I-A-B Midnight Feature: 9/11 Mysteries-Demolitions

Submitted by: 747Pilot 3 years ago
The views and opinions expressed in this video are those of the submitter and/or the persons appearing on the video and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of I-A-B

Interesting and informative video
There are 61 comments:
Male 2,711
I didn`t ignore those six words of yours, they just didn`t change anything, idiot. Your claim that "*all* skyscrapers are designed to have a high probability of collapsing downwards as much as possible in the event of catastrophic failure" is catastrophically wrong. Go make that statement to any architect or engineer and you will get laughed out of the building.

"Anyone who doesn`t plan to minimise the damage in the event of failure has no business building anything bigger than a shed"
The point is to plan to minimize the possibility of failure, not the damage.

One last thing to consider: look up "path of least resistance." There is no reason for those buildings to fall INTO the path of MOST resistance.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
The rest of your posts aren`t even worth addressing, they just illustrate how confused you are. You confuse weight and velocity and momentum as if they are all the same thing. You talk about things dropping "at high speed". You use false analogies, ie. dropping a weight ON you. (You were already supporting that weight and you could handle twice as much with no strain. If it slipped 1-2% of your height, you would catch it.)

"So you`re a liar and a hypocrite"
F.uck you. I haven`t lied anywhere (in this thread, at least, hehe) and I`m guessing you don`t know what hypocrite even means: (n. a person who professes beliefs and opinions that they do not hold).
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"You even agreed with the refutation"
You really do have comprehension problems. No, I was simply tired of you all harping on that one point (THAT I NEVER MADE) so I proposed an alternate, more accurate phrasing.

"You accepted a collapse time almost double that which free fall would have been."
When and where did I do that? It is becoming obvious that you never watched the video I linked.

"No it isn`t, as has been explained to you."
Again, when and where? Do you not ackowledge that every floor had thousands of welded and bolted joints? Do you really think that 70+ floors, each with those thousands of welded and bolted joints, would give virtually ZERO resistance in a collapse? You claim that "has been explained" to me, but I can`t seem to find it...
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@Angilion, the ignorant twat, says: "Obviously, the weight rapidly became even greater as more floors collapsed *onto the floors below*."

Really? Please explain how the weight of the floors increased. What new mass was added to the "Dozens of floors of the building" which were, pretty obviously, ALREADY THERE AND BEING SUPPORTED JUST FINE, THANK YOU.

I think the fact that you find it reasonable that dozens of floors of a very large building MYSTERIOUSLY INCREASED IN WEIGHT says EVERYTHING about your idiotic position.

"It has been refuted repeatedly, including in this thread."
I never claimed "free-fall" speed, I claimed "near free-fall" speed. As in very friggin` close to the speed we`ve all seen in controlled implosions!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
Last one. I`ve given you far too much of my time already.

[quote]I`m sorry, but that is just "bloody stupid." Buildings are designed and built to AVOID collapse in every imaginable way.[/quote]

So you`re a liar and a hypocrite ("I`m sorry"), but that`s hardly surprising and a minor point in comparison.

You ignored a key part of what I wrote: "in the event of catastrophic failure." I did not write "buildings are designed to collapse". As usual, you are making stupid things up and pretending other people said them. You do that because your argument is rubbish and you can`t use it to answer what people actually write.

[quote]There is no "safe collapse scenario" planned in.[/quote]

Anyone who doesn`t plan to minimise the damage in the event of failure has no business building anything bigger than a shed, let alone a building 400m high with a mass of 500,000 tonnes in the middle of a city.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]And yes, planes did hit the buildings (well, two out of three of them). I have no reason to doubt the first plane and I saw the second one well enough for myself (on msm, granted).[/quote]

Why do you think that happened? Did the Secret Conspirators seize control of the planes with plane-controlling beams and ram them into the towers as a diversion for their secret demolition that didn`t look like a demolition?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
I`ll use an analogy to illustrate the difference betwene supporting a weight and being hit by it at speed.

I shouldn`t need to do this. Does anyone really not understand that they are very different scenarios?

Imagine you have a rock weighing 3Kg. About the size of a housebrick.

You can easily hold it up. You are strong enough to carry that weight with a huge margin of error.

Now imagine the rock drops on your head at high speed. Is that the same as holding it up?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It`s just the building! I kinda think it was designed to handle that within a huge margin of error.[/quote]

I can lift 100Kg. If 100Kg was dropped on me from above, I would not be able to catch it. If my bones were greatly weakened and then 100Kg was dropped on me, I`d be squished.

Rough calculation ahead:

One floor of one of the WTC towers weighed about 5 million Kg.

417m height, 110 floors, so 3.8m per floor.

After falling 3.8m in 1g (i.e. 1 floor destroyed), an object has a velocity of about 8.6 m/s.

100,000,000 Kg (20 floors) at 8.6 m/s has kinetic energy of 3,698,000,000 J. Equivalent to about 880 Kg of TNT.

Do you really think that one floor of the WTC towers could handle force equivalent to far more than ("huge margin of error") 880Kg of TNT directly downwards on it? While on fire with much of its strength removed by the softening of the support structure?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]"I don`t know why you`re obsessed about a free fall collapse that didn`t happen"
First, it did happen. Near free fall as in "within a margin of error of being indistinguishable from free-fall." I happen to believe the physics in the clip that I linked and no one here has refuted it.[/quote]

It has been refuted repeatedly, including in this thread. You even agreed with the refutation and wrote `Okay, let`s forget "free-fall speed."`! You accepted a collapse time almost double that which free fall would have been. It was filmed as it happened. Or is all that fake too?

[quote]It doesn`t matter what you`re claiming. That`s what MUST happen for the buildings to collapse in the manner they did.[/quote]

No it isn`t, as has been explained to you. You`re like a creationist - you make up silly things and pretend they`re what the people you`re opposing claim.

This is stupid of me. There`s no point arguing with fait
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Wtf? What is this "vast weight" you`re talking about?[/quote]

Dozens of floors of the building, to begin with. Obviously, the weight rapidly became even greater as more floors collapsed *onto the floors below*.

I think the fact that you find it incomprehensible that dozens of floors of a very large building weigh a lot says a lot about the validity of your position.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"when a vast weight is dropped straight down on a weakened building"
Wtf? What is this "vast weight" you`re talking about? It`s just the building! I kinda think it was designed to handle that within a huge margin of error. That "weakened building" was far less damaged than the images I posted before, why did it fall? It should not have happened.

And yes, planes did hit the buildings (well, two out of three of them). I have no reason to doubt the first plane and I saw the second one well enough for myself (on msm, granted).
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"Controlled demolition doesn`t start from the top or anywhere near the top."
Duh. What`s your point? I`d guess you`re refering to the impact damage. The thing is, we were talking specifically about WTC 7 which received negligable damage from the initial attack and relatively little from the collapse. The only thing I was confused by was McG`s claim that WTC 7 collapsed from the top: "Especially WTC 7 what would the point be of doing a controlled demo (from the top I might add)"

"because nobody is claiming that`s what happened."
It doesn`t matter what you`re claiming. That`s what MUST happen for the buildings to collapse in the manner they did. Everything about the steel superstructure was designed to resist collapse. It is physically impossible for such a structure to fall literally THROUGH each floor with almost zero resistance.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@Angilion
I was done with this thread but you are just too cheeky to ignore.

"None of them built with the same structure as the WTC buildings"
What? Are you claiming the structure of the WTC buildings was to blame? A faulty design is why these three buildings are the only steel skyscrapers to ever collapse from fire?

"I don`t know why you`re obsessed about a free fall collapse that didn`t happen"
First, it did happen. Near free fall as in "within a margin of error of being indistinguishable from free-fall." I happen to believe the physics in the clip that I linked and no one here has refuted it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]It is clear these three collapses met little to no resistance while falling, that is simply impossible. Each floor had literally thousands of bolted and welded joints, the idea that all of them sheared and failed at the same instant is just ludicrous.[/quote]

And irrelevant because nobody is claiming that`s what happened.

I`ll ask again:

what on earth do you expect when a vast weight is dropped straight down on a weakened building?

I`ll tell you - it collapses. Rapidly.

Out of interest, do you think the planes were fake?
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]"(from the top I might add)"
Er, uh... what?[/quote]

Controlled demolition doesn`t start from the top or anywhere near the top.

The destruction of the WTC buildings did.

To people who know anything, anything at all, about controlled demolitions, that`s an important point. Which would explain why you`re so confused by it.
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]Um, actually, no, modern steel buildings do not simply fall down in their own footprints at virtually free-fall speed. Dozens of buildings have had much larger and longer-burning fires and never more than a partial collapse. There is always something of the core structure still standing.[/quote]

None of them built with the same structure as the WTC buildings WHICH DID NOT COLLAPSE AT VIRTUALLY FREE FALL SPEED.

I don`t know why you`re obsessed about a free fall collapse that didn`t happen, but I`m glad that you are because it`s a useful indicator that you`re not basing your opinions on reality.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]Their investment in WTC 7 was estimated at $386 million. In Feb 2002, Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the WTC 7 site, a net profit of nearly $500 million in only seven months (and that`s just the one building). Not too shabby. [/quote]


Except they have to rebuild the whole thing and somehow keep the conspiracy all a secret for $500 mill a drop in the bucket to them....... That would also raise the question why destroy all those other buildings when it was one you wanted destroyed.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
[quote]All three buildings fell at rates nearly identical to successful controlled demolitions so lets just call it "implosion speed" from now on, okay?[/quote]

At what speed is a non demo job supposed to fall?

[quote] Each floor had literally thousands of bolted and welded joints, the idea that all of them sheared and failed at the same instant is just ludicrous[/quote]

Except they didn`t do that at the same instant. Ever heard of momentum?

[quote]Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that WTC 7 held major offices of the FBI, DoD, IRS, Secret Service, SEC, EEOC, and many others[/quote]

So did the pentagon and that wasn`t destroyed. Along with a lot of other places you know there`s a lot of building all over the country with offices for them do you think they keep files all in one place?
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"what would the point be of doing a controlled demo...with more prominent targets already destroyed?"
Good question. Maybe there should be an investigation, eh?

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that WTC 7 held major offices of the FBI, DoD, IRS, Secret Service, SEC, EEOC, and many others. Thousands and thousands of federal investigations were halted by the loss of evidence and records in the collapse (Reuters estimated 3000-4000 at the SEC alone).

Or maybe it`s just the age-old "follow the money." Silverstein Properties took majority ownership of the WTC complex on July 24, 2001. Their investment in WTC 7 was estimated at $386 million. In Feb 2002, Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the WTC 7 site, a net profit of nearly $500 million in only seven months (and that`s just the one building). Not too shabby.

"(from the top I might add)"
Er, uh... what?
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"The videos show that the towers took 15 seconds to collapse."
Well, we were talking about WTC 7 and you`re referencing the towers, but okay. Do you really think that 15 seconds is somehow a reasonable time for a 1400 foot tower to dislodge and literally pulverize 110 floors worth of welded and bolted reinforced steel and concrete? Gimme a break. Okay, let`s forget "free-fall speed." All three buildings fell at rates nearly identical to successful controlled demolitions so lets just call it "implosion speed" from now on, okay?
0
Reply
Male 2,711
Speaking of "nutters," here comes McG into the fray! lol

"The towers did not fall at freefall speed."
I said "virtually free-fall speed." It is clear these three collapses met little to no resistance while falling, that is simply impossible. Each floor had literally thousands of bolted and welded joints, the idea that all of them sheared and failed at the same instant is just ludicrous. Physics doesn`t work that way. Lots of buildings have collapsed, but never like these three buildings. Not before, not since. Find us another example, I dare you.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
You nutters also need some intent for all of this conspiracy. Especially WTC 7 what would the point be of doing a controlled demo (from the top I might add) hours after the attacks and with more prominent targets already destroyed?
0
Reply
Male 14,330
The videos show that the towers took 15 seconds to collapse. The free-fall time for something to fall 400 meters is about 9 seconds. So, no, the towers did not fall faster than free fall.
0
Reply
Male 14,330
The towers did not fall at freefall speed. What makes you think a controlled demolition even falls at free fall speed?
0
Reply
Male 1,692
The Bush family didnt help stop 9-11. The Saudi`s used their connections to send dissidents out of the kingdom and used diplomatic immunity to hide their intentions for sending nutters, which was to get those crazy jihadis out of their country and killed by anyone else but themselves. The problem the Saudis had was that these terrorists were rich, experienced warriors from Afghanistan/Chechnya and related to many powerful Saudis,too much $$$ too quick sometimes creates a Lenin, Castro, or Bin Ladin.

Pretty embarrassing stuff about powerful people that corp. networks dont want to piss off. I`m not saying that the Saudi`s planned 9-11, Im sure it shocked both the Saudi Family and the Bush Families. But c`mon they`d been planning Iraq war part duex for 10+ years before 9-11 and Afghanistan was a piss-poor one camel town type of war-zone the U.S. felt it could handle with a small allotment of soldiers and lots of bombs. Opportunistic Cheney & Co. saw an excuse for war.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"None of the buildings collapsed at free fall speed"
Do yourself a favor and invest 10 minutes to see the physics in action.

"Also, *all* skyscrapers are designed to have a high probability of collapsing downwards as much as possible in the event of catastrophic failure. It would be bloody stupid to allow them to be built in any other way."

I`m sorry, but that is just "bloody stupid." Buildings are designed and built to AVOID collapse in every imaginable way. There is no "safe collapse scenario" planned in.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@Angilion
"Massive holes in a building will do that."
Um, actually, no, modern steel buildings do not simply fall down in their own footprints at virtually free-fall speed. Dozens of buildings have had much larger and longer-burning fires and never more than a partial collapse. There is always something of the core structure still standing.



All those buildings (and more) were damaged much more severely and guess what? No collapse. Isn`t it strange that WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the ONLY buildings EVER IN HISTORY to collapse like that? (Other than intentional demolitions, of course!) Doesn`t that tingle your Spidey-sense at all? Sheesh!
0
Reply
Male 12,365
[quote]gerry, if gravity brought down building 7, then all building would just fall down. They dont.[/quote]

They do when their supporting structure is compromised enough. As happened with building 7. Massive holes in a building will do that.

[quote]Fire does also not make huge buildings collapse in on themselves, ever. At free fall speed, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition. [/quote]

And there`s the usual bullpoo.

None of the buildings collapsed at free fall speed and none of them collapsed in the exact manner of a controlled demolition.

They collapsed quickly when structural support failed, but what on earth do you expect when a vast weight is dropped straight down on a weakened building?

Also, *all* skyscrapers are designed to have a high probability of collapsing downwards as much as possible in the event of catastrophic failure. It would be bloody stupid to allow them to be built in any other way.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@OverTime
My last comment to you, sir:

0
Reply
Male 2,711
@OverTime: "It is easy for you to poke holes in the accepted explanation."
If it really explained anything, it wouldn`t be so easy to poke holes in.

"they can`t put forward any explanation of their own."
We don`t claim to have the answers, that`s why we`d like a real investigation.

"This isn`t a court room"
Yeah, someone made damn sure this would never get to a court room. If it did, the official story would crumble.

"provide a better explanation with evidence"
There is evidence, lots of it, despite great efforts to destroy the crime scene. When have you EVER seen law enforcement allow the destruction of evidence like they did at Ground Zero?

"We have a viable explanation backed up by evidence."
No, we really don`t. The fact that you and so many others believe we do is the crux of the problem.
0
Reply
Male 97
Do you not see what you`ve written? You don`t know what happened and you have no evidence for an alternate explanation and yet you think THAT is more plausible than the explanation that has evidence! FFS! I`m done!
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@OverTime: "Go figure out what it would take to actually pull off a secret controlled demolition of three of the busiest and largest buildings without leaving any evidence."

You assume that would be impossible? Beginning around December 2000, Turner Construction was hired to "modernize" the elevators in both towers. That work was still ongoing on Sept 11. Crews had easy 24-hour access to the central cores of both towers for 10 months before the demolition occurred.
0
Reply
Male 97
It is easy for you to poke holes in the accepted explanation. The problem with videos like this, and all 9/11 truthers, is that they can`t put forward any explanation of their own.

This isn`t a court room where we have to show beyond reasonable doubt and you just have to poke holes in our theory. If you think it didn`t happen a particular way, then you have to provide a better explanation with evidence and you better be able to defend your explanation because, like I said, it is easy to try to poke holes in an explanation.

My posts are to put you on the defense. We have a viable explanation backed up by evidence. You have no explanations and no evidence.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@OverTime: "You find the explanation of 9/11 too implausible to be believed, and that`s why you believe in one that is MORE implausible."

Close. I do find the explanation of 9/11 too implausible to be believed, but your last bit is wrong. I don`t "believe in one that is MORE plausible," I freely admit I DON`T KNOW exactly what happened. I just know the official story is flat-out wrong, and we have the right and the obligation to question it.
0
Reply
Male 97
Your position is so outlandish as to not be worth the effort. Instead of doing so much research into how the accepted explanation of 9/11 is wrong, why don`t you investigate the implications of what you are suggesting. Go figure out what it would take to actually pull off a secret controlled demolition of three of the busiest and largest buildings without leaving any evidence.
0
Reply
Male 2,578
What I find really funny is a few Europeans (and some others) here saying, "Americans are brainwashed not to think the government did 9/11".

These are the same Europeans that say we have "an irrational fear of government" and that we should turn over my power to it, and give it more money.

Ok guys.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@OverTime
Are you trolling? Maybe you could try adding something useful rather than trying so hard (and failing) to sound clever, eh?

"no evidence of people adding explosives to WTC 7"
Really? Why is that? Perhaps because no one looked for evidence of explosives? I could just as easily and accurately assert: no evidence people didn`t add explosives to WTC 7.
0
Reply
Male 97
Let me save you some time and sum up your argument. You find the explanation of 9/11 too implausible to be believed, and that`s why you believe in one that is MORE implausible.
0
Reply
Female 4,349
I mean, you all have the internet right? why dont you use it?
0
Reply
Male 97
"I never referenced 911Mysteries.com"
Its in the video! Wow, you aren`t very bright, are you. That would be consistent with being a conspiracy nut though.
0
Reply
Male 97
@chalket
Yes, "controlled demolition" as WTC 7 should have if the 911mysteries.com explanation was correct. Check your facts, no evidence of people adding explosives to WTC 7. Keep trying.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@OverTime
a) I never referenced 911Mysteries.com whereas you did reference NIST. b) Many, many steel buildings have collapsed from controlled demolition.
Trying to double-down on stupidity?
0
Reply
Female 4,349
funny how we all bark on about building 7, but only because it is the most galringly obvious of the THOUSANDS of points of evidence in the farce that was 9/11.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@DuckBoy87
Yes, "partially collapsed," as WTC 7 should have if the NIST explanation was correct. Check your facts, no plane crashed into WTC 7. Keep trying.
0
Reply
Male 97
@chalket
Nice try, but 911Mysteries.com is hardly an impartial source. According to this video, WTC 7 collapsed because of controlled demolitions. Despite the fact that no other furnished steel building still in use in history has EVER collapsed from controlled demolition.
0
Reply
Female 4,349
gerry, if gravity brought down building 7, then all building would just fall down. They dont. Fire does also not make huge buildings collapse in on themselves, ever. At free fall speed, in the exact manner of a controlled demolition.
0
Reply
Male 3,430
@chalket, directly from your link in the very first paragraph:

"and partially collapsed"

Take that, and now add a plane crashing into it, further compromising the integrity of the structures and you`d get a full collapse.
0
Reply
Male 425
More footage for those brainwashed americans who still think their government knew nothing and did nothing!

"Go back to bed America - your government has figured out how it all transpired! ... Here is American Gladiators ... watch this - shut up!"
0
Reply
Male 2,711
@OverTime
Nice try, but NIST is hardly an impartial source. According to your link, ""WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings." Despite the fact that no other steel building in history has EVER collapsed from fire, before or since, including many which burned much, much longer (see Windsor Tower).
0
Reply
Male 410
Agents of the system ya`ll.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
Wrong, Gerry. Try again.
0
Reply
Male 37,914

[quote]"please explain the collapse of Building 7."[/quote]
Gravity.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
All of you screaming about tin-foil hats, please explain the collapse of Building 7. The "official investigation" couldn`t explain it, can you? With that in mind, what is wrong with asking for a truly independent investigation?
0
Reply
Male 7,364
0
Reply
Male 14,330

0
Reply
Male 5,811
Yeah, but jet fuel wasn`t the only thing on those planes. They would have also carried tanks full of the mind-control agents airliners use to make chemtrails. Who even knows what temperature that stuff burns at?!
0
Reply
Male 5,981
FFS. /tinfoil hat time guys!
0
Reply
Male 674
Don`t worry your government never lies to you!
0
Reply
Male 14,775
I`d watch it, but I am all out of tinfoil at home.
0
Reply
Male 1,454
Link: I-A-B Midnight Feature: 9/11 Mysteries-Demolitions [Rate Link] - Interesting and informative video
0
Reply