|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 1, 2007 0:05:04 GMT -4
Alex is an idiot. Everything from his lame conjectureWell when he repeats the oft used, but demonstratably incorrect lines that: 1) The collapse was at freefall speed (it wasn't the entire collapse took at least 14 secs, not the 6.5 the CT sites edit the video to show. This is when the Eastern Mechanical Penthouse goes, and the indications are that the collapse is already well underway at that stage, so the internal collapse could have already bee going for several seconds prior to this.) 2) That it was sudden. (It wasn't, the firecrews and emergency crews had been pulled off rescue operations over 2 hours eariler, and witnesses had been saying they thought it was coming down well before that occured.) 3) It was symetrical (It wasn't, the debris damage to nearby buildings shows it, and the collpase itself is quite obviously not because the internals at the eastern end of the building collapsed at least 7 seconds before any of the rest of it went. The only part of the collapse that was symetrical was the North facade, but that fell 7 seconds after the first visible signs of collapse.) 4) Building 7 wasn't damaaged and only had light fires. (Shown to be obviously wrong by video of the fires and smoke pouring from the building, even though our resident pretzel tried to deny that blatently obvious fact in the other thread.) If he can't get these 4 major points right, why should we give any of the rest of his speculation, and that is all it is, any merit? There has never been a steel frame building before or after 9-11 that pancaked completely to the ground at near free-fall speeds. You know it as well as I. On 9-11, three steel frame buildings are alleged to to have done just that. The only pancakes I'm aware of have been reinforced concrete structures from an earthquake, never from fire alone. They also leave a pile of mostly intact floors at the bottom, not a pulverized and shredded pile of rubble. Gravity alone cannot explain that kind of disintegration, especially of the steel, explosives can. Steel is flexible, it tends to bend not break, unless explosives are involved. Regarding the speed of the collapse, careful observation of the twin tower videos show that the leading edge of the collapse was actually moving to the ground ahead of the debris that was falling from above. That's impossible unless explosives were involved.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 1, 2007 0:30:29 GMT -4
What I find amazing is that everyone here seems to think that a statement of a building collapse could be released by accident to the media before it happened. Building collapses are unpredictable unless they're planned demolitions. Yet there are numerous eyewitness reports of a countdown being heard over radio channels before the collapse of WTC7. That's impossible unless it was a controlled demolition.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Mar 1, 2007 0:30:44 GMT -4
...never from fire alone. WTC 1 & 2 were also hit by planes. WTC 7 was hit by bits of building.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Mar 1, 2007 0:37:18 GMT -4
Yet there are numerous eyewitness reports of a countdown being heard over radio channels before the collapse of WTC7. That's impossible unless it was a controlled demolition. Rather more likely that the earwitnesses were simply mistaken, if genuine. Who the heck would be transmitting over radio a count-down for a demolition; when it's supposed to be a secret? Who would need to hear that countdown? Are these people so daft they can't even use an encoded or scrambled radio? (But still so celever they did all that other stuff...?) How is that remotely believable? (Let alone the complete lack of proof of actual demolition of WTC 7).
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 1, 2007 0:38:28 GMT -4
...never from fire alone. WTC 1 & 2 were also hit by planes. WTC 7 was hit by bits of building. All 3 buildings remained standing after being hit. WTC 1&2 were designed to survive a plane hit. The fires are blamed for all 3 collapses, not the initial damage. If the damage caused the collapses, why were they so symmetrical? And again, the speed of the 3 collapses rules out gravitational collapse anyway. A gravitational collapse can't move faster than the debris above it.
|
|
|
Post by 911: Inside Job on Mar 1, 2007 0:47:34 GMT -4
Yet there are numerous eyewitness reports of a countdown being heard over radio channels before the collapse of WTC7. That's impossible unless it was a controlled demolition. Rather more likely that the earwitnesses were simply mistaken, if genuine. Who the heck would be transmitting over radio a count-down for a demolition; when it's supposed to be a secret? Who would need to hear that countdown? Are these people so daft they can't even use an encoded or scrambled radio? (But still so celever they did all that other stuff...?) How is that remotely believable? (Let alone the complete lack of proof of actual demolition of WTC 7). Well for one, they knew people like you would never believe the eyewitnesses, if it weren't on the evening news, so why bother to hide it? They knew they could spin it any way they wanted after the fact, and so they did. They even left WTC7 out of the Omission Report. They also knew that most personnel on site that day would be pretty easy to intimidate into silence or convinced they didn't see or hear what they saw and heard.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Mar 1, 2007 0:58:39 GMT -4
All 3 buildings remained standing after being hit. Of course, but they WERE damaged. You implied that the fire alone was what caused them to collapse and left out the physical damage they'd also suffered. Physical damage + fire + time = collapse. WTC 1 & 2 were designed to survive a plane hit. Not that big a plane hit. Also, the fire protection was determined to have been damaged. (Damage, plus fire, remember?) The fires are blamed for all 3 collapses, not the initial damage. It all counts. Who says it was fire alone? If the damage caused the collapses, why were they so symmetrical? I didn't say the damage caused the collapse. I said the damage plus the fires. I don't see why that's a problem anyway. Large floor areas damaged. Large floor areas on fire. Those buildings were wide - once a floor gave way, the floors above basically fell down. That's the way gravity points. No reason to topple like a felled tree. Besides, the falls were not all that symetrical. The tops of the WTC 1 & 2 can be seen to be going sideways a bit, as part of the overall collapse. WTC 7 spilled over a fairly wide area. And again, the speed of the 3 collapses rules out gravitational collapse anyway. A gravitational collapse can't move faster than the debris above it. Plenty of observers of the videos would disagree with you. Note the pulverised debris ("dust") will fall slower than the main collapse, and that can be mis-leading to the naive. Collapses are also chaotic. Not everything will only fall exactly down; there will be stuff going all over the place (within the overall collapse; this does not contradict the basic "down" direction of the fall).
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Mar 1, 2007 0:59:41 GMT -4
Well for one, they knew people like you would never believe the eyewitnesses, if it weren't on the evening news, so why bother to hide it? That is laughably weak.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 1, 2007 1:09:10 GMT -4
On 9-11, three steel frame buildings are alleged to to have done just that. "Alleged" is right. You'll note none of us are going around claiming that three buildings collapsed symmetrically at near-free fall speeds due to fire alone. We've said, repeatedly, that three buildings collapsed unevenly at the speed at which buildings generally collapse due to a combination of serious damage and fire, in one case exacerbated by the odd construction of the building and the fact that it was storing a highly flammable substance. (Edit to fix tags.)
|
|
|
Post by wingerii on Mar 1, 2007 2:07:22 GMT -4
Personally, I'd be the first one asking questions if the buildings fell over like trees.
|
|
|
Post by pzkpfw on Mar 1, 2007 2:35:11 GMT -4
Personally, I'd be the first one asking questions if the buildings fell over like trees. ...or if the floors actually did pancake down, leaving the "central core" intact.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Mar 1, 2007 4:50:54 GMT -4
The collapse of WTC 7 was very symmetrical and straight down. That is clearly evident from every video of the collapse.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Mar 1, 2007 6:59:35 GMT -4
The collapse of WTC 7 was very symmetrical and straight down. That is clearly evident from every video of the collapse. It was pretty symmetrical, not perfectly though. You can look at videos all you want, theorize and be incredulous until the cows come home. Regardless, the entire argument hinges on the question of whether the collapse was impossible without CD. If you believe yes, this is where you need to tread lightly and present some pretty compelling evidence, because quite a few folks who have studied stuff like this for many years disagree with you. Turbonium I hate to bring up experts all the time, but I'm not qualified to judge whether the collapse I saw on TV and watch on video could only occur if the building was rigged with explosives. I must defer to experts. Fortunately for me, the vast majority of those experts are on my side so it's not that big a deal. You on the other hand must include in your theory why the expert consensus is against you; I realize your conviction is important, but I certainly wouldn't want to be in your shoes.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 1, 2007 7:55:46 GMT -4
The collapse of WTC 7 was very symmetrical and straight down. That is clearly evident from every video of the collapse.
If it was so symetrical, explain why the Western end begins to collapse a full 6 seconds after the Eastern end.
And if it was straight down explain the damage it did to the nearby buildings, one so much so that it was later on demolished.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Mar 1, 2007 8:44:18 GMT -4
I've looked at the video, and at the moment I am leaning heavily on the 'mistake' idea, largely because, as is so often the case with conspiracy theorists, I await the arrival of the complete footage. I would be most interested in seeing the news coverage of the time of the actual collapse and what the reporters said about it then. Of course, the CTs don't give us that, they just end the uninterrupted footage as the feed from New York breaks down, but before WTC 7 collapses, and then think their view is irrefutably demonstrated. Give us the rest of the evidence. You wouldn't convict a man of killing someone just because he was seen heading towards their appartment carrying a baseball bat, so I won't convict the BBC or draw any conclusions about a conspiracy until and unless the rest of that footage turns up for analysis. Well it's on my hard drive, all 1gb of it and five minutes after the female with the skyline blocking huge head, which just happens to be acting as a sundial is pulled from the ether the building collapsed. The BBC footage however remains in the London studio where they continue the war script. I could cut my copy up into 100mb bits and post them on Youtube but what the hell I didn't lose my copy, ask the beeb for one. I love this blog. Only one or two silly people out of over two hundred. ;D www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
|
|