Hello New Lurkers: Here's how we know for sure the World Trade Center was brought down by explosive force. Not just heat and gravity.
169 2017-02-28 by KnightBeforeTomorrow
There are two possibilities about why the towers collapsed. One, provided by NIST, is that some floor joists sagged down and caused the building to pull itself downward because of gravity working against the weight of the building.
This would mean that each floor would fall downward at first and then slide off to the side of the ever increasing gauge of the steel frame of the lower floors.
steel core that failed http://imgur.com/uIe69tK
Never mind the 200 plus upright steel and aluminum members spaced around the exterior on each floor which are not as apparent.
Here's the frame at street level that was completely crushed.
Physics would demand that the weakened floors would collapse to the side of the remaining undamaged floors leaving the lower floors as a stub of the original building. That didn't happen though.
As an experiment you may take any two objects that are similar to each other and stack them. Now make the top one fall through the lower one.
The top one will never fall through the lower one because the top one must follow the path of least resistance as the laws of physics demand. it will invariably fall to the side of the lower one. The only way the top object could ever fall through the lower object is if both objects were shattered at the beginning of the collapses as might be done by explosives.
Even If the physical law that demands falling in the direction of least resistance as opposed to falling in the direction of most resistance were somehow suspended on that special day, then gravity provides no lateral force to move any one floor out from under the one above it.
At ground level, if the building didn't have to fall in the direction of least resistance, the floors would stack up in the order they were standing in and you would see layers of crushed floors as the pile of debris.
The other way the buildings could collapse is with the use of explosives.
If explosives were used the building would be turned into shredded material called shrapnel. What you would see on the ground then would be shreds of material haphazardly distributed.
Now all that must be done to prove a purposeful demolition is to prove that there were not layers of floors on the ground or a section of building fallen beside the undamaged floors but shredded material, or shrapnel.
That would leave no doubt that the buildings had been brought down on purpose by people with the power to do that stealthily and then also have the power to hide the evidence that they did it.
Take a look at the forensic evidence and decide which kind of debris existed and which did not.
First a demonstration. Here are examples of gravity caused collapses. In this case because of earthquakes.
Here is the actual forensic evidence at the WTC left by the collapses.
Layers, or shrapnel?
http://imgur.com/4KLSY2v,oreM9zZ,vSjv3Ph
http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc021.jpg
http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc073.jpg
http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc072.jpg
http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc067.jpg
http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc064.jpg
http://www.parrhesia.com/wtc100301/wtc071.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/66zO1wS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/xYATTpV.jpg
http://imgur.com/2K5nFgt,X0d5mko,NKThWhf,FdWK3j6,GYOylgd,hMgzmi9,jb53ntv,uAwcjO6
I think we can unanimously agree that the debris consisted of shrapnel.
The only conclusion possible is that the buildings were destroyed by explosive force and that the government and its associated actors created the attack of 9/11.
84 comments
n/a steele_stephens 2017-02-28
This is by far one of the most convincing arguments for 9/11 fuckery that I've ever come across. Thank you for sharing.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Thank you much.
n/a horridCAM666 2017-02-28
Good work buddy.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Enjoyed it. but is seems so self evident.
n/a dissdigg 2017-02-28
Made no sense to me when I watched it live. Never understood how it fooled so many. Did people never play with blocks or anything similar growing up? You don't need physics, just common sense.
n/a PranaScorpion 2017-02-28
Exactly it's like everyone forgot how Jenna works.
n/a dissdigg 2017-02-28
The whole "oh, yeah pancake theory...that makes sense" was fucking retarded too. Plane hits the top of the building, but the bottom falls out? yeah OK. I did meet a bunch of defense contractors back in 2004 who told me they all knew it was BS, but had different theories as to why it was necessary in order to keep our economy afloat, secure Israel's interests in the ME, etc., so there are a lot of people who just support the BS in order to keep our standard of living. I mean, fuck all that, but at least they were honest about it.
n/a Tetragramatron 2017-02-28
I have recently become convinced that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out with foreknowledge or orchestrated by powerful forces within the US government.
I do not find your argument compelling. This is meant to be constructive as the truth is my only concern. The perspective of someone like myself coming from skeptical background to acceptance should be relevant to you at least as a single datapoint if not as representative sample.
You start with a false dichotomy. There are numerous possible scenarios that can plausibly be considered from the "official story" to traditional demolition techniques or even a tactical nuke. They aren't all equally plausible but we wouldn't really know if we don't even consider them.
As this is essentially the crux of your argument you've invalidated it already. You want to force us into a certain conclusion by invalidating what you claim to be the only other option but there are in fact many options.
But have you even disproven the official story? I submit that you have not done so convincingly. I believe there are three main points you attempt to leverage to make your point.
1- it is impossible for the building to have fallen straight down instead of over
2- the nature of the debris indicates that it was blown apart by explosives
3- the distribution of debris indicates that it exploded rather than collapsing.
I believe you fail on every point.
1- you use a ridiculously patronizing and oversimplified example to try to prove it to be logically impossible to fall. The towers are not built from Jenga blocks and are in fact fairly distinct from most other buildings in their construction so it seems pretty silly to think the analogy would hold and I don't think any of your comparisons are of similar construction and circumstances which severely limits their relevance.
2- in a controlled demolition the minimum possible amount of explosives is used to get the building to collapse into its footprint. The goal is not to explode the whole building but to precisely remove the structural elements that inhibit the building's collapse. In either scenario it seems plausible that one could find "shrapnel" but if you have large amounts it would result from the forces of the collapse in either case.
3- again, a controlled demolition is a collapse. We can see that it collapsed downward. The debris distribution could very well be the same in either case and I see no reason to assume that in either case it would have to end up a certain way at the bottom as it is a fairly chaotic system.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
So, in conclusion your argument among all of those words is that gravity causes or can cause mostly shrapnel. No, explosives cause shrapnel
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
You're assuming it's shrapnel. It's perfectly reasonable to believe that the forces of a falling skyscraper would cause small debris. After all a bomb is just energy, no different than the energy that is transferred with gravity.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
It's shredded metal,. Not crushed metal, shrapnel.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
Two objects smashing into each other can cause small debris. There are so many examples of this. Take a car crash for instance, and the amount out energy involved in that is astronomically less
https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAbuAAAAJDU5NTdhODBhLWIzNWEtNDEyOC05YWE5LTJlZjliMWQxYzM1MA.png
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
When a hammer hits a nail, it stops the hammer.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
The tower was already at a high altitude. The potential energy existed when it was built.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
But the two sections of either tower were in close contact, not raised up and slammed. The frames had been reliably holding up all of that inert weight for years and were over engineered to hold up much more. The crashes added no meaningful weight or inertia.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
No meaningful weight was added. The structure that was pushing against the potential energy was compromised, causing a chain reaction compromising the rest of the structure.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
So it should have fallen beside the lower undamaged floors. Look at this and wonder why this didn't fall to the side of the lower floors.
The law of conservation of motion or momentum would demand that once moving this would continue to move in the same direction until it met an opposing outside force.
http://imgur.com/Kwb8A
n/a The_Noble_Lie 2017-02-28
The construction of skyscrapers does not ha e the same factor of safety as "poly bridge"...
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
Never said it did. I was using it as an example of how a structure compromised at one location can bring the entire thing down.
n/a The_Noble_Lie 2017-02-28
See my sibling comment. I thought I was responding to OP there, my bad. (Am on the phone)
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
They tend to be bolted and welded together.
Somehow millions of bolts and welds along with lengths of thousands of I beams had zero strength. That is something you can reason away.
n/a The_Noble_Lie 2017-02-28
Well, I have studied statics and kinematics at a graduate level (aerospace) focusing on computational fluid dynamics. Ive also experience with FEA (finite element analysis.)
Bridges arent really comparable to buildings since they are subject to large gravity loads which all needs to be transmitted to a foundation which is usually not directly beneath it.
If a particular beam is crucial for transmitting forces is removed and has no redundancy, then sure, the bridge will fail, regardless of the bridges factor of safety.
What does this have to do with a building with many redundancies falling with gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.5 seconds have to do with a game (poly bridge) whose chief purpose is usually to minimize weight and redundancies?
n/a lovelycoconuts91 2017-02-28
Wtc, brought to you by the makers of poly bridge !
n/a Seyon 2017-02-28
I don't mean to be dismissive or rude. What would happen if the air between the hammer and nail head was kept in a pocket while the two met?
Wouldn't the build-up of air pressure from the decreasing volume eventually burst?
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
What's your point? . There was no time available for 'eventually' in the actual event. There was also no time for each floor to be crushed by the ones above.
it all fell ridiculously fast unless every single bolt and weld disintegrated at once. You know what? That is in no way explainable unless the buildings were professionally demolished. Seems extremely obvious but the repetition of the ridiculous by experts in media makes people accept he ridiculous because the 'experts' have already examined the facts so the public doesn't feel a need to.
You can count on that. The 9/11 criminals do.
n/a Seyon 2017-02-28
My point was simple. The rapid collapse of floor upon floor would compress the large volume of air inside of the building. What would happen to this compressed air if it did not escape? The pressure would build until it exploded, can you explain to me how air was able to exit the building fast enough to avoid the compression from happening?
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
I saw the supposed air jets escaping far below the event horizon in the towers. I have no opinion on the reason for their existence.
You're saying the air tightness of the building is somehow the reason that the shrapnel formed. How much air pressure would it take to shred a pound of steel?
Air would have had to be highly compressed to cause such shredding and as a result it would have had to slow the process of collapse It didn't.
Consider the speed of the fall for a moment.
At 1/2 second each for one floor to crush the one under it (far too fast in real life), you'd be looking at 55 seconds for each collapse to take place. not something on the order of 11 seconds.
There was no significant air pressure build up. There wasn't time for it to build up. It would have had to build up tremendously to cause even one ton of steel to shred and that would have slowed the collapses.
The reason they fell so much faster than the strength of the steel and the air pressure would have allowed is that there was no consecutive crushing of floors and no concomitant build up of air pressure. There were timed explosions.
n/a Seyon 2017-02-28
Again I'm not attempting to be argumentative, rather I just to see your argument more complete if anything. I am not a scientist, only a mechanical engineer.
This is the academic paper I am using as a source for the properties of steel at high temperature.
At 1000 degrees celsius, the temperature that jet fuel burns, steel roughly the same elasticity as room temperature plastic. Much easier to break, warp, or tear.
This is my source for the volume of the world trade center.
The article states the volume of the world trade center at around 1.65 million cubic meters, with building materials and furniture occupying around 200 thousand cubic meters.
That leaves 1.45 million cubic meters of air to compress during the rapid collapse. Some of the air nearest the jets impact would be super heated as well, increasing the air pressure at those areas.
The building collapsed over a period around 9 seconds. Assuming that even half of the air escaped upward without compression, you have 725,000 cubic meters of air compressing downward.
This is my source for pressure resulting from explosive blasts.
I am not able to give a proper explanation for this area, I studied the material but couldn't understand it very well. I do believe that the resulting air being caught in the collapse of the world trade center would create explosive force comparable to some explosives.
Again, I'm just trying to bring a variable into this discussion that I do not often see. I feel as though the build up of air pressure from rapid compression could cause an explosion. Not to discredit your own theory.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
The worry about the high temperature is unfounded. The most affected floor in each building can be shown to have been no more than 200 degrees Fahrenheit.
On the crashed 78th floor of the South tower, Fire Chief Orio Palmer talked on his radio describing conditions for some minutes.
He couldn't have done that in a temprerature above 200 F. degrees. and even at that temperature he would have been screaming in pain, not coherently describing his surroundings. On the equivalent floor of the North Tower Edna Cintron was photographed for some minutes holding on to the steel frame of the building. If it had been even 200 degrees F. she would have been frying her arms . You can't even hold onto your car in the summer sun and certainly not if it is a steel weakening temperature. Conclusion the frame of the North Tower was no more than 200 degrees F.
North Tower frame. was less than 200. F http://imgur.com/JLfw37G
South Tower ambient temperature was less than 200 F. Orio Palmer.
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1u7U1ft68v3
Just as insurance here is the science involved, showing that even in impossibly favorable conditions the hottest the steel frame could possibly have become is 536 degrees F.
That's a temperature regularly exceeded by a standard pizza oven which will never be weakened or melted by that amount of heat.
The Jet Fuel. How Hot did it Heat the WTC? Here's the science .
http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/read/1064,
n/a The_Noble_Lie 2017-02-28
Debris is usually caused by opposing momentum vectors of cars.
Theres usually just deformation when a car rear ends another car
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
The total energy is the total energy regardless if both objects are moving. Two one ton cars hitting each other head on at 100mph each is astronomically less energy displacement than a half million ton building falling in on itself.
n/a The_Noble_Lie 2017-02-28
Sure. I know that car crashes are also a pretty terrible analogy. So lets stick to buildings.
But did you read the post I put unfer KnightAfterTomorrow. It was intended for you !
n/a Tetragramatron 2017-02-28
Two points in response to that. If it is your assertion that the debris was "mostly shrapnel" it would stand to reason that a good amount of that shrapnel would have had to come from the collapse itself because controlled demolitions do not function by just exploding the whole building.
And what I'm saying is that your shrapnel argument does successfully rule out the many other options apart from a conventional demolition scenario as you seem to be arguing toward. You say at one point that there can be no doubt; that's a very high bar you have set for yourself and I don't think I am wrong to doubt. And I do think energetic systems are capable of creating small bits of metal without the use of explosives.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
It's unreasonable to consider the possibility that two 110 story buildings would collapse virtually all the way to the ground and leave only shrapnel just because of gravity as if hey were made of wet noodles.
The collapses violated physics at the least twice. Does that mean anything to you?
The buildings were fatally flawed and had to come down. This took a multi billion dollar liability and turned it into a multi billion dollar profit for the Henry Kissinger, Peter G. Peterson, New York Port Authority, Silverstein cabal. All the plan had to be was crazy and you'd never believe they even did it. It worked beautifully didn't it
The shrapnel landed almost flush to the ground. Where did all of that material disappear to?
The buildings fell so fast that there was no time at all available for each floor to hit the one below and press it down. That happening over 100 times, takes time in my estimation, how about yours? Explosion is the only way to eliminate that necessary time. You know, exactly like it looked.
n/a Tetragramatron 2017-02-28
I accept the the "inside job" hypothesis as likely but do not consider the "controlled demolition" hypothesis to be proven much less beyond any doubt. The "follow the money argument" seems to be much more compelling to me especially when the character and history of the people involved is taken into account. I know you are responding to multiple people but I hope you can see we are on the same side.
I'd like to zero in on this for a moment. You are saying that the WTC was reduced to 100% shrapnel and that this is proof that explosives were used as in a conventional controlled demolition. Therefore you are claiming that in a controlled demolition 100% of the material of the building is blasted into tiny bits by the explosives used to demolish the building. Do I have you right?
If I understand you correctly all I can say is I don't think that's how controlled demolition works. The goal is to allow a collapse to occur by systematically removing structural elements with explosives. He targeted and strategic use of explosives would suggest a less than complete "shrapnelization" would be caused by the explosions themselves and if that was the end result that a percentage (I say a large percentage) would be a result of the collapse and ensuing energetic collisions of falling components of the building.
I'm not saying that it wasn't a controlled demolition. It may have been. I am saying I don't think your argument is sound and does not prove what you are attempting to prove. But I'm happy to be proven wrong if that's where this takes us so I would really appreciate a response to the specific issue I raised above.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
100 percent is a bit extreme the aluminum fascia for instance, standing unfastened from the building was the main reason the buildings were demolished. the faces falling off of the buildings would be expensive in terms of lawsuits and an international embarrassment for out engineering and building trades.
We cannot know which of the government's arsenal was used but it was meant not to look like a demolition, but it did.
The problem for your point of view would be the much enlarged size of the debrsi pile where all of the material just rained down and stacked up.
The reduced amount of twisted shredded material that actually was left can only be the result of energy not available in gravity or the residual heat and the weight.
It went all the way to the ground and did not have the characteristics of just material bombardment.
That would have resulted in a very large debris pile which simply wasn't here.
It had all of the characteristics of explosive force though. Does that address your concern?
n/a williamsates 2017-02-28
Good argument!
n/a snowmandan 2017-02-28
That first picture of the steel structure should be a giveaway to anyone.
n/a whiskeyclouds 2017-02-28
Imagine you plan the perfect demolition. Now add tossing a Boeing 747 into the mix.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
The buildings were flawed so much that they had to have an accident. A typical demolition would have cost far more than the property was worth.
The aluminum fascia was decoupling from the frame because of Galvanic Corrosion. You can see the aluminum fascia still standing where it completely separated from the frame and floors.
There was also the asbestos. in 40 floors of each building.
WTC asbestos
http://imgur.com/egn70NF
Here's a somewhat disjointed galvanic corrosion deposition. The writer whom I knew through a years email contact was in extreme fear for his life. After writing this he fled the country.
Tom Scott Gordon's deposition Galvanic Corrosion.
http://blog.lege.net/content/tsg.deposition.1.html
n/a whiskeyclouds 2017-02-28
I want to believe more in the controlled demolition aspect of 9/11. I just am having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that they had to plan a perfect demolition as well as time it so that a plane would hit the building in the exact spot at precisely the right time. Just seems implausible that any demolition expert would even be able to get the job done knowing that a plane would be flying into your work.
UNLESS
The buildings were SO strong that a plane flying into them would do nothing at all. As we know it's been boasted before, by I believe the architect of the trade center, that these buildings could in fact withstand the force of a jet impact and that it would have little/no effect on any controlled demolition happening at ground level. That's really the only way I could see it all happening.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Aren't computers wonderful?
The explosion happened throughout the buildings. including the top floors. That's how the tilting part of the South Tower appeared to stop tilting and change it's direction of momentum. Smaller pieces take smaller arch trajectories.
Would it help if we had pictures and video of the demolition material being installed?
Here are fuse holders being installed that were manufactured by a company in which Dick Cheney was a stock holder.
Israeli Art Students, The B-thing, Gelatin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdJRXuIBheM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v20s0No32cA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smuc40av9VI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDVICfMF-uo
n/a whiskeyclouds 2017-02-28
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thoughtful evidence that proves my questioning wrong. You are an exemplary member of this community.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Go on and make me smile. I like it. Thanks.
n/a whiskeyclouds 2017-02-28
Totally serious. I do believe it was a demolition, I've believed it for years. I was just playing the skeptic. Refreshing to see hard evidence/facts used to argue against me rather than slander.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
I approach these subjects like we don't actually matter. What I am personally or what I think of you has no bearing on the facts of the matter and I try to keep it that way. I agree, I'm always shocked when someone tries to make a national tragedy become all about whether my mental capabilities are up to their standards. Thanks for the comment.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
There are reputable sources that back up the official story, that are at least as compelling as your theory. Now the problem with your theory is the actual conspiracy makes no sense. This would have to be carried out by intelligent people, and I just don't believe anyone would get behind a plan like this. Why would they even bother with the airplanes? Why wouldn't they just blow the building up and blame terrorist? So much can go wrong with the highjacking. What is the point of trying to cover up a controlled demolition if the goal is to bring down the building? What would they do that?
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
The official conspiracy theory about a caveman and a laptop and 19 hijackers makes far less sense than billionaires with agenda's making their problems go away and their fortunes grow exponentially.
Recommended viewing,
9/11 in 5 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q
For who made fortunes and how they made them because of 9/11.
The New Pearl Harbor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
The airplanes in your theory still have to be crashed into the buildings, on top of all kinds of completely unnecessary steps. Again, why would they try and cover up the demolition? The official story is by far more plausible.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
You'd like to belittle this calling it 'your theory' There are millions of us who weren't affected by the propaganda and can see what is there to see.
The official story is completely implausible unless you are conditioned to accept anything repeated by 'experts' as your truth without the bother of having to examine the facts yourself.
Edward Bernays was the creator of propaganda. He demonstrated that it works almost absolutely. He proved it in 1930 by having experts tell women that smoking cigarettes was smoking 'torches of freedom'
That actually made no sense at all but after his paid experts repeated that 'information' on the radio back then, millions of women took up smoking.
Propaganda works but a very few of us are immune and look at the facts for ourselves rather than taking anything repeated by people in media as the final truth.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
You are now misrepresenting my argument. I did not ask why they would cover up actually bringing down the towers. I asked why they would cover up the method in which they did it. What would they blow it up, hit it with airplanes, then try to convince everyone it was just airplanes? The obvious and easiest way to do it is blow it up, and blame terrorists for blowing it up. This is Occam's razor. Your theory makes absolutely no sense as to why they would do it that way. Why would they take so many extra steps that could go wrong? Please tell me the logical reason they don't want people thinking a bomb did it?
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Plausible deniability.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
Why is a highjacking easier to deny than a bomb? And not just a little easier, but so much easier that you're willing to risk concocting an entire other mission that could go wrong in highjacking and flying airplanes into the building?
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Optics for shock value. Psychological value. It worked spectacularly.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
It seems crazy to me that they would go through all the trouble for whatever difference in optics an airplane has over a bomb, if any.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Visibility. Shock and Awe was an early Bush administration watch word.
That's how they get away with a host of sins. If what they do is crazy enough you'll never catch them because you won't believe they'd go so far.
So they know they can get away with murder as long as what they do is crazy enough.
If they only do the biggest, craziest things Joe Normal can never be convinced they really did it. It's a neat trick.
n/a lovelycoconuts91 2017-02-28
The shills are after you now....keep up the good work, great post.
n/a williamsates 2017-02-28
Intelligence of the perpetrators is a non-sequitur. You presented an argument from incredulity.
You are engaging in a priori reasoning. The conclusion should be arrived after examination of the evidence, not before. But to speculate, perhaps using airplanes and blaming people from the middle east made people not seriously investigate the collapse. It was a diversion that covered tracts.
Well, then you have to do a real investigation. How was it wired? What kind of demolition charges were used? Who placed them, and how? Who funded the project? This would be a lot harder to conceal.
You assume that it was a real highjacking. Lets not focus on WTC here, but the Pentagon. The Pentagon was not hit by a commercial airliner. Yet it was blamed. Obviously something else was used and different type of air-vehicles than commercial jets.
The best thing to answer the type of questions you pose is to become active and demand a real and independent investigation.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
So they hit the pentagon with sometime other than an airliner, and just said it was an airliners. That makes even less sense than the absurd plan of covering up a bombing with airplanes
n/a williamsates 2017-02-28
Another argument from incredulity.
How about this: the entity that attacked the Pentagon is not the same as the entity covering it up with the claim of an airliner?
How about this... 'Hey guys, you know how we have been trying to occupy the middle east for a while, but it has been a tough sell to the American people. Let us simulate a hijacking of airliners that we blame on Muslims. To really cement the approval of the American people for military action, we have to destroy some lives and some landmarks."
Of course you continue to commit to a priori reasoning, and don't want to formulate a posteriori conclusions.
https://imgur.com/UUBumsd
This is from AA 77 insurance file showing no fatalities.
Full PDF of the file:
https://ufile.io/882421
Here is NEIT 428:
eye witness
https://i.imgur.com/t3kfj0e.png
https://i.imgur.com/4kiDpY9.png
https://i.imgur.com/qa3dafy.png
Full PDF: https://ufile.io/2f964
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
A missile can be precisely aimed unlike an airliner going at full speed near the ground and hitting light poles in the process. They had to have the exact right place damaged and not the places where the brass had their hairy asses.
The damage took out precisely the computers and personnel that was targeted, and in a fail safe manner. It wasn't left to the chance of an airliner strike.
It was a close range missile that struck the Pentagon.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
Ok, that doesnt make the plan any less absurd. To just hit it with a missile and just say it was an airplane. Nobody would would go through with such an incredibly stupid plan. It makes no sense.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
You're right.
It's crazy, It makes no sense .
And that's why and how they got away with it. They can depend on the fact that if they act completely crazy, you will never believe they did something so crazy. AND that's why crazy makes sense. 9/11 was so crazy that most people wont ever believe that that was the idea that made it work.
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
They have to bank on that there will be no footage of the missile. That didn't happen. They did not do such a stupid thing.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
The pentagon has a pretty good lock on what is recorded there. Joe Sixpack can't just roll up and take a lot of video without raising suspicion.
One of my less accepted ideas about it , and I'm not so sure myself, is that a video was taken from a helicopter but the pilot, knowing that he could be found out because there was a record of who was flying there at the time, made this video obscure enough in order to disguise his identity
He may have gone so far in hiding his identity that he made the entire video look fraudulent. I think that under some subterfuge this is at the heart a real video, just changed to hide the pilot who took it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls
n/a The_Noble_Lie 2017-02-28
Except it makes a lot of sense if you care to open your mind. Especially whrn you look at it like a magicians trick; masterful misdirection.
Planes were, after all, the symbol of the day. And we were shown footage of planes ad nauseum. Yet there is uncannily no footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.
"Ooops 5fps didnt catch the plane, but trust it us, it was them hijackers"
n/a AdalineMaj 2017-02-28
How did they know nobody would ge footage of it?
n/a The_Noble_Lie 2017-02-28
Confiscated if anyone did. This is actually part of the story and I believe that part of it.
n/a Sister_Lauren 2017-02-28
It was bombed on the inside. There were computers exploding according to a witness. I found a news story about how computers could be hacked to explode using an email. It was in the news and then it happened. Blackmail is a lot more effective if the mark knows the blackmailer is for real, so that is why Mossad does all this foreshadowing and leaves all of these clues.
If the Bush administration had not been involved in 9/11, they would have gone after the Israelis instead of covering it all up and fighting their wars. 9/11 is the fruit of US corruption and Israeli foreign policy.
n/a Middleman79 2017-02-28
They would have to explain how the 3 buildings were rigged from explosives. The planes are so visual it puts 90% of people off looking further into it.
n/a skeeter1234 2017-02-28
Because to blow up the building requires insider access.
n/a Ginkgopsida 2017-02-28
I think if hundred sory building falls on anything, straight down eill be the path of least resistance. Just think about the energy needed to shift such a huge building to the side.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Sliding over the side is the path of least resistance, into free air. only the resistance of air pressure.
Straight down is through massive amounts of material, the path of most resistance. It defies physics to fall that way. Huge has virtually nothing to do with this
n/a Ginkgopsida 2017-02-28
No, it does not defy physics. It used to weight 500.000.000 kg. So accelerating it to the side would need enourmous amounts of energy. Where would this energy come from? I think you just have troubles imagining the scale of the problem but I don't blame you.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
It would need no energy to fall to the side.
It happens all day every day in countless events.
Things don't fall through strong things below them they roll off and fall to the side by using the energy / momentum provided by gravity. 70 plus undamaged floors should be standing as a moderately damaged stub.
To do otherwise defies physics..
n/a Ginkgopsida 2017-02-28
You're just repeating what you saif before without making any compelling argument.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
I think the laws of physics are not suggestions. They rule. they are compelling for me and this sub.
Things always fall in the direction of least resistance. Once they hit a barrier their momentum is converted to rolling or bouncing in the direction of least resistance.
Pretty compelling.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Define 'it' when it was falling it weighed the weight of each piece not the total weight of the intact building. Those far less massive pieces would have to fall in the direction of least resistance til it hit an object then the momentum of each piece would be converted to bouncing or rolling off of the objects they encountered.
n/a Ginkgopsida 2017-02-28
Maybe this video illustrates better what I'm talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XMTALBYRNA
As you can see the building comes straight down after a fire without much movement to either side. Keep in mind that this is a much smaller building than the WTC.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Is this the recent collapse in Iran? If so I think they were demonstrating that they knew how the WTC collapses were done and presenting it as a warning for the U.S. government countering our threatening position.
n/a Ginkgopsida 2017-02-28
I don't think so. It's from 2011.
n/a Bendar071 2017-02-28
What about the demolition plans? These buildings where built to be destroyed.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Can you elaborate?
n/a Bendar071 2017-02-28
With the handing in of building plans for a building as tall as the WTC in the center of the most valuable real estate of the world there also need to be a demolition plan handed in at the same time. What if the building was damaged beyond repair due to eg. a earthquake. It can withstand earthquakes but not all. Ok, so the building is damaged and about to fall over on prime real estate, company buildings etc. What kind of plan is there to destroy such a building. This is quite common in high rise building. I really don't get why people are not looking into this. This is also why someone as Silverstein could say "We made the choice to pull it" because everything is thought of and planned out. I've got a link that is usefull to read http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/04/skyscrapers-pre-wired-to-come-down/ And one to listen to http://algoxy.com/psych/images3/listen_to_the_demo_waves.mp4
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
OK, why would the plan be enacted with three thousand people still in the buildings? It's a distinction without a difference. It's still a crime by the powers that be with suppression of the evidence afterwards.
ONLY the criminal ever has any need to destroy evidence. The U.S. government destroyed the evidence.
n/a AlienPsychic51 2017-02-28
You have to take all of the laws of physics together. You can't just pick and choose which ones you choose to focus on.
"Physics would demand that the weakened floors would collapse to the side of the remaining undamaged floors leaving the lower floors as a stub of the original building. That didn't happen though."
Gravity pulls downwards. There just isn't any other way for it to be. If something falls it's going to fall straight down. If it has enough force to break through any potential support then it will do so. If not then it'll stop falling. That's Newtonian physics.
A building is concrete and steel. It cannot follow the path of least resistance. Water will follow the path of least resistance because it's malleable and will flow around resistance as it is also being pulled downwards by gravity. Concrete and steel cannot flow around resistance to fall sideways as you describe.
For further proof that this whole idea doesn't work out in the real world, you probably should look up some info on friction as well. Concrete and steel sliding on concrete and steel is pretty difficult.
It's fine to construct thought experiments as long as they're firmly based in reality. After all, Einstein did most of his planning using thought experiments. Of course, he tested his through mathematics. You can't just make stuff up and "believe" it to be true. Physics isn't like a religion...
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
This isn't worth my time. It's bending over backwards so far to support the narrative that you've ended up with your head up your ass.
I've written extensively about every aspect of the collapses and stand by every word.
n/a AlienPsychic51 2017-02-28
Stephen King is also quite prolific.
At least he's honest about it being fiction.
BTW, I'm not supporting the narrative. I'm just saying that your explanation that the collapsing towers should have somehow followed the path of least resistance is bullshit.
Hey, at least your not trying to sell the bullshit that the towers were brought down by a nuke.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Ok, I'll bite. How is it possible that falling objects don't follow the path of least resistance. First though understand that an object (the tower top) was not falling as a single unit weighing hundreds of tons. They instead consisted of fragments that weighed a maximum of the weight of each beam.
The weight was distributed and did indeed have to follow the path of least resistance. You will never force any piece of matter to fall in the direction of most resistance it can't be done.
Once a collision occurred in a straight down direction under gravity alone, the remaining momentum of each fragmented building object would be conserved by transferring the downward motion into bouncing or sliding motion which which would either carry the fragment towards the side of the material below or dissipate its energy and stack up where the collision occurred. repetition of this would cause a peaked stack of debris near the center of that debris field which would augment the tendency to bounce and roll off the stack of previous debris and still cause the majority of material to translate its excess energy to the sides in relation to the center of the falling material. Thus the fact would remain that the material would have 100% fallen in the direction of least resistance until all if its gravitational energy had dissipated. .
The 'severed' tops pf the buildings would have fallen to the sides of the undamaged portion if the collapses had been caused by gravity because that was the direction of least resistance.
Controlled demolition does not require that any law of physics be broken but the narrative requires three different anomalous violations of physical law. The first is the change in direction of the top of the South Tower as it began to tilt and suddenly changed its trajectory as it was tilting to fall straight down. This violated conservation of momentum unless you understand that as the top of the South Tower tilted it was converted to millions of smaller pieces in mid air (blown up) when it had collided with nothing. If it had not been pulverized in mid air it would have conserved momentum by continuing to tilt and consequently have fallen as I said in the direction of least resistance which was in the free air, not through the undamaged 70 plus floors that were then not even directly beneath the falling debris.
I'd like your description of what happened in the seconds after this photo was taken that somehow caused the tilting top to not continue to tilt over and thus conserve momentum. Once the tilting motion began it must continue until it encountered a force greater than the one it wielded at that moment.
It inexplicably, according to the narrative, shed its momentum and fell in the direction of most resistance. That's a feat that's impossible under the laws of physics unless in the case of a demolition.
Under circumstances of a demolition all movement is easily accounted for. The debris pile is also the expected one, consisting of shrapnel rather than layers of at least the lowest of the undamaged floors.
The forensic record contained in the photography of the debris completely supports controlled demolition as the cause of collapse and at the same time rules out gravity as the cause.
The narrative requires 3 violations of physics, controlled demolition requires none.
n/a AlienPsychic51 2017-02-28
Well, you didn't get very far until you started putting your own spin on the situation.
"First though understand that an object (the tower top) was not falling as a single unit weighing hundreds of tons. They instead consisted of fragments that weighed a maximum of the weight of each beam."
The ENTIRE top of each building began falling as the support beneath collapsed. That is clearly what is seen on all of the video evidence from that day.
According to your example everything that had been firmly bolted together in the top of the building suddenly and miraculously came apart? How convenient for your fictional narrative...
Shouldn't the rest of the building suddenly and miraculously be fragmented as well? After all, the top of the building is exactly the same as the lower part.
If you skip the step of breaking the building apart as pieces impact one another that totally changes how things work in the real World.
Maybe you should work a nuke into your theory. It wouldn't be all that big of a stretch of the imagination. All you need to do is stack that bullshit a little higher. Should be easy for someone with your talent.
Have you ever thought about going into politics? I hear Donald Trump is looking for a new press secretary. Extreme bullshit on the fly and in front of cameras. That is taking bullshit to its highest form.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
I have to be right or you wouldn't have been assigned to me.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Total bullshit. No such thing occurred.
n/a AlienPsychic51 2017-02-28
The picture you linked showed the intact upper structure just after the collapse began.
How does a bolted structure suddenly come apart?
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
The picture showed the top of the South Tower in a state of transition from solid building into particulate matter and steel.
Looking at the video will show how quickly it happened. It's between when the tilting stopped and the falling straight down started.
A 30 story segment of building was tilting in a huge arch towards falling beside the lower part of the same building and a second later that formerly solid chunk of building was millions of particles and beams taking much smaller arks , following its conservation of momentum, making it appear that it changed direction having hit absolutely nothing, defying physical law, in mid air to cause that except for the demolition of the building during that moment. and for seconds before.
Millions of bolted and welded connections from 110 stories up all the way to street level came apart in an instant resulting in a very near free fall decent.
So your question to me is exactly the same one that I pose to you.
Demonstration,
If you stack any two objects that are similar to each other atop one another, the only possible way to get the upper one to collapse through the lower one, is to first shatter them both. That's what you saw.
I have no idea how the millions of fasteners in each building, respectively, failed in a single moment but it absolutely wasn't because of bin Laden.
n/a AlienPsychic51 2017-02-28
Well, I gotta give you credit for persistence and, of course, creativity.
There's only a fragment of that whole post that I saw as being important.
"defying physical law"
So it wasn't the terrorists. I get that.
Apparently, according to you, it wasn't the Government, or aliens, or the real JFK assassin or anything else remotely reasonable.
It was a force that breaks physical laws in order instantly dissolve the bonds between various components of the building.
That's some white hot smoking to the stratosphere bullshit there. That's way way further out there than anything Donald Trump is capable of tossing out there. That's some real talent.
That's the furthest out there thing I've ever read on any conspiracy site or seen presented in any of the various documentaries that have been made.
Perhaps one of us misunderstands the purpose of a conspiracy forum. I've got the crazy idea that such sites were trying to find the truth. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe such sites are just places to throw out the most whacko, ten step beyond, fantasy theories possible.
Your theory makes Flat Earth look kinda reasonable.
No, I don't have any proof of the terrorists.
I'm in the camp that believes it was done by a small faction within the Government along with the the help of selected individuals outside of the Government.
Here's a question for you. Where was George HW Bush that day?
Did you know that old HW Bush is probably the only person alive that heard about the death of President Kennedy that can't tell you where they were that day?
Yes, conspiracies exists.
Fortunately, those theories and everything else in the world are firmly bound by the laws of physics.
Perhaps you should start a new sub to discuss whatever fantasies you're into.
Pretty much nnything goes around here...
As long as it's legal to discuss and doesn't insult too many sensibilities of morality there can be a sub for it on Reddit.
Even furries are welcome...
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
I'd reply but this is all ludicrous. The US. government did it. It got a multitude of people in the CFR all of their wildest dreams of fortune and power while costing none of them anything at all. These people had hands on control and acted to cause the plot to be completely gotten away with.
Who did 9/11? http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html
For a list of the corporations involved and exactly how much and how they profited see The New Pearl Harbor. Hint it was in the trillions all told, billions to several different players. when you're talking about this level of power and profit, all moral integrity goes out the window.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
9-11 - All Evidence Points Directly to Controlled Demolition of Twin Towers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuHJSzISeYo
n/a AlienPsychic51 2017-02-28
So it does appear that you are at least somewhat in agreement with what I think a conspiracy sub is supposed to be.
Why include the whole breaking the laws of physics then? The Government breaks many laws of man and God bit it can't break the laws of physics. Claiming such things classifies right along with Flat Earth. It's just fantasy...
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Plausible deniability.
n/a KnightBeforeTomorrow 2017-02-28
Visibility. Shock and Awe was an early Bush administration watch word.
That's how they get away with a host of sins. If what they do is crazy enough you'll never catch them because you won't believe they'd go so far.
So they know they can get away with murder as long as what they do is crazy enough.
If they only do the biggest, craziest things Joe Normal can never be convinced they really did it. It's a neat trick.