see my post 172

in a day of unprecedented events happening it would be strange not to find something strange

and as has been discussed paper reacts exactly like that in an explosion - I,e, it disperses - the physics are quite easy, something about mass relative to surface area

als see my "what are the chances" post - all explained

 

With all the fires raging in the twin Towers, there will have been all sorts of explosions going on, gas cannisters, transformers. Virtually impossible to accurately tell where the noises were coming from in that environment, lots of echos, confusion etc.

WTC7 fell because a sodding great building fell on it, weakened it and it had a large fire. It' snot rocket science.

 

what I want to know is

what does the multi millionaire conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, have to gain by perpetuating this nonsense

 

Time spent pontificating on this might curb their online retail spending? Just a theory........I mean you could just like maybe not log on, but each to their own right.

 

Compare those scenes to the post Pentacon...

 

Explosions were heard and seen and recorded on film coming from the base levels, not on the 80 whatever floors where some smallish fires were - and black smoke only remember so no-where near girder bending temps

At a few levels down the lights, air con, lifts etc were working fine

neither tower fell on top WTC7. Both free-fell on their own footprint

rocket science it is?

 

is it your position that Explosions = Explosives

 

none of them are an exact match for any of the crash's on 9/11, the whole point is even in mega carnage of a crash there is still wreckage, wether inside the crash area aka the building or elsewhere.

http://www.iangoddard.com/pentagon.htm

blows every single one of the arguments out the water, including actual examples of whee its happeed before in the past.

 

The truth is somewhere in the middle, where exactly that is will always be one of the many known un-knowns.

 

That's physically impossible, in fact 'falling on their own footprint' actually mean they'd have to be still standing up

 

theyw ould have been designed to collapse staight down into an area as small as possible rather than falling over sideways and landing on a bigger area.

wont be exactly in its own footprint, but wont be a huge area

 

I really can't rule it out, and given what I have seen seems the only one left

Similar high tower infernos (Spain) which burnt much hotter and for hours longer did not come down.

Skyscrapers of the ilk are specifically designed to withstand multiple large aircraft impacts

What about the TT's owner - Silverstein? What did he do two months before they fell? Didn't he sell them, or insure for them for double, or something - he then tried to sue for another zillion or something...??

 

o this is interesting as well, give some actual figure for steel weakening points etc

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...d-trade-center

 

How would you explain the way they fell into a great heap on top of themselves?

 

read thelink i put in post 193, explains exactly that

 

That article cites 'Pancaking' as the mechanism of collapse

This therory has since been deemed implausible

 

fair doos, so whats the latest theory?

 

The richest Jew family make things like this happen (Rothschild's)

 

They somehow didn't collapse, it was all an optical illusion? The towers are still there, probably hdden in plain sight by the CIA's latest cloaking device

 

Well, this is the thing - I haven't seen anything else to explain how they (both) fell in such an ordered way, except by controlled demolition.

We've all seen cooling tower demolitions going wrong when they easily splay rather than falling on themselves...

 

So it obviously wasn't a demolition then! What does that leave?

 

Utter ****

 

This is typical of conspiracy theorists; suspension of belief, belief in science and physics and common sence. In order to bring a building down in a controlled implosion requires removing none load bearing walls and weakening and putting in explosives in the supporting columns in the lower floors as well as a few in the uppoer floors like this:



On each of those floors, "fuse" wire interlink each of the columns so that explosions happen in a sequence ensure a successful implosion. Now obviously this takes time to setup and even if setup weeks before, not something you can hide in a normal office working day.

 

How much hassle in flattening a building using controlled explosions....load bearing this n that etc etc, next time a building has authority to come down just use planes, they obviously seen to bring down the biggest of towers almost perfectly not splaying sideways etc.

 

Ya think?

 

The organization has compiled a list of criteria for a controlled demolition that it says the collapse of the World Trade Center meets: the destruction followed the path of greatest resistance, the debris was symmetrically distributed, the rapid onset of the destruction, explosions and flashes reported by witnesses, steel elements were expelled from the building at high speed, the pulverization of the concrete, expanding pyroclastic clouds, lack of pancaked stories in the debris, isolated explosions 20 to 40 stories below the wave of destruction, molten steel and thermite traces found in the debris.[9]


those are some of the reason 2300 profesional architects and engineers signed a petition that demands an independent investigation with subpoena power of the September 11 attacks.

 

It must be so exasperating, why do you think so many Americans believe them

Simply lost faith in the republic

 

i dont think people "believe" the conspiracy theories as such . they mostly point out what is wrong with the official theory and give some convincing allternatives

the only people that believe any theory without question are the ones that believe the offical theory .

you seem to think you have given answers to questions i have like the passport being found , on one hand you believe the plane at the pentagon crumbled to nothing recognisable . (even though some part of it allegedly broke through the wall on the other side of the building )but you believe at the twin towers a passport could leave the plane and land a few blocks away undamaged.

barry jennings reporting to have heard explosions just doesnt matter .

because a small jet hit a reinforced concrete block perfectly square on and was pulverised. the same would happen to a boeing under differant circumstances entirly.

all you have confirmed is you are the kind of person to believe the authorities and not question what they tell you

 

Why is it a theory when hotsam - who lived nr the pentagon has friends who saw a plane hit

All the evidence, the bit of plane inside and outside of the building, the DNA of all the passengers

In fact plenty of eyewitnesses saw the plane - because as hotsam says it flew over a highway

I would either have to completely disbelieve 100s of people and all the evidence

A plane hitting the pentagon is not a theory

 

The David Copperfield effect. Whatever happened to him?