Are we witnessing the collapse of America?

Yes, it is being glaringly ignored - but the problem goes much deeper than mere cultural/religious attitudes toward birth control. It's a matter/problem of/with human instinct. Most animal species experience cycles of population explosion followed by massive die-offs. We have evolved enough to be able to observe and understand (and thereby distance ourselves from) this concept in animals, and have managed to cling this primitive notion that human reproduction is an inherently good thing, a desirable aspect of the human experience, a natural thing - when we, as a species, have become about as divorced from nature, socially, as possible.

So, if we accept the premise that women (and perhaps men too) do, in fact, experience an irresistable biological drive to reproduce - it becomes very clear and evident that our social evolution and biological evolution are out of sync - and this is a recipe for extinction, or at the very least a massive die-off.

When I came to understand this and after it really sunk in, I have to admit that I grew less and less enthusiastic each time a friend or aquaintence announced that they were going to have a baby - to the extent that they started to seem kind of irresponsible to me. The sentence kept repeating in my head "Do they realize what kind of a world this child's own offspring is likely to inherit?"

 

Odon,

You said the building lacked a traditional full cage frame and depended almost entirely on the strength of a narrow structural core running up the center.

Have you seen this collection of photos taken of the WTC construction?

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911..._op=view_page&PAGE_id=14&MMN_position=594:594

 

At that point people just start calling you a downer, lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9zJHvCsmOI"]Debbie Downer theme song - YouTube

 

Yes I have seen those pictures.

I guess wiki means that a majority of buildings have a structure like this:





A steel framework nearer the skin of the building.

 

LOL. Oh yeah, that's why I just smile and nod and keep my fool mouth shut. Hell hath no fury like a new mother or father's scorn if you ever make the mistake of suggesting that it has essentially become an act of social irresponsibility to reproduce. I may indeed be a downer, but I am a tactful one. Just not so much on this forum.

 

Close enough.

I'm sure there are better e.g's out there.
I just posted a few that show the tragedy straight away, rather than 5 minutes in.
I did mean they leant just above the impact site - as the animatic shows.

 

You people have no idea what you are talking about, read any book on physics and you will realise these buildings could never have fallen as fast as they did unless there was a controlled demolition, nor could they do so in such a neat fashion.

I used to work for a large demolition company in their marketing department and in their training room they had lots of videos and films of demolitions that had gone wrong, some only slightly wrong. Every major demolition is filmed and the results were that they often took out adjacent buildings and the rubble was spread 100's of metres away, a complete mess. All these films were of much smaller buildings compared to the WTC.

Look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAdoAHsNyvE, that is what we should have seen.

These were 3 well controlled demolitions, absolutely no doubt whatsoever. Most demolition firms would be very proud of the results.

 

No shit. It's like the skeleton of these buildings just suddenly ceased to exist. What really disturbs me is the fact that the U.S. mass media has never given any serious consideration - even to disprove - the inside job theory. It's just dismissed outright as paranoid wacko thinking. The closest we got was Jessie Ventura's Conspiracy Theory episode and that show sure as hell didn't last very long.

 

I was watching a Youtube video yesterday specifically the collapse of building 7 and noticed something totally inexplicable during the so called collapse of this building. The Penthouse collapsed first, it was clearly not damaged in any way by any fire, so how did it collapse before the main structure...answer it was demolished. Get out of that one boys.

This is a very silly discussion now.

 

Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

 

Wasn't WTC 7 an entirely separate building? What caused it to collapse from the top down as show in the videos on it?
I also question the "fire induced damage" they state. I don't see how the fire could have gotten hot enough to do any damage. Also, wouldn't the center columns, the main ones, have to collapse along with the weaker floor girders? If so, given the size and amount of them, how could they collapse as has been proposed? I can see the weaker floor girders and the outside beams collapsing, but in order for the building to collapse as proposed, the center columns would have had to give way all at the same time, and at some point what was coming down would have fallen outward, and I don't see that happening.

 

Officially they said fire collapsed No. 7

 

What set it on fire?

 

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

 

I think I will have to stay with my own opinion and call bull on the governments explanation. It just doesn't make sense to me based on what I know.
Thanks for the info though.

 

Yeah... That's kind of my take on it too.

 

What do you know? What doesn't make sense?

The water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed.

 

I've already covered all this previously, read back a bit and you will see that. I also provided info on what it would take to melt steel to the point where it could fail like we are told.

 

Have you seen it since?

9:03:02: Flight 175 crashes at about 590 mph (950 km/h, 264 m/s or 513 knots) into the south face of the South Tower (2 WTC) of the World Trade Center, banked between floors 77 and 85.

9:58:59: The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses, 56 minutes after the impact of Flight 175.


8:46:30[10] Flight 11 crashes at roughly 466 mph (790 km/h or 219m/s or 425 knots) into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99

10:28:22: The North Tower of the World Trade Center collapses. Due to the destruction of the gypsum-encased stairwells on the impact floors (most skyscraper stairwells are encased in reinforced concrete), no one who was above the impact zone in the North Tower escapes the collapse. The Marriott Hotel, located at the base of the two towers, is also destroyed. The second collapse is also viewed live on television and heard on radio. The North Tower collapses 1 hour, 42 minutes after the impact of Flight 11, meaning the building had burned during the whole duration of the attacks.

About an hour apart.

5:20:27: The penthouse on top of 7 World Trade Center crumbles apart, only about 6 seconds before the entire building would begin to collapse.
5:20:33: 7 World Trade Center, also known as the Salomon Bros. Building, a 47-story building collapses.

About 7-8 hours later

Other buildings nobody is interested in are damaged too.

Thanks. I remember now. I was referring to what did not make sense regarding the two explanations posted yesterday. If that damage occurred why wouldn't it make sense?