How Many Buildings Fell In NYC On The 9/11?

Please tell me those arent college students. Zombie extras maybe.

That is so sad and scary.

amazing how people are so ignorant of tower 7 falling its like a weird Jesuit spell or something

Three buildings fell. WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7.

Pretty bizarre how the terrorists managed to knock down three buildings with TWO planes, huh?

This make me so sick. Thang good people around me have understood the truth. Otherwise my life would be tough!!

This you get when U watch too much Tele Vision. Teleported visions by alphawaves -------- So sad when humans want to be farm animals instead of individuals, like symbol for building 7 whole human. Ringing bells for number 72 tower of Babylon or something to do with mixing up languages, also 72 000 * 2 = 144000 (people saved)
(72 is tower 7 + 2 towers )
Sad so sad

So if it's bizarre to your subjective perception that building 7 fell down without any plane hit, then staged or controlled demolition is the only accepted explanation?

Ever consider the explanation of the 911 truther debunker?

[link to www.debunking911.com]

A fair person would review both sides of the contradicting opinions before forming his own conclusion. An unfair or biased mind would form opinion first and try to find every 'proof' that backup his opinion and disregard anything contradicting his opinion. What's the truthers response to the debunker?

Also those cynics who often spout "if only the building was made by passport material", due to dunning kruger effect, may think they're the smartest conspiracy theorist in the universe. But have these kind of close minded cynics checked the evidence?

That debunking site of yours is quite a fail.
Now where did they mention that the WTC 7, came down in exactly free fall speed. Of course, its really hard to explain, so they left it out all together.
Why did they omit the hardest part to debunk?

[link to www.youtube.com (secure)]

Fell with gravity constant of 9.88 i.e. free fall speed.
Fact!

* Fell with acceleration constant of 9.88 i.e. free fall speed.

Wow... time heals all, or at the least erases the truth..

I think they were counting on this to happen.

OMG

Speechless...
The future of our world.

Disgusting how blind most people are to the obvious.

its like the perfect crime. And all these bozoos who can't see and keep defending the perps.

I get the point of the YT vid, but....technically, none did. They were demolished.


A building that 'fell' -



And a building demolished -



- which looks like the three buildings on the day?

So you believe that's free fall?

While that link I posted above debunked the "pull" theory of conspiracy theorists, that link do explain technically the possible mechanism of how building 7 collapsed. Quoted from that link ( www.debunking911.com/pull.htm ):
====
Structure Magazine explains one probable cause of the WTC 7 collapse. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7"

[link to www.structuremag.org]
====

Now, about the free fall, to be fair, let's use a more complete video which showed before fall to after fall of WTC7.

The height of WTC7 was 226 meters. According to Physics, free fall needs around 6.8 seconds for that height and the typical claim of conspiracy theorists was 6.5 seconds. Now, determining the start of collapse is quite subjective. If you agree with the Physics of falling down, at the start of falling down, it will be very slow and barely noticeable because it started from velocity of zero and accelerated according to gravity of 9.8m/sec2. So when was it started? To be fair, since we are just using visible observation, how about starting from noticing change on the roof (I use this term to refer to top structure, the term they used might be different) from the following video:

[link to www.youtube.com]

Looking at the video, you'll see the left side roof start collapsing at around 0:41 and totally collapsed at around 0:53. So, it's around 12 seconds.

Now 12 seconds is almost twice the free fall time of 6.8 seconds.SO, IT'S NOT FREE FALL. Any disagreement?

College students?

Incredible..

Asking drunk kids from a community college on their way to a concert is 'scary' for you?

Highly intelligent, politically informed people will look you in the eye and say "only 2 buildings fell on 9/11. I think there might have been some mind control involved here. Memory swipes, thought programming but I don't know.

This debunker from skeptic.com was interesting. First he admitted he's Bush hater for justifying war based on, according to him, faulty intelligence of WMD. But this person was quite rational in treating theories from conspiracy circle. His name is Chris Mohn and he debated with Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

[link to www.skeptic.com]

Here are a few of his debunking of typical conjectures from conspiracy theorists that might be relevant to WTC7 :

1. EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WERE CAREFULLY AND SECRETLY PLANTED IN THE WTC BUILDINGS.

You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the two World Trade Center buildings containing 50,000 workers, plus extensive security systems and guards, working round the clock, without anyone noticing anything unusual. Instead, we should accept at face value what we all witnessed: two massive jets that slammed into the buildings, damaging the structures and setting off raging fires and igniting more than 40,000 square feet of office space per floor in a matter of seconds, igniting furniture, carpeting, desks, paper, etc. You cannot control the area around such a raging fire to start a demolition.1

2. NO TALL STEEL FRAME BUILDING EVER COLLAPSED BEFORE 9/11 DUE TO FIRE.

Though it is true that no tall steel frame buildings ever collapsed due to fire alone prior to 9/11, since then, other tall steel framed buildings have. On May 13, 2008, a large part of the tall concrete-reinforced steel architecture tower at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands caught fire and thereafter had a very fast, nearly straight-down collapse mostly into its own footprint. Gravity increases the force of a falling object by a factor of 30 for a single collapsing floor, and collapsing buildings have nowhere to go but straight down. Other types of steel frame structures have collapsed due to fire.2

3. WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS?

The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

...

8. WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE BIG FIRES IN TALL BUILDINGS THAT DON’T CAUSE COLLAPSE, AND THE LITTLE FIRES IN BUILDING 7?

Richard Gage and other 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracists like to show an NYPD photograph of small fires on the north face of Building 7. That’s not the side where tons of flaming debris from the towers smashed into the south face, creating huge gashes and fires on multiple floors. In our debate Gage claimed that the videos I played showed smoke but no fire. When the fires first started on the southwest corner of Building 7, the dust was blocking the view. NIST reported that many fires burned themselves out in 20-40 minutes and then moved on. The fires left behind not only burned out areas, but structurally weakened areas as the beams and columns expanded, sagged, and contracted again. Then the fires started moving to the interior of the building. Is he suggesting that all that smoke wasn’t evidence of fire, or that burned out areas went back to full structural strength?

...

10 WHAT CAUSED BUILDING 7 TO COLLAPSE?

Many firefighters reported seeing structural deformations of Building 7 hours before its collapse, including the top FDNY fire Chief Daniel Nigro, who stated, “I feared a collapse of Building 7 (as did many on my staff). The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of 7. Building 7 was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. Fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else—as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after … WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.”

In a World Trade Centre Task Force Interview, FDNY Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler said: “So we left 7 World Trade Center… and Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.”

And Deputy Chief Peter Hayden said: “We saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that, and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse.”

Another Building 7 eyewitness was Michael Hess, Mayor Giuliani’s chief lawyer. He and fellow city worker Barry Jennings got caught in Building 7 and barely escaped with their lives. Michael Hess said that he heard and felt the building shake like an earthquake for 5–10 seconds prior to the collapse of either tower. But in 2007, he too changed his story, claiming in a BBC interview that he got his timing wrong and that the 10-second-long earthquake sound was most likely caused by tower debris hitting the building later in the morning. “There were no explosions. That was caused by the north half of #1 falling onto the southern half of our building.” He compared what he heard to a loud rumbling earthquake, not the staccato blasts of explosions.

...

12 WHAT ABOUT THE FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF BUILDING 7?

That is the silver bullet that proves controlled demolition! NIST studied the collapse of one face of the 47-story Building 7 and found that indeed, on that one face, it collapsed “at gravitational acceleration” for eight stories over 2.25 seconds. The rest of that collapse was at considerably less than free-fall. After the internal supports collapsed, the perimeter walls were pulled inward. Every time a column snapped like a stick, it shifted its load at the speed of sound to other columns, and the collapse “gradually” accelerated over about two seconds. In phase two, the building was indeed collapsing at free-fall acceleration.

Free-fall collapse speed does not mean no resistance, it means no net resistance. Those collapsing beams still clinging to the walls functioned as levers. So there were three forces at work on Building 7 during its collapse, and the sum of these three forces varied with time: the constant downward force of gravity, the variable upward force of residual structural resistance, and variable leveraged downward forces due to connections to other parts of the building. The leveraging forces may have briefly accelerated parts of Building 7 at greater than 1G, and in fact the NIST Report shows very slightly faster than free-fall for a second or so, though that could just be the margin of error.

Remove yourself from figures and facts for a minute.

Why is it that so many 'feel' that there is something inherantly wrong with the official story?

From the same people who brought you the 'official' story on the Kennedy assassination, the moon 'landings', 911 and countless other 'official' stories that dont sit well with millions of people, if not billions of people.

We're picking up on something, and the truth will always find a way to come out.

The official 911 story is ridiculous.

i wouldn't know either if i was 8 at the time.
if i was 8 in 2001, i would probably think there is nothing wrong with this country today

Good point. I'm 46, and it happened on the night of my wife's birthday. We had just been out to dinner, and were whallowing in bed with full bellies. I turned on the late night (we're in Sydney) news...

It'll never leave my mind, and even on the day, it didnt look right.

Easy to forget those kids in the vids were so young, and most likely encouraged by the school system to only recall certain aspects, and comiserate them.



That would make sense in light of the above.

So in your opinion, Anonymous Coward 8578999 is unfair and biased, and you're looking for every proof you can find that he is unfair and biased?

This is precisely why Americans deserve to be ass raped with a curling iron. Idiots deserve their pain.

correct answer is none, the didn't 'fall' they were blown up.

[link to www.usa-anti-communist.com]


Erasure of memory is not something new.

The U.S. Navy's "Perfect Concussion" used sub aural frequency blasts to erase memory.

I am AC39357713 coming in from other channel, my main channel is not alive yet.

In my opinion, "pretty bizarre" is a subjective feeling, not a fact. Feeling there's conspiracy doesn't mean there's conspiracy until the feeling is proven factually. Whether AC3578999 is unfair/biased or not, his further opinion might be needed to judge more accurately. I don't think I would want to waste energy specifically to find fault that he's unfair or biased. I am just proposing common sense, that a biased mind is a mind which choose one opinion and disregard contradicting fact. It's a mind with an agenda, a vested interest. It's up to everyone to choose whether they want to keep being biased or not. If one choose to stay biased, then their opinion will less likely credible when it is affected by subjective feeling.

Fell?

When a tall tree's felled
it tips over to one side
which would've been more
understandable from the
damage incurred to the
towers, than the result,
in my amateur opinion.

What flabbergasts me is
why the contractors who
built these towers,
apparently designed to
withstand multiple air-
craft impacts, weren't
hung out to dry by the
insurance company that
paid out billions on
these acts of mass
murder?

Does the company that
built them still exist
or existed then?

None is correct....they were 'pulled'