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

I've always been skeptical of the official 9/11 report, and am very curious about WTC building #7. It did go straight down into its own footprint, which should give anyone pause. What made that thing fail and in that manner?

Something that bothers me as well is those who have a knee-jerk reaction to conspiracy theories by instantly claiming the theorizers are kooks, crazy, paranoid, etc.

Whether 9/11 was a government conspiracy or not, it's important to understand that real conspiracies exist and past conspiracies were proven/admitted. Some examples in which hundreds, thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of people could keep a secret:

Pearl Harbor (the Japanese conspired to attach Hawaii, and they somehow kept it a secret from the outside world. It involved thousands of Japanese military).

The Manhattan Project: We built a nuclear bomb and the information stayed contained. We even were able to get that bomb to Japan (twice) without anyone knowing.

D-Day: Tens of thousands stormed the beaches; hundreds of thousands involved in the planning. With that many people involved the Germans should have known the specific day and time, not just a general prediction of being invaded through the French coast.


In summary, don't be so quick to dismiss the various theories if they are grounded in logic, reason, and science. At least consider the evidence before rejecting a claim. Likewise, always remain skeptical as well (which is not the same as denial. Skeptics are willing to listen. Deniers are not).
 
Something else to consider is the idea of self-preservation. People will dismiss a conspiracy theory in order to maintain stability.

Let's say, for example, that 9/11 was definitely an inside job. Even with damning evidence, a lot of people would refuse to accept it for fear of economic or social collapse. Things can get ugly when people find out they are being fooled, so they often would prefer not to know.

And we're all that way to a certain degree. Think of this example: A child eats a cheeseburger and loves it. It's his favorite food. So delicious. But he doesn't know the dirty truth behind that burger. He doesn't get to witness the cow bleed to death and lose bowel control, followed by the cutting, the grinding, etc. He doesn't get to see how cheese is made and how the process is a little bit gross. In addition, he doesn't understand the natural or artificial fertilizers used to grow the lettuce and tomato.

And he doesn't want to know. Not knowing makes life a lot smoother. That is a big part of why we don't want to look behind the curtain. We want to believe that Oz is powerful and mighty.
 
For reference, this is what a tall steel building collapsing from fire looks like:
[youtube]sPGr4D1-zDI[/youtube]
 
There's interesting videos with decent facts and others with way out whack, The fact of the matter is the government is withholding information on the event the story released does not add up, Follow the money is a good one to watch, the day before american airlines had a load of bets placed against their stocks falling in the market, the banking system experiencing extremely heavy traffic, so there was more than 8 Muslims in on it there was big rich people making massive wealth from the disaster and a double insurance payout horrible dark day in humans dark history.
 
Hillhater said:
Very few buildings are constructed the same way with the same structural design and fixtures.
Few fires behave in the same manner even in similar buildings/circunstances.
Too many variables involved to draw comparisons.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point because on that day we had to near identical models stood side by side and they both fell in the same manner and near the same destruction time the only difference being from the time of impact to destruction and the point at which the towers were hit and fuel on board combustables in the buildings which led to the south tower hit second falling first.
I'm no demolition expert and even if I was one no ones has done a job as big as this so all we can do is hypothesis.
 
This is what I have discovered about the building, it was 95 % air and had lots of elevator shafts that run top to bottom split between local elevator and express that runs a long distance up the building acting like a cold air feed with lower pressure at the top of the shaft it would have quite an airflow feeding upto the fire and with the broken out floors windows and shafts it had plenty of forced air not sure on the wi ds on the day but that woukd of blown through picking up the flames, fuel burns at 1200 degree's but a forced air fire can burn much higher so the temps needed to weaken a large portion of the structure where present and the building being 95% air could not hold back the kinetic force the upper portion gained with the Initilal weakening flop of the steal.

I also know terrorist groups have multi million pound campaings so the bets against unite airlines can be explained by that but I can not explain how the us treasury announced billions of missing dollars then the next day 9/11 happens, I believe it's a very fishy incident but the building may have been brought down with a well placed hit weather they had an incline to the building being susceptible to an accelerated fire up high with cold air shafts feeding the jet fuel is another thing but the whole event is far beyond eight men.
 
Can someone explain to me why nobody who thinks about this stuff settles on the idea that the collapse of the buildings happened as popularly explained? You can have whoever you want in charge of the hijackings and the result is the same. Occam's razor is not happy with all these bespoke theories that make things really complicated and besides those planes were freaking massive and pack tons of energy when they're maxed out in a dive with engines at full throttle with full fuel tanks.
 
The towers didn't fall because they were knocked over by planes. They fell from structural failure. My observation is that fires are chaotic but​ the towers' structural failures were orderly and uniform. This tells me that fire was not the proximate cause of the structural failure. The official explanation doesn't reconcile the disorderliness of the fires with the orderliness of of both towers' collapse, and least of all the orderly collapse of the third tower which was not even struck by a plane and was of a totally different construction.
 
That seems like pretty basic stuff for all eyes on the event to overlook. If charges really brought down the buildings you'd think we'd have a more coherent, scientifically supported and mainstream accessible narrative of what happened with that instead of some extremely simplified analyses by nobody laymen.
 
I'm not saying explosive charges took down the towers, because I don't know what did it. What I do know is that no other steel building ever, anywhere in the world, collapsed so straight and compactly from fire. Yet we're expected to believe that it happened three times in the same place on the same day, for different reasons. It's too far a stretch for my engineering mind to accept.
 
+1....
 
There have been lots of fires in tall steel buildings, including structural failures due to fire. None of them fell like that, straight down and level.

The nature of the fire and fire damage to Building 7 was very different than that of Buildings 1 & 2, but it plopped neatly into its own socks just like they did. As if it had been planned that way. As if Flight 93 had been expected to make it to Building 7 in time for the big show, but didn't appear.

I don't know how they did it. But the official story doesn't explain it by a long shot.
 
Are you an engineer, Chalo? If so, how about some math? I don't buy the idea that the plane couldn't have brought the building down straight. Why couldn't they have? Both planes hit on the upper end delivering a ton of force initially and lots of fuel. And I don't understand the importance of the fire being "chaotic". It seems like there can be a lot of intense fire everywhere in the building, and even if it attacks different parts of the frame at different intensity I don't see why this matters because all that needs to happen is for the frame to lose integrity at some point. It's not necessary for it all to be heated at the exact same rate. So at some point the thing (presumably) will lose enough strength to not support the floors above. And when it does? Gravity pulls it everything from above down thru the path of the rest of the tower.
 
The columns supposedly failed because the fires' heat weakened the steel. For the columns to fail so simultaneously implies that they were heated uniformly, otherwise the collapse would have progressed starting from the hottest columns, and the buildings would not have telescoped straight down-- rather the section above the fire would have tilted over towards the columns that failed first. That's how structural collapses work everywhere else but Patriot Act Land.

You try to build a symmetrical bonfire and burn it in such a way that it telescopes straight down when it collapses. I really doubt you can do it even if you try. Then try three for three.

What about these fires suggests to you that all the structural columns would have reached the same temperature at the same time? What about the fire in Building 7 makes​ you think it would have done the same?

What did they mean when they said "pull it"?
 
We're not talking about a bonfire but a really heavy building sitting on top of a structure that's already weak. I don't see it as a big stretch that it all falls straight down without the parts heating at the same rate. Knowing nothing whatsoever about the structure of the towers, maybe some parts reach failure before others, but the others are still weak and then get overwhelmed if they're not ready to fail with their normal load.

EDIT: and watching the collapses, you can SEE that in the south tower the top does tilt and rotate while collapsing. It's not coming down eveningly. The north tower comes down pretty evenly, but you can also see a freaking gigantic fire across the entire crosssection of the building where the collapse happens.

Link me to ONE reasonable and scientific person who covers your argument in detail.
 
Plausible explanations for things are reproducible. The entire world has not yet been able to reproduce-- even once-- the kind of event​ we are expected to believe happened by chance three times in one day, in one place, when there was a political power grab poised to take advantage of it.

That's not chance at work there.
 
Maybe the buildings are secretly built with explosives already installed for eventual demolition as a way of enforcing planned obsolescence. Because nobody noticed the explosives being installed prior to 911. Now that's a conspiracy theory for you. :pancake:
 
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.
 
You conveniently ignore​ that these were three different fires, in three different buildings of two radically different designs. Yet all three of them fell in a way that no other tall steel building in the world has yet fallen, except by controlled demolition.

You are free to rule out the obvious, but I can't.
 
I read up more on this and watched some videos. You know, it makes a whole lot more sense if your "inside job" includes the planes hitting the towers basically as told and causing them to fall. Why not? You still get your conspiracy and it's a LESS complicated version of events.

Watching videos on this stuff, I feel like I'm watching Apollo Landing debunks. They all rely on "credible experts" who show you really "obvious stuff" but of course it's misleading, out of context, or just plain wrong.
 
What I here is lot of people trying to find ways to believe the official storey of how the TWO PLANES took down THREE BUILDINGS.

Struggling so hard they ignore simple physics and common sense!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TylerDurden
Ntl Geo: Helix Collapse Fails to Crush Hope for VAWT
Replies
6
Views
2,617
bigmoose
bigmoose
Back
Top