Did the U.S. goverment really set up 9/11

There is no question at all that the WTC building 7

I thought you guys had finnaly shut up about the black smoke.

I still stand by my statement that fire produces alot of smoke when it is smoldering.

The photographs you have provided show lots of fire.

The WTC were not burning much but there was still plenty of smoke.

A smoldering fire produces more smoke then a burning one.

bond77770 wrote:

There was alot of black smoke coming out of the towers. Black smoke means that the fire is not burning.

I'm sure glad to learn this. I was certainly scared by that nasty black cloud coming from the Buncefield oil depot last December.



I'm glad it was at least not a burning fire.

I made no mistake.

Black smoke means that the fire is not burning.

I might have made a few mistakes, but I proved that smoke is still produced when the fire is not burning.

Here's a quote from that link you provided Ticomaya

"Figure 2. As the heat of the fire intensified, the joints on the most severely burned floors gave way, causing the perimeter wall columns to bow outward and the floors above them to fall. The buildings collapsed within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km/h"

How could a building falling throw masive steel sections of the World Trade Center outward? The building fell at what is called freefall rate. This is the rate at which an object would fall with no resistance. If the building fell at what is called a pancake, where the floors above it would fall causing a chain reaction, then it would have taken 1:36 to do this and there waould have been floor sections still in tact at ground zero. This did not happen, the floor section litrilay turned into dust. But ok the pancake theory could be slightly possiable except for one problem. The WTC has a center like a rectangle with very thick steel support colums. shooting all the way up to the top of the structure. If the floors simply pancaked, then what happened to the very strong steel center of the WTC?

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h. It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

Exactly my paoint Ticomaya, If the building fell at the pancake rate, which is that rate the 9-11 commision told us It should have taken 1:36 to fall.

Big difference between freefall rate and pancake rate.
freefall rate: 8 seconds
Pancake rate: 1:36

The 9-11 commision told us that the building fell at a pancake rate which should have taken 1:36 seconds. There is a huge difference then the rate it fell and the rate it should have fell. Unless something else way involved in the collapse, like explosives.

Okay, I'm not a physicist, but I understand a "free fall" rate to be 32 feet per second per second. What is the "pancake" rate?