911 Towers Were Exploded Outwards, Not Collapsed

Status
Not open for further replies.

oldbetang

Senior Veteran
Jul 21, 2005
7,361
461
✟17,487.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Agreed, not as heavy or fast. But as the official report concluded, the collapse was due not to impact but fire. The towers performed as designed in case of aircraft impact - and they were so designed. At the time of their design, the largest aircraft was a 707, broadly similar in weight and speed to a 767. The towers did their job and survived the impacts.

That isn't accurate. The official report concluded that the towers likely would have remained standing if it were not for the fires, that's true. However, it also noted that the fires alone would not have brought the buildings down. The impacts did three things that contributed to the collapses: 1) They did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, floors, and perimeter columns. 2) They dislodged the fireproofing insulation. 3) They initiated the fires.

Yes, not as tall I agree. And I also agree that the fire was not untended. But the fact remains it burned for 24 hours and did not cause total collapse. (Due to the central core of concrete, yes). Were the WTC towers designed to some lesser standard than the Spanish codes? I would find that hard to believe.
The WTC towers were of different design, yes. Also, the fact that the fires of WTC7 were unchallenged is no small detail.
 
Upvote 0

Btodd

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2003
3,677
292
✟20,354.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Last edited:
Upvote 0

spiritman1

Active Member
Jun 13, 2011
253
14
✟464.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
A steel building reinforced with concrete? What are you talking about?
I'm talking about the first steel reinforced building to ever collapes due to fire, and STILL NOBODY HAS POSTED ONE STEEL REINFORCED BUILDING COLLAPSING DUE TO FIRE, or any other calamity other than demolition. If everyone is so ignorant to not believe the cover story maybe part of the blame goes to ITS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE! utube building fires, you will find a steel reinforced building in Madrid the windsor tower burned like a torch for 23 hours and when it finally went out guess what? IT WAS STILL STANDING........for some odd reason you want people to believe fires in steel reinforced buildings on higher floors completely dissolve the strength and structural integrity of floors below, floors not even touched by heat. You continue to come up with all these excuses as to why it happened. but the FACT REMAINS WHAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION HAPPENED THREE TIMES IN ONE DAY!....................I'm still waiting .........
 
Upvote 0

spiritman1

Active Member
Jun 13, 2011
253
14
✟464.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Pretty quiet out there! wheres all the buildings that have collapsed into their footprints from fire, this should of been easy for you since you think everyone who doesn't believe streel reinforced buildings fall like a stack of cards when fire burns on a few floors..............I'm still waiting!
 
Upvote 0
M

ManFromUncle

Guest
As long as you ask questions from both proposed explanations (which would include anything ManFromUncle posts), I'm fine with that.

The point is that nobody on the NY Fire Department, who were actually there that day and in a position to know, think that the collapse of the buildings was due to a controlled demolition.

Both you, and ManFromUncle, have posted a video of NYC firefighters talking about the collapse, with the intention of implying that they're talking about a controlled demolition. Since none of them are 9/11 Truthers; the point you're trying to make with that video is false.


Btodd

Making a blanket false statement, have you interviewed every single firefighter and know what they think? Once again it is so laughably obvious how you run from Building 7, demolished straight down and never hit by a plane. Your instructions are to avoid it at all costs.

This firefighter was inside wtc1 and nearly killed, close enough for you? He talks about explosions weakening the structure all morning and clearly says he does not believes planes and fires took down the buildings. But you have been given this before and know about it so you are playing some kind of game.

YouTube - ‪HIGHLIGHTS : Interview with John Schroeder 911 FIREMAN‬‏
 
Upvote 0
M

ManFromUncle

Guest
Where is the 110 story building that was struck at 500 mph by a Boeing 767 loaded with fuel that is still standing today? Also, show us a 47 story building that was subjected to intense raging unfought fire for 7 hours and remained standing.

This is what an "intense raging" fire looks like, (Beijing Oriental, remained standing)

beijing_torch.jpg


Windsor Madrid burned 20 hours, remained standing:
windsor9c.jpg


Caracas Tower burned 17 hours, remained standing:
fib_la_fire1_s.jpg




Note how white-hot these fires are, no people could have been standing in the windows or they would have been crisped. The WTC fires were giving off black smoke which is evidence of cool, oxygen-starved fires, with people nearby in the windows.

There are many more.
go to
9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires

But yes, fire does melt steel, all the time, or makes it soft. IN A BLAST FURNACE. You need an enclosed chamber, hot fuel like coal or coke (refined coal) and a mechanically forced air supply blowing through that fuel. The roaring you hear in a scene from a steel plant is air being forced through the coal, the "BLAST" part. Nothing less will do. Fuel burns hotter and more efficiently the more oxygen is mixed into it. Think of throwing a log on the coals in a fireplace and fanning it. it glows red-hot, then the log bursts into flames. That's because the burn just went up a few hundred degrees. That's the principle of forced oxygen.

The bottom line is for skyscrapers to go down all at once, at free-fall speed, you need to cut all the supporting members at once or in a close sequence. That's what a demolition is. If not all those high priced contractors who charge millions for lifetimes of expertise are out of business. Just hire a crew to set some fires, drop a couple of wrecking balls on top of the building, and watch it squash flat. Not.

And again you are showing your childish ignorance about jet fuel. It's only kerosene. Take as much lighter fluid as you want start burning it and squirting it onto a steel beam, and see if it melts. You'll get gray before it happens. You have been told this many times and given the reference, so you are just playing games too.

The lie is that Condi Rice said "no one could have foreseen planes as missiles," but they had already had wargames on it the previous year. In October of 2000 NORAD had already practiced scenarios based around suicide pilots crashing stolen aircraft into the United Nations headquarters—a skyscraper in New York.

All NYC skyscrapers were expressly made to withstand not just one but multiple airliner hits after the B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945, which was lost in fog. WTC Chief Engineer John Skilling said in an interview in 1993:

“Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed...[but] the building structure would still be there.”
Frank A. Demartini, who was the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001 said:


"The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
Before you go off sputtering that a 707 is not a 767, it basically is. There is only 10 feet of difference in the wingspan:


The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.


AT
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/boeing_707_767.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

spiritman1

Active Member
Jun 13, 2011
253
14
✟464.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is what an "intense raging" fire looks like, (Beijing Oriental, remained standing)

beijing_torch.jpg


Windsor Madrid burned 20 hours, remained standing:
windsor9c.jpg


Caracas Tower burned 17 hours, remained standing:
fib_la_fire1_s.jpg




Note how white-hot these fires are, no people could have been standing in the windows or they would have been crisped. The WTC fires were giving off black smoke which is evidence of cool, oxygen-starved fires, with people nearby in the windows.

There are many more.
go to
9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires

The bottom line is for skyscrapers to go down all at once, at free-fall speed, you need to cut all the supporting members at once or in a close sequence. That's what a demolition is. If not all those high priced contractors who charge millions for lifetimes of expertise are out of business. Just hire a crew to set some fires, drop a couple of wrecking all on top of the building, and watch it squash flat. Not.

And again you are showing your childish ignorance about jet fuel. It's only kerosene. Take as much lighter fluid as you want start burning it and squirting it onto a steel beam, and see if it melts. You'll get gray before it happens. You have been told this many times and given the reference, so you are just playing games too.

The lie is that Condi Rice said "no one could have foreseen planes as missiles," but they had already had wargames on it the previous year. In October of 2000 NORAD had already practiced scenarios based around suicide pilots crashing stolen aircraft into the United Nations headquarters—a skyscraper in New York.

All NYC skyscrapers were expressly made to withstand not just one but multiple airliner hits after the B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945, which was lost in fog. WTC Chief Engineer John Skilling said in an interview in 1993:

Frank A. Demartini, who was the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001 said:


Before you go off sputtering that a 707 is not a 767, it basically is. There is only 10 feet of difference in the wingspan:


The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.


AT
Boeing 707 - 767 Comparison
thanks for posting those, I'm not PC savy and don't think I can post links yet, but the facts should have everyone at the very least asking why our skyscrappers fall into a heap and other countries they burn all day long and still don't fall, I think theres one in Bangledesh of all places, that six top floors collapsed and the rest of the building could take the stress of the weight falling and remained standing......Its a pretty sad day when buildings built in Bangledesh can stand up against fire better than American ingenuity
 
Upvote 0
M

Martingale

Guest
thanks for posting those, I'm not PC savy and don't think I can post links yet, but the facts should have everyone at the very least asking why our skyscrappers fall into a heap and other countries they burn all day long and still don't fall, I think theres one in Bangledesh of all places, that six top floors collapsed and the rest of the building could take the stress of the weight falling and remained standing......Its a pretty sad day when buildings built in Bangledesh can stand up against fire better than American ingenuity

ten minutes of casual research on this thread will give you an engineer's explanation of why.

but no... pretty pictures are easier to understand.
 
Upvote 0

Skaloop

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion
May 10, 2006
16,332
899
47
Burnaby
Visit site
✟29,046.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-NDP
This is what an "intense raging" fire looks like, (Beijing Oriental, remained standing)

beijing_torch.jpg


Windsor Madrid burned 20 hours, remained standing:
windsor9c.jpg


Caracas Tower burned 17 hours, remained standing:
fib_la_fire1_s.jpg




Note how white-hot these fires are, no people could have been standing in the windows or they would have been crisped. The WTC fires were giving off black smoke which is evidence of cool, oxygen-starved fires, with people nearby in the windows.

There are many more.
go to
9-11 Research: Other Skyscraper Fires

The bottom line is for skyscrapers to go down all at once, at free-fall speed, you need to cut all the supporting members at once or in a close sequence. That's what a demolition is. If not all those high priced contractors who charge millions for lifetimes of expertise are out of business. Just hire a crew to set some fires, drop a couple of wrecking all on top of the building, and watch it squash flat. Not.

And again you are showing your childish ignorance about jet fuel. It's only kerosene. Take as much lighter fluid as you want start burning it and squirting it onto a steel beam, and see if it melts. You'll get gray before it happens. You have been told this many times and given the reference, so you are just playing games too.

The lie is that Condi Rice said "no one could have foreseen planes as missiles," but they had already had wargames on it the previous year. In October of 2000 NORAD had already practiced scenarios based around suicide pilots crashing stolen aircraft into the United Nations headquarters—a skyscraper in New York.

All NYC skyscrapers were expressly made to withstand not just one but multiple airliner hits after the B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building in 1945, which was lost in fog. WTC Chief Engineer John Skilling said in an interview in 1993:

Frank A. Demartini, who was the on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001 said:


Before you go off sputtering that a 707 is not a 767, it basically is. There is only 10 feet of difference in the wingspan:


The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.


AT
Boeing 707 - 767 Comparison

Were any of the buildings in your pictures hit by jet airplanes prior to the fires?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Btodd

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2003
3,677
292
✟20,354.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Making a blanket false statement, have you interviewed every single firefighter and know what they think? Once again it is so laughably obvious how you run from Building 7, demolished straight down and never hit by a plane. Your instructions are to avoid it at all costs.

My 'instructions'? Please elaborate on what that means, so I can have a good laugh.

Two things: First, I am aware of John Schroeder, and if you will actually dig into the details of his story (I mean really dig in, not just watch a video clip made by the Loose Change guys, who did this interview, and call it a day), and compare them with the stories of the people who were with him, you can see where he's confused about the timing of events, as well as how they happened. I don't necessarily blame him; we're talking about a giant catastrophe, I'm sure it was quite a blur and totally surreal.

Second, I was under the impression that he had by now sorted out his confusion, and retracted any implication of wrongdoing here. If he has not, then you might have yourself one NY firefighter that is a Truther, or on-record as being sympathetic to it.

But as usual, you will take the words of one person who scratches your itching ears over hundreds that do not. Just like you do with the science aspect of the collapses.

ManFromUncle said:
This firefighter was inside wtc1 and nearly killed, close enough for you? He talks about explosions weakening the structure all morning and clearly says he does not believes planes and fires took down the buildings. But you have been given this before and know about it so you are playing some kind of game.

He talks about the elevator coming down, and people coming out of it on fire, which is true. You can read several accounts of this from various people, and it is jet fuel spilling down the elevator shaft, and a huge fireball. Please explain how either thermite, or a controlled demolitions explosion, would have anything to do with that part, I would love to hear it.

He's also mistaken about what caused the lobby to be in that state; it is after the collapse of the first tower (the 2nd one to be hit, a question you still won't touch), and damage done by debris. He actually states in the video that nothing was on fire, which puzzled him...well, falling debris explains that.

As for your comment about 'playing a game', and another appeal to WTC7, I will remind you of how debates and discussions work. They work when both sides get to ask, and have to answer, questions. Show some intellectual honesty by addressing the questions I've already put to you several times, and we will move forward and definitely talk about WTC7 and anything else you want, as long as you don't play the hide-and-seek game you've been doing so far, where you expect very detailed answers about everything you ask, and then act like you don't have to answer any questions about your own theories.

See the next post, I'm going to put those questions to you again, and see if you're ready to be an adult about it.


Btodd
 
Upvote 0

Btodd

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2003
3,677
292
✟20,354.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
@ManFromUncle:

Originally Posted by Btodd
You've never addressed how these powerful explosions were so quiet, nor how thermite is supposed to:

1. Leave molten metal for weeks
2. Sever vertical columns, in perfectly-timed succession to make it appear like it collapsed from the top-down, since it uses gravity to 'melt' through its target (like an acid would)
3. Survive the impact of the planes and ensuing fires and still work
4. How any of this was installed, what mechanism would be used
5. How much thermite would be needed to accomplish this
6. A single example of thermite ever being used to demolish a skyscraper, after saying it's 'old hat in demolitions'
Also, still asking (this is at least the 6th time now) for you to answer the question, 'Why did the 2nd building to be hit collapse FIRST?'.


Btodd
 
Upvote 0

spiritman1

Active Member
Jun 13, 2011
253
14
✟464.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The Madrid fire is unbelievable, if a building can burn like a torch as that one did, for 20+hours and our buildings have a few scattered fires, on different floors and come crashing down at freefall speed, there definately needs to be an investigation in our building codes and architecture plans. And just like they rebuild airplanes after they crash, piece by piece. The same should of been done to building 7 so we would have a better idea as why several scattered fires cause universal symmetrical structure failure not just on one floor but the whole building literally disintegrated before our very eyes........this sort of thing NEVER HAPPENS!.... well it happened 3 times on 911 before that it never happened..............where are those guys? haven't they come up with past buildings falling yet?
 
Upvote 0

spiritman1

Active Member
Jun 13, 2011
253
14
✟464.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Were any of the buildings in your pictures hit by jet airplanes prior to the fires?
Ha ah ahahahaha! you think the airplane did more damage than an entire structure fire! your unbelievable, So now you want to say that an airliner sliding into a few floors, weakened the building more than the blazing 23 hour top to bottom fire of the madrid tower.......that is laughable
 
Upvote 0

oldbetang

Senior Veteran
Jul 21, 2005
7,361
461
✟17,487.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'm talking about the first steel reinforced building to ever collapes due to fire, and STILL NOBODY HAS POSTED ONE STEEL REINFORCED BUILDING COLLAPSING DUE TO FIRE, or any other calamity other than demolition. If everyone is so ignorant to not believe the cover story maybe part of the blame goes to ITS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE! utube building fires, you will find a steel reinforced building in Madrid the windsor tower burned like a torch for 23 hours and when it finally went out guess what? IT WAS STILL STANDING........for some odd reason you want people to believe fires in steel reinforced buildings on higher floors completely dissolve the strength and structural integrity of floors below, floors not even touched by heat. You continue to come up with all these excuses as to why it happened. but the FACT REMAINS WHAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION HAPPENED THREE TIMES IN ONE DAY!....................I'm still waiting .........

I already addressed the Windsor Tower in an earlier post. The Windsor Tower was only 29 stories and was largely a concrete structure. Also, there was an active, and ultimately successful, attempt by firefighters to extinguish that fire. That was not the case with WTC7.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

oldbetang

Senior Veteran
Jul 21, 2005
7,361
461
✟17,487.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is what an "intense raging" fire looks like, (Beijing Oriental, remained standing)

beijing_torch.jpg


Windsor Madrid burned 20 hours, remained standing:
windsor9c.jpg


Caracas Tower burned 17 hours, remained standing:
fib_la_fire1_s.jpg

All three of those fires were actively fought, and ultimately extinguished, by firefighters. The first one was put out in 6 hours. None of those can be compared to WTC 7 which had fire raging within it unchallenged for 7 hours.
 
Upvote 0

oldbetang

Senior Veteran
Jul 21, 2005
7,361
461
✟17,487.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
The Madrid fire is unbelievable, if a building can burn like a torch as that one did, for 20+hours and our buildings have a few scattered fires, on different floors and come crashing down at freefall speed, there definately needs to be an investigation in our building codes and architecture plans. And just like they rebuild airplanes after they crash, piece by piece. The same should of been done to building 7 so we would have a better idea as why several scattered fires cause universal symmetrical structure failure not just on one floor but the whole building literally disintegrated before our very eyes........this sort of thing NEVER HAPPENS!.... well it happened 3 times on 911 before that it never happened..............where are those guys? haven't they come up with past buildings falling yet?

The towers never had just a few scattered fires. They had massive and intense fires that weakened the unprotected steel. The Windsor Tower? Well, that one was very different from the trade towers and the fire was fought and extinguished.
 
Upvote 0

spiritman1

Active Member
Jun 13, 2011
253
14
✟464.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The towers never had just a few scattered fires. They had massive and intense fires that weakened the unprotected steel. The Windsor Tower? Well, that one was very different from the trade towers and the fire was fought and extinguished.
well this massive fire that you claim, has people standing where the flames have subsided, holding onto the structure. If this fire burned so HOT as you believe #1 the smoke would have been white, not billows of black smoke which show lack of oxygen and #2 people could of never have stood where such an intense fire had just recently been as the floor and walls and cieling would have radiated heat like an oven. Then take in account none of the floors below this disaster are on fire or being weakened, even if I were to believe such a theory as to ten or so floors falling into the remaining 100 undamaged floors, the rate of resistance would slow the fall and collapes down not speed it up, each floor that came into impact of the above weight would resist so if we were to actually watch this scenerio unfold it may have collapsed a few untouched floors but it would of never reacted the way we see the twin towers fall. Just as I mentioned earlier a building in Bangledesh had 6 floors collapes all at once due to fire and the first floor it hit (that wasn't affected by fire) it was stopped it resisted the fall, now if it had broken through that first structurally sound floor, the speed would been reduced and the next floor would have resisted and reduced untill finally it would of stopped. Also each floor that resisted would never be completely laterally equal some parts or sides of the building would have been higher or lower in resistance, where as it would never continue down in an even fall. thats the exact reason demolition experts come in play to bring down a building, BECAUSE THEY NEVER NATURALLY FALL THAT WAY ! NEVER! If they did they would just blow up one floor and watch the building fall into its footprint, Like I said, just the fact alone that these buildings fell the way they did warrants an investigation! not in terrorist attacks and who was involved! but what the heck is wrong with American construction and why these buildings break all records of what normally happens in fire and disaster.
 
Upvote 0

Btodd

Well-Known Member
Oct 7, 2003
3,677
292
✟20,354.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
well this massive fire that you claim, has people standing where the flames have subsided, holding onto the structure. If this fire burned so HOT as you believe #1 the smoke would have been white, not billows of black smoke which show lack of oxygen and #2 people could of never have stood where such an intense fire had just recently been as the floor and walls and cieling would have radiated heat like an oven.

This is particularly insulting to the victims of 9/11, considering more than 100 people jumped to their deaths that day. Why were they jumping if the fires weren't that bad?


spiritman1 said:
Then take in account none of the floors below this disaster are on fire or being weakened, even if I were to believe such a theory as to ten or so floors falling into the remaining 100 undamaged floors, the rate of resistance would slow the fall and collapes down not speed it up, each floor that came into impact of the above weight would resist so if we were to actually watch this scenerio unfold it may have collapsed a few untouched floors but it would of never reacted the way we see the twin towers fall.

The first tower to collapse (the 2nd one that was hit) had about 30 floors above the impact point. The second tower to collapse (the 1st one that was hit) had about 20 floors above the impact point.

This is more than sufficient mass, so that once the steel fails, it will not encounter even a fraction of enough resistance to 'slow down' the upper block crashing down on it, and with each second of collapse, more mass is added to the upper collapsing portion, which is why the collapse would never 'slow down'.


Btodd
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

spiritman1

Active Member
Jun 13, 2011
253
14
✟464.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is particularly insulting to the victims of 9/11, considering more than 100 people jumped to their deaths that day. Why were they jumping if the fires weren't that bad?




The first tower to collapse (the 2nd one that was hit) had about 30 floors above the impact point. The second tower to collapse (the 1st one that was hit) had about 20 floors above the impact point.

This is more than sufficient mass, so that once the steel fails, it will not encounter even a fraction of enough resistance to 'slow down' the upper block crashing down on it, and with each second of collapse, more mass is added to the upper collapsing portion, which is why the collapse would never 'slow down'.


Btodd
people jumped who had no place eles to go, people can be clearly seen were the fires once were. where they came from and how they survived to come to that hole in the wall I have no idea but they were able to stand were such incredible heat and fire once was, since this heat and fire completely melted and weakened the entire structure. I probably care more about the victims of 911 than you do, You want everyone to stop talking about it, I want Americans to never forget it. only the 911 truthers are bringing up the subject I never see any threads you cover story believers are putting forth on the subject
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.