• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

Easy...look at the 1993 bombing of the WTC (FBI caught red-handed with involvement) a few people died but did it have the type of earth-shattering time-standing-still impact as 9/11? Absolutely not. People really...weren't even freaking out until the buildings came down.

IN the PNAC...they clearly state...that in order for them to get American to move in direction they want to see the country go...it would either take years for this transformation...or it would take a CATASTROPHE...like a New Pearl Harbor.
and then PNAC goes on to talk about they could go about their years of transformation

complete waste of time and money if they knew they were gonan blow up the towers, dont you think?
 
So the first debris hits the ground after 9 and 11 seconds.

What about the rest of the debris?

Careful babazaroni...if you place the number 9 and the number 11 to close together, 28th will consider it part of the conspiracy. He'll think that the PNAC gang planned for the debris to fall precisely 9 and 11 seconds after the buildings began to collapse.;)
 
Last edited:
Sorry... this got buried on the previous page.

Please excuse the repost but I think the point is a salient one:

The thing I really don't understand is this:

Why is the CD even necessary? We all accept the planes hit. All the stuff that followed, the misuse of 911 rhetoric to invade Iraq and Afgahnistan (which even debunking911.com calls "the real conspiracy") which I presume to be at the heart of the necessity for a controlled demolition, would have happened anyway.

The planes hit. That's the attack. That's the "justification" for the War on Terror. There didn't need to be a demolition...

Could anyone more versed in this stuff (even you, 28k!) explain to me why there even needed to have been a demolition, given that two whacking great jumbos did hit the towers?
 
Those seem to be the things that you are saying.

There is some variation in estimates on the fall time, because it's difficult to measure precisely. So what? As many, many people have pointed out, controlled demolition doesn't suddenly accelerate a building faster than gravity. So the fall speed of the towers means nothing one way or the other.

YES explosives...accelerate a collapse..because they quite literally remove all the resistance...which is what should slow a pancaking-style collapse. YOU CAN'T get faster than free fall speeds....AND IT DOESN'T matter the weight of an object...if you drop a cue ball and a 50,000 block of steel from 300 feet...they both hit the ground at the same time.

So SAYING that things were picking up speed...as the collapse progressed...is completely amateurish and unprofessional analysis. And NIST claims this very thing. If they aren't saying a pancaking effect was happening...than they can't say the floors were piling up and creating a heavier mass...that could potentially crush through floors faster. You can't have it both ways.
 
Easy...look at the 1993 bombing of the WTC (FBI caught red-handed with involvement) a few people died but did it have the type of earth-shattering time-standing-still impact as 9/11? Absolutely not. People really...weren't even freaking out until the buildings came down.
Two plane crashing on the WTC would have been more than enough to create a casus belli. Wars have started for much, much less.

IN the PNAC...they clearly state...that in order for them to get American to move in direction they want to see the country go...it would either take years for this transformation...or it would take a CATASTROPHE...like a New Pearl Harbor.
It's a shame you never actually read the PNAC report you are refering to, because if you had, you would have found out that what you just said is false. The "direction they want" you allude to is a modernization of the US millitary toward high tech weaponry. But of course, reading the original paper would be too hard for a lone gun like you; repeating ******** claims that were debunked years ago is much easier.
 
I dawt a daw a putty cat...a big bwack putty cat.

No you DIDN'T!

94904557a6db290b2.jpg


OMG!!! How can you say that, It's SO Obvious, there are no BLACKCATS in this thread!!

94904557a6fddb617.jpg


I can't believe you're so blind! CAT? WHERE????

94904557a77a8d198.jpg
 
YES explosives...accelerate a collapse..because they quite literally remove all the resistance...which is what should slow a pancaking-style collapse. YOU CAN'T get faster than free fall speeds....AND IT DOESN'T matter the weight of an object...if you drop a cue ball and a 50,000 block of steel from 300 feet...they both hit the ground at the same time.

So SAYING that things were picking up speed...as the collapse progressed...is completely amateurish and unprofessional analysis. And NIST claims this very thing. If they aren't saying a pancaking effect was happening...than they can't say the floors were piling up and creating a heavier mass...that could potentially crush through floors faster. You can't have it both ways.

No they do not, only in a vacuum like your head.

On earth the massive piece beats the not so massive piece. I think you need a physics teacher.

It is mass that makes the object over come air resistance.

The 50,000 pound will win. The air will act more on the less massive object.

This is the very reason you need education! You have failed to learn about physics.
 
Here's some more horse**** straight from the horses mouth

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).
As documented in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, these collapse times show that:
“… the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy through energy of deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.”
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely. Source: NIST FAQ
With regards to this quote from the NIST FAQ that you also quoted...

NIST said:
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.
Yes that's correct a lot of the exterior panels fell away from the building as it collapsed thus falling at free fall speeds. Obviously as these large pieces impacted the ground they would have been picked up on the seismographs first leading to the times quoted above. What NIST are also saying is that the total time of collapse was much longer, they even say at the bottom of the text you quoted that significant portions of the cores of both buildings are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation, see below...

southcorestands.gif


wtc.jpg


As you can see above several large pieces of the exterior facade have fallen away from the building, are falling at free-fall speeds, and have overtaken the main collapse taking place above that clearly isn't progressing at free-fall speed. Obviously the lower more visible piece fell away from the building sooner.
 
Easy...look at the 1993 bombing of the WTC (FBI caught red-handed with involvement) a few people died but did it have the type of earth-shattering time-standing-still impact as 9/11? Absolutely not. People really...weren't even freaking out until the buildings came down.

The entire nation was freaking out just looking at the towers burning and people jumping.

Don't you think that was enough to incite a war?

We all knew the world had changed at that moment. No need for collapse.
 
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Are you saying NIST is wrong? More importantly....are you saying 300 of the world's top experts are liars? And MOST importantly....are you saying NIST are murderers?

Em no, you are and you have done so since you started this thread.
 
YES explosives...accelerate a collapse..because they quite literally remove all the resistance...which is what should slow a pancaking-style collapse. YOU CAN'T get faster than free fall speeds....AND IT DOESN'T matter the weight of an object...if you drop a cue ball and a 50,000 block of steel from 300 feet...they both hit the ground at the same time.
The goal of controlled demolition is to make the demolition ordely. That's why it is called "controlled demolition". It's controlled. "Faster" is largely irrelevant. Years ago, some 9/11 researcher came up with all this "free fall" ******** and others quickly repeated the claim. But it's still completely irrelevant today, as it was before. The problem is that the conspiracy theorist mindset doesn't allow for backtracking; if a claim is made then it is supported forever, because the community isn't willing to clean its own body of evidences of its most moronic claims.

So SAYING that things were picking up speed...as the collapse progressed...is completely amateurish and unprofessional analysis. And NIST claims this very thing. If they aren't saying a pancaking effect was happening...than they can't say the floors were piling up and creating a heavier mass...that could potentially crush through floors faster. You can't have it both ways.
All falling things accelerate. On earth, the acceleration is approximatively 9.8m/s^2. That's high school physics. And the more floors you have above you, the more mass you'll have above you; again, that's incredibly obvious for everyone but you.
 
YES explosives...accelerate a collapse..because they quite literally remove all the resistance...which is what should slow a pancaking-style collapse. YOU CAN'T get faster than free fall speeds....AND IT DOESN'T matter the weight of an object...if you drop a cue ball and a 50,000 block of steel from 300 feet...they both hit the ground at the same time.
a removal of resistance does not result in acceleration, explosives do not accelerate a collapse

So SAYING that things were picking up speed...as the collapse progressed...is completely amateurish and unprofessional analysis. And NIST claims this very thing. If they aren't saying a pancaking effect was happening...than they can't say the floors were piling up and creating a heavier mass...that could potentially crush through floors faster. You can't have it both ways.
so what does NIST mean when they say "pancake" collapse? do they mena floors werent piling up or are they refering to a specific kind of collapse mechanism where the joints between the floor trusses and the columns break?

and if the floors werent piling up where were they going?
 
So SAYING that things were picking up speed...as the collapse progressed...is completely amateurish and unprofessional analysis. And NIST claims this very thing. If they aren't saying a pancaking effect was happening...than they can't say the floors were piling up and creating a heavier mass...that could potentially crush through floors faster. You can't have it both ways.

Did you miss gravity? The object falling are accelerating, this is earth, all objects are under acceleration of gravity.

Sorry you have a problem with gravity, but this could be why you can not understand how 9/11 happen. You lack education.

What happen to your thermite fraud?
 
YES explosives...accelerate a collapse..because they quite literally remove all the resistance...which is what should slow a pancaking-style collapse. YOU CAN'T get faster than free fall speeds....AND IT DOESN'T matter the weight of an object...if you drop a cue ball and a 50,000 block of steel from 300 feet...they both hit the ground at the same time.

No they don't. Weight in proportion to surface area matters.

Try dropping a bowling ball and a feather at the same time.

Which hits the ground first?

Free fall speed is obviously different for different objects.
 
Last edited:
did you know that the worlds tallest man used his incredible arm length to remove some pieces of plastic from the stomach of dolphins which had eaten some of the plastic lining from their pool?

Fascinating, huh?
 
A little perspective

I just love this puh-leeze blog from blogspot. I cant post links yet but you can find it.

Consider the scenario....

(in a secret government meeting room, somewhere in a secret government location....)

"Okay, so we've decided: we're going to hijack two airplanes carrying our fellow Americans and crash them into the heart of our country's financial center - which will be full of tens of thousands of American workers. That ought to get this country angry enough for war!"

"Uh, sir? I'm not sure that's enough. How 'bout we find a way to rig the buildings in advance so they'll collapse after the planes hit?"

"Hmmm.... interesting idea Smith. How would we do that?"

"Well, we'd have to hire a contractor and probably a hundred or so workers. And find a way to clear the building for several days before hand. Oh, and we'd have to make sure that all those contractors were as evil as we are and wouldn't mind killing thousands of their fellow citizens. Shouldn't be a problem."

"Great. Let's do that too. Add that to the list."

“Excuse me?”

“Yes Johnson?”

“Why do we need to collapse the buildings? Don’t we think Americans will be angry enough at hundreds of dead airline passengers and WTC workers?”

“Shut up Johnson.”

“Yes sir.”

"Hey! And let's let lots of people in the WTC know that it's going to happen so they can benefit by insider trading!"

"Now that's thinking Smith. Get right on it! So... are we decided then?"

(chorus) "Yes sir!"

"Sir, I have another great idea."

"Let’s hear it Smith."

“Let’s get a third plane and crash it into the Pentagon!”

“Wow. The Pentagon. I like the way your murderous mind works Smith. Somebody put three planes on the requisition list.”

“Well, instead of an actual plane, I was thinking we could just use a missile and tell the American public that it was a plane.”

“Hmm... so we don’t hijack a third airplane?

“Oh no, we still hijack a third plane, but we don't crash it, instead we fire a missile into the Pentagon and
say that it's the plane we hijacked.”

“Wouldn’t it be easier to just crash an actual plane?”

“Well, yes, it would be easier. But I was talking with Stevens here, from the Office of Making Things Exponentially More Complicated Than Necessary, and he thinks that not only should we use a missile instead of the plane that we’re going to have to hijack anyway, we should offload all the passengers and crew somewhere else, kill them, and then return the plane to the airline.”

“So we kill the passengers and crew at some other location and then transport all the dead bodies to the Pentagon?”

“No we’ll just dump the bodies somewhere else, maybe a mass grave in Iraq - dress them all up to look like dead Kurds or something.”

“How will we explain the fact that there are no passengers’ bodies at the crash site? And no plane?”

“We’ll say they were incinerated in the fire.”

“Hmmm... that makes no sense whatsoever. I think I like it.”

“Excuse me?”

“What is it this time Johnson?”

“Why return the plane to the airline?”

“Shut up Johnson”

“Yes sir.”

“Okay, so I think we’ve got it. We hijack three planes, crash two of them into the WTC which we’ve prewired to crumble into dust, take the third plane and disappear it long enough to murder the passengers and crew then return that plane to the airline (Stevens, make a note to find an evil airline that will go along with that) and fire a missile into the Pentagon that we will then claim is the missing airplane. Now that will definitely get us a war! The public will be outraged!!! So I guess we’re all decided.... Wait. As long as we’re destroying the twin towers, lets blow up that ugly little building on the side too. I never liked that building.”

(chorus) “Yes sir. You da man!”

"Sir? I recommend that we also crash a plane into Pennsylvania."

"Pennsylvania? Into what, the Amish?"

"No. Just a field in Pennsylvania."

“Smith, I like the idea of killing innocent Americans as much as the next government official, but we’ve already stretched ourselves pretty thin here. We’ve got to find evil contractors to help us blow up the WTC, evil capitalists who’re willing to profit from it even while they’re sitting in the building that they know is about to be hit by an airplane, murderers who will kill the passengers of the plane we’re not crashing and help dispose of the bodies, an evil airline to take the supposedly-crashed plane back, evil military types with missiles to launch one at the nation’s military command center... the list goes on and on. And I think we’ve got our war pretty well sewn up with what we’ve got here. I don’t see why we need to attack a Pennsylvania field.”

"Yes sir. But you haven’t heard the rest of my idea. Instead of just hijacking the plane and crashing it into the field - that would be easy enough - we’ll hijack the plane, fly it to Ohio, unload everyone (and kill them of course) then create a fake crash site in Pennsylvania and transport the bodies there along with some fake wreckage!"

"Wouldn't it be easier to just hijack the plane and crash it?"

“Well of course. But if we do it my way we could let literally hundreds MORE unnecessary people in on our plan!”

“You’re right Smith, when it comes to a huge secret conspiracy like we’re planning, the more people involved, the better.”

“Oh, and before we kill the passengers and crew, we’ll record their voices and use some brand new and still pretty untested technology to place phony phone calls to their loved ones telling those loved ones that they’re going to die! That way we’ll have even more people involved.”

"Smith, you're a genius. No one can concoct a super-secret conspiracy like you."

“Excuse me?”

“This better be good Johnson.”

“I don’t know if I can really go along with this. I mean, isn’t just one plane into one tower plenty of carnage to get us our war? After all, only a few hundred soldiers died at Pearl Harbor and that led to a World War. Isn’t this, well,
overkill?”

“You really feel that way Johnson?”

“Yes sir.”

“Somebody shoot Johnson.”

(chorus) "Yes sir!"

"Sir! Wait!"

"Smith?"

"Instead of just shooting Johnson, why don't we take off all his clothes and throw them out the window? Then we can tell people that he jumped and killed himself but that his body vaporized upon contact with the ground. Then we'll call an emergency evacuation of this building so that we can walk Johnson buck naked down thirty floors and into the parking garage, where we'll take him into the security room and have a dozen-or-so evil teamsters beat him senseless with tire irons. Then we'll get a squad of evil cheerleaders to ..... "
 
more about floors piling up, how do you explain this?
24912509.jpg


you can clearly see 2 concrete floor slabs with the remains of the trusses crushed between them (reduced to about 12 inches high)
 

Back
Top Bottom