Critical Analysis

[juliekc]

http://julie.kickchat.com/misc/WTC%2520COLLAPSE%2520STUDY%2520BBlanchard%25208-8-06.pdf

Opinions please.

JulieKC

[john white]

http://julie.kickchat.com/misc/WTC%2520COLLAPSE%2520STUDY%2520BBlanchard%25208-8-06.pdf

Opinions please.

JulieKC

Bunch of shills ;)

Seriously though, i'll get you a proper rebuttal when i've got some time. As a clue: where was the energy coming from to throw debris out from the building? and if the mass was being thrown out, where was the energy to make the pancake collapse progress so quickly?

They actually debunk NIST without realising it: either way, cake eaten from both sides becomes no cake at all

[juliekc]

John
where was the energy coming from to throw debris out from the building?

They cover that in the article.

JulieKC

[montag]

Hi Julie, have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzpaZE5XSfg&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Frinf%2Ecom%2Falt%2Dnews%2F911%2D truth%2F911%2Dsurvivor%2Danthony%2Dsaltalamacia%2D speaks%2Dout%2F1458%2F

[juliekc]

I've watched it now. He said he heard explosions. Lot's of people heard explosions. But I can't help thinking that it would be odd if you didn't hear explosions.

Ask yourself, if you were in a skyscraper that's just been hit by a 757 which has exploded inside the building leaving a massive gaping hole in the side spewing fire and clouds of smoke, wouldn't you expect to hear explosions in the building? I would.

For me, the most convincing part of the original article is the fact that the collapse doesn't look like a demolition. Like everyone else, when I first heard the demolition theory I watched the videos again and thought, hmm, curious. Very suspicious. But when you look into how demolitions are really carried out, the twin towers collapse looks absolutely nothing like a demolition. That's the point the article makes.

JulieKC

[klinker]

Both buildings were being vaporised as they collapsed. Explosions alone were not the cause of the collapse and don't forget the alleged explosions in the basements of both buildings for which there is suppressed testimony.

Did the scholars for truth movement group not fracture because a few members suggested that energy weapons of some type may have been used to assist the demolition?

I don't know why we continue discussing 9/11 tbh. It was an inside job. Very sophisticated, highly technical and only carried out by those with the ability to carry out such a task.

I quite like Tarpleys opinion that Bush and his administration were held to ransom on that day by rogue elements within the administration itself and the military.

Who knows.

[montag]

He said that the first explosion came from underneath him in the basement, immediately followed by explosions somewhere on the floors above him..
That doesn't tie in with the official story..

[juliekc]

OK, let's run with that idea. There was an initial huge explosion in the Basement. So why didn't the building collapse from the bottom up?

What was the point of a huge explosion in the basement if it didn't appear to do anything?

The fact remains, the buildings failed from the precise points of impact from the hijacked planes. Not from the basement.

JulieKC

[klinker]

OK, let's run with that idea. There was an initial huge explosion in the Basement. So why didn't the building collapse from the bottom up?

What was the point of a huge explosion in the basement if it didn't appear to do anything?

The fact remains, the buildings failed from the precise points of impact from the hijacked planes. Not from the basement.

JulieKC

Julie I mean no disrespect but ignoring 9/11 for a minute I think you need to go take a look at how the towers were constructed and structured in the first place.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc.htm

Then come back and tell us how the towers became the first steel and concrete buildings in history to be brought down by fire.

[juliekc]

No disrespect, Klinker, but read the article I posted.

JulieKC

[catfood]

Ok. I appreciate you posting this.
I will state thet it doesn’t really mater if thay wur brought down with explosions ore not the people behind it are still sick.

I also have sum questions these are as follows:
1) You mention thet the plums seen from the sides of the towers are nothing more then air following the path of least resistance as the above floors fell. So why do we see them from several floors below the falling floors?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM&mode=related&search=world%20trade%20center%20explosions%20squib s%20flashes%20demolition%20towers%20loose%20change %20final%20cut%20alex%20jones%20end%20game

2) You mention that ther is no real evidence of explosions during ore prier to the collapse. But ther are accounts of people being seriously injured from thes explosions.

http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=1044
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

3) You mention that ther is no evidence of thermite being used to cut supporting columns. When ther is.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/thermite_id_culprit_wtc_collapse.htm

4) What have you got on WTC 7?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvoqkdf_2KY&NR=1

[klinker]

No disrespect, Klinker, but read the article I posted.

JulieKC

I have and it is nonsense in my opinion.

[catfood]

:p
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2006/08/response-to-critical-analysis-of.html

[juliekc]

The 'squibs' are quite clearly escaping air. They fit exactly with models of air escaping an internally collapsing building - plus there's also the point that if these were explosions you would see some structural damage ahead of the collapse, yet we see none. Just air.

I watched the Jeff King clip and even I can pick holes in him. He makes assertions that have been rubbished a hundred times. Is that an old clip?

I have no more on WT7 than is in the article. I feel that if it can be shown that WTC1 and 2 weren't demolished then the same goes for WT7, which is why I'm looking closely at them rather than WT7.


The collapse of the twin towers does not look like a demolition.

And if they were 'exploded' as seems to be implied, just think what a ridiculous amount of explosive would be required and how it would have to be exactly placed correctly in order to pancake from the 757 impact points and...it doesn't add up. As the article said, 'it's impossible'.

JuliKC

[klinker]

The 'squibs' are quite clearly escaping air. They fit exactly with models of air escaping an internally collapsing building - plus there's also the point that if these were explosions you would see some structural damage ahead of the collapse, yet we see none. Just air.

I watched the Jeff King clip and even I can pick holes in him. He makes assertions that have been rubbished a hundred times. Is that an old clip?

I have no more on WT7 than is in the article. I feel thatif it can be shown that WTC1 and 2weren't demolished then the same goes for WT&, which is why I'm looking closely at them rather than WT7.


The collapse of the twin towers does not look like a demolition.

And if they were 'exploded' as seems to be implied, just think what a ridiculous amount of explosive would be required and how it would have to be exactly placed correctly in order to pancake from the 757 impact points and...it doesn't add up. As the article said, 'it's impossible'.

JuliKC

You are entitled to believe what you want to believe.

[catfood]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5104218733691651391&q=911+pancake+is+wrong&total=4&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[catfood]

Ok im just going to say it the report on 911 is floored because it is looking at it only from the conventional demolishen model, it stats that the collapse doesn’t look like a conventional demolishen so it can not be a demolishen. Not so it is in my opinion an unconventional demolishen. It makes sense that if you wur going to demolish two of the tallest buildings in the world you would have to revise your method. :rolleyes:

[john white]

The 'squibs' are quite clearly escaping air. They fit exactly with models of air escaping an internally collapsing building - plus there's also the point that if these were explosions you would see some structural damage ahead of the collapse, yet we see none. Just air.

I watched the Jeff King clip and even I can pick holes in him. He makes assertions that have been rubbished a hundred times. Is that an old clip?

I have no more on WT7 than is in the article. I feel that if it can be shown that WTC1 and 2 weren't demolished then the same goes for WT7, which is why I'm looking closely at them rather than WT7.


The collapse of the twin towers does not look like a demolition.

And if they were 'exploded' as seems to be implied, just think what a ridiculous amount of explosive would be required and how it would have to be exactly placed correctly in order to pancake from the 757 impact points and...it doesn't add up. As the article said, 'it's impossible'.

JuliKC

Well no, the squibs can't be escaping air... becuase there are other paths of far less resistance the air could take at the front of the pressure wave: for the squibs to be air escaping ten or fifteen floors below the collapse front is simply nonsensical. The basement explosions could have been to sheer the foundations into bedrock at the bottom of the tower: whatever their cause, they certainly happened, and have no credible connection to the impact of a plane into each tower 100 odd stories above

[klinker]

Well no, the squibs can't be escaping air... because there are other paths of far less resistance the air could take at the front of the pressure wave: for the squibs to be air escaping ten or fifteen floors below the collapse front is simply nonsensical. The basement explosions could have been to sheer the foundations into bedrock at the bottom of the tower: whatever their cause, they certainly happened, and have no credible connection to the impact of a plane into each tower 100 odd stories above

This is exactly the sort of thing I can't be arsed to repeat any more.

[juliekc]

One question:

How come we see no 'squibs' until after the building starts collapsing?

Seems odd. If however they are air and debris then it makes perfect sense.

Also
because there are other paths of far less resistance the air could take at the front of the pressure wave

It was a while ago but I remember seeing a video explaining the opposite. The debris comes out precisely where you'd expect it to. I can't remember if it was viewing platforms or stairways or something, but it was in the most likely places. So it seems we have conlicting information on that.

Anyway, back to my question. Why no squibs initiating demolition? Only after it has well and truly started.

JulieKC



JulieKC

[catfood]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbhKvi3yNLo

[juliekc]

Catfood, that certainly looks like a major gaffe until you read the qoute below.

(Incidentally, I remember all sorts of new reports on 9/11 that were wrong: 8 planes have been hijacked, car bomb on Capitol Hill etc. The day was just total chaos. Also another thing I didn't know was that there were 4500 aircraft in US airspace during the hijackings. Just imagine trying to work out what was going on where. I've rambled off again, but anyway.)

Link: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11.html
Emergency response workers at Ground Zero realized that extensive damage to the lower south section of WTC 7 would cause collapse as early as 3 pm on 9/11, a fact reported on news broadcasts at the time.12 Video footage shows that when collapse occurred, the south wall of the building gave in first, which is exactly what we would expect based on the location of the most extensive damage. As noted for the collapse of the South Tower, the mechanics of the building’s fall are completely consistent with the nature of the damage sustained. The planned demolition hypothesis, on the other hand, fails to explain why collapse would begin at exactly the point where damage was inflicted, since the conspirators would have had to been able to predict exactly where debris from the fallen North and South Towers would strike WTC 7. And while the makers of the documentary Loose Change comment that WTC 7 “fell straight down, into a convenient pile,” the truth is that the pile of debris was 12 stories high and 150 meters across, hardly the kind of “convenient pile” described by conspiracy theorists.

[catfood]

Long and boring but worth watching.:)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586

[catfood]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5455942928198430663&q=911+collapse+proof&total=29&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

The videos are endless and tend to go over the same evidence, so ill stop posting them now.
Every one is entitled to ther opinion, all I suggest is that you revue the evidence and think for your self.
:D:D:D

[veritas2007]

Intersting article jukiekc.

With reference to Assertion #1

Have you seen or read the testimony of the English IT guy who (if I remember correctly) worked for Morgan Stanley. I've struggled to find the links I have viewed on this subject but I will attempt to recall from memory, a summary:

Sometime before 9/11 his department were told to prepare of a power outage in his tower which meant considerable work for them in successfully shutting down all of their server etc. An unprecedented event. I forget the timeline, but his testimony also included several evacuation exercises in the lead up to 9/11 - more than were normally conducted, removal of sniffer dogs prior to 9/11. Sounds of heavy machinery and construction from the empty floor(s) above his prior to 9/11. Evidence of dust in keeping with construction seen on radiators, window sils and doors prior to 9/11.

He had worked overtime to get their servers back up and running and so took the day off on 9/11. He later sent e-mails and wrote to the FBI stating what he had witnessed but was never replied to.

I wish I could find a link to this guy and hopefully someone reading this can help out, but this sheds light on the "pre planted explosives" suggestion. My Dad, whom I love and respct, believes the official explanation and raises a valid point when I discuss the theories with him:

Never before has this happend. Never before have identical towers suffered identical damage and so there is no precedent.

He makes a valid point, although I don't agree when you take in all of the other facts surrounding the day which, imho, clearly point to an inside job.

I personally like to research everything so thanks for posting it up.

veritas2007

[christophera]

Bunch of shills ;)

Seriously though, i'll get you a proper rebuttal when i've got some time. As a clue: where was the energy coming from to throw debris out from the building? and if the mass was being thrown out, where was the energy to make the pancake collapse progress so quickly?

They actually debunk NIST without realising it: either way, cake eaten from both sides becomes no cake at all

Absolutely, bunch of schills. Klinkers has the right general description below for the image that follows.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexploding.jpg

Both buildings were being vaporised as they collapsed. Explosions alone were not the cause of the collapse and don't forget the alleged explosions in the basements of both buildings for which there is suppressed testimony.

Did the scholars for truth movement group not fracture because a few members suggested that energy weapons of some type may have been used to assist the demolition?

I don't know why we continue discussing 9/11 tbh. It was an inside job. Very sophisticated, highly technical and only carried out by those with the ability to carry out such a task.

I quite like Tarpleys opinion that Bush and his administration were held to ransom on that day by rogue elements within the administration itself and the military.

Who knows.

For an explanation of what I think the red and yellow lines show in the image below, see this page.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/corefacesexplodinglines.jpg

[juliekc]

Hi Veritas2007. Yes, I've heard about the powerdowns on a couple of weekends prior to 9/11. Unfortunately a couple of weekends wouldn't be enough time to wire a building for demolition. It takes months. And even then they don't have to hide thousands of feet of detonating cord.

Nope, sorry, it doesn't work.

(Er, christophera and klinker...I've sort of tried to ignore the suggestion on grounds of living in the real world, but are you suggesting - I hope I've got the wrong end of the stick here - that energy weapons were used?)

JulieKC

[dave52]

I'm coming round to the Direct Energy Weapons concept. If you're gonna take out two of the largest buildings in the world, why not coincide it with some advanced weapon testing...

And I agree, the question of whether it was possible to rig the twin towers without people knowing is definately worth considering. Building 7 would have been easy to do (considering the organisations housed in that building). Also, compared to WTC1 and 2, WTC7 looks very, very conventional indeed.

[klinker]

(Er, christophera and klinker...I've sort of tried to ignore the suggestion on grounds of living in the real world, but are you suggesting - I hope I've got the wrong end of the stick here - that energy weapons were used?)

Well if you think that the impact and fire from the planes alone brought down the towers then I'm happy to entertain the possibility of energy weapons.

You are new here so I have to ask why you are bringing your 9/11 protestations onto this forum? If I was a newb and wanted to know about 9/11 the first thing I would do is google it and having googled it I would also find that the Icke website does not appear anywhere soon in the 186 million hits returned by the search. Of course as a newb I would also not have read Alice in Wonderland and the WTC disaster. So in short this is the last forum I would choose to debunk any 9/11 evidence that counters the 'official' story. I'd be hitting the 9/11 truthers website first and foremost.

I'm not questioning your opinion on the matter as I've already stated you are entitled to believe what you want but I am questioning your motivation.

[mercuryrapids]

Tell me the cut beam in the background happened because the tower just collapsed:

http://piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

And no, it wasn't cut during the clean-up. The angle of the cut is consistent with the placing of a thermate/thermite charge.

[juliekc]

I'm not questioning your opinion on the matter as I've already stated you are entitled to believe what you want but I am questioning your motivation.

Mainly because other forums have people arguing both sides. On this site, as far as I can see, the conspiracy theories are taken for granted.

Of course as a newb I would also not have read Alice in Wonderland and the WTC disaster.

I've actually read quite a bit about 9/11, but unlike many I don't limit my reading to the conspiracy sites, I also read the other side.

This article pretty much sums up my views:

http://nobeliefs.com/comments8.htm


Mercuryrapids, interesting photo. This article gives a different view:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm


JulieKC

[klinker]

Mainly because other forums have people arguing both sides. On this site, as far as I can see, the conspiracy theories are taken for granted.



I've actually read quite a bit about 9/11, but unlike many I don't limit my reading to the conspiracy sites, I also read the other side.

This article pretty much sums up my views:

http://nobeliefs.com/comments8.htm


JulieKC

What other forums would you be referring to?

Have you searched this forum for earlier discussions regarding 9/11?

I would not use the phrase taken for granted when it comes to peoples opinions. Given that the 9/11 crime took place six years ago I believe that by now anyone who has researched the subject and studied all of the available evidence have made their minds up conclusively. After all these years anyone still arguing the 'official' line is doing so from a very deliberate viewpoint to do nothing more than slow down the gathering momentum of the truth movement. It's a war for peoples minds.

[mercuryrapids]

19 hijackers who couldn't even fly Cessnas managed to overpower experienced cabin crews with box-cutters, take over four planes, turn off the transponders, then fly them into their targets (except for Flight 93) with astonishing precision?

How did these hijackers also manage to get NORAD to stand down? Did they also arrange the eerily-similar terrorist scenario exercises for 9/11 that were conducted by the US military?

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts from airliners comparable in size to the jets that hit them, yet they collapsed after almost no time at all. The fires inside were under control (as heard on audio record from the brigade commander of the FDNY who said they could 'knock them out with two lines') and they were not blazing at the high temperatures to significantly weaken the steel support beams. People were seen standing in the holes left by the planes. If this area was weakened by these raging fires, how could people be standing there? The towers collapsed at almost freefall speed. Physics (not to mention common sense) should tell us that each floor below should have slowed the pace of collapsed, yet it went down at about ten floors per second!

WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, had minor fires, minor damaged (compared to buildings nearby) and collapsed into its own footprint at near freefall speed.

Multiple witnesses reports explosions before the first plane hit.

Who had the foresight to purchase put options on the two airlines, insurance companies and finanacial institutions involved just before 9/11?

Why were no jet fighters launched to intercept the hijacked planes for at least half an hour after the second plane hit and why did those jets head out over the Atlantic Ocean?

On September 10th, Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 trillion dollars of defence budget money could not be accounted for. The next day, the side of the Pentagon that was barely occupied because of renovation work, but did contain the department that would have investigated this 'missing' fortune.

Oh, one could go on and on with the evidence that 9/11 was not a conspiracy formulated by Islamic extermists (remember, the official story is a conspiracy theory, too), but was a horrendous, murderous plot conceived within the halls of power in the American government.

[klinker]

I've actually read quite a bit about 9/11, but unlike many I don't limit my reading to the conspiracy sites, I also read the other side.

This article pretty much sums up my views:

http://nobeliefs.com/comments8.htm


Mercuryrapids, interesting photo. This article gives a different view:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm


JulieKC

Woops I missed the edit.

Do you think this is a conspiracy site?

Who are the many that limit their reading to conspiracy theories? That's something of a poor assumption. Personally it was around a year after the event before I started my own research into 9/11 and up to then all I had heard in the mainstream was the official story but despite this programming I knew that something was not right simply based upon what I had seen in the mainstream.

Thanks for the links. Been through most of them them before.

I think it is too easy to under estimate the power of those in control and to what lengths they will go to in order to protect themselves. Despite 9/11 being one of the many horrors and crimes that are committed around the world continually I am still unable to fully grasp how these people can be capable of such deliberate acts.

[mercuryrapids]

Mercuryrapids, interesting photo. This article gives a different view:

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Very interesting, however, it is an opinion bolstered by supportable data, in much the same way as the opposite argument is an opinion bolstered by supportable data. Dr Steven Jones isn't some fly-by-night academic who cannot be trusted with his data and conclusions. he is a highly-regarded physicist. His conclusions may be right, they may be wrong, and they should be tested, but they shouldn't be dismissed.

By the way, Jones says Thermate was probably used, as opposed to thermite.

Here is a photo of a thermate cutting line being installed. Note how the area around is cleared and how low the charge is placed:

http://portland.indymedia.org/media/images/2006/07/343155.jpg

Now look back at the Ground Zero photo:

http://piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

The area around the cut beam is still filled with debris and the cut is much higher.

[juliekc]

Woah, mercuryrapids. I'm not getting into the rest of the conspiracy theories, I'm just arguing why it was impossible that the twin towers were demolished. If that's established then almost all of the rest of the conspiracy theories can be dismissed.

I'll recap.

The towers failed from the points of impact of the hijacked planes. They collapsed downwards from those exact points (which would be hard to organise artificially - impossible actually) rather than from the bottom up.

The towers were already buckling around the impact sites before the collapse as can be seen in photos. When the collapse starts you can see the snapping girders flick up as expected when the trusses give way. (Quote from Leslie Robertson, who designed The World Trade Centre: "I think the structures were stalwart but they were not that stalwart. There was no fire suppression system that could even begin to deal with that, with that event, nothing, nothing, so I, I, I didn't know whether they would fall or not fall.")

Demolishing the twin towers would take months of preparation. When did this happen? Certainly not over 2 weekends. The Landmark Tower was only 30 storeys but that took 4 months work to prepare for demolition. The WTC would take longer. So I think we can rule that out on the grounds that it's nonsensical.

It doesn't even look like a demolition.

Finally it's claimed the building was blown up by energy weapons. I don't even know where to begin with that one.

My conclusion: they were not demolished.

JulieKC

[mercuryrapids]

... and of course, you're entitled to your opinion and I whole-heartedly respect that. :)

The towers failed from the points of impact of the hijacked planes. They collapsed downwards from those exact points (which would be hard to organise artificially - impossible actually) rather than from the bottom up.

It has been suggested that the planes flew into designated floors of the towers by remote control. A transponder device (or whatever the technical term might be) would be on the floor that was to be hit and the plane homed in on that. Also recall that the vast majority of the fuel of the plane ignited outside the building. There was even one chap (as shown in a BBC documentary) who hid under his desk when he saw the plane approaching his floor and he survived!

Now, I don't know about this remote control thing, but it's something to think about. We know that large aircraft can be flown remotely. In the 1980s, NASA repeatedly took off and landed a large airliner before deliberately crashing it. All this was done without anybody being on board. Of course, just because something can be done, that doesn't mean it was.

The towers were already buckling around the impact sites before the collapse as can be seen in photos. When the collapse starts you can see the snapping girders flick up as expected when the trusses give way. (Quote from Leslie Robertson, who designed The World Trade Centre: "I think the structures were stalwart but they were not that stalwart. There was no fire suppression system that could even begin to deal with that, with that event, nothing, nothing, so I, I, I didn't know whether they would fall or not fall.")

Yes, you see the area of the most damage buckling as the tower started to come down, but wouldn't that be expected anyway? Dr Jones has noted that in these areas there seemed to be molten iron pouring out, such as would be seen if cutting charges were eating through the support beams. I admit, though, that this footage is a big stumbling block for the 9/11 Truth Movement and is difficult to explain away (even though I just had a go...lol).

Demolishing the twin towers would take months of preparation. When did this happen? Certainly not over 2 weekends. The Landmark Tower was only 30 storeys but that took 4 months work to prepare for demolition. The WTC would take longer. So I think we can rule that out on the grounds that it's nonsensical.

The WTC towers were targetted in 1993 when FBI-backed (yes, that's what I said) terrorists blew up a van packed with explosives in the underground car park. The explosion made a crater over a hundred feet wide and four-storeys deep and the building remained standing. So, really, they had eight years to have another pop at it. I wonder how much coming and going went on in the towers during those eight years, with businesses arriving and leaving and workmen coming in and out?

It doesn't even look like a demolition.

It doesn't look like an orthodox demolition, I agree, but it was the best way to bring it down. A top-down demolition would ensure that the building wouldn't topple to the side (which was allegedly the plan for the 1993 attack). It would go straight down, although the immediate area would be devastated.

Finally it's claimed the building was blown up by energy weapons. I don't even know where to begin with that one.

Me neither. can't imagine that, myself.

[veritas2007]

19 hijackers who couldn't even fly Cessnas managed to overpower experienced cabin crews with box-cutters, take over four planes, turn off the transponders, then fly them into their targets (except for Flight 93) with astonishing precision?

How did these hijackers also manage to get NORAD to stand down? Did they also arrange the eerily-similar terrorist scenario exercises for 9/11 that were conducted by the US military?

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts from airliners comparable in size to the jets that hit them, yet they collapsed after almost no time at all. The fires inside were under control (as heard on audio record from the brigade commander of the FDNY who said they could 'knock them out with two lines') and they were not blazing at the high temperatures to significantly weaken the steel support beams. People were seen standing in the holes left by the planes. If this area was weakened by these raging fires, how could people be standing there? The towers collapsed at almost freefall speed. Physics (not to mention common sense) should tell us that each floor below should have slowed the pace of collapsed, yet it went down at about ten floors per second!

WTC 7 was not even hit by a plane, had minor fires, minor damaged (compared to buildings nearby) and collapsed into its own footprint at near freefall speed.

Multiple witnesses reports explosions before the first plane hit.

Who had the foresight to purchase put options on the two airlines, insurance companies and finanacial institutions involved just before 9/11?

Why were no jet fighters launched to intercept the hijacked planes for at least half an hour after the second plane hit and why did those jets head out over the Atlantic Ocean?

On September 10th, Donald Rumsfeld announced that $2.3 trillion dollars of defence budget money could not be accounted for. The next day, the side of the Pentagon that was barely occupied because of renovation work, but did contain the department that would have investigated this 'missing' fortune.

Oh, one could go on and on with the evidence that 9/11 was not a conspiracy formulated by Islamic extermists (remember, the official story is a conspiracy theory, too), but was a horrendous, murderous plot conceived within the halls of power in the American government.

Is it possible that the collapse of the towers was unexpected by the perpertrators?

Just a thought. It certainly seems to fit with both sides of this argument.

[mercuryrapids]

Is it possible that the collapse of the towers was unexpected by the perpertrators?

I doubt it, otherwise why would WTC7 also be brought down?

[christophera]

Tell me the cut beam in the background happened because the tower just collapsed:

http://piratenews.org/thermite-thermate-wtc-steel400.jpg

And no, it wasn't cut during the clean-up. The angle of the cut is consistent with the placing of a thermate/thermite charge.

Greetings mercuryrapids,

There was TONS of thermite used in the first floor and basement, but, unfortunately that column is not evidence for thermite.

Thermite cuts are smooth round and amorphous in nature. Thermite is a liquid when burning and must be led in place by a special fixture which is very bulky.

I've been a welder for 35 years, for 25 years I've operated heavy equipment and done a fair amount of salvage. That is a salvage cut and it is easily seen in the varigations of the left side on the lower portion. there are specific reasons it is done like it is. It is a form of "safety cut".

I have a major problem with this being presented as evidence of thermite. It reduces the credibility of the truth movement to make such grave and obvious errors.

It is only obvious to an experienced person and, unfortunately, most truthers are computer nerds and not construction worker, welders, operators. The right wing, conservatives ranks are full of hard working, experienced people and they laugh their asses off when finding stuff like this being called a "thermite cut".

http://www.rense.com/general70/pic87932.jpg

I have a page devoted to that torch cut column with a message sent to rense.com asking them to remove it or change it or something. No action yet, but there is always hope.

http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11disinfo-rense.html

Not to diss your enthusiasm a bit. I love it, just get it right.

BTW, the Twin Towers had a steel reinforced cast concrete core NOT steel core columns as FEMA presented.

I made a video about the deception and what it means.

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition I
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6240504594075547308&q=twin+towers+deception+and+demolition&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Twin Tower Deception and Demolition II
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5255701680091399090&q=twin+towers+deception+and+demolition&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

ON EDIT:

Here's the evidence for thermite.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/thermite.html

Plus the cooked cars. When thermite goes of there is an intense heating of the near by air and quite a bit of fine burning particulate can be generated along with a huge superheated mass of air. There was a slight breeze that mornign and the burning particulate in a wave of heat lit the cars.

[christophera]

Is it possible that the collapse of the towers was unexpected by the perpertrators?

Just a thought. It certainly seems to fit with both sides of this argument.

I've thought a great deal about what the intent of the perps was.

1. I found that the order of "collapse" (sic) was a major screw up IF the intent was to create the impresson taht planes and fire took the towers down.

2. Accordingly, how was the plan supposed to go had it gone right?

I even made a portion of my 9-11 site to deal with it, and all related events.

The pilot of the flight 11 hit the wrong tower.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

[veritas2007]

I've thought a great deal about what the intent of the perps was.

1. I found that the order of "collapse" (sic) was a major screw up IF the intent was to create the impresson taht planes and fire took the towers down.

2. Accordingly, how was the plan supposed to go had it gone right?

I even made a portion of my 9-11 site to deal with it, and all related events.

The pilot of the flight 11 hit the wrong tower.

http://algoxy.com/psych/9-11scenario.html#anchor1207667

Many thanks christophera, I found that to be very informative especially the videos which I commend you on. This has exposed me to another area of investigation I had previously not been aware of.

[catfood]

Demolishing the twin towers would take months of preparation. When did this happen? Certainly not over 2 weekends. The Landmark Tower was only 30 storeys but that took 4 months work to prepare for demolition. The WTC would take longer. So I think we can rule that out on the grounds that it's nonsensical.

JulieKC

Marvin Bush had plenty of time to set it up.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html

If it takes months to set up buildings to collapse like that, how was it achieved so well just by crashing two planes in to them?

Also thanks for taking a stand for the official story. Your right that we need people to argue both sides.:)

[juliekc]

Also thanks for taking a stand for the official story. Your right that we need people to argue both sides.

Thanks, catfood. I think it's vital too. I do take a very sceptical view of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I'm fascinated by them at the same time. Hell, if they've got substance they need examining.

JulieKC.

[christophera]

Well no, the squibs can't be escaping air... becuase there are other paths of far less resistance the air could take at the front of the pressure wave: for the squibs to be air escaping ten or fifteen floors below the collapse front is simply nonsensical.

Correct, because the windows can take less than one PSI of pressure.

[boots]

Thanks, catfood. I think it's vital too. I do take a very sceptical view of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I'm fascinated by them at the same time. Hell, if they've got substance they need examining.

JulieKC.

So how much substance do you want