war agenda in the Middle East. This was not even a year before 9/11.

 

Even if I were to accept that a beam or beams in the towers and building 7 had buckled (though these beams also had fireproofing)...even if I were to be really forgiving and accept that the fire had somehow sliced completely through beams in the towers and building 7, splitting them in two...it would still boggle my mind completely that, for the first time in history, three steel skyscrapers dropped from the sky at or near free fall speed, crumbling into dust.

I'm also reticent to argue this, because it's so obvious that this doesn't happen in reality that anybody who says it does or can probably can't be reasoned with.

 

Even if WTC-7 did collapse due to fire, which is absolutely ridiculous as a mere fraction of the building was on fire, there is no way it would have collapsed as perfectly as it did into its own footprint.

The fact that the BBC announced the collapse before it even happened is telling enough.

 

They were hit by planes. We all saw it. -rolls eyes-

 

Oh wow, I never knew we had two qualified engineers on HipFourms that know all about the chemical reactions that take place when steel heats up.

If one steel beam is compromised, it has a negative effect on the structural integrity of the rest of the beams. Beams AKA support. Without support... well, you engineers can surely answer that, no?

 

It's Called "Controlled Demolition".......



Cheers Glen.

 

Here's more for you

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

Go argue your case with them

 

..and then it exploded, right?

 

Yeah, except only not really though? On the neighbouring ones, but here's the thing about the modern structural engineering of steel high rises. The buildings are designed to compensate for the expansion and warping of the beams. If they weren't then every skyscraper that has ever gone on fire would have suffered total collapse. As it turns out though the only three steel high rises to suffer complete failure due to fire alone are the three that collapsed in the WTC on 9/11. If they weren't designed that way no steel high rise in the world would be safe to enter.

The collapse of the two towers involved the failure of 400 joints per second.

And all the other pretty obvious truths about this you don't have to be an expert to see.

 

Not this again, seriously

Atomic Facepalm

 

What I want to Know is Did they Really land on the Moon ?

 

Apparently

http://www.hipforums.com/forum/topic/444259-twin-tower-bombs/page-2?hl=conspiracy#entry7411289




Hotwater

 

On one thread we talked about that for 2 years running.



Hotwater

 

Yeah but

If one beam in towers is compromised because of heat, then you'd better believe a whole lot more were as well with that fire.

 

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are this year again releasing a booklet highlighting the evidence for controlled demolition. It will be available somewhere for free shortly.

World Trade Centre Physics

http://www.shop.ae911truth.org/WTC-Physics-Mailer_c25.htm

And the NY Times is hosting a massive billboard on Times Square for them again at a discount during all of September. It's going up tomorrow I think.

Most folk will constinue to deny what's staring them in the face I guess though. I will probably take another 20-30 years and a death bed confession before people begin to accept the ugly truth.

That's one of the counter-arguments used by people, why has no-one stepped forward an admitted they were involved?

Would you? Assuming you are still alive, would you come forward and tell the world it wasn't Osama Bin Laden, it was you and CIA/MOSSAD (?) who orchestrated the whole thing? You'd be instantly in prison, you and you're entire family's life would be at risk.

 

Take your points up with Erik Lawyer, founder of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, who lost a lot of his friends on that day.

Plenty evidence for gradual and partial asymmetric collapse of steel high rises due to fire. Only two examples of nearly instant, catastrophic failure and another of catastrophic failure many hours later after all the fires had gone out.

I'm replying to quotes and them looking up and the quote's changed... so my first response there was to your points about ear witnesses to explosions, which you have since omitted.

 

Oh yep no worries. I'll look straight into that.

Yeah, sorry. I couldn't get the sarcastic approach that I wanted to get out in that sentence so I did delete it, that's true.

 

I don't follow things that closely all the time with developments, but I was just looking on this site and just recently a local Scottish fireman was investigated by the police and forced to resign from 15 years of service for speaking out against the official 9/11 story.

I think this demands a letter to the local fire service from me, fucking disgraceful.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/264-news-media-events-scottish-fireman-resigns-in-wake-of-anti-9-11-truth-pressure.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVpJtvlJvE0