Do You believe 9/11 was staged or really a terrorist attack ? (poll) (srs)

[Rowbro]

The fire floors had weakened steel. Non fire floors had columns whose primary spot of failure was at adjoining points with other column sections. Where are the marks where the thermite cut through that steel?

Again, based on your calculations, how far should the steel have strayed from the tower?

thank you for the quick rebuttal.


And to voodoo, you refuse to read or rebut the source i've quoted multiple times: see in bold what i've already explained:

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips.

you're seriously pissing me off with your ignorance and disrespect towards us, along with your continued argument of aspects that have already been shown to be caused by the impact and subsequent fires of the plane and its jet fuel. I post the words READ MY SOURCE and you literally take it out of context and say there was no collapse. TAKE MY WORDS FOR WHAT THEY ARE, DO NOT FORM A STRAW MAN TO TRY AND DISPROVE WHAT I SAY. Read the source, because yes the towers DID collapse, demolition or not. Your points are so weak and you are ignoring every single fact that clearly counters what you are saying. You repost something we already disproved! What are you trying to accomplish here?
Honestly I've about had it with you and your games, you are either an excellent troll or some incredibly ignorant and fallacious person to miss what i've been saying for the last 3 posts.

[y0lked]

^^ Even if that were true, the building would not have fallen the way it did. It would have fallen slow as each level would collapse on top of the other. And that would not happen at instantaneous speed, nor was there any evidence of floors falling near the insertion of the plane

[jamout]

^^ Even if that were true, the building would not have fallen the way it did. It would have fallen slow as each level would collapse on top of the other. And that would not happen at instantaneous speed, nor was there any evidence of floors falling near the insertion of the plane

The tower would not have fallen slowly. Please explain how it would slow down. The falling mass increased as the tower collapsed, making it easier for it to destroy the floors below.
What do you mean by instantaneous speed? Everything has an instantaneous speed. It is its speed at that instant. You make no sense.


What do you mean no evidence of floors falling near the insertion of the plane? There are dozens of pictures which show the floor trusses have completely failed and the floors have collapsed. I posted a video of the collapse earlier in this thread. The video is zoomed in on the floors of collapse initiation, which is the same area as that in which the planes entered the building.

Your entire post is incorrect and proven so by pictures and video in the NIST report and in this thread.

[Bobly]

since u cant read ill spell it out for you. How is it easier to bring down a building with an airplane than it is with a demolition team?

What do you mean by easier?

Someone flying a plane into a building has no rules or regulations and has not direct control over how the building will fall if it even does that. It's not guaranteed that the building will collapse, but obviously this method requires much less man power and knowledge than planting explosives does.

A demolitions expert can bring down a building with greater success than someone flying a plane into one and hoping it comes down, but obviously the process is a lot more involved.

I'm not sure what answer your looking for. Just because a certain method is more effective doesn't mean it's easier; in fact, often the opposite is true.

I do have to ask you though. If you think that demolishing a skyscraper is such an easy feat why is it in your opinion that the government decided to fly a plane into the towers and demolish them? Wouldn't either just flying a plane into them or just demolishing them without the use of planes sufficed to accomplish whatever goals they had?

[Rowbro]

since u cant read ill spell it out for you. How is it easier to bring down a building with an airplane than it is with a demolition team?

You hijack the damn airplane and fly it into the building with the hope that it will fall down. The jet crashes into the outer support structure, severing support beams on the outside of the building and damaging the core support structure of the building. Fires of high but varying temperatures:

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.

caused structural damage to the remaining supports, which already had more stress on them because of the initially damaged/severed supports from the crash. Eventually the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns of the outside wall and the core structure failed, causing a few floors to collapse, which made a chain reaction of all the floors collapsing.

VERSUS: you find some incredibly skilled people willing to do dirty work; they intricately plant explosives under cover, with none of the explosives ever being detected or found within the building, then detonate them all perfectly at the right time, causing the building to collapse without any prior warning of explosions (besides the ****ing jet plane and fuel that destroyed lots of the support and is weakening the remaining supportive structures) and watch the building fall down. In 10 years, no one leaks or reveals any sort of secret data to support this claim, and no connections were ever made to any kind of demolition team.

I find story #1, with all of its architectural and scientific explanations, MUCH more believable, and flying a plane into a building seems a HELL of a lot easier than demolishing it secretly. Come on, they hardly had any security back before 2001. All they had to do was stab a few people, establish control over the plane and passengers, and then fly it wherever they wanted to.

[voodoo101]

The fire floors had weakened steel. Non fire floors had columns whose primary spot of failure was at adjoining points with other column sections. Where are the marks where the thermite cut through that steel?

Again, based on your calculations, how far should the steel have strayed from the tower?

"Strayed" from the towers? At 70 MPH? Almost all of it straight as an arrow, cleanly cut, undeformed by heat? You are the one who has to answer, how did it get cut? I thought the story was it got soft like clay and it just kind of mushed down on itself. Ridiculous I know, but that's what you expected people to believe. The "calculations" are called gravity. It goes down, unless "lateral" gravity was unusually strong that day. Take a twenty ton wrecking ball, hoist it 1000 feet into the air, and drop it. See if under any circumstances it goes sideways to land two football fields away.

We know the rest of the fantasy physics for the dumb Americans: "20 floors of concrete fell and built up momentum enough to crush 80 floors of skyscraper." Ayup. Except the the upper 20 floors, like the rest of the floors, are mostly hollow, like all office buildings, the point being to rent space and all. The floor assemblies were lightweight steel pan and concrete construction. Your "momentum of crashing concrete" explanation is for cavemen.

Oh right, but we are talking about steel frames weakened by fire again. But if the steel was bendy, how did it snap?

I'm only humoring you, because none of this is necessary. The fact that Building 7 was a clear demolition, and they lied about it, alone is enough to open a criminal case. Got another job lined up?

cross section of typical floor in tower, concrete floor slab less than 4 inches thick.


CLICK FOR DETAIL


Join US Senator Mike Gravel for 911 Truth:
http://9-11cc.org/

more info
http://busharchives.org

[Bobly]

Oh right, but we are talking about steel frames weakened by fire again. But if the steel was bendy, how did it snap?

Isn't it reasonable to think that the steel that was located near the fired failed because it bent and snapped due to the heat and that steel that wasn't exposed to flames just snapped during the collapse?

I'm only humoring you, because none of this is necessary. The fact that Building 7 was a clear demolition, and they lied about it, alone is enough to open a criminal case. Got another job lined up?

Why is it that Building 7 was a clear demolition because it fell in its own footprint and the twin towers were clear demolitions because the debris scattered far away from the building? Aren't those somewhat opposing views?

[IraHays]

I sometimes wonder why people still believe in God. Then I see these 911 tards and think it's probably the same trait. For some reason normally rational people lose all sense of reason when it comes to certain subjects.

[Rowbro]

omfg it was very clearly explained how much weight each floor was designed to hold and that the compressive force was over 30 times that which it was designed to withstand.

here is the gamechanger right here. I urge you in one last attempt at logic and sanity, out of respect to the victims's families, than you pay attention what what I'm showing you, understand that this is clear visual footage and expert research done, and that you let go of this notion that the government would horrendously murder 3,000 of its own people for some sort of underground profit. The facts are clearly and uniformly explained, so without further ado, I present information from http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm:

contrary to your claims, expansive debris gives credit to the fact that the towers were not brought down by controlled demolition, as evidenced in these videos.



This video is the single most important piece of evidence disproving the conspiracy theories;. More importantly, it is also a somber reminder of the horror of that day that you guys have to let go of.



another debunk video, this one showing the lack of debris from an explosion; rather, debris built up as the towers had already started to fall.


"Can you tell what's missing here? There is no ejection of debris at the moment of collapse. The debris builds up slowly as the collapse progresses. The so called "scholars" say there were explosives which cut the columns to begin the collapse. The evidence does not support that rationalization. What this evidence does support is the NIST's report which says the columns were pulled in by the floors which started the collapse."

All of these statements are logical and grounded in solid evidence. Provide counter arguments specifically to them, without trying to shy away from the exact message you know they are getting across, and I will continue to debate this topic with anyone who provides a rational response, but I'm done trying to reason with you guys when you provide silly claims that really are contradictory at best.

[jamout]

Voodoo, again the columns that snapped at the joints were on floors not affected by fire, and thus, were not weakened. Where are the weakest points? The joints, of course.

The lateral gravity (as you call it), is called deflection. When objects strike each other on surfaces that are not completely flat wrt each other a deflection force is created.

[GrokTheCube]

OK, so when these theories first started out, it was said that the towers must have been demolished because they collpased perfectly into their footprint rather than sending debris flying, and now they must have been demloshied because they didn't collapse perfectly, and sent debris flying? Wtf?

This is a big part of why I can't buy the demo theories. No one can come up with a logical and consistent story.

Truthers need to focus on the stuff that matters, not these hare brained theories. The investigation sucked, and something was covered up. I do not know if it was criminal negligence, conspiracy, or just "looking the other way", but it'd be cool to eventually find out, and it will never happen if asking questions lands you in the same camp as people brainstorming highly improbable (if not impossible) theories about bombs and missiles.

"I'd like another investigation with ironclad subpoena and indictment powers, we clearly never got the whole story, even the first commission said so."
"Lol brah you fukin moron do you honestly believe George Bush plamted bombs in the towers/hit pentagon with missile/used holograms instead of real planes/is a lizard?"

You see the dilema? It's not the highest thing on my list, but I'd like a better investigation. I also don't want to be associated with ideas that make me look like a wingnut.

[Rowbro]

I sometimes wonder why people still believe in God. Then I see these 911 tards and think it's probably the same trait. For some reason normally rational people lose all sense of reason when it comes to certain subjects.

I dunno I think it's not irrational to believe in God, I do and I am a very logical person. However to contradict yourself repeatedly in these muddled and disproven conspiracy theories is very illogical. That I can agree with.

[SaulSilver]

Lots of broscience ITT.

[97srad750]

L! O! fukkin L! Talk about how you think Americans are stupid! Like physicists and chemists don't know the difference between termite and paint. Ignoring your "Harrit" reference until you give me a link. I notice how you guys don't like to use them, and if you don't back something up, you are just talking sh!t.

Then you compare the behavior of a pencil snapping to a 110-story steel and concrete structure! They even talk to you like you are children, "Look how far splinters of wood will fly. See Jack run."

Got news for you, when a 20-ton beam has a "collision" with a building below, it doesn't bounce, like in the cartoons. It punches a hole right through that building.

This is how stupid they think we are, folks. They are smarter, so they deserve to run the world. And kill you like sheep if they need to.

CLICK VIDEO: Architects & Engineers Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

As I said you guys around in circles. Video addressed several times, yet none of you felt then need to discuss it.

[97srad750]

your an idiot. actually read my post

He's the idiot yet you posted a video that the makers aren't even backing anymore? How's that work?

[97srad750]

^^ Even if that were true, the building would not have fallen the way it did. It would have fallen slow as each level would collapse on top of the other. And that would not happen at instantaneous speed, nor was there any evidence of floors falling near the insertion of the plane

Based on what? You playing a game of Jenga?

[voodoo101]

Isn't it reasonable to think that the steel that was located near the fired failed because it bent and snapped due to the heat and that steel that wasn't exposed to flames just snapped during the collapse?

Not really. Steel is a heat sink, an excellent heat conductor, and the heat would diffuse rapidly throughout the entire tower frame, not just stay in one part of it. That's why if you put one end of a crowbar into a fireplace you will feel the heat on the othe side right away.

Moreover, what you suggest is still based on the idea that the weight of the upper floors crushed 47 vertical steel box columns, many 5 feet wide, cross-braced and built to bear five times the maximum expected live load. That is not possible. Kerosene (jet fuel) and fire-retardant office furniture fires can't make steel soft to begin with, and even if it did, it wouldn't snap. Snapping requires high tensile strength and if steel is soft enough to bend, it has lost its tensile strength.



It's easy, watch how fast they jump in to bury and completely ignore this next video. For 20 seconds after the south tower was demolished, a large piece of core assembly remained standing, which at 60 stories high, still would have been the tallest structure in Manhattan. Then you see it apparantly swallowed up, intact by the ground as if a 60-story hole had opened up beneath it, Where is the "massive weight of concrete" pushing it down? Obviously no 600 foot hole opened up in the ground. Where did it go?

It is being demolished into smaller pieces from the bottom up. Otherwise they should have found a 600-foot piece of core structure laying for blocks across lower Manhattan. My guess is something went wrong with the top-down demolition, and they had the core columns redundantly wired for a traditional bottom-up take down for just such an event. It's just a guess, but this is the video we weren't supposed to see.

Core remains standing, CLICK VIDEO:



Still photo of remaining core:




For an explanation on why open air hydrocarbon fires cannot make steel soft, or melt, please go to: "Simple Calculations Showing the Official 911 Story is Impossible"

[voodoo101]

Based on what? You playing a game of Jenga?

See? This is what the disinfo traitors (if they are Americans) do. Smart-a$$es, this is an honest question and they give you a smart-a$$ answer to discourage discussion. This is their modus operandi. Remember, the punks think they are much smarter than you, and that America will never figure out 911. We are good for fighting wars, that's all.

[Bobly]

What you suggest is still based on the idea that the weight of the upper floors crushed 47 vertical steel box columns, many 5 feet wide, cross-braced and built to bear five times the maximum expected live load. That is not possible.

OK first of all it was posted earlier in this thread that it was possible, but that's not even the point. My response was to a discussion that arose from this picture you posted. The beams circled are part of the external structure and not part of the core structure.

L
from http://busharchives.org

It's easy, watch how fast they jump in to bury and completely ignore this next video. For 20 seconds after the south tower was demolished, a large piece of core assembly remained standing, which at 60 stories high, still would have been the tallest structure in Manhattan. Then you see it apparantly swallowed up, intact by the ground as if a 60-story hole had opened up beneath it, Where is the "massive weight of concrete" pushing it down? Obviously no 600 foot hole opened up in the ground. Where did it go?


It is being demolished into smaller pieces from the bottom up. Otherwise they should have found a 600-foot piece of core structure laying for blocks across lower Manhattan. My guess is something went wrong with the top-down demolition, and they had the core columns redundantly wired for a traditional bottom-up take down for just such an event. It's just a guess, but this is the video we weren't supposed to see.

Why is it unacceptable to you that the core structure could have broken at a lower floor due to the mass piling up? The core could have stood, gotten it's legs taken out from underneath and then while falling broken apart. I just don't see why the spire and the floors coming down at different times means the towers had to demolished.

Your idea suggests that the building was wired with two sets of explosives. One set blew up the floor and the exterior driving debris far from the footprint while the other was wired to the core and was detonated afterward for some reason, instead of at the same time.

What the point even be of taking down the core if most of the building had already collapsed anyways? What motive drives an organization to not only ensure the destruction of a building, but its core "spire" as well?

I just don't see any reason to believe your claims and when I try to justify them by exploring various possible motives I find none that support your claims. The possible conspiracy motives I can think of basically boil down to two things and those are create an atmosphere of fear and destroy a person or organization. A standing core structure would not be of concern to anyone who has those motives, so why the need for a redundant set of explosives? Why not fire all explosives at the same time if having the core standing for a few moments longer is so suspicious?

[voodoo101]

Isn't it reasonable to think that the steel that was located near the fired failed because it bent and snapped due to the heat and that steel that wasn't exposed to flames just snapped during the collapse?

Isn't it reasonable to think that the steel that was located near the fired failed because it bent and snapped due to the heat and that steel that wasn't exposed to flames just snapped during the collapse?

Not really. Steel is a heat sink, an excellent heat conductor, and the heat would diffuse rapidly throughout the entire tower frame now just stay in one part of it. That's why if you put one end of a crowbar into a fireplace you will feel the heat on the othe side right away.

Moreover, what you suggest is still based on the idea that the weight of the upper floors crushed 47 vertical steel box columns, many 5 feet wide, cross-braced and built to bear five times the maximum expected live load. That is not possible. Kerosene (jet fuel) and fire-retardant office furniture fires can't make steel soft to begin with, and even if it did, it wouldn't snap. Snapping requires high tensile strength and if steel is soft enough to bend, it has lost its tensile strength.



It's easy, watch how fast they jump in to bury and completely ignore this next video. For 20 seconds after the south tower was demolished, a large piece of core assembly remained standing, which at 60 stories high, still would have been the tallest structure in Manhattan. Then you see it apparantly swallowed up, intact by the ground as if a 60-story hole had opened up beneath it, Where is the "massive weight of concrete" pushing it down? Obviously no 600 foot hole opened up in the ground. Where did it go?

It is being demolished into smaller pieces from the bottom up. Otherwise they should have found a 600-foot piece of core structure laying for blocks across lower Manhattan. My guess is something went wrong with the top-down demolition, and they had the core columns redundantly wired for a traditional bottom-up take down for just such an event. It's just a guess, but this is the video we weren't supposed to see.

Core remains standing, CLICK VIDEO:



Still photo of remaining core:




For an explanation on why open air hydrocarbon fires cannot make steel soft, or melt, please go to: "Simple Calculations Showing the Official 911 Story is Impossible"

[TheRighteous]

I think that although it was obviously staged by the United States government it was also a terrorist attack committed by Al Qaeda. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Bobly]

Not really. Steel is a heat sink, an excellent heat conductor, and the heat would diffuse rapidly throughout the entire tower frame now just stay in one part of it. That's why if you put one end of a crowbar into a fireplace you will feel the heat on the othe side right away.

I work with steel and while it is an effective heat conductor, you're foolish to think that it can't sustain a localized hot spot. That's why I can weld a frame and grab it as long as I avoid the part of the frame I just welded.

Moreover, what you suggest is still based on the idea that the weight of the upper floors crushed 47 vertical steel box columns, many 5 feet wide, cross-braced and built to bear five times the maximum expected live load. That is not possible. Kerosene (jet fuel) and fire-retardant office furniture fires can't make steel soft to begin with, and even if it did, it wouldn't snap. Snapping requires high tensile strength and if steel is soft enough to bend, it has lost its tensile strength.

Are you going to completely ignore that you changed the beams you were talking about? Stop it with the straw man arguments; it doesn't help your cause.

It's easy, watch how fast they jump in to bury and completely ignore this next video. For 20 seconds after the south tower was demolished, a large piece of core assembly remained standing, which at 60 stories high, still would have been the tallest structure in Manhattan. Then you see it apparantly swallowed up, intact by the ground as if a 60-story hole had opened up beneath it, Where is the "massive weight of concrete" pushing it down? Obviously no 600 foot hole opened up in the ground. Where did it go?

It is being demolished into smaller pieces from the bottom up. Otherwise they should have found a 600-foot piece of core structure laying for blocks across lower Manhattan. My guess is something went wrong with the top-down demolition, and they had the core columns redundantly wired for a traditional bottom-up take down for just such an event. It's just a guess, but this is the video we weren't supposed to see.

Why repost the same comments without engaging in a debate about my response to these comments? I'm willing to bet that you can't come up with any plausible motive that necessitates that the backbone of the building be destroyed even if the majority of the building had already collapsed around it. I'm also willing to bet you can't come up with a plausible reason to detonate the explosives in the building at separate times causing the backbone to fall later.

[Popcorn_fart]

you are in denial if you dont think it is possible if not staged the evidence shows this

building goes down in 11 seconds, 11 thousand high calibre engineers say its not possible...and building 7 wasnt even struck and went down



this explains it perfectly unless the experts opinions are invalid now people just dont want to beleive and i can understand that





they all say the same thing it just cant happen it was a controlled demolition it falls down perfectly






so imo al qaeda and the us govt at the time were involved

[voodoo101]

I think that although it was obviously staged by the United States government it was also a terrorist attack committed by Al Qaeda. The two are not mutually exclusive.

We know Bin Laden was a CIA "asset" when he fought against the Russians in the 80's and they gave him money and weapons. After that I don't know. My guess is they kept him around and let him wreak havoc (USS COLE, US embassy bombings) so they could set him up as the patsy for 9/11. This is of course speculation. We know he denied involvement, and when the video came out where he "confessed" it was definitely not bin Laden. That video was a joke.


bin Laden in the 2001 confession video, after bin Laden denied involvement in 911. Not even close, higher cheekbones, different nose, shorter forehead.




Bin Laden denial:

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons. I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."

This is strange because the point of a terrorist attack is to instill fear and take credit.

[Dragger]

Voodoo101, waiting....

So let me get this straight, this is what YOU think happened...

With absolutely no motive and for no reason our government hired a demolition team with military grade nanothermite to sneak into the twin towers for weeks to hide shape charged explosives and top quality rare hard to find military nanothermite all trough the buildings(and no one seen or heard anything about this), our government hijacked 2 planes full of it's own civilians, crashed them into the twin towers AND blew them up, then our government took 2 MORE planes full of American civilians and made them disappear into thin air, THEN flew a missile into the pentagon, and scattered some debris into a remote PA forest. They then paid OBL millions of dollars to take credit for it all. And to this day no one of this supposed demolition team has ever said anything to anyone.

And THIS makes sense to you??? Why not just fly the 3rd and 4th plane into the Pentagon and into the ground in the PA forest instead of making them disappear? Where did the 3rd and 4th plane go? Where did all of their passengers go to this day??? Why not just blow up the buildings and blame it on the terrorists, no planes, no theatrics?

You conspiracy theorists come up with the silliest fantasies. You guys have WAY too much time on your hands and clearly no lives. Infact, since you don't have lives, I challenge you to take the time to figure out what demolition teams capable of pulling this off, were in New York for the weeks leading up to 9/11, with all their equipment. Go ahead, go do that and according to you, that's your 9/11 killers.

[Dragger]

www.netflix.com > watch "Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup"

A movie?

You want me to watch a movie for "answers"?

LOL! Funny how instead of ansering the questions you ignore them and tell me to watch a movie. Here's a hint, movies are a for profit product, it's entertainment.

[Dragger]

lol'd, stopped reading at that point

Good for you becuse so far none of you C/T's have been brave enough to respond to it at all. It pretty much exposes the conspiracy theories as pure garbage when you take a step back and look at what all of them add up to.

[Bushmaster]

www.netflix.com > watch "Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup"

“We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That’s the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts…. ”

-Dylan Avery

[voodoo101]

I work with steel and while it is an effective heat conductor, you're foolish to think that it can't sustain a localized hot spot. That's why I can weld a frame and grab it as long as I avoid the part of the frame I just welded.



Are you going to completely ignore that you changed the beams you were talking about? Stop it with the straw man arguments; it doesn't help your cause.



Why repost the same comments without engaging in a debate about my response to these comments? I'm willing to bet that you can't come up with any plausible motive that necessitates that the backbone of the building be destroyed even if the majority of the building had already collapsed around it. I'm also willing to bet you can't come up with a plausible reason to detonate the explosives in the building at separate times causing the backbone to fall later.

Idiot. Your blowtorch generates a 5,000F point flame, which melts steel in a small area because it outruns that area's ability to dissipate that heat. Try putting one end of your part made of steel into a bed of coals for 15 minutes. Then see if you can grab the other end. The heat applied to the tower columns would have been over a broad area, not a 5000F point flame, and would have dissipated throughout the entire structure.


I knew you guys would try to bury and ignore that video, of the intact, 60-stories tall core left standing for a full 20 seconds. You can even see the tallest 5-foot-wide core beam swaying, still solidly anchored in concrete and bedrock. Then the whole thing suddenly goes down, straight as an arrow, as if a 600 foot hole had opened up beneath it, which obviously did not happen. It was demolished from the bottom up, cut into smaller pieces in sequence.

So far the only explanation you can come up with for why it came down is "due to mass piling up," which doesn't even make sense. Then you say, quote: "The core could have stood, gotten it's legs taken out from underneath and then while falling broken apart" (link to comment here.)

More retarded bullsh!t. You guys are busted. You are partly right when you say the core "could have gotten its legs taken out from under it." That's exactly what demolition charges do. Then you show how desperate you are by trying to say that the core columns "break apart" on the way down, all by themselves! So now in your cartoon physics disinfo world for stupid Americans, construction steel shatters like glass. I'm always careful not to have any liquid in my mouth when I read you because I'm liable to spray laughing.

I'm willing to bet that you can't come up with any plausible motive that necessitates that the backbone of the building be destroyed even if the majority of the building had already collapsed around it.

Pure gibberish, I'm sure everyone will agree.

So we are still back to that question of how the most of the core and perimeter beams got blown out at 70MPH for up to two football fields away, if the cause of the "collapse" was the steel getting soft and losing its ability to bear load. And you are still back to explaining where the "MASSIVE TONS OF CONCRETE" are which push the remainder of the North Tower core down. There is nothing "pushing it down" like a "plunger," the ridiculous explanation you guys came up with for stupid Americans and probably rolled on the floor laughing while you did it. The core was demolished, like both towers and WTC7.

The video we weren't supposed to see. For 20 seconds after the rest of the south tower was demolished, a large piece of core assembly remained standing, which at 60 stories high, would still have been the tallest structure in Manhattan. Then you see it apparently swallowed up, intact by the ground as if a 60-story hole had opened up beneath it, Where is the "massive weight of concrete" pushing it down? Obviously no 600 foot hole opened up in the ground. Where did it go? It is being demolished into smaller pieces from the bottom up. Otherwise they should have found either the core still standing or a 600-foot piece of core structure laying for blocks across lower Manhattan.





Still photo of remaining core:




For an explanation on why open air hydrocarbon fires cannot make steel soft, or melt, please go to: "Simple Calculations Showing the Official 911 Story is Impossible"





Join US Senator Mike Gravel in his push for 911 Truth:
http://9-11cc.org/

[MathDaddy]

A terrorist attack that was allowed to happen by people in our government and others (Tavistock, CIA, MI5, Mossad). Too many people had too much to gain.