Are we witnessing the collapse of America?

Yes, the media do feed us bullshit but to assert 'the 9/11 story 'defied the laws of physics' is to demonstrate complete ignorance of the inate structural weeknesses of those buildings and the very laws of physics you imagine were being defied. I know however I'm wasting my time attempting to explain anything to a conspiracy theorist. Such would not be a problem except most conspiracy theorists are so tangled up in their fantasies they completely miss the real threats we are all faced with.
"I will also laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh"
Proverbs Ch:1.V:26.
The actual conspiracy took place between the Twin Towers developers and their architects to achieve the maximum rental space per dollar invested on construction, resulting in a building with only external columns and no internal structural support.

 

The press does have considerable power.

 

Yes, that's how come the Guardian ( formerly The Manchester Cuardian) managed to bring Rupert Murdock to his slimy knees.

 

If you take building 7 as an example, the are two important factors here.

1. The building fell in 5 seconds, which is the speed an unrestricted object would fall from that height, otherwise known as free-fall. If a few floors of the building were considerably weakened (not removed) they would still offer a resistance and slow the rate of fall, some floors were obviously completely undamaged and would therefore offer considerable resistance (assuming they fell at all) to the overall rate of fall. So with any level of resistance, the building could not free-fall, as it did, under the conditions of natural collapse. It is physically impossible.

2. It is also physically impossible for a building with asymmetric damage to fall symmetrically. This is what happens if demolition crew get their calculations minutely incorrect, the building does fall in its own footprint.

The same applies to all 3 buildings, not a conspiracy theory a physical fact.

I am a qualified structural engineer, of some 35 years, so before you call someone ignorant be sure of your facts.

Furthermore I can say for certain, and all of my colleagues agreed, that none of these buildings would have completely collapsed due to the damage they sustained on that day. All three were systematically demolished.

 

A A systematic demolition that left no evidence and if it did was somehow covered up by everyone involved?
As you your qualifications other structural engineers have drawn attention to the building's weeknesses. As to 'free fall', observe the objects falling faster than the building itself as seen in all the footage available. I know, the objects falling faster than the building were in powered flight?

 

But don't you understand all the "everyone involved" you refer to, work for the government, in the same way that the scientists that said "smoking was safe", all worked for the tobacco companies.

"Free fall" in this situation refers to the fall of a building under demolition conditions, since there are other elements of minimal resistance involved with the razing of such a structure. You must calculate the timing sequence of all the charges to minimise damage to the surrounding area. Also how do you account for a symmetric fall of all 3 buildings?

Furthermore, these buildings had to conform to the extremely high building standards of the day, in fact not too dissimilar to those of today in terms of the frame, including withstanding a direct hit by a commercial jet. When they were built, I think I am right in saying they were the tallest in the world, therefore highly prestigious and any suggestion that the design, or construction were substandard is absolute nonsense. This definitely is a conspiracy theory and a really wild one at that.

I was going to keep this simple with just these two points, but you have introduced two more factors, so I will address those too.

As to there being no evidence of explosives, it can clearly be seen that there is molten metal dripping from the side of one building, this is impossible too with only a naturally aspirated heat source, indeed an oxygen starved heat source at that.

Finally, if there were objects falling in "powered flight" what was providing the power, other than explosives?

I was in my office on that day, when I heard that the first tower had collapsed and there was word-group used by almost every one of my colleagues, all implying this was nonsense and most beginning with b.

 

Maybe jet fuel? If one gallon of jet fuel equals 160 sticks of dynamite, 30000 gallons of jet fuel equals 4800000 sticks of dynamite!

While the instantaneous oxygen available to ignite 30,000 gallons of jet fuel might not have been possible, couldn't a slight delay (caused by oxygen starvation) cause just as much heat as an instantaneous explosion?

 

simple answer yes!

 

No, Karl, the actual conspiracy is being perpetrated by someone who has somehow gotten you to accept at face value details concerning the structural strength of the buildings that are just silly. Who ever wrote that the towers had no internal structural support is conspiring to keep you ignorant. Who ever wrote it is depending heavily on your unwillingness to research the matter.
_________________________________

Here is a reality check:

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

 

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

 

I love it when people decide to post links that offer pictures of explosions and hand-drawn sketches of the buildings' core structures, especially after they've just been shown actual photos of the structure which contradict the hand-drawn sketches they've submitted as evidence. Sketches versus photos . . . hmmm.

 

In what way?

 

I love it when architects design buildings with photographs and no blueprints.

 

Are you saying that the core structure that you were shown was not really there?

 

Yes, very funny.

All the aviation fuel was long gone by the time the buildings fell, so the only things left burning were the contents of the building and only black smoke was left, indicating a very cool fire.

Don't confuse oxygen with air, which contains only 20%, with only aviation fuel available to burn, the only way to turn steel to a liquid is to use pure oxygen, in absolutely massive quantities, which of course was not present.

So there was nothing available in these building to create this molten steel.

 

Wasn't it supposedly aluminium 'melting' not steel?
Aluminium from the plane and office furniture (filing cabinets etc) from the building.


That's not a hairdryer is it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uhI0NwlnL4"]melting aluminium at home to ingots - YouTube

 

So how hot would you say was the peak explosion temperature? What is the temperature required to liquefy steel?

 

Filing cabinets are usually made from steel, but there were gallons of this bright liquid metal pouring out, so about 5,000 melted filing cabinets all pouring out of one hole, I think not?

Now the aeroplane fuselage is a different matter and whilst there would be enough material present and theoretically just sufficient heat at some point, it is unlikely it would flow out the side of the building. More likely it would drop down between the floors, a much more likely cause is the melting external steel structure, during the demolition process.

Anyway there are hundreds of other extremely unlikely facets to the government's story, that is why I focussed on the impossible. Otherwise we could argue forever on, for example, whether it is possible for the terrorist pilot's passport, engulfed in a massive fire ball, within a burning building, to then be conveniently found in the street completely unmarked, thus instantly identifying the culprit.

I hope you guys realise that when you believe this crap story, what you are really saying is that you believe politicians and trust your government. Jeeeeze, do you really want to admit to that on this forum? Won't that make you sound, at the very least, naive?

 

Bradley Manning revealed government secrets by sneaking them out on a USB that he said contained mp3s.

Your government accidentally lost top secret information to a dude with a USB.

This is the government that you're claiming was capable of fabricating one of the most important historical events on American history.

Even if they would, they couldn't.

 

You really answered your own comment, the government are or can be pretty stupid and have created a story full of highly "improbables", a number of "impossibles" and some major "never happened befores".

If they were smart with there plans, they would have dropped the story about the "terrorists passport in the street" and instead thought. No one will believe that crap, we will wait a few hours and identify them from the passenger list.

They would have thought, we can't just make an empty hole in the ground and claim the ground swallowed up an entire aircraft, no one will believe that crap. Or we can't just blow a hole in the Pentagon and leave no wreckage and also claim none of the CCTV cameras were switched on to film it. I know we will get a couple of real planes, get some dead bodies and crash them properly. I would assume they could remote control a Boeing? If not, there is your answer.

So they were stupid, just as you suggested and thought the public being completely gullible, would swallow it. Make the lie big enough, visible enough and horrific enough and it will work.

Governments are like all organisations, made up of the smart and the stupid, obviously Mr.Shitforbrains got his way with the "passport" episode. I am not American, but I am sure they have smart people there, they put a man into space and made a few atom bombs and some of that is rocket science.

Lets face it if a guy like me, who is privy to nothing can figure it out, it ain't that smart.