exactly. it just doesn't seem to make sense how the buildings could have just given way that quickly and fallen straight down on top of themselves the way they did. i could see if the tops, above the impacts, would collapse and maybe fall off to the side somewhat. but we have two buildings which sustained damage from plane crashes in very different places and at different angles, and yet they fall down in identical fashion. it just seems very odd.
add to that the numerous witnesses talking about explosions, and the fire fighters in the building saying the fires were almost out... and the pools of molten steel found in the basements.. and steven jone's evidence of thermate found on some of the steel.. i just can't believe that explosives weren't involved, and people who are a lot smarter than me hold the same opinion based on their knowledge and research.
I know. I spend a lot of time thinking about it and justifying to myself how it could have come down from planes and fire. Then I remember WTC 7 and I'm confused again.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
exactly. it just doesn't seem to make sense how the buildings could have just given way that quickly and fallen straight down on top of themselves the way they did.
Why is this so hard to grasp for some of you?
There was no other way for such a massive building to fall but straight down. Believe it or not, straight down was the path of least resistance for these structures. For the majority of the structure, the pull of gravity was stronger than the resistance of the underlying structure. Also the buildings did not fall down exactly on thier own footprint. Debris was spread out several blocks and damaged neighboring buildings.
The buildings did not fall "at free-fall speeds" either. A simple way to tell this is to watch the debris from the initial collapse of the top portions of the building outpace the rest of the collapse. If it fell at free-fall speeds it would have all fell at the same rate.
A lot of this is so basic. I don't know why some have such a hard time grasping it.
There was no other way for such a massive building to fall but straight down. Believe it or not, straight down was the path of least resistance for these structures. For the majority of the structure, the pull of gravity was stronger than the resistance of the underlying structure. Also the buildings did not fall down exactly on thier own footprint. Debris was spread out several blocks and damaged neighboring buildings.
The buildings did not fall "at free-fall speeds" either. A simple way to tell this is to watch the debris from the initial collapse of the top portions of the building outpace the rest of the collapse. If it fell at free-fall speeds it would have all fell at the same rate.
A lot of this is so basic. I don't know why some have such a hard time grasping it.
Ok, genius...
Why did building 7 collapse?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Building 7 sustained major damage to at least 1/3 of the base of the structure, including major damage to a load bearing member (which eventually failed and initiated the collapse). It was also hit in numerous other places that contributed to fires throught the building.
Again, WTC was a massive building with only one way to fall...
There was no other way for such a massive building to fall but straight down. Believe it or not, straight down was the path of least resistance for these structures. For the majority of the structure, the pull of gravity was stronger than the resistance of the underlying structure.
in watching video of the south tower collapse, you can clearly see the top 30 or so floors tipping off the side of the building as the collapse begins. with all of that huge mass moving away from the middle of the building, what force was pushing down on the other side of building - opposite of the direction of the tipping - to cause it to collapse? not just collapse.. but explode out floor by floor? it would seem to me that the once the top of the building starts tipping, it would continue to tip, possibly scraping off one side of the building as it fell.
The buildings did not fall "at free-fall speeds" either. A simple way to tell this is to watch the debris from the initial collapse of the top portions of the building outpace the rest of the collapse. If it fell at free-fall speeds it would have all fell at the same rate.
the buildings were gone in about 10-12 seconds. that's 10 floors of steel and concrete being pulverized in just over a second. the collapses weren't gradual. the buildings didn't start to give, and then gradually build up momentum as the collapse continued. the buildings were standing there, barely on fire anymore, with no one concerned about a collapse, then all of a sudden, down they go in seconds.
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
Building 7 sustained major damage to at least 1/3 of the base of the structure, including major damage to a load bearing member (which eventually failed and initiated the collapse). It was also hit in numerous other places that contributed to fires throught the building.
Again, WTC was a massive building with only one way to fall...
Down.
buildings 5 and 6 had towers one and two land on top of them. building 7 was much further away and didn't sustain damage nearly as half as bad as 7 allegedly did. yet, 5 and 6 didn't collapse. they were later - to use the term used by a demo expert in a pbs documentary - "pulled", meaning delibrately demolished.
again.. like the towers, no one expected 7 to come down. it showed no signs of doing so. then all of a sudden, bam.. straight down in 6 seconds, without so much as a scraped on any of the buildings it was tucked between. that doesn't seem like a random collapse to me.
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
HMMMMMM... It seems as though the thoughtful, sensible, open minded non victims of this thread have decided to let the elementary level, shallow thinking paraniocs think this through among themselves. They probably had to get back to work. Good luck with it guys.
Without reading the article. I would say all three.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I think what's really absurd is people's inability to question their own government.
I voted Yes.
I think what's really absurd is the fact that so many people forget to realize or understand why millions of the people of the world really don't have the ability to question their own government. At least in our country you still can and most everyone does.
I think what's really absurd is the fact that so many people forget to realize or understand why millions of the people of the world really don't have the ability to question their own government. At least in our country you still can and most everyone does.
that's true. all you have to deal with is being called unpatriotic, morally/intellectually confused, or a terrorist sympathizer
i'm more a fan of popular bands.. like the bee-gees, pearl jam
I think what's really absurd is the fact that so many people forget to realize or understand why millions of the people of the world really don't have the ability to question their own government. At least in our country you still can and most everyone does.
Comments
I know. I spend a lot of time thinking about it and justifying to myself how it could have come down from planes and fire. Then I remember WTC 7 and I'm confused again.
Why is this so hard to grasp for some of you?
There was no other way for such a massive building to fall but straight down. Believe it or not, straight down was the path of least resistance for these structures. For the majority of the structure, the pull of gravity was stronger than the resistance of the underlying structure. Also the buildings did not fall down exactly on thier own footprint. Debris was spread out several blocks and damaged neighboring buildings.
The buildings did not fall "at free-fall speeds" either. A simple way to tell this is to watch the debris from the initial collapse of the top portions of the building outpace the rest of the collapse. If it fell at free-fall speeds it would have all fell at the same rate.
A lot of this is so basic. I don't know why some have such a hard time grasping it.
Ok, genius...
Why did building 7 collapse?
Building 7 sustained major damage to at least 1/3 of the base of the structure, including major damage to a load bearing member (which eventually failed and initiated the collapse). It was also hit in numerous other places that contributed to fires throught the building.
Again, WTC was a massive building with only one way to fall...
Down.
in watching video of the south tower collapse, you can clearly see the top 30 or so floors tipping off the side of the building as the collapse begins. with all of that huge mass moving away from the middle of the building, what force was pushing down on the other side of building - opposite of the direction of the tipping - to cause it to collapse? not just collapse.. but explode out floor by floor? it would seem to me that the once the top of the building starts tipping, it would continue to tip, possibly scraping off one side of the building as it fell.
the buildings were gone in about 10-12 seconds. that's 10 floors of steel and concrete being pulverized in just over a second. the collapses weren't gradual. the buildings didn't start to give, and then gradually build up momentum as the collapse continued. the buildings were standing there, barely on fire anymore, with no one concerned about a collapse, then all of a sudden, down they go in seconds.
buildings 5 and 6 had towers one and two land on top of them. building 7 was much further away and didn't sustain damage nearly as half as bad as 7 allegedly did. yet, 5 and 6 didn't collapse. they were later - to use the term used by a demo expert in a pbs documentary - "pulled", meaning delibrately demolished.
again.. like the towers, no one expected 7 to come down. it showed no signs of doing so. then all of a sudden, bam.. straight down in 6 seconds, without so much as a scraped on any of the buildings it was tucked between. that doesn't seem like a random collapse to me.
1998 Seattle 7-21
2000 Seattle 11-06
2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
2005 Gorge 9-1
2006 Gorge 7-23
they aren't "conspiracy" theories. they are theories. they are no crazier than the "official" theory being floated around by our gvt.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/atta_9-11.html
again with this wacky website. i'm gonna start one called thetruthandnothingbutthetruth.com I will speak the truth there I promise.
Without reading the article. I would say all three.
another fine retort
I think what's really absurd is people's inability to question their own government.
I voted Yes.
100% agree with that!
I think what's really absurd is the fact that so many people forget to realize or understand why millions of the people of the world really don't have the ability to question their own government. At least in our country you still can and most everyone does.
1998 Seattle 7-21
2000 Seattle 11-06
2003 Seattle Benaroya 10-22
2005 Gorge 9-1
2006 Gorge 7-23
that's true. all you have to deal with is being called unpatriotic, morally/intellectually confused, or a terrorist sympathizer
theres a difference between questioning the government's "offical" story i.e 9/11 commission report and flat out accusing them of being in on it.
so thinking the government was in on 911 makes me unpatriotic?
I realize that
I was talking specifically about the USA.