WTC demolition - VIDEO proving it to exhaustion - But who's truly behind it?

[Daniel19]

Trunks, there are several conclusions that can be drawn after studying the huge body of information surrounding the 9/11 attacks. One does not necessarily have to come to the conclusion that the government was involved.

Here are the possible conclusions;

1. The government had no prior knowledge, the attacks came out of the blue, nothing could be done.

2. There was prior knowledge, but the "pieces were'nt put together", and the attacks succeded.

3. The government had foreknowledge but allowed the attacks to be carried out.

4. The government was complicit - a rouge group within the government aided the terrorists, and was involved with the attacks.

All of these cannot be right.

 

[trunks2k]

All of these cannot be right.

Of course. I happen to think #2 is the most likely. The information was there in front of us, but intelligence failed to put it together.

I was just saying that I'd be more willing to believe the idea that the government knew about the coming attack and did nothing, rather than that the gov't orchastrated and carried out the the attack.

 

[TheMissus]

I'm inclined to vote for #2 as well. From what I've read, the CIA and FBI knew "something" was going on, but didn't know where and didn't know when.

I mentioned Pearl Harbor because some crazy people think that the US helped Japan with the attack, or staged the attack themselves, just so the US could justify getting involved in the war. 65 years after the fact and in spite of the mountains of declassified evidence on both sides, some crazy people still stubbornly believe there was a conspiracy to kill thousands of American sailors and soldiers.

There's another correlation there too. The slightly-less-crazy conspiracy theorists assert that the US knew about the plans for Pearl Harbor but allowed it to happen. (Much like option #3)

There's some morsel of truth to that, but not much. The US intelligence agencies knew that the Japanese were planning an attack on an American territory. The US assumed the attack would be on the Phillipines, so they sent troops and equipment to the Phillipines to prepare for the assault. They knew "something" was going to happen, but didn't have enough information to adequately prepare for the attack as it was planned.

 

[DiscardedTruths]

A video in three parts. Here is the first and only part I've seen (no need to see the rest):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043
It covers to exhaustion all the aspects of the demolition, leaving no doubts whatsoever about what the majority undestood long ago: the WTC towers were brought down by explosives.

Wow...I watched all 3 parts and that was amazing..

 

[Vylo]

Trunks, there are several conclusions that can be drawn after studying the huge body of information surrounding the 9/11 attacks. One does not necessarily have to come to the conclusion that the government was involved.

Here are the possible conclusions;

1. The government had no prior knowledge, the attacks came out of the blue, nothing could be done.

2. There was prior knowledge, but the "pieces were'nt put together", and the attacks succeded.

3. The government had foreknowledge but allowed the attacks to be carried out.

4. The government was complicit - a rouge group within the government aided the terrorists, and was involved with the attacks.

All of these cannot be right.

I'm gonna go with number 2 or 3 kent.

 

[suzybeezy]

Please watch your language in this thread 3.3 Bypassing Profanity Filter Prohibited

 

[jamesrwright3]

Here we go Steelers, Here we Go!

 

[dlamberth]

I've never accepted WTC demolition conspiracies. At the same time, video’s like the one in the OP raises enough un-answered questions that I’m left wondering about the possibilities. For instance, the demolition squibs are plainly visible, then there is the speed at which the towers fell both of which causes me to step back and wonder how.

.

 

[trunks2k]

the demolition squibs are plainly visible,

Which can be explained by the collapsing building causing air pressure to build up and blow out windows, etc.

then there is the speed at which the towers fell both of which causes me to step back and wonder how.[/COLOR]

How fast should the buildings have collapsed? Once a building like that critically fails it's going to fall apart like a house of cards. We would expect the collapse to be pretty fast.

 

[dlamberth]

Which can be explained by the collapsing building causing air pressure to build up and blow out windows, etc.

20 floors below? Floors in buildings like that are sealed pretty good. So I'm not totally convinced that it was the build up of air pressure that caused the squibs.

[/quote]How fast should the buildings have collapsed? Once a building like that critically fails it's going to fall apart like a house of cards. We would expect the collapse to be pretty fast.[/quote]I don't know...but I'm having trouble grasping how one of the towers could have collapse faster than it takes for a queue ball to free fall the same distance.

.

 

[Daniel19]

Good observations, dlamberth. I've wondered about the same things. The towers took the path of most resistance, yet fell at an amazingly fast clip.

 

[trunks2k]

I don't know...but I'm having trouble grasping how one of the towers could have collapse faster than it takes for a queue ball to free fall the same distance

Which didn't happen at all. You can see in the video of the building collapse large chunks of the building that seperated from the rest of the building falling at free fall speeds. Those chunks are falling faster than the building is collapsing.

See the debris on the left and right, THATs something that has fallen at free fall. There is a clear difference between where that debris is and the top of the remaing building is. If the building did indeed collapse "faster than free fall" you would expect the debris to be at the same height.

 

[+RubiesFire+]

A video in three parts. Here is the first and only part I've seen (no need to see the rest):
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043
It covers to exhaustion all the aspects of the demolition, leaving no doubts whatsoever about what the majority undestood long ago: the WTC towers were brought down by explosives.

The interesting thing is that this video is released by the same people that detonated those explosives.
This sets a new milestone in illustrating the "tell as much truth as required, as long as people will swallow the core lie" technique of the BIG LIE Framework.

These people who design these videos amaze me how and what they think, and I've seen many about the WTC & other 9/11 Theories-

I just finished watching the videos myself, and well...............

 

[dlamberth]

Which didn't happen at all. You can see in the video of the building collapse large chunks of the building that seperated from the rest of the building falling at free fall speeds. Those chunks are falling faster than the building is collapsing.

See the debris on the left and right, THATs something that has fallen at free fall. There is a clear difference between where that debris is and the top of the remaing building is. If the building did indeed collapse "faster than free fall" you would expect the debris to be at the same height.

For a building to fall in on it's self, in your picture, there's really not that much difference at all.

One of the buildings collapsed a little slower than free fall, the other a little faster.

.

 

[dlamberth]

I’m also wondering about the weakening of the steal support beams. The reports are that the temperature could not have been hot enough to weaken the steal girders in the WTC enough to bring it down. The argument is that jet fuel does not burn that hot. What say you

 

[TheMissus]

I’m also wondering about the weakening of the steal support beams. The reports are that the temperature could not have been hot enough to weaken the steal girders in the WTC enough to bring it down. The argument is that jet fuel does not burn that hot. What say you

I say you should provide sources, including the supposed temperature steel loses half its integrity and the temperature jet fuels burns at.

 

[whatbogsends]

Of course. I happen to think #2 is the most likely. The information was there in front of us, but intelligence failed to put it together.

I was just saying that I'd be more willing to believe the idea that the government knew about the coming attack and did nothing, rather than that the gov't orchastrated and carried out the the attack.

Question - is your "willingness" to believe that the government knew, and not acted, as opposed to the government's complicitness have to do with (a) your overall belief of the government, or (b) the facts surrounding 9/11 as you understand them?

 

[whatbogsends]

Which didn't happen at all. You can see in the video of the building collapse large chunks of the building that seperated from the rest of the building falling at free fall speeds. Those chunks are falling faster than the building is collapsing.

See the debris on the left and right, THATs something that has fallen at free fall. There is a clear difference between where that debris is and the top of the remaing building is. If the building did indeed collapse "faster than free fall" you would expect the debris to be at the same height.

That's a good thought. I never noticed one way or another. You don't, perchance, have a link (or a timeframe for the OP link) as to when you get a clear picture of this? I've watched the fall many times, but don't recall a particular clip which shows that clearly.

In this clip: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=857154317067257405&q=9/11+collapse

which has a pretty good picture of the collapse, i still find it hard to determine the relative rate of descent for the building as opposed to debris, due to the massive amounts of smoke and dust obscuring the view.

Notice when you see the debris falling, it leaves a giant smoke cloud behind. The building itself leaves an even larger smoke cloud behind, and i can't see really, how quickly the building's falling.

 

[dlamberth]

I say you should provide sources, including the supposed temperature steel loses half its integrity and the temperature jet fuels burns at.

I'm not convinced that any of this is true...but I admit that I am wondering.

Watch the video in the OP...all of the temperature relationships are there. If the temperatures given in the video are not correct, than could you provide a source that gives the correct temperatures?

.

 

[dlamberth]

Notice when you see the debris falling, it leaves a giant smoke cloud behind. The building itself leaves an even larger smoke cloud behind, and i can't see really, how quickly the building's falling.

What ever it is...it's falling darn quickly.

.