Galileo/Newton agree-- 9/11 was an inside job!

[Arlo1]

Heat was only a factor in the initation of the collapse of the first few floors. There was no fire or heat in the lower 80or so floors that all pancaked down from the weight of the upper floors falling .
Remember, there buildings were unique in their design, height, and construction, so its impossible to compare with other tall building fires. "Pancake" floor failures can be understood by rational folk with a minor understanding of structural work.
There is no demolition expert on this planet who could organise and exicute suuch a controlled sequenced demolition on structures of that scale without a huge work team , thousands of tonnes of explosives, and months of messy, noisy, obvious work.
To even think it could be done in secret, or during construction, with not one worker commenting is simply ludicrous.

3 major problems with that
1 Steal does not even come close to melting with the heat of jet fuel. Then to go further they were designed to take the impact of even bigger planes. And to go even further building 7 yes a third building. had a simple office fire and collapsed as well. BULL SHIT!
2 The bottom floors crushed first
3 there is lots of pictures of molten steal shooting out of the buildings and the bottom floors have major structural pieces cut off with what looks like a shape charge or a cutting torch.

Its so crazy to here you guys defend the official storey its like your dad is hitting you in the head with a golf club and you are denying it!

 

[Arlo1]

By the way they had over 6 months of planning as that's when the new insurance policy Silverstein took out on th ebuildings with a special clause covering acts of terrorism was taken out before this happened.
Even Snoops confirms this.

http://www.snopes.com/wtc-terrorism-insurance/

 

[Hillhater]

I never mentioned any molten steel. ( or steal )
It doesnt need to melt, just soften enough to weaken at critical points
But as mentioned above , once you have a fire in a tall "chimney" type structure, it acts like a furnace with high velocity air forcing temperatures beyond those of a simple flame, especially when you throw in a hundred tonnes of Aluminium and god knows what other ingredients were up there.
The towers collapsed from the top (impact) floors down...what were you looking at ?
Not concerned with other buildings. That is just confusing the main issue.
But.. What ever gives you peace of mind ! Keep trying to explain it to yourself,...if you can.

 

[flat tire]

Heat was only a factor in the initation of the collapse of the first few floors. There was no fire or heat in the lower 80or so floors that all pancaked down from the weight of the upper floors falling .
Remember, there buildings were unique in their design, height, and construction, so its impossible to compare with other tall building fires. "Pancake" floor failures can be understood by rational folk with a minor understanding of structural work.
There is no demolition expert on this planet who could organise and exicute suuch a controlled sequenced demolition on structures of that scale without a huge work team , thousands of tonnes of explosives, and months of messy, noisy, obvious work.
To even think it could be done in secret, or during construction, with not one worker commenting is simply ludicrous.

3 major problems with that
1 Steal does not even come close to melting with the heat of jet fuel. Then to go further they were designed to take the impact of even bigger planes. And to go even further building 7 yes a third building. had a simple office fire and collapsed as well. BULL SHIT!
2 The bottom floors crushed first
3 there is lots of pictures of molten steal shooting out of the buildings and the bottom floors have major structural pieces cut off with what looks like a shape charge or a cutting torch.

Its so crazy to here you guys defend the official storey its like your dad is hitting you in the head with a golf club and you are denying it!

0. I agree, building 7 is interesting and I can't draw any conclusions...but, there was a very large fire (not some "small" office fires) and the thing had weird construction.

1.The planners thought about a 707 at LOW SPEED maybe hitting the towers and they didn't consider fuel at all. 767s well into a full power dive with full tanks hit the towers.

2. Citation, please? That's not the conclusion most people draw, which is that the collapse started in the vicinity of where the planes impated.

3. Yeah, that looks crazy, but I'm not drawing any conclusions from it because I've never seen anything quite like it before even though I work with metal. And frankly, although I realize this is fallacy, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously because I keep being told about thievery when we need to be discussing a metal...

Also, my skepticism of the idea that the planes didn't cause the towers to collapse is not founded on me believing anything. Who knows what to believe? Anyway, you can have any party from Santa Claus to the Pink Panther or Mario orchestrating the whole deal behind the scenes and you don't have to change a thing as far as how the publicly known events unfolded. So, why focus on all this building stuff that doesn't lead anywhere cuz there's no evidence left anyway?

 

[Punx0r]

The animated model posted earlier in this thread showing the structural collapse of WTC7 illustrates how it cascaded from the failure of a single vertical column. It is both plausible and looks intuitive.

Remember, the more outlandish and unconventional the claim, the stronger your evidence needs to be to support it. I've read an unfortunately large amount of conspiracy theories on this subject and have yet to see anything coming close to evidence. Or even a solid argument. It's mostly just personal incredulousness.

 

[nutnspecial]

Glad to see you back punx0r!

I would LOVE to give Nist's / official story the benefit of the doubt, and did previously for about a decade. But since I decided to look at their EVIDENCE for their CLAIMS I couldn't go along anymore. Motive, Means, and Opportunity tipped for me toward 'inside job' over 'bin laden' quite quickly after that. Just about everywhere you choose to look critically, there's mountains of questionable or conflicting evidence either discounted or completely ignored.

Just because there isn't a counter claim that's 100% complete and provable is no excuse at all to go along with the incredible official story, is it? . . . IS IT??


If I was in my previous train/school of thought, for whatever reason, hopefully I'd still at least agree the international outcome kinda frocking sucks.

 

[Punx0r]

Your train of though on this subject derailed long ago...

 

[nutnspecial]

No love from punx0r?

More simply so I hope there's no chance of misunderstanding . .

Remember, the more outlandish and unconventional the claim, the stronger your evidence needs to be to support it.

Yup, EXACTLY.
This should of course apply first and foremost . . . to . . . you guessed it - the official narrative. . . It kinda is the 'original' theory of conspiracy wouldn't you say? It's certainly the only official one lol.

. . on this subject and have yet to see anything coming close to evidence. Or even a solid argument.

Aww, that's too bad!
You think the offical one holds water? Cool. You want to then be skeptical (or competely discount) any other evidence idea or info? Fine too!



You can talk about space beams (molecular disassociation), the implausibility of thermate etc, but technically any other story or idea is immaterial to the official story being plausible or not. . . It seems like most people that impartially search & examine additional evidence realize something stinks with that official story, but some remain incredulous of all but the media and gov provided fact set.

It's mostly just personal incredulousness.

Yup. That's kinda all any of us have I guess.

Have a good day (night?), it's nice to have you back on the thread!

 

[flat tire]

Yup, EXACTLY.
This should of course apply first and foremost . . . to . . . you guessed it - the official narrative

Well, funny you say that because the official story about how the towers collapsed has by far the most arguments and evidence compiled in support.

Anyway, you're also making a mistake in equating the belief that the planes MOST LIKELY took down the towers with "following the official narrative" whatever that means. This is false, because you could believe that Bush, or Mario, or the Easter Bunny ordered 9/11 and it can still take place the way we saw. That's much simpler than an demolition that nobody has shown any direct evidence of.

 

[Punx0r]

You're wasting your breath... If nutspecial weren't serious (we've yet to find a conspiracy theory he won't believe) he'd be considered an accomplished troll.

This thread went round in ever-increasing circles for 20-odd pages. You just kinda give up banging your head against the wall after refuting umpteen stupid claims only for the Truther to circle back and simply start restating the same silly ideas over again.

Unfortunately for a technical-themed forum a significant number of the membership here lack the ability of critical thinking and many are plain anti-science. It's sad.

 

[Arlo1]

Actually there is more engineers who believe something fishy happened with 911 then there is who don't so many red flags its not even funny.

 

[Chalo]

Yep-- I don't know how they did it, but my practiced sense of how real materials and structures work in the real world tells me that the official explanation is a lie. The fact that components of the government had big fat motives to design the attack and exploit it-- and exploit it they did, big time-- tells me my technical impression is not wrong.

Go find three tall trees right next to each other, all of which collapsed right onto their own stumps on the same day, and I'll assure you that's also not the work of fire or impact. Even if Dick Cheney tells you​ it is.

 

[flat tire]

Actually there is more engineers who believe something fishy happened with 911 then there is who don't so many red flags its not even funny.

Citation, please.

 

[Ianhill]

See I watched the towers fall and it seemed fishy but the more I research the buildings designs i come to the conclusion that the pancake theory stands up or not in this case for reasons I've already stated.

Building 7 is a structure that I have not looked at all and this type of building from the outside that looks like a normal lump been done many times before and a demolition experts bread and butter so I had no interest in this building as it was clearly pulled just as larry silverstein said, the BBC called it while it still stood.

If demolition experts rigged tower 7 then who's to say that some clever folk had done thier calculations on the towers for varying attacks after the basement bombings on the two towers and realized the vunrabliltiy of fire up high, this classified document then got into the wrong hands in a rogue goverment involved team that planned and performed a incident to gather power over the people and wealth in one large swoop on the day the military had no sniff of being there this was an inside job all set up the 8 Men just happened to win the lottery that day by getting the plane to the building in the first place.(twice) and other targets I just can't believe they just happened to have they pants down so bad.

To me the world has never recovered from it properly it's where my time zone skewered to the point now we have trumpin biff towers and his almanac and Teresa may the grand high witch sturring her broth of cash

 

[Arlo1]

And the 2 other planes that same day.

1 hitting the pentagon in the very spot they announced billions of dollars missing the very day before! Oh and there was not a shred of evidence of a plane even hitting the pentagon just an explosion that makes it look like the planes wings folded in and it all vanished as it hit the pentagon. Then the 4th plane that landed in a field and there we no shred of evidence of a plane being there either not a wheel or a seat or a black box nothing just charred grass.

Oh and one of my favorites is they found a pass port laying on the ground not far from the WTC buildings just 1 passport and it must have been the person responsible which just so happens to be a terrorist... If you believe that line you are the most frocking gullible person(s) on this planet.
Like yeah because all the other passports burnt up in the fire inside the tower that was magical at taking down 3 towers but the 1 passport that gives us a place to pin this on was some how thrown from the whole building far enough for someone to "find" :lol:

 

[Punx0r]

It was a plane that hit the pentagon: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

I can't find a reference from a quick google search that one and only one passport was recovered so you'll need to cite that. But here's details of various paper items recovered: http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html

Actually there is more engineers who believe something fishy happened with 911 then there is who don't so many red flags its not even funny.

Citation, please.

+1

There are millions in the world. The AE truth morons claim 10,000 "believers"

Again, critical thinking...

 

[nutnspecial]

truth morons

Your 'critical' thinking looks a bit more like 'frustrated' thinking to me?

 

[Punx0r]

Like I said, head, wall, banging against.

 

[Arlo1]

I can't find a reference from a quick google search that one and only one passport was recovered so you'll need to cite that. But here's details of various paper items recovered: http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html
.

http://ahtribune.com/world/europe/paris-attacks/135-after-911-passport-paris-attacks.html

As for the millions in the world vs the 10s of thousands who signed the petition that's not even a relatively close to fair representation.
First off how many of the millions even know about the petition? Second off how many have read and studied it? Third how many don't want to draw attention to them selves?

If you believe the official storey being crammed down your thought you are either working for them or amongst the biggest morons on the planet.
I would not question it as much if there was not so many red flags! But I can name 10 huge red flags and over 100 small red flags!

 

[Punx0r]

OK. So you're happy to conclude that most engineers believe the conspiracy theory based only on your intuition, but to be convinced of the reverse, you would require each and every engineer to study the relevant petition and then before their answer is accepted, a check made that they're not afraid, co-conspirators, or morons? Is that an equal burden of proof?

I don't believe the conspiracy theories (just picking one is a task, there are numerous and they're almost always incompatible with each other), but I'm not working for "them" (whoever that is). You can run any background check on me you want. Although I suppose "they" could have carefully hidden my involvement and done likewise for millions of other ordinary people. However that would be a gargantuan task requiring an army of (very discrete) civil servants that would almost certainly come unstuck at some point.

Anyway, this is a classic line. When anything disproves the conspiracy theory, the theory simply expands to include the evidence as being part of the conspiracy in order to neutralise it.


From your link:

fire was eating everything, but a passport exit safe! How on earth are we expected to believe that paper documents could survive the fire and hate of such explosions?

Spelling error aside, if someone thinks the question is how can a paper document survive exposure to the same fire that destroys the rest of the contents of a building, then they have seriously misunderstood the basics of scenario. The question is can such an object survive being ejected (usually initially inside another object) from an explosion and the answer is often "yes".

 

[nutnspecial]

I don't believe the conspiracy theories

Uhh, the official explanation is a conspiracy theory as well. A theory unproven. Well, unproven unless you bake it with some cognitive dissonance imagination and faith, and that's why there's a clear and logical antithesis: inside job.

To get down to the root of this mental error, could you really mean to say: "I don't believe in anything my government and/or media has not sanctioned me to"? Yeesh.

 

[flat tire]

To get down to the root of this mental error, could you really mean to say: "I don't believe in anything my government and/or media has not sanctioned me to"? Yeesh.

I hate the media because they turn news into a totally inappropriate entertainment show. And I don't vote because I've completely dropped out of our bullshit political system.

Oh, wait, but that's not possible! I believe it's possible that planes could have leveled the twin towers, so I CAN'T actually hold those positions! Holy shit, nut, I think you're on to something.

 

[liveforphysics]

It doesn't really matter if the planes (or whatever hit them) made the towers fall or not.

Building 7 was an obvious demolition of a structurally sound steel frame building, complete with video of the demo-charges firing.

It wouldn't make sense to just randomly prep for demo wtc7 if you didn't know the twins were being demo'd that day.

Following the money works out with the recently 5x over insured twin towers policy and 99year lease signing under a year before.

 

[flat tire]

complete with video of the demo-charges firing.

Can I get a link? And let me guess, this video, if it exists, is "open to interpretation" or we wouldn't be still having this debate...

Let me get more in depth. These are extreme claims for someone with your "fame" to be making on a public forum like this one. But, you're an expert in datacenter power backup and some aspects of EVs. And you have a variety of hobbies and may have welded a steel frame before. You study physics and from all appearances are a bit of a wannabe polymath (that's a good thing!).

Anyway, I'm curious why a person as intelligent as yourself would consider himself qualified to evaluate something as obvious when he only has enough information to be dangerous. You don't perform controlled demolitions, you don't design or engineer skyscrapers, and you have minimal or nonexistent practical experience with all aspects of these buildings falling down. Yet, you claim building 7 falling is an "OBVIOUS" controlled demolition. Well, frankly your faith in yourself is misplaced because you CAN'T know enough to know that...

...and if you do, you're not sharing. Coming in here and dropping a couple sentences like we're idiots if we don't see it like you. That's kind of doing a disservice on a matter so important, don't you think?

 

[Punx0r]

Flat tire, I encourage you to check out the NIST reports on the collapses of the WTC 1 & 2 and 7 buildings. They're authoritative and interesting reading.

For the WTC7 video of demolition charges going off, there is only one that I'm aware of. It's a slow-motion version of news footage of the collapse with fake comedy flashes added in. It was created as a parody by someone convinced 9/11 Truthers would believe anything...and they did.

There is some original footage of the collapse with sound on the page here: https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-ae911truths-wtc7-explosive-demolition-hypothesis.t1727/

The sound isn't great, but loud enough to hear the roar as the building falls down. No explosions. Eye-witness accounts of explosions are like to be from the collapse of the internal floors.

It also debunks several other myths, like that the building fell into it's own footprint.

As for the insurance, once again there are simple, rational explanations: http://www.snopes.com/wtc-terrorism-insurance/

I.e. insurance covering acts of terrorism is a fairly standard thing to have and the payout, though large, didn't come close to covering the loss. Not much of a scam really.

This isn't new information. It's all been posted in this thread before and is in the top results for a simple good search and the answer can usually be obtained within 60 seconds of skim reading, yet people don't or won't.