user created polls & quizzes      

9/11 SOUTH TOWER PICTURE - YOUR OPINION PLEASE

best : political :
[+] serious ballot by wolf_nipple_chips

How would you best describe this picture?

Please consider that this was just before the building(WTC2) collapsed.

Taken from the following video...

That building looks fine to me, not even a scratch
That building has minor damage
Clearly something extremely important to that building integrity has failed
Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 JUST AS THE BOMBS TAKE OUT THE SUPPORTS
Register to submit choices


Ballot #102607 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:
Register to submit comments
You may still vote without registration

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM
smile bank:


if you don't see an image, click here.






similiar ballots:
132867. Sears Tower in Chicago to be renamed Willis Tower. Your thoughts?
123377. Have you ever climbed a water tower?
135756. World's highest tower : will it fall over?
59495. In Which American City would you Find the Sears Tower?
140063. Ron Paul: Favorable opinion or Unfavorable opinion
24191. The Polish Al Quaida just crashed a one man hang glider into the CNN Tower in Toronto. No damage, one death, the pilot.
9228. Limeys talk about the Freedom Tower, what about that huge, STUPID looking Ferris Wheel in London? U.S. RULES you DROOL!
5433. What about the south?
102651. Do You Like This Picture?
116507. Do I look fat in that picture?



COMMENTS:
Taken from this video...

youtube . com / watch ? v = Zowu1Ib6p5E

Wolf, any person with half a brain that is functioning correctly knows what happened. There is no point trying to provoke arguments with the stupid or the deluded.
I can't put it any better than soldierblue just did.
aye, me, too.
Yeah, fair enough.
Bombs inside the building.
^That's how you would describe the picture? Riiiiiight.
Voted : Clearly something extremely important to that building integrity has failed
The laws of gravity are about to be demonstrated. The floors on one side of the building have lost most of their supports due to the impact of a 767 airliner and the massive explosion of its jet fuel. The other side of the building has been weakened by intense heat, fed by jet fuel, and tons of office building debris that was shoveled there into a mass by the crashing jet. The massive tonnage of the building's weight above has no place to go but straight down.
Try standing on a alumium soda pop can. It will hold your weight. Then try stomping on that same soda pop can. It will pancake flat.
FYI, this is not the side where the plane impacted.

This is the east side. What you see there was simply caused by fire.

I want to hear from those people who say that the fire wasn't hot enough to effect the integrity of those buildings.
I noticed the photo has the 9:59AM which is the time of the collapse beginning, and at the very beginning of the tremors from the EXPLOSIONS going off as the supports were taken out.

Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 2.1 10 seconds

which is SHORTER than the collapse time, which of course means it wasn't the building collapses causing the tremors but instead another source of energy.

So, what were you trying to pretend it showed.

I see a 110 storey building bowing inwards, because of a catastropic failure, clearly due to fire. And it is failing on exactly the same floors on which it was hit by a plane.

So, according to you, this inward bowing is what exactly? Explosives? LOL.

How did they get those tons of bombs inside the World Trade Center? None of the survivors saw them. No evidence of them has ever been found. Where are they? In the brains of the deluded.
{I see a 110 storey building bowing inwards...
by wolf_nipple_chips on Thu Sep 28, 06 9:24am}

At the EXACT MOMENT of those very loud EXPLOSIONS that so many witnesses reported. I noticed that there are some bit and pieces starting fly out in that photo (in among the smoke) propelled by those very loud EXPLOSIONS.

ARE YO TRYING TO PRETEND THAT THE CLOCK DOESN'T SAY 9:59AM?

{None of the survivors saw them.
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Thu Sep 28, 06 9:31am}

The firemen DID!

Video of firemen reporting bombs in WTC
"Bomb in the building. Start clearing out"
"What did you say? Secondary device?"
"Bomb in the building, start clearing out"
youtube . com /watch ? v = W53wdu 8IG lE&NR

You noticed THAT didn't you?

{because of a catastropic failure, clearly due to fire...
by wolf_nipple_chips on Thu Sep 28, 06 9:24am}

Funn that you can NEVER back that claim by citing a mathematical simulation that actually works with the empirical data. Als funny how you ignore those HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES to the EXPLOSIONS.

"ARE YO TRYING TO PRETEND THAT THE CLOCK DOESN'T SAY 9:59AM? "

Errrrrrr no. Why would I be?

So lovelynice, the explosions start at this point do they?

How exactly do explosives suck steel columns in?

So lovelynice, the explosive demolition starts exactly on the floors where the plane hit? Because that it what we are looking at.
"funny how you ignore those HUNDREDS OF WITNESSES to the EXPLOSIONS."

I never have.

Put simply, explosions are more often than not, nothing to do with bombs.

I don't know enough about the physics of building implosions, explosions, or fire to have an intelligent opinion here.
Voted : Collapse 1, South Tower 09:59:04±1 JUST AS THE BOMBS TAKE OUT THE SUPPORTS
"exactly on the floors where the plane hit?
by wolf_nipple_chips on Thu Sep 28, 06 10:35am"

Considering that you only show one single frame that's not proven at all. On the videos that I've seen, in slow motion it's clear that the explosions start about 3-5 floors below the location where the planes hit.

Why do you try to pass off this single frame as being anything other the exact moment when the destruction began? There's flying debris in that picture. Are you trying to pretend that it shows impending collapse when according the time on the frame (9:59am), it's not "impending collapse" but the exact collapse moment; so it proves nothing.

"explosions are more often than not, nothing to do with bombs.
by wolf_nipple_chips on Thu Sep 28, 06 10:44am"

Except that in this case there were BOMBS, and even the firemen reported them.

Lovelynice... It has been proved to you OVER AND OVER what the firemen actually said. Using legitimate sources like their own trade magazine, government reports, fire department investigative reports, etc. Instead, you selectively quote at best or get them from people who make them up out of thin air.

Bombs... they reported explosions. Some said it "sounded" like a bomb. That DOES NOT PROVE IT.

It isn't like you guys understand even the most basic things about scientific or criminal investigations. Instead you get your marching orders out of your "great" leader Alex Jones.

Alex jones isn't anyone's great leader so get with the real world fiddle you master denialist of all the facts of 9/11.

You aren't fit to kiss Alex Jones' jackboots of truth you jackass.

Fiddle believes everything the Bush/PNAC administration spoon feeds him, that's his problem, so entrenched in this denial that even he isn't aware of that he'll STILL be screaming they are innocent if and when God sees justice done and Bush and his pigs are hauled in front of the world's media in shackles and orange jump suits, but such is the depth of his deep pathological denial, he'll post more denial garbage in response to this ->

Tank girl, look at the video I provided. The rest of the building looked structurally sound, when this picture was taken. This is the first point that showed any sign of anything out of the ordinary - structurally speaking.

And can you guess which floors are shown in the picture? The ones where the planes hit. Funny that isn't it?

Re: Bombs and Explosions.

Here are a few classic misquotes, that they try to pass off as fact.

From PrisonPlanet...

"Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck. I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building."

Here is what he actually said...

"Originally, on September 12, 2001, People Magazine ran a few short paragraphs about the 20-year veteran New York fireman hearing what sounded like bombs exploding in the north tower.

Short and sweet, that was it. A few short words about bombs exploding, but words that were repeated over and over again in story after story by writers and broadcasters who never even bothered to talk to him in the first place.

Furthermore, Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated."

Account from Jay Swithers...

"I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion. I thought it was a secondary device, but I knew that we had to go." (911review)

911review forgot to include this bit...

"an ambulance pulled up which was very clean, S0 I assumed that the vehicle had not been in the - what I thought was an explosion at the time, but was the first collapse."

Then there Firefighter Dominick Derubbio

"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion ... "

Again 911 review conveniently miss this bit out...

"It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion,
but I guess it was just the floors starting to pancake one on top of the other."

Then there is Albert Turi...

"And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out." (911review)

The full quote should read...

"And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower,somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. i later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go."

Shall I continue?

Almost all of the witness statements are either similes, misquotes, or relate to other things. Has no one seen the hundreds of pictures of burntout cars? How many of them exploded? How many electrical fires would there have been? How many people were talking about the collapses and the planes hitting rather than bombs.

And don't forget, at the start of your precious LooseChange the small print reads - the FDNY do not believe there was a conspiracy.

wolf nipple chip why are you trying to agrue with these people. They will never accept the fact that this was caused by the planes. They are Bush haters amd that impairs their thinking.
Lovelynice, I'll repeat

Does the explosive demolition starts exactly on the floors where the plane hit? Because that it what we are looking at.

The rest of the building looked structurally sound, when this picture was taken. This is the first point that showed any sign of anything out of the ordinary - structurally speaking.

Until you idiots can cite a link, source, and quote from SOMEBODY, ANYBODY, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the EMPIRICAL DATA (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) that can PROVE that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse, YOU HAVE NOTHING!
The fact that nobody has made a mathematical model is irrelevant. Nobody (including the conspiracy theorists) has all the necessary data to construct such a model. Why? Because we don't actually know the PRECISE extent of the damage done to the towers by the plane impacts. This is now being modelled by researchers at Purdue University (a model which conspiracy theorists have dismissed without even understanding).

Models actually prove nothing - especially when key data has to be assumed. Conspiracy Theorists will NEVER accept ANY mathematical model of the collapses for this very reason.

Meanwhile we are all left wondering when anyone is going to show us one piece of solid, physical evidence that backs up any of their claims.

And before anyone copy and pastes some irrelevant stuff the following things are NOT solid physical evidence:
1) Eyewitness testimony
2) Speculation over video footage
3) Anomalies you can't explain or don't accept the official explanation for.
4) Distorted or cherry-picked versions of the events.

These ARE acceptable examples of solid, physical evidence:

1) DNA identified remains of victims
2) Pieces of aircraft
3) Personal items belonging to victims
4) Flight recorders
5) Physical traces of a controlled demolition
6) Fragments of a missle or aircraft

We'll wait.

Why won't you answer the question lovelynice?
Lovelynice, you may be interested in the following movie, in which your reliable "expert" Jowenko, says that the controlled demolition theory of the WTC towers, was not only complete rubbish, put actually "impossible".

And this time, he's clearly researched the towers before the interview.

youtube . com / watch ? v = VlOG3g - mOXU&eurl =

This is one of those (many) things which you silly shills are avoiding;

EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when STEEL-FRAMED tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition.

Can any of you cite a single exception to this?

With a photo, video, or anything else.

and I'll repeat this nice and big since you seem to have problems reading it NO MENTION OF THE WORD "FIRE", YOU'RE IMAGINING IT!

Now please hurry and respond with some FACTS to back your bullshit!

Here's another one for you;
WTC1
AA Flt 11
8:46:40 UTC - FAA last primary radar contact
8:46:30 UTC - seismic event/NIST
Both times are real and accurate

QUESTION- What caused the 8:46:30 seismic event?
(It can not be the aircrash since that happened at 8:46:40)

Now, please don't start in here with any long-winded arguments; logically, because your beloved NIST embraced the 2005 revision of the seismic time by Dr. Kim (which infers UTC), the only way you win is you MUST discredit the 8:46:40 last primary radar contact that occurred (and no radar "sweep/refresh problem" exists as the contact was recorded (it's the last little triangle in the graph in the flight path study; it's all in the paper)).

Ginny Carr audiotape has a ~9.2 second gap between initial explosion and aircrash.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the time of the initial seismic event.
The 9/11 Commission avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.
NIST avoided the 9/11 Commission’s time.
NIST avoided the many witnesses who testified of explosions in the basements.

ANSWER- The only possibility: EXPLOSION(S)


Why won't you answer the questions lovelynice?
Meanwhile we are all left wondering when anyone is going to show us one piece of solid, physical evidence that backs up any of their claims.

And before anyone copy and pastes some irrelevant stuff the following things are NOT solid physical evidence:
1) Eyewitness testimony
2) Speculation over video footage
3) Anomalies you can't explain or don't accept the official explanation for.
4) Distorted or cherry-picked versions of the events.

These ARE acceptable examples of solid, physical evidence:

1) DNA identified remains of victims
2) Pieces of aircraft
3) Personal items belonging to victims
4) Flight recorders
5) Physical traces of a controlled demolition
6) Fragments of a missle or aircraft

We'll wait.

It's a shame you won't answer my question lovelynice.

The rest of the building looked structurally sound, when this picture was taken. This is the first point that showed any sign of anything out of the ordinary - structurally speaking.

AND GUESS WHAT PEOPLE, IT WAS THE AREA WHERE THE PLANE HIT.

But wait a minute says lovelynice, this is the first sign of demolition that we are seeing.

Riiiight!! So it started on exactly the same floors where the planes hit. Floors that would have been ravished by fire and an explosion, rendering any explosives useless.

(Clearly something extremely important to that building integrity has failed)

Yep - bombs taking out the structural supports!





About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | © 2010 BestAndWorst.com All Rights Reserved