Reply #33: No restating/rewording....Just concluding.

[Popol Vuh]

The failure of the truss system in the east side of the building (around floors 5-7) were enough to cause global collapse. The columns directly supported by the system are the first to go (causing the east penthouse to sink in first - that's the whole building inside on that side that's falling in). Then the rest of the building internally slides in toward the missing structure, dragging the exterior behind it It's this exterior collapse that is being touted as so remarkable. There was nothing left in the way of this facade collapse!

So what you are saying is that the internal structure of the build failed in one section causing the penthouse underneath it to collapse? Then for some unstated reason there is a five second delay, then the rest of the building's internal structure failed causing the penthouse underneath that part of the building to collapse followed by the exterior?

Now what you are failing to address is: When you watch the video of the "exterior" collapsing, it collapses at free fall speed straight down onto itself coming to a rest in an inward symmetrical pattern on the ground. Your model of events isn't adequate to explain how the structure of the building that you can see in the video collapsing, can do so at free fall speeds. When you watch the video, you're not watching the exterior falling inward into an empty hulk. What you're are watching is the exterior telescoping onto itself at free fall speeds.

Plus, the diesel fuel being stored in the building, more than adequate to fuel a seven hour fire. More internal things you're choosing to ignore here.

No actually there were only a couple of minor or moderate fires, and I haven't choose to ignore that fact because they fail to explain the mechanics of the building's collapse.

On the other hand however. I've noticed that you've chosen to ignore the explosions that you can hear. The testimony corroborating explosions just prior to the collapse. And the video tape showing windows blowing out in a floor by floor pattern going "upward", and at a time in which there is no floors in that area pancaking onto themselves.

One point of observation that I've noticed about this whole debate is: Either there were explosives used -or- there wasn't explosives used. Those of us who look at the videos, pictures and testimonies and conclude that explosives were used address all the points made by those who believe explosives were not used. However, those who believe explosives were not used seem to ignore addressing the sounds of explosives, the dust clouds they generated, the witness's testimonies corroborating hearing explosives (even fireman's), and the videos showing impossible trajectories of materials being ejected out.

One other point of observation. How is it that the concrete in the twin towers was pulverized into dust if not by explosives?

Before you go and try to argue that the large mass of the buildings falling onto itself is the cause, remember these two points. First, if the building is falling onto itself and pulverizing all the concrete and furniture, it is then expelling energy to so. The reaction to this expelled energy from falling bodies would be a mass reduction of the falling body itself, or a reduction in the falling body's rate of speed, or a combination of both. Second, if the mass of the falling building was great enough to pulverize concrete to dust. Then why isn't all the paper also pulverized to dust? Is paper stronger than concrete? Why is it that we see paper all over the place instead of seeing it pulverized into dust like the concrete?

Now allow me to give my explanation. The sounds that we hear are exactly what they sound like - explosives. The witnesses testimonies corroborate that. The mechanics of the collapsing buildings corroborate that. Statements made in the Project for a new American Century corroborates that. The Hegelian Principle used all throughout history corroborates that. The MASSIVE failure of our defenses and ignoring of a multitude of intelligence warnings corroborates that. The pulverized concrete but intact paper corroborates that.


Lastly, I am not the one who talks about pictures of the damage by debris, that would be you who is doing that. So is there a reason why you point it out but don't post them? I am just asking. Also, your point is that when Larry Silverstein pull it, he was referring to the fireman? Hmmm, ok lets see: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. Hmmm I guess if you want to think that he was referring to firemen as an "IT" while in the same sentence he was referring to an it -- the building. Ok, but I don't think it makes any sense. But since I am not Larry Silverstein, I won't argue that point. Its really academic in the face of all the other evidence though -- that's my point. :P