and dozens of people heard timed explosions from inside the towers before they collapsed but i guess we pick and chose which witnesses we want to believe.

Dozens out of how many thousands?

"winning"? there's nothing to "win", it's already been won and the mission was a success. if a group of american terrorists went to another country and attacked it, would that country go to war with us over the attack?

Ofcourse there are explosions after a huge fucking plane flies into a huge fucking building.

dozens that were interviewed. no one knows for sure what others heard or saw. none of us were there so we just have to go by evidence.

if a dirty cop committed a crime and he was in charge of the investigation, how do you think the crime scene would look?

Look, a piece of the landing gear INSIDE the Pentagon. But hey, to the truther that is NOT important. This is "just a theory" and can be ignored. This is no evidence whatsoever. This does not mean a plane flew into the Pentagon. The fact that the Pentagon didn't release a video of a plane hitting the building however IS evidence that a missile was used.

http://www.rense.com/general32/landinggear002.jpg

Makes total sense in the fucked up fantasy world of the truther.

really? timed explosions?

oddly enough it was just like a demo job.

looks exactly like a demo job + sounds exactly like a demo job = no way it can be a demo job?

they also found the passports of the terrorists in the tower debris. how about that compelling evidence! maybe they should start covering buildings with passport material to keep them from burning.

hold onto that evidence but haul away all the steel and melt it down as quickly as possible.

Yes. Huge segments flew laterally away from the building at speeds that could only be accounted for by an external agent, such as an explosive.

Those movements cannot be accounted for by gravitationally driven, "organic" collapse.

There was plenty pluming out from a distance. Nothing that could be accounted for by a gravity-collapse.

Under the microscope, WTC dust was highly detailed evidence of incendiaries.

A gravity-driven collapse, or "pancake" collapse, does not produce a "cloud" or dust on the level of the WTC destructions.

You're correct. A controlled demolition produces powdered, obliterated debris in cloud like formations because of the external agents such as explosives and incendiaries used to bring the building down. An "organic", gravity-driven collapse will not to such an extent...

I'm acknowledging scientifically validated evidence and don't care for uncorroborated theories in this case - I don't have a "versin" of what happened. The government version/s simply don't carry any evidentiary weight for their theory to be considered .

Uh, vertical descent is y-axis movement.

The videos show a building imploding due to external agents removing the paths of most resistance from the vertical movement of the undamaged segments above the damaged segments down into and through the majority of the undamaged building.

You say to "imagine yourself closer to the explosion" when in fact you subscribe to the "organic collapse" theory indicating there were no explosions or external, incendiary or explosive influences on the buildings' falls.

Be consistent?

:D

These planes aren't built to go this fast at these altitudes. The speed factor obviously shouldn't be dismissed, but the 9/11 Commission version goes against basic physics and Boeing specs on engine performance at sea-level...

It does when they're the only ones pronouncing themselves on the matter, and the remainder of the pilot community keeps their mouths shut because of career-fear.

The problem is that GPS data hasn't been released. The ground radar lost each plane at crucial points in their bizarre trajectories.

And the speeds were never confirmed by the FAA or any agency because they could not corroborate the government story.

It's irrelevant - whether they were travelling at 300mph or 600mph, the damage at this point would be similar, and the buildings were designed to take it.

Based on projections and design, a lot more than 7 to 15% (worst case scenario).

No, oscillation was built-in to prevent building shattering.

Projections would not include "melting of steal [sic] beams" because airline fuel could not cause that particular occurrence, as has been proven in countless skyscraper fires, including a major WTC fire in 1996, and the fact that the steel is used exactly because normal fires cannot affect the beams. The WTC fires, 2011 and 1996, were considered "normal fires".

Steel has been used for thousands of years. The Industrial revolution, which started in the 1700s, eventually introduced steel frame construction for buildings whose main advantage above the obvious solidity and stability was its resistance to fire.

Building built in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and into the present day and age have been always built with airliner crashes considered, using science as a way to simulate a plane crash. The same science that informs "computer aided design" - which in no way provides advantages in technical and forensic forecasts.

The damage and resistance "due to fire" was absolutely considered by Underwriters Laboratories before they approved the steel, using science established for centuries and never, until 9/11, contradicted in any way. Computer simulations are much more fallible than science, as the NIST simulations could prove if they weren't kept classified to "protect national security".

Projections at the time were based in science as they have been for at least 200 years and were in no way "good guesses".

At which floor?

And was it enough to disrupt the molecular structure of every beam on every floor above and below the impacts to completely compromise their integrity? Please...

"D

Because in 2001, it wasn't common to video cameras everywhere like they do now. When they did, they were inside focused on theft and rarely outside. Security at the Pentagon wasn't too concerned about security on the outside, but instead security on the inside.

What's the big deal about releasing video from local stores? Chances are nothing at all. All of these businesses were most likely far enough away from the Pentagon that they didn't show much at all. But rest assured, the truthers will find something like a flash of light and call it proof that it wasn't a plane, but a missile.

If you want to see the video that badly, why hot request it under the freedom of information act? That's how they released the Pentagon video, which showed nothing of interest to anyone.

And all of those cameras were pointed up at the sky watching airplanes, right?

And why does this come as a surprise to anyone? Your talking about a building that was a city into itself, a city of fifty thousand people. These buildings had their power supplies, back up generators, and hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil in the event it needed to generate it's own power. Fireballs traveled down elevator shafts from the point of impact all the way to the basement. Of course there was explosions - there was a huge fire.

How many millions of pieces of paper survived the impact and the fire? Seems to me like entire sheets of paper were falling out from the debris.

As for the steel and most of the debris that had little importance, what are we supposed do with it? Store it for the next forty years? What do you think they do with airplanes after crashes? They spread them out in a big warehouse, try to piece together what happened, and then.... They get rid of it. Once the investigation is done that's that. They don't store the debris for the next forty years.

Of course it makes a difference. But the difference here is not 600%.

The difference between the actual probable speed and the reported speed of the airliners is a niggle, not really pertinent, just further evidence of the self-evident and admitted fallacies of the 9/11 Commission report...

Ok, now you're being ridiculous. There is a very huge window of qualification for even Cessna pilots, let alone commercial jet pilots...

SOME of the steel was damaged and/or compromised. This was accounted for.

You're referring to degrees celsius, which is not the same at all. 800 celsius is 1472 ºF. Read the NIST report. Non of the temps got that high for more than a few seconds, IF they did...

Please point out the divergencies? The government (ie. NIST) claims that super-heating somehow caused support columns to expand rather than weaken/soften in the case of WTC7, but that softening/weakening caused these supports to pull in the external supports in the case of the towers...

Either way, they couldn't and didn't account for the differences in reported temperatures, actual temperatures, and the subsequent collapse. They simply did not report on that.

Most of it was NOT sent off to various agencies. Only certain authorized representatives from certain authorized agencies were allowed to look at the debris. Most of the debris was not authorized to be removed for investigation. Read up on this.

Please provide your sources for this? In fact, the buildings were in every way designed to withstand not just such impacts but multiple impacts of the sort, and especially the fires...

The planes they used in their projections were larger and/or heavier than the planes that actually hit the WTC - because less aluminum and more steel was used in those at the time. You can't even find sources for that useless and false claim...

Again, these are scientists and scientists use centigrade, not Fahrenheit, for their science.

Review your considerations....

:D

This was the strongest, recently renovated section of the Pentagon.

The plane didn't slice through anything.

According to official reports, the soft, hollow aluminum tip of the plane's nose punched through this re-inforced section, and the rest of the plane somehow folded itself into a 16-foot diameter entry hole to vaporize most of its contents against all expectations.

It did not destroy "an entire section of one ring" at all.

I have no idea what did this or how a regular aluminum airliner did this. I just don't buy the Pentagon bullshit.

:D

There are/were gas stations, hotels and convenience stores. They all had cameras. The employees of the Holiday Inn who saw the video were apparently speechless, and warned by the FBI to STFU about what they saw before the agency appropriated all the recordings - of all the commerces around the Pentagon...

:D

Anyone can fly an airplane without any training at all. It's just a difference between a car and an 18 wheeler - both have gas (throttle) and a steering wheel (stick). Once you learn how to drive a car, you can drive an 18 wheeler.

It's not much different with an airplane. Anyone can do it:
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-04-13/u...plane?_s=PM:US

And it's not like these guys didn't have flight training? They had months worth.

This is not true. The Pentagon and other government buildings, as well as commercial places such as the local Holiday Inn, all had cameras, and perimeter cams pointed outside the establishments. Why would the FBI care to confiscate them all otherwise?

Again, many and most of these commercial establishments like gas stations were Pentagon-only employee spots.

Each had out-pointing cameras.

Each had their recordings confiscated - within fifteen minutes of the impact.

The FOIA requests for these videos didn't produce any results. The Pentagon released their five-frame parking-entrance glimpse after pressure from the public.

Nope. They were pointed inward for obvious security reasons and outward to the Pentagon for further security reasons.

The fireballs that supposedly travelled down the elevator shafts have not been accredited with any damage to the ground lobby.

Regardless, even if they didn't just damage the sky-lobbies, and made it to the basement, they wouldn't have the force to compromise the basement supports.

Only after the collapse began. Before this there's no realistic consideration as to why flammable materials from inside the aircraft could have survived the impact fuel explosion.

Since they did not conduct forensic investigations in the cases of the WTC buildings and crashes, they would have to keep the evidence (from a scene which was qualified by the FBI as a crime scene) for as long as it was required...

:D

According to trained, experienced pilots, the maneuvers were extraordinary, not possible with commercial airliners, though *possible* with jet fighters, and even at that with highly trained and experienced pilots.

According to all accounts, none of the pilots had any ability or experience - this from their instructors at the Florida flight schools where they "trained".

ONE of the supposed hijackers was an ex-military trained pilot. And he was supposedly not at the controls, though how they determined that is up to their magical crystal ball that determined any of the hijackers were aboard any of the flights in the first place...

:D

There really wasn't anything in the ground lobby - it was really just a vast open space. Maybe a few minor things caught fire, but that was either quickly burned out or put out. While it was enough to burn people, it was nothing but granite and windows.

But being as fireball traveled down to the ground level, it must have hit the basement levels too. Everything under the sun was in the basement. Air conditioning transformers, entire power plants, tens of thousands of gallons of oil....

This is stupid. It's well documented that the terrorists had flight training. Some of them at military bases.

It's not nearly as difficult as people play it out to be. I've got no training, and I've flown an airplane....

It's well documented that they were registered and attempted flight training, however they were not accredited or given any sort of compiance or license because they were terrible pilots...

:D

A fireball is not an explosive event, even if it did make it to the bottom of the shaft it wouldn't have the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces, let alone the walls and columns in the basement...

:D

Just because you fail to get your driver's license doesn't mean you can't drive a car.

It's not difficult at all.

A fireball is in fact an explosive event. It's a fucking exploding ball of fire.

I never said it had the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces. It didn't. But it did in fact destroy elevator doors.

I didn't say anything about walls or columns in the basement. However, a fireball would do a huge amount of damage to an air conditioning unit, transformer, generator, and tens of thousands of gallons of oil located in the basement.

You already know the fireball traveled all the way down to the lobby and lower levels; This is documented. If you can't see the damage that can be done in the lower levels by a fireball of this size, well, your retarded.

Well the performance reports of all these flight school trainees was that they could barely pilot a Cessna off the ground, in the air, or back...

This is where you're wrong. The air pressure requirements and factors with an explosion aren't the same as a ball of gas igniting.

I never said it had the force to rip off massive marble wall pieces. It didn't. But it did in fact destroy elevator doors.

Scorched air conditioning units wouldn't destroy the foundations of the buildings or even blow off marble wall tiles in the lobbies...

Actually, the fireballs are not documented as you say. Their existence is conjectured because of the people who were burned by them. But the explosive consequences like the blown off marble wall tiles cannot be accounted by the fireballs alone...

:D

They didn't need to land or take off. Any jackass can hold a stick and turn a plane left or right. I did it with about thirty seconds of instruction.

The entire building was pressurized. You launch a fireball into that environment, and it's going to be a party.

So your saying that shooting flame at transformers and tends of thousands of gallons of oil won't cause further explosions?

And no one is saying anything about marble walls and titles except for you.

So people getting burned by fireballs is not proof of a fireball. It's proof that they magically got burned for no reason at all.

Good one.

it's an interesting topic but pointless to argue, much like religion. you either believe one story or the other. those who believe it was an inside job are labelled as "paranoid freaks" and those who believe it was an actual terrorist attack are labelled as "blind sheep". in either case, the government was counting on us and we didn't let them down.

i bet the reports would be considerably different if the exact same attack happened in Iraq and they blamed it on american terrorists.

Just because there were no cameras around to capture the event in detail doesn't mean there is any kind of conspiracy. Don't forget that this event happened over 10 years ago now. Today cameras are truly everywhere, but back then people were still screaming about invasion of privacy and "big brother".

btw: Today, "Big Brother" is us.

You just dismissed.

And of course it would.


Of course they would. Anyone would. The fact that anyone would call the maneuvers extraordinary is itself, not extraordinary. This too should be removed from your list of arguments.

No, they testify to the speed and direction of the plane which was my argument. Are you seriously bringing into question whether or not they were flown by remote control now? Not only is that idea a little ridiculous but it also deflects from the point. Don't argue a point by bringing in another argument.


No, not at all. It needs "Enough" heat for a "Long enough" period of time. "Control" is a misleading statement. Remove "control" from your narrative.


The fires need not have reached 2500F. All they had to do was burn hot enough and long enough to either weaken the steal beams or the weakest points of the structure would were most probably the points at where the floors were attached to the beams and building.

Also don't forget that The FEMA report also determined that thinning of the steel had occurred by the severe high-temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation, that heating of the steel in a hot corrosive environment at temperatures approaching 1,000 °C (1,800 °F) resulted in the formation of a eutectic mixture of iron, oxygen, and sulfur that liquefied the steel, and that this sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel.[73] The FEMA report concluded that the severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the steel columns examined were "very unusual events" and that there was "no clear explanation" for the source of the sulfur found.[74]

Same to you my friend..!

No. A strange as it is to believe, the energy in the plane crash and explosions was nothing compared to the energy released during the collapse.

I'm not saying anything like that at all. I don't know who was responsible for it all. I'm only saying that WTC was not brought down by demolition. I didn't see anything else on TV about it so I can't comment on it. I can enjoy the stories and different points of view. The only thing I saw was what was shown to us on TV, and the images of the collapse do not look like a demolition.

WT7 Looks like a demolition at first, but with a little extra digging its easy to see that it is not a demo.





No. Faith in common sense and basic science.

I know where you are going with this, but it leads to a dead end. It's easy to distrust government, but its not easy to distrust science. I'm no scientist, but you know from when we were kids that science is my hobby (so is astro physics btw). I'm no architect, no engineer, no nothing. But neither are you. I can only base my opinions on common sense, and a little bit of science 101. I have never seen or read anything that contradicts anything I have seen to date.

Lots of people believe in ghosts, religion, astrology, UFO's, etc. I do not. Whenever I ask for proof of any of these things nothing plausible is ever offered. Same goes for the "controlled demolition of wtc".



NooooOOoOoo... that is you doing that, Greggy-poo....

the pentagon wasn't the smoking gun...tower 7 was. i was just surprised that there wasn't more camera angles of the pentagon. who would consider that a good target anyway? if it's really that well constructed then it wasn't a good target for casualties. if symbolism was the purpose then the statue of liberty would have been a better target.

tower 7! i feel like i'm taking crazy pills when people dispute the collapse of tower 7. like i mentioned earlier, if this same attack happened in Iraq and they blamed american terrorist, you would hear from every swinging dick engineer that it was a textbook demo job. when you look at other demo jobs compared to tower 7, they are exactly the same. THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME!

yet, people somehow convince themselves that it was a reasonable conclusion to building damage. a building can collapse into it's own foot print yet not one building code was changed.

That's just it... they aren't exactly the same. They LOOK similar, granted, but when you look closer there are all kinds of differences.

Since they look similar, its EASY to say that it was a controlled demolition, until you realize about all the explosives it would have taken...all the secrecy that would have been involved... all the people it would have taken to do it, and how it would have gone unnoticed.

Some bozo somewhere said that WTC was built with explosions already built into the building(s). Silly.

Can't we all agree that if there is an alternate truth that hasn't come out by now it never will, or won't for decades, no matter how much it is discussed on the internet?

It's been almost 11 years.

Yet real pilots and professionals will tell you that hitting the Pentagon for example the way it was is an almost magical feat, possible only by insanely talented and experienced pilots...

Once that pressurized environment is compromised by a huge hole made by a large airplane, your argument is neutered.

Nothing of the sort of reported.

This requires further reading on your part. Focus on the testimony by the firefighters who set up their control stations in the lobbies.

Who said there wasn't a or multiple fireballs?

Explosions from the basements that would take out parts of the lobby make more sense than fireballs zooming down from 100 stories up.

:D

Anyone can crash a fucking airplane into a building. Anyone.

Not at all.

You continue to assume this was a regular building and a regular fire. Even after the impact, most the building was still airtight. On the floors where the air tight seal was broken, it wasn't a fire, but a fire storm. You had air under pressure trying to escape, and air from the wind trying to get in.

Really? Your telling me that there was explosions in the basement, and now your telling me nothing was reported? Which was it?

Your telling us that there was explosions in the basement, and I'm telling you that fireballs rushed down to the basement and set only god knows what on fire. AGAIN your assuming that this is "just a building" and now "just a basement" without understanding that the basement of the WTC was less of a basement and more of a city that included a power plant, back up generators, transforms, HVAC equiptment, tens of thousands of gallons of oil, a subway station, and shopping center.

The only person saying anything about taking out parts of the lobby is YOU. The windows were broken, and some minor damage was done, but it was used as a command center by the fire department when this went down.

First off, I apologize to Mark because many of my "replies" were actually to Rochard, and I was copy-pasting the wrong quote tag (probably because my notepad was stuffed or something and I just didn't notice):

BUT since Mark and Rochard follow the same belief-line, the responses are or would be the same....

I didn't claim that there is a conspiracy "because there were no cameras around".

The FBI has officially claimed they seized over 80 video recordings of the crash into the Pentagon... why not release them?

I dismiss the argument between maximum ground/airspeed because it basically serves to obfuscate the real issue.

[QUOTE=**********;18937027]Of course they would. Anyone would. The fact that anyone would call the maneuvers extraordinary is itself, not extraordinary. This too should be removed from your list of arguments. [/qoute]

Please explain your rationale? The fact that experienced professional pilots say they couldn't nor do they know any others with the ability to fly this way should not be discounted from the discussion at all.

I have no intention of bringing a "remote control" conspiracy theory into any argument as it would not be grounded in any factual data.

There's no reason to remove the idea of controlled temperature management from the argument since that is the only way you can have steel first soften/weaken and then fail - over time and temperature.

If you flash your steel with 2500 farenheit heat for ten minutes then reduce the heat to half or a quarter of this, and then bring it back up, and then back down, you will not get the same result.

The WTC fires weren't controlled thus regulated to furnish constant enough temps to allow steel the time to weaken, let alone succumb completely from any load bearing functions...

Right. And they weren't hot enough long enough to neither weaken or completely compromise the steel of any of the buildings.

I removed that pesky [74] from your copy-paste... :)

The fact that a eutectic steel reaction was reported by FEMA is probably one of the reasons it was taken off the investigation.

The data you report attests to metal/heat reactions that can only be caused by nanothermite, or thermate, which was denied by NIST.

Which in scientific reality means that the collapse cannot be the result of normal, gravity imposed influence. You contradict yourself, my friend...

You see, this is where objective and empirical observation diverge. How can one look at WTC7 and say it was NOT demolition, standard and classic?

The two towers were so alike, and symmetrical, and complete in their "collapses" how can anyone say it was "organic" ?

Really? And where did you do this "little extra digging"? Popular Mechanics and their already debunked repetition of the government's own repudiated "explanation"?

Hah! again "common sense" - you certainly did not apply any "science" to your evaluation, except those principles which forgive your beliefs.

That you've seen nothing that contradicts your belief in the official story of 9/11, God, Buddah, or Allah is regardless.

The fact is that buildings do not come down like the 9/11 buildings did, organically or in non-controlled "accidental" fashion.

You're kidding me. You don't believe in ghosts etc... but you believe the shit that is provided by the government for the collosal destruction of the WTC without any proof or validation whatsoever?!? Dude, you need a reality check.

Lolz...

Sorry sir Gregory but I've seen all the same videos that you have. The destruction at WTC doesn't look like a demolition and even if it did, there's alot more proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire, and no credible evidence that it was demolished. The "evidence" that has been presented is so far fetched, it falls off my own personal "common sense" table.

Your continued assertion is repudiated by experienced pilots. These are no video games. The assault on the Pentagon was targetted and precise.

Thus if floors were "airtight" as you claim and as the post-1996 fire refections would indicate, none of your claims could be accurate.

What was reported by the 9/11 commision and what was reported by non-government outlets are completely different.

Again, the explosions in the basement were unreported by your 9/11 Commission.

There were also no diesel or secondary explosive events reported by ANY of the asociated nad secondary "investigative" bodies.

Your city is in your imagination. What happened to it was as well...

I am NOT the "only person saying anything about" the effects on the lobby. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b25_1252615916

You are the only one un-informed enough to be claiming the opposite.

Goto http://www.historycommons.org/projec...ct=911_project and inform yourself. That is not a conspiracy website, btw...

:D