You are hereForums / ADS Forums / Impeachment Discussion / How did the buildings in 9/11 really come down

How did the buildings in 9/11 really come down


Time to take a look at the 9/11 day, the world trade centers went down and then WTC 7 somewhat later. They looked like controlled demolations. lets take a look at Oklahoma City. When the building was blew up by a truck of explosives and did that building collapse, no cause the explosives were not placed in a certain place, they were driven in by a truck and no other place except where the truck was, yes it is horrible and tragic that all of these has happened. People are doing the time for Oklahoma City. It is time to look at a conspiricy therory into 9/11 and put the ones behind it away forever. Instead all investigations into this were and are still shunned, an investigation with no ties to the current regime in Washington DC is needed and they should have access to everything they want to look at. One other thing when President Bush was informed of the towers he actually looked relieved and you can see a sigh from him, he should have excused himself from the class room and used his leadership to find out what had happened and why and to inform the people of the United States truthfully as to what had happened. Also, right after all of this the oil companies started to get huge profits. A website that has merit is scholarsfor911truth.org.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

First off, learn to user proper grammar. For those of us who completed elementary school, you lose all credibility when you can't even write a simple article properly. Secondly, The buildings collapsed not because of a controlled, purposeful explosion, but because of simple physics. Jet fuel burns at a very high temperature. This decreases the strength of metal building supports. As soon as one of the floors nearest the crash site collapsed, the added weight, and the momentum of debris already falling, caused the next floor to collapse. obviously, if the weight of 1 floor falling can cause another floor to collapse, then the weight of 2 floors falling is even more likely to do so. Thus, with each floor which collapsed, the possibility of the entire building collapsing increases exponentially. Not only is it entirely possible that the buildings could have collapsed from nothing more than the airplane crashes...it's an absolute cerainty. Pursue a bit of education, learn something about the world, stop chasing insane conspiracy theories, and don't type another world until you do.

Buildings do not collapse from fire damage in the way that you describe, ie steel being weakened and then floors collapsing like dominoes. This has NEVER happened before in any of 100s of skyscraper fires. Yet on 9/11 it happened to three buildings, within a few hours, two of which did NOT have major fires going on at the time of collapse. The molten metal found on the site, the method of collapse and the "ejecting" of steel beams have previously only occured when using thermite type demolition exposives. Proof enough for me, or at the very least interesting evidence which has not been explained. The exposions in the basements prior to the collapses were HEARD by many people, and RECORDED. Again, unexplained by the "official conspiracy theory".

You need to study the subject in more depth, irish.

Sorry but i have to agree with Irish. A regular fire is alot different than impact combined with burning jet fuel. Jet fuel would burn alot hotter than your run of the mill building fire. The impact also did not help the situation. Work with metal a little bit and tell me that when you put strain on extremely hot metal that it doesnt bend. Sorry though I dont like to say anything negative about this but i think you are the one that needs to check his facts. Look up and get some real imformation on how hot jet fuel burns and find out from an expert whether that could make the supports weakened at all. Look forward to hearing back from you with evidence proving me wrong :-)

Are you paid to post? Firstly, most of the fuel burned up on the outside of the tower on the second plane strike. Secondly, no fuel was involved in WTC 7. Thirdly, even if the steel had "bent" it doesn't explain how the whole building fell into it's own footprint.

What are your answers re: Lack of an plane at the Pentagon? Lack of any plane debris where 93 supposedly came down? Failure to intercept the planes by the military? Bush's behaviour during the "attacks"? The inconsistencies in building security at the WTC prior to 9/11? The smooth organisation applied to the removal and EXPORT of the rubble from the WTC, (compared to the disastorous response to Katrina?) The various military exercises happening on 9/11, many of which were very similair to what "actually" happened? The EXPLOSIONS at the WTC prior to the collapse?..........

What about WTC7?

..........

Flight data recorders have to undergo testing at 1150 degrees centigrade (much higher than a jet fuel fire gets unless heavily oxidated, which was not the case, based on the heavy black smoke in those towers that day!!). The reason I cite FDR temperatures, is that these are INTENTIONALLY HIGH TO ALLOW THEM TO SURVIVE A POST CRASH JET-A FUELED FIRE.

before you go off half cocked and ream someone out for their lack of knowledge, you better pull your own head out of your own uneducated, ignorant ass and read about fire temperatures of commonplace jet fuel used in airliners, and then come back here and 'apologize' for your misinformation and stupid inuendo's and snide comments. you have not a clue what the fuck YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, temperature wise, dufus!

get a handle on real certification standards, then tell me how the 'free fall' velocity of the buildings could occur, and I will brand you a COINTELPRO OPERATIVE SPREADING BULLSHIT!!!!!

and yes, you are wrong. do the research, dickhead. you're flat wrong about jet-A fires without oxidants, in other words, non optimal burning. those fires did not meet that criteria that day. those buildings were designed to withstand this, and then some, and the ONLY WAY THEY COULD COLLAPSE, is if the core columns were blown the fuck out of the building, in many places, to facilitate this.

extensive evidence of THERMATE CUTTING CHARGES, vis a vis, the slanted cuts of several core columns and the standard 'thermate' signature, were evident in those girders, and that evidence was summarily destroyed and hauled away to China, on purpose, to prevent it from being around today for analysis.

go get a handle on Professor Jone's analysis before you start acting like an expert you are clearly not even close!!!

By common sense (to those conveniently blinded by government propaganda)

Ten bus piled up to form a tower. (each represent 10 floors of WTC) The second one to the top had a fire. Will the whole tower collapse? For common sense, the bottom eight won't be affected. Because the construction was designed to bear more weight then 100 floors of building.

Yet it collapsed like a free fall. (One demolished in 10 seconds and the other one in 10.5 seconds)

If you play building blocks and pile up a 100 floor tower. What will happen if you take away the blocks at the corner of 83th floor? (One building of WTC was hit at the corner) It will collapse to the side where one corner is missing. (Suppose everything went on as government said that fire melt the iron beam.)

Yet, the building demolished like a free fall in straight way. Beware that from the beginning when the building were hit by plane, the construction structure kept in straight way and supported the whole without any shaking.)

It was a fire getting smaller and off. Unlike other fire which got bigger and bigger because other burning material added in to help increasing fire (like a wooden house), the WTC fire got smaller and off when the fuel burned out. There was no additional burning material to join. Iron beam won't burn. So after ten to twenty minutes when the flame was off, the temperature should decline. How could the building collapse one hour later?

There were two camp fires to boil the water. One was a wood burning fire with wood continually adding in. (normal fire ) One hour later, the water boiled.
The other one was a bowl of gas as burning material. After twenty minutes, the fire was off because there was no more burning material. one hour later, what do you think of the the water? boiled or cooled?

I notice nobody commenting here consulted with THEM!!

You could have looked into this back then David Swanson or at least provided the link to scholarsfor911truth.org this whole time. Why didn't you ... because he misspelled some words?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Informed Activist

Support WarIsACrime



Donate.








Tweet your Congress critters here.


Advertise on this site!




Facebook      Twitter





Our Stores:























Movie Memorabilia.



The log-in box below is only for bloggers. Nobody else will be able to log in because we have not figured out how to stop voluminous spam ruining the site. If you would like us to have the resources to figure that out please donate. If you would like to receive occasional emails please sign up. If you would like to be a blogger here please send your resume.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.