but there are equally plausible explanations to it being due to malicious intent.
This is where you are wrong. As with Evolution, this isn't about competing theories of explanation this is about A SINGLE theory and a ton or superstitious rubbish. The NIST report gives the only currently available theory. The alternative (not using conspiracy here) explanation is absurd at a level that means it is not a theory.
Why is it absurd? Simple. The "alternative" theories say that the plane couldn't bring it down, something else must have. In order for anyone, doesn't matter who, to orchestrate a controlled demolition of a building after the planes hit, they would have had to prep the building for weeks in advance. Thousands of pounds of explosives must have been brought in. Thousands of holes must have been drilled in the support infrastructure. Hundreds of miles of cable, very thick cable in fact, must have been laid all over the building.
Until the government comes up with invisible demolition crews and explosives, pneumatic drills that can drill into concrete and steel without making a single sound and miles and miles of invisible cable, the alternative theory is utterly absurd.
The difference between Evolution and ID is that Evolution is a theory. It can be tested. It can predict certain things. It has a number of other properties that makes it a theory. ID is not a theory, it is conjecture at best, but in reality a collection of mindless drivel with a fancy name. The NIST report is to the "alternative theories" what Evolution is to ID.
They reported some inaccurate information. Fine. WHERE did they get that inaccurate information?
If you care about this, why don't you just check it? Why do you get all your "knowledge" from websites that are less serious than Mrs Doodle's Palm Reading and Astrology site? Why not try to get valid information about this?
90% of news is a reporter sifting through releases from Reuters and other news agencies regurgitating what they have said. Reuters mistakingly reported the WTC7 down and multiple outlets picked it up. This is well documented.
Go take your medication now. And the straitjacket.
They described the building both by name (Salomon Brothers) and by number.
Yes, they were quoting the Reuters press release. Big deal. The Reuters release was wrong. A single person gets it wrong and it spreads through the news organizations. The person reporting it at the BBC had no clue what building it was.
A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell.
Again, more bullshit. Reuters erroneously reported that WTC 7 had collapsed and the BBC and others carried it. Reuters made a mistake. Again, this is well documented.
Oh, and the nutcases who claims Silverstein "pulled" his own building also claim that he took out terrorist insurance on WTC 7 only a few months before the attack. This is BS and a lie. He insured the building in 1987. He did take out terror insurance on the towers a few months ahead of 9/11 since that was required when he bought them.
Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose!
He didn't. He says "the fire chief called" and notified him of the danger to the crews. Then he told the fire chief to pull. They pulled. Then they watched the building collapse. What was pulled? The fire crews.
Again, this has been explained time and again since the event. Still conspiracy junkies and other crackpots can't let it go.
So the honest answer is yes. Then my question is "compared to who?"
Assuming we want a saner, more sensible and more well understood world, then there is a minimum standard for who "should" procreate. Most people are able to do the following. They are presented with some generic statements. A and B. They are then also able to agree with some sort of logic that says that if A and B then logically Y follows. At an abstract level they agree. Then you take them to task on A' and B', two statements about them, and you explain how Y' follows. If that person has some religious or other antipathy towards Y', they will protest, even if they just before agreed that Y' was a logical consequence of A' and B'. The vast majority of people have multiple A's and B's where Y's follow, where they are strongly disagreeing with Y'.
In other words, the vast majority of the population are utter morons and should not be allowed to procreate.
but you to need some event that melts steel to explain the molten steel found underneath the trade towers weeks after the collapse
No, you don't. You only better facts. Remember, lead melts at much lower temperatures than steel. But again, don't let facts mess up your conspiracy. It is much more fun this way since it is a constant reminder that most people are utter morons.
heat and damage had to be extremely uniformly distributed and the failure of all critical structures would have to have failed at exactly the same tim
Nope it wouldn't have to be, and in fact it wasn't. The damage was significantly higher on one side of the building making it tip over as it started to fall. The problem is gravity and the building design stopped the tilting and then it fell straight down. You know what gravity is, right?
Every single one of your assertions have been utterly debunked. Why do you still believe in them?
Never before and never since has a fire ever done this to a skyscraper and not even older
You see, this is rather easy to explain. You see, this has never happened to a sky scraper before. Nothing even remotely like this has happened.
I am stating that the evidence does not fit with the story.
And that is a statement based on severe religious derangement, not on fact. Read any of the engineering reports to get the facts, and stop reading the insane crackpot websites. They rot what little is left of your brain.
Yes, it's true that building such as those are designed to fall pancake style. But that design depends on the main support columns being blasted out from under the floors to make that happen.
The fact that you don't even understand how insane that statement is just illustrates how far your brain has rotted. The buildings are designed to collapse pancake style after an accident. The demolition people only introduce a carefully orchestrated accident. The whole purpose of designing a building so that it collapses onto it self is so that it does it under all circumstances, not just after being demolished.
would have had to have damaged *all* core columns in such a way that they all failed at approximately the same time causing the pancake sequence to start
Wrong. As usual. If only one side of the building collapsed and fell onto the floor below, the fall in it self would cause the rest to collapse. That is in fact what we saw. The top 15 floors leaned over slightly as they were collapsing, in other words, only a small portion of floor 95/96 collapsed. Once it fell however the fall caused the rest of the columns to collapse because that is how the building was designed. To collapse onto it self.
You can exclaim "fucking retards" but without thermite, there is nothing on the plane or in an office building that can burn hot enough to cause steel to melt (my emphasis).
The reason that you are retard is not because you believe retarded things. The reason you are a retard is that you are unwilling to listen to logic. You are also unwilling to learn. Not unable. Just unwilling. That is what makes you retarded. People who are not retarded are not actively fighting knowledge.
Now to what I emphasized above. The idea that steel melted or had to melt for the towers to collapse. Not required. When steel heats up it does two things, it warps (loses its shape) and loses its load-bearing capacity. It does so at perfectly normal burning temperatures, and when a fire is allowed to rage for 7 hours with nobody fighting it, it is guaranteed to go bad. Since the steel that went bad was supposed to support 15 full stories of steel and concrete, shit happened.
Now go and get neutered or play in traffic or something so your dumb genes are not propagated into the future.
A LOT of people have noticed. A LOT of people have claimed things.
Thousands of people in the building every day, 24 hours a day. Nobody saw a single person drilling or laying explosives. Nobody saw anything. The only people who "see" things are the cracpots.
I would submit, there are more facts and science supporting a controlled demolition of the word trade center buildings than there is evidence supporting Intelligent Design.
You submit wrong. There is exactly the same amount of facts supporting a controlled demolition as there is supporting ID. There is less supporting facts for a controlled demolition than there is for Santa Claus (I've seen him).
there are some serious irregularities in how the buildings came down.
The only way you can find irregularities is if you assume that some of the assertions by the crackpots are true. They are not. There are no irregularities in the way the buildings came down.
It isn't like Dick Cheney sits in the middle of an information spider web where only he sees the true picture
People forget something very, very basic. People are morons. The vast majority of them. Most of the time. That includes the ones on top. It is more true today than it was 100 years ago when articulation and logic was important for people in office. These days being a retard is a job requirement.
This is why the following statement basically is universally true, and more so in political circles than in any other:
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
BTW, and OT: The day that I realized that the vast majority of the worlds population are morons was a good day. The realization makes life a lot easier. You tend to have less heroes.
Nope. Wrong explanation. Cheney has a neuralizer and he used it on all the conspirators and all the witnesses to the construction crews setting up the demolition. The only other person fully in on the conspiracy is Will Smith (who's real name is J as in "Jay").
No, no, no, no, no... That accident was staged, and the patch was placed just so that you could use it to defuse the conspiracy theorists. Sorry, the truth-knowers. The fact that you just used it is proof positive that the same demolition crew that brought down the WTC was secretly on the space station damaging the shuttle.
The really sad thing about this is that now that I have uttered this, these conspiracy nuts will gobble it up as fact. They will use/. as a source of truth, proving that they are right.
Could we please neuter them together with the entire Bush and Cheney families?
I have never seen an increase in the weight of debris accelerating a collapse beyond the fall of gravity.
Yes, you have. In the WTC. You call it debris, but let's call it what it was. The plane hitting the higher up hit 95 floor or so. Once that floor collapsed the "debris" that came crashing down 10 feet was 15 huge slabs of steel and concrete (plus walls, furniture etc). The 95th story collapsed under under the weight of these 15 slabs. Then 16 slabs rammed into 94th floor. Do you think that 16 slabs of concrete and steel has higher weight than 15? And thus it continued until 109 massive slabs of concrete and steel slammed into the bottom floor from ten feet.
Here is an experiment for you. Find a solid stick of plastic. 20 concrete slabs, make them about 1x1 foot and about half an inch thick. Drill holes in them and stack them on top of each other with the plastic stick through the holes. Now take the plastic straws and make some space between the concrete slabs. A couple of inches for example. Note that if you do this carefully, the thin straws will easily hold the slabs up.
You have now build the WTC. Now, set fire to the second floor from the top. Not very hot, only hot enough to bend (no need to melt) the straws holding up the top two slabs.
When the top to slabs come crashing down on the slab below them, do you think the tiny straws will be able to hold the one slab they have been holding and the next two coming down with some velocity? Probably not. What do you thin happens from then on?
The only way any large building can collapse in such a short amount of time, is if it's ENTIRE support structures is instantaneously removed.
And the only way to have the entire support structure vanish instantaneously is to have hundreds of professionals working on placing explosives along the entire support structure. These explosives are set of using utterly standard wiring, in the case of something as large as the WTC, hundreds of miles worth of wiring. Finally, the explosives would have to be placed with extreme accuracy all around the building by drilling holes in the support infrastructure.
Now, what do you think is more likely, either the government has access to:
Invisible demolition crews
Miles and miles of invisible wiring
Tools that can drill undetectable holes in steel completely silently.
or, they have access to the MIB Neuralizer and they have bee able to Neuralize all the witnesses
Here's idea: The premise for you conspiracy theory is incorrect. The building never dropped as if all it's support structure was instantaneously removed.
You can't start a fire and/or structurally destabilise the top few floors in a multi-storey building and have it completely collapse the whole building. Fact. The greater number of structurally sound floors below are more than enough to dissipate any energy and momentum of such a collapse unless you destabilise the floors below (or they are already destabilised) in some way so they respond weakly.
BZZZT! WRONG! There never was a "few" (it was 15 in the case of the tower that was hit higher up) floors that "completely collapsed the whole building". It was a 15 story building collapsing a single floor after falling ten feet onto a 95 story building. Then it was a 16 story building falling ten feet onto a 94 story building and collapsing the top floor only, and then it was a 17 story building ramming into a 94 story building, again collapsing the top floor only. And so on until a 109 story building dropped ten feet onto a single story building, collapsing it.
Do you know any buildings in the US, single story, that would survive having a 109 story steel and concrete sky scraper dropped on it? Only from ten feet mind you.
Obviously it wasn't that neat. Once the collapse got going the shock wave increased the overall damage of the building, but if you have a little bit of a brain, perhaps you get the point.
This has been repeated often, and is utterly bogus. No demolition team has ever turned up on site and said "Oh, we'll burn five stories in the top half of this fifty storey building and it will collapse". Never happened. Why? Because there is nowhere near enough energy for those floors to collapse all the floors below them
Sigh. There is so much insanity here that it is getting a little sad.
Let's go through your dumbass comment line for line shall we? Let's look at one tower only, just for fun. The plane hits at 95/96 floor. That means that there is about 15 floors above where the plane hits. That is a fairly tall building. Five floors is high too, but it is not 15.
Now, can you explain to me why anyone would build a tall building so strong that each floor could hold up the weight of a 15 story building slamming into it after a ten feet fall? How much kinetic energy does a 15 story building have after having fallen 10 feet? Do you know of any commercial building strong enough to withstand such an impact?
Now, what about your idiot "all the floors below them" comment? Did the top 15 floors of the WTC demolish all the floors below them? Nope, they demolished a single floor. Incidentally a floor that had been weakened by fire. Once they collapsed that floor, we have a 16 story building falling ten feet. Do you think the floor below could withstand a 16 story building falling ten feet? At this point in time we are around 94 floor. Do you think that the first floor was build strong enough to withstand the impact of a 109 story building dropping ten feet onto it? I doubt it.
That is what pancaking is. The collapsing of a single floor. Many times over.
Oh, and I forgot about your retarded "demolition team" comment too. Dang, should have done that first. But you are right, no demolition crew would have demolished the WTC in the way they fell. Do you know why? Because the buildings and their debris fell onto an area covering several city blocks, seriously damaging a number of buildings around them. Usually demolition crews try to avoid that.
Am I harsh? Nasty? A name-caller? Nope. I just have absolutely no patience whatsoever for elected stupidity. If you were mentally handicapped I would have respected your opinions. You are not. You have just elected to have an intellect comparable to a mentally handicapped person, and that annoys the shit out of me.
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That is, by far, the most insane of all the conspiracy theories I have read. Simply because it involves the usage of a time machine. The Enron collapse came long after 9/11. Sorry dude, you are crazy. By definition.
Anybody noticing the work would simply be told it was routine maintenance.
Yes, and since a huge number of people who worked in the buildings actually did not die, and therefore a huge number of witnesses to these crews are still alive. It is good for you that the government used the MIB Neuralizer to erase the memories of those individuals.
You can't imagine the ovious motive of scaring the people so much they'll let you grab extraordinary powers
Imagination is a little overused with you. Try a couple of quarts of common sense. Add a little logic and education and you will be fine. Don't mind this nice white jacket I have. You will be able to move your head and speak. Don't worry. No, it is not a dinner jacket, it is called a straitjacket.
Given that the WTC was fairly unique in it's construction (with a massive core) and that all of the buildings were built in a similar manner, it is not too strange.
It is for sure less strange than the idea that there was a bunch of invisible demolition crews running around the place drilling holes in walls with soundless pneumatic drills, pulling invisible cables all over the building and in so many ways behaving in violation of physical laws and common sense.
Yeah, and the thought that you can have a demolition crew in place in two of the most crowded work-places in the world for weeks ahead of Sept 11, and nobody notices them is a lot less of a weird thought.
If more than 3 people share a secret it is no longer a secret. No government brought down the WTC, no space ships have ever landed on earth (in human history anyway) and no, Santa Claus does not exist.
Nothing on earth falls as in free fall. Everything is acted upon with forces in the opposite direction of gravity. One of the notions spouted by the conspiracy nuts is that the building fell exactly as if it was falling in one standard Earth gravity.
The above leaves us with two possible options. Either the "government" who brought down the WTC managed to change the laws of physics, or the conspiracy nuts are simply wrong when they calculate the time it took the building to fall. I know what I think is more likely.
Now, the other interesting point here is that in order for the "government" to create a fall like that by controlled demolition, they would have to hire quite a bunch of experts. These would have to go up and drill holes in the infrastructure, pull wires all over the building, and put a crapload of explosives all over the place. They would have to do this in a building with staff that is in place 24/7, and with nobody noticing.
The conspiracy nuts need to go take their medication.
Slashdot Mirror
but there are equally plausible explanations to it being due to malicious intent.
This is where you are wrong. As with Evolution, this isn't about competing theories of explanation this is about A SINGLE theory and a ton or superstitious rubbish. The NIST report gives the only currently available theory. The alternative (not using conspiracy here) explanation is absurd at a level that means it is not a theory.
Why is it absurd? Simple. The "alternative" theories say that the plane couldn't bring it down, something else must have. In order for anyone, doesn't matter who, to orchestrate a controlled demolition of a building after the planes hit, they would have had to prep the building for weeks in advance. Thousands of pounds of explosives must have been brought in. Thousands of holes must have been drilled in the support infrastructure. Hundreds of miles of cable, very thick cable in fact, must have been laid all over the building.
Until the government comes up with invisible demolition crews and explosives, pneumatic drills that can drill into concrete and steel without making a single sound and miles and miles of invisible cable, the alternative theory is utterly absurd.
The difference between Evolution and ID is that Evolution is a theory. It can be tested. It can predict certain things. It has a number of other properties that makes it a theory. ID is not a theory, it is conjecture at best, but in reality a collection of mindless drivel with a fancy name. The NIST report is to the "alternative theories" what Evolution is to ID.
A video that was originally on the goddamned 5 o'clock news cannot be faked
It wasn't faked. It was a mistake. A single persons mistake. Simple as that. Don't attribute to malice what can easily be explained by incompetence.
Again, this was documented many years ago, why don't you get your information from something with a little higher quality of service?
They reported some inaccurate information. Fine. WHERE did they get that inaccurate information?
If you care about this, why don't you just check it? Why do you get all your "knowledge" from websites that are less serious than Mrs Doodle's Palm Reading and Astrology site? Why not try to get valid information about this?
90% of news is a reporter sifting through releases from Reuters and other news agencies regurgitating what they have said. Reuters mistakingly reported the WTC7 down and multiple outlets picked it up. This is well documented.
Go take your medication now. And the straitjacket.
They described the building both by name (Salomon Brothers) and by number.
Yes, they were quoting the Reuters press release. Big deal. The Reuters release was wrong. A single person gets it wrong and it spreads through the news organizations. The person reporting it at the BBC had no clue what building it was.
A NY radio station was told beforehand that the building was going to be demolished. The BBC reported the fall of the building 20 minutes before it actually fell.
Again, more bullshit. Reuters erroneously reported that WTC 7 had collapsed and the BBC and others carried it. Reuters made a mistake. Again, this is well documented.
Oh, and the nutcases who claims Silverstein "pulled" his own building also claim that he took out terrorist insurance on WTC 7 only a few months before the attack. This is BS and a lie. He insured the building in 1987. He did take out terror insurance on the towers a few months ahead of 9/11 since that was required when he bought them.
Kinda hard to argue with the owner of the building when he publicly says he did it on purpose!
He didn't. He says "the fire chief called" and notified him of the danger to the crews. Then he told the fire chief to pull. They pulled. Then they watched the building collapse. What was pulled? The fire crews.
Again, this has been explained time and again since the event. Still conspiracy junkies and other crackpots can't let it go.
So the honest answer is yes. Then my question is "compared to who?"
Assuming we want a saner, more sensible and more well understood world, then there is a minimum standard for who "should" procreate. Most people are able to do the following. They are presented with some generic statements. A and B. They are then also able to agree with some sort of logic that says that if A and B then logically Y follows. At an abstract level they agree. Then you take them to task on A' and B', two statements about them, and you explain how Y' follows. If that person has some religious or other antipathy towards Y', they will protest, even if they just before agreed that Y' was a logical consequence of A' and B'. The vast majority of people have multiple A's and B's where Y's follow, where they are strongly disagreeing with Y'.
In other words, the vast majority of the population are utter morons and should not be allowed to procreate.
but you to need some event that melts steel to explain the molten steel found underneath the trade towers weeks after the collapse
No, you don't. You only better facts. Remember, lead melts at much lower temperatures than steel. But again, don't let facts mess up your conspiracy. It is much more fun this way since it is a constant reminder that most people are utter morons.
heat and damage had to be extremely uniformly distributed and the failure of all critical structures would have to have failed at exactly the same tim
Nope it wouldn't have to be, and in fact it wasn't. The damage was significantly higher on one side of the building making it tip over as it started to fall. The problem is gravity and the building design stopped the tilting and then it fell straight down. You know what gravity is, right?
Every single one of your assertions have been utterly debunked. Why do you still believe in them?
Never before and never since has a fire ever done this to a skyscraper and not even older
You see, this is rather easy to explain. You see, this has never happened to a sky scraper before. Nothing even remotely like this has happened.
I am stating that the evidence does not fit with the story.
And that is a statement based on severe religious derangement, not on fact. Read any of the engineering reports to get the facts, and stop reading the insane crackpot websites. They rot what little is left of your brain.
Yes, it's true that building such as those are designed to fall pancake style. But that design depends on the main support columns being blasted out from under the floors to make that happen.
The fact that you don't even understand how insane that statement is just illustrates how far your brain has rotted. The buildings are designed to collapse pancake style after an accident. The demolition people only introduce a carefully orchestrated accident. The whole purpose of designing a building so that it collapses onto it self is so that it does it under all circumstances, not just after being demolished.
would have had to have damaged *all* core columns in such a way that they all failed at approximately the same time causing the pancake sequence to start
Wrong. As usual. If only one side of the building collapsed and fell onto the floor below, the fall in it self would cause the rest to collapse. That is in fact what we saw. The top 15 floors leaned over slightly as they were collapsing, in other words, only a small portion of floor 95/96 collapsed. Once it fell however the fall caused the rest of the columns to collapse because that is how the building was designed. To collapse onto it self.
You can exclaim "fucking retards" but without thermite, there is nothing on the plane or in an office building that can burn hot enough to cause steel to melt (my emphasis).
The reason that you are retard is not because you believe retarded things. The reason you are a retard is that you are unwilling to listen to logic. You are also unwilling to learn. Not unable. Just unwilling. That is what makes you retarded. People who are not retarded are not actively fighting knowledge.
Now to what I emphasized above. The idea that steel melted or had to melt for the towers to collapse. Not required. When steel heats up it does two things, it warps (loses its shape) and loses its load-bearing capacity. It does so at perfectly normal burning temperatures, and when a fire is allowed to rage for 7 hours with nobody fighting it, it is guaranteed to go bad. Since the steel that went bad was supposed to support 15 full stories of steel and concrete, shit happened.
Now go and get neutered or play in traffic or something so your dumb genes are not propagated into the future.
A LOT of people have noticed. A LOT of people have claimed things.
Thousands of people in the building every day, 24 hours a day. Nobody saw a single person drilling or laying explosives. Nobody saw anything. The only people who "see" things are the cracpots.
I would submit, there are more facts and science supporting a controlled demolition of the word trade center buildings than there is evidence supporting Intelligent Design.
You submit wrong. There is exactly the same amount of facts supporting a controlled demolition as there is supporting ID. There is less supporting facts for a controlled demolition than there is for Santa Claus (I've seen him).
there are some serious irregularities in how the buildings came down.
The only way you can find irregularities is if you assume that some of the assertions by the crackpots are true. They are not. There are no irregularities in the way the buildings came down.
It isn't like Dick Cheney sits in the middle of an information spider web where only he sees the true picture
People forget something very, very basic. People are morons. The vast majority of them. Most of the time. That includes the ones on top. It is more true today than it was 100 years ago when articulation and logic was important for people in office. These days being a retard is a job requirement.
This is why the following statement basically is universally true, and more so in political circles than in any other:
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
BTW, and OT: The day that I realized that the vast majority of the worlds population are morons was a good day. The realization makes life a lot easier. You tend to have less heroes.
The only possible explanations left are that
Nope. Wrong explanation. Cheney has a neuralizer and he used it on all the conspirators and all the witnesses to the construction crews setting up the demolition. The only other person fully in on the conspiracy is Will Smith (who's real name is J as in "Jay").
There are seismic records of the collapse that corroborate the videos which show the buildings in free fall collapse.
Actually, no the seismics agree with NIST. Not that conspiracy nuts are going to accept that of course.
No, no, no, no, no... That accident was staged, and the patch was placed just so that you could use it to defuse the conspiracy theorists. Sorry, the truth-knowers. The fact that you just used it is proof positive that the same demolition crew that brought down the WTC was secretly on the space station damaging the shuttle.
The really sad thing about this is that now that I have uttered this, these conspiracy nuts will gobble it up as fact. They will use /. as a source of truth, proving that they are right.
Could we please neuter them together with the entire Bush and Cheney families?
I have never seen an increase in the weight of debris accelerating a collapse beyond the fall of gravity.
Yes, you have. In the WTC. You call it debris, but let's call it what it was. The plane hitting the higher up hit 95 floor or so. Once that floor collapsed the "debris" that came crashing down 10 feet was 15 huge slabs of steel and concrete (plus walls, furniture etc). The 95th story collapsed under under the weight of these 15 slabs. Then 16 slabs rammed into 94th floor. Do you think that 16 slabs of concrete and steel has higher weight than 15? And thus it continued until 109 massive slabs of concrete and steel slammed into the bottom floor from ten feet.
Here is an experiment for you. Find a solid stick of plastic. 20 concrete slabs, make them about 1x1 foot and about half an inch thick. Drill holes in them and stack them on top of each other with the plastic stick through the holes. Now take the plastic straws and make some space between the concrete slabs. A couple of inches for example. Note that if you do this carefully, the thin straws will easily hold the slabs up.
You have now build the WTC. Now, set fire to the second floor from the top. Not very hot, only hot enough to bend (no need to melt) the straws holding up the top two slabs.
When the top to slabs come crashing down on the slab below them, do you think the tiny straws will be able to hold the one slab they have been holding and the next two coming down with some velocity? Probably not. What do you thin happens from then on?
The only way any large building can collapse in such a short amount of time, is if it's ENTIRE support structures is instantaneously removed.
And the only way to have the entire support structure vanish instantaneously is to have hundreds of professionals working on placing explosives along the entire support structure. These explosives are set of using utterly standard wiring, in the case of something as large as the WTC, hundreds of miles worth of wiring. Finally, the explosives would have to be placed with extreme accuracy all around the building by drilling holes in the support infrastructure.
Now, what do you think is more likely, either the government has access to:
or, they have access to the MIB Neuralizer and they have bee able to Neuralize all the witnesses
Here's idea: The premise for you conspiracy theory is incorrect. The building never dropped as if all it's support structure was instantaneously removed.
You can't start a fire and/or structurally destabilise the top few floors in a multi-storey building and have it completely collapse the whole building. Fact. The greater number of structurally sound floors below are more than enough to dissipate any energy and momentum of such a collapse unless you destabilise the floors below (or they are already destabilised) in some way so they respond weakly.
BZZZT! WRONG! There never was a "few" (it was 15 in the case of the tower that was hit higher up) floors that "completely collapsed the whole building". It was a 15 story building collapsing a single floor after falling ten feet onto a 95 story building. Then it was a 16 story building falling ten feet onto a 94 story building and collapsing the top floor only, and then it was a 17 story building ramming into a 94 story building, again collapsing the top floor only. And so on until a 109 story building dropped ten feet onto a single story building, collapsing it.
Do you know any buildings in the US, single story, that would survive having a 109 story steel and concrete sky scraper dropped on it? Only from ten feet mind you.
Obviously it wasn't that neat. Once the collapse got going the shock wave increased the overall damage of the building, but if you have a little bit of a brain, perhaps you get the point.
This has been repeated often, and is utterly bogus. No demolition team has ever turned up on site and said "Oh, we'll burn five stories in the top half of this fifty storey building and it will collapse". Never happened. Why? Because there is nowhere near enough energy for those floors to collapse all the floors below them
Sigh. There is so much insanity here that it is getting a little sad.
Let's go through your dumbass comment line for line shall we? Let's look at one tower only, just for fun. The plane hits at 95/96 floor. That means that there is about 15 floors above where the plane hits. That is a fairly tall building. Five floors is high too, but it is not 15.
Now, can you explain to me why anyone would build a tall building so strong that each floor could hold up the weight of a 15 story building slamming into it after a ten feet fall? How much kinetic energy does a 15 story building have after having fallen 10 feet? Do you know of any commercial building strong enough to withstand such an impact?
Now, what about your idiot "all the floors below them" comment? Did the top 15 floors of the WTC demolish all the floors below them? Nope, they demolished a single floor. Incidentally a floor that had been weakened by fire. Once they collapsed that floor, we have a 16 story building falling ten feet. Do you think the floor below could withstand a 16 story building falling ten feet? At this point in time we are around 94 floor. Do you think that the first floor was build strong enough to withstand the impact of a 109 story building dropping ten feet onto it? I doubt it.
That is what pancaking is. The collapsing of a single floor. Many times over.
Oh, and I forgot about your retarded "demolition team" comment too. Dang, should have done that first. But you are right, no demolition crew would have demolished the WTC in the way they fell. Do you know why? Because the buildings and their debris fell onto an area covering several city blocks, seriously damaging a number of buildings around them. Usually demolition crews try to avoid that.
Am I harsh? Nasty? A name-caller? Nope. I just have absolutely no patience whatsoever for elected stupidity. If you were mentally handicapped I would have respected your opinions. You are not. You have just elected to have an intellect comparable to a mentally handicapped person, and that annoys the shit out of me.
WTC7 was where the evidence in the case of the Enron trial was stored.
That is, by far, the most insane of all the conspiracy theories I have read. Simply because it involves the usage of a time machine. The Enron collapse came long after 9/11. Sorry dude, you are crazy. By definition.
Anybody noticing the work would simply be told it was routine maintenance.
Yes, and since a huge number of people who worked in the buildings actually did not die, and therefore a huge number of witnesses to these crews are still alive. It is good for you that the government used the MIB Neuralizer to erase the memories of those individuals.
You can't imagine the ovious motive of scaring the people so much they'll let you grab extraordinary powers
Imagination is a little overused with you. Try a couple of quarts of common sense. Add a little logic and education and you will be fine. Don't mind this nice white jacket I have. You will be able to move your head and speak. Don't worry. No, it is not a dinner jacket, it is called a straitjacket.
Given that the WTC was fairly unique in it's construction (with a massive core) and that all of the buildings were built in a similar manner, it is not too strange.
It is for sure less strange than the idea that there was a bunch of invisible demolition crews running around the place drilling holes in walls with soundless pneumatic drills, pulling invisible cables all over the building and in so many ways behaving in violation of physical laws and common sense.
Yeah, and the thought that you can have a demolition crew in place in two of the most crowded work-places in the world for weeks ahead of Sept 11, and nobody notices them is a lot less of a weird thought.
If more than 3 people share a secret it is no longer a secret. No government brought down the WTC, no space ships have ever landed on earth (in human history anyway) and no, Santa Claus does not exist.
Nothing on earth falls as in free fall. Everything is acted upon with forces in the opposite direction of gravity. One of the notions spouted by the conspiracy nuts is that the building fell exactly as if it was falling in one standard Earth gravity.
The above leaves us with two possible options. Either the "government" who brought down the WTC managed to change the laws of physics, or the conspiracy nuts are simply wrong when they calculate the time it took the building to fall. I know what I think is more likely.
Now, the other interesting point here is that in order for the "government" to create a fall like that by controlled demolition, they would have to hire quite a bunch of experts. These would have to go up and drill holes in the infrastructure, pull wires all over the building, and put a crapload of explosives all over the place. They would have to do this in a building with staff that is in place 24/7, and with nobody noticing.
The conspiracy nuts need to go take their medication.