Questions, questions and even more questions?

[libertypirate]

Would you expect a modern building to fall apart into pieces?

Expect that it would come apart in the time it would fall with nothing resisting its collapse?

Could you discern the difference between a building falling apart and being blown-up?

Should the buildings insides eject up and arch out further than the buildings own width?

Would you expect the building to turn to dust when it hit the ground or where it started to fall from?

What if the only knowledge you had of buildings coming down was controlled demolition?

Are you certain you would know the difference when seeing a building perpetuating its own collapse?

You may know that steel can melt but do you understand what it takes for 110 floors of it to fall apart?

When you think of a building falling apart does it crumble away or does it ride the wave of what it’s running into bellow?

Would you expect the ground to shake before, as it collapsed, or when it collided with the ground?

What would you think of pools of liquefied steal found in the foundations a month later?

You still believe in the conservation of energy don’t you?

Are you aware that scientist can only get steal to melt with a carbon fuel, such as kerosene and its cousins like jet fuel in laboratory conditions?

Where else have you seen a building collapse into a pile 4% of its original height without being demolished?

If a building fell apart like a house of cards would it seem odd to you?

How about if three buildings fell apart like houses of cards within 12 hours and a couple of hundred feet of each other?

And if all three accelerated as if nothing bellow was still holding them up, would you think that odd?

Does it sound right to you that a building can collapse on its own in nearly the time a golf ball would fall with nothing bellow it?

If three fell right down atop of their own foundations as if nothing bellow was even their, could you tell?

What if no one took the time to prove why three buildings collapsed to their foundations?
Could you believe just any reason for the cause and why they collapsed?

Even if all available evidence pointed in other directions, would you question news people telling you different?

Have you let your emotions get the better of your understanding?

What if for a year after all evidence was kept from the public and the only people describing what occurred did so from a TV studio?

What if a large number of eyewitnesses described controlled demolitions and not just buildings falling apart?

Would you believe them or what was repeated by talking heads again and again?

Do you have a pre-disposition to your understanding the events of Sept. 11?

Could you let your pre-judgments go if you wanted, or do you need to believe what you were told?

You might tell I have a bit of a problem with what has been called the “official” version of 9-11; the only question I have left is why don’t you?

[hack89]

1. Since they are built in pieces,

why won't they collapse in pieces? Or this this a trick question?

[Carefulplease]

2. Most of your questions will find answers...

If you take some time to go over this paper

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

and this site

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

[hack89]

3. self deleted - wrong place

[hack89]

4. Why is it never "answers answers and more answers" ?

I eagerly await your second post (that is of equal length to the OP), which answers the questions in a detailed and comprehensive manner. Perhaps a detailed time line, a discussion of exactly what combination and amounts of HE/thermite were used, etc etc?

Do you believe that having sufficient questions about the OCT is enough to prove that you must be right? Or does it simply mean you haven't done adequate research to answer your own questions? Why don't you take the time to lay out what happened? If nothing else, it would prove that you can do more than endlessly ask questions.

[TheWraith]

5. Answers, answers, and more answers.

I'm sure I'm not the person you were asking, but I have some answers anyway.

"Would you expect a modern building to fall apart into pieces?"

Of course. What else would a collapsing building do? Fold itself up into a ball?

"Expect that it would come apart in the time it would fall with nothing resisting its collapse?"

This question makes no sense.

"Could you discern the difference between a building falling apart and being blown-up?"

Of course. A building which was being blown up would show a pronounced outward throw of debris.

"Should the buildings insides eject up and arch out further than the buildings own width?"

I have no idea what the hell you're trying to ask here.

"Would you expect the building to turn to dust when it hit the ground or where it started to fall from?"

It would be throwing pulverized concrete and ash as soon as it started to collapse, though the largest cloud would emerge as it impacted the ground.

"What if the only knowledge you had of buildings coming down was controlled demolition?"

This question makes no sense.

"Are you certain you would know the difference when seeing a building perpetuating its own collapse?"

Yes.

"You may know that steel can melt but do you understand what it takes for 110 floors of it to fall apart?"

Yes. It requires that the overall engineering of the support structure be fatally compromised, by being subjected to external force; by damage inflicted on a sufficient number of supports; or by sufficient heat that the steel loses its tensile strength. It doesn't have to melt in order to collapse.

"When you think of a building falling apart does it crumble away or does it ride the wave of what it’s running into bellow?"

Depends on the mass that's falling and how sound the base is.

"Would you expect the ground to shake before, as it collapsed, or when it collided with the ground?"

All of the above.

"What would you think of pools of liquefied steal found in the foundations a month later?"

I've never seen evidence that this was more than an urban legend.

"You still believe in the conservation of energy don’t you?"

Sure.

"Are you aware that scientist can only get steal to melt with a carbon fuel, such as kerosene and its cousins like jet fuel in laboratory conditions?"

By definition, any experiment takes place in "laboratory conditions." Also by definition, anything that's possible in a laboratory is also possible in the rest of the world. And as noted before, the steel doen't have to melt.

"Where else have you seen a building collapse into a pile 4% of its original height without being demolished?"

Where have you seen a 110 story building collapse? What do you expect, exactly--that a collapsed building stands 10% of its original height, and a demolished building is 4%? Rubble is rubble, and when you're talking about a quarter million pounds of debris, there's really no kind of structure that can hold that up.

"If a building fell apart like a house of cards would it seem odd to you?"

Yes. On the other hand, if a building collapsed after being struck with an airplane containing great masses of jet fuel, or by another building that was collapsing, I wouldn't find it odd at all.

"How about if three buildings fell apart like houses of cards within 12 hours and a couple of hundred feet of each other?"

See above.

"And if all three accelerated as if nothing bellow was still holding them up, would you think that odd?"

Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. If the structure below them was no longer sound, the building would collapse at pretty much freefall speed. It's as simple as that.

"Does it sound right to you that a building can collapse on its own in nearly the time a golf ball would fall with nothing bellow it?"

Yes. Do you expect the building to fall in slow motion? I'm sure that if it did, you'd find that to be conclusive proof of demolition, too.

"If three fell right down atop of their own foundations as if nothing bellow was even their, could you tell?"

This question makes no sense.

"What if no one took the time to prove why three buildings collapsed to their foundations?"

People have taken the time to prove it.

"Could you believe just any reason for the cause and why they collapsed?"

See above.

"Even if all available evidence pointed in other directions, would you question news people telling you different?"

This question makes no sense.

"Have you let your emotions get the better of your understanding?"

You're gibbering.

"What if for a year after all evidence was kept from the public and the only people describing what occurred did so from a TV studio?"

Do you seriously believe that no one with scientific expertise looked at how the collapse happened? Hundreds, probably thousands of people have. They all concluded that the collapse was the result of the obvious structural damage from the plane, and the superheated fire that followed.

"What if a large number of eyewitnesses described controlled demolitions and not just buildings falling apart?"

No witnesses described controlled demolitions. A handful of people gave statements which have been interpreted as evidence of controlled demolitions, which they aren't.

"Would you believe them or what was repeated by talking heads again and again?
Do you have a pre-disposition to your understanding the events of Sept. 11?
Could you let your pre-judgments go if you wanted, or do you need to believe what you were told?"

I'll ignore these last questions, because they're really nothing but supposition piled on a conclusion that you've already made, and no amount of fact is going to talk you out of it.