(October 14, 2013 at 9:53 am)kılıç_mehmet Wrote: Looks suspicious to me, though I actually should never have put any thought in why the buildings collapsed or who dived the planes into the buildings on whose orders, it happened in America, not here, its none of my business, but it seems as though that the US wants me to somewhat care about what happened on 9/11.

(emphasis added)

NEWSFLASH!

You had better consider it your business since it's happening in the world you live in. Yes?

(October 14, 2013 at 11:11 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 12:20 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: Here's another fatal problem for the controlled ddetonation proponents.

Bringing down a 110 story building in a controlled fashion requires an enormous amount of explosives. The buildings in question fell on live television - and there was no outward sign of overpressure. The truthers fail to account for that.

What exactly do you mean by "overpressure"?

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Overpressure

What contained the shockwave? If it wasn't contained, every window would be blown out prior to collapse.

(October 14, 2013 at 11:23 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 11:11 am)FallentoReason Wrote: What exactly do you mean by "overpressure"?

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Overpressure

What contained the shockwave? If it wasn't contained, every window would be blown out prior to collapse.

Ah, gotcha.

Fair point. According to the video, bits of debris were flying out at 60 mph, which is the effect caused by overpressure. I agree that if it were a "conventional" explosion happening, then surely windows on all floors would simultaneously be smashing as said floor buckles. It all depends on what the alleged explosive was though, and it seems like the most likely one would have been that military grade compound, of which I've forgotten the name again. That stuff produces molten iron which then melts the steel or w/e, but it's not an explosion that creates overpressure.

(October 14, 2013 at 11:29 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 11:23 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: http://wapedia.mobi/en/Overpressure

What contained the shockwave? If it wasn't contained, every window would be blown out prior to collapse.

Ah, gotcha.

Fair point. According to the video, bits of debris were flying out at 60 mph, which is the effect caused by overpressure. I agree that if it were a "conventional" explosion happening, then surely windows on all floors would simultaneously be smashing as said floor buckles. It all depends on what the alleged explosive was though, and it seems like the most likely one would have been that military grade compound, of which I've forgotten the name again. That stuff produces molten iron which then melts the steel or w/e, but it's not an explosion that creates overpressure.

Thermite. I believe someone else already addressed the problems with controlled detonation via thermite.

(October 14, 2013 at 11:37 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote:

(October 14, 2013 at 11:29 am)FallentoReason Wrote: Ah, gotcha.

Fair point. According to the video, bits of debris were flying out at 60 mph, which is the effect caused by overpressure. I agree that if it were a "conventional" explosion happening, then surely windows on all floors would simultaneously be smashing as said floor buckles. It all depends on what the alleged explosive was though, and it seems like the most likely one would have been that military grade compound, of which I've forgotten the name again. That stuff produces molten iron which then melts the steel or w/e, but it's not an explosion that creates overpressure.

Thermite. I believe someone else already addressed the problems with controlled detonation via thermite.

Oh ok, I better go through the thread..

Also I just realised I contradicted myself. I said that there was evidence of overpressure but at the same time said that the method of demolition shouldn't produce overpressure. Either I paraphrased the video correctly and thus the video contradicts itself, or I paraphrased wrongly and I misunderstood something from the video... hmmm...

I just want to know what the idea of 9/11 being false flag was to achieve. I mean, what the outcomes would be that were so great they had to destroy two (or more) buildings, and why these couldn't be achieved without destroying them.

People forget that the planes were also flying to the white house and, naturally, the pentagon. Why were these also targets of a false flag op, and what was the intended outcome?

A building re-design perhaps?

Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:I just want to know what the idea of 9/11 being false flag was to achieve.

I personally am not interested in that. All I'm seeking to do in this thread is to establish if any of the WTC buildings fell because of damage or an alleged controlled demolition. Once that isolated question is answered.. well, maybe naturally some other stuff falls into place...

Just my 2c.

(October 14, 2013 at 11:52 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:I just want to know what the idea of 9/11 being false flag was to achieve.

I personally am not interested in that. All I'm seeking to do in this thread is to establish if any of the WTC buildings fell because of damage or an alleged controlled demolition. Once that isolated question is answered.. well, maybe naturally some other stuff falls into place...

Just my 2c.

But I mean, the whole issue of a FF Op is because of the results it would produce (one would presume, anyway). Most proponents of this theory say "Oh so the US could get oil!". I reject those claims as silly because, honestly, if the US wanted to get oil (say, from Iraq), they could have just played the terrorist/saddam/some other card at any time anyway.

But fair enough if you just want to analyse the actual act itself. My question really is why everyone just focuses on the Twin Towers but ignores the fact 2 other planes went into buildings (or tried to), and why nobody claims there were explosives (or whatever) in those buildings either. Imagine explosives in the White House?

Quote:In another section of my video, a demolition expert says that the penthouse collapsing first is evidence of an implosion i.e. the demolition taking place.

But other demolition experts.... the ones NOT interviewed for the video...came to the opposite conclusion. Seems like cherry-picking.

Besides, in actual controlled demo tapes the explosions are at the bottom and the bottom falls first.

F_C Wrote:But fair enough if you just want to analyse the actual act itself. My question really is why everyone just focuses on the Twin Towers but ignores the fact 2 other planes went into buildings (or tried to), and why nobody claims there were explosives (or whatever) in those buildings either. Imagine explosives in the White House?

If the WTC buildings really were demolished, then explosives in the White House would be a walk in the park. It would be the people that planned the attack rigging their own HQ with explosives to make it seem like the White House also got attacked. But see, such a whacky possibility necessarily depends on how the WTC buildings collapsed.

---

(October 14, 2013 at 12:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:In another section of my video, a demolition expert says that the penthouse collapsing first is evidence of an implosion i.e. the demolition taking place.

But other demolition experts.... the ones NOT interviewed for the video...came to the opposite conclusion. Seems like cherry-picking.

That's true. I guess since it's expert vs expert, we can't really use the penthouse as evidence for either view, especially because both views apparently depend on the penthouse collapsing first anyways.

Quote:Besides, in actual controlled demo tapes the explosions are at the bottom and the bottom falls first.

That's also true.