Jump to content

September 11 Evidence, Official Findings, etc.


Recommended Posts

It's not improbable you nincompoop. The buildings pancaked didn't they? And not necessarily neatly either I might add. Did you not see planes fly into the buildings at over 400 mph? Survivors inside those builds commented on how violantly those buildings swayed--some saying they thought the building was going to topple upon impact. I'm not a structural engineer but I assume that structure was compromised beyond repair at the point of impact, even if the towers had remained standing due to bent beams and twisting of the towers.


Did you not see the collapse of the buildings? They did exactly what you said was improbable. If those planes, which  by the way were wide body 767's, no small jet, had hit only the top 2 or 3 floors, I would agree that it would be more improbable to cause a complete collapse of said structure. But those planes compromised the structural integrity (fire proofing) around floor 76 (nor sure of the exact floors). Using floor 76 as the example, there was still a 34 story building above impact. That's 34 stories of steel, glass, furnture ect. Once those support columns, the ones that remained in tact, gave way, there was no way to stop the cascade with that kind of weight above it.


Look at the link:




The clips at 40 seconds, 1:10, 1:35, 3:06 among others make it clear that this was not a "neat, unform" pancake collapse. The top of the building was nearly decaptitated. Look how the top of the building appears to fall off the rest of the tower, leans over if you will, before subsequently collapsing. So I'm not really sure what your point is.


Using the word ''improbable'' makes you seem like a conspiracy theory wack job who is certain the building were brought down by dynomite verses packed jetliners. Let me guess, you also think Elvis is alive because you saw him in Vegas?


Name calling, ad hominems, appeals to emotion, non sequiturs aren't a good way to introduce your intellectual breadth but then neither is your spelling or self-defeating assumptions.  For entertainment I continue nonetheless.  The very evidence you supply demonstrates, at a minimum, the portion of the structure away from the tipping action of the south towers upper floors should have delayed the fall of material above it - if not held up altogether.  For the scenario to play out as it did, some other destructive power must be imparted on the lower floors for them to offer zero resistance.   Pulverization of the entire south tower due to the structural failure of the floors above the impact has no merit in reality nor a force diagram minus concurrently destructive forces inflicted upon the pristine levels below impact.  Frame this improbable engineering failure in the timespan of less than an hour and then again - identically - for the north tower and only the easiest of lemmings believe the "findings" of the Kean Commission and NIST.  Same is true for Building 7 of which the commission report excludes any mention whatsoever.  More glaring, however, is the symmetric free-fall of that building after suffering nothing except sporadic mid-level interior fires and superficial damage from falling tower debris.  Yet, NIST claims specifically the free-fall collapse initiates due to the failure of "column 79" causing the subsequent cascading failure of the building's remaining core structure.  A more ridiculously suspect conclusion I cannot imagine.




The guy simply can not accept the realities of what happened.






Deep Breath.





Nonenadalize clearly never took a Highschool physics.



W = ΔE

KE=1/2 mv^2


Where F=Impact force, W equals Work, E equals Energy in a system, KE is Kinetic Energy. Your homework, tonight is to estimate the mass of 10 floors. Moving, 12 feet due to gravity, and determine how much force is applied.  When you do that: Find me a construction material on this planet that can resist that kind of energy and force. 


Such a gaudy attempt at condescension.  Perhaps your vain attempt to impress non-technical folks is a rare occasion lest you undermine the reputation your more attributive posts create.  For study, consider boosting your credibility by seeking out & understanding the analyses of a multitude of structural engineers, materials scientists, actual WTC architects, etc. who offer far more detailed study and rational investigation than what the Kean Commission, NIST, or your sophomoric showing here provide. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear things up, can you state exactly what you are arguing happened? Because it sounds like you're implying someone secretly planted enough explosives somewhere in or below the buildings to destroy them and then had the planes hijacked and crashed into the buildings as a diversion. But perhaps I misunderstood.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have as much actual knowledge of the course of events on that day as any layperson has.  However, there are clear and glaring omissions from the 9/11 commission and its technical investigation (through NIST) regarding the three buildings totally destroyed as well as the events outside the NYC periphery that day and leading up to 9/11.  From my vantage point (merely as a citizen who shares in the grief and outrage against the perpetrators), the most notable is the absolute exclusion of Building 7 from the commission report and the technically incompetent and haphazardly constructed explanation for its symmetric, free-fall collapse in NIST's official report. 


After Sept. 11, a vacuum of coverage about this particular event come across the major networks as the natural diversion is to coverage of the mourning, rhetoric of the Bush Administration, and its upcoming policy responses.  Reflexively, the public accepts without pause the conclusions of the commission and NIST while the media provides absolutely no coverage of the growing body of well-credentialed scholarly & technical people whose analyses - at a minimum - call out the extraordinary items left out of these details.  This naturally leads any citizen, willing and able to think with a clear mind, to question how could the federal government leave out such important details and the media be so compliant in response. 


From an engineering failure perspective, the destruction of WTC 1,2, & 7 has no precedence.  This reason alone makes for an inextricably deserving case to investigate in far more painstaking detail:

  • the statics, dynamics, and material engineering aspects of the impact effects on the core structure
  • the impossibility of heat from fires - jet fuel or other - to weaken metal enough for absolute and total failure of the entire structure within a single hour for both towers 1 & 2
  • the improbable phenomenon of the lower, unaffected steel structure to offer any resistance to the crumbling of the upper floors
  • the multitude of video evidence and first responder testimony of secondary explosions at the base of the south tower
  • the ridiculous explanation by NIST for tower 7's destruction and the zero mention of this event in the commission report

Flag waving is a compelling social dynamic.  I'm as susceptible to such evocation as anyone (my friends can attest to this again as we're about to watch the Rockets enter the playoffs).  But if the layperson to the events of 14 years ago can rest the patriotism enough to ask questions that any novice crime scene investigator would start with, an even deeper and chilling string of questions arises that won't vacate with the passing of time.  These questions have legitimate basis in both engineering and political perspectives.  I don't assert knowledge about 9/11 I don't have - nor can other citizens rightfully defend the official reports in light of such obvious absence of thoroughness and due diligence. 





  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to clear things up, can you state exactly what you are arguing happened? Because it sounds like you're implying someone secretly planted enough explosives somewhere in or below the buildings to destroy them and then had the planes hijacked and crashed into the buildings as a diversion. But perhaps I misunderstood.


It's called a false flag operation, something that all governments of the world do.  One example, the 1993 WTC attack was carried out with the knowledge and direction of the FBI.  The FBI had an informant working with the terrorists.  When the time came to do the bomb, the original plan was to supply fake explosives, but the FBI changed things at the last minute and supplied a real bomb.  That was the bomb the terrorists used that killed 6 people, injuring over a thousand.  The FBI got away with it, imagine that.


Now, did the same sophisticated criminals in the FBI try again, for example, this time placing bombs all over the towers?  I for one wouldn't be surprise if that's what happened with what I saw on September 11.

Edited by democide
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's called a false flag operation, something that all governments of the world do.


I imagine introducing that concept elsewhere in this forum likely sets off furious & incredulous reaction among members of such a mainstream site.  Nonetheless, I stand with you in seeing US military history and foreign policy for what it is rather than what many prefer to idealize.  From the egregious conveyance to the Germans of the Lusitania's alleged cargo to Sec. McNamara's 40 year ex post facto admission that the Tonkin Gulf incident was, in fact, a manufactured scenario no amount of mainstream ridicule can extinguish the historical record.  If people can arm themselves with intellectual curiosity and objectivity, they might be able to match concept with proof.  Anybody can study how empires throughout civilization cultivate power and, in American fashion, anyone can observe the impacts of economic anxiety and indoctrination of the citizen body as it relegates itself into passive, obedient consumerism.  You might notice how someone on here actively fulfills his consigning role and happily invokes brand names in deference to the efficacy & nuances of the advertising industry.  Even as a tired cliche, the validity in 'ignorance is bliss' loses no meaning.  Life is happier within a fortifying prison of obedience & ignorance as it welcomes & comforts more folks.  As the self-assurance of the community grows so too does the natural reaction to cast aspersions on those who don't fall in line.   


Ah, Easter bunnies and time with friends & family ...happy holiday to any & all.

Edited by nonenadazilch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to nitpick....  Germany and England were at TOTAL WAR in WW1.  You cannot discount the spies working for both countries.


Oh, and the Zimmerman Telegram?  The Brits wanted needed to draw America into the war.  I wouldn't doubt they would try whatever means necessary.  But then considering the 8-20 million people who perished during that conflict...hard to make a case for the sinking of 1 ship as something akin to the US government blowing up the WTC.


Again I ask (to play devils advocate):  If the US did/was some how involved in the WTC destruction - how many people would have known something was amiss?  Hundreds certainly, possibly thousands of people.  Why then if this is the case - was there not 1 or 2 people who would come forward to the NYTimes or CNN or someone (like Snowden did for the Guardian in the UK) and whistle blow?  Even if faced with being dismembered violently there would be some guilty conscious out there that would tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to nitpick.... 


Nitpicking and advocating for the devil embody the air of Socratic dissent for which I have utmost respect.  Your many insights and thoughtful posts elsewhere on this site precede your willingness to engage here and such honorable intent makes me smile no matter how much we might disagree on particular subjects.


You're right in pointing out the error in my equating the Lusitania incident as a uniquely American false flag.  I stand corrected and my intent is to metaphorically describe the events surrounding the sinking as tantamount to pre-meditated actions governments take on its own people to manufacture policy initiatives otherwise unattainable.   The dubious Lusitania events include:

  • the British Admiralty's de-categorization from 'non-military' of the Lusitania under Cruiser Rules
  • deliberate creation of the ship's vulnerability to u-boat attack
  • the prescient conversation between Churchill's foreign minister and Pres. Wilson's adviser Edward House (a native Houstonian, coincidentally)
  • JP Morgan's monstrous profiteering as a result of US war participation, and
  • clear attempts by the British after the sinking to destroy the remnants of the ship so as to hide the intact military arsenal from public knowledge.  

I agree - the logistics of such an operation seem unfathomable..  Based on the documentation and testimony of a highly credentialed body of technical professionals, I can only conjecture the source of such precision, discipline, planning, and execution as something in the realm of a military special ops capability.  As I previously mention, just as damning against official findings is what the government itself leaves out or obfuscates in interviews and press conferences.  Video captures of these abound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say this was an inside job, and your allegations are correct. I will admit, there are some things that raise doubt. Although I don't agree let's pretend I do.

What do you think the purpose of the collaborating the whole event was? Opium trade in Afganistan? Oil in Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...