Ya know what. I think it was those damned british. Those fuckers still have it out for us.
If you believe that 9/11 was a government cover-up, let me ask you a question: What sort of evidence would make you change your mind, convince you that it really was “just” a terrorist attack?
If you have trouble answering that, maybe you’re not as open-minded as you think you are.
If the U.S. Government had no problem destroying one of the single most important business centers in our country, severely damaging a large portion of the building responsible for the defense of the nation and killing 3,000+ of it’s citizens, what could possibly make people think they wouldn’t simply eliminate these people supposedly uncovering the conspiracy? What’s a few more bodies?
[quote]nik133 wrote:
God bless these men, courageous souls and my respects goes out to them! Here is the proof of explosions at the twin towers. Look without explosives, if your theory holds true that it was just jet fuel how do you explain the following: the twin towers fell so fast (almost exact free fall speed), now would you agree with me that when an object collides with another object that they do not speed up, but in fact slow down.
Well the towers did the exact opposite when they fell, they fell at such a speed where no slowing down occurred, how can this be possible with fuel not even capable of reaching the melting point of the steel trusses that the towers were made out of?
Live news reports of secondary explosions
I’ve heard this stupid melting point thing a million times now. Let’s say for arguments sake that one of the primary steel supports can hold 10,000 tons at 70*, the melting point is, I don’t know, say 4,000 degrees.
Considering that all metals lose strength as they are heating, couldn’t it be completely reasonable to say that despite not reaching that critical LIQUID point (that’s what melting means) the steel was simply heated to a point where it could no longer support that weight of the building, thereby collapsing?
[quote]Jeffe wrote:
nik133 wrote:
God bless these men, courageous souls and my respects goes out to them! Here is the proof of explosions at the twin towers. Look without explosives, if your theory holds true that it was just jet fuel how do you explain the following: the twin towers fell so fast (almost exact free fall speed), now would you agree with me that when an object collides with another object that they do not speed up, but in fact slow down.
Well the towers did the exact opposite when they fell, they fell at such a speed where no slowing down occurred, how can this be possible with fuel not even capable of reaching the melting point of the steel trusses that the towers were made out of?
Live news reports of secondary explosions
I’ve heard this stupid melting point thing a million times now. Let’s say for arguments sake that one of the primary steel supports can hold 10,000 tons at 70*, the melting point is, I don’t know, say 4,000 degrees.
Considering that all metals lose strength as they are heating, couldn’t it be completely reasonable to say that despite not reaching that critical LIQUID point (that’s what melting means) the steel was simply heated to a point where it could no longer support that weight of the building, thereby collapsing?[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]nik133 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
nik133 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
I’m sure there are multiple things in the two towers that can cause explosions. Pressurized materials, and kind of fuel products. Cleaning chemicals, possibly. There was a whole lot of jet fuel in those planes. Something like 50,000 gallons. I’m sure there could be vapor building up and igniting due to electrical sparks, etc.
I think you people need to put on your tin foil hats. There are plenty other examples of things and times where the Feds overstepped their boundaries. Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind. I would even buy a cover up or screw up at Oklahoma City before I would 911.
Let’s see, 19 BATF agents in the building, but none there when the explosion went off? Sounds funny to me. How about pictures of bomb squad vans parked close by before the explosion?
You can sell me a lot easier on the Feds screwing up capturing the bombing suspects in the act, before soemthign more complicated like 911. Life is not 24, there is not conspiracy in conspiracy out there.
Well I guess you can choose to ignore all the reports of second explosions, the videos of second explosions and even the countless individuals who stated that there were second explosions, you can even say that it was cleaning supplies that exploded, and you call me crazy? Ok well I’m just some crazy old nut job conspiracy theory believing fool so it’s easy to pull one over on me, but can you please explain why Scientists have found nano-thermite explosive in the debris of the towers( http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM ), or was that from the cleaning supplies?
How could the towers have fallen near free fall speed without explosives?
If only 2 planes hit buildings that day, why did a 3rd building collapse?
Why do we only have a few frames of what is suppose to be a plane hitting the pentagon when the FBI confiscated video from nearby hotels that would clearly show what hit it?
Why has not one person been punished for the countless mistakes that occurred that day?
Finally what reason do you have to believe the official story?
i’m not a physicist or engineer, but planes are heavy. there are 50,000 gallons of jet fuel in a plane. this might burn hot enough to weaken structures. Once a building like this gives way, each floor adds weight proportionately to the load, and things will collapse quickly.
As for all the facts, guys that sell conspiracy theories are selling conspiracy theories. They have their own built in bias to what they see.
Let’s say it is a big conspiracy theory, what will get done? If you think someone can pull off such a thing, do you seriously think all this internet yahoo conspiracy talk will get anything done? Any group powerful enough to clamp down on all the facts, well, will clamp down on all the facts.
But true patriots likes Alex Jones will shine the light of truth on this evil and make it all better.
It will get something done because it will inform people about what is truly going on. If anything hopefully it can inspire people to go out and do something themselves. Like I said I’ve already pretty much stated all my facts and they are all out, if you want to ignore them that is up to you.
[/quote]
And he is SELLING his viewpoint and opinion, remember that.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
If you believe that 9/11 was a government cover-up, let me ask you a question: What sort of evidence would make you change your mind, convince you that it really was “just” a terrorist attack?
If you have trouble answering that, maybe you’re not as open-minded as you think you are.[/quote]
When I get answers to my questions and more importantly when the family members get all the answers to their questions. If they have nothing to hide why were 70% of family member’s questions not answered during the hearings?
[quote]Jeffe wrote:
If the U.S. Government had no problem destroying one of the single most important business centers in our country, severely damaging a large portion of the building responsible for the defense of the nation and killing 3,000+ of it’s citizens, what could possibly make people think they wouldn’t simply eliminate these people supposedly uncovering the conspiracy? What’s a few more bodies?[/quote]
Have I once said it was the entire US Government? I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I do my best to try and give a good explanation to everyone’s questions, meanwhile my questions continually get ignored. It would not be easy to eliminate a “few more bodies” because if they do start eliminating people who spread this theory around, there would be another one to take his place and last I heard (which was a 2 years ago) 1/4 of Americans now believe that 9/11 is an inside job, so if anything, killing people would just catapult this theory.
[quote]Jeffe wrote:
nik133 wrote:
God bless these men, courageous souls and my respects goes out to them! Here is the proof of explosions at the twin towers. Look without explosives, if your theory holds true that it was just jet fuel how do you explain the following: the twin towers fell so fast (almost exact free fall speed), now would you agree with me that when an object collides with another object that they do not speed up, but in fact slow down.
Well the towers did the exact opposite when they fell, they fell at such a speed where no slowing down occurred, how can this be possible with fuel not even capable of reaching the melting point of the steel trusses that the towers were made out of?
Live news reports of secondary explosions
I’ve heard this stupid melting point thing a million times now. Let’s say for arguments sake that one of the primary steel supports can hold 10,000 tons at 70*, the melting point is, I don’t know, say 4,000 degrees.
Considering that all metals lose strength as they are heating, couldn’t it be completely reasonable to say that despite not reaching that critical LIQUID point (that’s what melting means) the steel was simply heated to a point where it could no longer support that weight of the building, thereby collapsing?[/quote]
Clearly you want to keep bringing this point up and we won’t get anywhere because neither of us have the qualifications to make a conclusion, however can you just explain to me the secondary explosions and why there are so many of them throughout the buildings and exactly what were they?
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
tom63 wrote:
nik133 wrote:
tom63 wrote:
I’m sure there are multiple things in the two towers that can cause explosions. Pressurized materials, and kind of fuel products. Cleaning chemicals, possibly. There was a whole lot of jet fuel in those planes. Something like 50,000 gallons. I’m sure there could be vapor building up and igniting due to electrical sparks, etc.
I think you people need to put on your tin foil hats. There are plenty other examples of things and times where the Feds overstepped their boundaries. Waco and Ruby Ridge come to mind. I would even buy a cover up or screw up at Oklahoma City before I would 911.
Let’s see, 19 BATF agents in the building, but none there when the explosion went off? Sounds funny to me. How about pictures of bomb squad vans parked close by before the explosion?
You can sell me a lot easier on the Feds screwing up capturing the bombing suspects in the act, before soemthign more complicated like 911. Life is not 24, there is not conspiracy in conspiracy out there.
Well I guess you can choose to ignore all the reports of second explosions, the videos of second explosions and even the countless individuals who stated that there were second explosions, you can even say that it was cleaning supplies that exploded, and you call me crazy? Ok well I’m just some crazy old nut job conspiracy theory believing fool so it’s easy to pull one over on me, but can you please explain why Scientists have found nano-thermite explosive in the debris of the towers( http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM ), or was that from the cleaning supplies?
How could the towers have fallen near free fall speed without explosives?
If only 2 planes hit buildings that day, why did a 3rd building collapse?
Why do we only have a few frames of what is suppose to be a plane hitting the pentagon when the FBI confiscated video from nearby hotels that would clearly show what hit it?
Why has not one person been punished for the countless mistakes that occurred that day?
Finally what reason do you have to believe the official story?
i’m not a physicist or engineer, but planes are heavy. there are 50,000 gallons of jet fuel in a plane. this might burn hot enough to weaken structures. Once a building like this gives way, each floor adds weight proportionately to the load, and things will collapse quickly.
As for all the facts, guys that sell conspiracy theories are selling conspiracy theories. They have their own built in bias to what they see.
Let’s say it is a big conspiracy theory, what will get done? If you think someone can pull off such a thing, do you seriously think all this internet yahoo conspiracy talk will get anything done? Any group powerful enough to clamp down on all the facts, well, will clamp down on all the facts.
But true patriots likes Alex Jones will shine the light of truth on this evil and make it all better.
tom63:
You probably already know this…
But I thought that it is an interesting bit of trivia that Alex Jones was born at Parkland Hospital in Dallas…the very same hospital they bought JFK to after he was shot.
Has he ever talked about that?
Mufasa
[/quote]
I saw a movie title New World Order on IFC that showcased the conspiracy theories and people. He was at JFK, but I don’t recall him mentioning anything in the movie.
I’ll buy JFK, I’ll buy Oklahoma City and Waco. I’ll buy that some rich douchebags are trying to run the world. But an elaborate plot to destroy the Towers is to much for me.
But you need to watch what facts you believe. How often have we heard that Oswald made x amount of shots in that time and you can’t do it. Those people never have seen me with a rifle.
It was not three shots in x seconds, it was two shots. The clock starts on the first shot. If he ws aiming and fires, the next two shots can be fired in app 2 seconds at most.
I won’t get into the angles, etc. I think we don’t know the whole story. But people twist facts for their opinion.
Two years ago hunting, I shot a running deer in the neck with a three power scope. A tougher shot than Oswald have. And I’m not a Marine. After my first shot I was coming back to shoot he second in the head at app. 170 yards. I didn’t shoot, because I wanted my son to try.
If I shot it would have been two kills in under 4 seconds at distances of 190 and 170 yards with a 3 power scope. Oswald hitting the shots is not improbable, but how everything happenend makes me doubt that account.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
If you believe that 9/11 was a government cover-up, let me ask you a question: What sort of evidence would make you change your mind, convince you that it really was “just” a terrorist attack?
If you have trouble answering that, maybe you’re not as open-minded as you think you are.[/quote]
I have already answered that question. If they could show me that the islamic terrorists infiltrated the elevator company that did repairs to all the collapsed buildings 6 months prior to the collapse. And they had access to Thermite, which you can’t just go out and buy at a store. If they could just prove even a decent link there, I would be way more compelled to believe thier story. But see the problem now is that they have already been caught lying about some stuff, so it will be even harder for me to believe them. If you watched the videos I posted you have one of the smartes physicists and most credentialed in his field, MAKING STUFF UP, in front of his peers. You can see he is uncomfortable, you can see he knows what he is saying is bullshit. I mean to anyone who looks at the videos, you telling me these men are confident that they are correct, this isn’t rocket science, this is like a problem they would give thier undergrad students. And they are tripping up all over it? The building was never in freefall? It took 5.4 seconds to collapse? Blatent outright lies. Why would they lie? They are not stupid men and it’s apparent they know they are lying and most likley they were promised something very sweet if they didn’t follow orders and lie.
V
[quote]Jeffe wrote:
nik133 wrote:
God bless these men, courageous souls and my respects goes out to them! Here is the proof of explosions at the twin towers. Look without explosives, if your theory holds true that it was just jet fuel how do you explain the following: the twin towers fell so fast (almost exact free fall speed), now would you agree with me that when an object collides with another object that they do not speed up, but in fact slow down.
Well the towers did the exact opposite when they fell, they fell at such a speed where no slowing down occurred, how can this be possible with fuel not even capable of reaching the melting point of the steel trusses that the towers were made out of?
Live news reports of secondary explosions
I’ve heard this stupid melting point thing a million times now. Let’s say for arguments sake that one of the primary steel supports can hold 10,000 tons at 70*, the melting point is, I don’t know, say 4,000 degrees.
Considering that all metals lose strength as they are heating, couldn’t it be completely reasonable to say that despite not reaching that critical LIQUID point (that’s what melting means) the steel was simply heated to a point where it could no longer support that weight of the building, thereby collapsing?[/quote]
Will you please go watch the video I posted. Even if they did fail, the would not fail uniformly and at the same time. The buildings would have one side fail before the other and it would come down outside of the buildings footprint. Also it would never achieve freefall, which at the very least building 7 did and that building you can’t even claim damage to trusses because of aircraft impact. Building 7 was supposedly ALL fire damage. Seriously, the videos are only a few minutes long and it is just pure simple science. If part of the story doesn’t add up, why should I believe the rest of the story.
V
[quote]Vegita wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
If you believe that 9/11 was a government cover-up, let me ask you a question: What sort of evidence would make you change your mind, convince you that it really was “just” a terrorist attack?
If you have trouble answering that, maybe you’re not as open-minded as you think you are.
I have already answered that question. If they could show me that the islamic terrorists infiltrated the elevator company that did repairs to all the collapsed buildings 6 months prior to the collapse. And they had access to Thermite, which you can’t just go out and buy at a store. If they could just prove even a decent link there, I would be way more compelled to believe thier story. But see the problem now is that they have already been caught lying about some stuff, so it will be even harder for me to believe them. If you watched the videos I posted you have one of the smartes physicists and most credentialed in his field, MAKING STUFF UP, in front of his peers. You can see he is uncomfortable, you can see he knows what he is saying is bullshit. I mean to anyone who looks at the videos, you telling me these men are confident that they are correct, this isn’t rocket science, this is like a problem they would give thier undergrad students. And they are tripping up all over it? The building was never in freefall? It took 5.4 seconds to collapse? Blatent outright lies. Why would they lie? They are not stupid men and it’s apparent they know they are lying and most likley they were promised something very sweet if they didn’t follow orders and lie.
V[/quote]
I can make thermite at home. It’s not very hard. I can buy thermite at gun shows. It’s not a restricted item.
When something like this collapses, it will not collapse slowly.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
Jeffe wrote:
nik133 wrote:
God bless these men, courageous souls and my respects goes out to them! Here is the proof of explosions at the twin towers. Look without explosives, if your theory holds true that it was just jet fuel how do you explain the following: the twin towers fell so fast (almost exact free fall speed), now would you agree with me that when an object collides with another object that they do not speed up, but in fact slow down.
Well the towers did the exact opposite when they fell, they fell at such a speed where no slowing down occurred, how can this be possible with fuel not even capable of reaching the melting point of the steel trusses that the towers were made out of?
Live news reports of secondary explosions
I’ve heard this stupid melting point thing a million times now. Let’s say for arguments sake that one of the primary steel supports can hold 10,000 tons at 70*, the melting point is, I don’t know, say 4,000 degrees.
Considering that all metals lose strength as they are heating, couldn’t it be completely reasonable to say that despite not reaching that critical LIQUID point (that’s what melting means) the steel was simply heated to a point where it could no longer support that weight of the building, thereby collapsing?
Will you please go watch the video I posted. Even if they did fail, the would not fail uniformly and at the same time. The buildings would have one side fail before the other and it would come down outside of the buildings footprint. Also it would never achieve freefall, which at the very least building 7 did and that building you can’t even claim damage to trusses because of aircraft impact. Building 7 was supposedly ALL fire damage. Seriously, the videos are only a few minutes long and it is just pure simple science. If part of the story doesn’t add up, why should I believe the rest of the story.
V[/quote]
These are edited videos to prove a certain viewpoint. You’re going to get more info from looking at all the info. Which is a lot of info.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
If you believe that 9/11 was a government cover-up, let me ask you a question: What sort of evidence would make you change your mind, convince you that it really was “just” a terrorist attack?
If you have trouble answering that, maybe you’re not as open-minded as you think you are.
I have already answered that question. If they could show me that the islamic terrorists infiltrated the elevator company that did repairs to all the collapsed buildings 6 months prior to the collapse. And they had access to Thermite, which you can’t just go out and buy at a store. If they could just prove even a decent link there, I would be way more compelled to believe thier story. But see the problem now is that they have already been caught lying about some stuff, so it will be even harder for me to believe them. If you watched the videos I posted you have one of the smartes physicists and most credentialed in his field, MAKING STUFF UP, in front of his peers. You can see he is uncomfortable, you can see he knows what he is saying is bullshit. I mean to anyone who looks at the videos, you telling me these men are confident that they are correct, this isn’t rocket science, this is like a problem they would give thier undergrad students. And they are tripping up all over it? The building was never in freefall? It took 5.4 seconds to collapse? Blatent outright lies. Why would they lie? They are not stupid men and it’s apparent they know they are lying and most likley they were promised something very sweet if they didn’t follow orders and lie.
V
I can make thermite at home. It’s not very hard. I can buy thermite at gun shows. It’s not a restricted item.
When something like this collapses, it will not collapse slowly.[/quote]
Do you understand what freefall is? I don’t think you understand it or what it implies. It means the building came down and there was no energy lost to resistance. Resistance of the “weakened” steel support. Nothing they didn’t exist. You are free to stick your head in the sand, however, I compel you again, watch the 2 videos I posted a page or two ago. It will take 10 minutes out of your life, and you can then come back here and tell me that people who do science for a living are wrong. If you reply again, you better start off by saying. OK I watched the videos, otherwise you are not worth talking to about this. what good is it to bring up points if someone won’t even hear them.
V
Let’s say this was a conspiracy and there were bombs in there. why the eff did they need bombs when a huge jetliner with 50,000 gallons of fuel was going to hit it?
Seems to me the amount of damage that the crash would cause would destroy enough of the buildings and kill a lot of people anyway. To me there would be a good chance of a building collapse anyway.
So why bother?Everyone conspiracy whacko thinks it make so much sense, but these jets would have destroyed the building anyway, so why the explosions, if they were planted? Doesn’t make a lot of sense like this whole theory.
Ruby ridge, makes sense, Waco, makes sense. OKC makes sense to some degree. JFK makes sense. This doesn’t make sense. except to weirdos like Alex Jones who make a living selling weirdos dvds. that makes sense.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
Jeffe wrote:
nik133 wrote:
God bless these men, courageous souls and my respects goes out to them! Here is the proof of explosions at the twin towers. Look without explosives, if your theory holds true that it was just jet fuel how do you explain the following: the twin towers fell so fast (almost exact free fall speed), now would you agree with me that when an object collides with another object that they do not speed up, but in fact slow down.
Well the towers did the exact opposite when they fell, they fell at such a speed where no slowing down occurred, how can this be possible with fuel not even capable of reaching the melting point of the steel trusses that the towers were made out of?
Live news reports of secondary explosions
I’ve heard this stupid melting point thing a million times now. Let’s say for arguments sake that one of the primary steel supports can hold 10,000 tons at 70*, the melting point is, I don’t know, say 4,000 degrees.
Considering that all metals lose strength as they are heating, couldn’t it be completely reasonable to say that despite not reaching that critical LIQUID point (that’s what melting means) the steel was simply heated to a point where it could no longer support that weight of the building, thereby collapsing?
Will you please go watch the video I posted. Even if they did fail, the would not fail uniformly and at the same time. The buildings would have one side fail before the other and it would come down outside of the buildings footprint. Also it would never achieve freefall, which at the very least building 7 did and that building you can’t even claim damage to trusses because of aircraft impact. Building 7 was supposedly ALL fire damage. Seriously, the videos are only a few minutes long and it is just pure simple science. If part of the story doesn’t add up, why should I believe the rest of the story.
V
These are edited videos to prove a certain viewpoint. You’re going to get more info from looking at all the info. Which is a lot of info.[/quote]
What are calling 680 + architects and engineers from around the country, you telling me that they are photoshopping videos and providing bunk science? Well then WHY IN THE HELL DID NIST CHANGE THIER FINDINGS?
Firkin Jeez!
V
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Let’s say this was a conspiracy and there were bombs in there. why the eff did they need bombs when a huge jetliner with 50,000 gallons of fuel was going to hit it?
Seems to me the amount of damage that the crash would cause would destroy enough of the buildings and kill a lot of people anyway. To me there would be a good chance of a building collapse anyway.
So why bother?Everyone conspiracy whacko thinks it make so much sense, but these jets would have destroyed the building anyway, so why the explosions, if they were planted? Doesn’t make a lot of sense like this whole theory.
Ruby ridge, makes sense, Waco, makes sense. OKC makes sense to some degree. JFK makes sense. This doesn’t make sense. except to weirdos like Alex Jones who make a living selling weirdos dvds. that makes sense.[/quote]
HAhahahahahaha, Ok so you can sit there and say . Oh the buildings would have collapsed anyways. and i’m just supposed to say. Oh Ok, this guy on the internet who probably has zero training in either physics, engineering or architecture, says the buildings would have collapsed anyways, so I’ll just go ahead and dismiss the freefalling buildings as just some random freak thing that happened naturally. Nevermind those hundreds of professionals in the fields I just mentioned who say the building should not have collapsed and the evidence shows it was demolished. I’ll just stick with this tom guy on the internet. Do you even realize how stupid that is?
V
They are meant to prove a point, but the facts that they use to prove that point are legit and I would much rather see those facts (in the videos) then the ones that people against a 9/11 conspiracy are presenting. Explain to me then why Scientist’s like this would go around saying that it was a controlled demolition?
Why do families refuse to buy what the government is telling them? BECAUSE THE OFFICIAL EXPLANATION DOESN’T MAKE SENSE
[quote]Vegita wrote:
tom63 wrote:
Vegita wrote:
tGunslinger wrote:
If you believe that 9/11 was a government cover-up, let me ask you a question: What sort of evidence would make you change your mind, convince you that it really was “just” a terrorist attack?
If you have trouble answering that, maybe you’re not as open-minded as you think you are.
I have already answered that question. If they could show me that the islamic terrorists infiltrated the elevator company that did repairs to all the collapsed buildings 6 months prior to the collapse. And they had access to Thermite, which you can’t just go out and buy at a store. If they could just prove even a decent link there, I would be way more compelled to believe thier story. But see the problem now is that they have already been caught lying about some stuff, so it will be even harder for me to believe them. If you watched the videos I posted you have one of the smartes physicists and most credentialed in his field, MAKING STUFF UP, in front of his peers. You can see he is uncomfortable, you can see he knows what he is saying is bullshit. I mean to anyone who looks at the videos, you telling me these men are confident that they are correct, this isn’t rocket science, this is like a problem they would give thier undergrad students. And they are tripping up all over it? The building was never in freefall? It took 5.4 seconds to collapse? Blatent outright lies. Why would they lie? They are not stupid men and it’s apparent they know they are lying and most likley they were promised something very sweet if they didn’t follow orders and lie.
V
I can make thermite at home. It’s not very hard. I can buy thermite at gun shows. It’s not a restricted item.
When something like this collapses, it will not collapse slowly.
Do you understand what freefall is? I don’t think you understand it or what it implies. It means the building came down and there was no energy lost to resistance. Resistance of the “weakened” steel support. Nothing they didn’t exist. You are free to stick your head in the sand, however, I compel you again, watch the 2 videos I posted a page or two ago. It will take 10 minutes out of your life, and you can then come back here and tell me that people who do science for a living are wrong. If you reply again, you better start off by saying. OK I watched the videos, otherwise you are not worth talking to about this. what good is it to bring up points if someone won’t even hear them.
V[/quote]
Do you know the weight of a jet air liner? Of 50,000 gallons of fuel. Once metal weakens and it can’t carry the load, things are going down and fast. this will not take 2 minutes to come down, once the load snaps, there will be almost no resistance due to the structures. Metal is not goign to stretch, once it can’t hold the load, it’s going and it’s going quick.
I watched the videos, they’re edited. I don’t trust edited videos. Hell, I trust very little video now a days. It’s very easy to alter images and sound on video or audio now.