Some 9/11 enjoyment boys. Satire on the doubtful conspiracy

[240 is Back]

It's not plausible for concrete and what ever else made up the WTC floors would be burning for a while and already be at a point to where, at the point of collapse, it would spread like that?

No.  I thought that too.  But the concrete in a large % of the building is still very much intact and standing, until that moment we hear the explosions.  Even if the inside of the building was completely hollowed out with fires (impossible as the windows were still intact on most of the building) - but even if ....  the four concrete walls of the building wiould be sitting in that pile.


Weirdest of all perhaps -
If you were to drop a large chunk of concrete from 1000 ft onto pavement, it would certainly breakapart but it would not be completely pulverized into such a fine powder. In the case of the Towers,the conversion to dust somehow took place in mid-air long before hitting the ground!  This is VERY VERY evident on the WTC 1/2 towers (taller)

[240 is Back]

Alsoooo - what would it be like if every steel frame high-rise in existence was likely to collapse as a result of a not-too-serious fire? No one would set foot in them! As a matter of fact, no one would build them - they would be too dangerous. If the WTC buildings did collapse from fire, these unprecedented failures would be extremely significant and ought to have aroused the most profound forensic analysis (the painstaking reassembly of crashed aircraft comes to mind).

This did not happen. The steel from all three buildings was quickly removed - over the strenuous objections of scientists, engineers, firefighters and families of victims, etc etc - and has been melted down inoverseas markets. The blueprints for the Towers have also become unavailable.

It just doesn't add up.  And I believe history will show WTC7 as the smoking gun of 9/11

[240 is Back]

The floors were held together by trusses so the concrete could have been made into a finer material and the collapse sealed the deal.

First, we'd have to establish why all 47 floors' trusses failed at once.  barring explosives, that's a hell of a coincidence.  Remember, since the timed collapse takes 6.5 seconds, it's actually just faster than freefall.  so we know there was zero resistance - the floors never hit each other.  They actually broke apart in midair. 

So if they all gave out at once (we'll pretend), you would have hundreds of chunks of concrete sitting in midair.  Now, they are going to fall.  They will break, they will chunk.  But None of the contains the potential energy to convert to powder when it hits the ground.  (drop a brick or a ton of bricks 500 feet - it will not powderize.

Now we realize from the video that these concrete/desks/windows/chairs/etc pieces all turn into dust before they ever touch the ground.

[Brixtonbulldog]

oh wait... so you're "sure" that all kinds of interesting things happened.  Oh, okay.  I guess we can ignore physics (faster than freefall speed ignoring all resistance), firefighting history (much larger fires have never brought down a building), witnesses and video/audio (explosions, warnings), and all the other good stuff.

We don't need this pile of clue which point to a controlled demoluition.  no.  We have the "sure" unfounded beliefs of a guy who hasn't researched it.  Prob solved!


actually, the 911 funboys started this one, to bash the skeptics.  after them tugging each other off for 10 posts, i chimed in with facts.  Sorry if you don't like em.  tell your friends to stop making threads like these, and I'll quit responding.

No ones ignoring physics.  The point is that on one side people do not make crazy assumptions on things we don't KNOW.  On the other side is someone like you ascribing whatever meaning to unexplained and ultimately irrelevant questions.  You know no better than anyone else yet you claim to have the answers no matter how unreasonable. 

You have no pile of evidence.  You have a pile of horse dung that you twist and highlight, no matter how insignifigant, that just so happens to support a theory that is downright rediculus.  You should slap yourself for being so silly.

Those 911 funboys have a better point and make more sense than any of the "evidence" you've put before us. 

[240 is Back]

You have no pile of evidence.  You have a pile of horse dung that you twist and highlight, no matter how insignifigant, that just so happens to support a theory that is downright rediculus.  You should slap yourself for being so silly.

If you were a fire insurance company, and Silverstein asked to collect $480+M for the building due to fire damage imploding it, would you cut him a check that day?  Or would you consider any of these things which point to a controlled demolition:

streamers.
classic kink.
explosions caught on videotape.
firefighters, police, reporters, residents all told it was about to come down.
visually, no other explanation in human history other than a controlled demo looks like this.
silverstein saying 'we made the decision to pull it'.
ejection jets top right corner
building falling into its own basement
pyroclastic features of flow - rolled low right over water- seen only in volcanoes and in controlled demo - never in any other event.

[luike101]

Dumbasses, Loose change is only 1 of thousands that have researched and come up with the same evidence open your brain.