George Bush

College Confidential Community
221

<p>
[quote]
110-story buildings don't fall at freefall speed unless they've been blown up with explosives, which means someone with access to the buildings had to have planted them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A 110-story building crumbles when it's infracstructure support beams fail...which are made of high compressed steel. When you think of it, the plane crashing into the steel would certainly damage it, then the superinferno and the explosion blast would greatly further deteriorate it. </p>

<p>So now, we have the steel frames which have become fairly brittle...not completely broken apart. When you consider the weight these things are meant to bear, as well as how they are meant to withstand swaying motions from the wind and...A PLANE...then it is obvious that there is a large chance of them failing and crashing, which is what happened. </p>

<p>So don't jump to conclusions and say:

[quote]
hat we DO know is that 110-story buildings don't fall at freefall speed unless they've been blown up with explosives

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because that just isn't true. Talk to any impartial, well known, and highly esteemed engineer and they will say that the reason the building fell is because of the plane crash. Not due to someone planting explosives. </p>

<p>ANother point, if explosives were used...in the video you would see the bombs blowing outward, away from the building. But when you look at it, nothing of the sort happens, the towers crumble...no blast. Even when the plane hits the building the only noticable explosion goiing radially outward is relatively miniscule opposite-force of the plane's entrance.</p>

222

<p>"then it is obvious that there is a large chance of them failing and crashing, which is what happened."</p>

<p>Of course. But not at freefall speed. Freefall speed only happens when there is ZERO resistance.</p>

<p>"that we DO know is that 110-story buildings don't fall at freefall speed unless they've been blown up with explosives"</p>

<p>OK, I didn't say that quite right. Let me modify it to:</p>

<p>...we DO know is that 110-story buildings don't fall at freefall speed unless SOMETHING has caused all of the matter in the buildings (including the concrete, etc.) to disintigrate into a fine powder. Controlled demolition offers a plausible explanation. The official story does not.</p>

<p>"Because that just isn't true. Talk to any impartial, well known, and highly esteemed engineer and they will say that the reason the building fell is because of the plane crash. Not due to someone planting explosives."</p>

<p>Most people, whether professional or not, are in denial about it and have readily accepted the official story. Why don't you modify your question to them - ask them if it is possible for a huge body of matter to fall thru the air with ZERO resistance thru another huge boddy of matter. Ask it like that, thus eliminating any bias, and see what they say. They will say NO, it is not possible. Any contact with matter will cause SOME resistance. Resistance slows down the collapse.</p>

<p>"ANother point, if explosives were used...in the video you would see the bombs blowing outward, away from the building. But when you look at it, nothing of the sort happens, the towers crumble...no blast. Even when the plane hits the building the only noticable explosion goiing radially outward is relatively miniscule opposite-force of the plane's entrance."</p>

<p>Clearly you have not studied the video footage.</p>

<p>Watch these videos for the very thing you say isn't there. Notice the outward squibs. Even the smoke is in alignment with outward blasts. Oh, and do notice the white smoke RISING from the basement level.</p>

<p><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5239334224660559722&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>also </p>

<p><a href="http://www.loosechange911.com/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.loosechange911.com/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>also</p>

<p><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Skeptical? Think the videos have been modified? Then watch your own video that you recorded on that day off the tv. Slow it down and pause it. You'll see it.</p>

<p>here is a list of the 911 videos in one place:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.universalseed.org/main.asp%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.universalseed.org/main.asp&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

223

<p>I know that you don't trust "officials," but here's NIST's take on the whole thing:</p>

<p>
[quote]
The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass .... The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that ....</p>

<pre><code>Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall .... As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.

The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows ....

[/quote]

</code></pre>

<p>and...</p>

<p>
[quote]
The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components: core columns, perimeter columns, and floors. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation and the subsequent multifloor fires. …</p>

<pre><code>In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as the south wall buckled. The top section of the building titled to the south and began its descent. …

In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner …. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. …

The WTC towers would likely not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact and the extensive, multifloor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.

[/quote]

</code></pre>

<p>Well, I'm mollified.</p>

224

<p>Uhh..the building wasn't falling at free-fall speed because, and according to your own definition, 0 reistence doesn't exist on earch. And even if you look at the tape, it isn't falling with very little resistance. You see that it the outer layer crumbles in free fall, but the inner steal workings are going down in chunks. And I'm not reading any more biased conspiracy theories from uniformed and biased people. </p>

<p>Get back to me when you have evidence from a well-known , highly esteemed engineer with no partisan relationships.</p>

225

<p>Most of the "explosion" you're thinking of is dust clouds...not smoke. And the radial explosion is, as I said, the superheating and explosion of the airplane. Not bombs. Maybe you should study thermal-dynamics.</p>

226

<p>lealdragon: YOU ARE THE IDIOT! THERE WER\E SIGNS OF BUCKLING AND SWAYING IN SOME OF THE VIDEOS. some of the videos had close ups and you can clearly see the sides of the building buckle before it starts to pancake. Oh but that video wasnt included in stupid change. HMM I WONDER WHY??? JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY DID YOU EVER GO THOSE BUILDINGS??? MAYBE IF YOU HAD BEEN IN THEM, LIKE i HAD, YOU WOULD KNOW THAT HOARDING EXPLOSIVES INSIDE WOULD BE NOT ONLY HARD, BUT COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!</p>

227

<p>zipdrivekid,</p>

<p>Drop the offensive language (e.g. calling someone an idiot) and the caps. They're both unnecessary.</p>

228

<p>I wouldve stopped calling people idiots, but smallz got away with calling me an idiot earlier today, so I ASSUME its ok, is it not?</p>

229

<p>That's not how it works, man. You report it to the mods. This isn't a "tit for tat" sort of system here.</p>

<p>Just because person X breaks TOS doesn't mean that person Y is allowed to as well.</p>

230

<p>darn, uclari, you always have a good explanation for everything. I dont report people to the mods, only kitties do that. I just wont call him an idiot again!</p>

231

<p>


</p>

<p>So you don't report people? Or you do?</p>

232

<p>I can ban anyone I want. I am a CC GOD. I have many powers and magic tricks to perform. After I travelled into the magical forest to find the enchanting bunny, the bunny gave me all the powers</p>

233

<p>...to do what I needed to control CC</p>

234

<p>Take it to PMland, Merlin.</p>

235

<p>Dumb Liberals</p>

236

<p>UCLAri and I were having a respectful discussion. Respectful means that even though we might not agree, we continue to be civil and respecful of the other person.</p>

<p>I'll just ignore the immature mudslinging from zip & UB. Not even worth responding to.</p>

237

<p>Why is it that I'm verbally attacked when I disagree with someone? I've been called naive, uncivilized, racist (but not directly)..etc...
but I don't care. I'm entitled to my own opinion.</p>

238

<p>This (among many others) address the freefall issue:</p>

<p><a href="http://physics911.net/closerlook.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://physics911.net/closerlook.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And these are excellent rebuttals to the bogus NIST 'rebuttal'</p>

<p>NIST's World Trade Center FAQ: A Reply
Jim Hoffman
<a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Why NIST hasn't Answered its own Questions
Jim Fetzer
<a href="http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Why-NIS...-Questions.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Why-NIS...-Questions.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Why the NIST "Fact Sheet" Just Won't Do
Sean Glazier
<a href="http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyNIST...heetWontDo.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhyNIST...heetWontDo.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Responses to NIST's FAQs
Kevin Ryan
<a href="http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/NIST_Responses.doc%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/NIST_Responses.doc&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Comments on Some of NIST's FAQs
Charles Pegelow
<a href="http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comment...NISTs-FAQs.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comment...NISTs-FAQs.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>NIST and "The Foot Of God"
Robert Rice
<a href="http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/NISTand...0FootOfGod.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/NISTand...0FootOfGod.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis...
Steven E. Jones
<a href="http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experim...hypothesis.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Experim...hypothesis.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

239

<p>Also, btw, the towers were shut down (no security) all day 2 weeks prior to 911. I'll get that link for you later.</p>

240

<p>If you look to those websites as "proof" you are fooling yourself. That means nothing. I will say this again, and something you still have not done for me, show me a credible source (agency, engineer, etc) who believes what you do. Stop showing us 3rd party, partisan videos for websites which exist to only make money. THis is as bad as those tabloids, so there is absolutely no credibility in them.</p>