Fast? It took months.
The obvious answer is that they did understand because the evidence still proves the planes were knocked down by fires caused by the plane crashes. And as a secondary answer, this stupid conspiracy bullshit hadn’t taken root at that point.
Structural engineers and design specialists did study it, and they now know much more about how extreme heat and fire following massive structural damage can cause a building that is designed like WTC to collapse.
What on earth makes you think that no analysis or research was done?
Much of the debris was removed yes. After analysis was made. Do you think they had to leave it in a pile for 12 years?
While apparently ignoring eyewitnesses who disagree with you, such as the Stairwell B survivors and the original account from William Rodriguez.
It was cleaned up because it was a giant pile of rubble containing lots of dead bodies in the middle of the biggest city in the country. Why that is hard to understand, I don’t know. If a bus full of nuns rolls over off the highway, are you going to rope it off and not let anyone touch anything until both drivers’ toxicology reports, a chemical analysis of the rubber used in the tires, a road survey and a detailed climatology survey all are completed, or can we clean the thing up before the habits start dissolving and the rosaries are all that’s left?
And that’s the question, isn’t it? What building like the WTC 1 & 2 ever totally collapsed? The answer is NONE. No other building of that size or construction has ever collapsed before. You have no baseline for what the collapse of a super-skyscraper “is supposed to look like” to which to compare the WTC collapse.
Except, as has been pointed out to you, these sources of evidence aren’t what you say they are.
When you actually look at the eyewitness statements in context, they are describing events that don’t actually support a controlled demolition. First, you have people describing explosions in the basement and elsewhere in the building at the moment of impact or shortly afterwards. These are not consistent with demolition explosives being set off, since the building did not actually collapse at that time. It’s not likely that the building would just sit there with key structural columns cut for half an hour or more before collapsing. These secondary explosions are consistent instead with having been caused by the plane impacts themselves. This can happen several ways, including jet fuel or falling debris falling down the elevator shafts.
Secondly, you have statements by firefighters describing the sounds of bodies as people jumped out of the buildings to escape the flames. When a person falls 100 stories to their death, the sound of their body hitting the ground sounds like an explosion. Firefighters described this in detail in interviews. Their statements were then taken out of context by conspiracy theorists to claim that eyewitnesses had heard explosions.
We have the puffs of smoke or dust visible on some of the videos of the buildings collapsing. These all occur after the building has already started collapsing, and therefore whatever they are cannot be the cause of the collapse.
What we do not hear from eyewitnesses or see on any of the videos is a sudden series of fast, loud explosions that happen immediately before the building starts collapsing. This is something that is consistently seen in actual controlled demolitions, but was completely lacking on 9/11.
Furthermore, the collapse of both towers can be obviously seen on the videos to begin at the point of impact, and proceeds downward in a manner completely consistent with a gravity-driven pancake collapse. We do not see the collapse beginning at the basement, where you claim explosives were placed.
The collapse of the towers does not look like the collapse of a building from any other cause because there has never been another case of a 100+ story steel truss structure skyscraper struck by an airplane and allowed to burn until it collapsed. 9/11 is a unique event. You shouldn’t expect it to look like anything else that has happened before or since.
I’d be insulting them more if I didn’t ask these hard questions, and I think there is plenty of evidence to question what we are told.
It really did not matter what happened once the planes hit, you have to see this.
The people on the planes were dead, no matter what, the goal was reached right here.
It didn’t matter if the buildings collasped or not, 3,000 dead or 50,000 the response would have been the same.
Now you may want to believe our country is not capable of this kind of mass murder. Whenever any questions your 9/11 religion you call them names, twist their words, bury your heads in the sand.
You act like you care about victims, but you don’t, and yet you try to judge me. We’ve been killing people for 10 years because of this lie.
What about their memory?
Actually around here, it’s ignorance about pretty much anything that triggers it. Try posting about Monty Hall next and see what happens.
Are you trying to tell me that thesehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A9X_8flGeM are bodies?
No. You’re insulting them and also the concepts of scientific evidence, logic, and comprehension with what are definitely not hard questions. They are questions not based on the evidence at hand.
I understand completely that the crashes themselves were enough of a terrorist attack. I also understand more than a few things you seem to be incapable of grasping, such as evidence and science.
Right. And you can continue to insult their memory with your baseless accusations or you can come to terms with the simple concepts of science and evidence.
No. That is what you are doing with your false accusations. And you have no come out with the standard WONJCT magic words as though you think calling science and evidence a religion will convince others to believe your inanity.
I certainly am not acting like I care about my classmate who died at the Pentagon. It’s not an act. I cared about him and I care about his family. Now, you, on the other hand, just care about being insulting and pretending like you know better than people who are qualified to examine evidence and determine scientifically what happened.
Do you really want to know what I think of this post of yours? Start a post in the Pit so you can get the full-on answer to your disgusting behavior here. I’m fairly certain that more than one person would be happy to post in that thread to you.
That’s the problem. You aren’t asking hard questions. Every single point that you have raised was debunked years ago. You have not brought a single thing that we haven’t heard before. Seriously, we’ve all been around this merry-go-round years ago, and we know from experience it doesn’t go anywhere.
I have no trouble believing that our government would be morally capable of mass murder. I don’t believe for a moment that they are sufficiently competent to carry off something of this magnitude, involving hundreds or thousands of conspirators, and actually manage to keep it a secret. People just don’t work like that - secrets of that type don’t stay a secret for that long.
This perfectly sums up your tragic inability to make any kind of coherent argument. You should stop wasting your life.
If you look around you can that one building has already collasped. That dust has settled. It can’t be explosions from the planes fireball.
How do you explain these other sounds we hear? Are you trying to tell me those are not explosions we hear?
If it didn’t matter if the buildings collapsed, then why wire them with explosives at all?
We have to assume that our hypothetical conspirators are not stupid. They are trying to stage a terrorist event, without getting caught in the process. Every additional person they have to bring in, ever additional thing they have to do, is another possible leak that might blow the entire conspiracy wide open and reveal them. The conspirators know this, and not wanting to be found out they won’t make their conspiracy larger than required.
So if it doesn’t matter if the buildings actually collapse, the conspirators won’t wire them with explosives. Putting explosives in the buildings risks having people notice you doing it beforehand, or finding evidence afterwards. You have to hire people to plant the explosives, and hire people to search the rubble for evidence and hide it afterwards. Then you need to ensure those people don’t go and talk afterwards, either by paying them lots of money or killing them .. and then make sure the people you hired to kill them don’t talk. It all adds unnecessary risk to the plan, so a smart conspirator won’t do it.
This is especially true for WTC7. Nobody cared that WTC7 collapsed. There’s no plausible reason for our hypothetical conspirators to bother blowing it up.
Of course, the simplest possible conspiracy plan would be to actually have a bunch of terrorists fly planes into buildings. Then you only need to worry about covering up the people who hired them in the first place. That might actually be a semi-plausible conspiracy theory, unlike the whole thing with the buildings being somehow invisibly wired with silent explosives that aren’t actually required.
So now I’m not making a good argument, that’s it? Really?
I know 9/11 is your religion, but now you really sound just like those who believe in god.
No building like WTC 1 and 2 has ever collapsed, for any reason. Not by controlled demolition, earthquake, fire, tsunami, or anything else. The only buildings like WTC 1 and 2 that have ever collapsed were WTC 1 and 2.
Take a look at this video:
Forward to 3:00 to see the actual second collapse.
Notice something interesting. The collapse starts from the top, where the fires and impacts were. Have you ever seen a controlled demolition start from the top?
No, you never have, because controlled demolitions start at the bottom. Explosives cut the bottom supports, and the whole building looks like it is falling into a hole. The top part of the building stays intact the whole way down.
The reason for this is that you don’t need explosives to destroy the top part of a collapsing building, gravity is what crushes the top part.
But that’s not what happened with the WTC. The tops started to collapse, and the top floors falling on the lower floors caused the lower floors to collapse, which caused the still lower floors to collapse, until the whole thing except a few shreds of the central core were down.
Think about the energy of a single chunk of concrete, if someone chucked it off the top of the WTC and watched it fall. Even a small rock would have enough energy to kill a human being. Now imagine how many cubic feet of concrete and steel were in the top floor of the WTC. Imagine how much destruction would result if someone started throwing chunks of concrete and steel off the top, chunk by chunk, until the whole top floor was gone. Now someone starts throwing down the next floor, and the next floor, and the next. The sheer potential energy represented by those towers was larger than any non-nuclear bomb ever deployed.
When tall buildings collapse, what makes them collapse is not explosives, or earthquakes, or impacts, or fires. What makes them collapse is gravity. Gravity is always trying to make things fall down. Tall buildings have to be carefully constructed in exactly the right way, or they won’t stay up. Weaken the steel, damage the concrete, do that enough and the structure is no longer able to support itself, and gravity takes over and the building crushes itself.
In a controlled demolition, they don’t pulverize the building. They weaken the lowest supports of the buildings by various methods, and gravity pulls the building down. It makes sense to weaken the lowest supports, because the whole building is resting on the lowest supports. I can knock you down by pushing you on the head, but it’s a lot easier if push you on the knees.
The same thing happened when WTC 1 and 2 collapsed, except the bottom supports weren’t weakened. They didn’t collapse when the lower structures were removed and the whole building collapsed because there was nothing holding it up any more. They collapsed when the upper sections, where the impacts were, weakened enough that they couldn’t support the weight above them, and the floors above the impact sites collapsed. The falling upper floors then fell on the lower floors, and crushed them.
If you believe the lower floors were wired with explosives, why did this happen? Why did the collapse–which you can clearly see in the linked video–begin at the impact site? If you wanted to replicate this with explosives, you’d clearly have to wire the impact site. Except, how the heck do you do that? How do you aim the planes to hit the right floor? How do you keep the explosives from burning off from the fires? How do you detonate the explosives when all your wiring has been blown to hell by the plane impact?
And, why the heck would you bother? Isn’t the impact itself enough? Suppose you’re planning a false flag operation. What’s wrong with ramming the planes into the WTC? Why do you need to gild the fucking lily? Even if the towers didn’t collapse, they’d be ruined. They’d have to be demolished afterwards. The economic disruption of the the months required to safely demolish the towers would be greater than that caused by the spontaneous collapse.
If you theorize that WTC7 was the real target, well, can I point out how that makes no fucking sense?
Look, I don’t have to assume anything. I already said that I don’t have an alternate CT theory, nor do I need to provide one.
I believe, based on the evidence I’ve seen, some of which I’ve linked to, that the buildings were wired for demolition. You can try to make the tin foil hat stuff stick to me but I reject that.
My belief is logical, and I will keep asking questions untill I get an answer that jells with the evidence I’ve seen.
The “offical” story does not do that.
You don’t see the contradiction of these two statements?
I watched the video.
I only have one question. Around 24 to 25 seconds into the video, you can see a bright orange glow in the corner of the building. It looks like it’s flowing. Aluminium melts at 1220F, steel much higher than that.
My question, do you think a jet fuel(kerosene) fire could melt aluminium or steel to the point that it flows like that?
Keep in mind that people were seen standing in these holes. If it was a general fire, burning that hot, would they have even been able to get anywhere near it?
What do you think it is? This should be fun.