[JoeXIII'007]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

1. The professor shows bldg 7 falling, and buildings that were intentionally demolished falling, and says something to the effect of "it looks the same"

what does that mean? If someone is poisoned and someone has a brain aneurysm, Im willing to bet they look pretty much the same as they fall to the floor. The fact that they fall the same way doesn't mean the cause of failure is the same. Logical fallacy.


6. Why did bulding 7 fall? Because the towers that fell were right across the street, and tons of debris fell onto bldg 7, and the shock of the towers hitting the bedrock was like a localized earth quake. Again, nothing like this has happened before because nothing like this has ever happened before. There is no historical basis to look back on for similar events.

If this professor had been part of the investigation team, had access to the site, access to the materials, and then decided something else was going on, then I would give him more credibility. But to look at videos, and eyewitness account from people who didnt understand what they were seeing, and who were in shock at the time, and base his conclusions on that data alone,

that is not science. That is armchair speculation.

Well, #1, it was an awfully long delay between the collapse of the towers and bldg 7, and #2, mathematically the building fell too fast for just shock, debris, and what little fire there was to bring it down that quickly. If the building fell a bit more logically, it would fall a lot slower, and over a period of time, due to the resistance from the structure of the building.

2. The professor makes a big point that many sky scrapers have caught fire and burned, and none of them ever collapsed until 9/11. Ok, but how many of those other buildings had a fully fueled jetliner jammed into the center of their frame at the time? Most buildings are not constructed with materials anything like ten thousand gallons of jet fuel. There was nothing in those other buildings that would combine with the updraft rush of air to burn like a kerosene fueled blow torch.

The fuel burned off very quickly after the crashes, thus for it to have any effect on the structure, it would be very minimal. Plus whatever flammable materials in the towers at the time could not have burned hot enough alone to melt the steel.

3. Metal was seen pouring out of one tower? There was a jet aircraft in there, made mostly of aluminum! Aluminum does burn if you get it hot enough, and it would certainly melt in this type of a fire.

OK, three pictures. One of molten aluminum, one of molten steel, and one of the metal flowing from the tower shortly before the collapse. You can also see some comparison photos here, with a thermite demo too.

4. The fact that an engineer was fired from UL, after his computer models could not replicate the fall of the towers, what are we to conclude? That he was fired to cover up his discovery, or that he had no idea what he was doing, or how to model something this complex with the computer SW he was using? Could he have been fired for being incompetent?

I am pretty sure he was doing the right thing: starting with the evidence available from the scene, and ending with an appropiate conclusion, instead of starting with a conclusion and finding evidence to support it.

5. The WTC area was cleaned up quickly because the cause of the fires and collapse was already known - it was captured on cameras, the second impact was seen live by millions of people, there was no mystery. If someone is shot multiple times during a robbery, with 10 million eye witnesses, and dies on the spot, Im pretty sure you dont have a bunch of doctors running tests, thinking "maybe his wife poisioned him? maybe he was hit by lightning?"

Of course the cause of death from a shooting is obvious, but when you have two towers that were built to last collapse due to what the official story claims, and the official story contradicts the laws of physics and whatnot, you have a very obvious problem. Especially when engineers all over the place are befuddled and puzzled as to why they collapsed. Evidence is crucial to figuring out exactly why. Popular conclusion in this case needs to be verified, and there was no time to do it with how quickly the evidence was buried.

Also, in any crime scene, there are investigators who find evidence (bullets, shrapnel, etc.) and will put them in bags to keep them in the condition they were in at the scene. There is almost always an evidence gathering phase, then a clean up, not just a clean up. In the case of 9/11, the evidence at the scene of the crime was immediately destroyed, allowing for little to no scientific analysis of the steel from the towers from private investigators.

The towers were not punctured like a pencil through a window screen. We all saw the plane fly into the second tower. The plane sliced the entire side of the tower open from wing tip to wing tip, destroying the load bearing structure of the entire one side and corner of the building.

What about the central core columns at the center of the buildings??? I am pretty certain that the outer walls were a bit weak to a jet, but the core had to have withstood the impact a lot better.

As this point you gotta ask yourself "what is this person really up to? What are his motives?

His motives are to pressure the government for solid answers as to what exactly happened on the days before and on 9/11. In a follow up video here, he claims that he has been bribed to shut up about this from homeland security. There are a lot of holes in the official story, and it takes the removal of the shock and awe of that day's memories to do some real critical analysis of what really happened, and if you think about it, there was some crazy stuff going on that doesn't happen on any normal disaster.

total: 4 cents... with extreme caution.

-Joe