But, as the official story goes, the outer skin was pulled inward due to the sagging trusses and I would imagine each pancaking floor there after pulled the outer skin inward. I'm not saying it's definitely not the outer skin, just that it doesn't seem to fit with my understanding of the official theory.
It looks to me, and this is my opinion here, that between 1.12 and 1.14, right at the bottom of the screen, you can see the outer skin below the impact zone getting blown out and down.
There's a sound scientific theory that states that the most scientificly proven theory is actually worth considering even if it disagrees with non scientific emotional thoughts.
Shock, horror, conspiracy theories !!!!!!!
If the buildings collapsed in freefall, or near to, if NO steel framed building ( Building 7 ) has ever before or after collapsed in such a manner, if the buildings collapse closely mirrors a controlled demolition, then it is worth considering the possibility that that is in fact what they were.
What evidence could point to this, perhaps the presence of explosives in the dust, remains of the buildings etc. http://investigate911.org/
What could clear this whole question up ?, a full enquiry, so why doesn't the US government want a full enquiry ?
The next question may well be, has the US government ever considered the possibility of crashing airliners into buildings and blaming it on another state or group ?, yes they have, check operation Northwoods.
Has the US government ever started a war based on a false flag attack ?, yes they have, check USS Maine or Gulf of Tonkin.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's worth considering the possibility that it is in fact a duck..........
So what do these actually "prove"? Nothing. Just because someone has thought about something before that something happens does not "prove" in any way that he actually did it.
The wtc has occam's razor all over it.
Military exercises same day happening about the exact same thing that actually happened? Just because it isn't coincidence doesn't mean it was false flag operation. Maybe the terrorists knew about the exercise and simply used it to their adventage? In the end it is all about which is more likely: cia, fbi and nsa having a leak or a major government led conspiracy...
Why didn't Bush answer under oath to the questions of the 911 committee? Why would he volaterily put himself into a situation where he can end up looking stupid? The first question would have been why he sit there in the classroom and did nothing when he was told about the planes crashing into the wtc buildings. Under oath he might have had to say he shitted quite heavily into his pants and did not know what to do. Not something you want your votes to know. Plus the teacher would not have let him leave in the middle of the class anyways...
The only thing I'm really curious is the wtc 7. And that's because I have not bothered to read about it...
An enquiry would, I'd have thought, be a good idea.
Remember, the 911 Commissions final findings are that the official story is lies........ " The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue."
So what did happen ?
Of course, as many people here appear to believe, lets just cover it up and pretend it didn't happen.
Don't ask questions because we may not like the answers.
After all, the US has carried out numerous false flag attacks, why should 911 be any different from the Gulf of Tomkin ?
And the US spent years lying about that too ..............
on the evidence of roughly 8 million new yorkers watching the same collapse with their own eyes?
the main problem with people who cant accept that the building collapsed exactly the way it most evidently did is that they cant conceptualize in their tiny minds how much a couple of floors worth of building weight and how much load they can produce
"And just one more thing, you mentioned pancaking. I haven't seen one piece of evidence to prove this pancaking you speak of in the towers. If the towers did pancake then there would be irrefutable evidence of it. There would be lots of floors stacked on top of one another, it would have taken longer to destroy itself AND the core would still be standing..."
I simply answered this with a thorough explanation, what's the big deal anyways? From now on I would answer in a single sentence, but then you will tell me I don't know what I'm talking about because I didn't write enough!
Using a piece of paper, it would appear slightly higher, so sure.
It was breaking to pieces because it was hitting things, which were also breaking apart and falling, adding to the kinetic energy.
Just because it is broken into smaller pieces, doesn't mean there is any less matter with any less kinetic energy. Most of the material is by the tower, and exponentially less falls further away.
KE= 1/2 MV^2
I don't see anything about structural strength in the physics equation.
WTC 3 4 5 6 were all pretty damn torn up beyond repair, even with the little that managed to hit them.
What precisely makes the "official version" a lie? Which of these do you find more probable:
The 9/11 commission failed (or achieved its sole purpose of failing) because it was not allowed to research the evidence, make its own conclusions and have people onboard who wanted the truth?
Or was it more about the huge political mess going on on the background? Democrats and republicans literally competing about all aspects of the disaster causing the commission to end up delayed, under funded and not having the authority to control and lead the investigation properly?
It's not just a political mess but a huge opportunity to make yourself important in such situation. Use it as an excuse to pass bills, use it to make loads of money, use it against other people and at the same time try to understand the loss of lives and the attack against your own country that just happened.
In the same way it gives conspiracy believers an opportunity to feel important. After all you have knowledge others don't have and the government and powers that be are coming to get you.
I'm not saying the 9/11 commission failed. But it didn't exactly do magnificent job either. They seldom do though. Not because of conspiracy but because of politics. You can not forget the huge pressure coming from insurance companies, Silverstein and his corps and from all other directions about the 9/11 commission work. Not because they all are in some conspiracy but because they all have their own reasons.
It's not the answer we don't like. It's the ones that are pure speculation that gets overinflated when bunch of people get their keyboards aimed at something that they feel is wrong.
At least my theory is supported by the laws of physics, but I fully agree that without an actual enquiry that looks at the facts all commentary on 911 is speculation.
What makes the 911 Commissions report completely false ?
Their own testimony actually, but the question that should be asked is why did all these agencies lie, and why is there a complete refusal to investage 911.
If the official story is true then why not an open investigation ?
"Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.
Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”
And for all you flight sim gods, here's a challenge !
Park your 757 in a 16 ft hole with no bit's left over.
Also, you may not touch the ground or break the windows above your 16 ft hole.
Prove it, the official story says otherwise, check the Pentagon... once again you have no clue what you are talking about... I suppose though, you are doing what you do best, hence the 11,000+ posts...
Well in an accident scenario the "extremities" [esp. wing and engines] are designed to come off [much like crumple zones on a car, but in a different way]. And tbh putting anything into steel at 500mph and it's not going to survive very well!
EDIT: Obviously not a direct reply to Jamie, more to the statement above.....
But I didn't ask you anything in there, I just stated facts, a pancake collapse = floors on top of one another, slower collapse and standing core. Where did I ask for a thorough explanation?
So, concrete smashed into dust from pancaking floors has the same strength if it wasn't crushed to dust? Really? You and the official theorists say that the floors pancaked and the force caused the floors to be crushed into all that dust. So I was saying, if all those top floors, the section above the impact zone, never broke into pieces, it would have a lot more structural strength when hitting the structures below. And, because it did break apart, it would have very little kinetic energy compared to it being a complete structure, which is true. It would have less mass, because of the pulverised concrete on every floor, therefore this "kinetic energy is equal to half of the mass of the object times the object's velocity squared" would prove my point. It wouldn't have the structural strength, therefore less mass and therefore not enough kinetic energy to crush the remaining floors of the towers completely. That's how I see it anyway.
WTC 4 was the worst damaged(pic 1), which was almost crushed completely. I'd like to draw you attention to the hotel though(pic 2), cover the right half the hotel with your hand, see the way the structure is crushed asymmetrically? That is kinda how the towers should have looked. Start on the left of the picture and imagine the tower debris falling onto it, why didn't it crush it straight down? Why did the hotel hold it's strength and not just crumble completely to the ground? Because that was the path of most resistance. The falling debris followed the path of least resistance, just like physics says it should!
@ CSU1 - Ignorant you say? Really?
You are just believing what you are told, so you don't actually know what happened imo, and even the people telling you this, the 911 Comission, have said it was based on false information, check Racer's post, but yet I'm the ignorant one because I want to find out what really happened.
And no one is bickering, we are trying to find out what really happened through discussion, to find the truth, so that the families of the people who did die on 911 will know exactly what happened! Even think of the first responders who were told that the air was fine to breathe but are now dying from asbestos poisoning! It was known to the authorities that the towers were full of asbestos but decided never to tell the people on the ground, shocking.
So you are saying falling concrete in the form of dust has the same kinectic energy as a solid piece of falling concrete? Seems you didn't read the full post, or, as usual, you just want to pick certain parts of a post to stir the sh!t...
I'm pretty sure that's what happened too, who said it didn't happen that way?
Respect? The people who died were killed but no one knows exactly why they were killed, I'm sure if you found out a relative of yours died in suspicious circumstances you'd want to know what happened....
You should always question authority, always, not just take what they say as truth. As I said, check Racer's posts, the 9/11 Commission itself said their conclusion on what actually happened on 9/11 was based on false information!