<p>It’s about as “documented” as your nutjob comments the other day about the world trade center being taken down by demolitions experts</p>
<p>The United States has WAR GAME PLANS for fighting nearly every country on the planet - so what</p>
<p>nutjobs? OK, then please explain to me how the towers fell in 10 seconds, which is the mathematical calculation for FREEFALL, without any controlled demolition to get rid of the resistance of the floors.</p>
<p>I’m still waiting for someone to explain that to me.</p>
<p>The 10 seconds is documented, btw, in the Official 911 Commission Report - see here:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf[/url]”>http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf</a></p>
<p>Page 322 (actual page 322 of pdf, labeled page 305) of the official 911 Commission Report states:</p>
<p>From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds,</p>
<p>and it also says the WTC7 collapsed in 6.point.something seconds, also within a few tenths of a second of freefall speed, and it wasn’t even hit by an airplane.</p>
<p>What happened to all the resistance?</p>
<p>lealdragon,</p>
<p>And lemme guess. It was for oil. Beautiful enriching oil?</p>
<p>I don’t see why the tower would NOT fall at freefall speed. Once the first part collapsed (under severely weakened load-bearing walls from the heat of the jet fuel), there was something like 10 or 20 floors that hit the next floor. Remember, it’s not just one floor that pancakes onto another; the reason why those towers were hit about 3/4 of the way up is that it’s the best way to get them to fall. You want to weaken the walls enough so that what is above collapses and then squishes everything else underneath. We’re talking over ten floors that are dropping, free fall, onto the rest of the tower. the shock from that alone will destablize the tower and start to bring it down. </p>
<p>If you were talking about one, single floor falling upon the other 109 floors, I might agree with you. But once the area that was hit gave way, the floors on top were going down in freefall, which will make one hell of an impact when they hit everything underneath.</p>
<p>Incidentally, the shock waves from one tower were enough to bring down the other one; it would have happened even if it were not hit. </p>
<p>I guess I want to know why you think that there is “resistance” in the floors. Buildings are not designed to withstand that type of stress. Basic physics tells you that there is a difference between static friction a nd sliding friction and that something that falls hits with more force than something stationary. Buildings are made to hold their own weight and the weight of the stuff inside of them. It is a huge waste of money to build them for more than that. </p>
<p>When you stand the floor of an apartment, the neighbours below don’t complain. Now try jumping up and down. The walls will shake. Do you have any idea how buildings are constructed? I remember being in an apartment were people were break-dancing in the apt above me. The walls shook and things not attached to my walls shook. Yes, that is a little less stable than an office building, but a jumbo jet and ten floors is a little more than a person.</p>
<p>As much as I dislike the Clinton administration, I simply don’t believe that they had been planning this with Mohammud Atta since 1996 and helped detonate the thing. I mean, 1993 was enough for that administration.</p>
<p>ariesathena, resistance is what happens when something hits something else. Anything. It’s a fact of physics. Resistance slows things down, even if for only a fraction of a second. Even with the added force, there would have been some resistance.Those fractions of seconds add up, and, at the very least, should have added at least 45 seconds to the collapse time. The 10 second collapse time of the twin towers, and the 6 second collapse time of the WTC7, as documented in the Official 911 Commission Report, account for the mathematically derived time of something falling from the height of the towers thru air: ie, freefall speed. The official story of pancake collapse does not hold up under scrutiny; thus, there are anomalies that should be questioned.</p>
<p>Actually, the buildings WERE designed to withstand the impact of a plane. And may I remind you that WTC7 was never hit by a plane.</p>
<p>This is but one of MANY anomalies. Please see the filme ‘911 Mysteries’</p>
<p><a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003[/url]”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003</a></p>
<p>for an objective (no politics! no theories!) presentation of many more anomalies that are documented and in plane site.</p>
<p>As to the how or the why, any investigation should first look at the evidence. The scholars (many from reputable universities like Rice, BYU, and UT) at <a href=“St 911 - Scholars Truth Ecological Improvements For Homes”>St 911 - Scholars Truth Ecological Improvements For Homes;
are simply pointing out the flaws in the official report and asking for an INDEPENDENT (not govt. sponsored) investigation. Truth should be able to withstand scrutiny.</p>
<p>Sure, there are people speculating with all sorts of theories. But that is all irrelevant. What is relevant is that the math and science do not correlate to the official story; there is compelling evidence that the official story is not accurate, and as Americans who love our country and our freedoms, we should demand answers better than the unbelievably ridiculous answers we’ve been given.</p>
<p>Rather than repeat what’s already been said, please refer to the threads ‘Seeking Physics Scholars’ and ‘George Bush’ in the College Confidential Cafe section of the forum. I invite you to further discussion after having read those posts. See ya over there!</p>
<p>gee I guess the whackos pushing this CONPSPIRACY THEORY must now admit Bush and Cheney are brilliant - CAUSE THEY GOT AWAY WITH IT</p>
<p>and that illusion of the planes hitting the towers -that was great special effects, and and one must admire the way they made all those passengers disappear from those 4 planes that left that morning</p>
<p>and on top of that - they rigged two presidential elections -so the nutjobs claim</p>
<p>So the bottom line - you are outclassed, give up now and accept the blinding brilliance of it all</p>
<p>“illusion of the planes hitting the towers”</p>
<p>What illusion? The scholars questioning the official story are not to be confused with those who think there were no planes. Of course there were planes - we all saw them - at least 2, anyway.</p>
<p>As for the voting fraud: it is being investigated. Research Diebold voting machines.</p>
<p>As to whether the perpetrators (whoever they may be) got away with it, that remains to be seen.</p>
<p>I am continually amused at the low level response I get from people who are quick to start calling peolple nasty names, but are unwilling to actually read the info and/or watch the mainstream media video footage evidence. Their fear blinds them.</p>
<p>“I am continually amused at the low level response I get from people who are quick to start calling peolple nasty names, but are unwilling to actually read the info and/or watch the mainstream media video footage evidence.”
Couldn’t agree more.</p>
<p>Just a little update on the recently passed legislation regarding terrorist trials and such.</p>
<p>Turns out, from a source on the hill, that some representatives tried to get language in the bill that would have explicitly ruled out US citizens. The bill backers would not let the language in. </p>
<p>Now, if you thought this stuff was accidental, think again.</p>
<p>If you thought there was no intention of applying it to citizens, think again.</p>
<p>Such slopes are very slippery indeed.</p>
<p>That is very telling.</p>
<p>Do you happen to have the link to that?</p>
<p>While they look for that telling link, here’s a very telling link dealing with another recent, breathless NYT story on King W and the Constitution-crushing Bush administration–How many times can they say “oops” and still be taken seriously; and when will they give this sort of article the front page treatment they give their original mistakes? Rhetorical questions, obviously.:
<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opinion/22pubed.html?_r=4&pagewanted=2&n=Top%2FOpinion%2FThe%20Public%20Editor&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/opinion/22pubed.html?_r=4&pagewanted=2&n=Top%2FOpinion%2FThe%20Public%20Editor&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>IBM has made a lot of $ in sorting, tagging checks and recording checks/money transactions. Kodak has made a lot $ in storing records of the checks both front and back. Burroughs-Unisys has made a lot of $ coding the checks. </p>
<p>There is no secret in clearing house functions and to be able secregate transactions.</p>
<p>This idiot at the NY Times is obviously worried about being charged at some point with various crimes - no way would one of those america-bashing terrorist-loving morons otherwise ever admit they made a mistake </p>
<p>Jayson Blair is the tip of the iceberg with that paper</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You really know how to put the pole in polemic…</p>
<p>I think Citation and Golani would get along well.</p>
<p>LOL. You really don’t read the Times at all, do you. A few years ago embarassed by some very public goofs they made they hired an independent editor who’s job it is to take a critical look at what they do from the outside and tell them where they went right or wrong on a story. He’s allowed to print whatever he likes. The columns are very interesting and give you a much better idea of how newspapers choose stories, angles, postioning in the paper and even typefaces to try to distiguish editorial from news content. He’s not an idiot.</p>