9-11, give me a break.

[Arkilogue]

Also, I notice you didn't answer my question. What do you think happened? Be specific.

I live out in the country and don't often watch videos, because my data plan is very limited. You'll have to put it into words. And please, no copypasta. I want your own opinion, the better if supported with links at salient points.

Oh what the hell, I think it was a controlled demo false flag and flight 93 was intended for building 7.

This this will explain the hypothesis: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread840964/pg1

So think about this, we have a timeline where flight 93 is hijacked and then the hijackers wait over 45 minutes to take over the plane, you have an airforce that can respond to a hijacked plane in 7 minutes, yet they waited 45 minutes to hijack flight 93- both towers had already been hit, surely hijackers would have hijacked the plane as early as possible and heading south straight away if they were heading to Washington DC.

As the article explains, the theory is that the 'hijacker's' plan was in fact to wait for both towers to have collapsed, thus leaving space to hit WTC7.

With the towers standing, a plane could not hit WTC7, but after both had collapsed, if flight 93 was in fact heading for New York, there would have been about twenty minutes after the second tower collapsing and then WTC7 being struck. They would have destroyed all the evidence with WTC7.

Flight 93 was speculated to have been heading to Washington DC, but that was the conclusion of the 9/11 comission, the diagram of the flight path shows it heading east, and arguably more in line with heading to New York than Washington DC.



Why would they risk all that time in the air, coming back from Ohio? They must have known they would be shot down… if they were terrorists with box cutters that is.

However, if “the terrorists” knew that multiple national security drills would be taking place that day and that NORAD rules had been changed in June of 2001 that kept NORAD commanders from giving the “intercept and engage” order, perhaps they would have known they had more time.

Perhaps, in that case, they would have known they had just enough time to circle around on a long exposed “hijacked” flight just long enough for both towers to “collapse” just as they made it back to downtown Manhattan.

And that is exactly why they waited so long. They were waiting for a clear path to Building 7.

---

Where did that expansion happen?

I'm sure you can thumb through the NIST report yourself. I'm not your google....bud.

---

From: http://911blogger.com/news/2013-07-09/so...e-analysis

Gregory Szuladzinski, Anthony Szamboti and Richard Johns
"Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis"
International Journal of Protective Structures.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/conte...h25254748/

Errors in Progressive Column Failure (PCF) Collapse Hypothesis
Following (perhaps substantially oversimplified) is my take on the key errors identified in the PCF hypothesis by the authors of this paper:

1. Adherents to the PCF hypothesis (Bazant's theory) underestimated the energy absorption capacity of the buildings' columns as they begin to deform. PCF doesn't take into account the stoutness of the World Trade Center columns.
2. PCF's underestimate of the strength of the deformed columns leads to an assumed free fall for most of the crushing of the first story. Measurements of the actual collapse of that floor demonstrate a constant speed consistent with significant resistance from deformed columns. The building did not approach free fall acceleration in that first story as assumed by the PCF model.
3. Evidence in the model and from statements within the papers of the PCF adherents demonstrate that the PCF hypothesis ignored the fact that the collapse began as a static event.

Other errors identified in the PCF theory of World Trade Center (WTC) towers collapses:

1. The mass of the upper portion of the building above the crash site was significantly overstated as used in the PCF model.
2. Other papers have demonstrated that even when making the PCF erroneous assumption that columns quickly lose strength after they begin to deform, the total collapse time couldn't be less than 15.3 seconds. Since the collapse was much faster and since the starting assumption of columns giving way to free fall (giving the upper part of the building more speed as it comes to the end of the collapse of the first story) are demonstrably wrong (based on measurement of the buildings collapse speed), the PCF theory is not a viable hypothesis of the collapse.

Summary:

In order for PCF to work one must substantially over estimate the weight of the upper collapsing portion of the building, substantially underestimate the strength of deforming columns, and model the collapse as a continuous (non-static) event in a set of black box differential equations rather than a floor-by-floor explanation of the event. These errors in the PCF approach mean that the smooth and fast collapse of the WTC towers have not been shown to be a "natural gravitational collapse."

http://911speakout.org/wp-content/upload...alysis.pdf

---

Page 26 http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/...6-47-4.pdf

The case of WTC 7
The total collapse of WTC 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11, shown
in Fig. 2, is remarkable because it exemplified all the signature
features of an implosion: The building dropped
in absolute free fall for the first 2.25 seconds of its descent
over a distance of 32 meters or eight stories [3]. Its
transition from stasis to free fall was sudden, occurring
in approximately one-half second. It fell symmetrically
straight down. Its steel frame was almost entirely dismembered
and deposited mostly inside the building’s
footprint, while most of its concrete was pulverized into
tiny particles. Finally, the collapse was rapid, occurring
in less than seven seconds.

Given the nature of the collapse, any investigation
adhering to the scientific method should have seriously
considered the controlled demolition hypothesis, if not
started with it. Instead, NIST (as well as the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), which conducted a
preliminary study prior to the NIST investigation) began
with the predetermined conclusion that the collapse was
caused by fires.

Trying to prove this predetermined conclusion was
apparently difficult. FEMA’s nine-month study concluded
by saying, “The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how
they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at
this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises
contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis
has only a low probability of occurrence.” NIST, meanwhile,
had to postpone the release of its WTC 7 report
from mid-2005 to November 2008. As late as March 2006,
NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, was quoted as
saying, “Truthfully, I don’t really know. We’ve had trouble
getting a handle on building No. 7.”