The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 David Lorimer Archive
Creative Chaos?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_476298595

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Review of David Ray Griffin, Bush and Cheney: How They Ruined America and the World (Olive Branch Press, 2017, 398 pp.)
published in Paradigm Explorer: The Scientific & Medical Network (London, 2018/2)

ORDER IT NOW

This brilliant, meticulous and searing analysis is David Ray Griffin’s most powerful and important book about 
the hegemonic foreign policy ambitions 
of US neoconservatives and the way in which 9/11 was used to pursue these Machiavellian ends. This is a book that should have been written by a mainstream investigative journalist, but David has done their work for them, which they have signally failed to do by accepting the 9/11 Commission claims and labelling those who questioned these as ‘conspiracy theorists’, a term originally devised by the CIA to use against their opponents when the position of plausible deniability in undercover operations was under threat. The book is widely endorsed, for instance by Professor Daniel Sheehan, who remarks that it is ‘a clear and non-sensationalist presentation of the historical and scientific facts, by one of our generation’s most cogent thinkers. This book should convince any honest and objective person – with a political and scientific IQ above room temperature – that we have been systematically lied to about the events of 9/11 and the American invasions in the Middle East.’ Seasoned readers of this journal will recall that I have reviewed all of David’s books on 9/11 – here he summarises his case in the context of the foreign-policy background, with the first part devoted to this, and the second to a concise discussion of the shortcomings of official explanations of 9/11.

The failure to prevent 9/11 attack was
 in itself a massive intelligence disaster, and may partly be explained by some of the background elaborated in this book. The aftermath of 1989 and the fall of the Soviet Union left the US in a unipolar geopolitical position and without any clear enemy. The war on terror declared in the wake of 9/11 gave rise a new enemy and justified further increases in military expenditure on ‘security’ grounds. During the 1990s, neoconservative thinkers had urged the US to consolidate its status as an unchallenged superpower and, where deemed necessary in terms of its strategic interests, to act unilaterally to establish a Pax Americana. This injunction was reinforced by the doctrine of American exceptionalism, only recently reiterated by the incoming Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and also espoused by John Bolton, the newly appointed National Security Adviser. As a ‘benign’ power, the US has the right to intervene where it sees fit; other countries such as Russia may be equally unique, but they are not ‘exceptional’.

In 1997, William Kristol founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) with a call to shape this new century in a way favourable to American principles and interests. In September 2000, PNAC published a document called Rebuilding America’s Defences where they advocated the use of US military supremacy to establish an empire including the whole world – hence ‘the next president of the United States must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership.’ This aim should be understood in the Pentagon context of achieving Full Spectrum Dominance, a policy already developed in the 1990s. Chillingly, the document reflected that the process of transformation might be a slow one in the absence of ‘some catastrophic and catalysing event – like a new Pearl Harbour’ – 9/11 was this event and enabled a fast track of neoconservative policies, beginning with the attack on Afghanistan that had actually been planned many months previously, and the destructive consequences of which are spelt out in detail. It should be noted that Dick Cheney has been a leading figure in the neoconservative movement, and
 it would be more accurate to describe the Bush – Cheney administration as the Cheney – Bush administration, at least in the first term.

The chapter on military spending, pre-emptive war and regime change is an eye-opener. The idea of pre-emptive-preventive war came to be known as the Bush Doctrine, elaborated in a 2002 national security strategy document with the dangerous clause that America can in self-defence ‘act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed’ – I will come back to this below when discussing drones. Challenging regimes hostile to US interests meant overthrowing them and replacing them, and the 2002 list ominously included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and Sudan. The events of the last 15 years show how dangerous it is in terms 
of unintended consequences to sow a
 wind without reaping a whirlwind: the emergence of ISIS as a result of the invasion of Iraq is just one example.

This document was written by Philip Zelikow, who would later be named the executive director of the 9/11 commission.

The next chapter is a detailed analysis of the Iraq war and the propaganda campaign of lies required to justify it, both in the 
US and the UK. David refers to meetings by Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6, with members of the Bush administration and CIA director George Tenet. Dearlove remarked that ‘the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy’, which was also the case in the UK with the so-called dodgy dossier. Amazingly, a 2008 report by the Centre for Public Integrity enumerates as many as 935 false statements made by members of the Bush administration
 in the two years following 9/11. David itemises a few of these with reference to weapons of mass destruction as well as biological and chemical weapons. During this time, the Joint Chiefs of Staff produced a much more cautious assessment, which was set aside. In addition, (p. 61) CIA analysts felt pressured by Dick Cheney to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration’s policy objectives, which dictated the conclusions their analyses should yield. The consequences of the Iraq war are well-known and include 
an estimated 2.3 million Iraqi deaths, 4,500 American deaths and hundreds of thousands of serious injuries, including 320,000 brain injuries. As to the economic cost, this had reached $4 trillion by 2014, a devastating opportunity cost in terms of what the money might have been spent on. It should also be noted that the contract for rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure went
 to Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney
 is a major shareholder and former chief executive officer.

Space does not permit a detailed discussion of all the global chaos brought about by US interventions in the Middle East
 on the basis that it could solve all of its problems by means of military power. Chaotic collapse was regarded as a form of ‘creative destruction’ providing a basis for destabilising a regime and eventually removing the incumbent, especially in this geopolitically significant area for oil and gas (p. 109). David discusses Libya, showing how the same kinds of lies were used to bring about regime change there, then he moves on to Syria, where the intractable disaster is ongoing, as we all know. In addition to military factors, it may also be a case that a form of weather warfare was used (this is not suggested in the book) to help create the drought as a key destabilising factor; in either event, whether deliberate or due to climate change, the drought was significant. In Syria, out of the pre-war population of 22 million, 11% have been killed or injured, 
5 million have fled the country and a further 8 million are internally displaced. In addition, as we know, this chaos also led to the refugee crisis that precipitated the Brexit vote.

David devotes a separate chapter to
 drone warfare, posing and responding 
to a number of key questions: are drone killings acceptable? Are they de facto assassination? Do drone strikes rarely kill civilians? Are drone strikes used only when capture is impossible? Are drone strikes used only for imminent threats? Do drone strikes help defeat terrorism? Don’t drones at least keep American warriors safe? There is no good case to be made for drone warfare extrajudicial killing in the name of ‘self-defence’; sometimes ‘signature strikes’ were employed and continued on a large scale during the Obama administration. The justification is tortuous to say the 
least where ‘an imminent threat of violent attack does not require the US to have clear evidence that a specific attack on US persons will take place in the immediate future’ (p. 146). This is a ‘more flexible’ understanding of imminence which ‘defines the term in a way that excludes its only actual meaning’ (!).

The chapter on shredding the Constitution makes depressing reading where ‘unaccountable executive power has replaced due process and the checks and balances established by the US constitution’, first embodied in the Patriot Act. David systematically shows how various amendments to the Constitution have been violated: the first on freedom of speech and assembly, the fourth on security against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the fifth relating to deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. In addition, torture violates the Constitution, and
 the overall result has been an undoing of democracy in the name of security – an Orwellian outcome.

After chapters on potential nuclear
 and ecological holocaust (the latter the subject of one of David’s previous books – Unprecedented), he moves on to a summary analysis of the events of 9/11 and its aftermath. Here he condenses 
the findings of his previous books to show how numerous miracles, defined 
as violations of the laws of nature, were necessary in order to sustain the 9/11 Commission’s official explanation. He shows how the choice of Philip Zelikow as Executive Director of this supposedly impartial and independent commission was in fact an insider selection leading to a foregone structure and conclusion and tight control on individual commissioners. As early as March 2003, prior to the first meeting of the commission, Zelikow had prepared a detailed outline including chapter headings, subheadings and sub sub-headings. The pre-ordained task was to explain how the building had been brought down by fire and the impact of the airliners.

So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F. The Twin Towers collapsed at virtually free fall speed, as did WTC 7, which was not hit by an aeroplane, a fact that was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission.

The official reports on WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was an agency of the Bush-Cheney administration. Its reports are more political than scientific as it is a fact of physics that a steel frame building can only come down essentially in freefall if all the core columns are severed simultaneously by explosives – in the case of Building 7, the roofline remained virtually horizontal throughout the sudden collapse. Readers can consult comparative videos for themselves showing an example of controlled demolition compared with the destruction of Building 7. In addition, massive sections of steel columns and beams were horizontally ejected from the Twin Towers up to 650 feet, which is quite inconsistent with the vertical effects of gravitational collapse. David summarises six miracles required by the official explanation that, in the view of a former NIST employee, ‘reached a predetermined conclusion by ignoring, dismissing and denying the evidence.’ In other words, the official account – and all the more so in the case of Building 7 with 82 steel columns – is a lie.

In his conclusion and after further short chapters on the Pentagon attack and Mohamed Atta, David lists 15 miracles required by the official 9/11 commission explanation. He asks why mainstream media have not properly examined the evidence, and one significant factor already mentioned is the fear of being labelled a ‘conspiracy theorist’, implying credulity, gullibility and irrationality. In the case of David Ray Griffin, nothing could be further from the truth: his analysis is thorough and forensic. He explains how the CIA invented this conspiracy theory tactic in 1964 in the wake of the Warren Report into the Kennedy assassination. It has become a powerful and intimidating rhetorical device, especially for journalists who pride themselves on their scepticism
 and objectivity.

Rather than follow the a priori argument that no government could be evil or competent enough to cover up 9/11, David urges people to look at the empirical evidence – and if you, the reader, are feeling similarly uncomfortable, I encourage you to read this book and his other ones for yourself and to understand the logic of false flag operations that can be attributed to opponents by means of a suitable propaganda campaign. So far as 9/11 is concerned, there is a large body of informed and expert professional opinion across various disciplines that has studied the evidence and concluded that the official account is false – see also the 9/11 Consensus Panel, the results of which was soon be published in 9/11 Unmasked: A Six-Year Investigation by an International Review Panel. This book is a highly significant contribution to exposing the Big Lie of 9/11 and the neoconservative foreign policy background, and is as
 such a passionate plea for mainstream media exposure to put a stop to further Machiavellian ambitions for full spectrum dominance of the world.

(Republished from Paradigm Explorer by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: 9/11, Conspiracy Theories, Neocons 
Hide 236 CommentsLeave a Comment
236 Comments to "Creative Chaos?"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Biff says:

    What was glaringly obvious was the 9/11 account of events was pre-written long before any airplane hit the twin towers; hence, no need for an investigation – one of those properly compiled political commissions will do.

    9/11 is simply the cost of pretending you’re the victim, and not the perp. Pretending you’re a democracy, and not a dictatorship. Pretending you represent freedom, and not enslavement. Pretending MiddleEast wars protect America, and not ____________.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Wally
    See real, unbiased science professionals opinions at:

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    see their videos
    see their petition signed by thousands of real science professionals

    You'll love seeing the explosive thermite bits found in the remains.

    Be sure to apply science to everything.
    It's amazing the lies were told.

    Don't die stupid.

    , @Fred
    Planes? Are you effin' that stupid? Planes...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. From my blog:

    Aug 13, 2017 – Bad CGI on 9-11

    I enjoy surfing thru youtube and watching videos about whatever. A few have finally convinced me to open myself to childish ridicule by joining millions of others who say no planes hit the towers on 9-11. That video of a B-767 slicing through steel beams like a cartoon always seemed impossible. Even the fragile hollow aluminum wing tips and tail cut through heavy steel beams! There are several other impossible things to explain in video clips.

    You will agree if you watch this video about how computer graphics were used. I was turned off by the goofy presenter, but he is brilliant and a recognized expert in this field. The best evidence is toward the end when he shows his own GCI video of a B-767 slicing (not crashing, which is too difficult to render) into the WTC.

    Also watch this excellent video about a former NIST employee expressing shock and dismay about the government’s official NIST report on what caused three WTC towers to suddenly collapse. This is one reason why google and youtube began manipulating search results to hide videos that upset people with the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Hume
    I remember watching interviews of people on the streets of New York and Brooklyn who saw the planes hit the towers
    , @ChuckOrloski
    Hi Carlton Meyer,

    Thanks for the videos, I texted them to a dear & long term friend for his viewing, LEARNING. Essentially skeptical & untrusting of US government, he has great difficulty at understanding what actually happened on 9/11, including the fact that Zelikow's Commission Report is documented to be phoney by committee PARTICIPANTS.

    As you might be aware, there's internet "chatter" about Russia's having 9/11 satellite imagery of the "terror" attacks which would melt & shame Zelikow's report.

    A question.

    If Putin has the "goods" on Cheney/Bush crime(S) against their own "people," something extraordinarily intimidating kept the Rus satellite-imagery secret?

    Curiously, all the while ZUS officials were lying about Russia's having illegally influenced the 2016 Twin Party preZidential phoney election, there was no Russian government move to show American "voters" how they fell for 9/11, The Greatest Story Never Told.

    Under even selective "Right to Know" law, I know it's worthless for ZUS citizens, including Ralph Nader, to demand a look at American satellite imagery, focused upon 9/11, locations Manhattan, D.C., and Shanksville.

    But, Carlton Meyer, I intuit such imagery is available & I am wondering what you and others here at U.R. comments might THINK.

    (Zigh)No doubt, ZUS can efficiently "doctor" satellite imagery" to show Mohammed Atta waving to the "dancing Israelis.

    Thanks for your service, Carlton!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Important work we all should appreciate, but of course any ‘mainstream’ journalist who deviates or crosses a certain line will see themselves expelled from mass circulation for the fact the people who make vast amounts of money from ‘terror’ seem to somehow entirely own corporate media. How this ‘controlling the narrative’ dilemma will be resolved remains to be seen.

    Meanwhile, I’d like to see certain IC veterans’ understanding of 9/11 bridged to the scientific reality:

    https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/01/04/closing-a-loophole-9-11-addendum/

    ^ It’s a modest effort.

    “The extension of the empire has meant the growth of private fortunes. This is nothing new, indeed it is in keeping with the most ancient history” -Gaius Asinius Gallus (from Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. I haven’t read the book but it sure sounds interesting. Once again the Neocon Jews and their friends run this game. Our foreign policy comes from Israel and we furnish the money and the dead soldiers for the blood thirsty Khazars. The entire 911 narrative is based on a number of events that are improbable on top of other improbabilities.

    I taught at a university years ago and one of my former students told me that his dad worked at the Pentagon. He said that his dad told him that the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down. I was at the site a few months later because I was doing a study in the area. I couldn’t believe how small the damage was to the ground where the plane supposedly crashed. Compared to other plane crash sites it was joke. I have no idea if the student was correct but there are a lot strange questions about things that no one wants to answer. In order to believe the complete narrative as compiled by our government one must be oblivious to the obvious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    They did a similar scam with that Flight-800 passenger plane event. Recall it? After about 3 years or close to it, the Fed agency involved with plane crashes made a video to show, how in the world could flight-800 First have an explosion in an empty of fuel wing tank, that then caused the Entire front portion and Flight deck portion of plane to break off and fall away from plane...

    Which then left what is akin to a 200 foot long By 40+ foot diameter Tube flying straight across sky at speed of 500-600 MPH, and after entire front portion with all officers and All flight Controls etc Fell off!....YET....Somehow that flying Tube sucking in massive air amounts at speeds of over 500 mph could actually...Increase speed and CLIMB another 3,000+ Feet in altitude!

    All while fully missing every flight control, capt. co pilot, flight crew, computer controls etc etc and entire front section of plane! I aint no pilot, only been in a plane once..But I say NO possible way remains of plane missing entire front section aka nose of plane, can somehow Gain speed and gain over 3,000 FT in altitude eh?


    All while sucking in what must amount to equal to a force-5 Tornado winds rushing into now fully Open 40+-FT Diameter Hole where front nose section Used to be!


    That mass air rush force alone had to have caused it to imediatly slow down fast eh...Then Drop like proverbial Rock into sea it flew over at time of event.


    I watched their phony video on tv when first shown and I said at that moment to a friend with me watching also, it was a total fake fraud attempt to cover up some new swindles by bubba Klinton and his handlers aka his zio bosses....Or to cover up what eye witness' of over 300+ folks out doors say, which as stated by them was plane got Hit by a fired missle from a ship at sea doing manuevers or something....A US Navel ship they stated....And same 300 witness folk also soon after said FBI visited them and warned all to remain silent do no interviews with any tv news or else.


    This is Not the usa america we were taught to believe in as small kids and thru out our entire lives eh...


    Yes indeed be it Flight-800, or 9/11 events or JFK event, and too many more to list here now.


    America and its people has been totally Hyjacked by an 100% Pure Evil force and after 20 years of reasearch of so many events and issues and agendas now...I conclude that regardless what or how many so called goys or wasps or, whatever else called, play roles in this mass hyjacking....Regardless of that, the Main leaders and controlers are and have always been international jewry and its zio perps.


    Whoever that famous german guy was that said "The jews are Our Misfortune" back when germany was main Host nation of jewry....Well boy was he correct....Misfortune sounds too too nicy nice term eh. And if allowed to continue much longer, america will be lost forever period.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. I took me three years to see the unthinkable, a government killing three thousand of its own citizens in order to be able to wage war
    In my quest in how it was possible that our saviour in WWII had become evil I discovered that Sept 11 indeed was the ‘new Pearl Harbour’ PNAC of AEI wanted.
    I wonder, in fact think it quite probable, that without FDR having been brought into politics to wage war, our country would ever have been occupied.
    As FDR’s friend Sol Bloom writes in his autobiography, ‘the great accomplishment of FDR was that he slowly prepared the USA people for war’.
    Sol Bloom agrees fully with Beard, just his moral judgment is the opposite of Beard’s.
    Sol Bloom, ‘The Autobiography of Sol Bloom’, New York 1948
    Charles A. Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances and realities’, New Haven, 1948

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    If there were no planes why should there be 3,000 victims? Certainly in such an operation some accidents happen, but the point was to create an illusion, not to kill people, at least not in New York. If you want, you can check the names of the so-called victims against the official US social security death index and you will be glad to see that that the number of real casualties was very low. (In Iraq on the other hand, the situation was indeed completely different. There there were real victims, perhaps a million, and the disaster to civilization continues.) The role of the fire department was to evacuate persons and not to fight a make believe fire. And they were told themselves to leave because another "fifth plane was about to hit the buildings." Of course, there was no "fifth plane" and the warning is proof of the humanitarian decency of those responsible. If the firemen actually remained inside while the buildings were blown up that would really have created the basis of anger against the perpetrators. That is why, although people looked in the rubble for weeks (admittedly in great and real danger to to their health because of the toxicity of the site) no body remains, or almost no body remains were found, because there weren't any. Just passports of hijackers. Do you seriously think the governments of two of our leading countries are so monstrous? Shame on you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. The author’s excellent review includes one phrase that sent me jumping: “The failure to prevent 9/11 attack was
 in itself a massive intelligence disaster.” That phrase stands not only in contradiction to all David R. Griffin’s analyses, but even to the commentator’s own analysis of WTC 7.

    Let’s make it clear:
    (a) The U.S. administration did not try to prevent 9/11, for the very simple reason, that no one tries to prevent his own plans;
    (b) The ability of intelligence services to hide the preparations for 9/11 was no disaster but a huge success.

    I miss particularly in this otherwise fine book review a fundamental fact about 9/11, namely that no Muslims participated in this crime and no hijackings had taken place. There was a time I offered £10,000 to anyone proving that 19 Muslims perpetrated the crime, but since no one seemed interested in the money, I kept it for better use. Perhaps the honorable author of the present article will one day recognize these basic facts and say so. Have a good day!

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P, druid
    • Replies: @notanon

    a fundamental fact about 9/11, namely that no Muslims participated in this crime and no hijackings had taken place
     
    head spooks are very keen on layers of plausible deniability cos pension - so helping jihadists mount an attack through a chain of intermediaries is a lot safer than using your own guys directly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Brabantian says: • Website

    Francesco Cossiga, President of Italy a while back, flat-out said that the major governments in Europe all privately recognise, that 9-11 was run by the USA & Israel … Cossiga speaking to Italy’s largest newspaper, the Corriere della Serra

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Logan says:

    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I’ve spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I’ve seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn’t support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I’m agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    I’m agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.
     
    OK, how about Building 7? It went down even though no plane ever struck it.
    , @Mike P

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F
     
    So you mean to say that at 1500F there is no strength left whatsoever? That does not sound right at all.

    But even assuming that the kerosine fires caused by the non-existing planes softened the steel in their vicinity, there remain the difficulties of

    - the sudden onset of the collapse

    - the descent of the top part of the building through the path of highest resistance - it should have tipped over and fallen down on the side of the impact, instead of crushing the entire building underneath

    - the rapid collapse of the entire building, even of those parts that had not suffered fire damage

    - the explosive lateral ejections of material during that collapse, and the instant pulverization of the concrete

    - the detection of nanothermite in the pulverized concrete

    and many more. I can understand people who are "agnostic" about God's existence, but to be "agnostic" about facts right before one's eyes is the sign of a weak or lazy mind.
    , @Anon
    I was going to mention that steel and all metals don’t have to melt but just soften to collapse from the weight the metal column supports

    Plus, columns whether a human leg, a table leg or structural steel columns are meant to support weight. Horizontally they are not so strong.

    A small break and the structure can collapse.

    The steel column has to melt completely before it collapses argument is just ignorance about metallurgy

    For me, the ultimate proof of an Israel Jew, Jewish lightening and US government involvement is Silverstein’s insurance pay out and the ensuing decades of war
    , @j2
    "I’m agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one."

    There are other much stronger arguments in favor of the explosive theory.
    , @MacNucc11
    I am assuming that since you were repairing these buildings that they had not collapse into their own footprints demolition style. One question, as the person in charge of repairing the buildings how would you know how hot the fires were in those buildings?
    , @EliteCommInc.
    I guess agnosticism is a good way to phrase it. I think I am on this page.

    Unanswered questions, and curious coincidences, not to mention in-competencies of all kinds are not unusual in such events as these.


    On their face the conspiracy arguments makes sense. But upon challenge so many are either a wash or fail. So agnostic works. open just not convinced.
    , @Malaysian Truther
    The maximum temperature reached in the fires was 592 c according to NIST itself - enough said I think
    , @ValmMond

    I’ve spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings.
     
    Just curious, how many building collapses due to fire have you witnessed? Would you mind sharing your experience?
    , @Them Guys
    How do steel beams soften in lower temp when entire fire prior to collapse lasted just aprox 55 minuets?

    Also I read that the steel beams used at twin towers was something like 2.5 in thick minimum and when made, prior to shipping each beam it got stressed tested to comply with some of the strictest ever rules up to that date of construction of sky scrapers, of stress potentials.

    Same article said a sample 6.5 ft beam section created to exact same strict specs was obtained to use as a test beam and when heated in a high temp oven facility, it took Over 16+ Hrs at temps about 1,000 degrees F, Higher, to finally allow beam to Droop in middle when beam was placed over two points suspended above floor.....Their reason to use just a 6.5 FT long beam was stated as due to the high temp oven facility they got access to use would not contain a longer length beam.

    But if that shorter beam was made to exact same specs of steel type used, same thickness as orig towers beams etc.....Then results should show same or similar effects I'd think.

    Test beam heated to 1,000 F Higher temp and for over 16-HRs prior to potential to droop in middle of beam....Compared to actual towers beams at 1,000 degrees F-Less temp and for just 55 Min. before collapse scenario began.

    PS: All else I ever read says that in all/every similar high rise steel beamed structure with intense fire.....NONE ever yet did a collapse of entire frame like twin towers did...And most if not all of other fires lasted much longer....One lasted 22 Hrs in Japan I think it was and zero total collapse at all.

    So besides zero others did a collapse prior in all high rise fire history to date, a First!

    We have yet another First!....ZERO Plane/debrie/persons/passengers/flight crew/Engines/Wheels & Tires/ Passengers luggages/etc were seen at Pentagon event!

    Although finally a couple/few years ago the msm tv news shows did show a special video made by usa/pentagon officials that showed a blur object, they said was the plane which after it hit pentagon wall....it and ALL of its contents and parts etc simply "VAPORIZED" and only thing that remained visible of entire plane-passengers-parts-luggages etc etc were,....

    Tiny little bits of Sparkling things on pentagons Lawn where plane hit wall.....They said the sparkling bits on lawn were Aluminum Particles that was all that remained due to vaporization effects!...

    FLASH News! Breaking!.....I too see Little sparkling "things" on MY Backyard Lawn every Morning when early Sun arises....Yep!...Only MY Lawns "Sparklings" aint Tiny Aluminum Bits...No Sir!

    My Lawns early morn sparkle bits are....wait for it.....DEW On the lawns blades of...GRASS!!!

    Sparkles like a backyard lawn covered with Diamonds! But no Commercial Plane Aluminum tiny sparkle bits...Just DEW-Drops!


    Plus pentagon had huge wall hole yes....Said to where plane fully entered and vaporized...Yet....NO side hole or slice in building where planes WINGS must have been eh?


    So if zero wings side entry holes or wall slice missing, wings should been seen ON LAWN....Nope no wings and NO NUTHIN! Seen besides early morn shiny tiny aluminum bits due to entire plane "Vaporized" once hit wall at pentagon...


    What will them ziokikes invent next eh?....Maybe it was an Disapearing Antisemitic Racist Plane huh? hahahah.
    , @The Alarmist

    "... fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F."
     
    This point alone is nonsense. Kerosene as the primary fuel won't support temperatures much above that, but there was plenty of other fuel in the mix and, more importantly, the tower would have been sucking air up through it, fanning the flames (ever blow on a campfire?), so the dynamics of the scenario might have supported a higher temp.

    But, as Logan notes, steel doesn't need to melt to give way, particularly when it is under stress of all the weight above it. And as he further observed, heating steel, bending it, and then relatively rapidly cooling it, like with water, will give you hardened steel


    "The Twin Towers collapsed at virtually free fall speed ... it is a fact of physics that a steel frame building can only come down essentially in freefall if all the core columns are severed simultaneously by explosives ."
     
    This one is really tired. Gravity accelerates mass at a constant rate in the absence of meaningful resistance. That's why a feather and a hammer dropped on the moon hit its surface at the same time. Once enough of the supporting columns in WTC7 gave way, by whatever means, the rest of the relatively empty and very compressible structure offered no meaningful resistance to the mass falling from above. Even if it had been "pulled", the reasoning fails ... That it fell at virtually free-fall speed means nothing, because it started at zero and accelerated to "virtually free-fall speed." That's how things fall when acted upon by gravity.

    BTW, that WTC 7 fell relatively vertical might support the argument that it was a controlled demolition, but it is not conclusive evidence: The moment and vector of the fall will, in absence of some external force or resistance, be in the direction of the pull of gravity, i.e. straight down.

    , @ploni almoni
    Have you ever seen a cheap kerosene heater, like the Aladdin, droop from the heat of the burning kerosene? Even after years of use?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Ray Griffin is one of the most knowledgeable persons who has dealt with the numerous inconsistencies of the 9/11 attacks. He has published a bunch of excellent books; the latest just reviewed. Everybody who delves into the 9/11 event sees the red herrings laid out by that time George W. Bush government. From the so-called terrorist attacks to the forced investigation by the public (9/11 Commission), not a single aspect of the official 9/11 narrative holds water. Everybody who uses just common sense will discover it right away.

    The only interesting question to be asked is; Why does the so-called critical and liberal US press doesn’t touch this subject? The 9/11 events are just what an investigative journalist is waiting for. But the legion of journalists keep mum and except the fairy tales the government has presented to them up until now. Can it be that these journalists don’t have balls because all the US media are in the hands of five media moguls? After a few hours, the Bush/Cheney set the narrative in stone. How can this be accepted where all questions remain still unanswered?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. denk says:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Borsalino says:

    The moment that stands out the most for me from the whole 9/11 affair was Bush’s remark a short while after claiming ‘We don’t need any investigation’. How much redder can a red flag get?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Carlton Meyer: In the Spring of 2009, I woke up to the fact that the official story of 9/11 was a Big Lie. I have spent untold hours since then studying the details — and I too have finally come to realize that no airliners hit the Twin Towers. Yes, the Ace Baker video (over 5 hours long as I recall) is a bit cheesy at times, but the CGI analysis is convincing. Elias Davidsson: excellent comment, I agree. Finally, while I am a huge admirer of the brilliant DRG (both w/r/t his 9/11 books and his theological works), I with he had come up with a different title for this one. Using the names of Bush and Cheney does nothing to help people understand that the problem is much deeper and more systemic. Obviously Obama was no better; and DRG never goes near the subject of Jewish Power as far I know (although I have heard that he did once acknowledge during a Q&A after once of his talks that Christopher Bollyn is a “serious” 9/11 researcher). Furthermore, no matter how brilliant, DRG is misguided on some very important subjects: he is a believer in world government and in the absurd notion that carbon emissions cause “climate change” (there may be man-made effects on weather, but if so it is directly related to the massive geoengineering that has been underway for years now — chemtrail spraying, etc. — and not to carbon emissions).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Israel and the Zionist neocons who control every facet of the U.S. government including the Zionist controlled intel agencies did 911 and opened the gates of hell.

    Israel and the deep state proved by this draconian act that they are capable of inhuman acts of murder and destruction that is a hall mark of communists and terrorist everywhere in the world and in fact they created ISIS aka AL CIADA and have caused the deaths of millions in the Mideast and the deaths of thousands of American troops in the wars fought for Israel.

    The enemy is not at the gates, the enemy is controlling the American government.

    Read More
    • Agree: Them Guys
    • Replies: @Robert Hume
    The video of Israelis cheering the towers’ destruction supports this interpretation. On the other hand they may not have known who was responsible but figured that it must be “good for Israel”.
    , @richard
    you nailed it brother
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. notanon says:

    Brennan was CIA chief in Riyadh in the years running up to 9/11

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. notanon says:
    @Elias Davidsson
    The author's excellent review includes one phrase that sent me jumping: "The failure to prevent 9/11 attack was
 in itself a massive intelligence disaster." That phrase stands not only in contradiction to all David R. Griffin's analyses, but even to the commentator's own analysis of WTC 7.

    Let's make it clear:
    (a) The U.S. administration did not try to prevent 9/11, for the very simple reason, that no one tries to prevent his own plans;
    (b) The ability of intelligence services to hide the preparations for 9/11 was no disaster but a huge success.

    I miss particularly in this otherwise fine book review a fundamental fact about 9/11, namely that no Muslims participated in this crime and no hijackings had taken place. There was a time I offered £10,000 to anyone proving that 19 Muslims perpetrated the crime, but since no one seemed interested in the money, I kept it for better use. Perhaps the honorable author of the present article will one day recognize these basic facts and say so. Have a good day!

    a fundamental fact about 9/11, namely that no Muslims participated in this crime and no hijackings had taken place

    head spooks are very keen on layers of plausible deniability cos pension – so helping jihadists mount an attack through a chain of intermediaries is a lot safer than using your own guys directly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    It is even safer to use computer generated imaging.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Jake says:

    The CIA, the Mossad, the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency (as well as the SAVAK of the Shah of Iran) were all born out of British secret service. They are all products of WASP culture. They all do the same lying, the same torturing, the same evil. They all would destroy countless numbers of human pawns in order to ‘win’ some prize for their Deep State owners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    Yes and that "Win Prize" they so seek is a Third Jewish Temple in Israel where they can resume animal sacrifices by use of sub human Goys as animal burnt offerings daily. And they Drool over a reinstituted San Hedrin rabbi staff of 23 san hedrins to replace usa and every nations supreme court justices, so jewry can rule over and be final deciders of which goys are guilty of their yet to be instituted Noahide Laws for goys.....Then of course once san hedrins find guilty as charged goys guilty, they can be killed and used as animal sacrifice burnt offerings.

    And their greatest ever event yet to come, which totally discombobulates their jewdeo zio minds into a state of near frenzy, is the grand plan to Seat Their jewish Antichrist guy in said 3rd temple inner sanctum. And what will those usa 60-70 Million jewdeochristians do when their pre trib rapture escape events fails to happen while all that is going on eh?

    Think by that point any of them clowns will finally disavow their main object of worship of jews and Israel?...…..NO way!.....They wont awaken to real truth until they share a place in hell with their jew masters.

    I recall as a kid in grade school when teachers and parents alike kept pounding into our heads how that if we work hard, learn as much as possible, increase our IQ's And be really smart.....Then our entire adult lives shall be so much better, easier, more prosperous and place Us well above the fray of others who fail to do that.

    Well I got news for all them folks and teachers...That was a HUGE Lie!

    Because once you become wide awake and red pilled as some calls it, and realize you are a one out of aprox 10,000 at best....and how dumbed down and asleep to truth the others are.

    You also find that being smarter and knowing stuff the rest fail to see or know of, only makes life more difficult and far more lonely of an existence. Kinda like that Maytag Repair man guy eh. aka Loneliest man alive (due to maytag washer machines never break down so his repair job phone never rings and causes his vast aloneness).

    The more you awaken and learn the far less you have in common with todays American lemmings and idiots it seems. Soon you begin to detest and despise such ignorant fools.
    , @SunBakedSuburb
    " ... for their Deep State owners."

    Ultimately, CIA, Mossad, the British and the Saudis, and their respective deep states, are owned by Zionism. And Zionism was created as an ideological/political weapon by the most successful religious cult in the world -- Illuminatus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    I’m agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    OK, how about Building 7? It went down even though no plane ever struck it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Are you unaware that a fire had been burning for many hours in WTC7 before it collapsed?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Mike P says:
    @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F

    So you mean to say that at 1500F there is no strength left whatsoever? That does not sound right at all.

    But even assuming that the kerosine fires caused by the non-existing planes softened the steel in their vicinity, there remain the difficulties of

    - the sudden onset of the collapse

    - the descent of the top part of the building through the path of highest resistance – it should have tipped over and fallen down on the side of the impact, instead of crushing the entire building underneath

    - the rapid collapse of the entire building, even of those parts that had not suffered fire damage

    - the explosive lateral ejections of material during that collapse, and the instant pulverization of the concrete

    - the detection of nanothermite in the pulverized concrete

    and many more. I can understand people who are “agnostic” about God’s existence, but to be “agnostic” about facts right before one’s eyes is the sign of a weak or lazy mind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Carlton Meyer
    From my blog:

    Aug 13, 2017 - Bad CGI on 9-11

    I enjoy surfing thru youtube and watching videos about whatever. A few have finally convinced me to open myself to childish ridicule by joining millions of others who say no planes hit the towers on 9-11. That video of a B-767 slicing through steel beams like a cartoon always seemed impossible. Even the fragile hollow aluminum wing tips and tail cut through heavy steel beams! There are several other impossible things to explain in video clips.

    You will agree if you watch this video about how computer graphics were used. I was turned off by the goofy presenter, but he is brilliant and a recognized expert in this field. The best evidence is toward the end when he shows his own GCI video of a B-767 slicing (not crashing, which is too difficult to render) into the WTC.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c5_g7UTuGM

    Also watch this excellent video about a former NIST employee expressing shock and dismay about the government's official NIST report on what caused three WTC towers to suddenly collapse. This is one reason why google and youtube began manipulating search results to hide videos that upset people with the truth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvAv-114bwM

    I remember watching interviews of people on the streets of New York and Brooklyn who saw the planes hit the towers

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    it's relatively easy to fly a large plane at high speed at high altitudes but a lot harder at low altitudes (cos air density) so the critical question is how did amateur pilots do it?

    the "CGI planes" meme is a deflection from asking that question

    the simplest answer to that question would be they weren't amateur pilots.

    (saudi air force trained maybe?)
    , @ploni almoni
    I remember watching Godzilla breathing fire through downtown Tokio.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @DESERT FOX
    Israel and the Zionist neocons who control every facet of the U.S. government including the Zionist controlled intel agencies did 911 and opened the gates of hell.

    Israel and the deep state proved by this draconian act that they are capable of inhuman acts of murder and destruction that is a hall mark of communists and terrorist everywhere in the world and in fact they created ISIS aka AL CIADA and have caused the deaths of millions in the Mideast and the deaths of thousands of American troops in the wars fought for Israel.

    The enemy is not at the gates, the enemy is controlling the American government.

    The video of Israelis cheering the towers’ destruction supports this interpretation. On the other hand they may not have known who was responsible but figured that it must be “good for Israel”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    They knew and all of the U.S. knows but nobody has the guts to stand up to the zionist overlords of the Israelis American colony.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Mulegino1 says:

    The official narrative of 9/11 is the big lie in plain sight. It is clear that the perpetrators in Washington, New York and Tel Aviv knew quite a bit about hoodwinking the public with media spectacle and manipulating its emotions, but very little about real world physics, architecture, engineering, aeronautics or ballistics.

    We have gotten to the point where the only people who believe the ludicrous tale are either double digit i.q. infotainment proles or those whose livelihoods depend upon their credulous acceptance- or the appearance thereof -of this fantasy, including virtually every prominent figure in the corporate media and almost every single member of Congress.

    Isn’t it ironic that the label “truther” is intended to be a pejorative and implies a negative connotation to truth?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Isn’t it ironic that the label “truther” is intended to be a pejorative and implies a negative connotation to truth?
     
    Club Rules. Smart and sophisticated people sneer at "Truthers" same as it's obligatory to be Israel First and match your politics to the Washington Post. There's no thought involved, they're Club Rules.

    When Trump was elected I received daily commiseration for this terrible event.

    And when I explained that I actually supported Trump because of stopping ME wars and mass outsourcing, they were surprised, and they seemed like new ideas for them. Their attempted conversation stopper was always "He's Racist" something along the lines of "Adolf Hitler - don't go there."

    I've tried 9/11 with closer friends (using the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth excellent booklet "Beyond Misinformation - What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7") and it's later returned like incriminating evidence with "We've read it - Thank you" and no comment.

    My take is that Globalism/Zionism/Multiculturalism is a form of religion.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven’t you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the “laws of physics” types out there who do not understand what they’re talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like “kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees” is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It’s just the “laws of physics.” And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about “soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams” is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the “laws of physics.” The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    This comment was written as a reply to Seamus Padraig at 17 but for some reason it was published as a regular comment. I believe this is the second time I've noticed this happening with a reply of mine.
    , @DESERT FOX
    Hows the weather in Tel Aviv.
    , @Mike P

    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower,

     

    but nowhere near to the point of structural disintegration.

    it had been burning out of control for seven hours,

     

    same - there were just a couple of dispersed office fires here and there, but no large-scale, wholesale conflagration.

    and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings.
     
    indeed. Then, how did the other buildings nearby remain standing?

    You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction,
     
    comparing temperatures to enthalpies is apples and oranges.

    If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium.
     
    But there was no such enclosing container in this case.

    Secondly, the complaint about “soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams” is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration
     
    The relevant law here is `action equals reaction'. Nobody is saying that the buildings should have remained unscathed - the point is that both the building and the planes should have sustained damage. The planes should have disintegrated upon impact instead of just cutting through the building like a knife through butter and being swallowed whole.

    Let me guess, you have an undergraduate degree in physics? Because for some reason most physicists I have met are very bad at understanding the real world.
    , @j2
    "There are two additional points that need to be made to all the “laws of physics” types out there who do not understand what they’re talking about."

    Those who do not understand what they are talking about. Are you perhaps joking? I remember one western where a guy commented, when you say that, smile.

    It is possible to reach a temperature to melt iron in coal powered fire, but only by blowing air (oxygen) to it. Were there any conditions for such a mechanism? I do not see them. Iron does soften below the melting point, but it is not essential. Essential is that to bring a building down symmetrically, you have to weaken pillars on all sides equally. That is nearly impossible for an non-symmetric fire. Just watch the video of WTC7 fall and ask how can this be made by fire.

    Yes, it is possible to cut something with weaker material by bringing enough energy. Why do your type of people always attack the weakest (and possibly your group self-created) arguments instead of attacking the strong and good argument supported by the more scientific 9/11 truthers. Very few people claim that there were no plains and that an aluminium plane cannot cut steel pillars. Refute the strong and accepted arguments, not these silly weak arguments.

    So, if we talk about WTC7, one problem is that the building comes down as it does, all sides at the same time and with a free-fall speed for many seconds. Whatever you say about steel getting softer, here we see that the whole steel structure gives no resistance to the fall. It is impossible and means that the structure is removed. I can only see it being done by explosives.

    The second issue is the high temperature recorded by a satellite a long time after the event. I very well remember how the news in 2001 told of very high temperatures there, melting steel they said in the news in my country at that time. What could possibly be burning there if not thermite? A normal fire does not burn so long.

    Then we have this peer-reviewed paper of nanothermite. Ok, the editor was kicked out. It does not mean the paper was not correctly reviewed.

    And then we have all this: an insurance against terrorist attack, dancing Palestinians, a passport surviving the crash, foreknowledge. I need not continue.

    I am not so sure you understand what are "laws of physics", but I more or less do understand physics as I studied it quite long. WTC (all of the buildings) was a very strange fall of a building, especially if it was a gravitational fall.

    , @Anon
    Ah, another voice of reason, and knowledge of metallurgy and fires inserted into what looks to be another thread of the ignorant arguing with the ignorant about technology, engineering architecture and metallurgy.
    , @jilles dykstra
    A fire in a confined space stops burning through lack of oxygen.
    But I have something for you, my local weld shop after Sept 11 no longer uses oxygen and ethylene from expensive pressure bottles, but does the welding with just kerosine.
    On top of that, great admiration for my mother and grandmother, cooking on a kerosine cooker.
    Even more admiration for my Primus kerosine pressure camping burner, it never melted.
    On top of that, Rolls Royce jet engines do not melt in flight.
    But indeed, I suppose you live in the area where Jezus did his miracles, so why no miracles now ?
    , @Mulegino1
    WTC1 and 2 did not experience anything remotely resembling a gravity induced collapse due to localized office fires, which would have been partial, asymmetrical and gradual. There was no gravity collapse. Most of the steel and concrete of WTC 1 and 2 - along with that of the core of WTC 6 was turned into clouds of dust; in other words, it was disintegrated. It underwent molecular dissociation. No hydrocarbon based office fire or gravity collapse on earth is capable of causing such a thing.

    What would it take to penetrate a 1/4" thick steel perimeter box column?

    Compare a commercial Boeing 767 with an armor piercing 7.62 x 54 R bullet. The former is for the most part a thin skinned hollow aluminum tube, with fragile wings and sturdy but light weight titanium engines. Its nose cone can be virtually destroyed by impact with birds in flight at cruising speed. At cruising speed it is not designed to withstand collisions with anything denser than thin air and water vapor. The latter has a hardened alloy tip, an alloy jacket and a solid steel core, and can penetrate 1/4" of steel plating. However since the box columns are four sided, it would have been necessary to penetrate 1/2" structural steel. Had a real 767 have impacted the exterior of WTC 2 at the impossible (at or near sea level) air speed of 500 plus mph as is claimed by the NTSB, most of it would have been shredded to pieces at the point of impact and fallen to the street below. The kerosene or jet fuel would have ignited on impact, and most of the fires would have burned on the exterior.
    , @bjondo
    Michael DeathHead Chertoff's nephew?
    , @ValmMond

    Building 7 (...) had been burning out of control for seven hours

     

    Most of the fires inside Building 7 were barely visible.
    None of them was hot enough to cause even window breakage.
    Let alone the symmetrical collapse of a steel-frame building at free-fall and as a single unit. Symmetrical free-fall means a sudden and simultaneous withdrawal of ALL structural support.
    Let me repeat that.
    The WTC 7 fell at gravity acceleration (aka in free fall) for 2.25 seconds, spanning eight stories.
    It means that 82 supporting columns ceased simultaneously to offer resistance.
    No fire, flood, locusts or known laws of Newtonian mechanics are known to produce such effect.
    There is only one explanation: all supporting columns were taken out simultaneously.
    In itself, that's an undeniable indication of coordination.
    , @MacNucc11
    Think how dumb all those demolition experts must feel right now! All these years they have been taking out the columns through all this difficult and tedious controlled demolition and all they needed to do was fire an aluminum skinned projectile loaded with kerosene into the upper floors. Next you will tell us that is different though because you need the people inside so the methan they give off can help the fires burn hotter. Great stuff. Keep it coming.
    , @ploni almoni
    You should not say "Building Seven" (of the World Trade Center). You should say "Salomon Building" so people think it was NOT financially involved with the same owner of the other buildings. Otherwise it might sound like the whole thing was an insurance scam.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Rogue says:

    Also of interest is the body language of Lucky Larry Silverstein when interviewed about the twin towers and building 7.

    He doesn’t look honest to me at all, but then I’m no expert either.

    What I would like is a behavioral analysis by an expert in that particular field as to whether Lucky Larry is pulling a fast one or not.

    For those who don’t know, Larry Silverstein took ownership of most of the WTC complex shortly before 9/11.

    Videos of him being interviewed about 9/11 are freely available on YouTube.

    Conveniently, neither his son or daughter – or himself – were at the complex on 9/11. They usually met with clients every day at the restaurant at the top of one of the towers.

    I wonder what others think of his body language if they’ve seen the interviews.

    I wouldn’t accuse him of lying, since as I’ve already said I’m no expert, but he sure looks suspicious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Them Guys
    Lucky Larry paid out $50 million down paymnt. waited 2.5 months was it?, then collected about a total of $4 BILLION from 1/2 dozen insurance policies on towers...Plus such a jewy Dealllll! Larry whos daily, always same daily breakfast meal at same table in top floor revolving restaurant missed breakfast that day due to a phone call from wifey reminding him of some dr. appoint he had.

    What total luck eh....Such a Deeeeall!! OyVehy.

    Plus Larry was even able to be present at buildg #7 to tell tv reporter "We then decided it best to...Just PULL IT" That's demolition workerman speak.

    Just Pull It and Collect $4 Billion Cash Profit on prior $50 Million down payment on 99 year lease.

    Not to mention saved $$$$ tons of saved cash to do asbestos removals to redesign office spaces if rented out eh. Just let that asbestos fly over NY and create more sick folks than a typical Africa nation state with such numbers of sick peoples.

    But did lucky larry have to pay off that fed appellate judge GW appointed for that favorable ct decision that allowed larry to collect insurance even when damages done due to terrorist opps?

    Ever read your home owner policy yet? Note how Your/My home or vehicle insur policy says NO payouts if due to War-Civil Riots-Terrorist activity etc.

    Yet Larry got several policies to pay for that cause and all on same properties too! How many policies can You obtain per home or car? ONE Only per.

    Ahhhhh....Gots to just Love that jewish lightning effect no?
    , @ploni almoni
    He chews gum like crazy on the televised anniversaries. Of course, so did Frank Sinatra in front of Congressional committees.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Robert Hume
    The video of Israelis cheering the towers’ destruction supports this interpretation. On the other hand they may not have known who was responsible but figured that it must be “good for Israel”.

    They knew and all of the U.S. knows but nobody has the guts to stand up to the zionist overlords of the Israelis American colony.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. @Carlton Meyer
    From my blog:

    Aug 13, 2017 - Bad CGI on 9-11

    I enjoy surfing thru youtube and watching videos about whatever. A few have finally convinced me to open myself to childish ridicule by joining millions of others who say no planes hit the towers on 9-11. That video of a B-767 slicing through steel beams like a cartoon always seemed impossible. Even the fragile hollow aluminum wing tips and tail cut through heavy steel beams! There are several other impossible things to explain in video clips.

    You will agree if you watch this video about how computer graphics were used. I was turned off by the goofy presenter, but he is brilliant and a recognized expert in this field. The best evidence is toward the end when he shows his own GCI video of a B-767 slicing (not crashing, which is too difficult to render) into the WTC.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c5_g7UTuGM

    Also watch this excellent video about a former NIST employee expressing shock and dismay about the government's official NIST report on what caused three WTC towers to suddenly collapse. This is one reason why google and youtube began manipulating search results to hide videos that upset people with the truth.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GvAv-114bwM

    Hi Carlton Meyer,

    Thanks for the videos, I texted them to a dear & long term friend for his viewing, LEARNING. Essentially skeptical & untrusting of US government, he has great difficulty at understanding what actually happened on 9/11, including the fact that Zelikow’s Commission Report is documented to be phoney by committee PARTICIPANTS.

    As you might be aware, there’s internet “chatter” about Russia’s having 9/11 satellite imagery of the “terror” attacks which would melt & shame Zelikow’s report.

    A question.

    If Putin has the “goods” on Cheney/Bush crime(S) against their own “people,” something extraordinarily intimidating kept the Rus satellite-imagery secret?

    Curiously, all the while ZUS officials were lying about Russia’s having illegally influenced the 2016 Twin Party preZidential phoney election, there was no Russian government move to show American “voters” how they fell for 9/11, The Greatest Story Never Told.

    Under even selective “Right to Know” law, I know it’s worthless for ZUS citizens, including Ralph Nader, to demand a look at American satellite imagery, focused upon 9/11, locations Manhattan, D.C., and Shanksville.

    But, Carlton Meyer, I intuit such imagery is available & I am wondering what you and others here at U.R. comments might THINK.

    (Zigh)No doubt, ZUS can efficiently “doctor” satellite imagery” to show Mohammed Atta waving to the “dancing Israelis.

    Thanks for your service, Carlton!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    This comment was written as a reply to Seamus Padraig at 17 but for some reason it was published as a regular comment. I believe this is the second time I’ve noticed this happening with a reply of mine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    This always happens, I have noticed, if I have to post twice because I didn't get the username and email filled in correctly-the reply handle is lost.
    #bug
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    Hows the weather in Tel Aviv.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Silly. And embodying your previously established ignorance. I've often disagreed with him, but here he is the expert speaking, a rarity on 9/11.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. notanon says:
    @Robert Hume
    I remember watching interviews of people on the streets of New York and Brooklyn who saw the planes hit the towers

    it’s relatively easy to fly a large plane at high speed at high altitudes but a lot harder at low altitudes (cos air density) so the critical question is how did amateur pilots do it?

    the “CGI planes” meme is a deflection from asking that question

    the simplest answer to that question would be they weren’t amateur pilots.

    (saudi air force trained maybe?)

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    Excellent reasoning. It doesn't get any better. Saudi trained professional pilots posing as amateurs. With extra pay for hazardous duty. A promotion is in order. For them and for you. No one would ever have guessed. A genius. With such people, how can we lose?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Within a week of 9/11/01 , I doubt if 5% of the people I know did not buy the govt story ,book line and sinker.
    (My doubt was as to who was the originator and whom the mere Tannoy- it wasn’t till the Judith Miller burlesque show that I realized the two are as one.naive huh?) Today I doubt if 25% buy the 9/11 myth but the same 95% willingly go along with the latest lies from the proven liars- Syria , Russia, assassinations etc. Quite remarkable, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Yesterday the people investigating MH17, they include suspect Ukraine, stated their newest findings, a Russian army unit from Kursk had brought a BUK to the the E Ukraine.
    This BUK shot down MH17, they say, most of the victims Dutch, the plane came from Amsterdam.
    Now the extraordinary thing is that nobody asks what the motive was.
    The Netherlands most objected to economic sanctions against Russia, we exported a lot of vegetables, flowers and fruit.
    The day after the disaster no more objections.
    So the question 'who benefitted ?' is simple to answer.
    Yet, as far as I can see, the majority here swallows the 'the Russians did it' story.
    About MH17 there now are as many questions as about Sept 11.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Mike P says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower,

    but nowhere near to the point of structural disintegration.

    it had been burning out of control for seven hours,

    same – there were just a couple of dispersed office fires here and there, but no large-scale, wholesale conflagration.

    and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings.

    indeed. Then, how did the other buildings nearby remain standing?

    You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction,

    comparing temperatures to enthalpies is apples and oranges.

    If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium.

    But there was no such enclosing container in this case.

    Secondly, the complaint about “soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams” is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration

    The relevant law here is `action equals reaction’. Nobody is saying that the buildings should have remained unscathed – the point is that both the building and the planes should have sustained damage. The planes should have disintegrated upon impact instead of just cutting through the building like a knife through butter and being swallowed whole.

    Let me guess, you have an undergraduate degree in physics? Because for some reason most physicists I have met are very bad at understanding the real world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    And lay conspiracy theorists with no relevant expertise spout total rubbish from their nook of the "real world".
    , @insidejob
    Fortunately we dont have to rely on pure hypotheticals. The problem with all these rebuttals from physicists in Tel Aviv is that there are lots of real world examples. The best perhaps being the B52 bomber that plowed into the Empire State building in the 1940's. It was not as large a plane and was traveling at a lower rate of speed, but it certainly went into the top floors and raged on fire for a day. The plane was mangled upon crashing and debris FROM THE PLANE caused damage and came off it upon crashing. Also, the building was fine. Obviously. Also, no other steel structured building in the history of buildings have ever collapsed from a fire. It was an earthquake from all the collapsing you say?No other building outside the complex had even detectable amounts of foundation damage.

    The CIA has long been embedded into the media (Operation Mockingbird) and still uses the Smithsonian, the History network and Popular Mechanics to "debunk" claims. The same way they use "history" programs to promote the Warren commision version of the JFK assasination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Wally says:
    @Biff
    What was glaringly obvious was the 9/11 account of events was pre-written long before any airplane hit the twin towers; hence, no need for an investigation - one of those properly compiled political commissions will do.

    9/11 is simply the cost of pretending you’re the victim, and not the perp. Pretending you’re a democracy, and not a dictatorship. Pretending you represent freedom, and not enslavement. Pretending MiddleEast wars protect America, and not ____________.

    See real, unbiased science professionals opinions at:

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    see their videos
    see their petition signed by thousands of real science professionals

    You’ll love seeing the explosive thermite bits found in the remains.

    Be sure to apply science to everything.
    It’s amazing the lies were told.

    Don’t die stupid.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. nickels says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    This comment was written as a reply to Seamus Padraig at 17 but for some reason it was published as a regular comment. I believe this is the second time I've noticed this happening with a reply of mine.

    This always happens, I have noticed, if I have to post twice because I didn’t get the username and email filled in correctly-the reply handle is lost.
    #bug

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Anon[318] • Disclaimer says:
    @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    I was going to mention that steel and all metals don’t have to melt but just soften to collapse from the weight the metal column supports

    Plus, columns whether a human leg, a table leg or structural steel columns are meant to support weight. Horizontally they are not so strong.

    A small break and the structure can collapse.

    The steel column has to melt completely before it collapses argument is just ignorance about metallurgy

    For me, the ultimate proof of an Israel Jew, Jewish lightening and US government involvement is Silverstein’s insurance pay out and the ensuing decades of war

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I have heard the Silverstein insurance payout story many times but never any reference to actual evidence of all the details you would have to prove in a fraud case. Can you make it something better than urban myth with details and evidence? And why BTW do you think Silverstein had to be squared?

    If you think a story about one man can be so compelling of belief in some non Arab/domestic conspiracy why not put weight on the fact that the big winner, given his known views and previous attacks on the US via various agents, was Osama bin Laden? If he was still alive he would still be chortling over what he has done to the US - way beyond a bit of serious aggro damaging some important buildings.
    , @Wally
    But the video record does not show softening, bending, & sagging that would occur if your story was correct,
    What we see is the complete disappearance of the load bearing beams which can only be achieved by explosives. Explosives, some of which can be seem detonating just ahead of the free fall, straight down collapse. We see no resistance whatsoever. Just straight down.
    There's also the explosions that firemen heard prior to collapse, the sounds of which are recorded in those firemen videos.

    BTW, the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris. so ...

    You need to up your science, it's all at:

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    Cheers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. j2 says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    “There are two additional points that need to be made to all the “laws of physics” types out there who do not understand what they’re talking about.”

    Those who do not understand what they are talking about. Are you perhaps joking? I remember one western where a guy commented, when you say that, smile.

    It is possible to reach a temperature to melt iron in coal powered fire, but only by blowing air (oxygen) to it. Were there any conditions for such a mechanism? I do not see them. Iron does soften below the melting point, but it is not essential. Essential is that to bring a building down symmetrically, you have to weaken pillars on all sides equally. That is nearly impossible for an non-symmetric fire. Just watch the video of WTC7 fall and ask how can this be made by fire.

    Yes, it is possible to cut something with weaker material by bringing enough energy. Why do your type of people always attack the weakest (and possibly your group self-created) arguments instead of attacking the strong and good argument supported by the more scientific 9/11 truthers. Very few people claim that there were no plains and that an aluminium plane cannot cut steel pillars. Refute the strong and accepted arguments, not these silly weak arguments.

    So, if we talk about WTC7, one problem is that the building comes down as it does, all sides at the same time and with a free-fall speed for many seconds. Whatever you say about steel getting softer, here we see that the whole steel structure gives no resistance to the fall. It is impossible and means that the structure is removed. I can only see it being done by explosives.

    The second issue is the high temperature recorded by a satellite a long time after the event. I very well remember how the news in 2001 told of very high temperatures there, melting steel they said in the news in my country at that time. What could possibly be burning there if not thermite? A normal fire does not burn so long.

    Then we have this peer-reviewed paper of nanothermite. Ok, the editor was kicked out. It does not mean the paper was not correctly reviewed.

    And then we have all this: an insurance against terrorist attack, dancing Palestinians, a passport surviving the crash, foreknowledge. I need not continue.

    I am not so sure you understand what are “laws of physics”, but I more or less do understand physics as I studied it quite long. WTC (all of the buildings) was a very strange fall of a building, especially if it was a gravitational fall.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Muse

    It is possible to reach a temperature to melt iron in coal powered fire, but only by blowing air (oxygen) to it. Were there any conditions for such a mechanism? I do not see them
     
    You actually had a blast furnace going at both WTC towers during the fire. Tall buildings such as skyscrapers generate powerful upward drafts. This is why you have to use revolving doors. Because the stairwells were only shielded with thick drywall, and no doubt the elevator shafts had been blown open their had to be lots of air flowing to fan the flames.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. denk says:

    India’s 911….
    Another fukusIndia production.

    tell tale signs,

    [1] Guilty until proven innocent for the accused,

    [2] shambolic investigation procedures reeks of willfully ‘incompetent’

    [3] totally opaque trials justified by ‘national security’

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-betrayal-of-india-a-close-look-at-the-2008-mumbai-terror-attacks-2/5593721

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Anon[318] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    Ah, another voice of reason, and knowledge of metallurgy and fires inserted into what looks to be another thread of the ignorant arguing with the ignorant about technology, engineering architecture and metallurgy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. MacNucc11 says:

    “Rather than follow the a priori argument that no government could be evil or competent enough to cover up 9/11, David urges people to look at the empirical evidence”

    It is pretty obvious to most thinking people that they absolutely have not been competent enough to cover it up. People just believe what they are told so no need to be all that good at covering anything up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    A fire in a confined space stops burning through lack of oxygen.
    But I have something for you, my local weld shop after Sept 11 no longer uses oxygen and ethylene from expensive pressure bottles, but does the welding with just kerosine.
    On top of that, great admiration for my mother and grandmother, cooking on a kerosine cooker.
    Even more admiration for my Primus kerosine pressure camping burner, it never melted.
    On top of that, Rolls Royce jet engines do not melt in flight.
    But indeed, I suppose you live in the area where Jezus did his miracles, so why no miracles now ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Instead of showing the disordered ageing of your brain with your careless ramble why not read him enough to take note that melting has nothing to do with what he wrote or what brought down the towers. It was weakening plus a huge weight of floors above the weakened area. And apart from a few beams squeezed sideways none of the vectors were enough to prevent nearly exclusive vertical movement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Mulegino1 says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    WTC1 and 2 did not experience anything remotely resembling a gravity induced collapse due to localized office fires, which would have been partial, asymmetrical and gradual. There was no gravity collapse. Most of the steel and concrete of WTC 1 and 2 – along with that of the core of WTC 6 was turned into clouds of dust; in other words, it was disintegrated. It underwent molecular dissociation. No hydrocarbon based office fire or gravity collapse on earth is capable of causing such a thing.

    What would it take to penetrate a 1/4″ thick steel perimeter box column?

    Compare a commercial Boeing 767 with an armor piercing 7.62 x 54 R bullet. The former is for the most part a thin skinned hollow aluminum tube, with fragile wings and sturdy but light weight titanium engines. Its nose cone can be virtually destroyed by impact with birds in flight at cruising speed. At cruising speed it is not designed to withstand collisions with anything denser than thin air and water vapor. The latter has a hardened alloy tip, an alloy jacket and a solid steel core, and can penetrate 1/4″ of steel plating. However since the box columns are four sided, it would have been necessary to penetrate 1/2″ structural steel. Had a real 767 have impacted the exterior of WTC 2 at the impossible (at or near sea level) air speed of 500 plus mph as is claimed by the NTSB, most of it would have been shredded to pieces at the point of impact and fallen to the street below. The kerosene or jet fuel would have ignited on impact, and most of the fires would have burned on the exterior.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Anon
    You continue to be the idiot who goes on repeating rubbish even after your fellow truthers have shown you the nonsense of your assertions that most of the steel was turned to dust - "molecular degeneration" no less: very small dust particles indeed! They've tried to tell you that evidence was destroyed by gathering up the fallen steel and selling it as scrap to China. Do get with the narrative or they won't even allow you in the dummy's class.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. j2 says:
    @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    “I’m agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.”

    There are other much stronger arguments in favor of the explosive theory.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @Bill jones
    Within a week of 9/11/01 , I doubt if 5% of the people I know did not buy the govt story ,book line and sinker.
    (My doubt was as to who was the originator and whom the mere Tannoy- it wasn't till the Judith Miller burlesque show that I realized the two are as one.naive huh?) Today I doubt if 25% buy the 9/11 myth but the same 95% willingly go along with the latest lies from the proven liars- Syria , Russia, assassinations etc. Quite remarkable, no?

    Yesterday the people investigating MH17, they include suspect Ukraine, stated their newest findings, a Russian army unit from Kursk had brought a BUK to the the E Ukraine.
    This BUK shot down MH17, they say, most of the victims Dutch, the plane came from Amsterdam.
    Now the extraordinary thing is that nobody asks what the motive was.
    The Netherlands most objected to economic sanctions against Russia, we exported a lot of vegetables, flowers and fruit.
    The day after the disaster no more objections.
    So the question ‘who benefitted ?’ is simple to answer.
    Yet, as far as I can see, the majority here swallows the ‘the Russians did it’ story.
    About MH17 there now are as many questions as about Sept 11.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    http://www.vietatoparlare.it/leaked-documents-ukrainian-air-forces-shot-down-mh17-confirms-conspiracy-and-guilt/
    , @jilles dykstra
    http://www.vietatoparlare.it/leaked-documents-ukrainian-air-forces-shot-down-mh17-confirms-conspiracy-and-guilt/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    I’m agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.
     
    OK, how about Building 7? It went down even though no plane ever struck it.

    Are you unaware that a fire had been burning for many hours in WTC7 before it collapsed?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    The WTC buildings, like most modern skyscrapers, were made to withstand ordinary fires without collapsing. Steel beams are not marshmallows, ya know.
    , @ploni almoni
    Are you unaware that Silverstein said "pull it?" No of course not. You just want to know who are the billions of people who see through your lies. We all do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Miro23 says:
    @Mulegino1
    The official narrative of 9/11 is the big lie in plain sight. It is clear that the perpetrators in Washington, New York and Tel Aviv knew quite a bit about hoodwinking the public with media spectacle and manipulating its emotions, but very little about real world physics, architecture, engineering, aeronautics or ballistics.

    We have gotten to the point where the only people who believe the ludicrous tale are either double digit i.q. infotainment proles or those whose livelihoods depend upon their credulous acceptance- or the appearance thereof -of this fantasy, including virtually every prominent figure in the corporate media and almost every single member of Congress.

    Isn't it ironic that the label "truther" is intended to be a pejorative and implies a negative connotation to truth?

    Isn’t it ironic that the label “truther” is intended to be a pejorative and implies a negative connotation to truth?

    Club Rules. Smart and sophisticated people sneer at “Truthers” same as it’s obligatory to be Israel First and match your politics to the Washington Post. There’s no thought involved, they’re Club Rules.

    When Trump was elected I received daily commiseration for this terrible event.

    And when I explained that I actually supported Trump because of stopping ME wars and mass outsourcing, they were surprised, and they seemed like new ideas for them. Their attempted conversation stopper was always “He’s Racist” something along the lines of “Adolf Hitler – don’t go there.”

    I’ve tried 9/11 with closer friends (using the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth excellent booklet “Beyond Misinformation – What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7″) and it’s later returned like incriminating evidence with “We’ve read it – Thank you” and no comment.

    My take is that Globalism/Zionism/Multiculturalism is a form of religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    I agree. It is a pseudo-religion. The kosher weltanschauung is fashionable among the so called "elites" and in their world, the effort to appear fashionable has eclipsed the pursuit of truth and authentic spirituality.
    , @Anon
    @ My take is that Globalism/Zionism/Multiculturalism is a form of religion.

    Yes indeed, branching from common roots probably. But where are the churches? And can we name the high priests, other than the rather reduced group of US neocons?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @jilles dykstra
    Yesterday the people investigating MH17, they include suspect Ukraine, stated their newest findings, a Russian army unit from Kursk had brought a BUK to the the E Ukraine.
    This BUK shot down MH17, they say, most of the victims Dutch, the plane came from Amsterdam.
    Now the extraordinary thing is that nobody asks what the motive was.
    The Netherlands most objected to economic sanctions against Russia, we exported a lot of vegetables, flowers and fruit.
    The day after the disaster no more objections.
    So the question 'who benefitted ?' is simple to answer.
    Yet, as far as I can see, the majority here swallows the 'the Russians did it' story.
    About MH17 there now are as many questions as about Sept 11.
    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    However, when the Mafia orders a murder, they don't do it in writing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    I was going to mention that steel and all metals don’t have to melt but just soften to collapse from the weight the metal column supports

    Plus, columns whether a human leg, a table leg or structural steel columns are meant to support weight. Horizontally they are not so strong.

    A small break and the structure can collapse.

    The steel column has to melt completely before it collapses argument is just ignorance about metallurgy

    For me, the ultimate proof of an Israel Jew, Jewish lightening and US government involvement is Silverstein’s insurance pay out and the ensuing decades of war

    I have heard the Silverstein insurance payout story many times but never any reference to actual evidence of all the details you would have to prove in a fraud case. Can you make it something better than urban myth with details and evidence? And why BTW do you think Silverstein had to be squared?

    If you think a story about one man can be so compelling of belief in some non Arab/domestic conspiracy why not put weight on the fact that the big winner, given his known views and previous attacks on the US via various agents, was Osama bin Laden? If he was still alive he would still be chortling over what he has done to the US – way beyond a bit of serious aggro damaging some important buildings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    What are you talking about? If you believe a steel column has to completely melt before it collapses go ahead.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @jilles dykstra
    Yesterday the people investigating MH17, they include suspect Ukraine, stated their newest findings, a Russian army unit from Kursk had brought a BUK to the the E Ukraine.
    This BUK shot down MH17, they say, most of the victims Dutch, the plane came from Amsterdam.
    Now the extraordinary thing is that nobody asks what the motive was.
    The Netherlands most objected to economic sanctions against Russia, we exported a lot of vegetables, flowers and fruit.
    The day after the disaster no more objections.
    So the question 'who benefitted ?' is simple to answer.
    Yet, as far as I can see, the majority here swallows the 'the Russians did it' story.
    About MH17 there now are as many questions as about Sept 11.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @DESERT FOX
    Hows the weather in Tel Aviv.

    Silly. And embodying your previously established ignorance. I’ve often disagreed with him, but here he is the expert speaking, a rarity on 9/11.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    The fact is Israel and the zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with it and proved that the zionists control America.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike P

    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower,

     

    but nowhere near to the point of structural disintegration.

    it had been burning out of control for seven hours,

     

    same - there were just a couple of dispersed office fires here and there, but no large-scale, wholesale conflagration.

    and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings.
     
    indeed. Then, how did the other buildings nearby remain standing?

    You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction,
     
    comparing temperatures to enthalpies is apples and oranges.

    If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium.
     
    But there was no such enclosing container in this case.

    Secondly, the complaint about “soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams” is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration
     
    The relevant law here is `action equals reaction'. Nobody is saying that the buildings should have remained unscathed - the point is that both the building and the planes should have sustained damage. The planes should have disintegrated upon impact instead of just cutting through the building like a knife through butter and being swallowed whole.

    Let me guess, you have an undergraduate degree in physics? Because for some reason most physicists I have met are very bad at understanding the real world.

    And lay conspiracy theorists with no relevant expertise spout total rubbish from their nook of the “real world”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P

    And lay conspiracy theorists with no relevant expertise spout total rubbish from their nook of the “real world”.
     
    If it is expertise you seek, you should visit the Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. They have examined 9/11 for years and from every technical and scientific angle, and they come down hard against the laughable - or should we say, "sad!" - government-approved conspiracy theory.

    Regarding the question of real or fake planes, you might find this website educational - that is, if you can spare a minute in your busy day of running around like a poodle that sniffs and pees on every tree.
    , @MacNucc11
    But you love that conspiracy about the "mastermind" Bin Laden coordinating air strikes on the WTC from a cave. Straight from Hollywood that one.
    , @ploni almoni
    Yes indeed, the conspirators spout total rubbish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. bjondo says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    Michael DeathHead Chertoff’s nephew?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @jilles dykstra
    A fire in a confined space stops burning through lack of oxygen.
    But I have something for you, my local weld shop after Sept 11 no longer uses oxygen and ethylene from expensive pressure bottles, but does the welding with just kerosine.
    On top of that, great admiration for my mother and grandmother, cooking on a kerosine cooker.
    Even more admiration for my Primus kerosine pressure camping burner, it never melted.
    On top of that, Rolls Royce jet engines do not melt in flight.
    But indeed, I suppose you live in the area where Jezus did his miracles, so why no miracles now ?

    Instead of showing the disordered ageing of your brain with your careless ramble why not read him enough to take note that melting has nothing to do with what he wrote or what brought down the towers. It was weakening plus a huge weight of floors above the weakened area. And apart from a few beams squeezed sideways none of the vectors were enough to prevent nearly exclusive vertical movement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. ValmMond says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    Building 7 (…) had been burning out of control for seven hours

    Most of the fires inside Building 7 were barely visible.
    None of them was hot enough to cause even window breakage.
    Let alone the symmetrical collapse of a steel-frame building at free-fall and as a single unit. Symmetrical free-fall means a sudden and simultaneous withdrawal of ALL structural support.
    Let me repeat that.
    The WTC 7 fell at gravity acceleration (aka in free fall) for 2.25 seconds, spanning eight stories.
    It means that 82 supporting columns ceased simultaneously to offer resistance.
    No fire, flood, locusts or known laws of Newtonian mechanics are known to produce such effect.
    There is only one explanation: all supporting columns were taken out simultaneously.
    In itself, that’s an undeniable indication of coordination.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Logan
    Let's assume this explanation is accurate.

    What do you think the reason was for the perps to let the building burn for seven hours then use an obvious demolition method to bring it down?
    , @Anon
    No window breakage? Therefore certainly no demolition charges. Cf. the leading demolition expert quoted by the BBC - and common sense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    WTC1 and 2 did not experience anything remotely resembling a gravity induced collapse due to localized office fires, which would have been partial, asymmetrical and gradual. There was no gravity collapse. Most of the steel and concrete of WTC 1 and 2 - along with that of the core of WTC 6 was turned into clouds of dust; in other words, it was disintegrated. It underwent molecular dissociation. No hydrocarbon based office fire or gravity collapse on earth is capable of causing such a thing.

    What would it take to penetrate a 1/4" thick steel perimeter box column?

    Compare a commercial Boeing 767 with an armor piercing 7.62 x 54 R bullet. The former is for the most part a thin skinned hollow aluminum tube, with fragile wings and sturdy but light weight titanium engines. Its nose cone can be virtually destroyed by impact with birds in flight at cruising speed. At cruising speed it is not designed to withstand collisions with anything denser than thin air and water vapor. The latter has a hardened alloy tip, an alloy jacket and a solid steel core, and can penetrate 1/4" of steel plating. However since the box columns are four sided, it would have been necessary to penetrate 1/2" structural steel. Had a real 767 have impacted the exterior of WTC 2 at the impossible (at or near sea level) air speed of 500 plus mph as is claimed by the NTSB, most of it would have been shredded to pieces at the point of impact and fallen to the street below. The kerosene or jet fuel would have ignited on impact, and most of the fires would have burned on the exterior.

    You continue to be the idiot who goes on repeating rubbish even after your fellow truthers have shown you the nonsense of your assertions that most of the steel was turned to dust – “molecular degeneration” no less: very small dust particles indeed! They’ve tried to tell you that evidence was destroyed by gathering up the fallen steel and selling it as scrap to China. Do get with the narrative or they won’t even allow you in the dummy’s class.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    I don't "get" with any narrative. Narratives are for people like you- unable to think for themselves, and to whom forming a single creative or original thought is the equivalent of a Herculean task. An official narrative is exactly the opposite of an empirically based investigation, since the former is concocted a priori and must be validated by fitting the evidence to conform to it, as opposed to the latter which bases its conclusions upon the evidence, giving priority to the best (physical) evidence, which is usually required to corroborate any eyewitness or "expert" testimony or analysis.

    For your information, I did not write "molecular degeneration" but "dissociation." That some of the steel was sold to China is irrelevant. The rubble piles were nowhere near high or large enough to account for even a preponderance of the steel and concrete of the three buildings that were destroyed- WTC 1, 2, and 6. How do you explain the destruction of the core of WTC 6? The building's core was not damaged by fire, it was not smashed by rubble, it was gone. As in disappeared. One of the signature elements of the dust clouds that blanketed lower Manhattan contained free iron particles, thereby demonstrating- guess what?- molecular dissociation.

    By the way, I am not a "truther" and the use of this word evinces a complete lack of originality and perspicacity on your part- just as your use of the term "conspiracy theorist"- as if most of us here were not aware that that term was weaponized by the CIA during the later 1960's in order to discourage independent investigation into the JFK assassination.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Mulegino1 says:
    @Miro23

    Isn’t it ironic that the label “truther” is intended to be a pejorative and implies a negative connotation to truth?
     
    Club Rules. Smart and sophisticated people sneer at "Truthers" same as it's obligatory to be Israel First and match your politics to the Washington Post. There's no thought involved, they're Club Rules.

    When Trump was elected I received daily commiseration for this terrible event.

    And when I explained that I actually supported Trump because of stopping ME wars and mass outsourcing, they were surprised, and they seemed like new ideas for them. Their attempted conversation stopper was always "He's Racist" something along the lines of "Adolf Hitler - don't go there."

    I've tried 9/11 with closer friends (using the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth excellent booklet "Beyond Misinformation - What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7") and it's later returned like incriminating evidence with "We've read it - Thank you" and no comment.

    My take is that Globalism/Zionism/Multiculturalism is a form of religion.

    I agree. It is a pseudo-religion. The kosher weltanschauung is fashionable among the so called “elites” and in their world, the effort to appear fashionable has eclipsed the pursuit of truth and authentic spirituality.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. MacNucc11 says:
    @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    I am assuming that since you were repairing these buildings that they had not collapse into their own footprints demolition style. One question, as the person in charge of repairing the buildings how would you know how hot the fires were in those buildings?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Snarky says:

    Strangers on a Train…
    Why do the governments of the world keep the 911 secret? One would think that in self defense from the A/Z empire the beans would be spilled. Instead, lips are zipped. Why?
    Strangers on a Train…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Logan says:

    It’s not hard to find online information about how hot fires get depending on the materials burning. Lot of variation, to be sure, but in general we’re talking 1100F to 1200F for “normal” building materials.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  57. denk says:

    even as the poisonous smoke was still rising from the ruins of the World Trade Center in September 2001, Bush giddily declared that “through my tears, I see opportunity.”

    We now know exactly what he saw: the opportunity to launch the long-determined invasion of Iraq, even though he knew that his stated reasons for the war were false, as Tyler Drumheller, the CIA’s top man in Europe before the war, noted this week. Drumheller told CBS that his team had direct intelligence from Saddam’s inner circle confirming Iraq’s dearth of WMD – intelligence backed up by multiple sources — but the White House told him it didn’t matter. They had decided on war and “were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy” – the formula for falsehood revealed in the “Downing Street Memos” uncovered in 2004.

    Predictably, this latest smoking gun evidence of the most heinous war crime imaginable – launching a war of aggression based knowingly on a false and manufactured threat , – was instantly deep-sixed by the Establishment media, like all the other proofs of the Regime’s criminal perfidy that have surfaced briefly over the years.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/hideous-kinky-moral-nullity-as-normality-in-pentagon-plans/2354

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. MacNucc11 says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    Think how dumb all those demolition experts must feel right now! All these years they have been taking out the columns through all this difficult and tedious controlled demolition and all they needed to do was fire an aluminum skinned projectile loaded with kerosene into the upper floors. Next you will tell us that is different though because you need the people inside so the methan they give off can help the fires burn hotter. Great stuff. Keep it coming.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Logan says:
    @ValmMond

    Building 7 (...) had been burning out of control for seven hours

     

    Most of the fires inside Building 7 were barely visible.
    None of them was hot enough to cause even window breakage.
    Let alone the symmetrical collapse of a steel-frame building at free-fall and as a single unit. Symmetrical free-fall means a sudden and simultaneous withdrawal of ALL structural support.
    Let me repeat that.
    The WTC 7 fell at gravity acceleration (aka in free fall) for 2.25 seconds, spanning eight stories.
    It means that 82 supporting columns ceased simultaneously to offer resistance.
    No fire, flood, locusts or known laws of Newtonian mechanics are known to produce such effect.
    There is only one explanation: all supporting columns were taken out simultaneously.
    In itself, that's an undeniable indication of coordination.

    Let’s assume this explanation is accurate.

    What do you think the reason was for the perps to let the building burn for seven hours then use an obvious demolition method to bring it down?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    Minds confused.

    Plane in PA maybe supposed to hit 7.

    Hows and whys only Israel and its collaborators really know.

    We can speculate but we know planes and fire did not bring 'em down.
    , @MacNucc11
    Well you have to show people a fire if you want them to believe that is what brought the building down.
    , @ValmMond

    Let’s assume this explanation is accurate.

     

    Let's not assume anything.
    WTC 7's free fall collapse is a verifiable, observable, well documented fact.
    Even the NIST 9/11 report concedes that much. "In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible* support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft) (...) The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed."
    (NCSTAR 1A pp. 45 & 55, emphasis mine; *negligible: too small to be worth considering).

    The perps' motivation and state of mind is a matter of speculation.
    WHY they did it is irrelevant with respect to establishing WHAT they did.
    My personal guess is that they decided to destroy not just evidence but the crime scene itself. Hopefully we'll know more at the upcoming 9/11 trial.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Mike P says:
    @Anon
    And lay conspiracy theorists with no relevant expertise spout total rubbish from their nook of the "real world".

    And lay conspiracy theorists with no relevant expertise spout total rubbish from their nook of the “real world”.

    If it is expertise you seek, you should visit the Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. They have examined 9/11 for years and from every technical and scientific angle, and they come down hard against the laughable – or should we say, “sad!” – government-approved conspiracy theory.

    Regarding the question of real or fake planes, you might find this website educational – that is, if you can spare a minute in your busy day of running around like a poodle that sniffs and pees on every tree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. MacNucc11 says:
    @Anon
    And lay conspiracy theorists with no relevant expertise spout total rubbish from their nook of the "real world".

    But you love that conspiracy about the “mastermind” Bin Laden coordinating air strikes on the WTC from a cave. Straight from Hollywood that one.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P

    Bin Laden coordinating air strikes on the WTC from a cave. Straight from Hollywood that one.
     
    There really should have an unrepentant Nazi in that movie, though.
    , @Mulegino1
    The official narrative of 9/11 is so bad and so corny that it would never have worked even in that world capital of cheesiness and tackiness- Hollywood. Or perhaps it could have served as the plot for a comedic parody, but that is about it. Of course, the lack of fundamental understanding of real world physics, the total amorality and aesthetic blindness of the real perpetrators was offset by their raw political power, their absolute control over the corporate media, their insider influence and the unprecedented para-military power at their disposal.

    According to the official narrative Bin Laden- or is it now Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (?)- ordered his 19 fanatic amateur student pilots to commit miracles of aviation and aeronautics, thwart the world's most powerful air defense system, knock down three buildings with two aircraft, make another one disappear into a mine shaft, and another aircraft to fly at ground level on a grass lawn and penetrate various rings of the most heavily fortified building in the U.S.

    The initial public acceptance of this utterly ridiculous Baron Munchausen fantasy was only possible because of the trauma induced on the public imagination by focusing almost exclusively on the plight of the victims- particularly the "jumpers" and the first responders. The culprit was already named within the first few hours, by well known officials who had conducted no investigation, had no empirical evidence at their disposal and who were reading from a script.
    , @EliteCommInc.
    I am not sure you understand how cell operations work.

    They require very little operational control from the base of operations. Hardly a case against an outside operator.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Anon
    Silly. And embodying your previously established ignorance. I've often disagreed with him, but here he is the expert speaking, a rarity on 9/11.

    The fact is Israel and the zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with it and proved that the zionists control America.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anon
    You continue to be the idiot who goes on repeating rubbish even after your fellow truthers have shown you the nonsense of your assertions that most of the steel was turned to dust - "molecular degeneration" no less: very small dust particles indeed! They've tried to tell you that evidence was destroyed by gathering up the fallen steel and selling it as scrap to China. Do get with the narrative or they won't even allow you in the dummy's class.

    I don’t “get” with any narrative. Narratives are for people like you- unable to think for themselves, and to whom forming a single creative or original thought is the equivalent of a Herculean task. An official narrative is exactly the opposite of an empirically based investigation, since the former is concocted a priori and must be validated by fitting the evidence to conform to it, as opposed to the latter which bases its conclusions upon the evidence, giving priority to the best (physical) evidence, which is usually required to corroborate any eyewitness or “expert” testimony or analysis.

    For your information, I did not write “molecular degeneration” but “dissociation.” That some of the steel was sold to China is irrelevant. The rubble piles were nowhere near high or large enough to account for even a preponderance of the steel and concrete of the three buildings that were destroyed- WTC 1, 2, and 6. How do you explain the destruction of the core of WTC 6? The building’s core was not damaged by fire, it was not smashed by rubble, it was gone. As in disappeared. One of the signature elements of the dust clouds that blanketed lower Manhattan contained free iron particles, thereby demonstrating- guess what?- molecular dissociation.

    By the way, I am not a “truther” and the use of this word evinces a complete lack of originality and perspicacity on your part- just as your use of the term “conspiracy theorist”- as if most of us here were not aware that that term was weaponized by the CIA during the later 1960′s in order to discourage independent investigation into the JFK assassination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    Agree, see Dr. Judy Wood.com, the towers and the other WTC buildings were destroyed by particle beam weapons and coventional prewired explosives and 7 WTC buildings were destroyed ie 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, and the twin towers.

    Israel and the deep state did 911.
    , @ploni almoni
    As I understand it, automobiles run on "molecular dissociation." It is the future.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. bjondo says:
    @Logan
    Let's assume this explanation is accurate.

    What do you think the reason was for the perps to let the building burn for seven hours then use an obvious demolition method to bring it down?

    Minds confused.

    Plane in PA maybe supposed to hit 7.

    Hows and whys only Israel and its collaborators really know.

    We can speculate but we know planes and fire did not bring ‘em down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Mike P says:
    @MacNucc11
    But you love that conspiracy about the "mastermind" Bin Laden coordinating air strikes on the WTC from a cave. Straight from Hollywood that one.

    Bin Laden coordinating air strikes on the WTC from a cave. Straight from Hollywood that one.

    There really should have an unrepentant Nazi in that movie, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    Ha, too funny but you may have actually predicted how that movie is going to go. I mean they said the perps were holed up in Germany. No doubt aided and abetted by unrepentant Nazis!!
    , @Wally
    And the excellent condition of the passports of the alleged hijackers that were "found" at the base of the WTC.
    And we're required too believe this crap?

    The government's dumb conspiracy theory is for jackasses.

    Wanna talk about the Pentagon? LOL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Here’s a secret: it was already ruined.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. MacNucc11 says:
    @Logan
    Let's assume this explanation is accurate.

    What do you think the reason was for the perps to let the building burn for seven hours then use an obvious demolition method to bring it down?

    Well you have to show people a fire if you want them to believe that is what brought the building down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. MacNucc11 says:
    @Mike P

    Bin Laden coordinating air strikes on the WTC from a cave. Straight from Hollywood that one.
     
    There really should have an unrepentant Nazi in that movie, though.

    Ha, too funny but you may have actually predicted how that movie is going to go. I mean they said the perps were holed up in Germany. No doubt aided and abetted by unrepentant Nazis!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Wally says: • Website
    @Anon
    I was going to mention that steel and all metals don’t have to melt but just soften to collapse from the weight the metal column supports

    Plus, columns whether a human leg, a table leg or structural steel columns are meant to support weight. Horizontally they are not so strong.

    A small break and the structure can collapse.

    The steel column has to melt completely before it collapses argument is just ignorance about metallurgy

    For me, the ultimate proof of an Israel Jew, Jewish lightening and US government involvement is Silverstein’s insurance pay out and the ensuing decades of war

    But the video record does not show softening, bending, & sagging that would occur if your story was correct,
    What we see is the complete disappearance of the load bearing beams which can only be achieved by explosives. Explosives, some of which can be seem detonating just ahead of the free fall, straight down collapse. We see no resistance whatsoever. Just straight down.
    There’s also the explosions that firemen heard prior to collapse, the sounds of which are recorded in those firemen videos.

    BTW, the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris. so …

    You need to up your science, it’s all at:

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Repeat from thousands of years of humans making metals. A steel column does not have to completely melt before it softens enough to collapse under the weight it supports.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Mulegino1 says:
    @MacNucc11
    But you love that conspiracy about the "mastermind" Bin Laden coordinating air strikes on the WTC from a cave. Straight from Hollywood that one.

    The official narrative of 9/11 is so bad and so corny that it would never have worked even in that world capital of cheesiness and tackiness- Hollywood. Or perhaps it could have served as the plot for a comedic parody, but that is about it. Of course, the lack of fundamental understanding of real world physics, the total amorality and aesthetic blindness of the real perpetrators was offset by their raw political power, their absolute control over the corporate media, their insider influence and the unprecedented para-military power at their disposal.

    According to the official narrative Bin Laden- or is it now Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (?)- ordered his 19 fanatic amateur student pilots to commit miracles of aviation and aeronautics, thwart the world’s most powerful air defense system, knock down three buildings with two aircraft, make another one disappear into a mine shaft, and another aircraft to fly at ground level on a grass lawn and penetrate various rings of the most heavily fortified building in the U.S.

    The initial public acceptance of this utterly ridiculous Baron Munchausen fantasy was only possible because of the trauma induced on the public imagination by focusing almost exclusively on the plight of the victims- particularly the “jumpers” and the first responders. The culprit was already named within the first few hours, by well known officials who had conducted no investigation, had no empirical evidence at their disposal and who were reading from a script.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    I think the character they use in the movie will be the one remote guiding the planes in and he will be Russian or German. This will sort of solve the flyers problem. Myself, I am off to learn how to stunt fly passenger jets this weekend. I hope to perform a death spiral by Monday.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Robjil says:

    Solving 911 by Christopher Bollyn lays it all out. It was a US/Israel job. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGzeixUAzHc&t=1681s

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. insidejob says:
    @Mike P

    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower,

     

    but nowhere near to the point of structural disintegration.

    it had been burning out of control for seven hours,

     

    same - there were just a couple of dispersed office fires here and there, but no large-scale, wholesale conflagration.

    and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings.
     
    indeed. Then, how did the other buildings nearby remain standing?

    You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction,
     
    comparing temperatures to enthalpies is apples and oranges.

    If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium.
     
    But there was no such enclosing container in this case.

    Secondly, the complaint about “soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams” is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration
     
    The relevant law here is `action equals reaction'. Nobody is saying that the buildings should have remained unscathed - the point is that both the building and the planes should have sustained damage. The planes should have disintegrated upon impact instead of just cutting through the building like a knife through butter and being swallowed whole.

    Let me guess, you have an undergraduate degree in physics? Because for some reason most physicists I have met are very bad at understanding the real world.

    Fortunately we dont have to rely on pure hypotheticals. The problem with all these rebuttals from physicists in Tel Aviv is that there are lots of real world examples. The best perhaps being the B52 bomber that plowed into the Empire State building in the 1940′s. It was not as large a plane and was traveling at a lower rate of speed, but it certainly went into the top floors and raged on fire for a day. The plane was mangled upon crashing and debris FROM THE PLANE caused damage and came off it upon crashing. Also, the building was fine. Obviously. Also, no other steel structured building in the history of buildings have ever collapsed from a fire. It was an earthquake from all the collapsing you say?No other building outside the complex had even detectable amounts of foundation damage.

    The CIA has long been embedded into the media (Operation Mockingbird) and still uses the Smithsonian, the History network and Popular Mechanics to “debunk” claims. The same way they use “history” programs to promote the Warren commision version of the JFK assasination.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    I agree with you on every point other than to point out that it was a B-25 Mitchell bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building. These aircraft were much sturdier than a Boeing 767, being designed to withstand multiple hits from antiaircraft fire and enemy fighters, and also equipped with armor plating to protect the crew members. These were often used in low level bombing and strafing Also, keep in mind that the plane was propeller driven, and that sharp steel propellers can cut into concrete, and that the building had big glass windows, and no exterior steel perimeter columns between them as did the Twin Towers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    I guess agnosticism is a good way to phrase it. I think I am on this page.

    Unanswered questions, and curious coincidences, not to mention in-competencies of all kinds are not unusual in such events as these.

    On their face the conspiracy arguments makes sense. But upon challenge so many are either a wash or fail. So agnostic works. open just not convinced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    "On their face the conspiracy arguments make sense". You are too polite. How about not giving them that encouragement but content yourself with "Some of the conspiracy arguments don't fall totally apart at first glance by someone who hasn't looked at the matter recently". Most of them sound like the proponents have shut themselves in their bedrooms with a computer at the age of 15 and not emerged since to learn about the real world. A lot of them don't seem to worry that truthers often espouse contradictory versions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. We have copious evidence from eye witnesses and expert testimony telling us that the official 911 story is a lie. Some of the objections raised by anti-truthers could be answered if the evidence had not been destroyed. The evidence was destroyed in direct violation of federal, state and local law.

    The mere fact that evidence was destroyed is a clear indication of a coverup.

    Mr. Griffin has done us all a service by sticking to his principles and speaking the truth regardless of cost.

    A partial list of other people who have risked much to speak the truth.

    Richard Gage
    David Chandler
    Neils Harritt
    Danny Joenko
    William Rodriguez
    Alex Jones
    Rudy Dent
    Jesse Ventura

    So many more.

    God bless them all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Wally says:
    @Mike P

    Bin Laden coordinating air strikes on the WTC from a cave. Straight from Hollywood that one.
     
    There really should have an unrepentant Nazi in that movie, though.

    And the excellent condition of the passports of the alleged hijackers that were “found” at the base of the WTC.
    And we’re required too believe this crap?

    The government’s dumb conspiracy theory is for jackasses.

    Wanna talk about the Pentagon? LOL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @MacNucc11
    But you love that conspiracy about the "mastermind" Bin Laden coordinating air strikes on the WTC from a cave. Straight from Hollywood that one.

    I am not sure you understand how cell operations work.

    They require very little operational control from the base of operations. Hardly a case against an outside operator.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    If there were any cells they were a group of manipulated managed characters by agents provocateur and agreed there was little, in fact no control from Bin Laden. He was a fall guy all along.
    Look into how many times the FBI has infiltrated organizations to instigate violence to bring those organizations down. They were inside the American Indian Movement, the Black Panthers, as well as most recently the Malheur Preserve standoff (which case was dropped). The FBI and CIA, and Mossad are run from base locations but have cells through the world. So yes, I do get how it works.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @Mulegino1
    I don't "get" with any narrative. Narratives are for people like you- unable to think for themselves, and to whom forming a single creative or original thought is the equivalent of a Herculean task. An official narrative is exactly the opposite of an empirically based investigation, since the former is concocted a priori and must be validated by fitting the evidence to conform to it, as opposed to the latter which bases its conclusions upon the evidence, giving priority to the best (physical) evidence, which is usually required to corroborate any eyewitness or "expert" testimony or analysis.

    For your information, I did not write "molecular degeneration" but "dissociation." That some of the steel was sold to China is irrelevant. The rubble piles were nowhere near high or large enough to account for even a preponderance of the steel and concrete of the three buildings that were destroyed- WTC 1, 2, and 6. How do you explain the destruction of the core of WTC 6? The building's core was not damaged by fire, it was not smashed by rubble, it was gone. As in disappeared. One of the signature elements of the dust clouds that blanketed lower Manhattan contained free iron particles, thereby demonstrating- guess what?- molecular dissociation.

    By the way, I am not a "truther" and the use of this word evinces a complete lack of originality and perspicacity on your part- just as your use of the term "conspiracy theorist"- as if most of us here were not aware that that term was weaponized by the CIA during the later 1960's in order to discourage independent investigation into the JFK assassination.

    Agree, see Dr. Judy Wood.com, the towers and the other WTC buildings were destroyed by particle beam weapons and coventional prewired explosives and 7 WTC buildings were destroyed ie 3, 4, 5, 6 , 7, and the twin towers.

    Israel and the deep state did 911.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. L.K says:

    Re the ludicrous 9/11 Commission, we read, in the book ’9/11 The Simple Facts’:

    Then came the 9/11 Commission, which issued its report in 2004. Although it was supposed to be a high-level, comprehensive investigation, it conducted no criminal inquiries. It had no subpoena power, no special prosecutor, few open public meetings and virtually no scientific presentations.
    Its report was criticized by its own cochairs, by more than half the commissioners overall, by several members of Congress and by dozens of former members of the national security establishment.

    Several of the high level 9-11 commissioners exhibited doubts as to work of the commission. Here are some quotes:

    Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

    9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton said “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue ”

    9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

    9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

    9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also said that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    Useful to be reminded of this. I read the 9/11 Report when it came out and believed the whole thing. The problems started years later when I heard about Building 7 (not mentioned in the Report).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    The maximum temperature reached in the fires was 592 c according to NIST itself – enough said I think

    Read More
    • Replies: @Logan
    Correct, since that is 1097F, a temperature by which most steels would have lost most if not all strength.

    There are some interesting pictures at this link, which is about how wooden structural members retain strength longer than steel when exposed to high heat. Not what you'd expect, right?

    http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2007/03/history_is_made.html

    , @denk
    Malaysia has its own 911....

    The 'disappearance' of mh370,

    brought to you by the fukusI production Co
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. L.K says:

    Raymond L. McGovern, 27-year CIA veteran. Former chairman, National Intelligence Estimates (NIE), the consensus reports of all US intelligence agencies. (According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, NIE’s “are the intelligence community’s most authoritative written judgments on national security issues.”) He was responsible for preparing and presenting the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and for providing intelligence briefing to their vice-presidents, secretaries of state, the joint chiefs of staff and many other senior government officials. Upon retirement in 1990, McGovern was awarded the CIA’s Intelligence Commendation Medallion and received a letter of appreciation from President George H.W. Bush.
    In a blurb endorsing the book 9/11 and American Empire (Vol. I)—Intellectuals Speak Out, McGovern wrote: “It has long been clear that the Bush-Cheney administration cynically exploited the attacks of 9/11 to promote its imperial designs. But the present volume confronts us with compelling evidence for an even more disturbing conclusion: that the 9/11 attacks were themselves orchestrated by this administration precisely so they could be thus exploited. If this is true, it is not merely the case…that the stated reason for attacking Iraq was a lie. It is also the case that the whole ‘War on Terror’ was based on a prior deception.”
    McGovern signed a petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11 and in a video interview on 7/22/06 stated: “I think…there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 report is a joke. The question is: ‘What’s being covered up?’…[T]here are a whole bunch of unanswered questions. And the reason they’re unanswered is because [the Bush A]dministration will not answer the questions….I think…that’s certainly an impeachable offense.” …
     
    Michael Scheuer, chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorism Center, 1996–99. After a 22-year CIA career, he’s currently an author, political analyst, media commentator and adjunct professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University….
    On Fox News (on 10/9/10), Judge Andrew Napolitano asked Scheuer, “Was the 9/11 Commission report a whitewash?”
    Scheuer replied, “It was a whitewash and a lie from top to bottom.”
     
    Robert Baer, a 21-year CIA veteran (and winner of the Career Intelligence Medal) on whose memoir the film Syriana was based. Pulitzer-Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh wrote that he “was considered perhaps the best on the-ground field officer in the Middle East.”
    In the British paper The Guardian (1/12/02), he’s quoted as saying: “Did bin Laden act alone, through his own al-Qaeda network, in launching the attacks? About that I’m…certain and emphatic: No.”
    In an interview on The Thom Hartmann Show (6/9/06), Hartmann asked: “Are you of the opinion there was an aspect of ‘inside job’ to 9/11 within the US government?”
    Baer: There is that possibility. The evidence points at it.
    Hartmann: And why is it not being investigated?
    Baer: Why isn’t the WMD story being investigated? Why hasn’t anybody been held accountable for 9/11?….Why have there been no political repercussions? Why hasn’t there been…any sort of exposure on this? It really makes you wonder.
    And in an article on rawstory.com (2/28/08), he stated: “There are enough discrepancies and unanswered questions in the 9/11 Commission Report that under a friendly administration, the 9/11 investigation should be re-opened.”

    ( 9/11 The Simple Facts )

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. Mulegino1 says:
    @insidejob
    Fortunately we dont have to rely on pure hypotheticals. The problem with all these rebuttals from physicists in Tel Aviv is that there are lots of real world examples. The best perhaps being the B52 bomber that plowed into the Empire State building in the 1940's. It was not as large a plane and was traveling at a lower rate of speed, but it certainly went into the top floors and raged on fire for a day. The plane was mangled upon crashing and debris FROM THE PLANE caused damage and came off it upon crashing. Also, the building was fine. Obviously. Also, no other steel structured building in the history of buildings have ever collapsed from a fire. It was an earthquake from all the collapsing you say?No other building outside the complex had even detectable amounts of foundation damage.

    The CIA has long been embedded into the media (Operation Mockingbird) and still uses the Smithsonian, the History network and Popular Mechanics to "debunk" claims. The same way they use "history" programs to promote the Warren commision version of the JFK assasination.

    I agree with you on every point other than to point out that it was a B-25 Mitchell bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building. These aircraft were much sturdier than a Boeing 767, being designed to withstand multiple hits from antiaircraft fire and enemy fighters, and also equipped with armor plating to protect the crew members. These were often used in low level bombing and strafing Also, keep in mind that the plane was propeller driven, and that sharp steel propellers can cut into concrete, and that the building had big glass windows, and no exterior steel perimeter columns between them as did the Twin Towers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    This one comment highlights your inability to discuss these issues in a sane, competent manner.

    The B-25 was 53 feet long and weighed a maximum, with bomb-load, of 35,000 lbs. A 767 is 159 feet long and has a fuel capacity alone of 110,000 lbs. and a maximum weight of 315,000 lbs.

    Structurally (their sturdiness) they are both planes. They have to withstand take-offs and landings as well as be light enough to FLY. Their design is going to have to balance a bunch of things. Describing the design of the B-25 the way you do is stupid. It was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft like an IL-2 or JU-87. Have you ever been in one?

    If this is the best you can do it is no wonder there are only about 50 people on the planet who continue to push this nonsense and that half of them are here right now.

    The article/review itself just throws out the same tired gibberish. The only thing missing is the assertion that fossils are things just buried by the Jews in 1924.

    Starting every piece with the observation that it was the CIA that created the term "conspiracy theory" is a rather paranoid and timid way to make this case. It is not evidence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. MacNucc11 says:
    @Mulegino1
    The official narrative of 9/11 is so bad and so corny that it would never have worked even in that world capital of cheesiness and tackiness- Hollywood. Or perhaps it could have served as the plot for a comedic parody, but that is about it. Of course, the lack of fundamental understanding of real world physics, the total amorality and aesthetic blindness of the real perpetrators was offset by their raw political power, their absolute control over the corporate media, their insider influence and the unprecedented para-military power at their disposal.

    According to the official narrative Bin Laden- or is it now Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (?)- ordered his 19 fanatic amateur student pilots to commit miracles of aviation and aeronautics, thwart the world's most powerful air defense system, knock down three buildings with two aircraft, make another one disappear into a mine shaft, and another aircraft to fly at ground level on a grass lawn and penetrate various rings of the most heavily fortified building in the U.S.

    The initial public acceptance of this utterly ridiculous Baron Munchausen fantasy was only possible because of the trauma induced on the public imagination by focusing almost exclusively on the plight of the victims- particularly the "jumpers" and the first responders. The culprit was already named within the first few hours, by well known officials who had conducted no investigation, had no empirical evidence at their disposal and who were reading from a script.

    I think the character they use in the movie will be the one remote guiding the planes in and he will be Russian or German. This will sort of solve the flyers problem. Myself, I am off to learn how to stunt fly passenger jets this weekend. I hope to perform a death spiral by Monday.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Once you master the death spiral, you should be ready for the on-the-ground death taxiing maneuver that Hani Hanjour used to strike and penetrate the outer rings of the Pentagon. Before you do so, make sure you achieve the required velocity to make the plane assume a "liquid state" so it can more easily avoid scarring the lawn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. ValmMond says:
    @Logan
    Let's assume this explanation is accurate.

    What do you think the reason was for the perps to let the building burn for seven hours then use an obvious demolition method to bring it down?

    Let’s assume this explanation is accurate.

    Let’s not assume anything.
    WTC 7′s free fall collapse is a verifiable, observable, well documented fact.
    Even the NIST 9/11 report concedes that much. “In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible* support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft) (…) The entire building above the buckled-column region then moved downward in a single unit, as observed.
    (NCSTAR 1A pp. 45 & 55, emphasis mine; *negligible: too small to be worth considering).

    The perps’ motivation and state of mind is a matter of speculation.
    WHY they did it is irrelevant with respect to establishing WHAT they did.
    My personal guess is that they decided to destroy not just evidence but the crime scene itself. Hopefully we’ll know more at the upcoming 9/11 trial.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. ValmMond says:
    @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    I’ve spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings.

    Just curious, how many building collapses due to fire have you witnessed? Would you mind sharing your experience?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. MacNucc11 says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I am not sure you understand how cell operations work.

    They require very little operational control from the base of operations. Hardly a case against an outside operator.

    If there were any cells they were a group of manipulated managed characters by agents provocateur and agreed there was little, in fact no control from Bin Laden. He was a fall guy all along.
    Look into how many times the FBI has infiltrated organizations to instigate violence to bring those organizations down. They were inside the American Indian Movement, the Black Panthers, as well as most recently the Malheur Preserve standoff (which case was dropped). The FBI and CIA, and Mossad are run from base locations but have cells through the world. So yes, I do get how it works.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Mulegino1 says:
    @MacNucc11
    I think the character they use in the movie will be the one remote guiding the planes in and he will be Russian or German. This will sort of solve the flyers problem. Myself, I am off to learn how to stunt fly passenger jets this weekend. I hope to perform a death spiral by Monday.

    Once you master the death spiral, you should be ready for the on-the-ground death taxiing maneuver that Hani Hanjour used to strike and penetrate the outer rings of the Pentagon. Before you do so, make sure you achieve the required velocity to make the plane assume a “liquid state” so it can more easily avoid scarring the lawn.

    Read More
    • LOL: Stonehands
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    Hani of course is much admired for his skill and adept flying/taxiing maneuvers. We in the wanna be flying community often refer to learning the Hanni. He is the magic man.
    I just have to say I love the Unz site because it allows us to have a laugh at the crazy story they put out there for us. Of course added comic relief from the untruthers who seem to be drawn like flies to these articles. I congratulate them on sharing their absurd beliefs to much comic effect and seeing them continually smacked down. They can convince no one of anything but I often feel sometimes I missed my calling. With this many gullible people out there I should be trying to sell them terrorism insurance, or novichok emergency antidote. Maybe anti Russian hacking and virus software. Works while you are playing Tetris on your pc. Three easy payments of $29.95. All purchases now come with a years subscription to Popular Mechanics.
    , @Them Guys
    5 easy flight lessons on a single engine cesna simulator, and $2,000 payment, and cave dweller Arabs can then Fly a 767 Plane like a Buzzard with its tail feathers twisted!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. richard says:
    @DESERT FOX
    Israel and the Zionist neocons who control every facet of the U.S. government including the Zionist controlled intel agencies did 911 and opened the gates of hell.

    Israel and the deep state proved by this draconian act that they are capable of inhuman acts of murder and destruction that is a hall mark of communists and terrorist everywhere in the world and in fact they created ISIS aka AL CIADA and have caused the deaths of millions in the Mideast and the deaths of thousands of American troops in the wars fought for Israel.

    The enemy is not at the gates, the enemy is controlling the American government.

    you nailed it brother

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Miro23 says:
    @L.K
    Re the ludicrous 9/11 Commission, we read, in the book '9/11 The Simple Facts':

    Then came the 9/11 Commission, which issued its report in 2004. Although it was supposed to be a high-level, comprehensive investigation, it conducted no criminal inquiries. It had no subpoena power, no special prosecutor, few open public meetings and virtually no scientific presentations.
    Its report was criticized by its own cochairs, by more than half the commissioners overall, by several members of Congress and by dozens of former members of the national security establishment.
     
    Several of the high level 9-11 commissioners exhibited doubts as to work of the commission. Here are some quotes:

    Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

    9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton said “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue ”

    9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting”

    9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”

    9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .” He also said that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking.

    Useful to be reminded of this. I read the 9/11 Report when it came out and believed the whole thing. The problems started years later when I heard about Building 7 (not mentioned in the Report).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. MacNucc11 says:
    @Mulegino1
    Once you master the death spiral, you should be ready for the on-the-ground death taxiing maneuver that Hani Hanjour used to strike and penetrate the outer rings of the Pentagon. Before you do so, make sure you achieve the required velocity to make the plane assume a "liquid state" so it can more easily avoid scarring the lawn.

    Hani of course is much admired for his skill and adept flying/taxiing maneuvers. We in the wanna be flying community often refer to learning the Hanni. He is the magic man.
    I just have to say I love the Unz site because it allows us to have a laugh at the crazy story they put out there for us. Of course added comic relief from the untruthers who seem to be drawn like flies to these articles. I congratulate them on sharing their absurd beliefs to much comic effect and seeing them continually smacked down. They can convince no one of anything but I often feel sometimes I missed my calling. With this many gullible people out there I should be trying to sell them terrorism insurance, or novichok emergency antidote. Maybe anti Russian hacking and virus software. Works while you are playing Tetris on your pc. Three easy payments of $29.95. All purchases now come with a years subscription to Popular Mechanics.

    Read More
    • LOL: Mike P
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    I often wonder how anyone in their right mind could swallow the official story. Unfortunately, there are too many people whose universe is defined by the flat screen, however much its portrayal of reality is high definition. Of course, this is nothing new. A lot of people, particularly on the East Coast, thought Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" broadcast was real news covering an actual invasion from Mars, as opposed to a radio drama. The "society of spectacle" has become vastly more sophisticated since 1939, but it now has a competitor, which is the unrestricted flow of information available from the world of reality, free from the media gatekeepers and the straitjacket of corporate control.

    The corporate media has been in the service of the empire at least since the days of "Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!" Fortunately, the vapors of somnolence and intellectual laziness are beginning to lift and, slowly but surely, the people, or at least the people not exclusively focused on movies and spectator sports are beginning to wake up.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. L.K says:

    Regarding the matter of whether or not bin Laden and ‘al-Qaeda’ were even capable of orchestrating the 9-11 Attacks, author and professor David Ray Griffin, wrote:

    For prosecutors to prove that defendants committed a crime, they must show that they had the ability (as well as the motive and opportunity) to do so.
    But several political and military leaders from other countries have stated that bin Laden and al-Qaeda simply could not have carried out the attacks.
    General Leonid Ivashov, who in 2001 was the chief of staff for the Russian armed forces, wrote:

    “Only secret services and their current chiefs—or those retired but still having influence inside the state organizations—have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude…Osama bin Laden and “Al Qaeda” cannot be the organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the necessary organization, resources or leaders.”

    Similar statements have been made by Andreas von Bülow, the former state secretary of West Germany’s ministry of defense, by General Mirza Aslam Beg, former chief of staff of Pakistan’s army, and even General Musharraf, the president of Pakistan until recently.[109]

    This same point was also made by veteran CIA agent Milt Bearden. Speaking disparagingly of “the myth of Osama bin Laden” on CBS News the day after 9/11, Bearden said: “I was there [in Afghanistan] at the same time bin Laden was there. He was not the great warrior.” With regard to the widespread view that bin Laden was behind the attacks, he said: “This was a tremendously sophisticated operation against the United States—more sophisticated than anybody would have ascribed to Osama bin Laden.” Pointing out that a group capable of such a sophisticated attack would have had a way to cover their tracks, he added: “This group who was responsible for that, if they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden out there, they’d invent one, because he’s a terrific diversion.”[110]

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. L.K says:

    Re those who really carried out the 9/11 attacks, brave American investigative journalist and author, Christopher Bollyn, wrote:

    In Germany, I had the opportunity to interview Andreas von Bülow near Köln. Von Bülow, an author and former member of the Bundestag (the German parliament) served on the parliamentary commission which oversees the three branches of the German secret service. Von Bülow said he thought Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, was behind the 9-11 attacks. These attacks, he said, were carried out to turn public opinion against the Arabs and boost military and security spending.

    “You don’t get the higher echelons,” von Bülow said, referring to the “architectural structure” which masterminds such terror attacks. At this level, he said, the organization doing the planning, such as Mossad, is primarily interested in affecting public opinion. The terrorists who actually commit the crimes are what von Bülow calls “the working level,” such as the nineteen Arabs who allegedly hijacked the planes on September 11. “The working level is part of the deception,” he said.

    “Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation,” he said, which is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events. “Journalists don’t even raise the simplest questions,” he said. “Those who differ are labeled as crazy.”

    Eckehardt Werthebach, the former president of the Verfassungsschutz (a branch of German intelligence), told me that “the deathly precision” and “the magnitude of planning” behind the attacks would have needed “years of planning.” Such a sophisticated operation, Werthebach said, required the “fixed frame” of a state intelligence organization, something not found in a “loose group” of terrorists. Both Werthebach and von Bülow said the lack of a complete “blue ribbon” investigation, with congressional hearings, into the events of September 11 was incomprehensible. These men made more sense to me than anyone in the U.S. government or media.

    Read his book online @

    http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-book

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. L.K says:

    Sean Stone and Christopher Bollyn on 9/11, Israel & the Mossad

    9/11, links to Israel, the mossad, and the crime within a crime is all discussed with Christopher Bollyn in an uncensored discussion with Sean Stone. The disposal of evidence, promotion of a scripted story, and how Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu are involved, plus the accusation of anti-semitism levelled against those that explore the connection to the Israeli government and intelligence are all explored. Who profited from the operation, false flags, and the mysterious influence of the Saudis and British are demystified in this full length episode of Buzzsaw.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  93. Fred says:
    @Biff
    What was glaringly obvious was the 9/11 account of events was pre-written long before any airplane hit the twin towers; hence, no need for an investigation - one of those properly compiled political commissions will do.

    9/11 is simply the cost of pretending you’re the victim, and not the perp. Pretending you’re a democracy, and not a dictatorship. Pretending you represent freedom, and not enslavement. Pretending MiddleEast wars protect America, and not ____________.

    Planes? Are you effin’ that stupid? Planes…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Mulegino1 says:

    A commercial Boeing 767 could not be flown at the altitude of the alleged impact at the airspeeds claimed by the NTSB for two principle reasons: at that altitude, the engines could not generate sufficient thrust to keep the aircraft aloft at that speed, and the plane would have broken apart due to the much greater air density at or near sea level as opposed to the much thinner air at cruising altitude.

    I simply cannot conceive of there being no clear, unambiguous video or photographic proof of a an airliner striking WTC 2. The news cameras of the entire world’s news services were trained on the Twin Towers at the alleged moment of impact and there were numerous news choppers in the air, yet all we get is:

    If you watch this video closely and repetitively, you will realize that not all of these videos can be true, since, in many cases, the so called “airliner” follows completely different flight paths. As a matter of fact, most of the amateur videos, particularly the “Holy sh-t” variety appear to contain the same voices in the background and the same screaming female banshee. Also, the Hezarkhani footage appears to show the airliner maintaining constant velocity as it cuts through the perimeter of WTC 2 like a hot knife through butter. Also, there are at least three versions of Chopper 4′s footage of the alleged impact upon WTC 2- one which shows the explosion and no aircraft at all, one which shows a small ball shaped object approaching the building, and one which shows a larger aircraft performing a leveling off maneuver behind the tower immediately before the explosion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    Agree, see the video on youtube on John Lear son of the founder of the Lear Jet and John was a former commercial pilot and he explains why no planes hit the twin towers and how holograms of planes were used, and how the gov has technology decades ahead of what the public is aware of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Them Guys says:
    @niteranger
    I haven't read the book but it sure sounds interesting. Once again the Neocon Jews and their friends run this game. Our foreign policy comes from Israel and we furnish the money and the dead soldiers for the blood thirsty Khazars. The entire 911 narrative is based on a number of events that are improbable on top of other improbabilities.

    I taught at a university years ago and one of my former students told me that his dad worked at the Pentagon. He said that his dad told him that the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down. I was at the site a few months later because I was doing a study in the area. I couldn't believe how small the damage was to the ground where the plane supposedly crashed. Compared to other plane crash sites it was joke. I have no idea if the student was correct but there are a lot strange questions about things that no one wants to answer. In order to believe the complete narrative as compiled by our government one must be oblivious to the obvious.

    They did a similar scam with that Flight-800 passenger plane event. Recall it? After about 3 years or close to it, the Fed agency involved with plane crashes made a video to show, how in the world could flight-800 First have an explosion in an empty of fuel wing tank, that then caused the Entire front portion and Flight deck portion of plane to break off and fall away from plane…

    Which then left what is akin to a 200 foot long By 40+ foot diameter Tube flying straight across sky at speed of 500-600 MPH, and after entire front portion with all officers and All flight Controls etc Fell off!….YET….Somehow that flying Tube sucking in massive air amounts at speeds of over 500 mph could actually…Increase speed and CLIMB another 3,000+ Feet in altitude!

    All while fully missing every flight control, capt. co pilot, flight crew, computer controls etc etc and entire front section of plane! I aint no pilot, only been in a plane once..But I say NO possible way remains of plane missing entire front section aka nose of plane, can somehow Gain speed and gain over 3,000 FT in altitude eh?

    All while sucking in what must amount to equal to a force-5 Tornado winds rushing into now fully Open 40+-FT Diameter Hole where front nose section Used to be!

    That mass air rush force alone had to have caused it to imediatly slow down fast eh…Then Drop like proverbial Rock into sea it flew over at time of event.

    I watched their phony video on tv when first shown and I said at that moment to a friend with me watching also, it was a total fake fraud attempt to cover up some new swindles by bubba Klinton and his handlers aka his zio bosses….Or to cover up what eye witness’ of over 300+ folks out doors say, which as stated by them was plane got Hit by a fired missle from a ship at sea doing manuevers or something….A US Navel ship they stated….And same 300 witness folk also soon after said FBI visited them and warned all to remain silent do no interviews with any tv news or else.

    This is Not the usa america we were taught to believe in as small kids and thru out our entire lives eh…

    Yes indeed be it Flight-800, or 9/11 events or JFK event, and too many more to list here now.

    America and its people has been totally Hyjacked by an 100% Pure Evil force and after 20 years of reasearch of so many events and issues and agendas now…I conclude that regardless what or how many so called goys or wasps or, whatever else called, play roles in this mass hyjacking….Regardless of that, the Main leaders and controlers are and have always been international jewry and its zio perps.

    Whoever that famous german guy was that said “The jews are Our Misfortune” back when germany was main Host nation of jewry….Well boy was he correct….Misfortune sounds too too nicy nice term eh. And if allowed to continue much longer, america will be lost forever period.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. anonomy says:

    It didn’t matter whether 911 happened or not, the left had already started their “Democracy” regime change with Bosnia and the Iraq Liberation act was signed in 1998. Sure it may have come at a great time but the USS Cole had been bombed in 2000 and we had already bombed the empty terrorist training facilities in Afghanistan. They had been gearing up and pushing their Democracy crap before 911 Some democracy supporters like the ousted president of Afghanistan, pushed out by the Taliban were over in the United Nations,. The Taliban pushed them out of power and were in a civil war with the people we allied with, the Northern Alliance. Same as we allied with the Kurds in Iraq. There was an Al Qa’ida in Iraq, it was an old magazine put out by the head of the communist party in Iraq who was thrown out by Saddam and made a home at the United Nations. There are slew of terrorist attacks against Americans for years before 911.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  97. @Mulegino1
    A commercial Boeing 767 could not be flown at the altitude of the alleged impact at the airspeeds claimed by the NTSB for two principle reasons: at that altitude, the engines could not generate sufficient thrust to keep the aircraft aloft at that speed, and the plane would have broken apart due to the much greater air density at or near sea level as opposed to the much thinner air at cruising altitude.

    I simply cannot conceive of there being no clear, unambiguous video or photographic proof of a an airliner striking WTC 2. The news cameras of the entire world's news services were trained on the Twin Towers at the alleged moment of impact and there were numerous news choppers in the air, yet all we get is:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YLm3pkAiJQ

    If you watch this video closely and repetitively, you will realize that not all of these videos can be true, since, in many cases, the so called "airliner" follows completely different flight paths. As a matter of fact, most of the amateur videos, particularly the "Holy sh-t" variety appear to contain the same voices in the background and the same screaming female banshee. Also, the Hezarkhani footage appears to show the airliner maintaining constant velocity as it cuts through the perimeter of WTC 2 like a hot knife through butter. Also, there are at least three versions of Chopper 4's footage of the alleged impact upon WTC 2- one which shows the explosion and no aircraft at all, one which shows a small ball shaped object approaching the building, and one which shows a larger aircraft performing a leveling off maneuver behind the tower immediately before the explosion.

    Agree, see the video on youtube on John Lear son of the founder of the Lear Jet and John was a former commercial pilot and he explains why no planes hit the twin towers and how holograms of planes were used, and how the gov has technology decades ahead of what the public is aware of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    Why do you need holograms when you have TV? All you need is four or five people running around the crowd yelling "Its a plane! Its a plane!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Them Guys says:
    @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    How do steel beams soften in lower temp when entire fire prior to collapse lasted just aprox 55 minuets?

    Also I read that the steel beams used at twin towers was something like 2.5 in thick minimum and when made, prior to shipping each beam it got stressed tested to comply with some of the strictest ever rules up to that date of construction of sky scrapers, of stress potentials.

    Same article said a sample 6.5 ft beam section created to exact same strict specs was obtained to use as a test beam and when heated in a high temp oven facility, it took Over 16+ Hrs at temps about 1,000 degrees F, Higher, to finally allow beam to Droop in middle when beam was placed over two points suspended above floor…..Their reason to use just a 6.5 FT long beam was stated as due to the high temp oven facility they got access to use would not contain a longer length beam.

    But if that shorter beam was made to exact same specs of steel type used, same thickness as orig towers beams etc…..Then results should show same or similar effects I’d think.

    Test beam heated to 1,000 F Higher temp and for over 16-HRs prior to potential to droop in middle of beam….Compared to actual towers beams at 1,000 degrees F-Less temp and for just 55 Min. before collapse scenario began.

    PS: All else I ever read says that in all/every similar high rise steel beamed structure with intense fire…..NONE ever yet did a collapse of entire frame like twin towers did…And most if not all of other fires lasted much longer….One lasted 22 Hrs in Japan I think it was and zero total collapse at all.

    So besides zero others did a collapse prior in all high rise fire history to date, a First!

    We have yet another First!….ZERO Plane/debrie/persons/passengers/flight crew/Engines/Wheels & Tires/ Passengers luggages/etc were seen at Pentagon event!

    Although finally a couple/few years ago the msm tv news shows did show a special video made by usa/pentagon officials that showed a blur object, they said was the plane which after it hit pentagon wall….it and ALL of its contents and parts etc simply “VAPORIZED” and only thing that remained visible of entire plane-passengers-parts-luggages etc etc were,….

    Tiny little bits of Sparkling things on pentagons Lawn where plane hit wall…..They said the sparkling bits on lawn were Aluminum Particles that was all that remained due to vaporization effects!…

    FLASH News! Breaking!…..I too see Little sparkling “things” on MY Backyard Lawn every Morning when early Sun arises….Yep!…Only MY Lawns “Sparklings” aint Tiny Aluminum Bits…No Sir!

    My Lawns early morn sparkle bits are….wait for it…..DEW On the lawns blades of…GRASS!!!

    Sparkles like a backyard lawn covered with Diamonds! But no Commercial Plane Aluminum tiny sparkle bits…Just DEW-Drops!

    Plus pentagon had huge wall hole yes….Said to where plane fully entered and vaporized…Yet….NO side hole or slice in building where planes WINGS must have been eh?

    So if zero wings side entry holes or wall slice missing, wings should been seen ON LAWN….Nope no wings and NO NUTHIN! Seen besides early morn shiny tiny aluminum bits due to entire plane “Vaporized” once hit wall at pentagon…

    What will them ziokikes invent next eh?….Maybe it was an Disapearing Antisemitic Racist Plane huh? hahahah.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "... NO side hole or slice in building where planes WINGS must have been eh?"
     
    That's 'cos the wings were turned into confetti on the lawn
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Mulegino1 says:
    @MacNucc11
    Hani of course is much admired for his skill and adept flying/taxiing maneuvers. We in the wanna be flying community often refer to learning the Hanni. He is the magic man.
    I just have to say I love the Unz site because it allows us to have a laugh at the crazy story they put out there for us. Of course added comic relief from the untruthers who seem to be drawn like flies to these articles. I congratulate them on sharing their absurd beliefs to much comic effect and seeing them continually smacked down. They can convince no one of anything but I often feel sometimes I missed my calling. With this many gullible people out there I should be trying to sell them terrorism insurance, or novichok emergency antidote. Maybe anti Russian hacking and virus software. Works while you are playing Tetris on your pc. Three easy payments of $29.95. All purchases now come with a years subscription to Popular Mechanics.

    I often wonder how anyone in their right mind could swallow the official story. Unfortunately, there are too many people whose universe is defined by the flat screen, however much its portrayal of reality is high definition. Of course, this is nothing new. A lot of people, particularly on the East Coast, thought Orson Welles’ “War of the Worlds” broadcast was real news covering an actual invasion from Mars, as opposed to a radio drama. The “society of spectacle” has become vastly more sophisticated since 1939, but it now has a competitor, which is the unrestricted flow of information available from the world of reality, free from the media gatekeepers and the straitjacket of corporate control.

    The corporate media has been in the service of the empire at least since the days of “Remember the Maine! To Hell with Spain!” Fortunately, the vapors of somnolence and intellectual laziness are beginning to lift and, slowly but surely, the people, or at least the people not exclusively focused on movies and spectator sports are beginning to wake up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Them Guys says:
    @Jake
    The CIA, the Mossad, the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency (as well as the SAVAK of the Shah of Iran) were all born out of British secret service. They are all products of WASP culture. They all do the same lying, the same torturing, the same evil. They all would destroy countless numbers of human pawns in order to 'win' some prize for their Deep State owners.

    Yes and that “Win Prize” they so seek is a Third Jewish Temple in Israel where they can resume animal sacrifices by use of sub human Goys as animal burnt offerings daily. And they Drool over a reinstituted San Hedrin rabbi staff of 23 san hedrins to replace usa and every nations supreme court justices, so jewry can rule over and be final deciders of which goys are guilty of their yet to be instituted Noahide Laws for goys…..Then of course once san hedrins find guilty as charged goys guilty, they can be killed and used as animal sacrifice burnt offerings.

    And their greatest ever event yet to come, which totally discombobulates their jewdeo zio minds into a state of near frenzy, is the grand plan to Seat Their jewish Antichrist guy in said 3rd temple inner sanctum. And what will those usa 60-70 Million jewdeochristians do when their pre trib rapture escape events fails to happen while all that is going on eh?

    Think by that point any of them clowns will finally disavow their main object of worship of jews and Israel?……..NO way!…..They wont awaken to real truth until they share a place in hell with their jew masters.

    I recall as a kid in grade school when teachers and parents alike kept pounding into our heads how that if we work hard, learn as much as possible, increase our IQ’s And be really smart…..Then our entire adult lives shall be so much better, easier, more prosperous and place Us well above the fray of others who fail to do that.

    Well I got news for all them folks and teachers…That was a HUGE Lie!

    Because once you become wide awake and red pilled as some calls it, and realize you are a one out of aprox 10,000 at best….and how dumbed down and asleep to truth the others are.

    You also find that being smarter and knowing stuff the rest fail to see or know of, only makes life more difficult and far more lonely of an existence. Kinda like that Maytag Repair man guy eh. aka Loneliest man alive (due to maytag washer machines never break down so his repair job phone never rings and causes his vast aloneness).

    The more you awaken and learn the far less you have in common with todays American lemmings and idiots it seems. Soon you begin to detest and despise such ignorant fools.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. B. C. says:

    A visit to CBC’s cousin, the BBC:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  102. Them Guys says:
    @Rogue
    Also of interest is the body language of Lucky Larry Silverstein when interviewed about the twin towers and building 7.

    He doesn't look honest to me at all, but then I'm no expert either.

    What I would like is a behavioral analysis by an expert in that particular field as to whether Lucky Larry is pulling a fast one or not.

    For those who don't know, Larry Silverstein took ownership of most of the WTC complex shortly before 9/11.

    Videos of him being interviewed about 9/11 are freely available on YouTube.

    Conveniently, neither his son or daughter - or himself - were at the complex on 9/11. They usually met with clients every day at the restaurant at the top of one of the towers.

    I wonder what others think of his body language if they've seen the interviews.

    I wouldn't accuse him of lying, since as I've already said I'm no expert, but he sure looks suspicious.

    Lucky Larry paid out $50 million down paymnt. waited 2.5 months was it?, then collected about a total of $4 BILLION from 1/2 dozen insurance policies on towers…Plus such a jewy Dealllll! Larry whos daily, always same daily breakfast meal at same table in top floor revolving restaurant missed breakfast that day due to a phone call from wifey reminding him of some dr. appoint he had.

    What total luck eh….Such a Deeeeall!! OyVehy.

    Plus Larry was even able to be present at buildg #7 to tell tv reporter “We then decided it best to…Just PULL IT” That’s demolition workerman speak.

    Just Pull It and Collect $4 Billion Cash Profit on prior $50 Million down payment on 99 year lease.

    Not to mention saved $$$$ tons of saved cash to do asbestos removals to redesign office spaces if rented out eh. Just let that asbestos fly over NY and create more sick folks than a typical Africa nation state with such numbers of sick peoples.

    But did lucky larry have to pay off that fed appellate judge GW appointed for that favorable ct decision that allowed larry to collect insurance even when damages done due to terrorist opps?

    Ever read your home owner policy yet? Note how Your/My home or vehicle insur policy says NO payouts if due to War-Civil Riots-Terrorist activity etc.

    Yet Larry got several policies to pay for that cause and all on same properties too! How many policies can You obtain per home or car? ONE Only per.

    Ahhhhh….Gots to just Love that jewish lightning effect no?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    I have heard the Silverstein insurance payout story many times but never any reference to actual evidence of all the details you would have to prove in a fraud case. Can you make it something better than urban myth with details and evidence? And why BTW do you think Silverstein had to be squared?

    If you think a story about one man can be so compelling of belief in some non Arab/domestic conspiracy why not put weight on the fact that the big winner, given his known views and previous attacks on the US via various agents, was Osama bin Laden? If he was still alive he would still be chortling over what he has done to the US - way beyond a bit of serious aggro damaging some important buildings.

    What are you talking about? If you believe a steel column has to completely melt before it collapses go ahead.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You have misdirected this comment. I have never espoused any theory but one of steel being weakened by fire until the weight of the floors above causes collapse.
    , @ploni almoni
    You are right. Steel columns collapse all the time. They do not have to melt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wally
    But the video record does not show softening, bending, & sagging that would occur if your story was correct,
    What we see is the complete disappearance of the load bearing beams which can only be achieved by explosives. Explosives, some of which can be seem detonating just ahead of the free fall, straight down collapse. We see no resistance whatsoever. Just straight down.
    There's also the explosions that firemen heard prior to collapse, the sounds of which are recorded in those firemen videos.

    BTW, the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris. so ...

    You need to up your science, it's all at:

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    Cheers.

    Repeat from thousands of years of humans making metals. A steel column does not have to completely melt before it softens enough to collapse under the weight it supports.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Please actually read my post.


    Here it is again:
    But the video record does not show softening, bending, & sagging that would occur if your story was correct,
    What we see is the complete disappearance of the load bearing beams which can only be achieved by explosives. Explosives, some of which can be seem detonating just ahead of the free fall, straight down collapse. We see no resistance whatsoever. Just straight down.
    There's also the explosions that firemen heard prior to collapse, the sounds of which are recorded in those firemen videos.

    BTW, the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris. so ...

    You need to up your science, it's all at:

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    Cheers.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Well, I can see this thread is turning into the infamous Betty Ong or is it Deng insanity of various loons attacking each other over great revelations discovered by poring over videos.

    Think I’ll save it for my next long plane ride.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  106. Alfred says:

    “the emergence of ISIS as a result of the invasion of Iraq is just one example”

    When I read things like that, I realise that the author is not telling us the truth.

    ISIS is a product of the USA. It was created, nurtured, trained, financed and supported by the USA and its allies. The area where ISIS remains in Syria is adjacent to the US’s illegal military bases there. The Syrian government and its allies are being prevented from rooting them out.

    The Iranians and the Syrians have repeately claimed that the USA is rescuing the leadership of ISIS from certain death or capture. It is all pretty obvious stuff.

    http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13941202000537

    Precisely the same policy is enacted as regards the Iranian terrorist grouping – Mujahideen e-Khalq (MAK). Thankfully, there is no support for MAK within Iran itself

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  107. I think Donald needs to explain to us how he now thinks Osama snuck those bombs into the WTC. Keep in mind Building 7, housed field offices of the SEC, FBI, CIA, NSA among others, how did those sneaky Muslims get in there?

    Donald Trump interview 2 days after 9/11 at ground zero

    Donald Trump Calls Into WWOR/UPN 9 News on 9/11 Bombs used

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    that second video is the real reason the neocon elements in the IC tried to stop Trump getting elected imo
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Muse says:
    @j2
    "There are two additional points that need to be made to all the “laws of physics” types out there who do not understand what they’re talking about."

    Those who do not understand what they are talking about. Are you perhaps joking? I remember one western where a guy commented, when you say that, smile.

    It is possible to reach a temperature to melt iron in coal powered fire, but only by blowing air (oxygen) to it. Were there any conditions for such a mechanism? I do not see them. Iron does soften below the melting point, but it is not essential. Essential is that to bring a building down symmetrically, you have to weaken pillars on all sides equally. That is nearly impossible for an non-symmetric fire. Just watch the video of WTC7 fall and ask how can this be made by fire.

    Yes, it is possible to cut something with weaker material by bringing enough energy. Why do your type of people always attack the weakest (and possibly your group self-created) arguments instead of attacking the strong and good argument supported by the more scientific 9/11 truthers. Very few people claim that there were no plains and that an aluminium plane cannot cut steel pillars. Refute the strong and accepted arguments, not these silly weak arguments.

    So, if we talk about WTC7, one problem is that the building comes down as it does, all sides at the same time and with a free-fall speed for many seconds. Whatever you say about steel getting softer, here we see that the whole steel structure gives no resistance to the fall. It is impossible and means that the structure is removed. I can only see it being done by explosives.

    The second issue is the high temperature recorded by a satellite a long time after the event. I very well remember how the news in 2001 told of very high temperatures there, melting steel they said in the news in my country at that time. What could possibly be burning there if not thermite? A normal fire does not burn so long.

    Then we have this peer-reviewed paper of nanothermite. Ok, the editor was kicked out. It does not mean the paper was not correctly reviewed.

    And then we have all this: an insurance against terrorist attack, dancing Palestinians, a passport surviving the crash, foreknowledge. I need not continue.

    I am not so sure you understand what are "laws of physics", but I more or less do understand physics as I studied it quite long. WTC (all of the buildings) was a very strange fall of a building, especially if it was a gravitational fall.

    It is possible to reach a temperature to melt iron in coal powered fire, but only by blowing air (oxygen) to it. Were there any conditions for such a mechanism? I do not see them

    You actually had a blast furnace going at both WTC towers during the fire. Tall buildings such as skyscrapers generate powerful upward drafts. This is why you have to use revolving doors. Because the stairwells were only shielded with thick drywall, and no doubt the elevator shafts had been blown open their had to be lots of air flowing to fan the flames.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    This may be true, so my mistake. But it does not change much.

    WTC7 fall looks like the building was pulled. Larry Silverstein says "and they decided to pull", some fireman or police counts "one, two, three", some people report "pam-pam-pam". So, let us agree that this building was pulled because otherwise it was in a danger of collapsing, in case the collapse would have been unsymmetric fall to the side which was damaged.

    Where were the explosives for WTC7 from? They could not be installed so fast. The answer is probably that when the building was constructed, explosives for pulling it were installed. In Finland during the Second World War pioneers destroyed bridges in order to hinder the Russian attack. One of these bridges was built by Americans before the war. It was at construction equipped with explosives for pulling it and so well that even the wires were cut to the correct length. This is told in the book Miesten kertomaa, true stories from the war. I expect that WTC7, which was the site of many federal offices, was wired for pulling at construction time. For some reason this is not admitted, maybe because it might encourage crazy people to pull down similar buildings. Many bridges have explosives installed even today for military purposes, maybe some other buildings as well.

    The twin towers fell differently, it was not by the original wiring even if they had installed explosives in construction time. The way they poured out material like fountains does not match to a gravitational fall assuming that the steel frame is weakened. You see a gravitational fall by looking at videos from Antarctic when glaciers peel to the sea. They look like what you would expect a gravitational fall to look like, add then the dust cloud from breaking concrete, still it does not look like a fountain. It does not throw heavy metal pieces to the sides with a large horizontal initial speed. So, I think these buildings were rewired (by wireless?). One of the twin buildings leaned to the side and was straightened. It should not happen: in a gravitation fall deviations grow when time grows, the side that falls faster falls still faster as it gets a higher load.

    What I mean that I do not see weakening of the metal is that I do not see the fall as a result of weakening of the metal. Locally there may well have been weakening of metal, but did not the remains of steel beans show holes or something like that, which is not by fire alone? Instead there were reports of very high temperatures in the site long time after the collapse. What was burning there if not thermite? That is, where did it get oxygen from?
    , @ploni almoni
    Skyscrapers are very dangerous and should be banned. Just watch what will happen to the Empire State Building next.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. I think Donald need to explain why so many of his BFF Netanyahu’s goons were arrested right after the attack?
    And why they (Israeli goons) did not give us ample warning of the coming attack since they had time to set up cameras, observe the planes hitting, and perform celebratory dancing as people were jumping to their deaths, why is that Donald? Those were not Muslims dancing Don..

    You owe those of us who for you an explanation Don. These were Americans that were murdered.

    The Notorious Banned FOX 9 11 2001 News Footage Israeli Mossad Links

    9/11 Suspects: The Dancing Israelis

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. The BBC reported the collapse of Building 7 twenty minutes before it actually collapsed….how interesting!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. @Jake
    The CIA, the Mossad, the Saudi General Intelligence Presidency (as well as the SAVAK of the Shah of Iran) were all born out of British secret service. They are all products of WASP culture. They all do the same lying, the same torturing, the same evil. They all would destroy countless numbers of human pawns in order to 'win' some prize for their Deep State owners.

    ” … for their Deep State owners.”

    Ultimately, CIA, Mossad, the British and the Saudis, and their respective deep states, are owned by Zionism. And Zionism was created as an ideological/political weapon by the most successful religious cult in the world — Illuminatus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Wally says:
    @Anon
    Repeat from thousands of years of humans making metals. A steel column does not have to completely melt before it softens enough to collapse under the weight it supports.

    Please actually read my post.

    Here it is again:
    But the video record does not show softening, bending, & sagging that would occur if your story was correct,
    What we see is the complete disappearance of the load bearing beams which can only be achieved by explosives. Explosives, some of which can be seem detonating just ahead of the free fall, straight down collapse. We see no resistance whatsoever. Just straight down.
    There’s also the explosions that firemen heard prior to collapse, the sounds of which are recorded in those firemen videos.

    BTW, the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris. so …

    You need to up your science, it’s all at:

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon

    the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris.
     
    No! In this case, it is you who needs to "up" his science.

    Thermite is not "highly explosive." Period. Full stop.

    Because it burns at a high temperature, thermite can be used to cut steel, but it is a weak explosive agent, at best. Thermite simply does not have anywhere near the destructive power to account for the utter devastation of the twin towers on 9/11 as depicted in the available videos.


    Chemical engineer Mark Hightower with Jim Fetzer:

    895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock waves.

    Not Powerful Enough

    Let’s examine the reason for that important last statement. The “destructive fragmentation effect” of an explosive is its detonation velocity, or the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in. To significantly fragment a substance, the detonation velocity of the explosive must equal or exceed the sonic velocity (the speed of sound) in the material.

    For example, the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s. In steel, the speed of sound is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT and RDX have detonation velocities of 6,900 and 8,750 m/s respectively, and are therefore capable of fragmenting concrete and steel, because both 6,900 and 8,750 exceed the sonic velocities of 3,200 m/s required to shatter concrete and 6,100 m/s required to shatter steel.

    As Dwain Deets has diagrammed, at only 895 m/s, iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite does not come close to TNT and RDX.
     
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must.html

    I've already posted this material twice at UR recently, which completely debunks the idea that thermite, nanothermite, thermate and their ilk are "highly explosive," but maybe the 3rd time will be a charm for the thick set.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Snarky says:

    Strangers on a train…Why do the governments of the world keep the 911 secret? One would think that in self defense from the A/Z empire the beans would be spilled. Instead, lips are zipped. Why?
    Strangers on a Train…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  114. j2 says:
    @Muse

    It is possible to reach a temperature to melt iron in coal powered fire, but only by blowing air (oxygen) to it. Were there any conditions for such a mechanism? I do not see them
     
    You actually had a blast furnace going at both WTC towers during the fire. Tall buildings such as skyscrapers generate powerful upward drafts. This is why you have to use revolving doors. Because the stairwells were only shielded with thick drywall, and no doubt the elevator shafts had been blown open their had to be lots of air flowing to fan the flames.

    This may be true, so my mistake. But it does not change much.

    WTC7 fall looks like the building was pulled. Larry Silverstein says “and they decided to pull”, some fireman or police counts “one, two, three”, some people report “pam-pam-pam”. So, let us agree that this building was pulled because otherwise it was in a danger of collapsing, in case the collapse would have been unsymmetric fall to the side which was damaged.

    Where were the explosives for WTC7 from? They could not be installed so fast. The answer is probably that when the building was constructed, explosives for pulling it were installed. In Finland during the Second World War pioneers destroyed bridges in order to hinder the Russian attack. One of these bridges was built by Americans before the war. It was at construction equipped with explosives for pulling it and so well that even the wires were cut to the correct length. This is told in the book Miesten kertomaa, true stories from the war. I expect that WTC7, which was the site of many federal offices, was wired for pulling at construction time. For some reason this is not admitted, maybe because it might encourage crazy people to pull down similar buildings. Many bridges have explosives installed even today for military purposes, maybe some other buildings as well.

    The twin towers fell differently, it was not by the original wiring even if they had installed explosives in construction time. The way they poured out material like fountains does not match to a gravitational fall assuming that the steel frame is weakened. You see a gravitational fall by looking at videos from Antarctic when glaciers peel to the sea. They look like what you would expect a gravitational fall to look like, add then the dust cloud from breaking concrete, still it does not look like a fountain. It does not throw heavy metal pieces to the sides with a large horizontal initial speed. So, I think these buildings were rewired (by wireless?). One of the twin buildings leaned to the side and was straightened. It should not happen: in a gravitation fall deviations grow when time grows, the side that falls faster falls still faster as it gets a higher load.

    What I mean that I do not see weakening of the metal is that I do not see the fall as a result of weakening of the metal. Locally there may well have been weakening of metal, but did not the remains of steel beans show holes or something like that, which is not by fire alone? Instead there were reports of very high temperatures in the site long time after the collapse. What was burning there if not thermite? That is, where did it get oxygen from?

    Read More
    • Replies: @eD
    "WTC7 fall looks like the building was pulled. Larry Silverstein says “and they decided to pull”, some fireman or police counts “one, two, three”, some people report “pam-pam-pam”. So, let us agree that this building was pulled because otherwise it was in a danger of collapsing, in case the collapse would have been unsymmetric fall to the side which was damaged.'

    My understanding is the fire departments will sometimes demolish buildings that are on fire and close to collapse. I never understood why what happened to WTC7 is so controversial.
    , @notanon

    Where were the explosives for WTC7 from? They could not be installed so fast.
     
    Is that actually true if you don't have to worry about debris?

    A building being pulled in a city has to be very precise to avoid damaging surrounding buildings but that wouldn't have been true in this case.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Them Guys says:
    @Mulegino1
    Once you master the death spiral, you should be ready for the on-the-ground death taxiing maneuver that Hani Hanjour used to strike and penetrate the outer rings of the Pentagon. Before you do so, make sure you achieve the required velocity to make the plane assume a "liquid state" so it can more easily avoid scarring the lawn.

    5 easy flight lessons on a single engine cesna simulator, and $2,000 payment, and cave dweller Arabs can then Fly a 767 Plane like a Buzzard with its tail feathers twisted!

    Read More
    • Replies: @notanon
    saudi air force trained pilots
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Erebus says:


    This astonishing photo shows the top 30+ floors of WTC1 breaking away and falling to the side. The tilt is already >20 degrees, with the tipping point at the corner, and the entire section is in the incipient stages of a free-fall. Substantially isolated from whatever was happening with the rest of the building and having developed an angular momentum of its own, it should have continued to tilt and then fallen more-or-less intact to the street below. The rest of the building, now relieved of whatever weight the now disconnected section bore on it, should have been eminently capable of standing indefinitely.
    Instead, the disconnected section disintegrated mid-air and hit the ground as dust and steel shards along with the rest of the building.

    Aside from the tilting top-section in WTC 1, the 2 collapses were identical and clearly systematic. Energetic, orthogonal ejection of large masses of finely separated material apparently ahead of the collapse front featured in the demolition of both towers. Watching the videos numerous times that morning convinced me and most of my colleagues by about noon – the towers must have been brought down by extra-energetic means.

    However unorthodox it appeared, it was a demolition. There is simply no other accounting for what the videos show.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    What about the moon landing? Were you able to determine that was faked by about noon, as well?
    , @Intelligent Dasein
    You are insane.

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object. It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure. The torsional forces upon twisting, popping, springing beams would be more than sufficient to eject material all over the place. Just watch what happens when a martial artist breaks a stack of bricks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQaNFoWo7zc

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same "free fall speed" you see in the Twin Towers collapse; and remember, this is far less complex version of the same process. When you add to this the immense kinetic energy of 500,000 tons of falling steel and concrete, you get a building that simply disintegrates and splashes to the ground.

    I'm getting a queasy feeling as I now begin to realize that the majority of commenters on this website are simply lunatics talking out of their asses. When you take this ridiculous 9/11 Trutherism, the absurd Darwinism, and the inability to even understand traditional Christian theology and the crackpot equating of it with evangelical nonsense, it is clear that most of you have no grounding in any sort of reality, either physical or metaphysical. Too great an amount of time has been wasted here already, but it is still important to speak the truth so that it will be available to the few who desire it.
    , @ploni almoni
    Never seen astonishing photo is fake. Is that why it is astonishing?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Logan says:
    @Malaysian Truther
    The maximum temperature reached in the fires was 592 c according to NIST itself - enough said I think

    Correct, since that is 1097F, a temperature by which most steels would have lost most if not all strength.

    There are some interesting pictures at this link, which is about how wooden structural members retain strength longer than steel when exposed to high heat. Not what you’d expect, right?

    http://rustylopez.typepad.com/newcovenant/2007/03/history_is_made.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Anon
    Are you unaware that a fire had been burning for many hours in WTC7 before it collapsed?

    The WTC buildings, like most modern skyscrapers, were made to withstand ordinary fires without collapsing. Steel beams are not marshmallows, ya know.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The WTC buildings were not like "most modern skyscrapers" in the relevant sense that they took advantage of changed building regulations in the late 60s which, inter alia, allowed the use of steel in new ways and its substitution for heavier masses of concrete.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Mulegino1
    I agree with you on every point other than to point out that it was a B-25 Mitchell bomber that crashed into the Empire State Building. These aircraft were much sturdier than a Boeing 767, being designed to withstand multiple hits from antiaircraft fire and enemy fighters, and also equipped with armor plating to protect the crew members. These were often used in low level bombing and strafing Also, keep in mind that the plane was propeller driven, and that sharp steel propellers can cut into concrete, and that the building had big glass windows, and no exterior steel perimeter columns between them as did the Twin Towers.

    This one comment highlights your inability to discuss these issues in a sane, competent manner.

    The B-25 was 53 feet long and weighed a maximum, with bomb-load, of 35,000 lbs. A 767 is 159 feet long and has a fuel capacity alone of 110,000 lbs. and a maximum weight of 315,000 lbs.

    Structurally (their sturdiness) they are both planes. They have to withstand take-offs and landings as well as be light enough to FLY. Their design is going to have to balance a bunch of things. Describing the design of the B-25 the way you do is stupid. It was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft like an IL-2 or JU-87. Have you ever been in one?

    If this is the best you can do it is no wonder there are only about 50 people on the planet who continue to push this nonsense and that half of them are here right now.

    The article/review itself just throws out the same tired gibberish. The only thing missing is the assertion that fossils are things just buried by the Jews in 1924.

    Starting every piece with the observation that it was the CIA that created the term “conspiracy theory” is a rather paranoid and timid way to make this case. It is not evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    If you are indeed an American, you exemplify that slack jawed, just plain dumb demographic from which figures like "Le American Bear" are derived.

    I never wrote that the B-25 was larger or more massive than a Boeing 767. I only pointed out that the former aircraft was built to withstand anti-aircraft fire and was often used for low level bombing and strafing runs, which rendered it likely to receive all types of fire from the ground. Such fire, incidentally, would rip a Boeing 767 to shreds. The B-25 had steel armor plating in its interior to protect the crew members.

    You obviously do not- or cannot- understand the quite simple principles of ballistics. A watermelon is certainly larger and more massive than a small armor piercing round, yet I doubt even you would contend that a watermelon traveling at a velocity approaching such a round is going to penetrate structural steel.

    People like you get angry when your laughable official narrative is challenged because you don't want to admit that you have been played for gullible suckers for so long.
    , @Mike P

    ... it is no wonder there are only about 50 people on the planet who continue to push this nonsense and that half of them are here right now.
     
    You should get out more. There are parts of the world in which "this nonsense" is accepted as fact by the majority of the population - not all people are as brainwashed as Murricans. Say, Turkey for example.

    (I probably should clarify that I am referring to the country, not the bird - I have run into a Texan cab driver before who did not know the country and thus mistook it for the bird, which made the conversation a little awkward.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Erebus
    https://truthandshadows.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/wtc-1-cropped.jpg

    This astonishing photo shows the top 30+ floors of WTC1 breaking away and falling to the side. The tilt is already >20 degrees, with the tipping point at the corner, and the entire section is in the incipient stages of a free-fall. Substantially isolated from whatever was happening with the rest of the building and having developed an angular momentum of its own, it should have continued to tilt and then fallen more-or-less intact to the street below. The rest of the building, now relieved of whatever weight the now disconnected section bore on it, should have been eminently capable of standing indefinitely.
    Instead, the disconnected section disintegrated mid-air and hit the ground as dust and steel shards along with the rest of the building.

    Aside from the tilting top-section in WTC 1, the 2 collapses were identical and clearly systematic. Energetic, orthogonal ejection of large masses of finely separated material apparently ahead of the collapse front featured in the demolition of both towers. Watching the videos numerous times that morning convinced me and most of my colleagues by about noon - the towers must have been brought down by extra-energetic means.

    However unorthodox it appeared, it was a demolition. There is simply no other accounting for what the videos show.

    What about the moon landing? Were you able to determine that was faked by about noon, as well?

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    I was able to figure out by noon that the so called moon landing conspiracy theory has very weak evidence, though I did notice by noon that some moon photos were indeed retouched (crapped, light modified). There are lots of these false so called conspiracy theories (moon landing, UFOs, aliens and so on). The UFO theories originated partially from the US army as a way to confuse people of secret military tests. Alien theories were probably created to sell books as the main media so likes to publish those books. All these false theories get much publicity. Well justified conspiracy theories do not get publicity, instead you may go to jail for publishing some results and labeled a crackpot for studying other things.
    , @ValmMond
    Can't win an argument? Change the subject.
    , @Erebus
    The moon landing was faked when I was much too young and naive to raise the now obvious and unanswerable objections.

    As for 9/11, I remember well being in a 20:1 minority maintaining our position in the local watering hole that evening despite having the numbers on our side of the argument. I note that those odds have gone past inverted nowadays. I haven't actually physically met a true believer in quite a while.
    CONUSA may be quite different, of course. For both events, Americans' vested interest in the official fables is understandable, if not quite forgiveable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Sparkon says:
    @Wally
    Please actually read my post.


    Here it is again:
    But the video record does not show softening, bending, & sagging that would occur if your story was correct,
    What we see is the complete disappearance of the load bearing beams which can only be achieved by explosives. Explosives, some of which can be seem detonating just ahead of the free fall, straight down collapse. We see no resistance whatsoever. Just straight down.
    There's also the explosions that firemen heard prior to collapse, the sounds of which are recorded in those firemen videos.

    BTW, the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris. so ...

    You need to up your science, it's all at:

    http://www.ae911truth.org

    Cheers.

    the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris.

    No! In this case, it is you who needs to “up” his science.

    Thermite is not “highly explosive.” Period. Full stop.

    Because it burns at a high temperature, thermite can be used to cut steel, but it is a weak explosive agent, at best. Thermite simply does not have anywhere near the destructive power to account for the utter devastation of the twin towers on 9/11 as depicted in the available videos.

    Chemical engineer Mark Hightower with Jim Fetzer:

    895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock waves.

    Not Powerful Enough

    Let’s examine the reason for that important last statement. The “destructive fragmentation effect” of an explosive is its detonation velocity, or the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in. To significantly fragment a substance, the detonation velocity of the explosive must equal or exceed the sonic velocity (the speed of sound) in the material.

    For example, the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s. In steel, the speed of sound is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT and RDX have detonation velocities of 6,900 and 8,750 m/s respectively, and are therefore capable of fragmenting concrete and steel, because both 6,900 and 8,750 exceed the sonic velocities of 3,200 m/s required to shatter concrete and 6,100 m/s required to shatter steel.

    As Dwain Deets has diagrammed, at only 895 m/s, iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite does not come close to TNT and RDX.

    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must.html

    I’ve already posted this material twice at UR recently, which completely debunks the idea that thermite, nanothermite, thermate and their ilk are “highly explosive,” but maybe the 3rd time will be a charm for the thick set.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Amen, Sparkon.

    Thermite, whether nano, micro, or milli is a melter, not an exploder.
    As an interesting aside, I ran across an open air Cr smelting operation in Africa using thermite. Worked a charm in a place where electricity wasn't available. Spectacular process that yielded a very high grade Cr ingot in seconds. Brilliant, literally.
    , @Mike P
    Thermite is very good for cutting steel, and its presence in large quantities in the dust is as sure as death and taxes. That doesn't mean that other, more powerful explosives were not also used - organic nitro compounds such as TNT for example would very likely have left no detectable remnants.

    The well-documented detection of nanothermite does not explain everything, but it alone is sufficient to unequivocally disprove the official conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean that there isn't a plethora of other evidence to the same effect.

    , @Wally
    Yawn. So you want to distract with a pointless debate about the definition of 'explosion'.

    A lot here, try to follow along.

    High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions
    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions

    https://youtu.be/Ri9ywmzewRQ

    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/Thermitic_Reactions_8.png
    Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.
    When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.”

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features

    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/Explosive_Features_3.jpg

    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/Explosive_Features_4.png

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. j2 says:
    @Johnny Rico
    What about the moon landing? Were you able to determine that was faked by about noon, as well?

    I was able to figure out by noon that the so called moon landing conspiracy theory has very weak evidence, though I did notice by noon that some moon photos were indeed retouched (crapped, light modified). There are lots of these false so called conspiracy theories (moon landing, UFOs, aliens and so on). The UFO theories originated partially from the US army as a way to confuse people of secret military tests. Alien theories were probably created to sell books as the main media so likes to publish those books. All these false theories get much publicity. Well justified conspiracy theories do not get publicity, instead you may go to jail for publishing some results and labeled a crackpot for studying other things.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. ValmMond says:
    @Johnny Rico
    What about the moon landing? Were you able to determine that was faked by about noon, as well?

    Can’t win an argument? Change the subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    Good luck. Time's running out for you. Me? I have an appointment back on Planet Earth :) Seeya
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Mulegino1 says:
    @Johnny Rico
    This one comment highlights your inability to discuss these issues in a sane, competent manner.

    The B-25 was 53 feet long and weighed a maximum, with bomb-load, of 35,000 lbs. A 767 is 159 feet long and has a fuel capacity alone of 110,000 lbs. and a maximum weight of 315,000 lbs.

    Structurally (their sturdiness) they are both planes. They have to withstand take-offs and landings as well as be light enough to FLY. Their design is going to have to balance a bunch of things. Describing the design of the B-25 the way you do is stupid. It was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft like an IL-2 or JU-87. Have you ever been in one?

    If this is the best you can do it is no wonder there are only about 50 people on the planet who continue to push this nonsense and that half of them are here right now.

    The article/review itself just throws out the same tired gibberish. The only thing missing is the assertion that fossils are things just buried by the Jews in 1924.

    Starting every piece with the observation that it was the CIA that created the term "conspiracy theory" is a rather paranoid and timid way to make this case. It is not evidence.

    If you are indeed an American, you exemplify that slack jawed, just plain dumb demographic from which figures like “Le American Bear” are derived.

    I never wrote that the B-25 was larger or more massive than a Boeing 767. I only pointed out that the former aircraft was built to withstand anti-aircraft fire and was often used for low level bombing and strafing runs, which rendered it likely to receive all types of fire from the ground. Such fire, incidentally, would rip a Boeing 767 to shreds. The B-25 had steel armor plating in its interior to protect the crew members.

    You obviously do not- or cannot- understand the quite simple principles of ballistics. A watermelon is certainly larger and more massive than a small armor piercing round, yet I doubt even you would contend that a watermelon traveling at a velocity approaching such a round is going to penetrate structural steel.

    People like you get angry when your laughable official narrative is challenged because you don’t want to admit that you have been played for gullible suckers for so long.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein

    You obviously do not- or cannot- understand the quite simple principles of ballistics. A watermelon is certainly larger and more massive than a small armor piercing round, yet I doubt even you would contend that a watermelon traveling at a velocity approaching such a round is going to penetrate structural steel.
     
    Of course I would "contend" that, as would anybody possessing a modicum of physical awareness. A 10 lb watermelon traveling a 1,500 MPH would rip a hole in a Brinks armored truck. Kinetic energy equals one-half of the mass times the velocity squared. There is no proviso in that rule saying "unless the mass is a watermelon."
    , @Johnny Rico
    Jesus. You really are a nitwit. Bye.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Erebus
    https://truthandshadows.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/wtc-1-cropped.jpg

    This astonishing photo shows the top 30+ floors of WTC1 breaking away and falling to the side. The tilt is already >20 degrees, with the tipping point at the corner, and the entire section is in the incipient stages of a free-fall. Substantially isolated from whatever was happening with the rest of the building and having developed an angular momentum of its own, it should have continued to tilt and then fallen more-or-less intact to the street below. The rest of the building, now relieved of whatever weight the now disconnected section bore on it, should have been eminently capable of standing indefinitely.
    Instead, the disconnected section disintegrated mid-air and hit the ground as dust and steel shards along with the rest of the building.

    Aside from the tilting top-section in WTC 1, the 2 collapses were identical and clearly systematic. Energetic, orthogonal ejection of large masses of finely separated material apparently ahead of the collapse front featured in the demolition of both towers. Watching the videos numerous times that morning convinced me and most of my colleagues by about noon - the towers must have been brought down by extra-energetic means.

    However unorthodox it appeared, it was a demolition. There is simply no other accounting for what the videos show.

    You are insane.

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object. It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure. The torsional forces upon twisting, popping, springing beams would be more than sufficient to eject material all over the place. Just watch what happens when a martial artist breaks a stack of bricks.

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same “free fall speed” you see in the Twin Towers collapse; and remember, this is far less complex version of the same process. When you add to this the immense kinetic energy of 500,000 tons of falling steel and concrete, you get a building that simply disintegrates and splashes to the ground.

    I’m getting a queasy feeling as I now begin to realize that the majority of commenters on this website are simply lunatics talking out of their asses. When you take this ridiculous 9/11 Trutherism, the absurd Darwinism, and the inability to even understand traditional Christian theology and the crackpot equating of it with evangelical nonsense, it is clear that most of you have no grounding in any sort of reality, either physical or metaphysical. Too great an amount of time has been wasted here already, but it is still important to speak the truth so that it will be available to the few who desire it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    The man in the video is hitting on bricks. Bricks are hard but nonelastic and can be broken by a shock of a single strong hit. Additionally, his hand can go down with faster acceleration than acceleration by gravitation and therefore he might break them even faster than they would fall.

    In WTC you have a weight (the upper part) falling on the lower part. If there is no resistance from the lower part, then the upper part falls with the acceleration 9.81 m/s2 and the time to drop between two selected levels can be easily solved by knowing the initial speed downwards. It happens to be that for 8 seconds the fall in WTC7 is free fall, that is, there is no resistance from the lower part. Something has removed the supporting structure.

    You suggest that a shock wave breaks the supporting steel frame of the building and this is what has removed the structure. The problem is that the building is not made of concrete only. Ask this man in the video to break steel plates and he will tell you that that kind of metal is too elastic and will absorb the shock. That is why he breaks bricks or hard wood.

    You also suggest that steel beams bend and then break and straighten and by doing this they throw material everywhere. Videos do not show such flexibility of the frame.
    , @ValmMond
    I'm not saying you are not smarter and more "reality-grounded" than the 3,000 + good architects and engineers questioning the official 9/11 narrative https://www.ae911truth.org/
    But calling "lunatics" critical thinkers who call out government BS does not give you any credibility. It just makes you look like an ignorant plebe. Remember, we are all someone's fools. You included.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Just see how mainly concrete buildings look after they've been hit by Israeli bombs.
    They never crumble, the steel parts are sticking out anywhere.
    The only explanation that makes sense is that the towers were destroyed by thermite, the explosive that contains aluminium and manganese powder, that burns at such a high temperature that steel melts completely.
    Thermite is designed to demolish reinforced concrete.
    Those who planted the devices,or controlled the explosions, from top to bottom, alas were quicker than Newton's laws.
    On top of that, they used so much thermite that three weeks after Sept 11, when rubble removing had reached ground level, the cellars still were full with molten iron.
    The tv pictures showing this quickly vanished.
    , @Erebus

    You are insane.
     
    Indeed, perhaps so. Be that as it may...

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object.
     
    Really? In what ways, pray tell, does an engineered structure behave differently than a solid object in regards to leaning, falling, or rotating? Are such concepts as centre of mass and angular momentum no longer applicable? Do engineered structures typically vaporize midair when they start leaning, falling, or rotating? How far do they have to lean, fall, or rotate before they vaporize? Is this a universal characteristic of engineered structures, or does it manifest only in the presence of local anomalies such as found in Lower Manhattan on bright late summer days? I note that it tragically failed to manifest in Florida when that pedestrian bridge collapsed last March and landed on 15 people, killing 6.

    It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure.
     
    Really? But look at the picture. From whence the "shock-waves" (3 of corners have moved up) and why would the building collapse (the pivot corner aside), having, for the most part, been recently relieved of the excess load? Engineering 101 tells you that a column fails from the bottom up, and never from the top down. An engineered column that was previously supporting a substantial load should surely be able to support nothing at all, "shock waves" notwithstanding.

    Oh, and before I forget, those "enormous stresses" aren't to be found in solid objects? Really? One wonders why compressive and tensile strength tests have maintained their prevalence in materials engineering.

    Anyway, on to your silly video...

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same “free fall speed” you see in the Twin Towers collapse
     
    You do? Well, if you do, you're looking at a very different world than the one I've been working in the last 40 years...

    - There is no ejecta beyond maybe 5-10% of the total mass (vs 9/11's inverse),
    - The "shock wave" moves through a simple stack structure by impacting an inelastic, low (tensile) strength/very high stiffness material (aka: hi-Q/brittle) at its weakest point to amplify the initial shock.
    - Moving through a hi-Q material, the shockwave propagates both quickly and can even amplify as it propagates if conditions are right.
    - Free-fall is free-fall, but I'd wager that the collapse in the video exceeded free-fall speed precisely because collapse would have moved with what would have been an under-damped shockwave.
    - You'll notice that the outside supports remained unaffected, but due to the fact that they were just a loose stack, they scattered, and wholesale collapse ensued.

    Now, tie the supports and the slabs into a structure, and everything changes. You can now increase the impact force arbitrarily (drop a 100T axehead sharp end on, from LEO), and the slabs would just break and hang from that structure (assuming the point of impact remained unchanged). There would be no collapse in the normal sense at all. The slabs would break, and hang there suspended from the nonplussed structure.

    In short, the demo says nothing relevant about the WTC collapses. That you think it somehow does suggests that whatever drives your enthusiastic defence of absurdity will, properly assessed, prove to be a form of madness itself. My insanity continues to support me in some comfort. Will yours?
    , @ploni almoni
    Keep telling us the truth, even though we don't deserve you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Erebus says:
    @Johnny Rico
    What about the moon landing? Were you able to determine that was faked by about noon, as well?

    The moon landing was faked when I was much too young and naive to raise the now obvious and unanswerable objections.

    As for 9/11, I remember well being in a 20:1 minority maintaining our position in the local watering hole that evening despite having the numbers on our side of the argument. I note that those odds have gone past inverted nowadays. I haven’t actually physically met a true believer in quite a while.
    CONUSA may be quite different, of course. For both events, Americans’ vested interest in the official fables is understandable, if not quite forgiveable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. denk says:
    @Malaysian Truther
    The maximum temperature reached in the fires was 592 c according to NIST itself - enough said I think

    Malaysia has its own 911….

    The ‘disappearance’ of mh370,

    brought to you by the fukusI production Co

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Mulegino1
    If you are indeed an American, you exemplify that slack jawed, just plain dumb demographic from which figures like "Le American Bear" are derived.

    I never wrote that the B-25 was larger or more massive than a Boeing 767. I only pointed out that the former aircraft was built to withstand anti-aircraft fire and was often used for low level bombing and strafing runs, which rendered it likely to receive all types of fire from the ground. Such fire, incidentally, would rip a Boeing 767 to shreds. The B-25 had steel armor plating in its interior to protect the crew members.

    You obviously do not- or cannot- understand the quite simple principles of ballistics. A watermelon is certainly larger and more massive than a small armor piercing round, yet I doubt even you would contend that a watermelon traveling at a velocity approaching such a round is going to penetrate structural steel.

    People like you get angry when your laughable official narrative is challenged because you don't want to admit that you have been played for gullible suckers for so long.

    You obviously do not- or cannot- understand the quite simple principles of ballistics. A watermelon is certainly larger and more massive than a small armor piercing round, yet I doubt even you would contend that a watermelon traveling at a velocity approaching such a round is going to penetrate structural steel.

    Of course I would “contend” that, as would anybody possessing a modicum of physical awareness. A 10 lb watermelon traveling a 1,500 MPH would rip a hole in a Brinks armored truck. Kinetic energy equals one-half of the mass times the velocity squared. There is no proviso in that rule saying “unless the mass is a watermelon.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    I suggest you try to "rip a hole in an armored truck" with a 10 pound watermelon, considering that a frangible bullet traveling at the same speed cannot do so.

    There is a reason that armor piercing rounds are constructed the way they are- sharp hardened alloy tip, alloy jacket and solid steel core. If it takes such a round with a muzzle velocity of over 2,000 feet per second to penetrate 1/4" of structural steel, a watermelon is going to do what watermelons generally do when they fall or are dropped on hard surfaces. But a Boeing 767 does not even rise to the level of a watermelon when compared with the perimeters of the Twin Towers and-at the point of the alleged impact-and their 1/4" steel box columns, the much thicker and stronger spandrels and the concrete floor pans. The nose cone of a 767 is extremely soft and fragile- so fragile it can be destroyed by a collision with birds at cruising speeds (no doubt due to colliding with the birds' beaks and bones); the fuselage is a thin skinned largely hollow tube. The wings are quite fragile and ductile, and the wing tips are so delicate that they cannot bear any load heavier than the running lights.

    A 100 ton aircraft hitting a 100,000 ton steel and concrete skyscraper- allegedly at the impossible air speed at or near sea level (for a Boeing 767) of over 500 mph - is going to result in the same effect as a 100,000 ton building hitting a 100 ton aircraft at the same speed.

    If a commercial airliner had indeed struck the perimeter of WTC 2, most of it would have shredded to pieces upon impact and fallen to the street below. It would not and could not have gone into the building like a hot knife through butter, which is what the obviously fake Hezarkhani footage alleges to show. This is not possible in the real world unless the alleged hijackers were aided by malicious Djinn.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Of course, therefore all during WWII Stalin begged the USA for armor piercing ammo.
    He did not get it.
    A passenger jet is just a flying big Coca Cola can.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @Mulegino1
    If you are indeed an American, you exemplify that slack jawed, just plain dumb demographic from which figures like "Le American Bear" are derived.

    I never wrote that the B-25 was larger or more massive than a Boeing 767. I only pointed out that the former aircraft was built to withstand anti-aircraft fire and was often used for low level bombing and strafing runs, which rendered it likely to receive all types of fire from the ground. Such fire, incidentally, would rip a Boeing 767 to shreds. The B-25 had steel armor plating in its interior to protect the crew members.

    You obviously do not- or cannot- understand the quite simple principles of ballistics. A watermelon is certainly larger and more massive than a small armor piercing round, yet I doubt even you would contend that a watermelon traveling at a velocity approaching such a round is going to penetrate structural steel.

    People like you get angry when your laughable official narrative is challenged because you don't want to admit that you have been played for gullible suckers for so long.

    Jesus. You really are a nitwit. Bye.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    In discussions of this type, the use of ad hominems is usually done by losers.

    Describing the design of the B-25 the way you do is stupid. It was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft like an IL-2 or JU-87. Have you ever been in one?
     
    I did not write that it was “designed” as a ground attack aircraft, I wrote that it was used in low level ground attacks due to its versatility and sturdiness:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkXGhV8xaXw

    Hard to get much more "low level" than that, right?

    The article/review itself just throws out the same tired gibberish. The only thing missing is the assertion that fossils are things just buried by the Jews in 1924.
     
    We are not discussing fossils or the claims of paleontology, but with respect to the Jews and 9/11, Jewish lightning perhaps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @ValmMond
    Can't win an argument? Change the subject.

    Good luck. Time’s running out for you. Me? I have an appointment back on Planet Earth :) Seeya

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    The WTC buildings, like most modern skyscrapers, were made to withstand ordinary fires without collapsing. Steel beams are not marshmallows, ya know.

    The WTC buildings were not like “most modern skyscrapers” in the relevant sense that they took advantage of changed building regulations in the late 60s which, inter alia, allowed the use of steel in new ways and its substitution for heavier masses of concrete.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Erebus says:
    @Sparkon

    the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris.
     
    No! In this case, it is you who needs to "up" his science.

    Thermite is not "highly explosive." Period. Full stop.

    Because it burns at a high temperature, thermite can be used to cut steel, but it is a weak explosive agent, at best. Thermite simply does not have anywhere near the destructive power to account for the utter devastation of the twin towers on 9/11 as depicted in the available videos.


    Chemical engineer Mark Hightower with Jim Fetzer:

    895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock waves.

    Not Powerful Enough

    Let’s examine the reason for that important last statement. The “destructive fragmentation effect” of an explosive is its detonation velocity, or the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in. To significantly fragment a substance, the detonation velocity of the explosive must equal or exceed the sonic velocity (the speed of sound) in the material.

    For example, the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s. In steel, the speed of sound is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT and RDX have detonation velocities of 6,900 and 8,750 m/s respectively, and are therefore capable of fragmenting concrete and steel, because both 6,900 and 8,750 exceed the sonic velocities of 3,200 m/s required to shatter concrete and 6,100 m/s required to shatter steel.

    As Dwain Deets has diagrammed, at only 895 m/s, iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite does not come close to TNT and RDX.
     
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must.html

    I've already posted this material twice at UR recently, which completely debunks the idea that thermite, nanothermite, thermate and their ilk are "highly explosive," but maybe the 3rd time will be a charm for the thick set.

    Amen, Sparkon.

    Thermite, whether nano, micro, or milli is a melter, not an exploder.
    As an interesting aside, I ran across an open air Cr smelting operation in Africa using thermite. Worked a charm in a place where electricity wasn’t available. Spectacular process that yielded a very high grade Cr ingot in seconds. Brilliant, literally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Anon[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    What are you talking about? If you believe a steel column has to completely melt before it collapses go ahead.

    You have misdirected this comment. I have never espoused any theory but one of steel being weakened by fire until the weight of the floors above causes collapse.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. j2 says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    You are insane.

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object. It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure. The torsional forces upon twisting, popping, springing beams would be more than sufficient to eject material all over the place. Just watch what happens when a martial artist breaks a stack of bricks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQaNFoWo7zc

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same "free fall speed" you see in the Twin Towers collapse; and remember, this is far less complex version of the same process. When you add to this the immense kinetic energy of 500,000 tons of falling steel and concrete, you get a building that simply disintegrates and splashes to the ground.

    I'm getting a queasy feeling as I now begin to realize that the majority of commenters on this website are simply lunatics talking out of their asses. When you take this ridiculous 9/11 Trutherism, the absurd Darwinism, and the inability to even understand traditional Christian theology and the crackpot equating of it with evangelical nonsense, it is clear that most of you have no grounding in any sort of reality, either physical or metaphysical. Too great an amount of time has been wasted here already, but it is still important to speak the truth so that it will be available to the few who desire it.

    The man in the video is hitting on bricks. Bricks are hard but nonelastic and can be broken by a shock of a single strong hit. Additionally, his hand can go down with faster acceleration than acceleration by gravitation and therefore he might break them even faster than they would fall.

    In WTC you have a weight (the upper part) falling on the lower part. If there is no resistance from the lower part, then the upper part falls with the acceleration 9.81 m/s2 and the time to drop between two selected levels can be easily solved by knowing the initial speed downwards. It happens to be that for 8 seconds the fall in WTC7 is free fall, that is, there is no resistance from the lower part. Something has removed the supporting structure.

    You suggest that a shock wave breaks the supporting steel frame of the building and this is what has removed the structure. The problem is that the building is not made of concrete only. Ask this man in the video to break steel plates and he will tell you that that kind of metal is too elastic and will absorb the shock. That is why he breaks bricks or hard wood.

    You also suggest that steel beams bend and then break and straighten and by doing this they throw material everywhere. Videos do not show such flexibility of the frame.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Mulegino1 says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    You obviously do not- or cannot- understand the quite simple principles of ballistics. A watermelon is certainly larger and more massive than a small armor piercing round, yet I doubt even you would contend that a watermelon traveling at a velocity approaching such a round is going to penetrate structural steel.
     
    Of course I would "contend" that, as would anybody possessing a modicum of physical awareness. A 10 lb watermelon traveling a 1,500 MPH would rip a hole in a Brinks armored truck. Kinetic energy equals one-half of the mass times the velocity squared. There is no proviso in that rule saying "unless the mass is a watermelon."

    I suggest you try to “rip a hole in an armored truck” with a 10 pound watermelon, considering that a frangible bullet traveling at the same speed cannot do so.

    There is a reason that armor piercing rounds are constructed the way they are- sharp hardened alloy tip, alloy jacket and solid steel core. If it takes such a round with a muzzle velocity of over 2,000 feet per second to penetrate 1/4″ of structural steel, a watermelon is going to do what watermelons generally do when they fall or are dropped on hard surfaces. But a Boeing 767 does not even rise to the level of a watermelon when compared with the perimeters of the Twin Towers and-at the point of the alleged impact-and their 1/4″ steel box columns, the much thicker and stronger spandrels and the concrete floor pans. The nose cone of a 767 is extremely soft and fragile- so fragile it can be destroyed by a collision with birds at cruising speeds (no doubt due to colliding with the birds’ beaks and bones); the fuselage is a thin skinned largely hollow tube. The wings are quite fragile and ductile, and the wing tips are so delicate that they cannot bear any load heavier than the running lights.

    A 100 ton aircraft hitting a 100,000 ton steel and concrete skyscraper- allegedly at the impossible air speed at or near sea level (for a Boeing 767) of over 500 mph – is going to result in the same effect as a 100,000 ton building hitting a 100 ton aircraft at the same speed.

    If a commercial airliner had indeed struck the perimeter of WTC 2, most of it would have shredded to pieces upon impact and fallen to the street below. It would not and could not have gone into the building like a hot knife through butter, which is what the obviously fake Hezarkhani footage alleges to show. This is not possible in the real world unless the alleged hijackers were aided by malicious Djinn.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Mulegino1 says:
    @Johnny Rico
    Jesus. You really are a nitwit. Bye.

    In discussions of this type, the use of ad hominems is usually done by losers.

    Describing the design of the B-25 the way you do is stupid. It was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft like an IL-2 or JU-87. Have you ever been in one?

    I did not write that it was “designed” as a ground attack aircraft, I wrote that it was used in low level ground attacks due to its versatility and sturdiness:

    Hard to get much more “low level” than that, right?

    The article/review itself just throws out the same tired gibberish. The only thing missing is the assertion that fossils are things just buried by the Jews in 1924.

    We are not discussing fossils or the claims of paleontology, but with respect to the Jews and 9/11, Jewish lightning perhaps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico

    This book should convince any honest and objective person – with a political and scientific IQ above room temperature – that we have been systematically lied to about the events of 9/11 and the American invasions in the Middle East.’
     
    See that?

    Paragraph #1 of this article by David Lorimer. What we are all talking about ostensibly.

    That is a blanket ad hominem aimed at anybody that doesn't agree with this nonsense.

    Try again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. bjondo says:

    Industrial grade liars activated to fight 9-11 questioners.
    Are they all in cubicles in gay aviv? Maybe also brooklyn basements
    to keep Muslims as the perps and not Yids who attacked America – again.

    Then there is the anthrax attacks part of 9-11.
    Most likely Phillip Zack – Yid, lunatic Yid.

    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/punchout.html

    9-11 liars gets tossed on heads. Slink away, disappear like beaten Israel supporters.
    Come back next day, day after with same lies.
    Hope to wear everyone down with lies, lies, lies.

    Israel with collaborators (Cheney and others) behind 9-11.

    Wolfowitz, ilk are Israeli not American.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  138. ValmMond says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    You are insane.

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object. It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure. The torsional forces upon twisting, popping, springing beams would be more than sufficient to eject material all over the place. Just watch what happens when a martial artist breaks a stack of bricks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQaNFoWo7zc

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same "free fall speed" you see in the Twin Towers collapse; and remember, this is far less complex version of the same process. When you add to this the immense kinetic energy of 500,000 tons of falling steel and concrete, you get a building that simply disintegrates and splashes to the ground.

    I'm getting a queasy feeling as I now begin to realize that the majority of commenters on this website are simply lunatics talking out of their asses. When you take this ridiculous 9/11 Trutherism, the absurd Darwinism, and the inability to even understand traditional Christian theology and the crackpot equating of it with evangelical nonsense, it is clear that most of you have no grounding in any sort of reality, either physical or metaphysical. Too great an amount of time has been wasted here already, but it is still important to speak the truth so that it will be available to the few who desire it.

    I’m not saying you are not smarter and more “reality-grounded” than the 3,000 + good architects and engineers questioning the official 9/11 narrative https://www.ae911truth.org/
    But calling “lunatics” critical thinkers who call out government BS does not give you any credibility. It just makes you look like an ignorant plebe. Remember, we are all someone’s fools. You included.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Intelligent Dasein

    You obviously do not- or cannot- understand the quite simple principles of ballistics. A watermelon is certainly larger and more massive than a small armor piercing round, yet I doubt even you would contend that a watermelon traveling at a velocity approaching such a round is going to penetrate structural steel.
     
    Of course I would "contend" that, as would anybody possessing a modicum of physical awareness. A 10 lb watermelon traveling a 1,500 MPH would rip a hole in a Brinks armored truck. Kinetic energy equals one-half of the mass times the velocity squared. There is no proviso in that rule saying "unless the mass is a watermelon."

    Of course, therefore all during WWII Stalin begged the USA for armor piercing ammo.
    He did not get it.
    A passenger jet is just a flying big Coca Cola can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1

    A passenger jet is just a flying big Coca Cola can.
     
    That is about the most concise way of putting it.

    A simple test can be performed by firing a Coke can at (filled with kerosene) out of a canon with a muzzle velocity of 500 or so mph at a scale model lattice consisting of the 1/4" steel box columns, much thicker steel spandrels, glass and concrete floor pans. I leave it to the believers in the ludicrous official fairy tale to envision what will happen. In the real word, the can is crushed upon impact and maybe the kerosene ignites at the point of impact.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Intelligent Dasein
    You are insane.

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object. It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure. The torsional forces upon twisting, popping, springing beams would be more than sufficient to eject material all over the place. Just watch what happens when a martial artist breaks a stack of bricks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQaNFoWo7zc

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same "free fall speed" you see in the Twin Towers collapse; and remember, this is far less complex version of the same process. When you add to this the immense kinetic energy of 500,000 tons of falling steel and concrete, you get a building that simply disintegrates and splashes to the ground.

    I'm getting a queasy feeling as I now begin to realize that the majority of commenters on this website are simply lunatics talking out of their asses. When you take this ridiculous 9/11 Trutherism, the absurd Darwinism, and the inability to even understand traditional Christian theology and the crackpot equating of it with evangelical nonsense, it is clear that most of you have no grounding in any sort of reality, either physical or metaphysical. Too great an amount of time has been wasted here already, but it is still important to speak the truth so that it will be available to the few who desire it.

    Just see how mainly concrete buildings look after they’ve been hit by Israeli bombs.
    They never crumble, the steel parts are sticking out anywhere.
    The only explanation that makes sense is that the towers were destroyed by thermite, the explosive that contains aluminium and manganese powder, that burns at such a high temperature that steel melts completely.
    Thermite is designed to demolish reinforced concrete.
    Those who planted the devices,or controlled the explosions, from top to bottom, alas were quicker than Newton’s laws.
    On top of that, they used so much thermite that three weeks after Sept 11, when rubble removing had reached ground level, the cellars still were full with molten iron.
    The tv pictures showing this quickly vanished.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. eD says:
    @j2
    This may be true, so my mistake. But it does not change much.

    WTC7 fall looks like the building was pulled. Larry Silverstein says "and they decided to pull", some fireman or police counts "one, two, three", some people report "pam-pam-pam". So, let us agree that this building was pulled because otherwise it was in a danger of collapsing, in case the collapse would have been unsymmetric fall to the side which was damaged.

    Where were the explosives for WTC7 from? They could not be installed so fast. The answer is probably that when the building was constructed, explosives for pulling it were installed. In Finland during the Second World War pioneers destroyed bridges in order to hinder the Russian attack. One of these bridges was built by Americans before the war. It was at construction equipped with explosives for pulling it and so well that even the wires were cut to the correct length. This is told in the book Miesten kertomaa, true stories from the war. I expect that WTC7, which was the site of many federal offices, was wired for pulling at construction time. For some reason this is not admitted, maybe because it might encourage crazy people to pull down similar buildings. Many bridges have explosives installed even today for military purposes, maybe some other buildings as well.

    The twin towers fell differently, it was not by the original wiring even if they had installed explosives in construction time. The way they poured out material like fountains does not match to a gravitational fall assuming that the steel frame is weakened. You see a gravitational fall by looking at videos from Antarctic when glaciers peel to the sea. They look like what you would expect a gravitational fall to look like, add then the dust cloud from breaking concrete, still it does not look like a fountain. It does not throw heavy metal pieces to the sides with a large horizontal initial speed. So, I think these buildings were rewired (by wireless?). One of the twin buildings leaned to the side and was straightened. It should not happen: in a gravitation fall deviations grow when time grows, the side that falls faster falls still faster as it gets a higher load.

    What I mean that I do not see weakening of the metal is that I do not see the fall as a result of weakening of the metal. Locally there may well have been weakening of metal, but did not the remains of steel beans show holes or something like that, which is not by fire alone? Instead there were reports of very high temperatures in the site long time after the collapse. What was burning there if not thermite? That is, where did it get oxygen from?

    “WTC7 fall looks like the building was pulled. Larry Silverstein says “and they decided to pull”, some fireman or police counts “one, two, three”, some people report “pam-pam-pam”. So, let us agree that this building was pulled because otherwise it was in a danger of collapsing, in case the collapse would have been unsymmetric fall to the side which was damaged.’

    My understanding is the fire departments will sometimes demolish buildings that are on fire and close to collapse. I never understood why what happened to WTC7 is so controversial.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    And

    when did the fire dept place the explosives in 47 stories not close to collapse?

    , @notanon

    My understanding is the fire departments will sometimes demolish buildings that are on fire and close to collapse. I never understood why what happened to WTC7 is so controversial.
     
    if they said that's what happened then it wouldn't be controversial
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Erebus says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    You are insane.

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object. It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure. The torsional forces upon twisting, popping, springing beams would be more than sufficient to eject material all over the place. Just watch what happens when a martial artist breaks a stack of bricks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQaNFoWo7zc

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same "free fall speed" you see in the Twin Towers collapse; and remember, this is far less complex version of the same process. When you add to this the immense kinetic energy of 500,000 tons of falling steel and concrete, you get a building that simply disintegrates and splashes to the ground.

    I'm getting a queasy feeling as I now begin to realize that the majority of commenters on this website are simply lunatics talking out of their asses. When you take this ridiculous 9/11 Trutherism, the absurd Darwinism, and the inability to even understand traditional Christian theology and the crackpot equating of it with evangelical nonsense, it is clear that most of you have no grounding in any sort of reality, either physical or metaphysical. Too great an amount of time has been wasted here already, but it is still important to speak the truth so that it will be available to the few who desire it.

    You are insane.

    Indeed, perhaps so. Be that as it may…

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object.

    Really? In what ways, pray tell, does an engineered structure behave differently than a solid object in regards to leaning, falling, or rotating? Are such concepts as centre of mass and angular momentum no longer applicable? Do engineered structures typically vaporize midair when they start leaning, falling, or rotating? How far do they have to lean, fall, or rotate before they vaporize? Is this a universal characteristic of engineered structures, or does it manifest only in the presence of local anomalies such as found in Lower Manhattan on bright late summer days? I note that it tragically failed to manifest in Florida when that pedestrian bridge collapsed last March and landed on 15 people, killing 6.

    It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure.

    Really? But look at the picture. From whence the “shock-waves” (3 of corners have moved up) and why would the building collapse (the pivot corner aside), having, for the most part, been recently relieved of the excess load? Engineering 101 tells you that a column fails from the bottom up, and never from the top down. An engineered column that was previously supporting a substantial load should surely be able to support nothing at all, “shock waves” notwithstanding.

    Oh, and before I forget, those “enormous stresses” aren’t to be found in solid objects? Really? One wonders why compressive and tensile strength tests have maintained their prevalence in materials engineering.

    Anyway, on to your silly video…

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same “free fall speed” you see in the Twin Towers collapse

    You do? Well, if you do, you’re looking at a very different world than the one I’ve been working in the last 40 years…

    - There is no ejecta beyond maybe 5-10% of the total mass (vs 9/11′s inverse),
    - The “shock wave” moves through a simple stack structure by impacting an inelastic, low (tensile) strength/very high stiffness material (aka: hi-Q/brittle) at its weakest point to amplify the initial shock.
    - Moving through a hi-Q material, the shockwave propagates both quickly and can even amplify as it propagates if conditions are right.
    - Free-fall is free-fall, but I’d wager that the collapse in the video exceeded free-fall speed precisely because collapse would have moved with what would have been an under-damped shockwave.
    - You’ll notice that the outside supports remained unaffected, but due to the fact that they were just a loose stack, they scattered, and wholesale collapse ensued.

    Now, tie the supports and the slabs into a structure, and everything changes. You can now increase the impact force arbitrarily (drop a 100T axehead sharp end on, from LEO), and the slabs would just break and hang from that structure (assuming the point of impact remained unchanged). There would be no collapse in the normal sense at all. The slabs would break, and hang there suspended from the nonplussed structure.

    In short, the demo says nothing relevant about the WTC collapses. That you think it somehow does suggests that whatever drives your enthusiastic defence of absurdity will, properly assessed, prove to be a form of madness itself. My insanity continues to support me in some comfort. Will yours?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You spend so much time on your contorted rubbish (even going into the great pulverizer Muliegino1's counterfactual territory and exceeding it with "vaporize" - forgetting all the steel shipped to China!) that you should really save yourself some time by reading up the work the BBC has done which you can probably find collected under "Conspiracy Theories". You and others shouldn't miss the quotes from a demolition expert giving some detail of just how much time AND OBVIOUS ACTIVITY a controlled demolition takes to prepare (and of course normally at ground level). You might care to get a start at
    BBC News Online | The evolution of a conspiracy theory
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/uk_news/magazine/7488159.stm
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Mike P says:
    @Johnny Rico
    This one comment highlights your inability to discuss these issues in a sane, competent manner.

    The B-25 was 53 feet long and weighed a maximum, with bomb-load, of 35,000 lbs. A 767 is 159 feet long and has a fuel capacity alone of 110,000 lbs. and a maximum weight of 315,000 lbs.

    Structurally (their sturdiness) they are both planes. They have to withstand take-offs and landings as well as be light enough to FLY. Their design is going to have to balance a bunch of things. Describing the design of the B-25 the way you do is stupid. It was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft like an IL-2 or JU-87. Have you ever been in one?

    If this is the best you can do it is no wonder there are only about 50 people on the planet who continue to push this nonsense and that half of them are here right now.

    The article/review itself just throws out the same tired gibberish. The only thing missing is the assertion that fossils are things just buried by the Jews in 1924.

    Starting every piece with the observation that it was the CIA that created the term "conspiracy theory" is a rather paranoid and timid way to make this case. It is not evidence.

    … it is no wonder there are only about 50 people on the planet who continue to push this nonsense and that half of them are here right now.

    You should get out more. There are parts of the world in which “this nonsense” is accepted as fact by the majority of the population – not all people are as brainwashed as Murricans. Say, Turkey for example.

    (I probably should clarify that I am referring to the country, not the bird – I have run into a Texan cab driver before who did not know the country and thus mistook it for the bird, which made the conversation a little awkward.)

    Read More
    • LOL: L.K
    • Replies: @Johnny Rico
    I should get out more? Me? Are you fucking serious?

    I was raised in the Middle East and Europe. YOU are the one who feels the need to explain Turkey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Mike P says:
    @Sparkon

    the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris.
     
    No! In this case, it is you who needs to "up" his science.

    Thermite is not "highly explosive." Period. Full stop.

    Because it burns at a high temperature, thermite can be used to cut steel, but it is a weak explosive agent, at best. Thermite simply does not have anywhere near the destructive power to account for the utter devastation of the twin towers on 9/11 as depicted in the available videos.


    Chemical engineer Mark Hightower with Jim Fetzer:

    895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock waves.

    Not Powerful Enough

    Let’s examine the reason for that important last statement. The “destructive fragmentation effect” of an explosive is its detonation velocity, or the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in. To significantly fragment a substance, the detonation velocity of the explosive must equal or exceed the sonic velocity (the speed of sound) in the material.

    For example, the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s. In steel, the speed of sound is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT and RDX have detonation velocities of 6,900 and 8,750 m/s respectively, and are therefore capable of fragmenting concrete and steel, because both 6,900 and 8,750 exceed the sonic velocities of 3,200 m/s required to shatter concrete and 6,100 m/s required to shatter steel.

    As Dwain Deets has diagrammed, at only 895 m/s, iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite does not come close to TNT and RDX.
     
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must.html

    I've already posted this material twice at UR recently, which completely debunks the idea that thermite, nanothermite, thermate and their ilk are "highly explosive," but maybe the 3rd time will be a charm for the thick set.

    Thermite is very good for cutting steel, and its presence in large quantities in the dust is as sure as death and taxes. That doesn’t mean that other, more powerful explosives were not also used – organic nitro compounds such as TNT for example would very likely have left no detectable remnants.

    The well-documented detection of nanothermite does not explain everything, but it alone is sufficient to unequivocally disprove the official conspiracy theory. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a plethora of other evidence to the same effect.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Mulegino1 says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Of course, therefore all during WWII Stalin begged the USA for armor piercing ammo.
    He did not get it.
    A passenger jet is just a flying big Coca Cola can.

    A passenger jet is just a flying big Coca Cola can.

    That is about the most concise way of putting it.

    A simple test can be performed by firing a Coke can at (filled with kerosene) out of a canon with a muzzle velocity of 500 or so mph at a scale model lattice consisting of the 1/4″ steel box columns, much thicker steel spandrels, glass and concrete floor pans. I leave it to the believers in the ludicrous official fairy tale to envision what will happen. In the real word, the can is crushed upon impact and maybe the kerosene ignites at the point of impact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    I've got a better idea.

    Let's have you demonstrate your commitment to the harmlessness of coke cans by permitting me to fire an empty one at your face at 500 mph. You should probably settle your estate first.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. bjondo says:
    @eD
    "WTC7 fall looks like the building was pulled. Larry Silverstein says “and they decided to pull”, some fireman or police counts “one, two, three”, some people report “pam-pam-pam”. So, let us agree that this building was pulled because otherwise it was in a danger of collapsing, in case the collapse would have been unsymmetric fall to the side which was damaged.'

    My understanding is the fire departments will sometimes demolish buildings that are on fire and close to collapse. I never understood why what happened to WTC7 is so controversial.

    And

    when did the fire dept place the explosives in 47 stories not close to collapse?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    Exactly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Anon[116] • Disclaimer says:
    @Miro23

    Isn’t it ironic that the label “truther” is intended to be a pejorative and implies a negative connotation to truth?
     
    Club Rules. Smart and sophisticated people sneer at "Truthers" same as it's obligatory to be Israel First and match your politics to the Washington Post. There's no thought involved, they're Club Rules.

    When Trump was elected I received daily commiseration for this terrible event.

    And when I explained that I actually supported Trump because of stopping ME wars and mass outsourcing, they were surprised, and they seemed like new ideas for them. Their attempted conversation stopper was always "He's Racist" something along the lines of "Adolf Hitler - don't go there."

    I've tried 9/11 with closer friends (using the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth excellent booklet "Beyond Misinformation - What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7") and it's later returned like incriminating evidence with "We've read it - Thank you" and no comment.

    My take is that Globalism/Zionism/Multiculturalism is a form of religion.

    @ My take is that Globalism/Zionism/Multiculturalism is a form of religion.

    Yes indeed, branching from common roots probably. But where are the churches? And can we name the high priests, other than the rather reduced group of US neocons?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    @Miro23

    @ My take is that Globalism/Zionism/Multiculturalism is a form of religion.
    Yes indeed, branching from common roots probably. But where are the churches? And can we name the high priests, other than the rather reduced group of US neocons?
     
    You probably need to be careful with this. The early Christians ( late Roman Empire) were persecuted and mostly held religious meetings in private houses. It was only much later in Medieval Europe that organized Christianity could build Cathedrals and have a hierarchy with enough power to challenge the traditional nobility. In fact they co-operated with the aristocracy in mutual support to share absolute power (Temporal & Spiritual).

    The roots of PC also started small. Campus counter-culturalism didn't have much impact until Vietnam, Global outsourcing only became a possible with the 1980's digital revolution + the internet, and Zionism was for most of its history a minority religious/ethnic cult irrelevant to mainstream Gentile societies.

    Arguably, the counter-culturals (Hippies?), globalists and Zionists gained power together ( conveniently in alliance) taking advantages of the "freedoms" of Democratic society to corrupt it.

    The Globalists and Zionists are what you might call the new Aristocracy, and the Progressives are their priests, working through their MSM, education and social pressure to hunt down "Racists" (anyone who opposes mass immigration, outsourced production or Israel in any way) rather like the Inquisition hunted down apostates, heretics and witches.

    The principal tool of institutionalized Medieval Christianity was the concept of "Original Sin" - a person being born guilty with the only hope of salvation being a lifetime of exemplary behavior directed by the Church.

    Similarly, the West runs on the concept of White "Original Sin" for Black slavery and the Holocaust™ with the only hope of salvation being a pure and Progressive life of virtue signaling directed by schools, colleges and the Washington Post. .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Mike P

    ... it is no wonder there are only about 50 people on the planet who continue to push this nonsense and that half of them are here right now.
     
    You should get out more. There are parts of the world in which "this nonsense" is accepted as fact by the majority of the population - not all people are as brainwashed as Murricans. Say, Turkey for example.

    (I probably should clarify that I am referring to the country, not the bird - I have run into a Texan cab driver before who did not know the country and thus mistook it for the bird, which made the conversation a little awkward.)

    I should get out more? Me? Are you fucking serious?

    I was raised in the Middle East and Europe. YOU are the one who feels the need to explain Turkey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Mulegino1
    In discussions of this type, the use of ad hominems is usually done by losers.

    Describing the design of the B-25 the way you do is stupid. It was not designed as a ground-attack aircraft like an IL-2 or JU-87. Have you ever been in one?
     
    I did not write that it was “designed” as a ground attack aircraft, I wrote that it was used in low level ground attacks due to its versatility and sturdiness:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkXGhV8xaXw

    Hard to get much more "low level" than that, right?

    The article/review itself just throws out the same tired gibberish. The only thing missing is the assertion that fossils are things just buried by the Jews in 1924.
     
    We are not discussing fossils or the claims of paleontology, but with respect to the Jews and 9/11, Jewish lightning perhaps.

    This book should convince any honest and objective person – with a political and scientific IQ above room temperature – that we have been systematically lied to about the events of 9/11 and the American invasions in the Middle East.’

    See that?

    Paragraph #1 of this article by David Lorimer. What we are all talking about ostensibly.

    That is a blanket ad hominem aimed at anybody that doesn’t agree with this nonsense.

    Try again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    He should have worded it differently.

    I would have written:

    "Anyone who has looked objectively into the matter in any depth cannot be unaware of the fact that the official version of the events of 9/11 is a lie, a useful myth. If- after having looked at the evidence- they profess to be unaware of this, they must have an ulterior motive, whether political, economic, professional, psychological or social."

    "The script that was followed by the corporate media was written by what is now called 'the deep state' and its operatives within the press."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. notanon says:
    @redmudhooch
    I think Donald needs to explain to us how he now thinks Osama snuck those bombs into the WTC. Keep in mind Building 7, housed field offices of the SEC, FBI, CIA, NSA among others, how did those sneaky Muslims get in there?

    Donald Trump interview 2 days after 9/11 at ground zero
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNodh9OlTrQ

    Donald Trump Calls Into WWOR/UPN 9 News on 9/11 Bombs used
    https://youtu.be/PcKlPhFIE7w

    that second video is the real reason the neocon elements in the IC tried to stop Trump getting elected imo

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. notanon says:
    @j2
    This may be true, so my mistake. But it does not change much.

    WTC7 fall looks like the building was pulled. Larry Silverstein says "and they decided to pull", some fireman or police counts "one, two, three", some people report "pam-pam-pam". So, let us agree that this building was pulled because otherwise it was in a danger of collapsing, in case the collapse would have been unsymmetric fall to the side which was damaged.

    Where were the explosives for WTC7 from? They could not be installed so fast. The answer is probably that when the building was constructed, explosives for pulling it were installed. In Finland during the Second World War pioneers destroyed bridges in order to hinder the Russian attack. One of these bridges was built by Americans before the war. It was at construction equipped with explosives for pulling it and so well that even the wires were cut to the correct length. This is told in the book Miesten kertomaa, true stories from the war. I expect that WTC7, which was the site of many federal offices, was wired for pulling at construction time. For some reason this is not admitted, maybe because it might encourage crazy people to pull down similar buildings. Many bridges have explosives installed even today for military purposes, maybe some other buildings as well.

    The twin towers fell differently, it was not by the original wiring even if they had installed explosives in construction time. The way they poured out material like fountains does not match to a gravitational fall assuming that the steel frame is weakened. You see a gravitational fall by looking at videos from Antarctic when glaciers peel to the sea. They look like what you would expect a gravitational fall to look like, add then the dust cloud from breaking concrete, still it does not look like a fountain. It does not throw heavy metal pieces to the sides with a large horizontal initial speed. So, I think these buildings were rewired (by wireless?). One of the twin buildings leaned to the side and was straightened. It should not happen: in a gravitation fall deviations grow when time grows, the side that falls faster falls still faster as it gets a higher load.

    What I mean that I do not see weakening of the metal is that I do not see the fall as a result of weakening of the metal. Locally there may well have been weakening of metal, but did not the remains of steel beans show holes or something like that, which is not by fire alone? Instead there were reports of very high temperatures in the site long time after the collapse. What was burning there if not thermite? That is, where did it get oxygen from?

    Where were the explosives for WTC7 from? They could not be installed so fast.

    Is that actually true if you don’t have to worry about debris?

    A building being pulled in a city has to be very precise to avoid damaging surrounding buildings but that wouldn’t have been true in this case.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    The official story is that WTC7 collapsed due to office fires and damage on the side. If it was pulled but the controlled demolition is not admitted. Nobody noticed firemen carrying explosives to the building when it was already in fire and close to a collapse. If firemen pulled the building just as normal safety measure, why did they do it secretly?

    That is why I think the explosives were there before the event. There are two possibilities: either they were installed recently before 9/11 or they were there a long time. I can accept the possibility that WTC7 was built with explosives already installed, as that was the way Americans built a bridge in Finland before the WWII. That's how Murricans build stuff. Of course it could just as well be that the explosives were installed some weeks before 9/11. WTC7 fell in a conventional demolition manner, but if that was a demolition and not admitted, then WTC1 and 2 were most probably also demolitions. The twin towers would have been rewired for explosions recently, but there may have been old explosives already installed. I do not think nanothermite paint needs to explain everything, there may have been old already installed TNT. That would be a secret, not stated in the plans, as explosives in bridges are there but the are not mentioned in open blue prints.

    Reading the comments of many more knowledgeable people than me here I see that I have been wrong in accepting the story of the planes. Something probably hit the towers but it was not passenger planes. As Donald Trump said in the video in 2001, planes could not penetrate the buildings. Weaker material can make a small scratch in stronger material while weaker material is destroyed. Very many planes hitting the same place would have been needed to penetrate the steel, just like cutting steel with water needs a beam of water, not splashing one bucket.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. notanon says:
    @Them Guys
    5 easy flight lessons on a single engine cesna simulator, and $2,000 payment, and cave dweller Arabs can then Fly a 767 Plane like a Buzzard with its tail feathers twisted!

    saudi air force trained pilots

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. notanon says:
    @eD
    "WTC7 fall looks like the building was pulled. Larry Silverstein says “and they decided to pull”, some fireman or police counts “one, two, three”, some people report “pam-pam-pam”. So, let us agree that this building was pulled because otherwise it was in a danger of collapsing, in case the collapse would have been unsymmetric fall to the side which was damaged.'

    My understanding is the fire departments will sometimes demolish buildings that are on fire and close to collapse. I never understood why what happened to WTC7 is so controversial.

    My understanding is the fire departments will sometimes demolish buildings that are on fire and close to collapse. I never understood why what happened to WTC7 is so controversial.

    if they said that’s what happened then it wouldn’t be controversial

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    Just that it takes days to wire a building with explosives first. So, yes, they did demolish it, and it was prepared weeks in advance. But look, you are not supposed to be confessing here.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    “… fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.”

    This point alone is nonsense. Kerosene as the primary fuel won’t support temperatures much above that, but there was plenty of other fuel in the mix and, more importantly, the tower would have been sucking air up through it, fanning the flames (ever blow on a campfire?), so the dynamics of the scenario might have supported a higher temp.

    But, as Logan notes, steel doesn’t need to melt to give way, particularly when it is under stress of all the weight above it. And as he further observed, heating steel, bending it, and then relatively rapidly cooling it, like with water, will give you hardened steel

    “The Twin Towers collapsed at virtually free fall speed … it is a fact of physics that a steel frame building can only come down essentially in freefall if all the core columns are severed simultaneously by explosives .”

    This one is really tired. Gravity accelerates mass at a constant rate in the absence of meaningful resistance. That’s why a feather and a hammer dropped on the moon hit its surface at the same time. Once enough of the supporting columns in WTC7 gave way, by whatever means, the rest of the relatively empty and very compressible structure offered no meaningful resistance to the mass falling from above. Even if it had been “pulled”, the reasoning fails … That it fell at virtually free-fall speed means nothing, because it started at zero and accelerated to “virtually free-fall speed.” That’s how things fall when acted upon by gravity.

    BTW, that WTC 7 fell relatively vertical might support the argument that it was a controlled demolition, but it is not conclusive evidence: The moment and vector of the fall will, in absence of some external force or resistance, be in the direction of the pull of gravity, i.e. straight down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Them Guys
    How do steel beams soften in lower temp when entire fire prior to collapse lasted just aprox 55 minuets?

    Also I read that the steel beams used at twin towers was something like 2.5 in thick minimum and when made, prior to shipping each beam it got stressed tested to comply with some of the strictest ever rules up to that date of construction of sky scrapers, of stress potentials.

    Same article said a sample 6.5 ft beam section created to exact same strict specs was obtained to use as a test beam and when heated in a high temp oven facility, it took Over 16+ Hrs at temps about 1,000 degrees F, Higher, to finally allow beam to Droop in middle when beam was placed over two points suspended above floor.....Their reason to use just a 6.5 FT long beam was stated as due to the high temp oven facility they got access to use would not contain a longer length beam.

    But if that shorter beam was made to exact same specs of steel type used, same thickness as orig towers beams etc.....Then results should show same or similar effects I'd think.

    Test beam heated to 1,000 F Higher temp and for over 16-HRs prior to potential to droop in middle of beam....Compared to actual towers beams at 1,000 degrees F-Less temp and for just 55 Min. before collapse scenario began.

    PS: All else I ever read says that in all/every similar high rise steel beamed structure with intense fire.....NONE ever yet did a collapse of entire frame like twin towers did...And most if not all of other fires lasted much longer....One lasted 22 Hrs in Japan I think it was and zero total collapse at all.

    So besides zero others did a collapse prior in all high rise fire history to date, a First!

    We have yet another First!....ZERO Plane/debrie/persons/passengers/flight crew/Engines/Wheels & Tires/ Passengers luggages/etc were seen at Pentagon event!

    Although finally a couple/few years ago the msm tv news shows did show a special video made by usa/pentagon officials that showed a blur object, they said was the plane which after it hit pentagon wall....it and ALL of its contents and parts etc simply "VAPORIZED" and only thing that remained visible of entire plane-passengers-parts-luggages etc etc were,....

    Tiny little bits of Sparkling things on pentagons Lawn where plane hit wall.....They said the sparkling bits on lawn were Aluminum Particles that was all that remained due to vaporization effects!...

    FLASH News! Breaking!.....I too see Little sparkling "things" on MY Backyard Lawn every Morning when early Sun arises....Yep!...Only MY Lawns "Sparklings" aint Tiny Aluminum Bits...No Sir!

    My Lawns early morn sparkle bits are....wait for it.....DEW On the lawns blades of...GRASS!!!

    Sparkles like a backyard lawn covered with Diamonds! But no Commercial Plane Aluminum tiny sparkle bits...Just DEW-Drops!


    Plus pentagon had huge wall hole yes....Said to where plane fully entered and vaporized...Yet....NO side hole or slice in building where planes WINGS must have been eh?


    So if zero wings side entry holes or wall slice missing, wings should been seen ON LAWN....Nope no wings and NO NUTHIN! Seen besides early morn shiny tiny aluminum bits due to entire plane "Vaporized" once hit wall at pentagon...


    What will them ziokikes invent next eh?....Maybe it was an Disapearing Antisemitic Racist Plane huh? hahahah.

    “… NO side hole or slice in building where planes WINGS must have been eh?”

    That’s ‘cos the wings were turned into confetti on the lawn

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    That's right. In the WTC, the wings sliced through steel like through butter, whereas at the Pentagon they just turned to fairy dust as soon as the plane came face to face with the building. And in Pennsylvania they were just swallowed by the soil, leaving nary a trace. It all adds up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. See Dr. Judy Woods video on youtube WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    No takers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Mike P says:
    @The Alarmist

    "... NO side hole or slice in building where planes WINGS must have been eh?"
     
    That's 'cos the wings were turned into confetti on the lawn

    That’s right. In the WTC, the wings sliced through steel like through butter, whereas at the Pentagon they just turned to fairy dust as soon as the plane came face to face with the building. And in Pennsylvania they were just swallowed by the soil, leaving nary a trace. It all adds up.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    No! No! No! Remember your 9/11 101: Before the impact, the 757 was in a liquid state so it would not damage the nice lawn! It only condensed after it impacted the building, thereby enabling it to penetrate the inner rings of the Pentagon with its nose intact!
    , @The Alarmist
    A thin steel & glass curtain facade gives way much easier than thick, not so compressible concrete.

    Run your car through a convenience storefront, then run it into a highway barrier and come back to us with your findings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Oh dear.

    First para first line:

    This brilliant, meticulous and searing analysis is David Ray Griffin’s most powerful and important book about 
the hegemonic foreign policy ambitions 
of US neoconservatives and the way in which 9/11 was used to pursue these Machiavellian ends.

    I thought it was quite clear by now that, while 9-11 was certainly the lever which powerful players used to pursue their hegemonic foreign policy ambitions, those powerful players weren’t US neoconservatives. The neocons were simply the instruments, witting or unwitting, within the US government, of those more powerful players.

    First para fourth line:

    This book should convince any honest and objective person – with a political and scientific IQ above room temperature –

    So, soon after being told about how the CIA tried to discredit its critics with the ‘conspiracy theorist’ label, we get a quotation which seeks to discredit people who aren’t convinced of the merits of the book’s arguments by labelling them as either dishonest, and/or not objective, and/or plain stoopid, via the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy.

    ‘Ethel, go get the ice-pick …’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  159. Mulegino1 says:
    @Johnny Rico

    This book should convince any honest and objective person – with a political and scientific IQ above room temperature – that we have been systematically lied to about the events of 9/11 and the American invasions in the Middle East.’
     
    See that?

    Paragraph #1 of this article by David Lorimer. What we are all talking about ostensibly.

    That is a blanket ad hominem aimed at anybody that doesn't agree with this nonsense.

    Try again.

    He should have worded it differently.

    I would have written:

    “Anyone who has looked objectively into the matter in any depth cannot be unaware of the fact that the official version of the events of 9/11 is a lie, a useful myth. If- after having looked at the evidence- they profess to be unaware of this, they must have an ulterior motive, whether political, economic, professional, psychological or social.”

    “The script that was followed by the corporate media was written by what is now called ‘the deep state’ and its operatives within the press.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Mulegino1 says:
    @Mike P
    That's right. In the WTC, the wings sliced through steel like through butter, whereas at the Pentagon they just turned to fairy dust as soon as the plane came face to face with the building. And in Pennsylvania they were just swallowed by the soil, leaving nary a trace. It all adds up.

    No! No! No! Remember your 9/11 101: Before the impact, the 757 was in a liquid state so it would not damage the nice lawn! It only condensed after it impacted the building, thereby enabling it to penetrate the inner rings of the Pentagon with its nose intact!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Right you are. That makes a lot of sense, like everything else in this perfectly straightforward story.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. L.K says:

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/

    41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans
    Challenge the Official Account of 9/11

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/Counterterrorism_Veterans.pdf

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  162. A lot of people miss the point about the molten steel. The fires could not have melted the steel in the quantities that were seen. In other word, there was excess heat involved in the collapse. We are not saying (directly) that the heat didn’t weaken the structure or that a weakened structure could not have collapsed. We are saying that it cannot account for the evidence of excess heat.

    This is where people began looking for the source of the energy for the melted steel and the high temperatures. What they found was molten iron in the form of small spheres of iron. The iron was melted, then hit by a blast pressure wave causing it to scatter and solidify into small spheres. This iron forms a significant part of the dust of 911. In other words, there were tons of molten iron and no way to explain it.

    Looking closely, researchers found unreacted nanothermite, which they then placed in a calorimeter and ignited. Its profile was actually more potent than any form of nanothermite known at that time.

    The presence of excess heat is one of the strongest indicators that the official story is a lie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  163. Mike P says:
    @Mulegino1
    No! No! No! Remember your 9/11 101: Before the impact, the 757 was in a liquid state so it would not damage the nice lawn! It only condensed after it impacted the building, thereby enabling it to penetrate the inner rings of the Pentagon with its nose intact!

    Right you are. That makes a lot of sense, like everything else in this perfectly straightforward story.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. j2 says:
    @notanon

    Where were the explosives for WTC7 from? They could not be installed so fast.
     
    Is that actually true if you don't have to worry about debris?

    A building being pulled in a city has to be very precise to avoid damaging surrounding buildings but that wouldn't have been true in this case.

    The official story is that WTC7 collapsed due to office fires and damage on the side. If it was pulled but the controlled demolition is not admitted. Nobody noticed firemen carrying explosives to the building when it was already in fire and close to a collapse. If firemen pulled the building just as normal safety measure, why did they do it secretly?

    That is why I think the explosives were there before the event. There are two possibilities: either they were installed recently before 9/11 or they were there a long time. I can accept the possibility that WTC7 was built with explosives already installed, as that was the way Americans built a bridge in Finland before the WWII. That’s how Murricans build stuff. Of course it could just as well be that the explosives were installed some weeks before 9/11. WTC7 fell in a conventional demolition manner, but if that was a demolition and not admitted, then WTC1 and 2 were most probably also demolitions. The twin towers would have been rewired for explosions recently, but there may have been old explosives already installed. I do not think nanothermite paint needs to explain everything, there may have been old already installed TNT. That would be a secret, not stated in the plans, as explosives in bridges are there but the are not mentioned in open blue prints.

    Reading the comments of many more knowledgeable people than me here I see that I have been wrong in accepting the story of the planes. Something probably hit the towers but it was not passenger planes. As Donald Trump said in the video in 2001, planes could not penetrate the buildings. Weaker material can make a small scratch in stronger material while weaker material is destroyed. Very many planes hitting the same place would have been needed to penetrate the steel, just like cutting steel with water needs a beam of water, not splashing one bucket.

    Read More
    • Agree: Mike P
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    I'm still going with the two planes theory. If planes couldn't penetrate WTC towers David Chandler would say so. For me, he is the goto physics guy on these issues.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3460500235&feature=iv&src_vid=E9-O6iqJnOA&v=YsadQzNhT-Q


    And there is this:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4xVAYCK8Q
    , @eD
    WTC 7 was the last building the complex to be built and housed all sorts of Deep State stuff. It probably would have been wired to be demolished when constructed, if only because of the Deep State stuff. The government could just tell people this, but won't, because it won't give accurate information about buildings housing Deep State stuff.

    By the way, this applies to the Pentagon. The Department of Defense is not going to be exactly forthcoming, including to other government agencies, about the details of a terrorist attack on its headquarters. This includes actual terrorist attacks by actual terrorists. They will come up with some story instead of giving out information about their actual security measures.

    WTC 1 and WTC 2 may well have been wired for demolition when constructed, or after the 1993 bombing. This is plausible because they were 110 story towers and having them topple onto the streets or other buildings in the event of another bombing would not have been a good thing. This seems to have been what the 1993 bombers were trying to accomplish. Again the government wouldn't want people who work in tall office towers to know that where they are going to work each day is wired for demolition, and they are willing to pull it when the office workers are still inside.

    The controlled demolition stuff is really a red herring. I think questions about the hijackings lead deeper into the rabbit hole and that is why the Betty Ong thread from earlier got innudated/ out of control much more quickly. And you don't need the controlled demolition stuff to know that the government had not been forthcoming with all the details in the attacks, you just need the public statements, which are pretty clear, from members of the 9-11 commission and other high officials, and just common sense that details of a terrorist attack on the Pentagon are going to be kept under wraps for quite some time.
    , @notanon

    That is why I think the explosives were there before the event.
     
    maybe so - i agree it was clearly a controlled demolition but i'm just curious to know how fast combat engineers could pull a building like that if they didn't have to worry about safety regs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Wally says:
    @Sparkon

    the highly explosive agent, military grade thermite was found in the debris.
     
    No! In this case, it is you who needs to "up" his science.

    Thermite is not "highly explosive." Period. Full stop.

    Because it burns at a high temperature, thermite can be used to cut steel, but it is a weak explosive agent, at best. Thermite simply does not have anywhere near the destructive power to account for the utter devastation of the twin towers on 9/11 as depicted in the available videos.


    Chemical engineer Mark Hightower with Jim Fetzer:

    895 m/s is the highest velocity yet to be found for an iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite in the scientific literature, where this velocity is far too low to have played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers by means of its shock waves.

    Not Powerful Enough

    Let’s examine the reason for that important last statement. The “destructive fragmentation effect” of an explosive is its detonation velocity, or the speed of the shock wave through the substance it is traveling in. To significantly fragment a substance, the detonation velocity of the explosive must equal or exceed the sonic velocity (the speed of sound) in the material.

    For example, the speed of sound in concrete is 3,200 m/s. In steel, the speed of sound is 6,100 m/s. Conventional high explosives such as TNT and RDX have detonation velocities of 6,900 and 8,750 m/s respectively, and are therefore capable of fragmenting concrete and steel, because both 6,900 and 8,750 exceed the sonic velocities of 3,200 m/s required to shatter concrete and 6,100 m/s required to shatter steel.

    As Dwain Deets has diagrammed, at only 895 m/s, iron-oxide/aluminum nanothermite does not come close to TNT and RDX.
     
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/08/nanothermite-if-it-doesnt-fit-you-must.html

    I've already posted this material twice at UR recently, which completely debunks the idea that thermite, nanothermite, thermate and their ilk are "highly explosive," but maybe the 3rd time will be a charm for the thick set.

    Yawn. So you want to distract with a pointless debate about the definition of ‘explosion’.

    A lot here, try to follow along.

    High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions

    Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.
    When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.”

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    No. It's not a pointless debate. It's about the meaning of words.

    You said thermite is a "highly explosive agent," and I have corrected your mistake, or mischaracterization.


    If words are not correct, then language is not in accordance with the truth of things.

    --The Master Kong 孔夫子 (Confucius)
     

    Thermite has an explosive velocity of less than 900 meters per second, and is therefore not a high explosive¹ by any stretch of the imagination. Strictly speaking, thermite is an incendiary cutting agent, and is not an explosive at all. I have found no published science or scientific paper anywhere reflecting any real world tests that demonstrate any highly explosive properties for thermite, or nanothermite.

    The fact that large quantities of "unreacted nanothermite" were alleged to have been found in some dust - for which there is no chain of possession - no more proves it was the major force used to destroy the towers than some delousing facilities and especially a wonky gas chamber built by the Soviets after the war prove that the Germans had an industrial plan to gas all the Jews, or that the Hezarkhani video proves that a 767 really did slice into WTC 2 like a knife into butter, or that a Mauser found on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and a magic bullet found on the wrong stretcher at Parkland hospital, prove that Lee Harvey Oswald really did shoot President Kennedy with a rickety Mannlicher-Carcano with a misaligned sight.

    We. You may be sure only that the evil masterminds who blew up the WTC would never be so diabolically clever as to leave behind some misleading evidence, just as they would never broadcast fake videos on the boob tube, plant passports, knock down light poles, or destroy WTC evidence before it could be examined.

    It is widely recognized in the sincere 9/11 Truth community that nanothermite is a red herring if for no other reason than the simple fact that nanothermite, thermite, thermate etc. by a very large measure do not have the destructive power to disintegrate WTC 1&2 in the manner recorded, where a signifiant portion of the towers' mass was turned into dust. Prager, Fetzer, Duff and other knowledgeable analysts and commenters have been calling 9/11 a nuclear event for several years already.

    Jeff Prager:


    1. Nano thermite is an incendiary. Explosives are classified as having velocities exceeding 3000mps. The incendiary nanothermite allegedly found by Dr. Stephen Jones is incapable of turning any component of the steel structured Twin Towers or the cement to micron sized particles or what is commonly referred to in scientific circles as ‘very fine particles’, as we all saw on 911 and as Dr. Thomas Cahill outlines.

    2. Nanothermite is incapable of maintaining underground, oxygen starved fires at the temperatures required to ‘boil soil and glass’ as Dr. Thomas Cahill stated.

    3. The chain of possession of the dust samples allegedly found at Ground Zero and controlled by Dr. Jones is highly suspect, unverifiable and unscientific. The chain of possession of the dust samples procured by the USGS on September 16th and 17th, 2001 at Ground Zero, NYC, is known and secure. The chain of possession followed standard scientific procedure as outlined in USGS Report #01-0429.
    Nano thermite...was not found in the USGS dust samples. ²

    5. Dr. Stephen Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist.

    7. Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy.
     

    Of course it is entirely possible that thermite was used in some capacity at the WTC on 9/11, most especially in the take-down of Bldg. 7, which almost everyone sees as typical of a classic controlled demolition. However, we see there are still plenty of die-hards arguing it was the fires wot done it, with typical mischaracterization of the puny local fires as "raging" and "out-of-control" when there is no evidence of any widespread, sustained, intense fires encompassing even a single entire floor in any building in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Indeed, the relatively small and localized fires at WTC on 9/11 bear no resemblance at all to the raging fire which burned for hours at the Mandarin Hotel in Beijing, where the towering, modern, steel-framed skyscraper was entirely consumed in flames, and burned like a torch for hours overnight, but was still standing straight and tall when morning dawned in Beijing.

    Thermite couldn't make the WTC twin towers blow themselves apart from the top down, nor could it decapitate and displace the top of WTC 2 as seen in the image posted by Erebus in his #116.

    http://www.unz.com/article/creative-chaos/#comment-2345432

    If the thermite enthusiasts here think (nano)thermite could knock the block off WTC 2, and decapitate the entire top of the building like that, I would like to see some hypothetical or conjectural arguments by which this result could be achieved with thermite, nanothermite, termites, or even fairy dust.


    ps. Chris Bollyn says Jeff Prager is a "deadbeat dad" who may be wanted by ex-Sheriff Joe, while some say Chris Bollyn was married to a mossad agent. He admits living and working in Israel, and may have learned Yiddish in his study of semitic languages. He has called Gordon Duff a "Disinfo Toad."

    Oy vey!

    Yawning footnotes:

    ¹ Explosive velocities of high explosives: DDF – 10,000mps HMX – 9,100mps RDX – 8,750mps TNT – 6,900MPS compared with Jones’ Thermite @ 300-895mps

    ² Using USGS Report #01-0429 as Google search argument,
    I have located and reviewed these USGS documents:

    • Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center area after the September 11, 2001 attack
    • Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust
    • Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating material

    There is no mention of "thermite" or "nanothermite" that I could find in any of these official USGS documents on WTC dust.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. I’m afraid, the first preemptive war worth being taken to The Hague was the Six-Day War. The UN wasn’t able to agree on condemning Israel as the aggressor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  167. @bjondo
    And

    when did the fire dept place the explosives in 47 stories not close to collapse?

    Exactly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Miro23 says:
    @Anon
    @ My take is that Globalism/Zionism/Multiculturalism is a form of religion.

    Yes indeed, branching from common roots probably. But where are the churches? And can we name the high priests, other than the rather reduced group of US neocons?

    @ My take is that Globalism/Zionism/Multiculturalism is a form of religion.
    Yes indeed, branching from common roots probably. But where are the churches? And can we name the high priests, other than the rather reduced group of US neocons?

    You probably need to be careful with this. The early Christians ( late Roman Empire) were persecuted and mostly held religious meetings in private houses. It was only much later in Medieval Europe that organized Christianity could build Cathedrals and have a hierarchy with enough power to challenge the traditional nobility. In fact they co-operated with the aristocracy in mutual support to share absolute power (Temporal & Spiritual).

    The roots of PC also started small. Campus counter-culturalism didn’t have much impact until Vietnam, Global outsourcing only became a possible with the 1980′s digital revolution + the internet, and Zionism was for most of its history a minority religious/ethnic cult irrelevant to mainstream Gentile societies.

    Arguably, the counter-culturals (Hippies?), globalists and Zionists gained power together ( conveniently in alliance) taking advantages of the “freedoms” of Democratic society to corrupt it.

    The Globalists and Zionists are what you might call the new Aristocracy, and the Progressives are their priests, working through their MSM, education and social pressure to hunt down “Racists” (anyone who opposes mass immigration, outsourced production or Israel in any way) rather like the Inquisition hunted down apostates, heretics and witches.

    The principal tool of institutionalized Medieval Christianity was the concept of “Original Sin” – a person being born guilty with the only hope of salvation being a lifetime of exemplary behavior directed by the Church.

    Similarly, the West runs on the concept of White “Original Sin” for Black slavery and the Holocaust™ with the only hope of salvation being a pure and Progressive life of virtue signaling directed by schools, colleges and the Washington Post. .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Mike P
    That's right. In the WTC, the wings sliced through steel like through butter, whereas at the Pentagon they just turned to fairy dust as soon as the plane came face to face with the building. And in Pennsylvania they were just swallowed by the soil, leaving nary a trace. It all adds up.

    A thin steel & glass curtain facade gives way much easier than thick, not so compressible concrete.

    Run your car through a convenience storefront, then run it into a highway barrier and come back to us with your findings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    A thin steel & glass curtain facade...
     
    A rather strange, not to say disingenuous way to characterize a facade, ~65-70% of who's frontal area was made up of 6.4mm (1/4") wall box columns, and 12.7mm (1/2") steel spandrels backed by 100mm (4") concrete slabs on edge (the floors).

    That's comparable to a convenience store front? Really?
    Of course not. Either you don't know the difference, or you're as full of shit as the Imbecilic Dasein and Rico the Army Brat.

    Arguments backing the official narrative were much more a decade ago. Or, at least the effort was genuine, but serious attempts to explain the anomalies away eventually came to resemble the increasingly bizarre medieval defence of the Ptolemaic system and were finally abandoned. Today, all we seem to get from the True Believers' side is a grab bag of faux physics, glib nonsense and hand waving, generated ex nihilo by the lightest of intellectual lightweights.

    I suppose that indicates that the Truthers have won the intellectual side of the debate, and that genuine thinkers on the Believer side have folded their tents, but the reality today is that Truthers now find themselves fighting what amounts to a rear guard action against kids throwing stones.

    IOW, the real arguments are over, and we're finally at the point where only the socio-political implications and repercussions remain. The question is whether there will be any, and only American Truthers can have much impact on the answer to that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @j2
    The official story is that WTC7 collapsed due to office fires and damage on the side. If it was pulled but the controlled demolition is not admitted. Nobody noticed firemen carrying explosives to the building when it was already in fire and close to a collapse. If firemen pulled the building just as normal safety measure, why did they do it secretly?

    That is why I think the explosives were there before the event. There are two possibilities: either they were installed recently before 9/11 or they were there a long time. I can accept the possibility that WTC7 was built with explosives already installed, as that was the way Americans built a bridge in Finland before the WWII. That's how Murricans build stuff. Of course it could just as well be that the explosives were installed some weeks before 9/11. WTC7 fell in a conventional demolition manner, but if that was a demolition and not admitted, then WTC1 and 2 were most probably also demolitions. The twin towers would have been rewired for explosions recently, but there may have been old explosives already installed. I do not think nanothermite paint needs to explain everything, there may have been old already installed TNT. That would be a secret, not stated in the plans, as explosives in bridges are there but the are not mentioned in open blue prints.

    Reading the comments of many more knowledgeable people than me here I see that I have been wrong in accepting the story of the planes. Something probably hit the towers but it was not passenger planes. As Donald Trump said in the video in 2001, planes could not penetrate the buildings. Weaker material can make a small scratch in stronger material while weaker material is destroyed. Very many planes hitting the same place would have been needed to penetrate the steel, just like cutting steel with water needs a beam of water, not splashing one bucket.

    I’m still going with the two planes theory. If planes couldn’t penetrate WTC towers David Chandler would say so. For me, he is the goto physics guy on these issues.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3460500235&feature=iv&src_vid=E9-O6iqJnOA&v=YsadQzNhT-Q


    And there is this:

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    I did not mean the Pentagon plane. That has its own problems. I meant the WTC1 and 2 planes. The ping pong ball goes through a racket. But a ball is quite hard and the racket is not so strong. I mean this aluminium plane and steel frame case, like in these comments here, which also claim that a plane could not fly that fast so low (I do not know if that is true, never flew a plane, but maybe).

    Energy and momentum are transferred from the plane to the building and if all this energy was focused on a small enough area it would go through the steel, but now I think the plane would flatten when hitting the steel wall, plane material that comes a bit later pushes the aluminium to the sides, aluminium spreads on a larger area, the pressure per area on the steel is decreased below the level that can penetrate the steel and the steel frame survives. Some of the plane would go through the windows of course.

    It should be the same in a bigger scale if I shoot a bullet of something softer on something harder, the bullet flattens, area enlarges and the bullet does not make a hole, just a minor bump. The problem with the ping pong ball analogy is that the racket is not so strong. Let us replace it with two inches of steel. Then I think the ball will not make a hole no matter how fast it comes. Agree?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. eD says:
    @j2
    The official story is that WTC7 collapsed due to office fires and damage on the side. If it was pulled but the controlled demolition is not admitted. Nobody noticed firemen carrying explosives to the building when it was already in fire and close to a collapse. If firemen pulled the building just as normal safety measure, why did they do it secretly?

    That is why I think the explosives were there before the event. There are two possibilities: either they were installed recently before 9/11 or they were there a long time. I can accept the possibility that WTC7 was built with explosives already installed, as that was the way Americans built a bridge in Finland before the WWII. That's how Murricans build stuff. Of course it could just as well be that the explosives were installed some weeks before 9/11. WTC7 fell in a conventional demolition manner, but if that was a demolition and not admitted, then WTC1 and 2 were most probably also demolitions. The twin towers would have been rewired for explosions recently, but there may have been old explosives already installed. I do not think nanothermite paint needs to explain everything, there may have been old already installed TNT. That would be a secret, not stated in the plans, as explosives in bridges are there but the are not mentioned in open blue prints.

    Reading the comments of many more knowledgeable people than me here I see that I have been wrong in accepting the story of the planes. Something probably hit the towers but it was not passenger planes. As Donald Trump said in the video in 2001, planes could not penetrate the buildings. Weaker material can make a small scratch in stronger material while weaker material is destroyed. Very many planes hitting the same place would have been needed to penetrate the steel, just like cutting steel with water needs a beam of water, not splashing one bucket.

    WTC 7 was the last building the complex to be built and housed all sorts of Deep State stuff. It probably would have been wired to be demolished when constructed, if only because of the Deep State stuff. The government could just tell people this, but won’t, because it won’t give accurate information about buildings housing Deep State stuff.

    By the way, this applies to the Pentagon. The Department of Defense is not going to be exactly forthcoming, including to other government agencies, about the details of a terrorist attack on its headquarters. This includes actual terrorist attacks by actual terrorists. They will come up with some story instead of giving out information about their actual security measures.

    WTC 1 and WTC 2 may well have been wired for demolition when constructed, or after the 1993 bombing. This is plausible because they were 110 story towers and having them topple onto the streets or other buildings in the event of another bombing would not have been a good thing. This seems to have been what the 1993 bombers were trying to accomplish. Again the government wouldn’t want people who work in tall office towers to know that where they are going to work each day is wired for demolition, and they are willing to pull it when the office workers are still inside.

    The controlled demolition stuff is really a red herring. I think questions about the hijackings lead deeper into the rabbit hole and that is why the Betty Ong thread from earlier got innudated/ out of control much more quickly. And you don’t need the controlled demolition stuff to know that the government had not been forthcoming with all the details in the attacks, you just need the public statements, which are pretty clear, from members of the 9-11 commission and other high officials, and just common sense that details of a terrorist attack on the Pentagon are going to be kept under wraps for quite some time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    I think you are right. There are many good reasons to wire a building for demolition and to keep it secret. Still, WTC1 and 2 were not pulled for public safety and it would have been very difficult for the terrorists to use such preinstalled explosives, thus it would not change the conclusions on the culprits.

    I do not know how you people understand a red herring as they do not exist, but the controlled demolition is a proven fact and does not lead further, especially as it seems not too difficult to point a finger to who did it. The hijackings may indeed lead to some new discoveries.

    I read that Betty Ong article. A very strange case whichever way one looks at it. If there were no two planes? That is, I have read the stuff from 911 truthers and they think the planes existed, but if it was a missile or something? Then, what happened to the passengers? Were there more mysteries than Betty Ong? The problem is that if names of people are mentioned, it could get rather... Talking about a controlled demolition does no harm to anyone as it can always be denied as so far.

    , @Mike P
    The kind of explosive/incendiary that was found in abundance in the dust produced by the collapse of WTC1 and 2 was not available at the time of their construction. Therefore, your assumption is categorically false. Moreover, if the buildings had been rigged for eventual demolition right from the start, we would know this by now; but I can't imagine that any civilian authority would approve such a risky procedure anyway.

    All your post shows is that those trying to defend the official story are grasping at straws.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Erebus says:
    @The Alarmist
    A thin steel & glass curtain facade gives way much easier than thick, not so compressible concrete.

    Run your car through a convenience storefront, then run it into a highway barrier and come back to us with your findings.

    A thin steel & glass curtain facade…

    A rather strange, not to say disingenuous way to characterize a facade, ~65-70% of who’s frontal area was made up of 6.4mm (1/4″) wall box columns, and 12.7mm (1/2″) steel spandrels backed by 100mm (4″) concrete slabs on edge (the floors).

    That’s comparable to a convenience store front? Really?
    Of course not. Either you don’t know the difference, or you’re as full of shit as the Imbecilic Dasein and Rico the Army Brat.

    Arguments backing the official narrative were much more a decade ago. Or, at least the effort was genuine, but serious attempts to explain the anomalies away eventually came to resemble the increasingly bizarre medieval defence of the Ptolemaic system and were finally abandoned. Today, all we seem to get from the True Believers’ side is a grab bag of faux physics, glib nonsense and hand waving, generated ex nihilo by the lightest of intellectual lightweights.

    I suppose that indicates that the Truthers have won the intellectual side of the debate, and that genuine thinkers on the Believer side have folded their tents, but the reality today is that Truthers now find themselves fighting what amounts to a rear guard action against kids throwing stones.

    IOW, the real arguments are over, and we’re finally at the point where only the socio-political implications and repercussions remain. The question is whether there will be any, and only American Truthers can have much impact on the answer to that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Thanks, Erebus, excellent answer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. j2 says:
    @eD
    WTC 7 was the last building the complex to be built and housed all sorts of Deep State stuff. It probably would have been wired to be demolished when constructed, if only because of the Deep State stuff. The government could just tell people this, but won't, because it won't give accurate information about buildings housing Deep State stuff.

    By the way, this applies to the Pentagon. The Department of Defense is not going to be exactly forthcoming, including to other government agencies, about the details of a terrorist attack on its headquarters. This includes actual terrorist attacks by actual terrorists. They will come up with some story instead of giving out information about their actual security measures.

    WTC 1 and WTC 2 may well have been wired for demolition when constructed, or after the 1993 bombing. This is plausible because they were 110 story towers and having them topple onto the streets or other buildings in the event of another bombing would not have been a good thing. This seems to have been what the 1993 bombers were trying to accomplish. Again the government wouldn't want people who work in tall office towers to know that where they are going to work each day is wired for demolition, and they are willing to pull it when the office workers are still inside.

    The controlled demolition stuff is really a red herring. I think questions about the hijackings lead deeper into the rabbit hole and that is why the Betty Ong thread from earlier got innudated/ out of control much more quickly. And you don't need the controlled demolition stuff to know that the government had not been forthcoming with all the details in the attacks, you just need the public statements, which are pretty clear, from members of the 9-11 commission and other high officials, and just common sense that details of a terrorist attack on the Pentagon are going to be kept under wraps for quite some time.

    I think you are right. There are many good reasons to wire a building for demolition and to keep it secret. Still, WTC1 and 2 were not pulled for public safety and it would have been very difficult for the terrorists to use such preinstalled explosives, thus it would not change the conclusions on the culprits.

    I do not know how you people understand a red herring as they do not exist, but the controlled demolition is a proven fact and does not lead further, especially as it seems not too difficult to point a finger to who did it. The hijackings may indeed lead to some new discoveries.

    I read that Betty Ong article. A very strange case whichever way one looks at it. If there were no two planes? That is, I have read the stuff from 911 truthers and they think the planes existed, but if it was a missile or something? Then, what happened to the passengers? Were there more mysteries than Betty Ong? The problem is that if names of people are mentioned, it could get rather… Talking about a controlled demolition does no harm to anyone as it can always be denied as so far.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Mike P says:
    @Erebus

    A thin steel & glass curtain facade...
     
    A rather strange, not to say disingenuous way to characterize a facade, ~65-70% of who's frontal area was made up of 6.4mm (1/4") wall box columns, and 12.7mm (1/2") steel spandrels backed by 100mm (4") concrete slabs on edge (the floors).

    That's comparable to a convenience store front? Really?
    Of course not. Either you don't know the difference, or you're as full of shit as the Imbecilic Dasein and Rico the Army Brat.

    Arguments backing the official narrative were much more a decade ago. Or, at least the effort was genuine, but serious attempts to explain the anomalies away eventually came to resemble the increasingly bizarre medieval defence of the Ptolemaic system and were finally abandoned. Today, all we seem to get from the True Believers' side is a grab bag of faux physics, glib nonsense and hand waving, generated ex nihilo by the lightest of intellectual lightweights.

    I suppose that indicates that the Truthers have won the intellectual side of the debate, and that genuine thinkers on the Believer side have folded their tents, but the reality today is that Truthers now find themselves fighting what amounts to a rear guard action against kids throwing stones.

    IOW, the real arguments are over, and we're finally at the point where only the socio-political implications and repercussions remain. The question is whether there will be any, and only American Truthers can have much impact on the answer to that.

    Thanks, Erebus, excellent answer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Mike P says:
    @eD
    WTC 7 was the last building the complex to be built and housed all sorts of Deep State stuff. It probably would have been wired to be demolished when constructed, if only because of the Deep State stuff. The government could just tell people this, but won't, because it won't give accurate information about buildings housing Deep State stuff.

    By the way, this applies to the Pentagon. The Department of Defense is not going to be exactly forthcoming, including to other government agencies, about the details of a terrorist attack on its headquarters. This includes actual terrorist attacks by actual terrorists. They will come up with some story instead of giving out information about their actual security measures.

    WTC 1 and WTC 2 may well have been wired for demolition when constructed, or after the 1993 bombing. This is plausible because they were 110 story towers and having them topple onto the streets or other buildings in the event of another bombing would not have been a good thing. This seems to have been what the 1993 bombers were trying to accomplish. Again the government wouldn't want people who work in tall office towers to know that where they are going to work each day is wired for demolition, and they are willing to pull it when the office workers are still inside.

    The controlled demolition stuff is really a red herring. I think questions about the hijackings lead deeper into the rabbit hole and that is why the Betty Ong thread from earlier got innudated/ out of control much more quickly. And you don't need the controlled demolition stuff to know that the government had not been forthcoming with all the details in the attacks, you just need the public statements, which are pretty clear, from members of the 9-11 commission and other high officials, and just common sense that details of a terrorist attack on the Pentagon are going to be kept under wraps for quite some time.

    The kind of explosive/incendiary that was found in abundance in the dust produced by the collapse of WTC1 and 2 was not available at the time of their construction. Therefore, your assumption is categorically false. Moreover, if the buildings had been rigged for eventual demolition right from the start, we would know this by now; but I can’t imagine that any civilian authority would approve such a risky procedure anyway.

    All your post shows is that those trying to defend the official story are grasping at straws.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    Americans built a bridge in Finland with explosives installed there before the WWII. Finnish army pioneers were surprised to find the bridge was all ready set for destruction, but do you remember "dancing Palestinians", who were going to blow up an American built bridge in NY? They had some explosives in the van. Did they have enough explosives for blowing up the bridge and time to set them, or were they going to use explosives that were(are) in the bridge? Do you know by now if any American bridges in the USA have explosives installed or do they install them only abroad? It should be a secret. Have any civilian authority approved such a risky procedure anywhere? I know we have such bridges, but it is not that risky. The bridges are used all the time. Explosives will not go off by themselves.

    The presence of iron spheres in the dust is evidence of thermite, but the amount calculated for nanothermite used unconventionally as explosive seems very high. WTC1 and 2 were rewired just before 9/11 and new explosives were added. Their presence in the dust does not contradict that there could not be earlier installed TNT. It is not a categorical counterargument.

    The official story is that there were no explosives. Preinstalled explosives do not supporting it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. j2 says:
    @Mike P
    The kind of explosive/incendiary that was found in abundance in the dust produced by the collapse of WTC1 and 2 was not available at the time of their construction. Therefore, your assumption is categorically false. Moreover, if the buildings had been rigged for eventual demolition right from the start, we would know this by now; but I can't imagine that any civilian authority would approve such a risky procedure anyway.

    All your post shows is that those trying to defend the official story are grasping at straws.

    Americans built a bridge in Finland with explosives installed there before the WWII. Finnish army pioneers were surprised to find the bridge was all ready set for destruction, but do you remember “dancing Palestinians”, who were going to blow up an American built bridge in NY? They had some explosives in the van. Did they have enough explosives for blowing up the bridge and time to set them, or were they going to use explosives that were(are) in the bridge? Do you know by now if any American bridges in the USA have explosives installed or do they install them only abroad? It should be a secret. Have any civilian authority approved such a risky procedure anywhere? I know we have such bridges, but it is not that risky. The bridges are used all the time. Explosives will not go off by themselves.

    The presence of iron spheres in the dust is evidence of thermite, but the amount calculated for nanothermite used unconventionally as explosive seems very high. WTC1 and 2 were rewired just before 9/11 and new explosives were added. Their presence in the dust does not contradict that there could not be earlier installed TNT. It is not a categorical counterargument.

    The official story is that there were no explosives. Preinstalled explosives do not supporting it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P

    The official story is that there were no explosives. Preinstalled explosives do not support it.
     
    Yes, you are right about that - sorry.

    Other than that, that bridge in Finland probably had some strategic importance, and explosives were likely installed at the behest of the military. However, given how much risk it would add to put explosives into a skyscraper right from the start, I just can't imagine anyone in their right mind permitting it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. j2 says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    I'm still going with the two planes theory. If planes couldn't penetrate WTC towers David Chandler would say so. For me, he is the goto physics guy on these issues.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3460500235&feature=iv&src_vid=E9-O6iqJnOA&v=YsadQzNhT-Q


    And there is this:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV4xVAYCK8Q

    I did not mean the Pentagon plane. That has its own problems. I meant the WTC1 and 2 planes. The ping pong ball goes through a racket. But a ball is quite hard and the racket is not so strong. I mean this aluminium plane and steel frame case, like in these comments here, which also claim that a plane could not fly that fast so low (I do not know if that is true, never flew a plane, but maybe).

    Energy and momentum are transferred from the plane to the building and if all this energy was focused on a small enough area it would go through the steel, but now I think the plane would flatten when hitting the steel wall, plane material that comes a bit later pushes the aluminium to the sides, aluminium spreads on a larger area, the pressure per area on the steel is decreased below the level that can penetrate the steel and the steel frame survives. Some of the plane would go through the windows of course.

    It should be the same in a bigger scale if I shoot a bullet of something softer on something harder, the bullet flattens, area enlarges and the bullet does not make a hole, just a minor bump. The problem with the ping pong ball analogy is that the racket is not so strong. Let us replace it with two inches of steel. Then I think the ball will not make a hole no matter how fast it comes. Agree?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock

    but now I think the plane would flatten when hitting the steel wall,
     
    You have the wrong model. It's not a steel wall. It's more like a screen door. The towers were a tube-within-a-tube design. It is supposed to be lightweight and flex with the wind stresses. The airplane is supposed to penetrate it like a pencil getting shoved through a screen door. This model came from the architect who designed them.

    If there were a problem with the planes hitting the building, David Chandler would have seen it. He has been teaching physics for most of his adult life and he is a man of high integrity.

    I'm going to let the scholars and experts do their work. We should all support a real investigation of 911. Agree?

    Here is some fun stuff to look at:

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

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Sparkon says:
    @Wally
    Yawn. So you want to distract with a pointless debate about the definition of 'explosion'.

    A lot here, try to follow along.

    High-Temperature Thermitic Reactions
    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/high-temperature-thermitic-reactions

    https://youtu.be/Ri9ywmzewRQ

    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/Thermitic_Reactions_8.png
    Photomicrographs of red-gray chips from each of the four WTC dust samples. The inset in (d) shows the gray layer of the chips.
    When a flame was applied to them, it resulted in a “high-speed ejection of a hot particle.”

    https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/explosive-features

    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/Explosive_Features_3.jpg

    https://www.ae911truth.org/images/Explosive_Features_4.png

    No. It’s not a pointless debate. It’s about the meaning of words.

    You said thermite is a “highly explosive agent,” and I have corrected your mistake, or mischaracterization.

    If words are not correct, then language is not in accordance with the truth of things.

    –The Master Kong 孔夫子 (Confucius)

    Thermite has an explosive velocity of less than 900 meters per second, and is therefore not a high explosive¹ by any stretch of the imagination. Strictly speaking, thermite is an incendiary cutting agent, and is not an explosive at all. I have found no published science or scientific paper anywhere reflecting any real world tests that demonstrate any highly explosive properties for thermite, or nanothermite.

    The fact that large quantities of “unreacted nanothermite” were alleged to have been found in some dust – for which there is no chain of possession – no more proves it was the major force used to destroy the towers than some delousing facilities and especially a wonky gas chamber built by the Soviets after the war prove that the Germans had an industrial plan to gas all the Jews, or that the Hezarkhani video proves that a 767 really did slice into WTC 2 like a knife into butter, or that a Mauser found on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and a magic bullet found on the wrong stretcher at Parkland hospital, prove that Lee Harvey Oswald really did shoot President Kennedy with a rickety Mannlicher-Carcano with a misaligned sight.

    We. You may be sure only that the evil masterminds who blew up the WTC would never be so diabolically clever as to leave behind some misleading evidence, just as they would never broadcast fake videos on the boob tube, plant passports, knock down light poles, or destroy WTC evidence before it could be examined.

    It is widely recognized in the sincere 9/11 Truth community that nanothermite is a red herring if for no other reason than the simple fact that nanothermite, thermite, thermate etc. by a very large measure do not have the destructive power to disintegrate WTC 1&2 in the manner recorded, where a signifiant portion of the towers’ mass was turned into dust. Prager, Fetzer, Duff and other knowledgeable analysts and commenters have been calling 9/11 a nuclear event for several years already.

    Jeff Prager:

    1. Nano thermite is an incendiary. Explosives are classified as having velocities exceeding 3000mps. The incendiary nanothermite allegedly found by Dr. Stephen Jones is incapable of turning any component of the steel structured Twin Towers or the cement to micron sized particles or what is commonly referred to in scientific circles as ‘very fine particles’, as we all saw on 911 and as Dr. Thomas Cahill outlines.

    2. Nanothermite is incapable of maintaining underground, oxygen starved fires at the temperatures required to ‘boil soil and glass’ as Dr. Thomas Cahill stated.

    3. The chain of possession of the dust samples allegedly found at Ground Zero and controlled by Dr. Jones is highly suspect, unverifiable and unscientific. The chain of possession of the dust samples procured by the USGS on September 16th and 17th, 2001 at Ground Zero, NYC, is known and secure. The chain of possession followed standard scientific procedure as outlined in USGS Report #01-0429.
    Nano thermite…was not found in the USGS dust samples. ²

    5. Dr. Stephen Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist.

    7. Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy.

    Of course it is entirely possible that thermite was used in some capacity at the WTC on 9/11, most especially in the take-down of Bldg. 7, which almost everyone sees as typical of a classic controlled demolition. However, we see there are still plenty of die-hards arguing it was the fires wot done it, with typical mischaracterization of the puny local fires as “raging” and “out-of-control” when there is no evidence of any widespread, sustained, intense fires encompassing even a single entire floor in any building in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Indeed, the relatively small and localized fires at WTC on 9/11 bear no resemblance at all to the raging fire which burned for hours at the Mandarin Hotel in Beijing, where the towering, modern, steel-framed skyscraper was entirely consumed in flames, and burned like a torch for hours overnight, but was still standing straight and tall when morning dawned in Beijing.

    Thermite couldn’t make the WTC twin towers blow themselves apart from the top down, nor could it decapitate and displace the top of WTC 2 as seen in the image posted by Erebus in his #116.

    http://www.unz.com/article/creative-chaos/#comment-2345432

    If the thermite enthusiasts here think (nano)thermite could knock the block off WTC 2, and decapitate the entire top of the building like that, I would like to see some hypothetical or conjectural arguments by which this result could be achieved with thermite, nanothermite, termites, or even fairy dust.

    ps. Chris Bollyn says Jeff Prager is a “deadbeat dad” who may be wanted by ex-Sheriff Joe, while some say Chris Bollyn was married to a mossad agent. He admits living and working in Israel, and may have learned Yiddish in his study of semitic languages. He has called Gordon Duff a “Disinfo Toad.”

    Oy vey!

    Yawning footnotes:

    ¹ Explosive velocities of high explosives: DDF – 10,000mps HMX – 9,100mps RDX – 8,750mps TNT – 6,900MPS compared with Jones’ Thermite @ 300-895mps

    ² Using USGS Report #01-0429 as Google search argument,
    I have located and reviewed these USGS documents:

    • Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center area after the September 11, 2001 attack
    • Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust
    • Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating material

    There is no mention of “thermite” or “nanothermite” that I could find in any of these official USGS documents on WTC dust.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    What is used in controlled demolitions? Controlled demolitions do exist, don't they? Or is that just one of those "conspiracy theories?"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Mike P says:
    @j2
    Americans built a bridge in Finland with explosives installed there before the WWII. Finnish army pioneers were surprised to find the bridge was all ready set for destruction, but do you remember "dancing Palestinians", who were going to blow up an American built bridge in NY? They had some explosives in the van. Did they have enough explosives for blowing up the bridge and time to set them, or were they going to use explosives that were(are) in the bridge? Do you know by now if any American bridges in the USA have explosives installed or do they install them only abroad? It should be a secret. Have any civilian authority approved such a risky procedure anywhere? I know we have such bridges, but it is not that risky. The bridges are used all the time. Explosives will not go off by themselves.

    The presence of iron spheres in the dust is evidence of thermite, but the amount calculated for nanothermite used unconventionally as explosive seems very high. WTC1 and 2 were rewired just before 9/11 and new explosives were added. Their presence in the dust does not contradict that there could not be earlier installed TNT. It is not a categorical counterargument.

    The official story is that there were no explosives. Preinstalled explosives do not supporting it.

    The official story is that there were no explosives. Preinstalled explosives do not support it.

    Yes, you are right about that – sorry.

    Other than that, that bridge in Finland probably had some strategic importance, and explosives were likely installed at the behest of the military. However, given how much risk it would add to put explosives into a skyscraper right from the start, I just can’t imagine anyone in their right mind permitting it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @j2
    It is perfectly possible that explosives were installed a short time before 9/11. Either short time before 9/11 or a long time before 9/11, but WTC7 was wired for demolition and came down in a classical controlled demolition. WTC1 and 2 came down like fountains, which is atypical for a gravitational fall and suggests external energy. I do not know what type of explosives brought them down but I find the amount of nanothermite needed to bring them down very high.

    Assuming that 911 truthers are wrong concerning the planes that hit WTC1 and 2, that is, if those were not planes and the videos are falsified, then there may be some disinformation, which makes things more difficult. Were there planes? The motors were strong enough to penetrate, maybe also something inside the plane was other than aluminium. Some part of the planes would go through windows, much would have to remain outside, but completely crushed. There are other known problems with the Pentagon plane and if it was not a plane, none might have been planes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. notanon says:
    @j2
    The official story is that WTC7 collapsed due to office fires and damage on the side. If it was pulled but the controlled demolition is not admitted. Nobody noticed firemen carrying explosives to the building when it was already in fire and close to a collapse. If firemen pulled the building just as normal safety measure, why did they do it secretly?

    That is why I think the explosives were there before the event. There are two possibilities: either they were installed recently before 9/11 or they were there a long time. I can accept the possibility that WTC7 was built with explosives already installed, as that was the way Americans built a bridge in Finland before the WWII. That's how Murricans build stuff. Of course it could just as well be that the explosives were installed some weeks before 9/11. WTC7 fell in a conventional demolition manner, but if that was a demolition and not admitted, then WTC1 and 2 were most probably also demolitions. The twin towers would have been rewired for explosions recently, but there may have been old explosives already installed. I do not think nanothermite paint needs to explain everything, there may have been old already installed TNT. That would be a secret, not stated in the plans, as explosives in bridges are there but the are not mentioned in open blue prints.

    Reading the comments of many more knowledgeable people than me here I see that I have been wrong in accepting the story of the planes. Something probably hit the towers but it was not passenger planes. As Donald Trump said in the video in 2001, planes could not penetrate the buildings. Weaker material can make a small scratch in stronger material while weaker material is destroyed. Very many planes hitting the same place would have been needed to penetrate the steel, just like cutting steel with water needs a beam of water, not splashing one bucket.

    That is why I think the explosives were there before the event.

    maybe so – i agree it was clearly a controlled demolition but i’m just curious to know how fast combat engineers could pull a building like that if they didn’t have to worry about safety regs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Busted says:

    The interesting aspect of this thread is how supporters of the official story stick to one tightly-circumscribed piece of it: towers falling down. This is the same trick that CIA used to try and discredit disinterested investigators of CIA’s JFK coup. Back then CIA shills argued interminably about the ballistic evidence. That kept the public focus off the overwhelming and continually growing body of other evidence proving CIA staged a coup in 1963. Then CIA shills ridiculed the CIA-instigated squabbles over bullet minutiae. See how it works? Fixate obsessively on one small aspect of the evidence, then attribute that fixation to informed people who rebut CIA lies so you can impugn them as obsessive nuts.

    So screw the towers. The evidence is overwhelming and uniformly probative. CIA infiltrated and protected…

    https://911reports.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/deconstructing-the-911-dot-disconnection-a-book-review-by-erik-larson/

    Saudi and Israeli cutouts…

    https://ourworldinbalance.blogspot.fr/2005/04/story-of-indira-singh.html

    https://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/12/mapping-911-fort-lee/

    https://whowhatwhy.org/2013/09/11/classic-why-suppressed-saudi-911-story/

    to stage an armed attack on the domestic civilian population…

    http://www.consensus911.org/

    as pretexts for wars of aggression and an illegal state of emergency.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article175984.html

    Grave as CIA’s treason is, it’s only Nuremberg Count 1 – their common plan and conspiracy for war. They murdered three thousand Americans so they could kill a million more in wars. When are we going to knock their building down and hang them?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  182. It’s worthwhile keeping in mind that “achieve full spectrum dominance”, translated from DoD-speak to ordinary English, means “conquer the entire world”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @denk
    Full spectrum dominance....

    Control of land, air, sea and space.


    https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pentagons-strategy-for-world-domination-full-spectrum-dominance-from-asia-to-africa/5397514
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. denk says:
    @Dave from Oz
    It's worthwhile keeping in mind that "achieve full spectrum dominance", translated from DoD-speak to ordinary English, means "conquer the entire world".
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. j2 says:
    @Mike P

    The official story is that there were no explosives. Preinstalled explosives do not support it.
     
    Yes, you are right about that - sorry.

    Other than that, that bridge in Finland probably had some strategic importance, and explosives were likely installed at the behest of the military. However, given how much risk it would add to put explosives into a skyscraper right from the start, I just can't imagine anyone in their right mind permitting it.

    It is perfectly possible that explosives were installed a short time before 9/11. Either short time before 9/11 or a long time before 9/11, but WTC7 was wired for demolition and came down in a classical controlled demolition. WTC1 and 2 came down like fountains, which is atypical for a gravitational fall and suggests external energy. I do not know what type of explosives brought them down but I find the amount of nanothermite needed to bring them down very high.

    Assuming that 911 truthers are wrong concerning the planes that hit WTC1 and 2, that is, if those were not planes and the videos are falsified, then there may be some disinformation, which makes things more difficult. Were there planes? The motors were strong enough to penetrate, maybe also something inside the plane was other than aluminium. Some part of the planes would go through windows, much would have to remain outside, but completely crushed. There are other known problems with the Pentagon plane and if it was not a plane, none might have been planes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P

    WTC1 and 2 came down like fountains, which is atypical for a gravitational fall and suggests external energy. I do not know what type of explosives brought them down but I find the amount of nanothermite needed to bring them down very high.
     
    According to this study, the amount of nanothermite was very high. That doesn't rule out that other explosives were used in addition.

    Regarding the planes, you might find this site interesting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @j2
    I did not mean the Pentagon plane. That has its own problems. I meant the WTC1 and 2 planes. The ping pong ball goes through a racket. But a ball is quite hard and the racket is not so strong. I mean this aluminium plane and steel frame case, like in these comments here, which also claim that a plane could not fly that fast so low (I do not know if that is true, never flew a plane, but maybe).

    Energy and momentum are transferred from the plane to the building and if all this energy was focused on a small enough area it would go through the steel, but now I think the plane would flatten when hitting the steel wall, plane material that comes a bit later pushes the aluminium to the sides, aluminium spreads on a larger area, the pressure per area on the steel is decreased below the level that can penetrate the steel and the steel frame survives. Some of the plane would go through the windows of course.

    It should be the same in a bigger scale if I shoot a bullet of something softer on something harder, the bullet flattens, area enlarges and the bullet does not make a hole, just a minor bump. The problem with the ping pong ball analogy is that the racket is not so strong. Let us replace it with two inches of steel. Then I think the ball will not make a hole no matter how fast it comes. Agree?

    but now I think the plane would flatten when hitting the steel wall,

    You have the wrong model. It’s not a steel wall. It’s more like a screen door. The towers were a tube-within-a-tube design. It is supposed to be lightweight and flex with the wind stresses. The airplane is supposed to penetrate it like a pencil getting shoved through a screen door. This model came from the architect who designed them.

    If there were a problem with the planes hitting the building, David Chandler would have seen it. He has been teaching physics for most of his adult life and he is a man of high integrity.

    I’m going to let the scholars and experts do their work. We should all support a real investigation of 911. Agree?

    Here is some fun stuff to look at:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    It’s more like a screen door.
     
    But The Alarmist said it was like a "convenience store front".
    Look, "a screen door" is insignificantly closer to the ~70% solid (steel & concrete), and only ~30% open area (glass) reality of the WTC's facade than The Alarmist's "convenience store front". Between the 2 of you and the real world lies a chasm of misunderstanding.

    You can't get there from where you're standing.

    , @j2
    I am not any expert on this and thinking about it again, I kind of went back to the planes. I do not want to pollute this stream more with my comments, so I wrote a short post about whether the explosives could have been preinstalled and would it be short or long time earlier

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/05/28/a-possible-scenario-of-9-11-with-explosives-preinstalled-in-wtc-1-2-and-7/

    I fully agree that the collapses of the buildings are studied enough and one should focus on other issues in that topic. Still, it is worth to discard supporters of the gravitational collapse theory.
    , @Mulegino1
    Very interesting.

    How many of those bullets- especially the ones that penetrated- were mostly hollow, thin skinned aluminum cylinders?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Mike P says:
    @j2
    It is perfectly possible that explosives were installed a short time before 9/11. Either short time before 9/11 or a long time before 9/11, but WTC7 was wired for demolition and came down in a classical controlled demolition. WTC1 and 2 came down like fountains, which is atypical for a gravitational fall and suggests external energy. I do not know what type of explosives brought them down but I find the amount of nanothermite needed to bring them down very high.

    Assuming that 911 truthers are wrong concerning the planes that hit WTC1 and 2, that is, if those were not planes and the videos are falsified, then there may be some disinformation, which makes things more difficult. Were there planes? The motors were strong enough to penetrate, maybe also something inside the plane was other than aluminium. Some part of the planes would go through windows, much would have to remain outside, but completely crushed. There are other known problems with the Pentagon plane and if it was not a plane, none might have been planes.

    WTC1 and 2 came down like fountains, which is atypical for a gravitational fall and suggests external energy. I do not know what type of explosives brought them down but I find the amount of nanothermite needed to bring them down very high.

    According to this study, the amount of nanothermite was very high. That doesn’t rule out that other explosives were used in addition.

    Regarding the planes, you might find this site interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Erebus says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    but now I think the plane would flatten when hitting the steel wall,
     
    You have the wrong model. It's not a steel wall. It's more like a screen door. The towers were a tube-within-a-tube design. It is supposed to be lightweight and flex with the wind stresses. The airplane is supposed to penetrate it like a pencil getting shoved through a screen door. This model came from the architect who designed them.

    If there were a problem with the planes hitting the building, David Chandler would have seen it. He has been teaching physics for most of his adult life and he is a man of high integrity.

    I'm going to let the scholars and experts do their work. We should all support a real investigation of 911. Agree?

    Here is some fun stuff to look at:

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

    It’s more like a screen door.

    But The Alarmist said it was like a “convenience store front”.
    Look, “a screen door” is insignificantly closer to the ~70% solid (steel & concrete), and only ~30% open area (glass) reality of the WTC’s facade than The Alarmist’s “convenience store front”. Between the 2 of you and the real world lies a chasm of misunderstanding.

    You can’t get there from where you’re standing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    I'm not responsible for what The Alarmist said. I'm telling you what Frank De Martini,construction boss said. Look carefully and the dates on the screen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSV2OxAvZE

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. j2 says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    but now I think the plane would flatten when hitting the steel wall,
     
    You have the wrong model. It's not a steel wall. It's more like a screen door. The towers were a tube-within-a-tube design. It is supposed to be lightweight and flex with the wind stresses. The airplane is supposed to penetrate it like a pencil getting shoved through a screen door. This model came from the architect who designed them.

    If there were a problem with the planes hitting the building, David Chandler would have seen it. He has been teaching physics for most of his adult life and he is a man of high integrity.

    I'm going to let the scholars and experts do their work. We should all support a real investigation of 911. Agree?

    Here is some fun stuff to look at:

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

    I am not any expert on this and thinking about it again, I kind of went back to the planes. I do not want to pollute this stream more with my comments, so I wrote a short post about whether the explosives could have been preinstalled and would it be short or long time earlier

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/05/28/a-possible-scenario-of-9-11-with-explosives-preinstalled-in-wtc-1-2-and-7/

    I fully agree that the collapses of the buildings are studied enough and one should focus on other issues in that topic. Still, it is worth to discard supporters of the gravitational collapse theory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    There was a time when I thought much the same. However, I finally came to the conclusion that it needed a professional criminal investigation to find out the truth. I can only weigh the evidence as presented to me.

    Which brings us back to this article and David Ray Griffin's new book.


    I'd like to know more about the toasted cars and melted buses and trucks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLxdHlkzfpY
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Erebus

    It’s more like a screen door.
     
    But The Alarmist said it was like a "convenience store front".
    Look, "a screen door" is insignificantly closer to the ~70% solid (steel & concrete), and only ~30% open area (glass) reality of the WTC's facade than The Alarmist's "convenience store front". Between the 2 of you and the real world lies a chasm of misunderstanding.

    You can't get there from where you're standing.

    I’m not responsible for what The Alarmist said. I’m telling you what Frank De Martini,construction boss said. Look carefully and the dates on the screen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Hmmm... I see nothing but text and the bullet video in your post, so I assumed the screen door was your analogy.

    In any case, I was simply lumping the screen door and Alarmist's convenience store front together as being almost equally far from the physical reality of the WTC's rather massive facade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @j2
    I am not any expert on this and thinking about it again, I kind of went back to the planes. I do not want to pollute this stream more with my comments, so I wrote a short post about whether the explosives could have been preinstalled and would it be short or long time earlier

    http://www.pienisalaliittotutkimus.com/2018/05/28/a-possible-scenario-of-9-11-with-explosives-preinstalled-in-wtc-1-2-and-7/

    I fully agree that the collapses of the buildings are studied enough and one should focus on other issues in that topic. Still, it is worth to discard supporters of the gravitational collapse theory.

    There was a time when I thought much the same. However, I finally came to the conclusion that it needed a professional criminal investigation to find out the truth. I can only weigh the evidence as presented to me.

    Which brings us back to this article and David Ray Griffin’s new book.

    I’d like to know more about the toasted cars and melted buses and trucks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Mulegino1 says:
    @Si1ver1ock

    but now I think the plane would flatten when hitting the steel wall,
     
    You have the wrong model. It's not a steel wall. It's more like a screen door. The towers were a tube-within-a-tube design. It is supposed to be lightweight and flex with the wind stresses. The airplane is supposed to penetrate it like a pencil getting shoved through a screen door. This model came from the architect who designed them.

    If there were a problem with the planes hitting the building, David Chandler would have seen it. He has been teaching physics for most of his adult life and he is a man of high integrity.

    I'm going to let the scholars and experts do their work. We should all support a real investigation of 911. Agree?

    Here is some fun stuff to look at:

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

    Very interesting.

    How many of those bullets- especially the ones that penetrated- were mostly hollow, thin skinned aluminum cylinders?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Si1ver1ock
    Not sure it matters much. The airplanes weighed close to a quarter million pounds and were moving over 500 mph.

    I actually looked up airplane wing construction video once. They are lightweight but very strong. The one I saw was for airbus. The idea is that the leading edge of the wing focuses all the force in to a very tight area like the edge of a knife. The fuel provides mass, acting like a hydraulic hammer. The engines can simply punch their way into the building due to their weight and hardness. The wings are not as delicate as you seem to believe. It takes a large fab building and a major crane just to move them around.

    Modeling this type of physics is tricky. You need experts. It is outside the bounds of normal everyday occurrence. Most Americans are scientific illiterates. For example, America is one of only three countries that is unable to master the metric system with the others being Liberia and Myanmar. (Liberia was founded by the US)


    The Republic of Liberia began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed black people would face better chances for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the United States

     

    https://www.zmescience.com/other/map-of-countries-officially-not-using-the-metric-system/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Mulegino1
    Very interesting.

    How many of those bullets- especially the ones that penetrated- were mostly hollow, thin skinned aluminum cylinders?

    Not sure it matters much. The airplanes weighed close to a quarter million pounds and were moving over 500 mph.

    I actually looked up airplane wing construction video once. They are lightweight but very strong. The one I saw was for airbus. The idea is that the leading edge of the wing focuses all the force in to a very tight area like the edge of a knife. The fuel provides mass, acting like a hydraulic hammer. The engines can simply punch their way into the building due to their weight and hardness. The wings are not as delicate as you seem to believe. It takes a large fab building and a major crane just to move them around.

    Modeling this type of physics is tricky. You need experts. It is outside the bounds of normal everyday occurrence. Most Americans are scientific illiterates. For example, America is one of only three countries that is unable to master the metric system with the others being Liberia and Myanmar. (Liberia was founded by the US)

    The Republic of Liberia began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed black people would face better chances for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the United States

    https://www.zmescience.com/other/map-of-countries-officially-not-using-the-metric-system/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    I would say it matters greatly. The bullets fired in the video were all composed of lead or steel and alloy, yet not all of them got through the plating. It appears that the frangible bullets were completely destroyed upon impact, whereas the armor piercing rounds easily pierced the metal- which is what they are designed to do. Armor piercing rounds usually have hardened alloy or steel tips, hardened alloy jackets and solid metal cores, and travel well over 1000 mph.

    By contrast, the Boeing 767 commercial airliner has an extremely fragile nose, a thin skinned light and mostly hollow fuselage, wings which are extremely ductile and whose tips so fragile they can bear no more weight than the running lights. It is possible that the titanium engines and the landing gear could break through glass, certainly. But most of the aircraft is going to be completely shredded upon impacting the 1/4" thick four sided box columns and the even thicker and stronger spandrels.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P2EfH_EBRs&t=31s
    , @Beefcake the Mighty
    Speaking of tricky physics, how much did the buildings weigh? (I only ask because you mention the weight of the planes but omit the weight of the buildings, wonder why.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Mulegino1

    A passenger jet is just a flying big Coca Cola can.
     
    That is about the most concise way of putting it.

    A simple test can be performed by firing a Coke can at (filled with kerosene) out of a canon with a muzzle velocity of 500 or so mph at a scale model lattice consisting of the 1/4" steel box columns, much thicker steel spandrels, glass and concrete floor pans. I leave it to the believers in the ludicrous official fairy tale to envision what will happen. In the real word, the can is crushed upon impact and maybe the kerosene ignites at the point of impact.

    I’ve got a better idea.

    Let’s have you demonstrate your commitment to the harmlessness of coke cans by permitting me to fire an empty one at your face at 500 mph. You should probably settle your estate first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    Gladly, if my face is surrounded by massive structural steel perimeter columns and thick steel spandrels.
    , @ploni almoni
    Now you are getting desperate. Ask for a vacation before it is too late.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Mulegino1 says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    Not sure it matters much. The airplanes weighed close to a quarter million pounds and were moving over 500 mph.

    I actually looked up airplane wing construction video once. They are lightweight but very strong. The one I saw was for airbus. The idea is that the leading edge of the wing focuses all the force in to a very tight area like the edge of a knife. The fuel provides mass, acting like a hydraulic hammer. The engines can simply punch their way into the building due to their weight and hardness. The wings are not as delicate as you seem to believe. It takes a large fab building and a major crane just to move them around.

    Modeling this type of physics is tricky. You need experts. It is outside the bounds of normal everyday occurrence. Most Americans are scientific illiterates. For example, America is one of only three countries that is unable to master the metric system with the others being Liberia and Myanmar. (Liberia was founded by the US)


    The Republic of Liberia began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed black people would face better chances for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the United States

     

    https://www.zmescience.com/other/map-of-countries-officially-not-using-the-metric-system/

    I would say it matters greatly. The bullets fired in the video were all composed of lead or steel and alloy, yet not all of them got through the plating. It appears that the frangible bullets were completely destroyed upon impact, whereas the armor piercing rounds easily pierced the metal- which is what they are designed to do. Armor piercing rounds usually have hardened alloy or steel tips, hardened alloy jackets and solid metal cores, and travel well over 1000 mph.

    By contrast, the Boeing 767 commercial airliner has an extremely fragile nose, a thin skinned light and mostly hollow fuselage, wings which are extremely ductile and whose tips so fragile they can bear no more weight than the running lights. It is possible that the titanium engines and the landing gear could break through glass, certainly. But most of the aircraft is going to be completely shredded upon impacting the 1/4″ thick four sided box columns and the even thicker and stronger spandrels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Mulegino1 says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    I've got a better idea.

    Let's have you demonstrate your commitment to the harmlessness of coke cans by permitting me to fire an empty one at your face at 500 mph. You should probably settle your estate first.

    Gladly, if my face is surrounded by massive structural steel perimeter columns and thick steel spandrels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Your usual wayward BSing. Most of the side of the buildings was glass or other lightweight material.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. Erebus says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    I'm not responsible for what The Alarmist said. I'm telling you what Frank De Martini,construction boss said. Look carefully and the dates on the screen.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYSV2OxAvZE

    Hmmm… I see nothing but text and the bullet video in your post, so I assumed the screen door was your analogy.

    In any case, I was simply lumping the screen door and Alarmist’s convenience store front together as being almost equally far from the physical reality of the WTC’s rather massive facade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Same old errors. Not only not massive facades but even the steel supporting frame was less massive as a result of the 1960s regulatory changes which allowed for more saleable space and less concrete.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Si1ver1ock
    Not sure it matters much. The airplanes weighed close to a quarter million pounds and were moving over 500 mph.

    I actually looked up airplane wing construction video once. They are lightweight but very strong. The one I saw was for airbus. The idea is that the leading edge of the wing focuses all the force in to a very tight area like the edge of a knife. The fuel provides mass, acting like a hydraulic hammer. The engines can simply punch their way into the building due to their weight and hardness. The wings are not as delicate as you seem to believe. It takes a large fab building and a major crane just to move them around.

    Modeling this type of physics is tricky. You need experts. It is outside the bounds of normal everyday occurrence. Most Americans are scientific illiterates. For example, America is one of only three countries that is unable to master the metric system with the others being Liberia and Myanmar. (Liberia was founded by the US)


    The Republic of Liberia began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed black people would face better chances for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the United States

     

    https://www.zmescience.com/other/map-of-countries-officially-not-using-the-metric-system/

    Speaking of tricky physics, how much did the buildings weigh? (I only ask because you mention the weight of the planes but omit the weight of the buildings, wonder why.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @jilles dykstra
    I took me three years to see the unthinkable, a government killing three thousand of its own citizens in order to be able to wage war
    In my quest in how it was possible that our saviour in WWII had become evil I discovered that Sept 11 indeed was the 'new Pearl Harbour' PNAC of AEI wanted.
    I wonder, in fact think it quite probable, that without FDR having been brought into politics to wage war, our country would ever have been occupied.
    As FDR's friend Sol Bloom writes in his autobiography, 'the great accomplishment of FDR was that he slowly prepared the USA people for war'.
    Sol Bloom agrees fully with Beard, just his moral judgment is the opposite of Beard's.
    Sol Bloom, ‘The Autobiography of Sol Bloom’, New York 1948
    Charles A. Beard, ‘President Roosevelt and the coming of the war 1941, A study in appearances and realities’, New Haven, 1948

    If there were no planes why should there be 3,000 victims? Certainly in such an operation some accidents happen, but the point was to create an illusion, not to kill people, at least not in New York. If you want, you can check the names of the so-called victims against the official US social security death index and you will be glad to see that that the number of real casualties was very low. (In Iraq on the other hand, the situation was indeed completely different. There there were real victims, perhaps a million, and the disaster to civilization continues.) The role of the fire department was to evacuate persons and not to fight a make believe fire. And they were told themselves to leave because another “fifth plane was about to hit the buildings.” Of course, there was no “fifth plane” and the warning is proof of the humanitarian decency of those responsible. If the firemen actually remained inside while the buildings were blown up that would really have created the basis of anger against the perpetrators. That is why, although people looked in the rubble for weeks (admittedly in great and real danger to to their health because of the toxicity of the site) no body remains, or almost no body remains were found, because there weren’t any. Just passports of hijackers. Do you seriously think the governments of two of our leading countries are so monstrous? Shame on you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @Logan
    So far as the Twin Towers are concerned, their core consisted of 287 steel columns, and steel does not begin to melt until 2,770°F, while fires caused by kerosene can only rise to around 1,700°F.

    Oh, dear.

    I've spent some decades repairing fire-damaged buildings. In just normal building fires, not fueled by kerosene or any other fuel, maximum heat reached is somewhere around 1100F.

    But I've seen multiple cases where massive steel I-beams drooped like a licorice stick. IOW, it couldn't support even its own weight.

    Structural steel begins to lose strength steadily at about 575F up to about 1500F. There is, to be sure, considerable variance by type of steel.

    http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/materialInFire/Steel/default.htm

    I'm agnostic on trutherism. But the steel argument is not a good one.

    Intrestingly, when steel is heated above this softening point and then cooled, it gets much stronger.

    Have you ever seen a cheap kerosene heater, like the Aladdin, droop from the heat of the burning kerosene? Even after years of use?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. @notanon

    a fundamental fact about 9/11, namely that no Muslims participated in this crime and no hijackings had taken place
     
    head spooks are very keen on layers of plausible deniability cos pension - so helping jihadists mount an attack through a chain of intermediaries is a lot safer than using your own guys directly.

    It is even safer to use computer generated imaging.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @Robert Hume
    I remember watching interviews of people on the streets of New York and Brooklyn who saw the planes hit the towers

    I remember watching Godzilla breathing fire through downtown Tokio.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. @Intelligent Dasein
    Building 7 was massively gouged by falling debris from the north tower, it had been burning out of control for seven hours, and the ground had been seismically destabilized by the collapse of the other two buildings. You have heard of an earthquake bomb, haven't you? The building was bulging, creaking, cracking, and sagging before it collapsed. It had taken all it could take.

    There are two additional points that need to be made to all the "laws of physics" types out there who do not understand what they're talking about.

    First of all, regarding temperatures: You need to understand that a fire in a confined space can produce temperatures well in excess of the enthalpy of the combustion reaction, so saying things like "kerosene burns at only 1500 degrees" is entirely beside the point. If the heat cannot escape the confined area by convection or radiation, then the temperature will rise until it heats the walls of its container enough to radiate enough heat away to bring it into thermal equilibrium. There have been sugar refinery fires where the sugar was burning at over 4,000 degrees. There are coal -fired power plants that operate at over 3,000 degrees. This in 2-3 times higher than the temperatures you would get if you burned coal or sugar in the open air, and there are no miracles involved here. It's just the "laws of physics." And of course, as has been mentioned multiple times, steel softens at temperatures far below its melting point, which should be rather obvious considering that a blacksmith can shape a piece of hot iron without needing to liquify it first.

    Secondly, the complaint about "soft aluminum planes not being able to cut steel beams" is completely absurd. If you are unable to understand a simple concept like force equals mass times acceleration, then you do not need to be prattling on about the "laws of physics." The last time I checked, air was a lot softer than wood and concrete, yet hurricane force winds can destroy a building. I believe that water is somewhat softer than wood, yet you can cut wood with a waterjet cutter (and if you add an abrasive, you can cut steel with a waterjet cutter, too). But rather than continue to furnish examples in this vein, I will simply advert to something pertinent to your own conspiracy theory. The linear shaped charges used in the controlled demolition of buildings like the kind you claimed occurred on 9/11, work by blasting a copper charge through the affected steel. Copper metal is quite a bit softer than steel, so if it were impossible to cut a harder metal with a softer one, there could be no controlled demolitions, either.

    You should not say “Building Seven” (of the World Trade Center). You should say “Salomon Building” so people think it was NOT financially involved with the same owner of the other buildings. Otherwise it might sound like the whole thing was an insurance scam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What do you know of the insurances. Is the BBC not correct in reporting that WTC 7 was only insured for its 1985 value and that the Twin Towers had just had their insurance updated as a requirement of Silverstein's financing arrangements?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. @Rogue
    Also of interest is the body language of Lucky Larry Silverstein when interviewed about the twin towers and building 7.

    He doesn't look honest to me at all, but then I'm no expert either.

    What I would like is a behavioral analysis by an expert in that particular field as to whether Lucky Larry is pulling a fast one or not.

    For those who don't know, Larry Silverstein took ownership of most of the WTC complex shortly before 9/11.

    Videos of him being interviewed about 9/11 are freely available on YouTube.

    Conveniently, neither his son or daughter - or himself - were at the complex on 9/11. They usually met with clients every day at the restaurant at the top of one of the towers.

    I wonder what others think of his body language if they've seen the interviews.

    I wouldn't accuse him of lying, since as I've already said I'm no expert, but he sure looks suspicious.

    He chews gum like crazy on the televised anniversaries. Of course, so did Frank Sinatra in front of Congressional committees.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. @notanon
    it's relatively easy to fly a large plane at high speed at high altitudes but a lot harder at low altitudes (cos air density) so the critical question is how did amateur pilots do it?

    the "CGI planes" meme is a deflection from asking that question

    the simplest answer to that question would be they weren't amateur pilots.

    (saudi air force trained maybe?)

    Excellent reasoning. It doesn’t get any better. Saudi trained professional pilots posing as amateurs. With extra pay for hazardous duty. A promotion is in order. For them and for you. No one would ever have guessed. A genius. With such people, how can we lose?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Muse

    It is possible to reach a temperature to melt iron in coal powered fire, but only by blowing air (oxygen) to it. Were there any conditions for such a mechanism? I do not see them
     
    You actually had a blast furnace going at both WTC towers during the fire. Tall buildings such as skyscrapers generate powerful upward drafts. This is why you have to use revolving doors. Because the stairwells were only shielded with thick drywall, and no doubt the elevator shafts had been blown open their had to be lots of air flowing to fan the flames.

    Skyscrapers are very dangerous and should be banned. Just watch what will happen to the Empire State Building next.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @DESERT FOX
    Agree, see the video on youtube on John Lear son of the founder of the Lear Jet and John was a former commercial pilot and he explains why no planes hit the twin towers and how holograms of planes were used, and how the gov has technology decades ahead of what the public is aware of.

    Why do you need holograms when you have TV? All you need is four or five people running around the crowd yelling “Its a plane! Its a plane!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. @Anon
    And lay conspiracy theorists with no relevant expertise spout total rubbish from their nook of the "real world".

    Yes indeed, the conspirators spout total rubbish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Allow me to call you on this (insouciantly worded) jest. Who are the conspirators you refer to? And what rubbish have they respectively spouted?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. @notanon

    My understanding is the fire departments will sometimes demolish buildings that are on fire and close to collapse. I never understood why what happened to WTC7 is so controversial.
     
    if they said that's what happened then it wouldn't be controversial

    Just that it takes days to wire a building with explosives first. So, yes, they did demolish it, and it was prepared weeks in advance. But look, you are not supposed to be confessing here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. @Anon
    Are you unaware that a fire had been burning for many hours in WTC7 before it collapsed?

    Are you unaware that Silverstein said “pull it?” No of course not. You just want to know who are the billions of people who see through your lies. We all do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    It is hard to know whether you are serious. As the BBC"s series of articles on Conspiracy Theories affirms the obvious meaning of "pull it" (which has no technical or slang meaning amongst demolition contractors - as if Silverstein would know that anyway) was to pull the life endangering activities of the firemen who were still in the building without water.

    See what I said to Erebus and have a look at
    BBC News Online | The evolution of a conspiracy theory
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/uk_news/magazine/7488159.stm

    BTW it appears that Silverstein had taken out insurance on the Towers a couple of months before as part of the deal to get finance. BUT insurance on WTC 7 had never been increased. So much for that slam dunk proof of motive!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. @jilles dykstra
    http://www.vietatoparlare.it/leaked-documents-ukrainian-air-forces-shot-down-mh17-confirms-conspiracy-and-guilt/

    However, when the Mafia orders a murder, they don’t do it in writing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. @Anon
    What are you talking about? If you believe a steel column has to completely melt before it collapses go ahead.

    You are right. Steel columns collapse all the time. They do not have to melt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. @Mulegino1
    I don't "get" with any narrative. Narratives are for people like you- unable to think for themselves, and to whom forming a single creative or original thought is the equivalent of a Herculean task. An official narrative is exactly the opposite of an empirically based investigation, since the former is concocted a priori and must be validated by fitting the evidence to conform to it, as opposed to the latter which bases its conclusions upon the evidence, giving priority to the best (physical) evidence, which is usually required to corroborate any eyewitness or "expert" testimony or analysis.

    For your information, I did not write "molecular degeneration" but "dissociation." That some of the steel was sold to China is irrelevant. The rubble piles were nowhere near high or large enough to account for even a preponderance of the steel and concrete of the three buildings that were destroyed- WTC 1, 2, and 6. How do you explain the destruction of the core of WTC 6? The building's core was not damaged by fire, it was not smashed by rubble, it was gone. As in disappeared. One of the signature elements of the dust clouds that blanketed lower Manhattan contained free iron particles, thereby demonstrating- guess what?- molecular dissociation.

    By the way, I am not a "truther" and the use of this word evinces a complete lack of originality and perspicacity on your part- just as your use of the term "conspiracy theorist"- as if most of us here were not aware that that term was weaponized by the CIA during the later 1960's in order to discourage independent investigation into the JFK assassination.

    As I understand it, automobiles run on “molecular dissociation.” It is the future.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. @Erebus
    https://truthandshadows.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/wtc-1-cropped.jpg

    This astonishing photo shows the top 30+ floors of WTC1 breaking away and falling to the side. The tilt is already >20 degrees, with the tipping point at the corner, and the entire section is in the incipient stages of a free-fall. Substantially isolated from whatever was happening with the rest of the building and having developed an angular momentum of its own, it should have continued to tilt and then fallen more-or-less intact to the street below. The rest of the building, now relieved of whatever weight the now disconnected section bore on it, should have been eminently capable of standing indefinitely.
    Instead, the disconnected section disintegrated mid-air and hit the ground as dust and steel shards along with the rest of the building.

    Aside from the tilting top-section in WTC 1, the 2 collapses were identical and clearly systematic. Energetic, orthogonal ejection of large masses of finely separated material apparently ahead of the collapse front featured in the demolition of both towers. Watching the videos numerous times that morning convinced me and most of my colleagues by about noon - the towers must have been brought down by extra-energetic means.

    However unorthodox it appeared, it was a demolition. There is simply no other accounting for what the videos show.

    Never seen astonishing photo is fake. Is that why it is astonishing?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Never seen?
    It, and similar photos from different angles, along with at least one video were widely shown. That video shows the top ~30 stories tipping and disappearing into the dustcloud, never to land.

    So tell us what's "fake" about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. @Intelligent Dasein
    You are insane.

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object. It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure. The torsional forces upon twisting, popping, springing beams would be more than sufficient to eject material all over the place. Just watch what happens when a martial artist breaks a stack of bricks.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQaNFoWo7zc

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same "free fall speed" you see in the Twin Towers collapse; and remember, this is far less complex version of the same process. When you add to this the immense kinetic energy of 500,000 tons of falling steel and concrete, you get a building that simply disintegrates and splashes to the ground.

    I'm getting a queasy feeling as I now begin to realize that the majority of commenters on this website are simply lunatics talking out of their asses. When you take this ridiculous 9/11 Trutherism, the absurd Darwinism, and the inability to even understand traditional Christian theology and the crackpot equating of it with evangelical nonsense, it is clear that most of you have no grounding in any sort of reality, either physical or metaphysical. Too great an amount of time has been wasted here already, but it is still important to speak the truth so that it will be available to the few who desire it.

    Keep telling us the truth, even though we don’t deserve you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @DESERT FOX
    See Dr. Judy Woods video on youtube WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO.

    No takers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. @Sparkon
    No. It's not a pointless debate. It's about the meaning of words.

    You said thermite is a "highly explosive agent," and I have corrected your mistake, or mischaracterization.


    If words are not correct, then language is not in accordance with the truth of things.

    --The Master Kong 孔夫子 (Confucius)
     

    Thermite has an explosive velocity of less than 900 meters per second, and is therefore not a high explosive¹ by any stretch of the imagination. Strictly speaking, thermite is an incendiary cutting agent, and is not an explosive at all. I have found no published science or scientific paper anywhere reflecting any real world tests that demonstrate any highly explosive properties for thermite, or nanothermite.

    The fact that large quantities of "unreacted nanothermite" were alleged to have been found in some dust - for which there is no chain of possession - no more proves it was the major force used to destroy the towers than some delousing facilities and especially a wonky gas chamber built by the Soviets after the war prove that the Germans had an industrial plan to gas all the Jews, or that the Hezarkhani video proves that a 767 really did slice into WTC 2 like a knife into butter, or that a Mauser found on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and a magic bullet found on the wrong stretcher at Parkland hospital, prove that Lee Harvey Oswald really did shoot President Kennedy with a rickety Mannlicher-Carcano with a misaligned sight.

    We. You may be sure only that the evil masterminds who blew up the WTC would never be so diabolically clever as to leave behind some misleading evidence, just as they would never broadcast fake videos on the boob tube, plant passports, knock down light poles, or destroy WTC evidence before it could be examined.

    It is widely recognized in the sincere 9/11 Truth community that nanothermite is a red herring if for no other reason than the simple fact that nanothermite, thermite, thermate etc. by a very large measure do not have the destructive power to disintegrate WTC 1&2 in the manner recorded, where a signifiant portion of the towers' mass was turned into dust. Prager, Fetzer, Duff and other knowledgeable analysts and commenters have been calling 9/11 a nuclear event for several years already.

    Jeff Prager:


    1. Nano thermite is an incendiary. Explosives are classified as having velocities exceeding 3000mps. The incendiary nanothermite allegedly found by Dr. Stephen Jones is incapable of turning any component of the steel structured Twin Towers or the cement to micron sized particles or what is commonly referred to in scientific circles as ‘very fine particles’, as we all saw on 911 and as Dr. Thomas Cahill outlines.

    2. Nanothermite is incapable of maintaining underground, oxygen starved fires at the temperatures required to ‘boil soil and glass’ as Dr. Thomas Cahill stated.

    3. The chain of possession of the dust samples allegedly found at Ground Zero and controlled by Dr. Jones is highly suspect, unverifiable and unscientific. The chain of possession of the dust samples procured by the USGS on September 16th and 17th, 2001 at Ground Zero, NYC, is known and secure. The chain of possession followed standard scientific procedure as outlined in USGS Report #01-0429.
    Nano thermite...was not found in the USGS dust samples. ²

    5. Dr. Stephen Jones spent a significant portion of his career at the Department Of Energy which is the government agency that is responsible for all nuclear research in the United States. He worked specifically with Muon Catalyzed Fusion, Cold Fusion, Deuterium, Lithium Deuteride and other elements of the cold fusion process. Dr. Jones is a knowledgeable and respected physicist.

    7. Dr. Christopher Busby states that the dust samples from 911 indicate a cold fusion process using deuterium which is precisely the science and elements Dr. Jones studied at the Department of Energy.
     

    Of course it is entirely possible that thermite was used in some capacity at the WTC on 9/11, most especially in the take-down of Bldg. 7, which almost everyone sees as typical of a classic controlled demolition. However, we see there are still plenty of die-hards arguing it was the fires wot done it, with typical mischaracterization of the puny local fires as "raging" and "out-of-control" when there is no evidence of any widespread, sustained, intense fires encompassing even a single entire floor in any building in the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Indeed, the relatively small and localized fires at WTC on 9/11 bear no resemblance at all to the raging fire which burned for hours at the Mandarin Hotel in Beijing, where the towering, modern, steel-framed skyscraper was entirely consumed in flames, and burned like a torch for hours overnight, but was still standing straight and tall when morning dawned in Beijing.

    Thermite couldn't make the WTC twin towers blow themselves apart from the top down, nor could it decapitate and displace the top of WTC 2 as seen in the image posted by Erebus in his #116.

    http://www.unz.com/article/creative-chaos/#comment-2345432

    If the thermite enthusiasts here think (nano)thermite could knock the block off WTC 2, and decapitate the entire top of the building like that, I would like to see some hypothetical or conjectural arguments by which this result could be achieved with thermite, nanothermite, termites, or even fairy dust.


    ps. Chris Bollyn says Jeff Prager is a "deadbeat dad" who may be wanted by ex-Sheriff Joe, while some say Chris Bollyn was married to a mossad agent. He admits living and working in Israel, and may have learned Yiddish in his study of semitic languages. He has called Gordon Duff a "Disinfo Toad."

    Oy vey!

    Yawning footnotes:

    ¹ Explosive velocities of high explosives: DDF – 10,000mps HMX – 9,100mps RDX – 8,750mps TNT – 6,900MPS compared with Jones’ Thermite @ 300-895mps

    ² Using USGS Report #01-0429 as Google search argument,
    I have located and reviewed these USGS documents:

    • Environmental Studies of the World Trade Center area after the September 11, 2001 attack
    • Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust
    • Chemical compositions of the WTC dusts and girder coating material

    There is no mention of "thermite" or "nanothermite" that I could find in any of these official USGS documents on WTC dust.

    What is used in controlled demolitions? Controlled demolitions do exist, don’t they? Or is that just one of those “conspiracy theories?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    I covered all of that in my comment, but obviously you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. @Intelligent Dasein
    I've got a better idea.

    Let's have you demonstrate your commitment to the harmlessness of coke cans by permitting me to fire an empty one at your face at 500 mph. You should probably settle your estate first.

    Now you are getting desperate. Ask for a vacation before it is too late.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Sparkon says:
    @ploni almoni
    What is used in controlled demolitions? Controlled demolitions do exist, don't they? Or is that just one of those "conspiracy theories?"

    I covered all of that in my comment, but obviously you either didn’t read it, or didn’t understand it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Anonymous[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mulegino1
    Gladly, if my face is surrounded by massive structural steel perimeter columns and thick steel spandrels.

    Your usual wayward BSing. Most of the side of the buildings was glass or other lightweight material.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Most of the side of the buildings was glass or other lightweight material.
     
    If box columns, concrete floors and spandrel weldments, which make up some 65-70% of the facade, are "lightweight", you'd be right. As it is, IMHO, you're dead wrong. I suggest you stay anonymous. It suits you.
    , @Mulegino1
    Wrong. Most of the sides of the building were steel perimeter columns.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus
    Hmmm... I see nothing but text and the bullet video in your post, so I assumed the screen door was your analogy.

    In any case, I was simply lumping the screen door and Alarmist's convenience store front together as being almost equally far from the physical reality of the WTC's rather massive facade.

    Same old errors. Not only not massive facades but even the steel supporting frame was less massive as a result of the 1960s regulatory changes which allowed for more saleable space and less concrete.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. Anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus

    You are insane.
     
    Indeed, perhaps so. Be that as it may...

    Look, a building like the WTC main towers is not a solid block of material. It does not lean, fall, or rotate like a scaled-up version of a small, solid object.
     
    Really? In what ways, pray tell, does an engineered structure behave differently than a solid object in regards to leaning, falling, or rotating? Are such concepts as centre of mass and angular momentum no longer applicable? Do engineered structures typically vaporize midair when they start leaning, falling, or rotating? How far do they have to lean, fall, or rotate before they vaporize? Is this a universal characteristic of engineered structures, or does it manifest only in the presence of local anomalies such as found in Lower Manhattan on bright late summer days? I note that it tragically failed to manifest in Florida when that pedestrian bridge collapsed last March and landed on 15 people, killing 6.

    It is a complex assemblage of forces in static equilibrium. As soon as that equilibrium is disturbed (i.e. as soon as the buildings began to collapse), enormous stresses were propagated as shock waves throughout the entire structure.
     
    Really? But look at the picture. From whence the "shock-waves" (3 of corners have moved up) and why would the building collapse (the pivot corner aside), having, for the most part, been recently relieved of the excess load? Engineering 101 tells you that a column fails from the bottom up, and never from the top down. An engineered column that was previously supporting a substantial load should surely be able to support nothing at all, "shock waves" notwithstanding.

    Oh, and before I forget, those "enormous stresses" aren't to be found in solid objects? Really? One wonders why compressive and tensile strength tests have maintained their prevalence in materials engineering.

    Anyway, on to your silly video...

    Here you see the same shock front propagation, the same lateral ejecta, and the same “free fall speed” you see in the Twin Towers collapse
     
    You do? Well, if you do, you're looking at a very different world than the one I've been working in the last 40 years...

    - There is no ejecta beyond maybe 5-10% of the total mass (vs 9/11's inverse),
    - The "shock wave" moves through a simple stack structure by impacting an inelastic, low (tensile) strength/very high stiffness material (aka: hi-Q/brittle) at its weakest point to amplify the initial shock.
    - Moving through a hi-Q material, the shockwave propagates both quickly and can even amplify as it propagates if conditions are right.
    - Free-fall is free-fall, but I'd wager that the collapse in the video exceeded free-fall speed precisely because collapse would have moved with what would have been an under-damped shockwave.
    - You'll notice that the outside supports remained unaffected, but due to the fact that they were just a loose stack, they scattered, and wholesale collapse ensued.

    Now, tie the supports and the slabs into a structure, and everything changes. You can now increase the impact force arbitrarily (drop a 100T axehead sharp end on, from LEO), and the slabs would just break and hang from that structure (assuming the point of impact remained unchanged). There would be no collapse in the normal sense at all. The slabs would break, and hang there suspended from the nonplussed structure.

    In short, the demo says nothing relevant about the WTC collapses. That you think it somehow does suggests that whatever drives your enthusiastic defence of absurdity will, properly assessed, prove to be a form of madness itself. My insanity continues to support me in some comfort. Will yours?

    You spend so much time on your contorted rubbish (even going into the great pulverizer Muliegino1′s counterfactual territory and exceeding it with “vaporize” – forgetting all the steel shipped to China!) that you should really save yourself some time by reading up the work the BBC has done which you can probably find collected under “Conspiracy Theories”. You and others shouldn’t miss the quotes from a demolition expert giving some detail of just how much time AND OBVIOUS ACTIVITY a controlled demolition takes to prepare (and of course normally at ground level). You might care to get a start at
    BBC News Online | The evolution of a conspiracy theory

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/uk_news/magazine/7488159.stm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    The BBC?!?!?! The same omni-prescient BBC that reported, live on air, that WTC 7 had collapsed some 20 minutes before it happened?!?!? ...and... wait for it... had the still standing WTC7 in the background as the hapless reporter told the world it had fallen down.
    I wouldn't give any "expert" the BBC might trot in front of the cameras carte blanche credibility when they say anything on any subject.

    I had not forgotten all the steel shipped to China. Why did you think I had?

    As for "OBVIOUS ACTIVITY", ever heard of E-TEAM, or GELATIN? If not, you would do well to learn about them and and it might become apparent how it could have been done. Even to you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @ploni almoni
    Are you unaware that Silverstein said "pull it?" No of course not. You just want to know who are the billions of people who see through your lies. We all do.

    It is hard to know whether you are serious. As the BBC”s series of articles on Conspiracy Theories affirms the obvious meaning of “pull it” (which has no technical or slang meaning amongst demolition contractors – as if Silverstein would know that anyway) was to pull the life endangering activities of the firemen who were still in the building without water.

    See what I said to Erebus and have a look at
    BBC News Online | The evolution of a conspiracy theory

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/uk_news/magazine/7488159.stm

    BTW it appears that Silverstein had taken out insurance on the Towers a couple of months before as part of the deal to get finance. BUT insurance on WTC 7 had never been increased. So much for that slam dunk proof of motive!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Anonymous[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @ploni almoni
    You should not say "Building Seven" (of the World Trade Center). You should say "Salomon Building" so people think it was NOT financially involved with the same owner of the other buildings. Otherwise it might sound like the whole thing was an insurance scam.

    What do you know of the insurances. Is the BBC not correct in reporting that WTC 7 was only insured for its 1985 value and that the Twin Towers had just had their insurance updated as a requirement of Silverstein’s financing arrangements?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @EliteCommInc.
    I guess agnosticism is a good way to phrase it. I think I am on this page.

    Unanswered questions, and curious coincidences, not to mention in-competencies of all kinds are not unusual in such events as these.


    On their face the conspiracy arguments makes sense. But upon challenge so many are either a wash or fail. So agnostic works. open just not convinced.

    “On their face the conspiracy arguments make sense”. You are too polite. How about not giving them that encouragement but content yourself with “Some of the conspiracy arguments don’t fall totally apart at first glance by someone who hasn’t looked at the matter recently”. Most of them sound like the proponents have shut themselves in their bedrooms with a computer at the age of 15 and not emerged since to learn about the real world. A lot of them don’t seem to worry that truthers often espouse contradictory versions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @ValmMond

    Building 7 (...) had been burning out of control for seven hours

     

    Most of the fires inside Building 7 were barely visible.
    None of them was hot enough to cause even window breakage.
    Let alone the symmetrical collapse of a steel-frame building at free-fall and as a single unit. Symmetrical free-fall means a sudden and simultaneous withdrawal of ALL structural support.
    Let me repeat that.
    The WTC 7 fell at gravity acceleration (aka in free fall) for 2.25 seconds, spanning eight stories.
    It means that 82 supporting columns ceased simultaneously to offer resistance.
    No fire, flood, locusts or known laws of Newtonian mechanics are known to produce such effect.
    There is only one explanation: all supporting columns were taken out simultaneously.
    In itself, that's an undeniable indication of coordination.

    No window breakage? Therefore certainly no demolition charges. Cf. the leading demolition expert quoted by the BBC – and common sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Anon[383] • Disclaimer says:
    @ploni almoni
    Yes indeed, the conspirators spout total rubbish.

    Allow me to call you on this (insouciantly worded) jest. Who are the conspirators you refer to? And what rubbish have they respectively spouted?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. Erebus says:
    @ploni almoni
    Never seen astonishing photo is fake. Is that why it is astonishing?

    Never seen?
    It, and similar photos from different angles, along with at least one video were widely shown. That video shows the top ~30 stories tipping and disappearing into the dustcloud, never to land.

    So tell us what’s “fake” about it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Erebus says:
    @Anonymous
    Your usual wayward BSing. Most of the side of the buildings was glass or other lightweight material.

    Most of the side of the buildings was glass or other lightweight material.

    If box columns, concrete floors and spandrel weldments, which make up some 65-70% of the facade, are “lightweight”, you’d be right. As it is, IMHO, you’re dead wrong. I suggest you stay anonymous. It suits you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Mulegino1 says:
    @Anonymous
    Your usual wayward BSing. Most of the side of the buildings was glass or other lightweight material.

    Wrong. Most of the sides of the building were steel perimeter columns.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Erebus says:
    @Anon
    You spend so much time on your contorted rubbish (even going into the great pulverizer Muliegino1's counterfactual territory and exceeding it with "vaporize" - forgetting all the steel shipped to China!) that you should really save yourself some time by reading up the work the BBC has done which you can probably find collected under "Conspiracy Theories". You and others shouldn't miss the quotes from a demolition expert giving some detail of just how much time AND OBVIOUS ACTIVITY a controlled demolition takes to prepare (and of course normally at ground level). You might care to get a start at
    BBC News Online | The evolution of a conspiracy theory
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/mobile/uk_news/magazine/7488159.stm

    The BBC?!?!?! The same omni-prescient BBC that reported, live on air, that WTC 7 had collapsed some 20 minutes before it happened?!?!? …and… wait for it… had the still standing WTC7 in the background as the hapless reporter told the world it had fallen down.
    I wouldn’t give any “expert” the BBC might trot in front of the cameras carte blanche credibility when they say anything on any subject.

    I had not forgotten all the steel shipped to China. Why did you think I had?

    As for “OBVIOUS ACTIVITY”, ever heard of E-TEAM, or GELATIN? If not, you would do well to learn about them and and it might become apparent how it could have been done. Even to you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. Miro23 says:

    In the comments to Laurent Guyénot’s Kennedy article there was a link to his 9/11 information, which IMO it’s the best summary of 9/11 now in existence.

    http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html

    And, in particular, there’s one fascinating paragraph that caused me to re-evaluate my understanding of events that day:

    In contrast, to plan the demolition of the Twin Towers with nanothermite would have required hundreds of people, months of work and a lot of highly visible masonry work to reach the steel column. Professor Neils Harrit has actually estimated the amount of nanothermite needed to blow the Twin Towers between 29,000 and 144,000 metric tons. Just to unload the lowest estimate would have required 1,500 tractor trailer loads with a crew working 24 hours a day for 300 days non-stop. That seems inconceivable for a foreign power. In fact, it is inconceivable altogether. Exit the nanothermite theory.

    In other words, nanothermite was used in the demolition of Building 7 (that was conventionally blown from the lower levels) but it wasn’t used in the twin towers.

    I have no idea why the two demolitions were done differently, but I have to accept his evidence, and it raises the question; How did they destroy the twin towers?

    He says;

    Technically, nanothermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. It may have been enough to “pull” WTC7, from bottom to top with no horizontal projection and little dust produced, but it fails to explain the very different destruction of the Twin Towers, from top to bottom, and the pulverization into very fine dust of almost all their concrete — not to mention the eleven hundred bodies never recovered. Nanothermite doesn’t explain the temperatures of 600 to 1,500 °F at Ground Zero for six months after 9/11.[52]The pyroclastic dust that flooded through the streets at high speed after the collapse, not unlike the dust from a volcano, indicates a high temperature mixture of hot gazes and relatively dense solid particles, a phenomenon impossible from a simple collapse caused by nanothermite.

    From these two elements — the images of the collapse of WTC7, and the discovery of nanothermite on the site of the WTC — the core 9/11 Truthmovement concludes that the Twin Towers were also pulled down by controlled demolition using nanothermite. There is a huge problem with that theory, though: anyone looking at the images on YouTube can see that the destruction of the Twin Towers and the destruction of Tower 7 are completely different. This is what Danish demolition expert Danny Jowenko declared without hesitation, when shown the film of the collapse of WTC7, before knowing it happened on September 11th.[51] For one thing, the collapse of the Twin Towers starts from the top, while the collapse of WTC7 starts from the bottom, like any controlled demolition. Secondly, the word “collapse” is inadequate for the Twin Towers: we can see them literally explode, floor by floor. The pile of rubble left on their footprint looks nothing like what is seen after a controlled demolition. One may wonder why the differences, so obvious, are lost on most 9/11 Truth sites.

    And bizarre as it seems;

    For these reasons and more, a growing number of scientists are now rejecting the nanothermite thesis and believe that small neutron bombs had been planted near the core columns of the buildings.[54] The thesis is coherent with the high percentage of residuals of nuclear fusion/fission reactions in the rubble (barium, strontium, thorium, uranium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, chromium, tritium), and with the high rate of rare cancers (thyroid cancer, leukemia, and multiple myeloma) among Ground Zero workers, typical of radiation exposure.

    In the case of the WTC, just a few individuals working two or three days would have been needed to place easily disguised micro-nukes no bigger than apples within the buildings, every five to ten floors, and the same people could have detonated the explosive sequence. Scott Forbes, a director of Fiduciary Trust, whose offices were in the South Tower, reported that during the weekend prior to the attacks, the power was cut for 36 hours from the 48th floor upward, supposedly to replace the tower’s wiring. Nothing like it had ever been necessary since the towers’ construction; “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”

    So, 9/11 was an attack on the US using nuclear weapons with the prediction is that the next Israeli False Flag (aimed at Iran) will include the same vaporization, ultra high temperatures and radiation markers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    The nanothermite was detected in the dust produced by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, including in one sample that was taken even before WTC 7 came down. So it definitely played a role in the twin tower collapses. That does of course not rule out the use of additional explosives of a different kind. Note, however, that the twin towers showed a series of explosions from the top down. I find it unlikely that someone would have bothered with multiple neutron bombs for that; conventional explosives seem much more likely. TNT and similar things would burn up without residue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. Mike P says:
    @Miro23
    In the comments to Laurent Guyénot's Kennedy article there was a link to his 9/11 information, which IMO it's the best summary of 9/11 now in existence.

    http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html

    And, in particular, there's one fascinating paragraph that caused me to re-evaluate my understanding of events that day:

    In contrast, to plan the demolition of the Twin Towers with nanothermite would have required hundreds of people, months of work and a lot of highly visible masonry work to reach the steel column. Professor Neils Harrit has actually estimated the amount of nanothermite needed to blow the Twin Towers between 29,000 and 144,000 metric tons. Just to unload the lowest estimate would have required 1,500 tractor trailer loads with a crew working 24 hours a day for 300 days non-stop. That seems inconceivable for a foreign power. In fact, it is inconceivable altogether. Exit the nanothermite theory.
     
    In other words, nanothermite was used in the demolition of Building 7 (that was conventionally blown from the lower levels) but it wasn't used in the twin towers.

    I have no idea why the two demolitions were done differently, but I have to accept his evidence, and it raises the question; How did they destroy the twin towers?

    He says;

    Technically, nanothermite is an incendiary, not an explosive. It may have been enough to “pull” WTC7, from bottom to top with no horizontal projection and little dust produced, but it fails to explain the very different destruction of the Twin Towers, from top to bottom, and the pulverization into very fine dust of almost all their concrete — not to mention the eleven hundred bodies never recovered. Nanothermite doesn’t explain the temperatures of 600 to 1,500 °F at Ground Zero for six months after 9/11.[52]The pyroclastic dust that flooded through the streets at high speed after the collapse, not unlike the dust from a volcano, indicates a high temperature mixture of hot gazes and relatively dense solid particles, a phenomenon impossible from a simple collapse caused by nanothermite.
     

    From these two elements — the images of the collapse of WTC7, and the discovery of nanothermite on the site of the WTC — the core 9/11 Truthmovement concludes that the Twin Towers were also pulled down by controlled demolition using nanothermite. There is a huge problem with that theory, though: anyone looking at the images on YouTube can see that the destruction of the Twin Towers and the destruction of Tower 7 are completely different. This is what Danish demolition expert Danny Jowenko declared without hesitation, when shown the film of the collapse of WTC7, before knowing it happened on September 11th.[51] For one thing, the collapse of the Twin Towers starts from the top, while the collapse of WTC7 starts from the bottom, like any controlled demolition. Secondly, the word “collapse” is inadequate for the Twin Towers: we can see them literally explode, floor by floor. The pile of rubble left on their footprint looks nothing like what is seen after a controlled demolition. One may wonder why the differences, so obvious, are lost on most 9/11 Truth sites.
     
    And bizarre as it seems;

    For these reasons and more, a growing number of scientists are now rejecting the nanothermite thesis and believe that small neutron bombs had been planted near the core columns of the buildings.[54] The thesis is coherent with the high percentage of residuals of nuclear fusion/fission reactions in the rubble (barium, strontium, thorium, uranium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, chromium, tritium), and with the high rate of rare cancers (thyroid cancer, leukemia, and multiple myeloma) among Ground Zero workers, typical of radiation exposure.
     

    In the case of the WTC, just a few individuals working two or three days would have been needed to place easily disguised micro-nukes no bigger than apples within the buildings, every five to ten floors, and the same people could have detonated the explosive sequence. Scott Forbes, a director of Fiduciary Trust, whose offices were in the South Tower, reported that during the weekend prior to the attacks, the power was cut for 36 hours from the 48th floor upward, supposedly to replace the tower’s wiring. Nothing like it had ever been necessary since the towers’ construction; “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”
     
    So, 9/11 was an attack on the US using nuclear weapons with the prediction is that the next Israeli False Flag (aimed at Iran) will include the same vaporization, ultra high temperatures and radiation markers.

    The nanothermite was detected in the dust produced by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, including in one sample that was taken even before WTC 7 came down. So it definitely played a role in the twin tower collapses. That does of course not rule out the use of additional explosives of a different kind. Note, however, that the twin towers showed a series of explosions from the top down. I find it unlikely that someone would have bothered with multiple neutron bombs for that; conventional explosives seem much more likely. TNT and similar things would burn up without residue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    I find it unlikely that someone would have bothered with multiple neutron bombs for that; conventional explosives seem much more likely. TNT and similar things would burn up without residue.
     
    I know that small neutron bombs seem totally bizarre but the facts point in that direction:

    - The very high temperatures at Ground Zero (600 - 1.500°F for six months).

    - The high percentage of residuals of nuclear fusion/fission reactions in the rubble (barium, strontium, thorium, uranium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, chromium, tritium), and with the high rate of rare cancers (thyroid cancer, leukemia, and multiple myeloma) among Ground Zero workers, typical of radiation exposure.

    Also I can't get round the access time. Wiring WTC 1& 2 with conventional explosives would be an impossibly large scale project - not something that could be done over 36 hours.

    - Scott Forbes, a director of Fiduciary Trust, whose offices were in the South Tower, reported that during the weekend prior to the attacks, the power was cut for 36 hours from the 48th floor upward, supposedly to replace the tower’s wiring. Nothing like it had ever been necessary since the towers’ construction; “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”
     
    Who were these "engineers"? Has anyone interviewed them?

    Also the Israelis have had nuclear weapons programs for decades that are secret and uninspected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Miro23 says:
    @Mike P
    The nanothermite was detected in the dust produced by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2, including in one sample that was taken even before WTC 7 came down. So it definitely played a role in the twin tower collapses. That does of course not rule out the use of additional explosives of a different kind. Note, however, that the twin towers showed a series of explosions from the top down. I find it unlikely that someone would have bothered with multiple neutron bombs for that; conventional explosives seem much more likely. TNT and similar things would burn up without residue.

    I find it unlikely that someone would have bothered with multiple neutron bombs for that; conventional explosives seem much more likely. TNT and similar things would burn up without residue.

    I know that small neutron bombs seem totally bizarre but the facts point in that direction:

    - The very high temperatures at Ground Zero (600 – 1.500°F for six months).

    - The high percentage of residuals of nuclear fusion/fission reactions in the rubble (barium, strontium, thorium, uranium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, chromium, tritium), and with the high rate of rare cancers (thyroid cancer, leukemia, and multiple myeloma) among Ground Zero workers, typical of radiation exposure.

    Also I can’t get round the access time. Wiring WTC 1& 2 with conventional explosives would be an impossibly large scale project – not something that could be done over 36 hours.

    - Scott Forbes, a director of Fiduciary Trust, whose offices were in the South Tower, reported that during the weekend prior to the attacks, the power was cut for 36 hours from the 48th floor upward, supposedly to replace the tower’s wiring. Nothing like it had ever been necessary since the towers’ construction; “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”

    Who were these “engineers”? Has anyone interviewed them?

    Also the Israelis have had nuclear weapons programs for decades that are secret and uninspected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Do you have a reference for those radionuclide levels? I have not seen anything solid. IIRC neutron bombs are supposed to maximise radiation rather than explosive force - doesn't seem like a good fit for the total pulverisation of all the concrete.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Mike P says:
    @Miro23

    I find it unlikely that someone would have bothered with multiple neutron bombs for that; conventional explosives seem much more likely. TNT and similar things would burn up without residue.
     
    I know that small neutron bombs seem totally bizarre but the facts point in that direction:

    - The very high temperatures at Ground Zero (600 - 1.500°F for six months).

    - The high percentage of residuals of nuclear fusion/fission reactions in the rubble (barium, strontium, thorium, uranium, lithium, lanthanum, yttrium, chromium, tritium), and with the high rate of rare cancers (thyroid cancer, leukemia, and multiple myeloma) among Ground Zero workers, typical of radiation exposure.

    Also I can't get round the access time. Wiring WTC 1& 2 with conventional explosives would be an impossibly large scale project - not something that could be done over 36 hours.

    - Scott Forbes, a director of Fiduciary Trust, whose offices were in the South Tower, reported that during the weekend prior to the attacks, the power was cut for 36 hours from the 48th floor upward, supposedly to replace the tower’s wiring. Nothing like it had ever been necessary since the towers’ construction; “Without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors, and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”
     
    Who were these "engineers"? Has anyone interviewed them?

    Also the Israelis have had nuclear weapons programs for decades that are secret and uninspected.

    Do you have a reference for those radionuclide levels? I have not seen anything solid. IIRC neutron bombs are supposed to maximise radiation rather than explosive force – doesn’t seem like a good fit for the total pulverisation of all the concrete.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Miro23 says:

    No I don’t. The information comes from the v. good Laurant Guyénot article with this note:

    [54] Read Jeff Prager, 9/11 America Nuked, freely downloadable on: 911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jeff-prager-9-11-america-nuked-free-downloadable-ebook. Read also on Veterans Today the article by Don Fox, Jeff Prager and Ed Ward, “Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11”: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

    http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html

    It may not be true. I haven’t checked these links, but I certainly will. Wiring buildings the size of WTC 1 & 2 with conventional explosives (or thermite) is a large and time consuming project that didn’t happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    The relevant paragraph is;

    Professor Neils Harrit has actually estimated the amount of nanothermite needed to blow the Twin Towers between 29,000 and 144,000 metric tons. Just to unload the lowest estimate would have required 1,500 tractor trailer loads with a crew working 24 hours a day for 300 days non-stop. That seems inconceivable for a foreign power. In fact, it is inconceivable altogether. Exit the nanothermite theory.
     
    http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html

    And after a lifetime of seeing Jewish activism and networking, if they have the power they will always use it. This is engraved in stone - so if they have micro nuclear bombs IMO they will use them. The urge would be irresistable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. Miro23 says:
    @Miro23
    No I don't. The information comes from the v. good Laurant Guyénot article with this note:

    [54] Read Jeff Prager, 9/11 America Nuked, freely downloadable on: 911scholars.ning.com/profiles/blogs/jeff-prager-9-11-america-nuked-free-downloadable-ebook. Read also on Veterans Today the article by Don Fox, Jeff Prager and Ed Ward, “Mystery Solved: The WTC was Nuked on 9/11”: www.veteranstoday.com/2013/05/01/mystery-solved-the-wtc-was-nuked-on-911/

    http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html

    It may not be true. I haven't checked these links, but I certainly will. Wiring buildings the size of WTC 1 & 2 with conventional explosives (or thermite) is a large and time consuming project that didn't happen.

    The relevant paragraph is;

    Professor Neils Harrit has actually estimated the amount of nanothermite needed to blow the Twin Towers between 29,000 and 144,000 metric tons. Just to unload the lowest estimate would have required 1,500 tractor trailer loads with a crew working 24 hours a day for 300 days non-stop. That seems inconceivable for a foreign power. In fact, it is inconceivable altogether. Exit the nanothermite theory.

    http://rockthetruth.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-911-triple-cross.html

    And after a lifetime of seeing Jewish activism and networking, if they have the power they will always use it. This is engraved in stone – so if they have micro nuclear bombs IMO they will use them. The urge would be irresistable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?