9/11

And then there's Building 7 which wasn't even hit by a plane. I know I don't have to explain that it didn't collapse due to fires.

 

Not only that, but the BBC and other networks reported the building collapsing before it even did. In the BBC clip you actually see the reporter announcing the collapse with the building clearly still visible behind her.

On top of that we have Larry Silverstein's reference to "pulling it," as well as footage of emergency personnel stating that they need to get people back because they were going to bring the building down.

I also vividly remember watching MSNBC on 9/11 with Ashleigh Banfield reporting from Ground Zero that Building 7 was about to fall, as did lots of other people. Pretty much all this footage can be found online today.

 

Just a few reminders:

Some seem to think the steel melted





PR says it all fell in a nice little pile

 

I didnt think you would be one of them.

Wtc 1 2 and 7 just werent designed that well in the first place

 

Are you saying all these reporters were in on the conspiracy?

 

Every. Last. One. Of. Them

 

Yeah and all the People That saw the Planes hit the towers

 

You mean one of those who would ask you to address the information below. Yeah, I'd be one of "them."? Here are the numbers, now deal with them.

REQUIREMENTS ON CONCRETE FOR FUTURE RECYCLING

C Müller
Aachen University of Technology
Germany

Whereas in the first case, the aggregate recovered (> 2 mm) could normally be reused up to 100 % without a negative influence on the concrete properties, the content of crushed concrete with attached cement paste has to he limited in the new concrete. At the moment digestion rates of around 60 % can be attained with electro-mechanical crushing methods (sonic impulse). This method is nevertheless not competitive compared to common mechanical crushing methods (impact crusher: roughly 1.5 kWh/t concrete)

Requirements on concrete for future recycling
__________________________________________________ ______________________

Assuming this is correct (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), how many kilowatt hours of energy is required to crush/pulverize 90,000 tons of concrete? just multiply 1.5 x 90,000. It comes out to 135,000 kilowatt hours.

2.2.1.5 Progression of collapse

"Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules (400,000,000 joules) of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure."

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/20130726-1512-20490-9168/403_ch2.pdf

400,000,000,000 joules translates to 111,000 kilowatt hours of energy. Therefore, the total energy stored in the construction of the North Tower is 111,000 kilowatt hours. That means that there was not enough energy in the structure to pulverize the concrete. And this is to say nothing of the energy required to bust up the core structure as well. Nevertheless, there are still people who think that it is completely reasonable to believe that the upper block of the North Tower should have descended through the course of most resistance for the first 360 feet at a rate just 40 feet shy of freefall.

Keep in mind that the observed lateral ejection of concrete and steel from the get-go not only required kinetic energy from the upper block to do so, but reduced the mass and kinetic energy of the upper block at the same time as well. Also, the pulverization of that concrete and steel took yet more kinetic energy from the descending upper block. So where did the energy to do all this, with enough left over to clear a path for the upper block to drop through the intact lower core structure at virtual freefall speed, come from?
___________________________________________________________________

 

Deal with them???

You talk about the potential energy involved........WITH NO MENTION OF THE 10,000 GALLONS OF JET FUEL!

These arguments are always the same with "truthers", either you start of with a premise thats complete bullshit, or you convieniently leave out any important part that doesnt fit the mould

This "smokin gun" is as usual way over simplified, and who said anything about pulverising all the concrete?

The design of the building has nothing to do with it?, the thickness, tensile strength and quality.....only its weight, and the totally energy to make it and lift it up AGAINST gravity?

Come off it

 

Maybe the conspiracy theorists themselves are part of a conspiracy to make the public doubt the truth, thus further eroding the public's trust in the institutions charged with defending them and keeping them informed. This will (conspiracy theorists hope) lead to further political and social chaos and hasten the coup, second coming of Christ, destruction of Israel or whatever it is that gives the conspiracy theorist a hard-on.

 

Who dishes out "the truth" and how does this serve them. What is the agenda of these "institutions" charged with defending us? Because it sure as Hell isn't about defending the public's interest.

 

I was clearly referring to WTC-7. That is wreckage from the towers, which were much taller and fell much differently. Post the wreckage from WTC-7.

 

Okay, tell me how many gallons of that fuel was burned up in the explosion immediately after impact. Then tell me how long the rest of that jet fuel inside the Tower burned (I already know, but I want you to say it). Then tell me how you believe that burning effected the core structure of the Tower immediately below the impact zone and all the way to ground level.

In other words, tell me how what you said changes the numbers I asked you to deal with.

And about the concrete, pretty much all of it was pulverized. It takes energy to accomplish that. I provided you with the numbers. But all you offered in reply was . . . nothing.

 

Reports at ground zero that day were of people hearing explosions in the foundations of the building as well. Everyone was talking about the explosions they were hearing.

 

No, the average news reporter is just an intellectual prostitute who reads from a script and is paid to have no real mind of their own. Not sure I get your point. But do I think the media was complicit in 9/11, and continues to be complicit in their coverage of current events today? Absolutely! The people who make up the media make up some of the slimiest people in existence.

 

Not only did people hear explosions, but people who were in the sub-levels BEFORE the planes even hit reported explosions in the basement levels BEFORE the plane struck above. This is all on video for anyone who wants to look into it.

 

What numbers? You didnt give me any numbers. You post a link to an article on recycling concrete. Who said all the concrete was pulverised, where did you get that from?

And pulverised to what degree?

Then you post a link to an analysis posted on fema. Did you actually read that?, because it blames a redundant building design, over loaded external columns, a shitty floor truss system and the damage caused by the fuel from the planes for the buildings eventual collapse. Hell it even blames the winds as a factor after the initial shot to the buildings integrity.

Thats my answer. Read that article on fema.

And thats the real " conspiracy", the architects are to blame in part, but of course the chief architect was never going to admit that publically before he died.

Every other skyscraper in the world has the support columns spread evenly across their structures, the builders of WTC tried a trendy new design that would give them lots of floor space, several decades later..

Its not in part their fault???, but you can bet no one is going to build a skyscraper with that design ever again.

If you had ever had a massive earthquake under manhattan wtc 1 and 2 would have been among the first to collapse

 

Much of the buildings' contents were turned into a fine dust that covered most of Lower Manhattan for weeks and MONTHS after the attacks. This includes the bodies of countless numbers of people who were never recovered. If you watch news coverage from the days that followed the attacks, they were not finding much of anything in the debris pile. These buildings were literally disintegrated in a way that conventional controlled demolition is incapable of, and certainly not a "PANCAKE COLLAPSE".

 

I'm sure if there was any real evidence to suggest there were explosions before the first plane hit we'd have known about it by now. Coincidently enough, none of the fire fighter videos they were taking at the time of the first plane hit noticed any of these explosions.

 

Sure we'd have known. Unless there was, say, a conspiracy to destroy the towers.

But anyway, real evidence? I remember that day and everybody was reporting explosions. We can look back and say, "They were just confused by all of the terror occurring," but that is what people were reporting.

Also, Al Qaeda sure had a knack for giving big oil and the military industrial complex exactly what it wanted. I wonder if we'll ever get into a situation again where they need something they can't have without a pretext for war. I'm sure they'll just wait patiently on the sidelines and kick their feet saying, "Aw shucks. If only we had a new Pearl Harbor."