Having complained of people posting off topic, it seems a reasonable solution to give an opportunity for people to discuss the topics I am banning from other threads – of which 9/11 seems the most popular.
I do not believe that the US government, or any of its agencies, were responsible for 9/11. It would just need too many people to be involved. Someone would have objected. There are some strange and dangerous people in America, but not in sufficient concentration for this one. They couldn’t even keep Watergate quiet, and that was a small group. Any group I can think of – even Blackwater – would contain operatives with scruples about blowing up New York. They may be sadly ready to kill people in poor countries, but Americans en masse? Somebody would say it wasn’t a good idea.
I asked a friend in the construction industry what it would take to demolish the twin towers. He replied nine months, 80 men, and 12 miles of cabling. The notion that a small team at night could plant sufficient explosives embedded at key points, is laughable.
The forces of the aircraft impacts must have been amazingly high. I have no difficulty imagining they would bring down the building. As for WTC 7, again the kinetic energy of the collapse of the twin towers must be immense.
I admit to a private speculation about WTC7. Unfortunately in construction it is extremely common for contractors not to fix or install properly all the expensive girders, ties and rebar that are supposed to be enclosed in the concrete. Supervising contractors and municipal inspectors can be corrupt. I recall vividly that in London some years ago a tragedy occurred when a simple gas oven explosion brought down the whole side of a tower block.
The inquiry found that the building contractor had simply omitted the ties that bound the girders at the corners, all encased in concrete. If a gas oven had not blown up, nobody would have found out. Buildings I strongly suspect are very often not as strong as they are supposed to be, with contractors skimping on apparently redundant protection. The sort of sordid thing you might not want too deeply investigated in the event of a national tragedy.
Precisely what happened at the Pentagon I am less sure. There is not the conclusive film and photographic evidence that there is for New York. I am particularly puzzled by the much more skilled feat of flying that would be required to hit a building virtually at ground level, in an urban area, after a lamppost clipping route – very hard to see how a non-professional pilot did that. But I can think of a number of possible scenarios where the official explanation is not quite the whole truth on the Pentagon, but which do not necessitate a belief that the US government or Dick Cheney was behind the attack.
In my view the real scandal of 9/11 was that it was blowback – the product of a malignant terrorist agency whose origins lay in CIA funding and provision. Also blowback in a more general sense that it was spawned in the nasty theocratic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia which is so close to the US and to the Bush dynasty in particular. As with almost all terrorist activity, I do not rule out any point on the whole spectrum of surveillance, penetration and agent provocateur activity by any number of possible actors.
But was 9/11 false flag and controlled demolition? No, I think not.
(Now I have given full opportunity to discuss 9/11 here, any further references on other threads will be instantly deleted).
Tony Blair has told the Chilcot Inquiry
that 9/11 is the key to everything in
understanding why he invaded Iraq.
Reinvestigate 9/11 agrees with this but
calls on Chilcot to examine suspicions
widespread in many countries, that in
some way 911 was an inside job. After a
series of devastating leaks in the US it
is no longer possible to claim that the
9/11 Commission satisfactorily explained
how, armed with plastic knives, 19
fanatics, several known to the CIA, were
able to evade arrest, take over and
accurately control large modern jets with considerable skill.
So far Chilcot has failed even to
acknowledge the submission sent to his
inquiry by Reinvestigate 911.
Ian Henshall, co-ordinator of
Reinvestigate 911, said:
“Chilcot has been charged to examine and
report on how we went to war over Iraq and its non-existent WMD. Many will find
it ironic or even dishonest if he now
bins our submission and takes the
official 9/11 story on trust.”
Chilcot’s brief starts in June 2001.
This was when, as the 911 Commission confirmed, the White House was turning a deaf ear to warnings of an imminent
attack within the US. After 9/11
officials deceitfully told the media
that the attacks had been unimaginable
and unforeseen.
Reinvestigate 9/11 calls on everyone of
goodwill to join our demand for a
real investigation into 9/11 and
supports those calling for a public
inquiry into the events of 7/7 in
London. There is an accumulation
of evidence which strongly suggests that all is not as it seems with the war on
terror. There are some very odd
coincidences and many who should not
have done have benefited from 9/11. For
instance we now know that Blair and the
neocons were planning to invade Iraq –
not after 9/11, but before.
Reinvestigate 911 says in the US and UK
there has been a worrying lack of
interest from the corporate media in
these issues, and has condemned the
BBC’s Conspiracy Files programmes on
9/11 as failing in its duty of
impartiality.
What angri and the disinformationists above don’t want you to factor into your 911 enquiries is the Zionist input into the atrocity.
This input leads all the way back to the Rothschilds whose agents have controlled Obama and all who came before him since the time when Colonel Edward House controlled Woodrow Wilson.
B’Nai B’rith,the Rothschild-sponsored fringe masonic group;ADL another offshoot;Mossad-the Rothschild intelligence service all played their part.Now these guys can pull a stunt like 911 at the drop of a hat and cover it up afterwards.
http://theupliftingcrane.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-zionist-elephant-in-the-room/
Funny how angri,Larry and the guy with crabs didn’t mention any of this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUatnbaNfEo
“Is there any evidence that any steel had been heated by the fire above 600 degrees F,
and even then for more than a short period? There were people clearly standing in
the gap created by the planes, so it’s unlikely there was a huge furnace raging away
in there.”
Can I ask where the photos are of the people standing in the gap created by the planes??? All I could see was smoke when I watched the news and all the other footage. Also how do you know there wasn’t a huge furnace raging away? Stop making unsubstantiated assumption, it isn’t very scientific. One point you should consider and this is from Barbara Lane.
Barbara Lane is the leading structural fire expert with Arup Engineers, the top engineering firm in the world, and she did a study on the WTC which concluded that:
“Arup?s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers?”even without the airplane impact?”could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems. The Arup analysis conclusively illustrates that even with code-approved fire protection, a severe fire?”without aircraft impact?”could still lead to collapse.”
The people who you don’t believe are experts in their field, I know as i have worked with arup and i know how good they are, and have produced an indepth study on the collapse of the WTC.
The point is that nearly every conclusion from every analysis points to the fire and structural damage causing the building to collapse. Just because they came straight down doesn’t mean that law of physics was abandoned as it is all dependant on which section of the structure was damaged and when.
If you can’t get that into you head then I suggest you go and become a structural engineer and prove everyone wrong because at the moment all you are doing is ignoring the evidence that is in front of you.
“the disinformationists above don’t want you to factor into your 911 enquiries is the Zionist input into the atrocity.. ..the guy with crabs didn’t mention any of this?”
Because i cant judge it, im not a great reader of such subjects, and sorry, but yours comes partly at least from sites which dont discriminate between, eg. Niburu myths and presentable analysis.
I think the visible case that 911 was a false flag operation, maintained properly by groups like: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org
– is only weakened when its linked to fogged out realms of secrecy and espionage.
—
“Arup?s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers?”even without the airplane impact?” COULD have LED TO collapse…”
So, we read, it has been concluded that several impact and fire damaged floors COULD have failed. The following rapid over energetic collapse, is an entirely unexplained matter Chris.
Each of the towers took 10 to 15 seconds (at a stretch) to pulverise, throw off and plummet their mass completely after their contestable initial failures.
The simplest physical model of the North Tower, with no structural or frictional resistance takes at least 10 seconds to drop onto itself.
With a 20% loss of kinetic energy to smashing pulverisation and tearing steel, the time is 21 seconds.
The official reports dam themselves by not commenting on the energy and speed of the collapses -that may have followed structural failure at a crash site but are not explained by it.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation…
“In order to keep a sense of reality as we discuss NIST’s theory it may be useful to label the three interacting parts of the North Tower, as they are pictured by NIST, as RB-12+, DS-6 and RB-92. Where RB stands for Rigid Block, DS stands for Damaged Structure, and the numbers following the letters refer to the number of stories in each structure. The upper block comprised 12 stories of 99-110 as well as the roof structure with antenna and hat truss; the intermediate area was damaged by plane impact and fire and was 6 stories high (93-98 inclusive); and the lower block was rigid and comprised, in addition to subterranean levels, the first 92 stories of the building.
These designations actualy underestimate the contrast between RB-12+ and RB-92, because the latter was not only largely undamaged by fire but was more massive per story. It was also stronger: the towers columns tapered as they ascended. Yet the fall of RB-12+, we are supposed to beleive put a catastrophic end to DS-6 and RB-92.
What NIST essentially says, agreeing with Bazant, is that the lighter weaker part initally fell with a powerful jolt onto the heavier and stronger part, which could not withstand its momentum, and that this caused a progressive collapse to initiate smashing the lower block to bits all the way to the ground.”
The feild of Structural Engineering does not contain the only (or even necessarily -the best) methods to scrutinise these matters.
Great idea, thanks for this tip!
Tim Groves: “I heard explosions while the buildings were collapsing in the video I posted. Also, many ey witnesses are quoted as having heard explosions, some at the time of collapse, on that video. And there are other videos on YouTube in which explosions are audible at the time of the collapses.”
I don’t know which video you are talking about now, but the one that begins with the message claiming to be “unbunkable” is junk evidence. Why? Because it doesn’t prove what you are trying to.
Saying that explosions were heard on that day is meaningless, because what we are trying to determine is whether or not there was a controlled demolition and such explosions were consistent with that.
As I pointed out, the first explosion – and yes, I certainly agree that was an explosion – occurred after the Twin towers had fallen. It couldn’t have played any role in their destruction, then could it?
Why was it included here? Because Truther evidence is often cobbled together to be suggestive and not to true to the timeline or the events it is purporting to be about.
We also have a load of commentators saying, “explosion…bomb…van…carbomb…secondary explosions….etc…etc…” Again, this is made in a suggestive way without any attempt to analyse each claim.
For example, if we’re talking about a suspected carbomb, we have to have established the fact that it was packed with explosives. Has it been? I have never seen a Truther unearth that information.
We also have to have explained to us how a car bomb or some other “device” is part of a controlled demolition. But it hasn’t been. So, I wonder what that video is supposed to show.
Tim Groves: “Of course, there is none so deaf as he who will not hear. Are denying that there were any audible explosions or that none of the noises audible during the collapses was due to an explosion? And are you going to say that the entire burden of proof is on me to prove that some of those noises were explosions? How tiresome!”
The only people claiming here that the answer has been “conclusively proven” are the Truthers. You seconded that comment and then Glenn came into say that he had carried his own motion. If you think that something has been proven conclusively by shoddily and dishonestly put together videos made by some kid in his bedroom then you won’t mind a bit of skeptical quizzing of you now that you’ve declared victory.
But such hasty declarations of victory show just why you deserve the label Truthers (or even True Believers) while your claims to skepticism should be treated with, well, skepticism.
A skeptic looks for the best explanation, while Truthers look for the best story.
So, what are the best explanations for the eye-witness (or ear-witness) testimony of explosions?
Well, many of those do talk about what they thought were secondary explosions which came after each tower had collapsed. With the available material we can account for those. If you look at the NIST report of building 7, you’ll find there were burning cars some of which exploded (this can also be seen on the BBC’s Conspiracy Files… a whole row of burnt out cars) and also reports from news reporters who said there were vehicles which exploded. Presumably there would also be generators that could have exploded and some of those who worked at the Trade Center did report that they heard noises that sounded to them like generators exploding.
Ashley Banfield reported hearing explosions, but again, I believe these occurred after the collapse of the towers making it unlikely that they were the cause of the collapse of the towers. She also later reported that the fire department expected building seven to collapse and was on the scene when it did.
“I’m afraid I’m no more able to tell the difference between the sound of a bunch of explosions and the sound of a falling skyscraper or the sound of a heard of buffalo galloping across the praries than you are. But some people are quite skilled at such thing.”
“And you can discriminate between these different noises? When picked up by a camcorder mike 100 meters or more away in the middle of a noisy Manhatten major disaster? You’re ears are better than mine.”
Well which one is it? Are my ears no better or better?
I’m not necessarily talking about noises on a camcorder (although nice strawman). We also have my favourite reporter Ashley Banfield back again who was interviewing a woman with a baby when building seven collapsed. A controlled demolition would be, according to experts Ron Craig (whose points you have ignored) and Frazer and many others deafeningly loud and presumably quite sharp.
So, why is it that we have Ashley Banfield leisurely turning to see building seven collapsing as it rumbles to the ground instead of how I or you would react if a building was suddenly being destroyed by TNT. We quite clearly don’t seem to be listening to a controlled demolition. If you don’t believe me please listen again to the controlled demolitions on Implosion World and tell me that that sounds like a herd of stampeding buffalo. I’ll find it hard to believe.
Remember also that there have been several people who were quoted as saying they heard what sounds like explosions or even bombs. But lets imagine ourselves for a second or two a little better at recognizing metaphors and similes that Dylan Avery is.
Louie Caccioli, for example has said that People magazine misquoted him and wants to have nothing to do with Truthers. There were a group of people interviewed in hospital who mentioned “bombs” but were clearly quoted out of a context that would clarify things and there are many others who have since been used by Truthers when they were clearly explaining the aircraft impacts etc…
9/11 Mysteries also did this and a commentary of it showing all the distortions is available on Google video.
Looking at all this “evidence”, I really can’t quite believe that it has been made honestly or that it is believed in sincerely. Yet it does seem to be.
I find that strange.
Frank Legge: “The conclusion of the NIST report is that fire and aircraft damage caused the initiating event that brought down the towers. Within the body of their report however is the statement that no steel was found which had been heated above 600 oC.This arouses suspicion as such temperatures should not be sufficient to bring about collapse.”
I haven’t read the NIST report because at 10,000 pages long, I do have better things to do. But I always get a bit suspicious about sentences that have been cherry-picked as if they tell the whole story. Shame on me for treating Truthers with suspicion but they have well-earned themselves suspicion with their wildly dishonest claims.
The problem I have with Legge’s essay here is that he presents little evidence for saying that temperatures below 600 degree centigrade (yes, Glenn, it is centigrade not fahrenheit!) couldn’t bring the towers down. It seems to be simply an assertion.
I’ve shown the video before of the steel-framed building that collapsed all the way to the floor from fires which didn’t look especially hot (though I don’t claim to be an expert or to know how hot the building actually was). There were never any comments on that either.
Tim Groves: “Soba, the WTC towers were constructed of three-dimensional steel grids that would have resisted any tendency to collapse all the way and would have absorbed the energy of a collapse had it started, which it wouldn’t have.”
Again, I can only point you to what Leslie Robertson said about the Towers which was that if the load was only being supported by the floor of one of the stories then the floor would give way instantly (he clarified that by saying he meant instantly only insofar as we could perceive it).
Although NIST didn’t go beyond what intiated global collapse (Legge seems to be of the impression that NIST was supposed to show how they collapsed and used “papers” by Ross and Ryan etc… to show that the tower couldn’t pancake to the floor), Ryan Mackey has pointed out that the beams in the towers were bolted as opposed to welded, which would have made them comparatively weaker and accounts for their lack of resistance to 10 to 15 stories of steel and concrete.
Are Truthers saying that Leslie Robertson is lying? Or mistaken? May I ask what Mr Legge’s qualifications?
Crab: Tony Szamboti and Ryan Mackey debate his paper on Hardfire. I have posted links to this already.
A sticking point seemed to be that Szamboti refused to believe there was a tilt in the North tower prior to collapse. Mackey doesn’t understand how he can deny it as he finds it quite clear that it was there. I agree with Mackey.
It seems to be important as this was, I believe, an answer to Bazant whose own paper on the collapse of the towers, produced only a couple of days after the collapse itself offered THE POSSIBILITY of a pancake collapse, but which was written before Bazant had a lot of evidence to base it on. His suggested collapse was biased in favour of the towers NOT collapsing but has since been picked up as evidence by Truthers that a collapse was not possible.
(It is weird that Truthers think there is some kind of subtle subversion going on where there are all kinds of explicit messages delivered by the REAL culprits of the terrorist attack: “Hey! Larry Silverspoon admitted to demolishing the towers on TV! FEMA said that towers’ collapse was impossible! NIST said that it was impossible too! Ronald Dumsfeld said he shot the plane down! Some news guy said it was a cruise missile!” etc… etc… etc…)
Anyway, Crab, if you’ve got a lot of time to kill you may want to wade through this discussion of Tony Szamboti.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=140639
(Interestingly it starts with the suggestion that the Journal of 9/11 Studies is rather partial about which papers it accepts – i.e not those that follow the “official line”!)
I will say that I think Tony Szamboti is completely honest and genuinely believes what he is saying. But like all those who are genuine, I think he’s misapplying certain knowledge and getting too carried away trying to cling on to an apparent anomaly.
Oh, I’ll reprint that comment here now.
This is from “Dave Rogers” on the JREF forum talking about the Journal of 9/11 Studies (or JON-ES as he calls it here):
“Several months ago, Gregory Urich submitted a paper to JON-ES analysing the dynamics of the collapse, and demonstrating that the collapse times – and, clearly, the fact of collapse itself – were consistent with a gravity driven process. His paper was rejected on the grounds that JO-NES was ceasing publication, because they felt that no further evidence was necessary to demonstrate that the official story of 9/11 cannot stand up to scrutiny and must therefore be re-investigated. Please note that there was no criticism of Urich’s methodology, reasoning or conclusions; the paper was simply rejected. Now, however, it appears that JON-ES is not only still publishing, but still publishing on the specific subject of the dynamics of the Twin Towers collapses. Since they have neither published Urich’s paper nor, as far as I know, informed him of any adverse peer review result that would justify its rejection, it seems clear to me that their only possible motivation for its rejection is that it does not agree with their preferred conclusion concerning 9/11. I felt certain that this was already the case, but the subject matter of this latest paper places the matter beyond question. The Journal of 9/11 Studies is therefore shown to be no more than a propaganda organ of the 9/11 truth movement. Ironically, this active suppression of any dissenting opinion is exactly the behaviour of which all mainstream media are accused by the 9/11 truth movement, usually without justification.
The behaviour of this “journal” is reprehensible and repulsive.”
Oh God!
What am I talking about?
Tony Szamboti’s as credulous as the rest of you Truthers. He, like you, believes it because he wants to believe it.
Budgerigars trilling among themselves re-structural engineering etc. is merely a heavy-handed attempt by disinformationists to extinguish the thing they fear most.
Natural human curiosity.
They mean for you to be so frustrated by their meaningless debate that you’ll stay away from this site and be thoroughly turned off the idea of doing your own research.
The propagandists for the appallingly threadbare official 9/11 account are running around like the little Dutch boy trying to plug the dykes.
They know and are deeply apprehensive about the prospect of millions of people coming to the realisation that on 9/11 and the elite NWO plan generally they have been the victims of a none too subtle mind control operation.
Any researcher worth their salt will ultimately be led to the structures of power in New York,London and Tel Aviv who had the the form,means,motive and power to cover it up as the perpetrators of 9/11.
Conspiracists are ahead of the game quite simply because they are more vigilant about defending humanity against those who plan our enslavement.
9/11 propagandists like angrisober,Larry,technicolored are way behind the game and they know it.
Conspiracy’s gone mainstream,guys!
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17295
Too late to plug the dykes you saps!
You’ll find no references to the Our Crowd NY banking elites,British sponsorship of the Dope Inc network and affiliated assassination bureau in 9/11 propagandist accounts.
They rely on the public not delving into the history of a network that has initiated assassination,economic take-down and war over the centuries that have followed Palmerston’s setting it up.
9/11 was a piece of cake for them.
Nice summary here:
http://thirdworldtraveller.com/Drug_War/DOPE_INC_part3.html
“Szamboti refused to believe there was a tilt in the North tower prior to collapse”
Whether the upper section of the North tower tilted or somersaulted before collapse doesnt alter its potential to smash through the rest of the tower below it at an impossible rate. Im not interested in Szamboti’s performance on in jib-jab debates, he has just co-authored a fine article which you prefered to immediately direct away from.
“Several months ago, Gregory Urich submitted a paper to JON-ES analysing the dynamics of the collapse…”
angrysoba, i can find no so such paper available online. JO-NES does host a paper of Urich’s which documents the towers mass and construction. It doesnt comment on the towers ability to coll-plode(sic) at inordinate speed.
If there is a paper by Urich that does, JO-NES are really as responsible for publishing it as the IPCC are for demonstrating sun spots are the true cause of global warming!
The oligarchy that enjoys the unique form of political control that comes from control of narcotics,dominant positioning in the precious metals and gems markets and above all its ability to bring a multi-hundred billion dollar cash flow to bear on the corruption of lagal organs and sovereign states shares an ancient Babylonian conception of humanity.
We are but “talking beasts”,creatures of appetite who can be manipulated by our experience of pain/pleasure inflicted via the leading institutions of international finance to do the bidding of the elite.
This conception of men as “talking beasts” rings true for the prattling DISINFO team here that includes Airhead Larry,angridickbrain,itchy crabs,teckni(can’t spell his own name)culer et al.
LOL!
crabs
Mindless,phoney debates on this thread with friends who have deserted you will,unfortunately for someone with your condition,not wash.
No-one is dumb enough to follow your disinformation trail.
Get Larry on the case!
Your last best hope thinks Bildeberger is a cake with squares in it,the Illuminati are a tourist attraction in Blackpool,England and thermite is a tropical insect of the Isoptera order weaponized by Al Ciada on 9/11!
Send for Mindless of Missouri!
“Can I ask where the photos are of the people standing in the gap created by the planes???”
There are several here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc1_woman.html
paranewsguys – You cant just throw zionism, banking, bilderberg, masons, templars, illumaniti, harpp, chemtrails… and then 911 into a big thread and call it the hidden truth. Each subject needs focus to establish its details.
My comments might not be greatly mindful, but they arent phoney.
“Conspiracy’s gone mainstream,guys!
http://globalresearch.ca/”
NOW this just highlights the necessary over-arching delusion of 911 truthers. They have to believe that their conspiracy theories are now being accepted by the mainstream public (after years and years). Otherwise, they would have to face their own deviant beliefs. They have to continue to believe that this will happen any time now.
Someone above said “motion carried” merely because angrysoba and me did not get back to them on something irrelevant.
Sorry, nutters. The public will never view you as anything other than nutters. The anti-war movement has rejected you (I DARE you to show up at an anti-war rally with a “911 was an inside job” sign). Craig Murray does not believe in your 911 conspiracy theories.
It’s hard to believe the retarded idiocy of these peasants who can’t make basic logical inferences from obvious premises. It’s time to educate these shills and simpletons, yes 911 was an inside job duh!!! Obviously.
FACT 1: The north tower ACCELERATED through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton’s third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it’s weight, which means it?s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.
FACT 2: The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG2y50Wyys4
FACT3: The top section of the South Tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum.
The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of the upper section’s toppling proves the removal of the lower section’s resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.
An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.
FACT 4: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage.
Even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.
FACT 5: The 2.2 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) ADMITS to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.
Freefall means all the object’s gravitational potential is converted to motion, in order to crush tonnes of structural steel and concrete, a large part of that gravitational potential must be used, which would slow it down to a rate much less than freefall.
Verinage demolition is non-analagous to 911 for the following reasons:
The building materials were very flimsy and not reinforced anywhere near to the degree the towers were.
The whole Verinage buildings represent a small upper segment of the towers proportion-wise so there is no time for the net upward force to reduce the acceleration and absorb the momentum before it hits the ground, whereas in the towers you would see the (proportionately much less) momentum be absorbed rapidly. Also you DO see a slow down in the Verinage collapses unlike 911 where there is constant acceleration.
Also the twin towers suffered asymmetric damage making a symmetric collapse impossible, the verinage buildings were arranged to have the top block fall symmetrically.
Lastly, there is the possibility due to the nature of the Verinage collapses that demolitions or structural pre-weakening was used and it was part of a plan to support the official story. This however is speculation, the above physical evidence however is irrefutable proof of the fallacy in using Verinage to explain 911.
Controlled Demolition proven, you can all go home now
GAME OVER
Craig Murray, your foolishness and ignorance is legendary…………Cables???!!! WTF???!!!!
Ever heard of remote control detonation?!!! Lol!
We have the wheel now too in case you hadn’t notice those strange rolling circles on the bizarre metal beasts.
Zounds!
There is nothing more funny than British anti-Americanism.
juniper
You bin’at der gin,agin?
Check out this exhaustively detailed and fascinating piece on how the Naudet brothers filmed the first plane hitting the Towers.
The brothers were with the NY fire department making a film about their work.The firefighters were working on a drain,traffic had been stopped…….when out of the blue along came this plane no-one but these guys knew was coming!
http://www.spingola.com/jules_naudet.htm
So does everyone here include the firefighters in the list of saboteurs? This Freeborn person makes it explicit, but I imagine that Glenn and others likewise think that the NY firefighters must have been involved in planning 911.
“Folks say that the last time that Larry flew back into St Louis he was navigating for Charles Lindbergh!”
Doesn’t writing something like that show what a moron you are?
“9/11 & ‘War on Terrorism'”…
http://tinyurl.com/8r63h
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4izUFafakmg
Damn it,Larry yo’sore at me or somethin?
I know you musta gotten mighty tired when Mr Sabre goin’ thru all dem facs bout 911 an’all.Wuz justa tryna ‘plain ta ‘im you ain’t as sharp assa you once wuz,das’all.
Ain’t no damn reason for you an’me gwine fall out,tis’it now?
Jew take a look dat bitty dat Freeborn guy dun posted ’bout dem Naudet Brothers?
Hell,now dem dam ‘spiracy theorists tryna tell us we canna trus our own guvment now neither we can’t trus alluz own fire department!
Ain’t right,Larry.We oughtta get dat Craig Murray here rite now and tella him ’bout all dese ‘spiricists takin’ over dis here damn site!
I don’t care if we gotta git dat Craig guy outta bed in hissa dare kilt an’all,we gown do it,right Larry?
An’wassa dis ‘lluminati shit dey startin’ out wid now? I’s still trine get my hedda roun’ dam 911-so help me!
An’ wassa dese here Mosser Bros workin’outta dat Isreel you workin’ fo’?Yo sure shounna bin dancin’ all roun’ New York der day dey done dat 911.Das mighty ‘criminatin,Larry boy!
Say what youz me an angri,anna techni, an clark,an dat guy wid crabs gettin’ down town tonite so we can all plan de nexa move we gown do gainz dese ‘spiricists.
I really wanna make up wid yer,Larry,you hear me?
juniper,
Aren’t you a silly goose – the countrified type of American, who revels in ignorance and prays to Jesus everyday, is highly represented in the 911 Truth Movement. Truthers in the States are overwhelmingly Christian and religious as that (I would say well over 90%) and are otherwise idiotic. The vast majority of callers into Alex Jones are the type of redneck that you’re trying to ridicule.
So you’ve scored an own goal. Great job.