They blew it all to hell!

Spire from core of North Tower remains standing seconds before disintegrating into steel dust. What could possibly cause this?

 

ohhh pullleeaaaaaaasee..........

what do you think happens with all of those pounds of pressure on top of steel beams?? they arent just going to fall straight down....

this is insane.

 

And I should listen to you because?

Have you done any research into this at all? Of course not.

Are you familiar with the work of professor Steven Jones or David Ray Griffin? I doubt it.

You talk like you know everything when you in fact know nothing.

Thanks for the waste of bandwidth.

 

pfft..........

it takes an ounce of common sense.......

you ever take physics??

all it takes is pressure and gravity, the rest of it explains itself.....

and if there is anyone wasting bandwidth, Im sure all fingers point at you

 

Ever heard of Scholars for 9/11 Truth? Why should I take what a restuarant worker says over people with multiple advanced degrees in the field of physics and engineering? You are very uninformed and have no facts, so thank you for nothing. You talk like you have a physics degree, when many people who do have physics degrees can prove that you're wrong. But I guess they are wrong because you say so, not having any facts of your own.

 

Here is a documentary you might learn something from. Whether you will actually take the time to watch it is another story....

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4026073566596731782&q=Improbable+Collapse&hl=en

 

heh, and I assume everything that is written by these so called doctors of physics are actually based in truth........ I assume nothing and think for myself. thank you. you ever make a toothpick bridge?? if you put pressure on the top, where do the toothpicks that are holding up the bridge end up?? they splinter and fly off every direction......... what do you think happened to the beams?? they flew every which direction.......

bodies werent found?? umm hello?? the towers were smouldering for weeks after they fell......

all Im saying it is common sense.

I dont need a fuckin physics degree. plus everything can be manipulated online..... I just dont understand how you believe everything that is written on these conspiracy sites. its beyond me.

 

Um, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth symposium in LA was aired on C-SPAN. You were probably too busy watching Ghost Hunters, though. Stop making everything out to be the product of internet conspiracy websites. Former members of the Bush administration have went public saying 9/11 was an inside job. The father of Reaganomics, Paul Craig Roberts (a Republican) has went public, saying he believes 9/11 was an inside job. Why do you try to marginalize everyone asking questions as "conspiracy theorists," using the same dirty tactics the government uses to attempt to discredit people with valid concerns.

I think for myself. I take all kinds of facts and pieces of evidence that don't add up and apply them accordingly. I am not going by what one person says, but dozens and dozens of people who have taken the time to study this and inform others.

How can you compare toothpicks to steel beams hurtled with the forces seen in those pictures. THAT is absolutely ridiculous!

Do some research, then mock. Watch the video I provided above, then mock.

 

of course this was an inside job. I know this, and Ive told you this long before you got into your little conspiracy crap.......

but exploding the wtc?? that is ridiculous. all it took was two planes with enough jet fuel to bring it down.......

of course we helped train these guys to hijack those planes, of course our air force jets flew over the atlantic ocean to search for missles from the soviets, instead of looking for planes that were headed towards the nations capital..... of course our government knew that the planes were going to strike the WTC. duh!! but having controlled explosions on the buildings by our government?? get real.

 

ohhh yeah, because it was on cspan, it must be the truth!!!!!!!!!!!

geezus.

 

Well, it's good you don't buy into everything the government has told you. However, I strongly doubt you've looked into the controlled demolition of those buldings. The evidence is in your face if you would only get rid of your ego and look at the proof. You probably never even saw the collapse of Building Seven (which wasn't even hit by a plane), let alone have heard of it. So if jet fuel brought the towers down -- which is ridiculous, as fire has never brought down a steel-structure building before this -- what happened to Building Seven, which bares all the trademarks of a classic controlled demolition?

Watch the video I provided above, then watch this. You cannot watch these movies and not come to the conclusion that these buildings were blown up with explosives:

911 Mysteries: Demolitions:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

 

controlled demolitions dont have as much pyroclastic flow, nor does it have beams shooting off 30 feet like that.......


do you ever see footage of controlled demolitions??

and I do know of building 7 falling.....

 

Well, apparently you haven't seen Building Seven fall because it didn't feature the ejection of beams as was the case with the towers. Unlike building Seven, the towers did not fall with the implosions of classic controlled demolitions you've seen on TV. They were EXPLODED, a first in demolition history. What we saw with the towers was completely unconventional in nature. A classic controlled demolition of the towers would have been likely too obvious with the whole world watching, so they had to make it look as realistic as possible. Once you study the evidence, you realize how downright blatant it is.

Again, watch the videos I provided.

Thanks.

 

:nopity:

Its like an ongoing battle between these two....

 

30 feet? Try 300-500 feet!

30 feet I might be able to buy with a so-called "pancake collape," but not 500 feet. No way! These beams were ejected with enough force they lodged into neighboring buildings. This does not happen with any kind of average "collapse."

 

That would be David Ray Griffin, professor of theology? Why exactly do you find him to be a credible expert on engineering? And would that be the same Steven Jones that chose to take early retirement to avoid a review of his controlled demolition work, which was heavily criticised by his university's engineering faculty? The Steve Jones who thinks Jesus dropped by to say hello to the Native Americans after his resurrection?

Really? I found an example of a steel frame building collapsing due to fire using google. Took me less than one minute. And its not the only example out there. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm.

I thought you did a lot of research on this. If you had, you would realise that WTC 7 was hit by the collapsing World Trade towers. When you say it "wasnt even hit by a plane" does that mean you think that having a 110 story tall building falling on WTC 7 and carving out a huge gouge, tens of stories high, is not relevant to the subsequent collapse? And why would a building collapsing from the bottom, as WTC 7 did, eject beams out of the top?

 

I never said David Ray Griffin is an expert on engineering. He is simply one of the more prominent 9/11 truth scholars who has done a fine job piecing all the evidence together. (Not just regarding the collapse, but in all areas regarding the "official" story.)

There are, however, dozens of structural engineers and physicists in the organization.

As far as I know, Jones took an early retirement because it was offered to him following controversy over his controversial findings, which coincided with his temporary paid suspension from the college due to outcry from students and staff who cannot handle alternative information that goes against their fragile belief system. It had nothing to do with his work being reviewed. I have not yet seen anything showing me why the towers collapsed, aside from the official FEMA and NIST reports, and those who parrot the bogus, half-baked conclusions of these corrupt government organizations.

No idea what you're talking about, and I really don't care because this isn't about Steven Jones or his character. You're just like media lapdogs such as Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, who find things to attack other than the evidence they're unable to argue against. It's called a smear tactic.

Hahahah! We're talking about a minor roof collapse here that is common in structural fires. The building didn't collapse, it just suffered damage which is to be expected with any major fire in a building that is quite small.

Show me a picture of this "huge gouge," then I'll believe you. The fact is, Building Seven was more than a block away from the towers and didn't receive half the damage buildings directly next to the towers did. So why didn't these buildings collapse, when they received far more structural damage? Building Seven housed an emergency bunker and was over-engineered to withstand bombings and just about anything else you could expect.

There is no way a person can watch the collapse of WTC-7 and say that it wasn't a controlled demolition.... unless they're in denial or are a government plant. Which one are you?

Hell, even Dan Rather said it looked like a controlled demoliton on live TV.

 

simple as this, no engineering skills or knowledge needed:

there is no way a building of that magnitude falls in under an hour from a simple plane..it was built to withstand a boeing hitting it...when compared to other SIMILAR buildings that suffered massive fires, they took half a day or more before showing massive damage and still did not come crashing down.

a plane crashed into the empire st. building, it didn't fall. burned for about 10 hours.

there were explosives no doubt.