CONTINUATION

Despite public belief, the building did in fact collapse with sudden onset of free-fall (18 visible stories in 3.9s), there were no stages. A better explanation is provided below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=4536

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/07/11/video-analysis-of-nists-claim-of-a-5-4-s-collapse-time-over-18-stories-for-wtc-7/

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=207&MMN_position=616:616

There was also a loud explosion that occured right before the penthouse collapse. That explosion cannot possibly be from any structure "snapping" or "failing" because you would hear in that same video the rest of the building collapse as well, which you do not. If you cannot hear the entire building collapse then that explosion couldn't possibly be from a column failing.

In contrast with the WTC7 building, here you can see the other buildings that were hit with exponentially bigger forces (hit directly by the towers' debris), some which under larger fires and did not globally collapse:

WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, Deutsche bank building

And here are buildings that suffered extreme office fires and did not turn into a pile of ruble:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html

To end this list I would like to make a question which isn't meant to seek an answer but purely to make you ponder:

If you weren't aware of which buildings collapsed that day; Which one of these two buildings turned into a pile of ruble: WTC5 or WTC7?

^{PS: For any debunker that tries to answer/debunk the question even though I clearly stated that I am not looking for an answer but to make people ponder:}

^{Remember that NIST has already stated that the structural damage was irrelevant and that the building would still have collapsed without any damage:http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/21ubl5/people_trying_to_debunk_911/cggtw3u.}

^{The argument of pointing out how much smoke there was on the other side is also irrelevant for 1 reason: smoke is not fire. For both pictures I only show the actual fires in both buildings and not the smoke coming out from either one.}

Wow that Chandler video is incredibly damning. Has nist responded to it?

Not that I am aware of.

Sorry, which is the Chandler video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=4536

Spank you!

i also recommend this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA#t=88

Uh huh.

That user is known for disregarding logic and common sense in his attempts to derail discussions, his comment history and that same comment you replied is evidence of this in which he implies that Chandler is wrong because the collapse time was far longer while completely ignoring that Chandler's measurements are related to only the top 18 stories, the same measurement that NIST did.

Just wanted you to know that it will be a waste of time with that person.

Thanks. I BTC'ed you some gold for the way you handled some shilly billy earlier. Nice work. Great post.

So it was you, thank you for that. I don't know what it does but I really appreciated it, means the world to me that at least someone enjoyed something I said to the point of spending money with me.

For people in the audience of a comment section, I'm finding confident, rational, and intelligent people will win in a comment section. I watched what you did and that's what this world needs. Worth every penny.

Even a majority of the people that watched it disliked this video. People are smarter than you it seems.

why doesnt chandler time the entire collapse, and why dies he lie about what NIST measured?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA#t=88

why doesnt chandler time the entire collapse

He does and he addresses it in the video linked by actually showing when the collapse started. You can't just use one angle like NIST did.

why dies he lie about what NIST measured?

I don't know what you are referring to.

Carefull with that user, the one thing he does not use in his discussions is reasoning, just as evidence of this you clearly saw that he completely ignores the fact that Chandler times the collapse of the visible 18 stories just like NIST did and accuses him of lying because somehow the visible 18 stories = entire collapse from start to finish.

There's a highway right in front of the pentagon. The plane would have flown right over it. On a busy weekday morning. Do you really think that a missile could have been used, considering the number of witnesses? I'm sure somebody would have come forward and said that they didn't see a plane.

Rocket/missile-like smoke: Strongly resembles the smoke produced by missiles/rockets and might explain why Pentagon personel stated that they noticed the smell of cordite

In no place have I stated that it was a missile, only that it is very similar to the smoke produced by rocket fueled projectiles.

In contrast with the WTC7 building, here you can see the other buildings that were hit with exponentially bigger forces (hit directly by the towers' debris), some which under larger fires and did not globally collapse:

WTC3[5] , WTC4[6] , WTC5[7] , WTC6[8] , Deutsche bank building [9]

They may not have "globally collapsed", but they were all completely destroyed by it.

Also, your WTC4 link appears to be broken.

Great post!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA#t=88

Take your NWO propoganda and shove it up your ass. Like those people couldn't be bribed to lie on camera.

With regards to the WTC collapse, you state that under half (33% and ~16%) of the floors cause the remaining floors to collapse and that this is an impossibility. This is the bit of your post I have trouble with

You seem to be forgetting that the floors collapsed in a cascade fashion rather than simultaneously. For a cascade to happen, I would suggest that only one floor needs to fail.

For example, imagine a column that is 100 levels tall. Each level weighs a metric tonne and is a metre high.

Now imagine that the structural integrity of level 80 is compromised. In an instant, there is a mass 21 tonnes (21000 kg) in free fall. After falling for 1m, this mass impacts onto level 79 with a kinetic energy of 205800J. Not all energy is conserved as it will be converted into heat which will affect the integrity of level 79 and the end result is the failure of level 79 pretty quickly.

We now have a mass of 22 tonnes falling and impacting level 78. Even if we imagine the mass had come to a complete top and a freefall of only 1m occurs, 78 would encounter an impact producing 215600J. However, I would imagine that levels 79 to 100 would not stop completely freefalling and so the energy would be higher. Again, some energy will be converted into heat, affect level 78 and fall again. Repeat until levels 2-80 have failed

By the time levels 2-100 have collapsed, even if they only impacted level 1 as if they freefell 1m, the energy produced would be 1455300J. Once floor 1 collapses, levels 2-99 are still falling. Once the mass of levels 2-80 is at ground level, levels 81-100 would the give way due to the shockwave going back up through the tower.

I have not looked into your other claims and I don't want to get into a slanging match about it. I just wanted to postulate a theory as to why tall buildings could collapse at near freefall speed when only 1 level is compromised. In the WTC collapse, looking at the TV images, it would appear that the structural integrity of multiple floors was compromised so the collapse was only a matter of time

It has been already ruled out that the pancake hypotesis (the cascade you mention) was not possible because it did not present the same result as all pancake collapses do, it also fails to account for the destruction of the core columns and fails to account for the already mentioned:

"A problem with this collapse is that despite the fact that the top section fell vertically and almost symetrically, it can be clearly identified a concentrated destruction almost as fast as the debris fall occuring on the right face of the building.

You are also implying that the debris of the destroyed floors are able to destroy even more structurally intact floors and at an accelerated rate than the intact structure was capable at the beginning.

You have also used hypotetic values without any math behind it as means to prove your point while completely ignoring wether the building was capable of withstanding the mass of 21tonnes that free-fall for 1m. For example:

Here you have an entire building that was demolished half of its height and despite falling for far more than 1m it still did not turn into a pile of rubble https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSbzAu47AsQ

Here you have another building that was pre-weakened for demolition purposes and fell 2 stories, did not turn into a pile of rubble https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc&t=183

This is the problem with imagined mathematics as means to prove a point: unless they are factual then they are not relevant as they will most of the times induce in error/be flawed in the core.

Also, the math has been done already and it has been concluded that even if one floor collapsed it would not progress further, let alone the entire depth of the building. Something that NIST never did but only said that "Global collapse was inevitable" without any mathematics proving such claim.

The study is mentioned in this lecture, I am sorry but I don't have the time to seek the correct moment as it is discussed but it is from this moment forwards in which it is also addressed the issues with the bazant theory and related conflicts: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=1715

EDIT: Here it is www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf and www.911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf

It has been already ruled out that the pancake hypotesis (the cascade you mention) was not possible because it did not present the same result as all pancake collapses do[1] , it also fails to account for the destruction of the core columns and fails to account for the already mentioned:

Giving a link to an image that just says "Pancake collapse" as proof of what all pancake collapses look like this is not evidence. Give a link to research and reports about pancake collapses and this might hold more weight. As such I think I can safely ignore this

"A problem with this collapse is that despite the fact that the top section fell vertically and almost symetrically, it can be clearly identified a concentrated destruction almost as fast as the debris fall occuring on the right face of the building[2]

You are assuming that for a building to collapse it must fall straight down. I would suggest playing Jenga and checking whether any blocks end up in the opposite direction to the falling direction

You have also used hypotetic values without any math behind it as means to prove your point while completely ignoring wether the building was capable of withstanding the mass of 21tonnes that free-fall for 1m.

No mathematics behind it? It's the energy equation:

Potential Energy (Joules) = Mass (kg) x Acceleration (m/s²⁾ x Height (m)

And of course it's hypothetical - it's an example. That's what "For example" means. I chose simple values so that you could do the maths yourself. There are plenty of examples on the web where you can plug your own values in

I'm not a physicist but even I know that a falling body will exert energy onto anything it impacts. Considering the towers just had a big metal tube filled with a flammable liquid fly into them at a few hundred mph then I would suspect that the structural integrity was compromised of all floors surrounding said impact. Also, what about the flame retardant covering on the trusses? That was missing on many of the recovered trusses due to it being blown on by the explosion. Any fire (and I do seem to remember there being a few flames) would have affected the trusses. Therefore, less energy would be required to collapse the floors

As I said, I don't want to get into a slanging match over this. You can believe whatever you want regarding the collapse of the towers. However, you seem to have made your mind up and are unwilling to accept that anyone else having a differing opinion to you may have a point. It smacks of "La la la! I can't hear you!"

And, with that, adios. I can't be bothered to waste anymore of my time on this

PS - a link to a YouTube video of a lecture hosted by a student group affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth does not nothing to further your argument when Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth came out with this earth shattering evidence

You are assuming that for a building to collapse it must fall straight down. I would suggest playing Jenga and checking whether any blocks end up in the opposite direction to the falling direction

You are not understanding the obvious: The top is falling down almost symetrically, yet there is a wave of destruction ahead of the top and going almost as fast as the debris falling focused on one side only. It is not possible for it to be caused by the top because the top couldn't have reached so far and so fast especially just on one side when it was collapsing on all sides equally.

As I said, I don't want to get into a slanging match over this. You can believe whatever you want regarding the collapse of the towers. However, you seem to have made your mind up and are unwilling to accept that anyone else having a differing opinion to you may have a point. It smacks of "La la la! I can't hear you!"

And, with that, adios. I can't be bothered to waste anymore of my time on this

I have provided two studies showing that the top section of the building did not have enough energy to collapse the rest, I have also explained why your imagined mathematic example is flawed and provided examples corroborating this, I have also provided one of many images that exemplifies what a pancake collapse looks like and you are also ignoring the fact that NIST themselves rejected the priorly defended pancake collapse and changed it to a simple sagging trusses induced collapse.

If you feel that you wasted your time by ignoring every counter-point I made that disproved and refuted your logic then perhaps you shouldn't have started it and so uninformed in the first place.

OK. Last time on this

You are assuming that for a building to collapse it must fall straight down. I would suggest playing Jenga and checking whether any blocks end up in the opposite direction to the falling direction

You are not understanding the obvious: The top is falling down almost symetrically, yet there is a wave of destruction ahead of the top and going almost as fast as the debris falling focused on one side only. It is not possible for it to be caused by the top because the top couldn't have reached so far and so fast especially just on one side when it was collapsing on all sides equally.

And you are not understanding the pretty obvious thing about this building collapse - who said that the floors failed in numerical order? The energy from the collapsing floors would have been transmitted through the entire building causing other structural failures. Also, you have a lot of air being pushed sideways thus pushing debris to the side.

...I have also explained why your imagined mathematic example is flawed and provided examples corroborating this...

No you haven't. You have provided a couple of videos of controlled demolitions that went wrong. If you can prove that my imagined mathematic example is flawed then I suspect we would need to re-write the energy equations and you'd be up for a Nobel Prize for Physics. As such, you're taking a hypothetical example, ignoring the accepted method for calculating potential energy and saying "Nope. It doesn't work like that" because it doesn't fit with your way of thinking. You show me your working out as to why my maths is wrong and I'll accept it. However, I'm not willing to be disproved with videos and a yar-boo-sucks attitude

...I have also provided one of many images that exemplifies what a pancake collapse looks like

And, again, an image is not proof. I've just done a quick search for images of pancake collapses and you're quite right - they do all look similar to the one you posted earlier. However, in every one of those images, the building in question is, at most, 10 stories high and, thus, will have a lower mass crushing lower floors.

I don't remember seeing a building the size of WTC collapsing after being hit with a (recently) fuelled plane before so all the images you speak of are a moot point.

If you feel that you wasted your time by ignoring every counter-point I made that disproved and refuted your logic then perhaps you shouldn't have started it and so uninformed in the first place.

You've not refuted a single thing. You've picked out convenient images, ignored energy equations when they suit you and said "Look at me! I can prove it all but the shills aren't letting me! Sheeple need to wake up to this because I know I am right!" when, in reality, you've proved nothing. You've cobbled together videos and reports that suit your agenda and you've dug in for the long haul. It's a shame - I sspect if you put as much effort into your life as you have getting all these links together then you'd have a whale of a time and realise that you can't do a damn thing about anything you are not directly involved with

I notice you didn't comment on the amazing example given by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Ha. And you thought my maths was flawed. Their example is worse than the one I saw with paper trays

Like I said before, you are free to believe in whatever you want to believe and ignore everything that is convenient for you to ignore.

So far I am not the one that has resorted to uncorroborated denial arguments, use of unwarranted extreme mocking tone to prove my points - for example:

"It smacks of "La la la! I can't hear you!""

and

" and said "Look at me! I can prove it all but the shills aren't letting me! Sheeple need to wake up to this because I know I am right!" when, in reality, you've proved nothing."

And attempt at changing subject multiple times with an argument that is itself irrelevant seen that the points are literally independent of who adresses them - aka ad hominem attempted attacks:

"PS - a link to a YouTube video of a lecture hosted by a student group affiliated with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth does not nothing to further your argument when Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth came out with this earth shattering evidence"

and

"I notice you didn't comment on the amazing example given by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Ha. And you thought my maths was flawed. Their example is worse than the one I saw with paper trays"

Your comment history, on the other hand, shows that you derailing this discussion was something to be expected (but I still gave you the benefit of the doubt) seen that so far every other member of the certain sub that you are part of conducts these discussions int the same way you just did.

For that reason, and after giving you an opportunity to prove different from all the others from that sub but failing to do so, I will not continue with this discussion any longer.

Well done.

Like I said before, you are free to believe in whatever you want to believe and ignore everything that is convenient for you to ignore.

Ditto

So far I am not the one that has resorted to uncorroborated denial arguments, use of unwarranted extreme mocking tone to prove my points - for example:

"It smacks of "La la la! I can't hear you!""

and

" and said "Look at me! I can prove it all but the shills aren't letting me! Sheeple need to wake up to this because I know I am right!" when, in reality, you've proved nothing."

I was commenting on your apparent inability to accept that there may be another point of view

Your comment history, on the other hand, shows that you derailing this discussion was something to be expected

What comments are those then? The one about David Icke's list of paedophiles, satanists etc? I think you may have missed the attempt at humour there. Or was it the comments on this very sub where I was discussing the pros and cons of taking photographs from a window after being told to stay away from them by armed personnel? I thought I had a fairly valid argument there against someone, who, again, failed to accept a different point of view.

I've not bothered to look at your comment history as it's not relevant to this discussion. I couldn't care less what sub-reddits you subscribe to or what comments you have made elsewhere as the discussion is taking place here, on this one. The fact that you looked at mine would suggest to me that you were looking for a reason not to discuss this any further and it looks like you found it. I wonder what would you have done if I had no comment history. Claim that I was a sleeper account to go against 9/11 theories? New account? That I'd created this account specifically to have a go at you? What if I had a huge comment history but this was my first on this sub? Wonder aloud why I all of a sudden piped up and accused me of being a shill after orders from above?

...seen that so far every other member of the certain sub that you are part of conducts these discussions int the same way you just did.

Actually, I think you'll find that they are a lot more abusive and snarky. I will listen to both sides of an argument (hence I follow this and the other one). In this instance, I was merely putting forward a possible explanation.

Just because I follow a sub that is the antithesis of this one doesn't mean that I can't enter into discussion here. If you're trying to say that I can't then, surely, that's a strike against the right to free speech which, I believe, is something this sub takes very seriously. It also means that I would be denied hearing alternatives to the accepted norm. I'm not trying to belittle your beliefs but I am merely positing that there may be an explanation for how the buildings collapsed as they did.

Either way, I hope you find what you look for. If you're right about all this then good for you. However, I suspect that even if a full, independently commissioned enquiry finds that the official version is the real version, then you still won't accept their findings because it doesn't suit your agenda that you have worked so hard towards

Tootle-pip

you still won't accept their findings because it doesn't suit your agenda that you have worked so hard towards

Ah yes.... the truther "agenda": To make no money and be criticized by an ignorant public. To spread "lies" and "deception" for no real reason at all, just for the lulz. What a noble & worthwhile agenda to work so hard towards...

I see people throw out this accusation all the time - that truthers have an "agenda". Yet, I've never seen anyone back that claim up with any reasonable explanation of just what that "agenda" might be. It's always the same general, vague accusation.

All I see when someone throws out the "agenda" accusation, is someone who actually means to say: "I'm really butthurt that you believe something which I neither believe nor understand, so you must have some sort of sinister agenda".

It's pathetic, really.

Certainly the U.S. government had no agenda on 9/11.... you know, even though the event led us into 2 lengthy & costly wars (costly to us, the taxpayer, but extremely profitable for the government/war contractors/petroleum industry/etc). Even though it led to the passage of the PATRIOT Act and all kinds of new legislation, and has served as the justification for the creation of new bureaucracies such as DHS & TSA, and paved the way for agencies like the NSA to unconstitutionally spy on the entire globe. Surely that wasn't all part of an agenda...

No sir! It's the truther that has the agenda! The agenda to gain absolutely nothing and to be labeled a "tin-foil hat wearing nutter".

Makes total sense...

What's on the agenda for today, boys?? I made $0 yesterday exploiting the "truth movement" for personal gain, and was ridiculed on four separate occasions... I think today I'll aim for double that!!

Meanwhile, over a decade later, corporations like Halliburton are still raking in millions of dollars in profit from the wars that their ex-CEO helped launch while holding the office of Vice President.

But it's the truthers who have the obvious "agenda". Obviously. /s

OK. For "agenda" substitute "opinion" and you'll get what I mean.

Personally, I am not "butt hurt" (as you so delicately put it) that someone has a different opinion to me as life is too short to worry about crap like that.

NIST has already stated that the buildings did NOT suffer from a pancake collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHng42BpHDc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Checkmate.

A lot of what you're sayinbg seems to make sense, but I still don't see how a pancake collapse could accelerate, especially near freefall speed. It seems to me that it would slow down as the floors met, and that by the end we'd have a fairly slow collapse with the floors layered on top of eachother. I'm also having trouble understanding how the acceleration would be so constant. Shouldn't there be stutters or stages in the collapse if the floors keep colliding?

Does anyone have a video of a pancake collapse?

You points were well presented and reinforced, great post, but I'm afraid we'll never find the full truth behind what happened that day, if the US government and intelligence agencies continue to withhold information of course.

This needs to be on reddit frontpage 24/7. Then preferably re-printed by reader's digest.

Has anyone ever theorized that the buildings were rigged to explode but done so by the terrorists?

it's a valid question but after looking into it the wtc had very high security protocols that seemed to be lax or reduced in the preceding weeks. the people in charge of said security were of questionable political leanings, often zionists and ex cia with connections to the bush whitehouse. then there are the vans that were stopped on the day which were found to have a wtc contract under a mosad front called urban moving systems. one of them was stopped near the george washington bridge full of explosives. then the media seemed to just forget about it and not even the 9/11 commission followed up on this highly suspicious activity.

check out core of corruption and war by deception for further detail.

The intense and continuous cover-up done by the government entities and even the MSM are a strong indicator that the ones that were involved in the attack are from the USA and from high places as well.

Another gold metal post by GayUnicorn. Great work.

Oh wow, thanks once again!

Thank you.

Here is some simple numbers for everyone to bite into and fact check me if you want, tempered glass melts at 1328 degrees( if a building like WTC1,2,7 etc is exposed to great amounts of heat, the glass melts and releases the heat. So its very simple idea that hot fires will ventiliate a building on its own except for the concrete and steel. Steel does lose its strength by about 50 percent at 1200 degrees but even then it's engineered load is 1/3rd to 1/2 of what it is actually carrying. Then you have structural steel which actually melts at 2650-2850 degrees. It can be seen pouring out of the towers on that day. The shills will shout but but but the jet fuel. Maximum jet egts are 1800's and that is with a jet engine ramped up at full speed. Did anyone notice all the jet engines that at full speed go well above natural atmospheric conditions parked at every structural support? I didn't. The amazing part is that there have not been enough people together to cause an outrage and protest to demand that these war criminals in office were brought to justice.

Awesome post - I can't imagine that many people who've actually looked into the facts of 9/11 can come away with a conclusion other than the official story is laughably absurd.

I saw someone on a thread yesterday invoke Occam's Razer to support the official story.

-------------------------SOUTH TOWER--------------------------------
The section above the airplane impact zone tilted and then fell >vertically, violating Newton's First Law of Motion in which a body in >motion (rotation in this case) tends to stay in motion unless acted on by >an outside force. In this case this was the expected movement of the >top if it was simply collapsing.

About the initial rotation of the tilted part : there is no apparent violation of the first law the air drag could stops the rotation(or at least slow down in theory).

About the initial rotation of the tilted part : there is no apparent violation of the first law the air drag could stops the rotation(or at least slow down in theory).

If the air had enough strenght to stop the multi-ton top section rotation then that same rotation wouldn't even be possible in the first place. I also clearly posted a video showing the same exact situation and what it should have happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcQOODryBDw

If you truly believe in what you wrote I strongly suggest that you study physics, especially the Newton's laws, with more attention.

thanks for the link!
first i want to say that i also think that there is something wrong with the collapse and the official version.

in your video the tower rotate because of the structure weaking in the thiner part
the structure below bend and break there is a linear and rotation motion
the bigger rotation happen when the tower touch the ground then the linear motion transform in rotation

If the air had enough strenght to stop the multi-ton top section rotation then that same rotation wouldn't even be possible in the first place.

air drag depend on the surface.... but my point was there is no apparent violation (it is a strong word )
If you have study science in general you should always be wary about your statement (history...)

in your video the tower rotate because of the structure weaking in the thiner part

the structure below bend and break there is a linear and rotation motion

the bigger rotation happen when the tower touch the ground then the linear motion transform in rotation

Anyone can clearly see in the video that the top section rotates all the way from start to end, there is no linear motion. The top rotates on top of the background structurally intact supports towards the section that provides no resistance, once it reaches the ground level it still continues rotating until it loses the energy acquired before touching the ground.

This is physics, this is what should have happened with the WTC and this top didn't stop in the slightest by air and it is far smaller than the WTC top.

air drag depend on the surface.... but my point was there is no apparent violation (it is a strong word ) If you have study science in general you should always be wary about your statement (history...)

The same can also be said about religious beliefs, if you truly believe in something then anything can be possible, that is why - between you and me - I am the only one that presented evidence proving my claims.

Nice collection of info, thank you.

Excellent summary of a lot of important points. It just confounds me how people can be so asleep as to be lulled into any part of the official story...a story which rightfully should be referred to as the biggest "conspiracy theory" ever.

Great shit. Lets get this stickied for a while

Barry Jennings mystery. RIP Mr Jennings.

http://youtu.be/nO9Tsigk5fc?t=1m47s

My own 9/11 theory:

Everything happened as MSM puports, with the exception of the people who organised and radicalised the hijackers. Instead of it being OBL and his buddies, it was actors/agents working for an intelligence agency setting up the hijackers and OBL as fall guys. This then cuts out all arguements about the events of the day itself and focuses instead on those who made out like bandits in the aftermath.

This then cuts out all arguements about the events of the day

There's much much more BS to the MSM story than that. One glaring example you didn't mention: the real reasons Bldg 7 fell? Is Lucky Larry and his boys members of your "intelligence agency" that hired the saudi highjackers?

My point was that you don't need to endlessly debate the minutiae of the day when the accepted/unargued facts indicate a conspiracy in themselves.

9/10 - D Rumsfeld announces $2,300,000,000,000 black hole in pentagon budget and an accompanying investigation.

9/11 - Budget dept. hit by "plane" budget back-ups held in WTC building (can't remember which one)

After 9/11 - The wars, oli piplines, mining rights, opium crops, domestic "security" contracts, patriot act and on and on.

My point is that you don't even need to argue about the mechanics of the day, that it might in fact be a waste of time, you can let people believe the official story and still make compelling arguements which point to a conspiracy.

Personaly if find the offical version ludicrous, WTC7 was the smoking gun for me.

Yeah. They really beat around the bush with building 7. No pun intended.

9/10 - D Rumsfeld announces $2,300,000,000,000 black hole in pentagon budget and an accompanying investigation.

He'd been announcing it for some time actually.

Ok, but i'm pretty sure he spoke on the subject in a press conference on 9/10. You're not arguing the ammount or its context in regards to the plot, why so pedantic?

it's what he does

You'll be glad to know virtually all of that money has since been accounted for.

"accounted for"

Well maybe they illegally used that money to make more money and then put the money back, when they had enriched themselves, bought time to cover their embezzelment so to speak?

Edit - $2.3 trillion in 2001 would now be worth about $3.2 trillion, adjusted for inflation. So if you pinched $2.3 trillion in '01 and replaced it in '14 (was probably returned earlier this is just anecdotal and maybe the return was adjusted itself) you could net yourself $900,000,000 in theory.

blah blah by rabbi dov zakheim of pnac and spc remote piloting tech

buzz off shit fly

Because the implication made by many people is that "Oh, look what just happened to occur the next day" gets made all the time, when this was actually just one of several times he had brought up this subject.

And he wasn't just announcing it - he was laying into those guys for not doing auditing correctly, and having too many incompatible computing systems.

The fact he was berating them for their inefficency could easily be a "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" kind of behaviour?

I see what you mean about "Oh, look what just happened to occur the next day" kind of talk, but it was still missing and it was the budget office bit that was hit by a "plane" flown by a novice a 500mph in a 270 degree 8000ft (maybe 5000ft i can't remember) dive hitting the side of a target only 77ft tall.

Well, it was never missing. They just did the equivalent of not keeping the receipts for what they'd spent it on.

The Ground Effect will let you fly a plane a few feet from the ground without it being as difficult as you might think. In fact landing a plane would be a lot more difficult without it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29

The point my first comment in this thread attempted to make (but admittedly got lost on the way) was that none of this was actualy important, the conspiracy itself could have been isolated to the perpertrators of the radicalisation of the hijackers in the first place and you could then accept the rest of the offical narrative.

I said this because of exactly what you are doing, diverting the disscusion away from the profiteers and benificiaries and into esoteric disscussions about things like ground effect and endless arguments about NIST models ect.

If you are not a shill or some guy who gets his kicks from antagonising people you should read into the nature of denial and attempt to take an objective view of your beliefs and the reasons you argue for the offical story so hard, with this in mind.

diverting the disscusion away from the profiteers and benificiaries

Because it's not the be all and end all of the discussion. Just because someone is a beneficiary from an event, it doesn't automatically follow that they orchestrated it.

Politicians are nothing but opportunists for any situation they can use to bolster their own support.

You can't tell me that for every politician who speaks about some tragedy, no matter how earnestly, that there isn't a tiny part in their heart that says says "I can exploit this."

I'm done with you and don't flatter yourself by believe your it's your logic trumping my paranoia, arguing with a pedant like you is tiring and pointless.

What about the steadily descending spiral turn? Does the ground effect help that as well? I got your ground effect swinging, buddy.

FFS, I addressed one part of it that is often challenged as being the most seemingly difficult part. You can't refute the ground effect part by the way - it's a very reasonable explanation for that part, unless you want to go against all that aerodynamic information.

Put a plane into a circular path and reduce power to the engines, and you'll get a steadily descending spiral turn thanks to gravity, a force frequently ignored by theorists for that day, I notice.

It seems there's a definite push to make all the plane manoeuvres as inhumanly difficult as possible for some reason, to the extent that some of you don't even seem to believe they were possible.

I suppose that aspect of the proposed explanation for the plan falls apart otherwise, so I can understand your defensiveness.

9/10 - D Rumsfeld announces $2,300,000,000,000 black hole in pentagon budget and an accompanying investigation.

um you do realise he was talking about money that was 'unaccounted' NOT missing.

if you dont understand the difference you shouldnt be discussing it

[deleted]

Thanks, he's either earning his wage or wasting his time.

Cooking the books? Accounting fraud? A vast ammount of money like that is a very useful tool if wielded correctly, theoreticaly you could use it to make more money then put it back and fudge the books. If i believe the government and corporate interests are willing to murder thousands and start several wars and terrorise most of the world (which i do) in a secret coup, accounting fraud is not much of a leap.

If you lack the immagination to understand that you might not be the font of all knowledge maybe you shouldn't disscus anything.

There must be some commitee organized to attack these threads. Every single time 9/11 hits the front page. The propagandists come out of the woodwork.

Having 4 members of that other certain sub trying to spam and derail the thread with logical fallacies and willful ignorance doesn't help either. I wouldn't be surprised if there is a certain group composed of those members that organize in private subs or irc and commit themselves to brigading and ruining threads here.

EDIT: 5 now. They just keep coming.

I'm guessing you're lumping me in with the "4 members" you mention

I was not trying to derail this thread. I was giving an opinion (my opinion) as to the way the towers could pancake along with very basic energy calculations based on a hypothetical structure. You dismissed my example as having "no math behind it" but offered no explanation for this. The math is the potential energy equation - P=mgh - and with the hypothetical structure I gave the maths is easy.

Also, you gave a single image as proof of what "all pancake collapses do" when all the images I found of pancake collapses involve much smaller buildings

I was discussing a single item that I thought I could offer an alternative view to. If this is not to your liking then fine but don't say that something is wrong without backing it up.

And, finally, I can subscribe to any damn sub I want to. Just because I subscribe to one that you don't like does not give you carte blanche to dismiss my comments as spam. I've finally just checked your submission history and I can see that you posted to "that other certain sub" 5 months ago and have commented on posts lots of times there in the past month or two. Am I to think that, because you commented there, you're a member of that sub? No, of course not. But why not? You've dismissed me because of a few humourous comments but you're fine. How's that work then eh?

I was not trying to derail this thread. I was giving an opinion (my opinion) as to the way the towers could pancake along with very basic energy calculations based on a hypothetical structure. You dismissed my example as having "no math behind it" but offered no explanation for this. The math is the potential energy equation - P=mgh - and with the hypothetical structure I gave the maths is easy.

You are comitted to repeat the same error again. We all know the pontential energy equation very well, what you failed to show was that your values were realistic/factual and possible according to the capabilities of the building being discussed.

I have told you that it is wrong to use imagined numbers and I have showed why your logic is fallacious by showing 2 buildings disproving your logic behind the imagined values.

Something that even you have admitted to have done "probably" incorrectly in a later comment:

"I wasn't trying to change Unicorn's mind, just trying to give a different opinion as to how the towers could have collapsed (albeit with some well intentioned but probably dodgy maths)."

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/23r7f8/911_official_version_of_events_a_pure_work_of/ch037bl

So far you have provided nothing that proves your point.

I have also said that the top did not have enough energy to continue collapsing, which I also provided the studies corroborating my claim:

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/23r7f8/911_official_version_of_events_a_pure_work_of/cgzss1c

And again, for the second time, I used one image of an example of how pancake collapses look like, if you feel that it is not a good representation then you should have provided an image of confirmed pancake collapse that looks nothing like the one I used. Instead you chose to just deny without corroboration, exactly like a religious person does (or creationist).

As I said in the other comment; I have provided the facts and studies corroborating my claims that disprove yours, you have failed to provide any for yours and you continue ignoring that fact while trying to maintain your logic fallacy.

And, finally, I can subscribe to any damn sub I want to. Just because I subscribe to one that you don't like does not give you carte blanche to dismiss my comments as spam. I've finally just checked your submission history and I can see that you posted to "that other certain sub" 5 months ago and have commented on posts lots of times there in the past month or two. Am I to think that, because you commented there, you're a member of that sub? No, of course not. But why not? You've dismissed me because of a few humourous comments but you're fine. How's that work then eh?

There's a big difference between commenting on that sub and being part of that sub. I clearly said:

"Your comment history, on the other hand, shows that you derailing this discussion was something to be expected (but I still gave you the benefit of the doubt) seen that so far every other member of the certain sub that you are part of conducts these discussions int the same way you just did."

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/23r7f8/911_official_version_of_events_a_pure_work_of/cgzuqfe

You use logic fallacies, you use unnecessary mocking tone (childish arguments) to prove your points, you also make claims non-stop without ever providing anything to corroborate them, you deny everything without presenting a valid justification and you insist on trying to derail multiple discussions throughout this entire thread.

You are literally proving for a second time what I mentioned before: "you derailing this discussion was something to be expected"

Your opinion becomes useless if you cannot provide corroboration, especially when it is refuted with claims provided with facts and evidence. The fact that you continue insisting on your already refuted opinion shows that you are not interested in any reasonable discussion and that you are in fact interested in doing exactly what I said in the other comment: "spam and derail the thread with logical fallacies and willful ignorance".

This is the second time that I am forced to show you your own mistakes and I would appreciate it if you would stop wasting my and others' time with your biased monologue that is so typical in the members of that other sub that you are part of.

...Far too much repetition to go through.

Your comment history, on the other hand, shows that you derailing this discussion was something to be expected

What part of my comment history shows I derail discussion? Which sub? I've checked my history and there's nothing there which hints at derailment. Are you sure you're not looking at someone else?

Also, derailment suggests that there was a discussion already in progress. WRONG! I wrote the first comment on this discussion. You can't derail something that hadn't even started its journey.

There's a big difference between commenting on that sub and being part of that sub.

You're right. Subscribing to it just adds it to my article list and i can just ignore the vast majority of it as a lot of it is pointy-fingered snide remarks. Commenting on it though takes time and effort - the same effort you've obviously put into the numerous comments you've made on this sub.

Posting to a sub takes even more effort as you need to go back and reply as you're the one who opened it up for discussion

I subscribe to many subreddits. I comment very little as I'm generally not interested in the comments. I will comment if I think I have something to add and, in this instance, I thought I did. Obviously you think differently and that's tickety boo for you.

I would appreciate it if you would stop wasting my and others' time...

And there was me thinking at anyone was free to comment on any discussion in any subreddit. Someone even thanked me for my input so how is that wasting someone's time?

...with your biased monologue...

Ooh! Irony alert!

...that is so typical in the members of that other sub that you are part of.

Words. Fail. Me. Have you looked at some of the discussions on this sub?

I've had enough of this crap now. You go back to ignoring anyone who doesn't agree with your theory (and that's all it is - a theory - in the same way that the official version is just a theory). Close your mind off to discussion and berate anyone who doesn't tag along. Downvote me! I don't care! Seriously! What do I care that someone who has spent waaay too long on this subject thinks I deserve that exrta itty-bitty mouse click on that oh so sad down arrow. OH THE SHAME!. How will I live with the stigma of a downvote? I shall have to retire to my chamber and write my memoirs whilst smoking a slim cheroot and sipping on the finest whiskey money can buy

You need to get out and broaden your horizons. Take up a hobby away from the screen. In over a year, my comment history amounts to 3 pages. I gave up on yours when I reached page 31 and I was only 2 months into it. Life is too short to waste it on the likes of you and reddit

I will defend your right to free speech and thought as long as you defend my right to think you're a loon

Tootle-pip

PS - is the ban in the post? If so, I shall await it with unbated breath as, again, it's not worth worrying about

Downvote me!

I don't downvote or upvote anyone. The only thing I downvote are threads that promote here drama about that other sub and even then I remove my vote after ~24h.

The rest of your comment speaks for itself, you first tried to pin your uncorroborated opinion based on flawed logic, then you start using a childish tone when facing corroborated counter-arguments, then you start dancing around words while continuously ignoring the fact that your opinion had no merit and now you have engaged in a personal spat about your personal feelings and delusions surrounding your imagination world.

All of this could have been avoided if you had provided facts and/or evidence for your empty claims or if you had conceded that your logic was weak and flawed to begin with, but you decided to keep your illusive pride over reason and insist on defending it and derailing discussions with ad hominem.

It's funny because the title of this thread describes exactly your development in this thread:

"...which people that believe it choose to replace common sense with unconscionable patriotic faith"

Ahh. I see you're not actually answering my questions again. Stuck for answers or too busy researching your next earth shattering post?

Until you do, please don't reply to anything I post - it makes me feel dirty

So you're refusing to answer the simple question? My, that's mature of you. Do you want a gold star for being that clever? It can go with the other ones on your name badge. It can go between the ones you got for making fries and shutting half the restaurant for cleaning at lunch time.

You cast accusations of a history of discussion derailment then offer absolutely no evidence to back it up.

And, yes, I am now being facetious as that's all you deserve.

And, in response to yet another link to the same fricking comment, "la la la! I can't hear you"

Here are articles from Zdenek Bazant, Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science, Northwestern University. He goes into great depth regarding the forces involved in the collapse of the two towers. These have been published in prestigious Engineering journals and have been peer reviewed.

Http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/D25%20WTC%20Discussions%20Replies.pdf

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf

The last time I posted these for GayUnicorn, he "debunked" them with a posting from a 9/11 conspiracy blog. The author of the same post "debunking" Bazants work believed that the planes were hollywood style holograms, and that the news footage that morning was entirely fake.

Oh. So it's not just me then?

I just clicked on that little happy up arrow for you. Cherish it. it took effort and the chance of RSI sitting in

Trax123 is a known liar, also another member of that sub that you are part of.

He has also refused to aknowledge that the Bazant work that he so strongly defends uses incorrect values, fails completely to explain the destruction of the inner core and ignores the laws of physics in which the impact energy transfer slows the building fall, not accelerates linearly.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf

http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/more-fatal-flaws-in-bazant-et-als-wtc-analysis/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf

and the quoted excerpt titled "Overview of the WTC Collapse Analysis paper by co-author Tony Szamboti" here: http://911speakout.org/?page_id=6

Further more, Trax123 used ad hominem attack as attempt to discredit the points being made (something that you have also done in this thread):

"The last time I posted these for GayUnicorn, he "debunked" them with a posting from a 9/11 conspiracy blog. The author of the same post "debunking" Bazants work believed that the planes were hollywood style holograms, and that the news footage that morning was entirely fake."

He attacks the person that points out the errors without ever addressing the errors themselves that prove that the work he defends is flawed and incorrect.

This is the reason why your kind can't be taken seriously and it's the same reason why creationists are a joke.

He attacks the person that points out the errors without ever addressing the errors themselves that prove that the work he defends is flawed and incorrect.

Hmmm. This sounds very familiar. Who else do we know attacks someone but never provides answers to questions.

Answer on the back of a print out of GayUnicorn6969's comment history. Be sure to put a fresh ream of paper in the printer - you'll need it

Hmmm. This sounds very familiar. Who else do we know attacks someone but never provides answers to questions.

Answer on the back of a print out of GayUnicorn6969's comment history. Be sure to put a fresh ream of paper in the printer - you'll need it

I wonder who that person is.

Look at that, you were right, it really is on my comment history.

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/23r7f8/911_official_version_of_events_a_pure_work_of/ch0qrgp

I'm still awaiting your answer re my derailing discussions. A deathly silence is all I've had so far

I'm still awaiting your answer re my derailing discussions. A deathly silence is all I've had so far

Did you really forget what you yourself told me before?

Ahh. I see you're not actually answering my questions again. Stuck for answers or too busy researching your next earth shattering post?

Until you do, please don't reply to anything I post - it makes me feel dirty

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/23r7f8/911_official_version_of_events_a_pure_work_of/ch0scm7

Here I am respecting what you asked and you criticize me because of it. Amazing.

For the love of whatever deity you happen to believe in this week! How, from my comment history, do you believe I derail discussions?

It's not a difficult question. You yourself referenced my comment history initially when accusing me of derailing this discussion (even though there was no discussion in progress) but you have not given one straight answer to my question, merely referring back to this sole discussion

You continued inability to answer this one, simple question which I have now put to you multiple times is just insulting.

Until you do, please don't reply to anything I post - it makes me feel dirty

http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/23r7f8/911_official_version_of_events_a_pure_work_of/ch0scm7

Let's see, what does GayUnicorn use to counter multiple peer reviewed articles from the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, written by the Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFailure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf

A post from a 9/11 conspiracy blog. Hmmm...not a great start. I don't see Gordon Ross's credentials listed anywhere. Has his rebuttal to Bazant been peer reviewed? Has it been published anywhere other than a 9/11 conspiracy blog?

Doesn't appear so.

http://bogus911science.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/more-fatal-flaws-in-bazant-et-als-wtc-analysis

OK, another link to a 9/11 conspiracy blog. This rebuttal is actually written anonymously. OK, we're heading downhill fast. What's next?

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

Another conspiracy blog link.

Sigh

Once again, Trax123 at his best proving what I just said and have been saying multiple times:

"He attacks the person that points out the errors without ever addressing the errors themselves that prove that the work he defends is flawed and incorrect."

Ad hominem from start to end.

Sigh.

If the people making the criticisms are not qualified to do so...

...or if they are doing so anonymously...

...or if they have never subjected their work to the peer review process...

...or if the only place their articles appear is on conspiracy blogs...

then most of the time they can be safely ignored.

^ Everyone pay attention to this. See how a debunker works.

Doesn't matter what errors anyone might be pointing out, if they are not qualified then most of the time (when it is convenient, in debunker language) they can be safely ignored. This is debunker logic.

I would be ashamed of myself if I ever wrote something like that. And I am speaking as person that reads what the debunkers link me, no matter how amateur and unqualified it is.

[deleted]

No, this is human logic you nimrod.

And to complete his ad hominem attacks, time for insults.

EDIT:

Would you go to a fucking plumber to get a second opinion on a cancer diagnosis? No, you go to the guy with the fucking medical degree.

And his logic fails once more. The correct logic is:

"If my plumber told me that I had what looked like to be cancer I wouldn't ignore him and seek confirmation."

or

"If my plumber told me that my house could collapse because of rot in the foundations I wouldn't ignore him and seek confirmation."

or

"If my plumber told me that the Bazant paper contains incorrect values, doesn't account for the inner columns and ignores the lack of energy exchange deceleration I wouldn't ignore him and seek confirmation."

Hmmm...Lots of people disagree with what I have to say. This is absolute PROOF there is a conspiracy!!!

Someone posted this September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor a while ago and with it a lot of info from the video. It was great post. Very detailed. Was that you? Or does anyone have a link? Can't find it.

I do remember that post but it was not me. The OP linked and detailed every single point related to the video along with the video.

Think this is the one http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xslls/911_the_new_pearl_harbor_irrefutable_proof_the/

That's it! Thanks GayUnicorn6969

Oh boy. The combination of how confident you are in your physics and how wrong you are in your physics is astounding.

Your comment deserves applauses. I assume that it must have been quite difficult for you to write all that by yourself.

Im not trying to stir shit, but you are very confident in your physics here. Perhaps you (or someone) should request someone from the /r/physics community take a look at the physics you've suggested here. Peer review. It's a fantastic process.

Sure, there might be "shills" over there, but they cant all be. And you can bet your ass you'll get feedback from people who live, breath and dream these equations. I'm nearly positive there are extenuating forces at play that are variables to these basic laws. My grasp of physics is tenuous at best. I need further info on what you've stated, preferably by a guru.

Sure, you could be that guru. But it still needs outside verification.

Sure, there might be "shills" over there, but they cant all be.

The same thing happens in the actual world, outside of reddit where engineers and scientists and mathematicians defend and show that what happened that day was not possible according to the laws of physics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

http://www.911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf

Better than trying to fish 1 or 2 members in r/physics that don't rustle their jimmies over a sensitive subject that is 9/11 and attract denials and rejections over ignorance and voting brigades is to actually look for those that have already done so outside of reddit.

I am very confident because I have researched it and I have concluded the obvious: The towers couldn't have collapsed and even if they had due to some impossible scenario, all 3 would not have turned into piles of rubble.

Oh, i know full well it happens in the wild as well. But the physics and askscience communities are pretty easy going. Just ask someone to put aside bias and look at the equations themselves, the observed results. You do well ignoring people being argumentative for the sake of it, and yeah, you'll likely get snide comments, but there'll be some gold amongst the crap.

Everyone is different. Even as infrastructure engineer i research and design solutions that i know in my gut seem correct, then reach out to the community for verification. It challenges my research and its veracity. If i don't, i get a nagging feeling that i cant be rid of until I've received feedback.

Would it offend you if I were to ask someone to cast more than my layman's eye over the science you've suggested and sourced? I'm not out to be bitter or spiteful. I just need more info. Further to that, if someone replied and gave solid evidence to the contrary, could you accept that? Would you reconsider? Not that that's what I'm trying to do. I just don't understand the math and need a third party.

Any thread related to 9/11 that shows any small hint related to a conspiracy theory will be downvoted until it disappears from the queue by every debunker that sees it, especially debunkers that use sock-puppet accounts for multiple votes.

I just presented to you 3 links leading to explanations by scientists as to why the physics were not possible, one is even a teacher literally teaching the physics, I don't see any worthwile valid reason to waste time looking for validation in other subs within reddit.

If you don't understand math and you need a third party then you are out of luck, reason being that any third party you chose will always be a debunker and every debunker will reject and deny everything the conspiracy theory explains. And they will do so without ever rebutting that the physics are not possible by using imaginary scenarios that fail to stand in reality and NIST's models which its data was never released to the public for scrutiny, aka they used false data so that the models would look like the real scenario by means of using weaker strength values in order for it to fall at the slightest failure point.

If you want to understand the math you can learn the math that we use to prove our points, the same math in the links I posted, and see for yourself if it is correct or not. This way you don't depend in any parties, you use your own knowledge to reach your conclusion, the same thing that everyone that doesn't believe in the official version does.

Speaking of the calls, the lady who whispers "it's a frame" into the phone at the end of the call is worth noting to me

[deleted]

By the way, for your information, I wasn't being negative or trying to change OP's reason. I was (as I said multiple times in my comments) merely putting forward an alternative possibility as to why the towers collapsed.

I'll stay out the way now - nothing I can say or do will change your minds so it's a bit of a lost cause on my part and I can do without the wear and tear on my finger tips

nothing I can say or do will change your minds

rofl, try changing your own mind first friend.

merely putting forward an alternative possibility as to why the towers collapsed.

the towers could have fallen over sideways like felled trees as the planes hit, it wouldn't change the fact the official story is so full of holes and ridiculously impossible coincidences you have to be a complete imbecile or a shilltard to promote or believe it.

how or why the towers fell is a detail, a much loved distracting detail, that can never be proved one way or another thanks to the prompt destruction of the evidence.

nothing I can say or do will change your minds so it's a b

And you determined this because you were not able to change our minds in this topic? The same conclusion could be drawn about you in that case.

Did you not read what I wrote? I will listen to reasoned arguments with an open mind and, if they are convincing, I will change my opinion on something. I agree - a lot of 9/11 is extremely dodgy - but that is _not _ what I was discussing. I was only talking about the WTC towers falling and a possible way in which they could pancake.

My beef is with people (and I am including anyone here, not one side of an argument or the other) who are unwilling to enter into discussion, or even entertain the notion that there could be a different reason for something occurring.

Even though I subscribe to "that other sub", I'm not the ass hat who will rubbish anything that is not to my way of thinking. I think alot of them are just as close minded as some people on this sub. However, I'm guessing that that is the same in any sub and is just something we've all got to accept. Let's face it - if everyone always agreed with everyone else all the time, it would be A - boring and B - really boring. For instance, do you believe every theory that passes through this sub? I'm fairly confident (hopefully) that you don't.

Anyway, I think I'll leave it at that now. I'm sorry if I offended anyone with my comments - that was never my intention. I just wanted to give my opinion on how I thought the towers collapsed and it seemed to cascade from there (sorry for the pun)

Tootle pip

I read what you wrote and I also read what unicorn wrote. I think both of you are probably being honest in your intent here and both of you had valid points. I don't get how you decided that all of "us" are unwilling to change our minds. It appears that you both had potentially valid opinions and both were unwilling to change opinion.

It was a bad choice of words on my part when I said "you" - I should have prefined it with "some of".

I wasn't trying to change Unicorn's mind, just trying to give a different opinion as to how the towers could have collapsed (albeit with some well intentioned but probably dodgy maths).

Fair enough. And for the record I did appreciate your posts.

Cheers. Glad I could keep you amused with my crazy ideas

40% downvotes, sad.

Reddit is ShilleVille. Place is crawling with people who hate truth and thinking.

Every pilot and co-pilot is instructed with transponder squawk codes, one of them -7500 [6] - is the code for hijacking[7] and it takes 3s to input and send.

Despite having 4 pilots and 4 co-pilots, not one of them sent out the 3s squawk as they were instructed to.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it all went too fast to get to it?

Not possible seen that the humidity levels were not enough, corroborated by the lack of those on both airplanes that crashed into the twin towers

They were 230 miles away.

This engine was attached to the same airplane as the other one, diving at the same speed as the other one and hitting the same ground as the other one, yet one of the engines was buried and the other landed far away for no reason.

No, it wasn't the same exact ground. The engines on a 757 are mounted more than 40 feet apart. The exact angle of the crash, as well as the multitude of complex and unpredictable physical interactions that occur in a crash, will greatly influence what the exact outcome is. It's not nearly as simple as you're making it out to be.

Val MacClatchey's famous photo poses a serious problem, it displays a mushroom cloud that is consistent with an explosion and not with a jet crash. [25] When an airplane crashes it produces a long column of smoke, not just a mushroom cloud.

Oh really?

You act like all plane crashes are the same. They're not.

The section above the airplane impact zone tilted and then fell vertically, violating Newton's First Law of Motion in which a body in motion (rotation in this case) tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force.

First law:

An object that is in motion will not change its velocity unless an external force acts upon it

Which it did, namely resistance from the lower part of the building.

Despite the fact that the top section tilted and was only ~30%(33floors) of the building it was still capable of destroying the remaining ~69%(76 floors) completely, directly violating Newton's third law.

Third law:

To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction

Which is true only as long as the structure being acted upon remains intact and is not itself moving. The added load from the movement of the upper portion was enough to break the lower portion, causing it to fall, so it was no longer resisting as much. The effect only compounded as it went down.

Sharing the exact same result as the South Tower, the North tower also violates Newton's third law by an even larger margin. The top section was only 15.45%(17 floors) destroying the intact 93% 83% (92 floors).

…

defying yet again another law of physics -Newton's third law- in which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body.

For example: for every floor of the 93% 83% destroyed another floor of the 16% has to be destroyed. If Newton's third law had been respected, the building would be standing with ~75 floors, not 0.

This is absolutely false and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of basic physics.

Go read the stuff here about static and dynamic loads. I really have never seen a better explanation.

the result was still a perfect vertical gravity assisted downfall destruction

What did you expect? Gravity pulls down.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe it all went too fast to get to it?

Faster than 3s? All 8 of them? No, unless it was being done on purpose.

They were 230 miles away.

I will assume that you are not doing this on purpose: The two airplanes that hit the twin towers were not 230 miles away, they were well close to ground level when they crashed and anyone could clearly see that there were no contrails.

Oh really ?

You act like all plane crashes are the same. They're not.

Once again I will assume that you are not doing this on purpose. I clearly stated "jet crash" to which you try to disprove by using the example of a crash of a WW2 Fighter plane crash which is absolutely nothing like a commercial jet.

The second picture you showed is also from a crash of yet another single engine plane, again not at all the same or close to a commercial jet.

I act like the crashes of airplanes of the same category are the same because they are, unless you try to deceive and use examples of airplanes that have no comparison other than the capability of flying.

Which is true only as long as the structure being acted upon remains intact and is not itself moving. The added load from the movement of the upper portion was enough to break the lower portion, causing it to fall, so it was no longer resisting as much. The effect only compounded as it went down.

I will not argue with you about the physics that had to be violated for the collapse to have occured as it was portrayed, it would be the same as trying to explain science to a creationist. If you truly believe in what you said then that is your choice. I prefer to use actual math and physics calculations to backup my claims instead of just empty claims, for example:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

http://www.911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/Some-Misunderstandings-Related-to-WTC-Collapse-Analysis.pdf

This is absolutely false and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of basic physics.

Go read the stuff here about static and dynamic loads. I really have never seen a better explanation.

Again, the same that I said above.

What did you expect? Gravity pulls down.

Amazing. Just like NIST when explaining that the towers turned into a pile of rubble because "Global collapse was inevitable".

Please do not confuse my reply with a request for the continuation of... whatever you are trying to do here, I have absolutely no interest in wasting time with someone that belongs in a sub where people are comitted to derail threads and spread false propaganda in here, especially when I assume that you are not doing it on purpose for the sake of correcting your "mistakes".

You may try to continue with this but you will be doing that without my participation.

Wow. You're being buried into oblivion, and clearly not on content. Where are the mods? I think Cass Sunstein's goons are under constant re-education. "What are the best red herrings?" We have to understand, he said the federal reserve act is not a conspiracy when anyone with access to the internet and a brain knows it was.

The thread is 2 weeks old and the freedom given in here allows the other sub members to come here and brigade with nothing stopping them. It's the reason why I have as many downvotes as he has upvotes and no wonder too because he is also a member of that certain sub.

Regarding the comment about a mushroom cloud not being possible from a commercial jet line crash, the video you linked of the Russian crash that had clearly identifiable parts left after the crash pretty clearly shows a mushroom cloud rising from the explosion. Thoughts?

Obviously, that error doesn't invalidate the other points. But you might want to just focus on the really strong inconsistencies instead of trying to prove a million and one inconsistencies when some of the weaker ones are explainable or not thoroughly researched.

Regarding the comment about a mushroom cloud not being possible from a commercial jet line crash,

That is a blantant lie. This is what I said:

Val MacClatchey's famous photo poses a serious problem, it displays a mushroom cloud that is consistent with an explosion and not with a jet crash. When an airplane crashes it produces a long column of smoke, not just a mushroom cloud.

Want an explanation for what "not just" means?

Obviously, that error doesn't invalidate the other points. But you might want to just focus on the really strong inconsistencies instead of trying to prove a million and one inconsistencies when some of the weaker ones are explainable or not thoroughly researched.

And if you'd spend less time in that other sub that you are part of then maybe you would not lie to make your points (a strong trend that is present among your fellow peers from that sub, lying and deceiving, as you can see the AnSq -another member part of that sub- just 2 replies above using examples of ww2 fighter airplanes to debunk a jet airliner crash). Maybe that way you will actually understand how the discussed subject is actually a really strong inconsistency and not weak as you were trying to make.

Dude you need to relax. I don't know what other sub you think I came from, but I spend plenty of time on r/conspiracy out genuine curiosity and belief that a lot of conspiracy "theories" are in fact true.

Out of curiosity what is the other sub I supposedly came from? You also didn't address the fact that there was in fact a mushroom cloud in the Russian crash.

I am always relaxed. You have failed to remain in the subject of discussion that you started and you have avoided the fact that you lied about the point that you made and now you are trying to change subject and lure me into mentioning the name of that disgusting sub that is committed to insult and mock people.

This discussion is now over.

OK.

1. You are the one insulting me calling me a liar on something that, if I did misinterpret your point was not intentional. I am trying to have a reasonable discussion and offer a friendly suggestion on one point that I think was inaccurate. I guess I should have just stroked your ego and moved on.

2. I honestly am curious what sub I am apart of in your mind. The only subs I actually frequent are this and r/guns and I don't think there is a ton of overlap between the two. If anything r/guns people are somewhat conspiracy minded due to constant attacks on the 2nd amendment and our general distrust of the government.

You have failed to remain in the subject of discussion that you started and you have avoided the fact that you lied about the point that you made and now you are trying to change subject and lure me into mentioning the name of that disgusting sub that is committed to insult and mock people.

This discussion is now over.

Faster than 3s? All 8 of them? No, unless it was being done on purpose.

Here's how I imagine it went down: Pilots don't realize anything is wrong at first, pilots notice something is happening and are confused, pilots are responding to the more immediate threat on their life, pilots are dead.

At no point was it reasonable to deal with the transponder. You're only supposed to do that once you're not in mortal danger. 7500 seems to be designed for the more typical "hold the plane for ransom" type hijacking than the "murder the pilots and crash into a building" type of 9/11.

I will assume that you are not doing this on purpose: The two airplanes that hit the twin towers were not 230 miles away, they were well close to ground level when they crashed and anyone could clearly see that there were no contrails.

They were 230 miles away from the Pentagon. You claim that the lack of contrails in New York means there couldn't be any in Virginia. That's absurd.

I act like the crashes of airplanes of the same category are the same because they are

Okay, admittedly that probably wasn't a very good example, but don't try to pretend that every single airliner crash is exactly the same every time.

Here's how I imagine it went down: Pilots don't realize anything is wrong at first, pilots notice something is happening and are confused, pilots are responding to the more immediate threat on their life, pilots are dead.

Pilots are well trained to do what they do. Do you really think they were so 'overwhelmed' with what was happening that they forgot all of their training and didn't think to squawk 7500? On all 4 flights?? Not likely. It's muscle memory, almost instinctive.

Not taking sides here, I have read both arguments and the official story has too many holes to be trusted, but I'm not convinced it was a government Op either.

My point in posting, however, is that it's been shown that pilots become too comfortable in the cockpit due to automation, so when something goes wrong they do not act quickly enough or do not act properly- such as the recent Asiana flight.

I guess the real answer is that we'll never know the complete answer as to why they didn't squawk 7500.

You should read this section of this article though.

Great post. Downvoters are in full force here.

I assume any good post on "the big ones" gets flagged somewhere and, like ants on assignment, orders are followed, the truth is subverted... For freedom!

9/10 - D Rumsfeld announces $2,300,000,000,000 black hole in pentagon budget and an accompanying investigation.

He'd been announcing it for some time actually.

I assume any good post on "the big ones" gets flagged somewhere and, like ants on assignment, orders are followed, the truth is subverted... For freedom!

I read what you wrote and I also read what unicorn wrote. I think both of you are probably being honest in your intent here and both of you had valid points. I don't get how you decided that all of "us" are unwilling to change our minds. It appears that you both had potentially valid opinions and both were unwilling to change opinion.

Yeah. They really beat around the bush with building 7. No pun intended.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhY9c_iemA#t=88

9/10 - D Rumsfeld announces $2,300,000,000,000 black hole in pentagon budget and an accompanying investigation.

um you do realise he was talking about money that was 'unaccounted' NOT missing.

if you dont understand the difference you shouldnt be discussing it

Thanks. I BTC'ed you some gold for the way you handled some shilly billy earlier. Nice work. Great post.

For the love of whatever deity you happen to believe in this week! How, from my comment history, do you believe I derail discussions?

It's not a difficult question. You yourself referenced my comment history initially when accusing me of derailing this discussion (even though there was no discussion in progress) but you have not given one straight answer to my question, merely referring back to this sole discussion

You continued inability to answer this one, simple question which I have now put to you multiple times is just insulting.

I do remember that post but it was not me. The OP linked and detailed every single point related to the video along with the video.

Think this is the one http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1xslls/911_the_new_pearl_harbor_irrefutable_proof_the/

Take your NWO propoganda and shove it up your ass. Like those people couldn't be bribed to lie on camera.