4
-1

[–] Butterbread 4 points -1 points (+3|-4) ago  (edited ago)

I'm open minded. I am not saying you're wrong. However, the upper floors were like a hammer on the lower floors. The potential energy was immense. Also, it was not technically freefall. There was friction. When you mention freefall as some kind of proof, it strikes me that you don't understand the Physics.

Building 7, ok I don't understand either but I don't know the true extent of the damage. Seems very odd in some ways, it's true.

1
5

[–] belphegorsprime 1 point 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

There is a misconception spread widely about this. For starters, there is no such thing as "freefall speed". There is a concept of "free-fall acceleration", however. Towers 1 & 2 did not show such acceleration (they accelerated at a rate lower than gravitational acceleration). But building 7 did in fact fall at free-fall acceleration for about 2 seconds. There was a really good analysis of building 7 done by David Chandler.

Some odd details about towers 1 & 2: although the buildings collapsed and descended at a rate slower than the acceleration due to gravity, the trajectory of various pieces of large debris suggests a source of energy other than that available from the mere gravitational potential of the mass in the structure. The horizontal component of the velocity vector of each item being projected laterally cannot be accounted for by gravity alone. If you examine the footage of the first two towers, you can see massive structural elements being ejected laterally at high velocities from some of the highest floors of the building. This alone should raise some eyebrows, without even mentioning the squibs, and all the other questionable details.

0
0

[–] Butterbread ago 

Sounds true, but I really don't know the data enough, and I am sufficiently rusty on the Physics so as to be ignorant. I cannot make the judgement.

I understand things look odd, including sideways trajectories and squibbs, but in a massive fucking catastrophe things tend to get chaotic to say the least. That is, the sideways action and dust/smoke puffs could have legitimate non-explosive causes and so I am open-minded but not convinced it is proven.

2
3

[–] Pubiclouse 2 points 3 points (+5|-2) ago 

I encourage you to watch "Anatomy of a Great Deception" it goes much more in depth than what I wrote. It couldn't hurt and it's free on yt. Definitely worth watching and everyone that's watched it that I've argued with about the subject came back with a different attitude.

I never thought I'd feel so strongly about it myself because like I've said people look at that whole truthers thing as nutters. I used to laugh at them as well... not anymore.

2
6

[–] Butterbread 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Cool, I'll check it out. Like I said, I'm open-minded.

If only more disagreements could be this civil

1
3

[–] ScannerDarkly 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

A smaller, not as massive upper portion of a building can crush at most its own mass as it falls. It is physically impossible for that upper portion of either tower to crush a much stronger and talller lower portion without the removal of the lower floors with additional explosives of some kind.

0
0

[–] Butterbread ago 

I believe you are wrong. The potential energy of those upper floors was immense. The statement that they could only destroy it's own mass has zero basis in Physics. Even if you were right, which you absolutely are not, you can add the mass of the collapsing floors and be wrong by your own rules.

1
3

[–] drschwabe 1 point 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Also see Dr Judy Wood's research, Tesla and the (John) Hutchison effect. You can combine your findings while cross referencing video of the towers' collapase and then plainly see the technology they used to bring them down.

1
0

[–] Pubiclouse 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

I will definitely check it out thanks for the references.

0
4

[–] r3vamp3d 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

If people understood how their source of information is filtered by the people responsible for most of this, they'd question more and be more open to the idea that they're actively supporting their own servitude.

I was one of those 18 year olds that tried to sign up for the military, just before 9/11, but when that happened I started to question how this country is run.

Now I see the proof about the larger conspiracy like the Israeli "art students" that were in the towers and telling people they're there to "document the event" the week before it happened.

Foreign "art students" were given escorted access to structural areas in the building because they had CIA "SES" passes, which is essentially a diplomat's badge to piss around the country.

Bundle that with the UK media telling its people that a US federal building also collapsed, while the building was standing tall in the live footage as they announced it, and didn't actually fall for 45 minutes after that broadcast.

The information is out there but it's not broadcast to the public. They want you to take the easy information and decide if you want to accept and support it or dig deeper.

Lots of blindly trusting Americans signed up for the service after 9/11 to get revenge for something their fathers misinformed them about.

0
1

[–] RedditisPropaganda31 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Tower 7 hit by NOTHING went down at freefall speed

0
1

[–] Pubiclouse 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

On Any Other Day Tower 7 Freefalling would be as Big as Hendonburgh or The Titanic.