James911, Please refrain from accusations of manipulation of evidence. This is a serious charge. GeoffP
Let's assume that your faked video and picture are correct. In your video we see that WTC7 has damages to the right, the left side of it is clearly undamaged. This clearely support the fact the WTC7 collapse, if it will ever collapse, will collapse asymetrically, not symmetrically. On 9/11 all the floors fell all together at once, the damaged and undamaged side. This video/picture that you showed can only proove one thing, your stupidity and the thikness of your head. Please Please go back to secondary school and do some science/physics before posting in this thread
But you said that WTC7 was undamaged. I demonstrated that this was not the case. Sure this damage alone probably did not cause the collapse as the building fell seven hours later. There were floors on fire during this time. As for the collapse, this is how a building will fall when the lower floors lose their structural integrity. This was possibly a result of the fires weakening the beams so much that the lower floors buckled. When you make comments like that it just appears that you are resorting to insults because you are unable to construct an argument or back up your claims. You wont last much longer at sciforums if you keep insulting people.
The weight of an object has no bearing on it's acceleration due to gravity. The difference between 10 and 9.8 is .2 seconds, which is the time the towers were delayed from reaching the ground due to resistance from structural collapse. That seems plausable to me. No lightweight steel structure is designed to resist such forces. Any engineer would tell you that there is an enormous difference between supporting a static weight, and stopping a falling weight.
I eats sarcasm. Personally I would have said longer than 10 s, but I've only looked at a few vids. Yet, they seemed pretty conclusive to me.
You are not in a position to judge these posts because you can't even work out a simple formula t = sqrt(2 * distance/g)
Now, as we are done with the Free Fall spreed issue on 911, let's go to the next topic which is....you guess it....It's the molten steel that was seen all over the crime scene on 911. WHY STEEL MELTED on 11 September 2001??????????????????? See for yourself. youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM youtube.com/watch?v=jrUosvSNLCk&feature=related youtube.com/watch?v=P_jiCyMkrRM
Assume that your conspiracy theory is true (that there was bomb planted on the basement of the WTC building), what is that for? If one can put bomb there, why then also waste energy to crash plane? Or if one can crash plane, why then waste energy to also put bomb? Why pull a bullet and then also put poison?? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
inzomnia, This is not the correct way of reasoning: First you have to look at the evidence and study it, then take a decision. I am glade to see people like you here.
If I take time to study it, it will lead to either one of this conclusion: * no, there was no bomb planted there ---> case closed * yes, there was bomb planted there ---> and hence my question in the previous post. :shrug:
There are pictures and footage of glowing metal and there are eyewitness accounts of molten metal - but we don't know if it was steel. It is really no surprise that there was a lot of heat generated.
Do you expect that the study will lead to the conclusion that there was bomb and hence that was inside job? How will you prove that it was inside job? The building was a world trade center. If one capable to hijack plane, why can't they capable to sneak in and put bomb? For example as a trader, as a cleaning service workers, etc? Then again, what for is this unnecessary effort if you can just crash plane? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I had lots of friends that were like you and I asked them to watch these three documentaries - Also available to watch free on Youtube and Google video: 911 Mysteries Part 1: Control Demolition 911 Ripple Effect Painful Deceptions When they watch them, they came back shocked and convinced that 911 was indeed an inside job. Waste no time, Go and watch them one after the other, you will find all the answers to the questions you're asking, then come back here.
I had watch them (I think the first two). Looks like the building made from spaghetti. Maybe it was controlled demolition, maybe not. Then again, even if it was controlled demolition: How are you going to prove that that was inside job? What for this redundant effort??? Bombing and crashing plane. I see you haven't answered any of my question yet, sorry but I started to feel tired in repeating. I'll ask once again, though. If you can pull a bullet, why also put poison? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Even if it was inside job, why put bomb and then also crash the plane?? Is bombing alone not enough? Is crashing the plane alone not enough?
Here, we are analyzing the evidences found after a crime scene. This is all what we can do. Don't expect me to give you the answer to all of your questions. The best person to answer your question are those who committed this crime. They can tell you exactly why they have done it this way and not any other way. We need to analyze the evidence then come out with conclusions.
Yes, I understand you want to analyze the evidence. What for? What are you trying to prove? Here is an analogy. A woman found dead on the street with a bullet on her head. It is thought that she was shot by a stranger. Than one suspect that she was poisoned. If she was poisoned, it could be that it is an inside job (e.g. her husband did it, and not just some stranger on the street). Now, if it was her husband's job, and he was capable to shot the bullet, why would he also poison her?? That's just going to make him suspected. Same in this case. If it is inside job, and this insider can hijack and crash the plane to the building, why should he also put bomb?????? That just going to make him suspected. Unnecessary additional trace.