56:03 more of, yea, you said it
9/11
I dont know if its been posted, but here it is anyway. A video on 911 that has some rather interesting insight from a couple of guys that are actually qualified to comment on the topics of building demolition, pancake effects, and physics in general.
Some of the material failure facts these guys are talking about are extremely hard to refute, even for the most hardened 911 foul play doubter.
Skip the first 15min if ya want same old redundant sh!t. The credible stuff starts at about 16:20 with Professor Steven Jones (20year Physics Professor at BYU), then into David Ray Griffin (author of 911 Commission Omissions and Distortions).
But in my opinion, the real substance comes at 26:22 from Jeff King (MIT Engineer/Research Scientist). He is then followed up by James H. Fetzer Ph.D. from University of Minnesota, who also had some valid points.
Apparently the cores of the two buildings were comprised of 47 internal box columns that would, in most part, still stand, even with the so call pancake theory.
According to Frank DeMartini (a Chief Construction Engineer of the towers), crashing a 707 into one of these buildings would be like sticking a pencil through an insect screen of your window it would be left completely structurally un-compromised. And if you look at the specs. of a 707 vs. a 767, they are very similar in size, weight, and fuel capacity. He also says that, due to the complex structural grid of these buildings it would take numerous jetliners to seriously damage the buildings.
Further more, if the pancake theory was true, its estimated that each floor would collapse at about .5 seconds (at its fastest), that would mean a total collapse time of around 48 seconds per building (considering one plane hit at the 96th floor x .5sec). We watched those buildings go down in what? 9 seconds each Am I missing something here, or does this not add up? It doesnt seem physically possible for the buildings to have fallen in the way they were have claimed to.
And whats up with the 911 commission completely failing to give a report on WTC #7, stating that, the only scenario they had for the collapse of #7 was highly improbable. What the Fvck is up with that?
Anyway, take a look if you want, and judge for yourself.
Here it is DOUBT AWAY!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9/11 revisited&pl=true
I dont know if its been posted, but here it is anyway. A video on 911 that has some rather interesting insight from a couple of guys that are actually qualified to comment on the topics of building demolition, pancake effects, and physics in general.
Some of the material failure facts these guys are talking about are extremely hard to refute, even for the most hardened 911 foul play doubter.
Skip the first 15min if ya want same old redundant sh!t. The credible stuff starts at about 16:20 with Professor Steven Jones (20year Physics Professor at BYU), then into David Ray Griffin (author of 911 Commission Omissions and Distortions).
But in my opinion, the real substance comes at 26:22 from Jeff King (MIT Engineer/Research Scientist). He is then followed up by James H. Fetzer Ph.D. from University of Minnesota, who also had some valid points.
Apparently the cores of the two buildings were comprised of 47 internal box columns that would, in most part, still stand, even with the so call pancake theory.
According to Frank DeMartini (a Chief Construction Engineer of the towers), crashing a 707 into one of these buildings would be like sticking a pencil through an insect screen of your window it would be left completely structurally un-compromised. And if you look at the specs. of a 707 vs. a 767, they are very similar in size, weight, and fuel capacity. He also says that, due to the complex structural grid of these buildings it would take numerous jetliners to seriously damage the buildings.
Further more, if the pancake theory was true, its estimated that each floor would collapse at about .5 seconds (at its fastest), that would mean a total collapse time of around 48 seconds per building (considering one plane hit at the 96th floor x .5sec). We watched those buildings go down in what? 9 seconds each Am I missing something here, or does this not add up? It doesnt seem physically possible for the buildings to have fallen in the way they were have claimed to.
And whats up with the 911 commission completely failing to give a report on WTC #7, stating that, the only scenario they had for the collapse of #7 was highly improbable. What the Fvck is up with that?
Anyway, take a look if you want, and judge for yourself.
Here it is DOUBT AWAY!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1951610169657809939&q=9/11 revisited&pl=true
neaky:
