9/11 is just around the corner...

August 30, 2017 14:32

quote:Originally posted by Sam06
Having some experience with explosives my problem with this theory is When and How could "Someone" have gotten the explosives required to do that into the building? Then set it all up. Plus they would have had to know about where the planes would impact so their lines would not be cut.

I have seen steel break and it gives off light and a flash when it happens.

I really don't feel that there was any "Conspiracy" except the one carried out by the muslim terrorist's.

The main question I ask is why? That is a lot of trouble and work to go through and would have a lot of people involved that would have to be trusted to remain quite. I just don't see it happening.

There would have been better and easier ways to get America behind a war with islam.
A couple things. 1) I don't see any evidence that suggests whoever was behind it wanted to start a war with Iraq, other than the circumstantial fact we subsequently bombed the piss out of them. It may have been a motive, maybe not. No requirement that it was. 2) I have no problem with the possibility that the primary actors planting thermite and the means to trigger it were wholly aligned with those that took over the planes. Maybe (and most probably, in my mind) the same organized group was involved (i.e. not our government). To my mind the only issue is that the official report is wrong in what they reported as the mechanism for bringing down the buildings. To get into possible motive for why their report would be wrong overlooks the fact government agencies often just don't get things right without nefarious intent. 3) No one knows what sort of time line was available/planned for the event. We do know when the hijackers took pilot lessons. Perhaps that would give some clue. Problem is, it's not really being looked into because the official report denies the possibility. Assuming events happened over a long time, as I suggested above any number of folks could have gotten thermite in and placed without notice. It's really only problematic if one assumes from the outset that there was some condensed timeline for the events. It's not like folks were running up the stairs after the plane hit to plant explosives, so far as I know. At least, I see no requirement that that was the case. 4) There are such things as radio controlled detonators that would eliminate needing to know what floor was going to be hit. If we don't rule out the possibility of explosives/thermite in the first place (foolish to do, IMO, given that evidence for it found on site) then there are a lot of options open to explaining how the structure could have been brought down. It's not as if simple things like cell phones have never been used to detonate a device before. Lots of IED around the world bear this out.

Obviously, I don't have all the answers as to the how or when, but the main truck I have is the official report flat out denies certain evidence exists in order to come to their final conclusion. In some cases they don't even try to explain it away, they just say flat out things like "no explosions were heard/witnessed" "no evidence of thermite was found". Both of those things are flat out inconsistent with the body of actual, easily demonstrable, evidence. One could call them lies.

0

Don McManus

August 30, 2017 14:54

quote:Originally posted by skicat
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Most of the video available form A&E for 9/11 truth is fairly old and has been reviewed and countered. Being old does not mean it is not worthwhile to review it if you have not before.

There is a lot of speculation as to the near 'free fall acceleration' of the twin towers, and many focus upon this as something that confirms there was structural damage done to the floors below the impact levels. Free fall from 1,000 feet occurs in 7.9 seconds. The claim is made that the 9 - 11 second time approaches this speed.

Obviously the 11 second time cited for Tower 1 is not even close, as it is 39% longer than would be a free fall acceleration.

Even the 9 seconds cited for Tower 2 is 14% longer than would be a free fall time, even if we ignore the height of the rubble pile post collapse

In short, the collapse of both towers experienced significant resistance that kept them from realizing free fall acceleration.

Yes, it looks like a controlled demolition. A simple look into the design of the towers makes it fairly obvious as to why they would collapse in this manner. Once the floors began to give way, something that is evidenced by the puffs of smoke and debris exiting the windows at the beginning of the collapse, there is nothing to exert a lateral force on the buildings, so they collapse, as gravity would suggest, in a downward direction.

These folks do seem sincere, and I don't doubt that some of them are. Architects, however, are not engineers, and the citing of a EE to explain why he can't explain a structural failure does not seem to advance the conversation.

Popular Mechanics did a fairly thorough report regarding the failures, including that of WTC 7. WTC 7 is, of course, much more surprising that WTC 1 and WTC 2, but we must remember that the fire resistance of buildings is based upon the fire suppression system functioning. The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 rendered the fire suppression system in WTC 7 inoperative.

Lastly, it has often been mentioned that the building were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. While this is true, when the building designers were interviewed, they were designing for the impact of a 707 class airframe losing its way on approach to one of the local airports. The 400 knot speed of the much heavier flying fuel tanks that were the 767s created an impact force an order of magnitude higher than the original design parameters.

The two buildings held up very well considering what they were hit with and what they were design to withstand. It is a tribute to not only the designers, but to the construction methods and maintenance of them over the years.

Obviously one can draw their own conclusions, and any new evidence should be considered with an open mind. I don't see anything here that suggests a re-thinking of the official conclusion is in order.

A couple of things. The Popular Mechanics article did a fine job of debunking all of the crackpot theories and an outstanding job of ignoring every rational objection to the official conspiracy theory. There is also significant conflict of interest in the reporting as Pop Mechanics was completely carrying water for the official position.

What you said about the buildings being designed to withstand the impact of a 707 is correct but then you wandered a bit. The 707 is a slightly smaller plane than the 767's, that is true. However, 707's are faster planes and the impact energy was calculated using max speed and payload. Kinetic energy rises only with a multiple of the mass of the plane but rises with the square of the velocity. Therefore the lighter,faster 707 actually releases more of a kinetic impact than the planes which actually hit the towers. Those who imply the calculations were done using reduced figures of slowly flying lost aircraft are doing so to deliberately discredit the design of the building.

One thing I'll ask you to consider is that in order for the govts official conspiracy theory to be true, all of the evidence has to fit in the framework of a non controlled and organic collapse. Any evidence which intimates some other agency at play, besides random non symmetric fires and damage, voids ones acceptance of the govts position.

When talk goes to the heat necessary to melt steel and concrete, proponents of the official conspiracy theory will usually bring up the point that the steel didn't need to reach the melting point in order for it to collapse. That is a true statement but misleading. It ignores the fact that molten steel was observed running like lava and nobody on the official conspiracy theory side of the debate can explain where the energy to melt steel and concrete came from when relying only on the energy of plane impacts and burning hydrocarbon fuel in atmosphere.

The formation of spontaneously formed blast furnaces like Forgemonkey describes is another theory I hear touted frequently. It has the disadvantage of having zero forensic evidence to back it up.

During the interviewer I saw with one of the designers, he stated that they were designed based upon a 707 type aircraft at approach speeds as if they were approaching one of the local airfields. I did a quick look but couldn't find the interview. Granted, I am going from memory of 10+ years ago, but the statement was definitely as I reported, which would make sense as there would be no reason to expect a commercial airliner at speed at that altitude in NYC. I don't know who told you upon what the calculations were based, but the member of the design team being interviewed would have disagreed.

Molten steel is an interesting issue. The metal that was seen pouring from the buildings while they were still standing may or may not have been steel. If it were indeed steel, the blast furnace theory is much more plausible that the thermite theory, for obvious reasons. One thing to note, however, is the 'engineers' are stating that it is steel and not aluminum because of the color. There would not be pure metal pouring out from anywhere, as it would be contaminated as it flowed out of the building. An assessment based solely upon color alone is superficial and overly simplistic.

0

Don McManus

August 30, 2017 14:58

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by skicat
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Most of the video available form A&E for 9/11 truth is fairly old and has been reviewed and countered. Being old does not mean it is not worthwhile to review it if you have not before.

There is a lot of speculation as to the near 'free fall acceleration' of the twin towers, and many focus upon this as something that confirms there was structural damage done to the floors below the impact levels. Free fall from 1,000 feet occurs in 7.9 seconds. The claim is made that the 9 - 11 second time approaches this speed.

Obviously the 11 second time cited for Tower 1 is not even close, as it is 39% longer than would be a free fall acceleration.

Even the 9 seconds cited for Tower 2 is 14% longer than would be a free fall time, even if we ignore the height of the rubble pile post collapse

In short, the collapse of both towers experienced significant resistance that kept them from realizing free fall acceleration.

Yes, it looks like a controlled demolition. A simple look into the design of the towers makes it fairly obvious as to why they would collapse in this manner. Once the floors began to give way, something that is evidenced by the puffs of smoke and debris exiting the windows at the beginning of the collapse, there is nothing to exert a lateral force on the buildings, so they collapse, as gravity would suggest, in a downward direction.

These folks do seem sincere, and I don't doubt that some of them are. Architects, however, are not engineers, and the citing of a EE to explain why he can't explain a structural failure does not seem to advance the conversation.

Popular Mechanics did a fairly thorough report regarding the failures, including that of WTC 7. WTC 7 is, of course, much more surprising that WTC 1 and WTC 2, but we must remember that the fire resistance of buildings is based upon the fire suppression system functioning. The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 rendered the fire suppression system in WTC 7 inoperative.

Lastly, it has often been mentioned that the building were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. While this is true, when the building designers were interviewed, they were designing for the impact of a 707 class airframe losing its way on approach to one of the local airports. The 400 knot speed of the much heavier flying fuel tanks that were the 767s created an impact force an order of magnitude higher than the original design parameters.

The two buildings held up very well considering what they were hit with and what they were design to withstand. It is a tribute to not only the designers, but to the construction methods and maintenance of them over the years.

Obviously one can draw their own conclusions, and any new evidence should be considered with an open mind. I don't see anything here that suggests a re-thinking of the official conclusion is in order.

A couple of things. The Popular Mechanics article did a fine job of debunking all of the crackpot theories and an outstanding job of ignoring every rational objection to the official conspiracy theory. There is also significant conflict of interest in the reporting as Pop Mechanics was completely carrying water for the official position.

What you said about the buildings being designed to withstand the impact of a 707 is correct but then you wandered a bit. The 707 is a slightly smaller plane than the 767's, that is true. However, 707's are faster planes and the impact energy was calculated using max speed and payload. Kinetic energy rises only with a multiple of the mass of the plane but rises with the square of the velocity. Therefore the lighter,faster 707 actually releases more of a kinetic impact than the planes which actually hit the towers. Those who imply the calculations were done using reduced figures of slowly flying lost aircraft are doing so to deliberately discredit the design of the building.

One thing I'll ask you to consider is that in order for the govts official conspiracy theory to be true, all of the evidence has to fit in the framework of a non controlled and organic collapse. Any evidence which intimates some other agency at play, besides random non symmetric fires and damage, voids ones acceptance of the govts position.

When talk goes to the heat necessary to melt steel and concrete, proponents of the official conspiracy theory will usually bring up the point that the steel didn't need to reach the melting point in order for it to collapse. That is a true statement but misleading. It ignores the fact that molten steel was observed running like lava and nobody on the official conspiracy theory side of the debate can explain where the energy to melt steel and concrete came from when relying only on the energy of plane impacts and burning hydrocarbon fuel in atmosphere.

The formation of spontaneously formed blast furnaces like Forgemonkey describes is another theory I hear touted frequently. It has the disadvantage of having zero forensic evidence to back it up.
Not to mention the evidence that was found of thermite having been used. And of course, the problem STILL remains, that WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and no jet fuel was burning inside it.

To be clear, there is no evidence that thermite was used. The structural engineer said he didn't know how the beams would have been eroded to the extent they were absent something like thermite. Such a statement is a far cry from evidence that thermite was there.

WTC 7 had diesel fuel for its generators, and burned without fire suppression for something like 8 hours. It sustained significant damage from falling debris, and was visibly on fire during most of the day. You don't need blast furnace temperatures to weaken a structure as you well know.

0

Mr. Perfect

August 30, 2017 14:58

If you watched the video, they do in fact show that thermite residue was present, some of it micornized.
And there is ample evidence provided by analogy of steel structures where fires have run unabated for hours where the steel does in fact sag, but does not collapse the structure. No other steel structure building has collapsed due to office fires, according to the expert testimony given in the film.

http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/351-advanced-pyrotechnic-or-explosive-material-discovered-in-wtc-dust.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9ywmzewRQ&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0Uww-T68E4&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO

0

Don McManus

August 30, 2017 15:21

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
If you watched the video, they do in fact show that thermite residue was present, some of it micornized.
And there is ample evidence provided by analogy of steel structures where fires have run unabated for hours where the steel does in fact sag, but does not collapse the structure. No other steel structure building has collapsed due to office fires, according to the expert testimony given in the film.

I spent a while watching the videos, and saw a number of references to thermite, but did not see any concrete evidence presented. Perhaps I missed it. The quote from the expert was that he was unaware of any other office building collapsing from an office fire. That does not confirm that there has not been one, but even if we take his word for it, the 1,000s of gallons of diesel fuel in WTC 7, coupled with the severe damage it sustained make this much more than a simple office fire, particularly when one considers that there was no effort undertaken to extinguish the fires.

Achmed's Razor (it's the muslim equivalent) points to the official version of events. While I concede that there are things that seem to be anomalies, one always in a situation like this has to lean toward the probable at the expense of the possible.

It is possible that it may have been the biggest false flag operation in US History.

It is probable, however, that it was not.

Edit:

Is this the segment to which you are referring regarding thermite?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oVs_94VHk8&feature=youtu.be&list=PLUshF3H0xxH2FFyiA3OZnLA7WfjNxJmcO

I see where a number of people state the thermite explains this, though there is no direct evidence of thermite given.

OTOH the constituents of thermite, being a compound consisting of iron oxide and aluminum, would have been all over the site.

0

Mr. Perfect

August 30, 2017 15:32

quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
If you watched the video, they do in fact show that thermite residue was present, some of it micornized.
And there is ample evidence provided by analogy of steel structures where fires have run unabated for hours where the steel does in fact sag, but does not collapse the structure. No other steel structure building has collapsed due to office fires, according to the expert testimony given in the film.

I spent a while watching the videos, and saw a number of references to thermite, but did not see any concrete evidence presented. Perhaps I missed it. The quote from the expert was that he was unaware of any other office building collapsing from an office fire. That does not confirm that there has not been one, but even if we take his word for it, the 1,000s of gallons of diesel fuel in WTC 7, coupled with the severe damage it sustained make this much more than a simple office fire, particularly when one considers that there was no effort undertaken to extinguish the fires.

Achmed's Razor (it's the muslim equivalent) points to the official version of events. While I concede that there are things that seem to be anomalies, one always in a situation like this has to lean toward the probable at the expense of the possible.

It is possible that it may have been the biggest false flag operation in US History.

It is probable, however, that it was not.
I guess I have not seen evidence that diesel fuel was present on the floors that were burning. There may have been diesel fuel present on one of the bottom floors (your post was the first I'd heard of diesel fuel being present, but it would not surprise me if it was, but would it be on the upper floors??), but how then did that diesel fuel fire weaken steel at the upper floors?

0

skicat

August 30, 2017 16:01

I am remembering data from a decade ago as well and I remembered it in context of the calculations being conducted to handle a worst case scenario with a large jet common in that time period. Worst case would be a loaded plane traveling at max speed. Anything other than that would seem to be too arbitrary to use in serious calculations. I lifted this passage after a quick search but don't recall if it is the original source of my memory.

" The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: ?The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707?DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.? However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [GLANZ AND LIPTON, 2004, PP. 131"

As far as the molten metal discussion, the color argument is used regarding the molten metal dripping off the sides of the buildings prior to collapse. Whether it is aluminum or not is irrelevant in explaining the melted concrete and iron meteorites included in the wreckage and the enormous heat signatures measured in the basements of the 3 building where thermite is suspected. The other WTC building which were destroyed by falling wreckage and fires differed from bldgs #1,#2, and #7 where no evidence of thermite was found.

0

Don McManus

August 31, 2017 07:05

quote:Originally posted by skicat
I am remembering data from a decade ago as well and I remembered it in context of the calculations being conducted to handle a worst case scenario with a large jet common in that time period. Worst case would be a loaded plane traveling at max speed. Anything other than that would seem to be too arbitrary to use in serious calculations. I lifted this passage after a quick search but don't recall if it is the original source of my memory.

" The analysis Skilling is referring to is likely one done in early 1964, during the design phase of the towers. A three-page white paper, dated February 3, 1964, described its findings: ?The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707?DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.? However, besides this paper, no documents are known detailing how this analysis was made. [GLANZ AND LIPTON, 2004, PP. 131"

As far as the molten metal discussion, the color argument is used regarding the molten metal dripping off the sides of the buildings prior to collapse. Whether it is aluminum or not is irrelevant in explaining the melted concrete and iron meteorites included in the wreckage and the enormous heat signatures measured in the basements of the 3 building where thermite is suspected. The other WTC building which were destroyed by falling wreckage and fires differed from bldgs #1,#2, and #7 where no evidence of thermite was found.

I am unaware of any standard that suggests a design for worst case scenario. Typical design standards are for what can be reasonably expected. One thing that is important to note, of course is that a 707 at less than 1,000 feet probably has a top speed of around 300 MPH. The 630 MPH max speed is only at altitude, so the basic premise of the quoted statement is significantly flawed, which puts doubt in my mind about the remainder of the premise of 'worse cast scenario'.

Worse case scenario at the time would have been something like a fully laden B-52 in a power dive impacting at the 10th floor. Obviously this was not considered. Likewise, to achieve 600 MPH at less than 1000 feet a 707 or DC-8 (if they could even to it then) would have to be a powered dive bent upon maximum impact.

No where has anyone ever suggested the buildings were designed to withstand a deliberate, maximum impact collision by a commercial airplane. Therefore it is highly unlikely that the impossible worse case scenario quoted in your post was even considered at the time.

Edit:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/09/the_world_trade_center_work_of.html

From the link:

'With a career that spans five decades, Robertson was the lead structural engineer of the World Trade Center responsible for conceiving and executing the design and overseeing the work of engineers, draftsmen and technicians that allowed the towers to rise higher than any building before them.'

'WORST CASE

The World Trade Center project marked the first time that computer modeling was used to forecast how a structure would perform, according to Robertson, leading to more precise design specifications of materials and construction. And Robertson used this technology to confirm his structures could withstand a hit by the largest plane of the time ? a Boeing 707. (The planes that hit the towers were more fuel-laden Boeing 767s.)

Testing such a horrific hypothesis comes down to two basic conditions: removing a series of adjacent columns and floor trusses and seeing how the buildings absorb the energy of the jet. Robertson says tests revealed that if a plane was flying at approach speed when it struck one of the towers, it would remain standing.

However, the impact that a jet-fuel-accelerated fire would have on the integrity of the structures was never projected. The reason, according to Robertson: No one knew how to model such a fire.'

0

mag00

August 31, 2017 07:51

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by skicat
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Most of the video available form A&E for 9/11 truth is fairly old and has been reviewed and countered. Being old does not mean it is not worthwhile to review it if you have not before.

There is a lot of speculation as to the near 'free fall acceleration' of the twin towers, and many focus upon this as something that confirms there was structural damage done to the floors below the impact levels. Free fall from 1,000 feet occurs in 7.9 seconds. The claim is made that the 9 - 11 second time approaches this speed.

Obviously the 11 second time cited for Tower 1 is not even close, as it is 39% longer than would be a free fall acceleration.

Even the 9 seconds cited for Tower 2 is 14% longer than would be a free fall time, even if we ignore the height of the rubble pile post collapse

In short, the collapse of both towers experienced significant resistance that kept them from realizing free fall acceleration.

Yes, it looks like a controlled demolition. A simple look into the design of the towers makes it fairly obvious as to why they would collapse in this manner. Once the floors began to give way, something that is evidenced by the puffs of smoke and debris exiting the windows at the beginning of the collapse, there is nothing to exert a lateral force on the buildings, so they collapse, as gravity would suggest, in a downward direction.

These folks do seem sincere, and I don't doubt that some of them are. Architects, however, are not engineers, and the citing of a EE to explain why he can't explain a structural failure does not seem to advance the conversation.

Popular Mechanics did a fairly thorough report regarding the failures, including that of WTC 7. WTC 7 is, of course, much more surprising that WTC 1 and WTC 2, but we must remember that the fire resistance of buildings is based upon the fire suppression system functioning. The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 rendered the fire suppression system in WTC 7 inoperative.

Lastly, it has often been mentioned that the building were designed to withstand the impact of a commercial airliner. While this is true, when the building designers were interviewed, they were designing for the impact of a 707 class airframe losing its way on approach to one of the local airports. The 400 knot speed of the much heavier flying fuel tanks that were the 767s created an impact force an order of magnitude higher than the original design parameters.

The two buildings held up very well considering what they were hit with and what they were design to withstand. It is a tribute to not only the designers, but to the construction methods and maintenance of them over the years.

Obviously one can draw their own conclusions, and any new evidence should be considered with an open mind. I don't see anything here that suggests a re-thinking of the official conclusion is in order.

A couple of things. The Popular Mechanics article did a fine job of debunking all of the crackpot theories and an outstanding job of ignoring every rational objection to the official conspiracy theory. There is also significant conflict of interest in the reporting as Pop Mechanics was completely carrying water for the official position.

What you said about the buildings being designed to withstand the impact of a 707 is correct but then you wandered a bit. The 707 is a slightly smaller plane than the 767's, that is true. However, 707's are faster planes and the impact energy was calculated using max speed and payload. Kinetic energy rises only with a multiple of the mass of the plane but rises with the square of the velocity. Therefore the lighter,faster 707 actually releases more of a kinetic impact than the planes which actually hit the towers. Those who imply the calculations were done using reduced figures of slowly flying lost aircraft are doing so to deliberately discredit the design of the building.

One thing I'll ask you to consider is that in order for the govts official conspiracy theory to be true, all of the evidence has to fit in the framework of a non controlled and organic collapse. Any evidence which intimates some other agency at play, besides random non symmetric fires and damage, voids ones acceptance of the govts position.

When talk goes to the heat necessary to melt steel and concrete, proponents of the official conspiracy theory will usually bring up the point that the steel didn't need to reach the melting point in order for it to collapse. That is a true statement but misleading. It ignores the fact that molten steel was observed running like lava and nobody on the official conspiracy theory side of the debate can explain where the energy to melt steel and concrete came from when relying only on the energy of plane impacts and burning hydrocarbon fuel in atmosphere.

The formation of spontaneously formed blast furnaces like Forgemonkey describes is another theory I hear touted frequently. It has the disadvantage of having zero forensic evidence to back it up.
Not to mention the evidence that was found of thermite having been used. And of course, the problem STILL remains, that WTC 7 was not hit by a plane and no jet fuel was burning inside it.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is probably a duck. But it could be another bird in a duck costume. LOL

I brought up the plumage because the fact of one burning and smoke is significantly different than the other to the trained eye. To a casual observer, it just looks like smoke.

When I hit my grinder to steel, it has a definite pattern due to the composition of the steel. When I hit the grinder to cast iron, different. When I grind stainless yet another spark trail.

To the average joe, it is just sparks.

To the average joe, you could explain, stop motion frame and point to the difference and they still would not get it.

The video I saw profiled the different smoke clouds from different materials. I briefly looked today for the video, but did not find it readily.

Conclusion was there was no way possible that the airplane and contents of the building could have created that type of smoke.

0

mag00

August 31, 2017 07:59

It was easy to see the provided digital birth cert of obama was doctored. That was a smoke screen/diversion from the damning evidence that his father was not a citizen and thus not eligible.

Man is stripping the land and pumping goo into the atmosphere, and the blinders go on. Evidence all around, and dismissed. Any logical educated person can understand thermal activity.

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Chemotherapy is the save all.

Pit bulls are the best dog.

One fact for sure, there is no shortage of gullible idiots.

0

mag00

August 31, 2017 08:14

If you revert to rule #1, follow the money, you will see that the buildings were recently purchased for next to nothing (condition issues), then heavily insured, all within a timeline which would allow for the orchestration of the malefic plan for a big payday, with nefarious players in the bldg 7 as beneficiaries, who helped.

So now you have motive, means and forensic evidence and yet the king is wearing magnificent cloths.

The players could come right out and announce their role in the plot, and nobody would believe that our government officials could do any harm.

They did with the Obama Cert, and nobody cared of prosecuted anyone. They're still trying to get Snowden and Assange. The trail of bodies in the Hillary camp should be an indication of why the truth will not come out from the players.

0

Mr. Perfect

August 31, 2017 08:52

quote:Originally posted by mag00
If you revert to rule #1, follow the money, you will see that the buildings were recently purchased for next to nothing (condition issues), then heavily insured, all within a timeline which would allow for the orchestration of the malefic plan for a big payday, with nefarious players in the bldg 7 as beneficiaries, who helped.

So now you have motive, means and forensic evidence and yet the king is wearing magnificent cloths.

The players could come right out and announce their role in the plot, and nobody would believe that our government officials could do any harm.

They did with the Obama Cert, and nobody cared of prosecuted anyone. They're still trying to get Snowden and Assange. The trail of bodies in the Hillary camp should be an indication of why the truth will not come out from the players.
I see little to no value in linking any of this to Obama or otherwise entertaining crackpot theories. If you want to do that, I suggest you start your own thread on it.

0

iceracerx

August 31, 2017 08:57

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
If you revert to rule #1, follow the money, you will see that the buildings were recently purchased for next to nothing (condition issues), then heavily insured, all within a timeline which would allow for the orchestration of the malefic plan for a big payday, with nefarious players in the bldg 7 as beneficiaries, who helped.

So now you have motive, means and forensic evidence and yet the king is wearing magnificent cloths.

The players could come right out and announce their role in the plot, and nobody would believe that our government officials could do any harm.

They did with the Obama Cert, and nobody cared of prosecuted anyone. They're still trying to get Snowden and Assange. The trail of bodies in the Hillary camp should be an indication of why the truth will not come out from the players.
I see little to no value in linking any of this to Obama or otherwise entertaining crackpot theories. If you want to do that, I suggest you start your own thread on it.

Heavy flow day Alice?

0

Mr. Perfect

August 31, 2017 09:26

quote:Originally posted by iceracerx
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
If you revert to rule #1, follow the money, you will see that the buildings were recently purchased for next to nothing (condition issues), then heavily insured, all within a timeline which would allow for the orchestration of the malefic plan for a big payday, with nefarious players in the bldg 7 as beneficiaries, who helped.

So now you have motive, means and forensic evidence and yet the king is wearing magnificent cloths.

The players could come right out and announce their role in the plot, and nobody would believe that our government officials could do any harm.

They did with the Obama Cert, and nobody cared of prosecuted anyone. They're still trying to get Snowden and Assange. The trail of bodies in the Hillary camp should be an indication of why the truth will not come out from the players.
I see little to no value in linking any of this to Obama or otherwise entertaining crackpot theories. If you want to do that, I suggest you start your own thread on it.

Heavy flow day Alice?
Not Alice and not a heavy flow day. Projecting, are you?

0

Don McManus

August 31, 2017 10:38

quote:Originally posted by mag00
If you revert to rule #1, follow the money, you will see that the buildings were recently purchased for next to nothing (condition issues), then heavily insured, all within a timeline which would allow for the orchestration of the malefic plan for a big payday, with nefarious players in the bldg 7 as beneficiaries, who helped.

So now you have motive, means and forensic evidence and yet the king is wearing magnificent cloths.

The players could come right out and announce their role in the plot, and nobody would believe that our government officials could do any harm.

They did with the Obama Cert, and nobody cared of prosecuted anyone. They're still trying to get Snowden and Assange. The trail of bodies in the Hillary camp should be an indication of why the truth will not come out from the players.

A lease was signed in June of 2001 and the lease holders contracted with an insurance company to cover the buildings. 'Heavily insured' is a ridiculous statement in that the insurance company agreed to the insured value.

Would you expect there to not be insurance on the property?

How did you establish that the value was nefariously arrived at, thus the accusatory 'heavily insured' comment?

Are you one of the folks that suggests that because terrorism was not excluded when the policy was signed, those that entered into the contract a most likely complicit in the attack?

Yes, by all means follow the money.

Silverstein and others signed a lease in June of 2001.

Silverstein and others contracted for insurance on the buildings soon thereafter.

On 11 September, 2001, the buildings were attacked and collapsed.

Silverstein and others collected based upon the insurance contract they signed.

Sounds like a smoking gun to me.

0

mag00

August 31, 2017 15:04

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
If you revert to rule #1, follow the money, you will see that the buildings were recently purchased for next to nothing (condition issues), then heavily insured, all within a timeline which would allow for the orchestration of the malefic plan for a big payday, with nefarious players in the bldg 7 as beneficiaries, who helped.

So now you have motive, means and forensic evidence and yet the king is wearing magnificent cloths.

The players could come right out and announce their role in the plot, and nobody would believe that our government officials could do any harm.

They did with the Obama Cert, and nobody cared of prosecuted anyone. They're still trying to get Snowden and Assange. The trail of bodies in the Hillary camp should be an indication of why the truth will not come out from the players.
I see little to no value in linking any of this to Obama or otherwise entertaining crackpot theories. If you want to do that, I suggest you start your own thread on it.

No thank you, you are the King of Troll topics, kindof like the red pill one.

I thought you and others might find the information interesting. [;)]

0

Mr. Perfect

August 31, 2017 15:18

quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
If you revert to rule #1, follow the money, you will see that the buildings were recently purchased for next to nothing (condition issues), then heavily insured, all within a timeline which would allow for the orchestration of the malefic plan for a big payday, with nefarious players in the bldg 7 as beneficiaries, who helped.

So now you have motive, means and forensic evidence and yet the king is wearing magnificent cloths.

The players could come right out and announce their role in the plot, and nobody would believe that our government officials could do any harm.

They did with the Obama Cert, and nobody cared of prosecuted anyone. They're still trying to get Snowden and Assange. The trail of bodies in the Hillary camp should be an indication of why the truth will not come out from the players.
I see little to no value in linking any of this to Obama or otherwise entertaining crackpot theories. If you want to do that, I suggest you start your own thread on it.

No thank you, you are the King of Troll topics, kindof like the red pill one.

I thought you and others might find the information interesting. [;)]
[?][?][?] Literally no trolling by me either here or there.

0

mag00

September 01, 2017 16:36

quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
If you revert to rule #1, follow the money, you will see that the buildings were recently purchased for next to nothing (condition issues), then heavily insured, all within a timeline which would allow for the orchestration of the malefic plan for a big payday, with nefarious players in the bldg 7 as beneficiaries, who helped.

So now you have motive, means and forensic evidence and yet the king is wearing magnificent cloths.

The players could come right out and announce their role in the plot, and nobody would believe that our government officials could do any harm.

They did with the Obama Cert, and nobody cared of prosecuted anyone. They're still trying to get Snowden and Assange. The trail of bodies in the Hillary camp should be an indication of why the truth will not come out from the players.
I see little to no value in linking any of this to Obama or otherwise entertaining crackpot theories. If you want to do that, I suggest you start your own thread on it.

No thank you, you are the King of Troll topics, kindof like the red pill one.

I thought you and others might find the information interesting. [;)]
[?][?][?] Literally no trolling by me either here or there.

So did you research the plumes of smoke? Just now on the news, they are showing the chemical plants burning, and that is yet another smoke plume unique to the propellant.

0

serf

September 02, 2017 08:04

quote:Originally posted by roswellnative
There were no explosives other than 300 tons of airliner the terrorists used.

Plane crashes into building. Fuel is sprayed all over the interior. Ignites, burns very hot. The building was designed for vertical forces. Not lateral or super hot forces.

Anybody that thinks there were Gmen that put explosives in the portion of the building that the planes would hit just baffles me. [:(]
ros

What baffles me is how they completely ignored all the intelligence from numerous sources of a jet plane ramming buildings after The Muslims already blew up a Truck at The Trade Center Building in 1993!

Pure stupidity or pure evil genius either way I don't trust my leaders here in America. People who believe in the government and are your benefactor and cares are just a stupid as our leaders are!

You even reelected George Bush jr. Again! What a joke the blind sheple are here In The USA!

serf

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1

It was not the only signal FBI headquarters missed. Just weeks later, agents in Minnesota told headquarters of the arrest of suspected terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui at a flight school in St. Paul, suggesting he might be planning to hijack a plane and crash it into the World Trade Center.

FBI field agents wanted to search his computer but they were unable to get the authorization.

No one was able to put the two warnings ? Moussaoui and Phoenix ? together in the fateful weeks before Sept. 11.

0

Mr. Perfect

September 05, 2017 08:12

quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by mag00
If you revert to rule #1, follow the money, you will see that the buildings were recently purchased for next to nothing (condition issues), then heavily insured, all within a timeline which would allow for the orchestration of the malefic plan for a big payday, with nefarious players in the bldg 7 as beneficiaries, who helped.

So now you have motive, means and forensic evidence and yet the king is wearing magnificent cloths.

The players could come right out and announce their role in the plot, and nobody would believe that our government officials could do any harm.

They did with the Obama Cert, and nobody cared of prosecuted anyone. They're still trying to get Snowden and Assange. The trail of bodies in the Hillary camp should be an indication of why the truth will not come out from the players.
I see little to no value in linking any of this to Obama or otherwise entertaining crackpot theories. If you want to do that, I suggest you start your own thread on it.

No thank you, you are the King of Troll topics, kindof like the red pill one.

I thought you and others might find the information interesting. [;)]
[?][?][?] Literally no trolling by me either here or there.

So did you research the plumes of smoke? Just now on the news, they are showing the chemical plants burning, and that is yet another smoke plume unique to the propellant.
No. I have not.

0

droptop

September 06, 2017 03:08

Concerning the Houston (Crosby) fires, controlled burn off. Basically a small plant and no big deal unless fumes are deadly.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/arkema-chemical-plant-harvey-controlled-burn-crosby-texas/

0

spasmcreek

September 08, 2017 13:03

the buildings came dowm...3000some died..and it seems to me we played patty cake politics with the real financiers and movers behind this and still are..when a massive overwhelming response should have obliterated the all the enemy....soon after...imho

0

Waco Waltz

October 20, 2017 02:39

No one here seems to know that a floor was out of service for three week prior to the attack and no one knows who the contractor was or what they were doing up there. Same situation existed in the OK city Federal Building and in both cases the feds had no interest in talking the the witnesses of the work crews seen.

As for Det cord, don't assume. For all we know new methods were used we are not privy to the existence of.

0

wifetrained

October 22, 2017 01:10

So much time has passed that we'll probably never get the actual truth or answers to all the questions. That said I'll leave my 2 cents here.

Having an aviation background I have long suspected the official storyline as much of it made little sense. Yes planes hit two of the buildings but lets look a little deeper here. The towers were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 class aircraft, so the buildings were designed to take a lateral impact. The 767 is slightly larger but we'll say it's roughly in the same class. Don points out an approach speed impact as a design point.

Now while the 767 is a large aircraft it's, for the most part, hollow as are most commercial aircraft meant to carry passengers, freight, or some combination there of. The fuel is carried in the center section of the wings and the area in the fuselage between the wings (the center tanks). Fore and aft of the wings fuel tanks are the leading and trailing edge flaps, spoilers/deflectors, aileron's, all the accompanying wiring, mechanic's, and plumbing associated with them and the main landing gear and gear bay areas which are more centrally located inboard of the engine nacelles. So when I read about people stating the plane was "FULL" of jet fuel....well it's not as much as many think relative to the total size of the aircraft.

Unless an aircraft is on a transoceanic flight they usually carry only enough fuel to complete their scheduled flight plus a reserve in the event of a problem. So how much fuel was actually left on board when impact occurred. Most of which went up in the fireball and a fair amount was thrown clear of the building due to inertia. Pretty obvious when looking at any of the videos.

Any remaining fuel would burn up quickly leaving only normal office combustibles left to feed any remaining fires. So an aircraft which is roughly 1/1000th the mass of the building with a remaining fuel load that was much much smaller, say 1/6-7000th the mass of the building, was somehow sufficient to bring down the towers. Throw in engine oil and hydraulic fluid, which is in a vastly smaller quantity, and I simply don't see enough remaining fuel to sustain fires hot enough to cause a total structural failure as seen when the collapse occurred.

And lets remember that the damage to either building was not symmetrical but the collapse pretty much was.

Buildings 4 and 5 in the trade center complex were totally consumed by fire and only one, #5 I believe, suffered a partial collapse and that was due to falling debris from the towers. Building 7 was only hit with some debris, the resulting fires were initially considered minor but you hear various stories such as all 47 floors were on fire, the fires were pretty much out, the building was in imminent danger of collapse, it was fine, in the end it collapsed within hours of the towers. And it collapsed, it appears, from the center out in what many feel was a classic controlled demolition. Anyone remember seeing the BBC media's live broadcast about the demise of building 7 when said building could be seen intact in the background??!!?? There are various explanations for that discrepancy but who knows where the truth resides.

What's the statistical probability of having 3 skyscapers collapsing within their own footprints within hours, one of which wasn't even impacted by anything other than some debris?

The Pentagon is even more problematic as it's probably the most surveiled building on the planet yet only 1 very short video has ever been released and I can't see a Cessna hitting the building let alone a Boeing 757 airliner. It's obvious something hit the building and exploded...but what? Remember to keep in mind the size of the aircraft in relation to that side of the building. If I can see a TOW missile fly to it's target(roughly 650-720 MPH, less than 5 feet long) 1000 meters downrange with my Mk 1 eyeballs I should be able to see a plane as large as a 757 (over 150 feet long) travelling at around 300 knots in the video. The explosion doesn't look right considering a fairly large airliner supposedly hit the building at around 300 knots. And where's the structural debris consistent with a 757 aircraft, where are the longeron's, main and intermediate wing spars, engine nacelles, struts, drag braces, actuators, and the tail? The impact footprint looks way too small for a 757.

Simply put, we are told to believe that a number of the terrorists barely trained to fly a Cessna pulled off the biggest terror attack in world history. In the end we only know what we are told, what's allowed to be released and that's pretty much it in a nutshell. We just don't have all the answers and after 16 years probably never will. My simplistic 2 cents FWIW.

0

9/11 is just around the corner...

Comments

Recent Activity

Didn’t find what you’re looking for?