Paolo:

Yes, take a stop watch and time the collapse.  But don’t do it in the truth videos that stop the timer as soon as the debris field gets to ground zero.  That is not only NOT timing the real end of the collapse, but it also MAKES the case for the debris falling faster than the towers. (that by the way means that the debris is breaking the laws of physics by falling faster than freefall speed.  Care to explain that one?)  Try one that records the actual speed of the collapse. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

Or try timing the collapse in this one, which contains a video that was featured in the documenteries 9/11 eyewitness and 9/11 mysteries, but oddly enough not to make the point that they fell at free fall speed.  Why?  Well, watch the video yourself.  And make sure you time the whole collapse, including the end part where the antenna falls over out of the debris cloud. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jir7yWTroN8

Funny that they show this clip, but make no mention to the speed of the collapse isn’t it?  Well, no, not really.  Because if they did, their audience would realize they were being lied to.

You people really really really astound me.

Do you have any comments on this?  I am gonna guess that i don’t hear from you again, at least not in this thread.

One problem with the collapse of WTC 1, 2, and (especially) 7, is that they all collapsed at almost free-fall speed (Niloroth—just use a stopwatch and time it. It’s not that hard). Common sense would predict that these buildings, after an asymmetrical jet impact, would topple, rather than go straight down into their own footprints. Or, perhaps some parts of the structure would fall, but the immense central core columns would not.

After a jet impact, if the buildings collapsed, I would expect to see extensive portions of the robust inner columns still standing.

I am convinced that history will eventually show something very fishy about 9-11. Just as history has shown some very fishy stuff about the battleship Maine, and about the Tonkin Gulf incident, and about the false flag operations of the Israelis in Egypt in the 1950’s.

Some people seem very anxious to believe the government is full of people who are several degrees more honest than the rest of us, imbued with some special sense of morality that is higher than the morality the rest of us possess.

Most of us know this is total bunk and rot. The government, if anything, lies and misleads far more often than the rest of us (and that’s saying something, as human beings are wont to lie).

Cyrena:

“Kind of like the BS you pulled folks into on the fine dust vs the larger particles left over from the demolition of those huge structures”

I am sorry that the idea that, making a statement that “everything was turned to dust” then means you have to prove that everything actually turned to dust, escapes you.  And the fact that when you say dust, and i prove that there were pieces that were several orders of magnitude larger than dust, i have proved your statement wrong.  But we already know how you are with facts, i we can let that one alone. 

“The National Transportation Safety Board. That collection of experts could have, and would have known immediately, that the airplanes didn’t cause those towers to collapse.”

You make that assumption, but i wonder, has the NTSB ever investigated a crash of a plane into a structure, and then dealt with the damage to that structure?  Please show me if that is the case.  Do i need to point you once again to the NTSB’s own website to clearly show you that that would be wildly outside of the NTSB’s mission?  It would be like asking the FDA to approve a new standard for solar panels on the ISS. 

“A few steps more, (like conferring with a demolitions expert or two, just to make it all official) would have wrapped it up.”

Do you mean like every demolitions expert in the world who agrees that WTC 1 and 2 came down just as the NIST says they did?

“But, for whatever the reason, they didn’t use the standard board/agencies who have done these investigations for over half a century. Now what’s up with that?”

Again, not their job.

“And, you’re wondering why there aren’t MORE of them signed on to the effort? Obviously, they don’t wanna be unemployed like you are.”

Um, could you please cite even one person who lost their job for questioning 9/11?  Steven Jones didn’t, he retired.  Kevin Ryan didn’t, he got fired for misrepresenting the official position of the UL, not because he questioned the events of 9/11.

So, who has gotten fired?

AEtruth and Pilotsfortruth are crackpots, plain and simple.  And a very small majority.

What about WTC 7? No final report yet. No final report yet. No final report yet. Have you heard there is no final report yet? can’t any of those hundreds of thousands of “honest” engineers and architects in the country figure it out? Wonder why?

I was pleased to see the The Progessive Populist ran my letter to the editor calling for a new 9/11 investigation, in their November 15 issue.

http://www.populist.com/07.20.letters.html

#110742 by niloroth

In any group of people, you can find nutjobs who will believe anything.  You have pointed us towards 2 sites for those people, but they really don’t speak for the rest of the ones in their profession, in any way shape or form.

Some more of your diversionary tactics here, eh Nimrod? Kind of like the BS you pulled folks into on the fine dust vs the larger particles left over from the demolition of those huge structures, and another one (tower 7) that was never even struck by anything? That same one that the owner of the whole ‘complex’ actually admitted to having destroyed by demolition? (sorry, you’ll have to find that video on your own, I don’t do research for wanna-be and/or disgruntled reporters.)

As for the architects and engineers, there really was no need. Not to say that their imput wouldn’t have been helpful and probably included in a REAL investigation, but the whole thing could have been resolved very easily, just using the standard board of inquiry that examines ALL air disasters. The National Transportation Safety Board. That collection of experts could have, and would have known immediately, that the airplanes didn’t cause those towers to collapse. A few steps more, (like conferring with a demolitions expert or two, just to make it all official) would have wrapped it up.

But, for whatever the reason, they didn’t use the standard board/agencies who have done these investigations for over half a century. Now what’s up with that? Maybe they would have just told the truth?

As for the pilots, I had to laugh out loud when you used a couple of their names to question their ‘legitimacy’ as pilots. I guess I’m not one either, eh?

And, you’re wondering why there aren’t MORE of them signed on to the effort? Obviously, they don’t wanna be unemployed like you are. They know what happened, and they ain’t sayin’ nothin’. You might have noticed that most are now RETIRED. They weren’t talking at first either. Most professionals, (regardless of their fields) will at least wait and/or give the benefit of the doubt, until they know that ‘benefit’ was wasted. Doesn’t take all that long to figure out that you’ve been lied to.
Especially when it’s a really pathetic lie.

It’s a shame Rosie has gotten such grief for calling for what all Americans need, and 100 million Americans who think 911 actually was a conspiracy want, a real, un-biased, independent, complete, re-investigation of the events.

Even critics of a conspiracy theory must admit the ‘Official’ 911 investigation & report was a shoddy piece of work, highly politically motivated, and disregarded important vital testimony that would show the current administration in a bad light.

To settle this crucial matter once and for all let’s have another investigation, or does someone have something to hide?

John Borowski:

I don’t suppose you have any evidence at all to back up any of those claims?  And how did they use thermite/mate to bring down the buildings when no video of the events ever recorded the explosions?  Imaginary explosives that make no noise maybe?

Toby:

The mainstream media probably didn’t interview the idiots who got kicked out because they were out covering REAL stories, about REAL events, as REAL reporters.

So many of my responses can be cut and pasted it seems, because you all use the same old BS arguments and link to the same old BS sites.  People link to the aetruth site and the pilots for truth sites because it is an appeal to authority.  But does that really hold up well?  Lets look at the numbers:

Well, lets look at the numbers here.  According to http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/archives/2007/06/the_state_of_architecture_construction_building_architects_in_america.html?t=recent
the American Institute of Architects places their membership at about 108,000 members.  ae911truth.org lists 66 architects, 11 of which they say they do not have proof of accreditation. 

And according to the information in
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20021015S0031
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers state that the number of employed engineers in the second quarter of 2002 was 1,923,000.  (keep in mind that was just employed engineers) ae911truth lists 114 engineer members, with 36 without accreditation. 

Even giving them the benefit of the doubt on the members not proven, do you want to take a stab at what percentage the people on that site represent of their chosen line of work?  You really want anyone to take that site seriously?

That gives you %0.007 on the engineer side, and %0.07 on the architect side.  Not exactly a resounding majority. 

Now, in the case of the pilots, they list 48 pilots, some of whom have names like “DG” and “wes”, so really, not too much credibility there.  But anyway, the Air Line Pilot Association, Itl. lists it membership at over 60,000
http://www.alpa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=139
So again, i ask, want to take a shot at the percentage the pilots at pilotsfortruth
make up of those in the profession?

In any group of people, you can find nutjobs who will believe anything.  You have pointed us towards 2 sites for those people, but they really don’t speak for the rest of the ones in their profession, in any way shape or form.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

What about WTC 7? No final report, 3 years after the investigation started, 6 years after the tragedy.

Kat:

Be honest.  You are quote mining.  The NIST has said in public that “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse”  Note the use of full.  The NIST was given the job of showing why the buildings collapsed.  They did that, and released the findings to the public.  What they did not do, was give a floor by floor description of the collapse.  There was no need to.  The showed how the collapse started, and they showed why the collapse would continue until the building was fully destroyed. 

And even though i am sure they realized that the truthers would jump all over this one sentance, they wrote it anyway.  Why?  Because it was the only honest thing to do.  So instead of the lies, half truths, and disinformation of the truth movement, the NIST decided to tall the entire truth, even if it could come back to bit them.

Cyrena:

I realize you should already know this what with the fact that you work in the aviation industry, but the mission of the NTSB is to “The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in the other modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine and pipeline—and issuing safety recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. The Safety Board determines the probable cause of: all U.S. civil aviation accidents and certain public-use aircraft accidents.”

From http://www.ntsb.gov/Abt_NTSB/history.htm

There was no need at all for the NTSB to do full investigations into the planes that crashed, since the causes of those crashes were rather apparent.  Even still the NTSB worked with the NIST in their investigation of the evidence of 9/11.  In fact, the NIST, who you don’t trust, actually modeled their investigative process off the model used by the NTSB, why i guess you do trust?

More BS from you.

By the way, are you going to reply at all to me calling you out on your lies and distortions, or are you going to be like Sheila and just try to pretend that I, and my requests that you back your lies up, don’t exist?

Bill O’Reilly claims we incite violence because of HR 1955. Martial law, anyone? Rosie has never called 9/11 an inside job. She just questions it, like most of us. NIST has admitted to family members (in writing) that they cannot adequately explain the collapse of the buildings. No mainstream news has reported this.

I’ve always been curious about why the NIST and Purdue, and anybody else, did all of these reports, and we never heard from the NTSB. (National Transportation Safety Board). They’ve typically investigated all air disasters for decades.

Wonder why not this one?

I think I DID hear a mention from them on a video, but it wasn’t in reference to the WTC. It was just mentioning how they had never recovered any of the ‘black’ boxes from any of these flights.

Anybody else ever hear of anything from the NTSB?

Just curious. They seem to be missing from the Commission’s Official Conspiracy Report as well…

It really is very curious.

Part 1 of 2 reply to#110574 by Sheila Casey

•  Does it make sense that the wings of the plane would slice through the exterior steel columns?  I’m wondering why the wings didn’t break off and fall on the sidewalk below.

Sheila,

Excellent observation. I sure wish more folks considered these things. I had written earlier, (though never got around to posting it) what I thought might be an ‘example’ that would help the average lay person sort of ‘visualize’ the impossibility of this, without bogging anyone down with all of the technical details of aircraft design. So, here it is, and I think it’s reasonably accurate, and then folks can decide these 9/11 related issues for themselves.

Speaking of aircraft in general, and specifically commercial jetliners, there are a few basics to keep in mind. First, although airplanes are obviously very ‘heavy’…and some far heavier than others, the primary objective in commercial airline design is to make the aircraft itself, as ‘light-weight’ as possible. The lighter the aircraft, the more ‘payload’ it can carry. (passengers and freight). So, many airlines avoid even painting the bodies of the aircraft, because it saves a few hundred pounds of weight, (give or take). The very heaviest thing on the aircrafts (at least these) are the engines. (one engine under each wing on this Boeing 757 series). If we had to weigh the next ‘heaviest’ thing, it would probably be the wheel-tire assembly. Then, the tail, which is another ‘wing’ so to speak. (and that’s a toss up comparison, because I don’t have the specs in front of me).

However, hopefully, you get my point. Airplanes are designed –by necessity- to be as ‘lightweight’ as is commercially practical. So, the ‘skin’ of the aircraft is actually very light. Rivets add weight, but again…that depends on the individual configuration. However, keep in mind that empty, the engines are the where the bulk of the weight is concentrated in the least amount of space. (balance is everything). Since they are mounted under the wing, the wings are obviously strong, but it’s the design that holds them together, not the weight of the wings themselves.

So, in an accident like this, the wings would not only have ‘broken off’, but more than likely they would have crumpled up as well. As a matter of fact, just about everything OTHER than the engines, and maybe the tail, would have crumpled like tin foil. A visual picture…A Volkswagen (bug series) is traveling down the highway at 110 mph, and collides into a standard concrete barrier (the type that is visible on most major freeways.) And, it collides head on. As you can imagine, all passengers will die –short of a miracle- and the VW bug will be smashed like a crepe suzette, or maybe a tortilla. The concrete barrier might sustain some smudge marks from the tires, and who knows, maybe even a nick in the concrete. Again, the car itself traveling at that speed, will become like a crumpled up piece of tin foil. (maybe the rear bumper would remain more intact).

To be cont.

Part 2 of 2 reply to #110574 by Sheila Casey

THIS is why those airplanes (alone) did not cause the destruction of those towers. The engines could have indeed caused some damage, and may have even sheered off from the wings. Still, even they could not have created anything close to the total destruction of the WTC towers. Nope, not even if those fuel tanks were full, as I suspect they may have been, based on the planned distance of the flights. Jet fuel burns rather quickly, so that didn’t cause the destruction of the towers either. (at least not without help from another source).

Several years ago, (I’m thinking late 1978 or early 1979) a DC-10 crashed at Chicago O’Hare airport, killing all passengers on board. It crashed on take-off, and the REASON it crashed, was because one of the engines, (that model had two engines under each wing) had become detached and fallen off shortly during/after the initial take off. What that did was to throw the airplane completely off balance, which is what brought it down. The airplane of course was a crumbled mess, and the engines of course did show some damage, though for the most part, were relatively intact. As I mentioned, the engines are the most solidly sturdy and heaviest piece of the airplane. They just aren’t solidly sturdy enough to crash those towers, to the ground, including that tower 7, which was never struck by an aircraft anyway.

So, to answer your question, NO….it does NOT make sense that the wings of ANY aircraft could slash through solid steel through ANY steel columns, exterior or otherwise, anymore than a VW bug could ‘slice through” a concrete barrier on the freeway. It would be like me punching a grizzly bear in the stomach.

And, that’s why the official theory of the events of 9/11 would make it the FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF AVIATION, that such an event has taken place. (well, aside from bird strikes that is. Birds don’t stand a chance against these airplanes, although they HAVE been known to cause damage if they get tangled up in an engine).

I looked up that Purdue study he mentions.  Sounds like just more lame re-hashing of the NIST report.  Debunked here:

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/200607animation.htm

As I watched the Purdue animation, one thing occurred to me.  Does it make sense that the wings of the plane would slice through the exterior steel columns?  I’m wondering why the wings didn’t break off and fall on the sidewalk below.  Instead Purdue shows an animation that looks like someone stamped a plane-shaped cookie cutter on the side of the building, as if all parts of the plane are equally strong and just barrell through the building.  Doesn’t seem right.

I saw the brave patriots (to whom I am deeply grateful) on Bill Maher and at a Bill Clinton speech, but churches?  And what video is he talking about that incites violence?  Does he just make this stuff up?

Can someone explain why TD has a link to this?

A run-of-the-mill baiting job of the sort that has become a daily occurrence on fox ‘news’. As I’ve posted in other threads, I’m a 9/11 truth movement heretic. But questioning the truthseekers has nothing to do what O’Reilly is up to here. It’s just another stomach-turning display of rabble rousing and demagoguery. He stops just one step short of denouncing truthseekers as traitors and demanding their blood.

This is disgusting. Please remove this link TD. It’s not up to your standards.

If there’s anything providing the Terrorists “comfort” as Oreally says in this vid, it’s the fact that supremist fascists like him have such a loud voice in America.
Oreally could be a poster for Al-queada enlistment efforts.