6:10pm (est) C-SPAN tonight!!

Faster the free fall rates can happen if there is a sufficient vacuum, and this could be caused by an imposion.

Although the times for the fall of the trade centers vary pretty widely, usually between 9 and 15 seconds. 6 seconds is hardly a well agreed number, and I don't think that would speed would happen even with a very strong vacuum.

So we do have a disputed time for falling, I will give the conspiracists that. Although pictures of debris falling below the collapse of the building would suggest to me (I'm not an engineer) that the building was falling slower the free fall speeds.

I'm do know several types of explosives could cause an imposion to generate a powerful vacuum. I don't think thermite could so it appears Alex Jones is claiming two seperate incendiaries.

Also he says no steel frame building has collapsed due to fire, while it wasn't fire that brought the building down. It was airliners that were filled with ten thousand gallons of gasoline. A giant speeding molotov cocktail, hit the buildings, not a 'fire'.

As for falling in it's footprint, this is common for collapse of steel rise buildings, not simply demolition so I don't have any idea what Jones is talking about there.

 

He's claiming that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is completely and utterly bogus. You don't have to come up with an alternative hypothesis to conclude that an original theory is implausible.

 

I'd have to see proof of what you're saying here. I don't buy that buildings collapsing into their own footprint are "common".

 

Have you read some of the claims Griffin has made and with no support? He's off his rocker and worse than the government. Maybe he's working for the government to add to the confusion.

.

 

"Maybe he's working for the government to add to the confusion."
-funny...I was thinking the same thing about you.

 

Good try, but Griffin is always the one to CLEAR things up rather than make them more murky. He's certainly not off his rocker as anyone who looks at him and listens to him can easily tell (unless they're working as a disinfo agent as I assume you are).
And also much of what Griffin has said has been corroborated by experts in various fields such as physics. You can't go wrong with that.

 

Nothing by Griffin has been corroborated by experts in physics. That goes for the rest of the conspiracy activists also. What makes Griffin a little harder to debunk is his murkiness. There a couple of people such as Jones that try to use physics but they do it in a stilted way. Jones' thermate claim to account for sulfur is a good example. It sounds good to a layman but it ignores the staggering amounts of sulfur in all of the building materials and diesel fuel. Then they try to fix holes in the theory with more fixes, such as mythical devices that supposedly made thermite act as a cutter charge. No one in the engineering or physics community is supporting such a claim.

.

 

Then there's Jeff King, the one that 911 conspiracy activists like to make people believe is working at MIT, although he isn't. His cute little video is a collection of clips of people the day of 911 saying the collapse sounded like an explosion. Of course it did. The tornado sounded like a freight train, but that doesn't mean there's a government conspiracy to wreck houses with freight trains.

King has about a couple dozen clips one after another of bystanders saying the word 'explosion', as if the validity of his controlled demolition claim is commensurate with how many clips he can find of bystanders using the term 'explosion'. This is the best 'argument' he can muster.

.

 

Sad too how the 5th anniversary has been turned into a free-for-all by all these groups to promote their ideological agenda. I don't think I've seen a site yet that truly reflects on the loss of all the people.

.