Interesting View of the collapse

[Foobar]

But if it was a random event like air pushing out drywall, don't you find it a little too consistent? There are two separate events happening in relatively the same location only on different floors. It is not blowing out in a POOF of smoke, but rather a steady stream of I would guess about 20 feet.

The fact that it does not disperse as you would expect a cloud of dust to do, but it shoots out in a jet suggests there was a lot of power behind it.

It happened twice, identical except in their location a short time before the collapse reached the floor it's happening on. I know this is just a theory, of course it can't be proven by video alone, but it's just too consistent to be random events.

That is the problem here you are making an assumption. You have taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. How do you make this claim without some sort of knowledge or proof. I would assume that you are blaming the goverment of some sinister plot?

[Gold9472]

Why don't you view some of the other threads in this forum?

[Gold9472]

There are other aspects to 9/11 besides the HOW... Like the WHY

[somebigguy]

That is the problem here you are making an assumption. You have taken for granted or accepted as true without proof. How do you make this claim without some sort of knowledge or proof. I would assume that you are blaming the goverment of some sinister plot?

What do you mean I'm making an assumption?

I'm discussing two blasts shooting out of one of the towers that don't jive in my mind with a pancaking building. These are theories and questions I have. There is no proof that 19 hijackers pulled off 9/11 either, yet everyone seems to accept that.

[Foobar]

What do you mean I'm making an assumption?

I'm discussing two blasts shooting out of one of the towers that don't jive in my mind with a pancaking building. These are theories and questions I have. There is no proof that 19 hijackers pulled off 9/11 either, yet everyone seems to accept that.

This is an assumption....
"The fact that it does not disperse as you would expect a cloud of dust to do"
It does exacty what I think a cloud of dust is going to do. There is little doubt in my mind that you are trying to make facts fit your theory.

[Foobar]

This is my theory:
1) You have a problem with the US Government.
2) You think anything the US Government does is wrong.
3) You would much rather believe that there is a conspiracy than to weigh the facts.

You can not be an unbias person by looking at still photos and saying that you think it should like this. You have to weigh the facts into that. Example of this is, you telling me that there were explosives in the building. there is not one fact that backs that up.
Facts:
There is no flash from an explosion.
I do know that two aircraft hit the WTC.
I do know the heat could have gotten to a tempature to warp steel.
Dust samples that were taken form the WTC did not indicate there was explosives used.

[somebigguy]

This is an assumption....
"The fact that it does not disperse as you would expect a cloud of dust to do"
It does exacty what I think a cloud of dust is going to do. There is little doubt in my mind that you are trying to make facts fit your theory.

Actually it is you who is trying to make facts fit your theory.

You state those blasts are exactly what a cloud of dust to look like. A cloud of dust by definition should look like a cloud. Those are high pressure streams of dust. Now, you have to minimize what those blasts might be to make it fit your theory that pancaking caused the collapse.

Like I said, those two blasts in the video are too consistent and controlled to be random events like drywall and concrete breaking. The collapsing platforms are still several floors up and are not yet 'pancaking' the location where the blasts are occurring.

[somebigguy]

This is my theory:
1) You have a problem with the US Government.
2) You think anything the US Government does is wrong.
3) You would much rather believe that there is a conspiracy than to weigh the facts.

You can not be an unbias person by looking at still photos and saying that you think it should like this. You have to weigh the facts into that. Example of this is, you telling me that there were explosives in the building. there is not one fact that backs that up.
Facts:
There is no flash from an explosion.
I do know that two aircraft hit the WTC.
I do know the heat could have gotten to a tempature to warp steel.
Dust samples that were taken form the WTC did not indicate there was explosives used.

Let me tell you something about myself, I agreed with Bush when he was lobbying for war in Iraq. I foolishly believed his propaganda like everyone else. Since then I have realized what is really going on, however when you say I hate everything the U.S. gov't does, you're wrong, I was a backer at one time.

Since then, I have weighed ALL the facts and made my own decisions accordingly. I'll ask you if you have weighed all the facts. Have you seen the Truth & Lies of 9/11?

I made this thread to discuss the collapse shown in this video, I wondered how long it would take for it to be reduced to personal attacks and it looks like it only took 2 pages.

It is typical of people on your side of the fence to resort to name calling and finger pointing rather than just discussing a topic. We can each have an opinion on a subject without feeling threatened, your accusations suggests you can't accept this.

I'll ask you to weigh all the facts before accusing others of not doing so.

The Truth & Lies of 9/11 by Michael Ruppert available here:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/store/index.shtml
-------------------------------------------------------------
Now, back to the topic at hand.

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.

Jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel, however I have heard arguments that the building was built in such a way using cheap steel that it could have. I'll buy that, however, there is too much evidence that the building wasn't hot enough. The firefighters inside the building made no mention of searing hot fires, in fact they mentioned only two or three fires that could have been put out with a couple hoses. This fact is backed up by firefighter transcripts.

Additionally, there are images of people standing in the impact area of one of the towers that were not affected by the searing heat. People inside the towers above and below the impact areas were making cell phone calls. Fire hot enough to weaken or melt steel would have incinerated the people immediately.

Jet engines are made of steel by the way.

If your telling me that dust samples have been tested for explosive substances, I'd love to see the reports.

[EminemsRevenge]

-------------------------------------------------------------
Now, back to the topic at hand.

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.

Jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel, however I have heard arguments that the building was built in such a way using cheap steel that it could have. I'll buy that, however, there is too much evidence that the building wasn't hot enough. The firefighters inside the building made no mention of searing hot fires, in fact they mentioned only two or three fires that could have been put out with a couple hoses. This fact is backed up by firefighter transcripts.

Additionally, there are images of people standing in the impact area of one of the towers that were not affected by the searing heat. People inside the towers above and below the impact areas were making cell phone calls. Fire hot enough to weaken or melt steel would have incinerated the people immediately.

Jet engines are made of steel by the way.

If your telling me that dust samples have been tested for explosive substances, I'd love to see the reports.

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

[Foobar]

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.

Jet fuel, which is essentially kerosene does not burn hot enough to melt steel, however I have heard arguments that the building was built in such a way using cheap steel that it could have. I'll buy that, however, there is too much evidence that the building wasn't hot enough. The firefighters inside the building made no mention of searing hot fires, in fact they mentioned only two or three fires that could have been put out with a couple hoses. This fact is backed up by firefighter transcripts.

Additionally, there are images of people standing in the impact area of one of the towers that were not affected by the searing heat. People inside the towers above and below the impact areas were making cell phone calls. Fire hot enough to weaken or melt steel would have incinerated the people immediately.

Jet engines are made of steel by the way.

If your telling me that dust samples have been tested for explosive substances, I'd love to see the reports.

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.