I just wasted 5 minutes of my life, Grumpy they are trying to suggest this was two isolated pockets of fire based on one radio communication? I'm not going to research it but how does one firefighter who may have lets say 10 or 20 minutes know the extent of the fire that has affected 10 or 20 floors of a building? Secondly they state "anyone that has burned a wood fire knows it smokes when it's not burning" My experience in the outdoors which is extensive and includes literally thousands of wood fires is that the smoke is the heaviest right before it combusts.
...the smoke may indeed be heaviest prior to combustion...but the heat (more specifically-the temperature) is not. regardless of the 'official' report of what really brought the towers down...there are way too many experts that dont agree with it. its like being ''a little pregnant"....but with regards to 911....im afraid we will never know the 'truth'......period
...i think "small and isolated" may have been appropriate for where that firefighter stood... obviously not for the entire towers...
... regardless however...not ONE not TWO.... but THREE ???? THREE textbook...non leaning...inward....non restricted...time(accelerated) implosions ??? ...something doesnt add up. Its the complete and catastrophic failure of such a redundtant structure(s) that i have a hard time grasping the 'official' report..... as this is an area I am well versed in. (toot toot) there is absolutely no doubt this is a tragedy.... but certain things cannot be explained ... the money trail is incredibly extensive. video and testimony from eye witneses disappears forever or is recanted...etc etc -you just can't help but wonder that there is more to the story than we are told
Rigar wrote: THREE textbook...non leaning...inward....non restricted...time(accelerated) implosions ???
When something is in the air it wants to go straight down, that's just simple physics. If there is something in it's way it can be deflected however once you have failure through a plane of the structure where all the material is moving you are talking about millions of pounds of material that now want to go straight down. That energy is enormous and cannot be overcome by the structure.
If you look at any of these videos it's most certainly not inward. You have a plume of material being forced outwards. There is even video where right after the collapse of one of the towers a significant amount of the skeleton on one side was still standing and then fell. I would assume that would be the side opposite where the failure first occurred.
As far as building 7 the issue there is no images of how extensive the damage was to that building, this is as good as it gets but as you can see it was extensive . I mentioned this in a previous post, the black column in the center of the last image is where it has already partially collapsed.
You won't find these images on any conspiracy sites or video.
im not a conspirator.....lol ...but certain "flukes" outway the facts...or official explainations. ..and certainly leaves room for question. I still feel the catastrophic failure of all three within such a small footprint may be more than strange coincidence... unprecedented .... and a miracle within itself.
.... the loss of life was enormous.... and could have been much much worse... so it is in that regard that the buildings did their job- stayed standing long enough to be evacuated.... and in that I can have faith.
... the other oddities will always raise doubt with me tho...not with just the Towers...but elsewhere ..
jpete wrote:If the major damage to Building 7 was in one corner, wouldn't you expect it to collapse in that direction?
The major damage presumably is to the entire one side the extent of which is unknown.
If I kick a leg out from a table, it doesn't fall straight down,
Try notching a tree wrong and see which way it falls. If your notch looks like a pac-man mouth there is very good chance when you're making the back side cut the tree will fall straight down becsue the weight of the treewill slide down the lower part on the notch and most likely go the wrong way.
If you want to stick with your table example put a ton of bricks on it and see which way it falls. What is going to happen is soon as it tips the two legs that are now supporting all the weight are going to fail and your table will collapse straight down.
The obfuscations surrounding 9/11 seem in retrospect to be very similar to the obfuscations surrounding Benghazi. There must have been loads of secret stuff going on that we are not ever supposed to know about. Perhaps Building 7 was the first NSA spy operation headquarters for monitoring our emails and phone calls, and they only built the new one as a consequence of imploding the first one?
The only thing in that building that could of stood on it's own was the inner core.
Correct, so if the pancake theory was indeed true I would think we would have seen at least some if not all of the core standing.
Posting photos of the buildings after impact of the jets sure would show fire. However these photos show people standing in the hole the jet made, if the fires were still burning hot enough to weaken the huge steal beams how could the people stand there? Answer, the fires were almost out.
Furthermore NIST admitted the wtc 7 fell at free fall speed after this video was made. Fire cannot make that happen, no way, the building showed a crimp in the roof, a very telling visual. 47 story's fell in 6.5 seconds? It fell strait down, in order for that to happen all the columns would have to be severed at the same time.
The towers fell in just under 10 seconds , thats over 10 floors per second falling into the path of MOST RESISTANCE, thats has to be at least 130 feet of the building in one second, now do you really think gravity did that all by itself?
I don't think so, each floor would have slowed down the collapse, but they fell at free fall speed as if there WAS NO RESISTANCE.. therefore the question is what removed the resistance?
Lets clear that up a bit. What is being said and ignored is that the speed of free fall is a known rate. The speed of gravity. If the buildings "pancaked" as the armchair experts and cover artists suggest, it would have to be slower as the resistance of each floor would slow the descent. In a measurable way. I will give you one building, I will argue about two, I will not hear of three buildings falling in perfect free fall into their own footprint EXACTLY like controlled demolition. Get with the program people. It is statistically impossible. There would have been a staggered effect as the floors impacted the floors below. But it just comes straight down with a roar.(And the sound of high explosives going off) Just throw out all the other problems and focus on the physics of the perfect collapse of 3 buildings.