12 Jun 2014 23:11:17
Something that has always bothered me about 9/11.
According to the official NIST report, WTC1 was hit at 8. 46am, and WTC2 was hit at 9. 02am.
WTC2 'fell' at 9. 58am, or 56 minutes after it was hit. WTC1 'fell' exactly thirty minutes later at 10. 28am, or 102 minutes after it was hit.
Is it possible that the demolition was mistakenly done out of sequence? Shouldn't WTC1 have 'fallen' first?
Ryan.
Being a controlled demolition, of sorts, I suppose they could have done it in any order, perhaps it was done in that order just to seem less staged? Less obvious?
I've always had a problem with the short periods of time between the collisions and collapses. As if such huge buildings could lose their structural integrity so quickly! Why did they do it that way? Well, the whole event from when it first came on the news to the aftermath of the 2nd tower falling took around and hour and a half, the length of a typical Hollywood movie. Just about perfect length of time to keep the public's concentration going IMO.
Harold
I've always had a problem with the short periods of time between the collisions and collapses. As if such huge buildings could lose their structural integrity so quickly! Why did they do it that way? Well, the whole event from when it first came on the news to the aftermath of the 2nd tower falling took around and hour and a half, the length of a typical Hollywood movie. Just about perfect length of time to keep the public's concentration going IMO.
Harold
Agree · 1 · Disagree · 0
Yes Harold the collapses happened far too quickly. Especially WTC2. I think they got the demolition (or dustification) sequence wrong. The collapses were exactly 30 minutes apart. I think they brought them down out of sequence by mistake.
Similarly with WTC7, it was reported collapsed live on TV by Jane Standley of the BBC while it was behind her in the background. And didn’t ‘collapse’ for a further 26 minutes.
As for today's question, the NIST report says that the 'planes' (Boeing 767-200's) hit the towers at 410kts and 510kts. Whatever about the first number being debatable, it is considered impossible by many pilots and aviation experts that a 767-200 could achieve 510kts at below 1000ft altitude, and certainly structural failure would occur long before that anyway.
I don’t know what hit the towers. It could have been a missile, or something else. I just don’t believe it was American 11 or United 175.
Ryan.
Similarly with WTC7, it was reported collapsed live on TV by Jane Standley of the BBC while it was behind her in the background. And didn’t ‘collapse’ for a further 26 minutes.
As for today's question, the NIST report says that the 'planes' (Boeing 767-200's) hit the towers at 410kts and 510kts. Whatever about the first number being debatable, it is considered impossible by many pilots and aviation experts that a 767-200 could achieve 510kts at below 1000ft altitude, and certainly structural failure would occur long before that anyway.
I don’t know what hit the towers. It could have been a missile, or something else. I just don’t believe it was American 11 or United 175.
Ryan.
Agree · 0 · Disagree · 0