Interesting View of the collapse

[somebigguy]

Osama bin Laden, who was quite adept in the construction business, did not expect the whole building to collapse!!! The answer, therefore, must be in the materials used to build the towers.

The construction industry during the 60s and 70s was full of corrupt building inspectors, and when you consider the rate of inflation back then, lawd knows what kind of crap went into building the towers

The buildings did withstand the impact of the airplanes at 500 MPH, I was surpised they didn't topple at that point. Turns out they were designed to survive a plane crash. They also were designed to withstand 160 MPH winds. One of the buildings suffered a fire in the 70s. Another survived a bomb in 1993.

Pretty strong buildings in my book.

They were also full of asbestos. Not sure when asbestos became outlawed, but I don't doubt you when you say there were some shenanigans going one when they were built.

[somebigguy]

This is an assumption:
"The blasts are occurring somewhere on the right side of the building, hard to tell where. Any bright flash can be hidden by the building itself, it's happening inside the building somewhere not visible from this camera angle."
There is not one fact in that statement.

This another assumption:
Jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

Kerosene is all you are assuming was burning. Kerosene was the accelerant. Other things burn tables chairs desks carpet and other building matl. In that statement you are assuming that the steel melted it did not melt to make the building fall it became distorted. I have seen many metal buiding fires aftermath and you can see the steel beams that warp.

Show me the Photo of the people. Not some fuzzy photo either, something clear where you can see it is a person.

Your right, regarding my assumption that the building is hiding a flash, but it is perfectly feasible and possible that a small explosion would not be visible at that angle. Saying you don't see a flash and therefore it wasn't an explosion is incorrect.

The lack of a visible flash does not rule out the possibility of an explosion.

Regarding the other burning materials such as tables, chairs, etc. The official story states the intense heat from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports and caused the collapse. If you are saying other materials caused the intense heat to weaken the steel, I'd have to disagree with you. Never has fire brought down a steel framed building. As I said earlier, one of the towers suffered a fire in the 70's and didn't come collapsing down.

Additionally, only two small fires were reported in one of the buildings by the firefighters that had climbed all the way up to the impact location, therefore the theory of intense searing heat weakening the steel supports is simply hogwash.

Here's an image:



This is the impact location on one of the towers. There are two people visible, one is laying down and another is leaning over. This is actually a blow up of a bigger picture which shows at least one more person looking out.

This picture tells us a couple of things, first of all, the fire was not hot, at least in this location. A fire hot enough to weaken steel would have incinerated these people. As you can see, these people look fine, their clothes are fine, their hair isn't singed. Furthermore, a large hot fire will require significant oxygen. If such a fire existed, the air would be funneling in through this hole to feed the fire.

Secondly, these people are leaning out the hole 90 stories up. If there had been any indication of structural damage from the plane crash, there is no way they would venture out this far. Picture a creaking, wobbly building, ready to collapse. Would you venture out to this point 90 stories up?

By the way, a lot of what I'm saying is assumptions and theory, but that's the point of this. Taking a look at the evidence and drawing conclusions based on the evidence and common sense.

[Foobar]

Your right, regarding my assumption that the building is hiding a flash, but it is perfectly feasible and possible that a small explosion would not be visible at that angle. Saying you don't see a flash and therefore it wasn't an explosion is incorrect.

The lack of a visible flash does not rule out the possibility of an explosion.

Regarding the other burning materials such as tables, chairs, etc. The official story states the intense heat from the burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports and caused the collapse. If you are saying other materials caused the intense heat to weaken the steel, I'd have to disagree with you. Never has fire brought down a steel framed building. As I said earlier, one of the towers suffered a fire in the 70's and didn't come collapsing down.

Additionally, only two small fires were reported in one of the buildings by the firefighters that had climbed all the way up to the impact location, therefore the theory of intense searing heat weakening the steel supports is simply hogwash.

Here's an image:



This is the impact location on one of the towers. There are two people visible, one is laying down and another is leaning over. This is actually a blow up of a bigger picture which shows at least one more person looking out.

This picture tells us a couple of things, first of all, the fire was not hot, at least in this location. A fire hot enough to weaken steel would have incinerated these people. As you can see, these people look fine, their clothes are fine, their hair isn't singed. Furthermore, a large hot fire will require significant oxygen. If such a fire existed, the air would be funneling in through this hole to feed the fire.

Secondly, these people are leaning out the hole 90 stories up. If there had been any indication of structural damage from the plane crash, there is no way they would venture out this far. Picture a creaking, wobbly building, ready to collapse. Would you venture out to this point 90 stories up?

By the way, a lot of what I'm saying is assumptions and theory, but that's the point of this. Taking a look at the evidence and drawing conclusions based on the evidence and common sense.

I said not a blurry picture. You are able to tell those are people? The person that is standing has some very straight legs. Let me show you a picture.

[somebigguy]

I said not a blurry picture. You are able to tell those are people? The person that is standing has some very straight legs. Let me show you a picture.

Here's some clearer pictures:




I stole it from this site:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm

[Foobar]

Here's some clearer pictures:




I stole it from this site:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_fire.htm

Unidentifiable would be the terms for those photos.
Approximately 100 people jumped from the first tower. You are going to tell me that they chose to jump, even though their life was not in harms way? As a firefighter you learn that people will jump when they have a choice of burning to death or jumping. This would tell me that these people that jumped were getting pretty warm and knew the two options.

[somebigguy]

Unidentifiable would be the terms for those photos.
Approximately 100 people jumped from the first tower. You are going to tell me that they chose to jump, even though their life was not in harms way? As a firefighter you learn that people will jump when they have a choice of burning to death or jumping. This would tell me that these people that jumped were getting pretty warm and knew the two options.

There are definitely people in these pictures, sorry its not clear enough for you.

The people that jumped were definitely in harm's way, but people will burn at much lower temperatures than what would provide any sort of danger to steel beams. It'll take 100s if not 1000s of degrees of heat to weaken steel, people will obviously burn at much lower temperatures.

Let me ask you something since you're a firefighter. What are the signs of a hot fire?

[EminemsRevenge]

The buildings did withstand the impact of the airplanes at 500 MPH, I was surpised they didn't topple at that point. Turns out they were designed to survive a plane crash. They also were designed to withstand 160 MPH winds. One of the buildings suffered a fire in the 70s. Another survived a bomb in 1993.

Pretty strong buildings in my book.

They were also full of asbestos. Not sure when asbestos became outlawed, but I don't doubt you when you say there were some shenanigans going one when they were built.

An inexperienced pilot travelling at 500 mph ??? The probability of such a pilot hitting the WTC would be about a billion-to-one...and two such pilots accomplishing the same feat is like finding a specific single grain of sand in the Sahara!!!!

Being designed to do something and actually doing it are two completely different animules. As for the 1993 bombing...it happened in a sub-basement. Logistically that was the stupidest attempt ever. Something beneath the WTC would have to be able to sustain a bomb blast simply because it would have to be Uberreinforced in order to keep all that weight above it standing. Since you're probably not a native of NYC, you don't realize that the WTC was built on reclaimed land, and therefore they had to build a bowl to keep the Hudson and East rivers from reclaiming the land on which the WTC was built...water has a tendency to seek its own level, you know.

The building that hosted the Triangle Shirt Factory fire at the beginning of the 20th century also "survived" a fire...and logic would dictate that more than half a century later building would be built better as technology advanced

We will never know what kind of shoddy workmanship went into building the Twin Towers, nor will we ever discover the illegal and explosive cargos both planes were more than likely carrying. WHAT WE DO KNOW is that planes destined for California travelled down the Hudson corridor, passing Stewart Air Force Base and West Point!!!

Since my mother lives 5 minutes from Stewart and north of West Point, how the fuck could not ONE but TWO planes so obviously off course could be allowed to fly over military airspace unchallenged!!!

And when was the last time an unidentified plane flew over DC???!!!!

[somebigguy]

An inexperienced pilot travelling at 500 mph ??? The probability of such a pilot hitting the WTC would be about a billion-to-one...and two such pilots accomplishing the same feat is like finding a specific single grain of sand in the Sahara!!!!

Being designed to do something and actually doing it are two completely different animules. As for the 1993 bombing...it happened in a sub-basement. Logistically that was the stupidest attempt ever. Something beneath the WTC would have to be able to sustain a bomb blast simply because it would have to be Uberreinforced in order to keep all that weight above it standing. Since you're probably not a native of NYC, you don't realize that the WTC was built on reclaimed land, and therefore they had to build a bowl to keep the Hudson and East rivers from reclaiming the land on which the WTC was built...water has a tendency to seek its own level, you know.

The building that hosted the Triangle Shirt Factory fire at the beginning of the 20th century also "survived" a fire...and logic would dictate that more than half a century later building would be built better as technology advanced

We will never know what kind of shoddy workmanship went into building the Twin Towers, nor will we ever discover the illegal and explosive cargos both planes were more than likely carrying. WHAT WE DO KNOW is that planes destined for California travelled down the Hudson corridor, passing Stewart Air Force Base and West Point!!!

Since my mother lives 5 minutes from Stewart and north of West Point, how the fuck could not ONE but TWO planes so obviously off course could be allowed to fly over military airspace unchallenged!!!

And when was the last time an unidentified plane flew over DC???!!!!

Plus the crash at the pentagon, even experienced pilots would find that extremely difficult.

[Gold9472]

bump