Mr. Fusion says:

#59, Mike,

Okay maybe, but buildings that collapse from earthquakes do not fall completely into their own footprint at free fall. They crumble, break and tip over. The whole foundation doesn’t fail instantly across it’s entire area.

Actually they do. No engineer I know of claims the WTC fell at free fall, that is a troofer claim and impossible to attain under the circumstance. And a building doesn’t need to collapse across the entire footprint.

Your claims are from an ignorant person pretending to understand physics and engineering. Obviously you don’t. Most troofers attribute properties that the materials don’t posses.

jccalhoun says:

Mike said,
Okay maybe, but buildings that collapse from earthquakes do not fall completely into their own footprint at free fall. They crumble, break and tip over. The whole foundation doesn’t fail instantly across it’s entire area.

If the buildings were demolished by causes other than the plane crashes then why would they make them collapse that way? They are smart enough to organize this whole scheme but they make the buildings collapse in a highly suspicious way? Doesn’t seem very likely.

Greg Allen says:

>> # 59 Mike said, on September 15th, 2010 at 2:25 pm
>> And where is your information coming from? I haven’t heard ths theory before.

It amazes me that people will argue for HOURS about WTC7 but not do the slightest research into the facts.

Mr. Fusion was completely right about WTC7 being built on an existing ConEd building. It had a design weakness because of it. The fire raged for a couple of hours (if I remember correctly) and key pillars where weakened.

This is not a big mystery. Really smart guys with all the facts have figured it out.

Read the link I gave to Structural Magazine. It’s all explained there.

Greg Allen says:

>> jccalhoun said, on September 15th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
>> buildings that collapse from earthquakes do not fall completely into their own footprint at free fall. They crumble, break and tip over.

That reminds me of a video of a totally over-designed building which ran on this blog. (I think)

Anybody else remember it? They where trying to demolish it and it just rolled over intact.

But jccalhoun, I don’t think sky scrapers “tip over” very often.

I can’t remember ever seeing one. There are other guys here who could better answer that.

just me says:

I wouldn’t call myself a “truther,” but I do have some lingering doubts about the motivations of the Bush administration. They had numerous warnings about plans to attack the USA, but took little or no action. Also, the Bush clan has a long relationship with the Saudi Royal Family. If memory serves, the hijackers were almost all Saudi, and Osama bin Laden (a Saudi) was quickly identified as a prime suspect. Though Osama had ties with the Saudi Royal Family, members of the Royal Family were cleared to exit the US (by the US Government) in the days following 9/11, while US citizens were grounded. Soon after, the US decided that the Taliban were the real enemy, followed by Saddam Hussein. The rest, of course, is history.

Mike says:

#66 Greg Allen

Ya I read the pdf you linked to. All it says is that a critical column failed and that is what caused the building to collapse in a “demolition” like manner.

They also say fire, debris and bad construction is to blame for the column failure but they have no proof for this. Explosives could have caused the exact same effect. Of course I have no proof for explosives either… so it looks like we are in the same boat, both theorists.

Again, you have to think for yourself. Just because something is typed up neat and tidy in a magazine doesn’t mean you don’t examine it critically.

Greg Allen says:

>> just me said, on September 15th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
>> I wouldn’t call myself a “truther,” but I do have some lingering doubts about the motivations of the Bush administration. They had numerous warnings about plans to attack the USA, but took little or no action.

It’s called incompetence.

That’s why presidents should be really smart and really informed and really curious — and Bush was none of this.

>> Also, the Bush clan has a long relationship with the Saudi Royal Family. If memory serves, the hijackers were almost all Saudi, and Osama bin Laden (a Saudi) was quickly identified as a prime suspect. Though Osama had ties with the Saudi Royal Family, members of the Royal Family were cleared to exit the US (by the US Government) in the days following 9/11, while US citizens were grounded. Soon after, the US decided that the Taliban were the real enemy, followed by Saddam Hussein. The rest, of course, is history.

You are conflating about three issues there.

Yes, bin Laden and most of the hijackers where Saudis — but they where criminals, exiles and enemies of the Saudi Royal family.

Yes, the Bush’s are close to the Saudi royals and had been for years. Bush let them fly out as a favor to avoid lock-down and press scrutiny but probably not because he thought they where guilty. The Saudi royals are the last people in the middle east who would want to attack America, their cash cow.

It’s harder to explain whey Bush would be so hell bent on attacking Iran when, clearly, the enemy was in Afghanistan. It could have been personal for Bush (Saddam tried to kill Bush Sr.) but the neo-Cons had been obsessed with Iraq for decades. And then there’s oil.

Whatever the motivation, the Iraq war will go down as one of the most boneheaded and bungled foreign policy debacles in US history.

And the conservatives cheered it on, every step of the way.

Greg Allen says:

>> Mike said, on September 15th, 2010 at 9:47 pm
>> Again, you have to think for yourself. Just because something is typed up neat and tidy in a magazine doesn’t mean you don’t examine it critically

It was the facts and logic that convinced me, not the graphic design. (which kind of sucked, actually)

You actually did a pretty-good job of summarizing what happened.

It burned like hell in there for hours and collapsed, aided by a flawed design.

When you watch the video above, it’s not at all hard to imagine.

just me says:

#77: Then forget about Obama too.

Prose-ly-tise says:

uummm spammmmy