[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. (1 Viewer)

[ClintonServer]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

No it's not "our" problem. It's YOUR problem. You don't understand how to apply physics to a structure.



Below is a video that shows what you claim is impossible due to Newton's third law.
YouTube

Explain how the smaller, upper section of the structure in the video destroyed the larger, lower section. According to your understanding of Newton's third law, this shouldn't happen.

LMAO Watch the slow motion ...its a Magic Trick

That Stupid Tinker Toy was not even fastened together.

 

[ClintonServer]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The Pay Off for being an inside job was just like Pearl Harbor , Americans say Yeah Go get em . Now we want to get in WW2 After Pearl Harbor
The Pay Off for 911 was to pass Patrioit Act, Go to War and Spy on Everyone.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You Can Not Teach Stupid

Yes, truthers are impervious to the truth.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You are only the second person I ever heard tell me this . I am amazed. The First person was a Private Jet Pilot , he flew around celebs like Jack Nicholson , He also was my neighbour. He knew I was big into investigating this . He refused to give me his oppinion but would only make the same comment you did.

I do presume you referring too that cell phones could not be used up in the air ??? if not dis regard my post .

Welcome to the forum, and thanks for asking a relevant question.

Though my license is not current, I have the amateur license for what used to be called HAM radio. I have also conducted in about 2003, tests with 2 different cell phones, then called Nextel and AT&T systems, using a helicopter I was flying as a job, to see their performance.

As predicted (and known) by theory, the systems would both display NO SERVICE when going above about 1500 feet above terrain. There is a perfectly logical explanation for this, to be discussed later if you're interested.

The many claims made about cell phone calls on that day are a hoax, and in many ways the very foundation of the official narrative.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

On your thought all we need is Police to convict someone , no need for a Court and Jury . In other words , No investigation solves everything , you go where the facts lead you and then provide them to a Jury.

In this case , in the history of Brick and Mortar buildings that are on fire never fall. (particularly bldg 7 ) That is enough proof for me , when couple with declassified documents about operation Northwoods.

Most Religious People for example can not understand why some folks refuse to believe.

Once the AVG Scared American can wrap their head around that Governments are in fact evil , the rest is not so hard to swallow. (read Northwoods)

also world war 2 Japanese American <----------- Internment camps , when they needed their rights the most.

The Problem is People do not want to believe these evil things can happen. Well I just am getting started of Proof of our History . So Who is the Nut Job Now ???

Your post does nothing to refute my opinion regarding a "truthers" position regarding 9/11. In fact your post is not even close to discussing the OP.

- Please provide a link to the one clear concise alternative explanation for 9/11.

- Who is correct? Gage (AE911T) who states the towers were destroyed by conventional explosives and nanothermite. No nukes were involved. Jeff Prager states the towers were destroyed by mini neutron bombs and no nanothermite. Dr. Wood states it was a energy beam weapon.


Provide the links to your evidence it was an inside job.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You Can Not Teach Stupid

More appropriate. "You can't fix stupid. Ignorance can be corrected by education if one wants to learn. :mrgreen:"

I suggest you refrain from personal attacks.

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

When ??????????????????/:2wave:

The only evidence I need, we discuss right here on DP every single day.


Government incompetence. Are you really gonna believe that our government, which just got shut down over a funding dispute that represented .01% of the total budget...

Has the competence to plan, and execute what is espoused by conspiracy theorists? Thermite explosions, controlled demolition? So, we had a trained team of folks sneak into those buildings and rig them to explode, and managed to keep it secret? That after all this time, and guilt of knowing they participated in the murder of over 5,000 people...that NO ONE has come forward about it?

That's insane.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

You are only the second person I ever heard tell me this . I am amazed. The First person was a Private Jet Pilot , he flew around celebs like Jack Nicholson , He also was my neighbour. He knew I was big into investigating this . He refused to give me his oppinion but would only make the same comment you did.

I do presume you referring too that cell phones could not be used up in the air ??? if not dis regard my post .

Please give us your full alternarive 911 theory. Be the first truther ever to do that.

 

[MrBig2430]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

FYI: you did not really provide answers to my questions.

Here, I’ll give you one of Sanders stock answers:

I’m not really here to answer questions

Just out of curiosity what do you think of gerrycan and Thoreau72 qualifications and posts?

Gerrycan is clearly a water carrier for Gages group of morons. He knows what a lot of the drawings have on them but is clearly deluded into thinking that he knows what to do with that knowledge.

Thoreau72 is one of those nuke conspiratards I believe? Anybody that promotes that position is either a pure troll and doesn’t believe a word of it, or needs meds.

 

[MrBig2430]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maybe engineers at the forum mentioned below? Not sure to whom he is referring though.

Perhaps.

OWE is an engineer of some sort, but I’m not aware that any other are there.

But ROOSD has nothing to do with initiation. So it’s a dumb comparison imho.

 

[MrBig2430]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Any explanation must consider or match the observed motion (.

See, now you’ve bought the statements that the 2 Musketeers over at the free forum have blathered on about for years. Don’t do that. They put out some interesting work about the observables, but imho, became so infatuated with their work that they deluded themselves into thinking it was critical. It’s their own little psychological defense mechanism that means they don’t have to confront the uselessness of it all cuz detailing the collapse progression isn’t very useful.

NIST details in their report how they believe loads shifted as a result of the plane strikes. Now, one can see plainly what failed on the exterior. Reasonable assumptions can be made what happened inside too - but note this is out of view, so Is it accounted for?

Additionally, thermal creep unloaded and loaded various columns over time, but isn’t observable at all from some lo res video. And I haven’t seen a challenge to this from anyone, yet alternate ‘explanations ‘ about collapse initiation fail at the starting line.

So really, the UNobservables just might be (and I believe they in fact are) more important to account for in any scenario put forth.

Do you also believe that the unobservables are important or not?

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

See, now you’ve bought the statements that the 2 Musketeers over at the free forum have blathered on about for years. Don’t do that. They put out some interesting work about the observables, but imho, became so infatuated with their work that they deluded themselves into thinking it was critical. It’s their own little psychological defense mechanism that means they don’t have to confront the uselessness of it all cuz detailing the collapse progression isn’t very useful.

NIST details in their report how they believe loads shifted as a result of the plane strikes. Now, one can see plainly what failed on the exterior. Reasonable assumptions can be made what happened inside too - but note this is out of view, so Is it accounted for?

Additionally, thermal creep unloaded and loaded various columns over time, but isn’t observable at all from some lo res video. And I haven’t seen a challenge to this from anyone, yet alternate ‘explanations ‘ about collapse initiation fail at the starting line.

So really, the UNobservables just might be (and I believe they in fact are) more important to account for in any scenario put forth.

Do you also believe that the unobservables are important or not?

I believe that there was something(s) going on inside (not observable) which led to the release and collapse. My assumption is that what was going on was heat driven... causing the frame to become more and more under performing or... driving the axial capacity below the existing load values. (including the safety factor for each particular beam, connection, column and so so forth...

One can't *know" with any precision how these failures and loss of capacity unfolded. One can only see the result which was captured on numerous videos. I don't think the NIST collapse scenario which was driven by floor truss failures makes much sense. So my starting point is that it was core driven failures.

There is no way to set forth a provable model... although I suppose with some sophisticated sim software a core led collapse which produced a close facsimile to the real world collapse should be possible. This is beyond my skill level.

I put our a crude explanation which I tagged *sink hole top drop* which suggests that the heat from fires caused beams at the cash zone inside the core to expand and push standing undamaged columns inward to the center of the core. This should be possible because the columns in the center of core from row 500 south were destroyed by the plane impact and along with the columns the braces came down. This was the *beginning* of the sink hole. It grew in size east, west and south as the fire raged in the core area. The area of destroyed columns (*sink hole*) grew until all but the columns of the 4 corners remained. The belt girder could not span the distance and it collapsed and with it the floors lost core side support and broke free in sections from the facade.

The hat truss was supporting the antenna load and moving it laterally outward from the center of the core.. But the hat truss was not designed to span from facade to facade like a bridge truss bridge does. The hat truss depended on the grid of 47 (actually not all of them) for its support. As more and more core columns failed from the *sink holing* the hat truss buckled in its center... as it did the antenna dropped and the hat truss pulled the facade down. The last remaining columns mostly likely buckled and contributed to the slight tilt, a small amount of lateral translation of the upper facade cage for it to collapse down slipping past the lower intact face it had been aligned with.

++++

No one apparently want to set forth a detailed sequence of failures because it is driven by assumptions of what was going on inside the core and unseen regardless of how reasonable those assumptions may be.

The same process took place in 2wtc but the structural hollowing out... or sink *holing* progressed from the SE to the NW corner... the top was essentially being cantilevered until the remaining beams and columns could not carry the load... and they buckled... the top was released and dropped as it tipped to the SE.

++++

911 FF guys correctly identified the collapse mechanism for the intact lower sections, but did not venture into the "initiation" of movement of the top. Major Tom has a degree in physics I believe. femr2 may have as well.

++++

I am not here to prove anything... make YTs or publish papers. I was interested in finding the explanation for each of the collapses which made sense to me... with my basic understanding of structure as a practicing architect. I share my ideas only to receive critiques to increase my understanding.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Maybe engineers at the forum mentioned below? Not sure to whom he is referring though.

I have many times explained the Twin Towers collapses in qualitative descriptive style . The "progression stage" of Twin Towers collapse is the part that NIST chose to not explain. As far as i can recall my first explanation of the Twins' Collapses on this forum was posted May 2013 at this location Was "Global collapse truly inevitable"?. It is still near enough "state of the art".

Simply stated is must be better than NIST's explanation because NIST did not give one. Jokes aside it was written to be understood by persons in the senior high school or undergraduate ranges.

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

++++

911 FF guys correctly identified the collapse mechanism for the intact lower sections, but did not venture into the "initiation" of movement of the top. Major Tom has a degree in physics I believe. femr2 may have as well.

++++

Near enough but not quite so Sander.

The mechanism of the "progression stage" of collapse included three sub mechanisms:
1) The runaway pancaking style process where material/debris fell down the office space outer tube and stripped he floors off the columns;
2) The "falling away" (toppling) of the perimeter columns left unbraced by "1)" above; AND
3) The analogous processes which destroyed the core structures.

I identified "1)" in my first weeks of posting on the Internet - Nov 2007. It was on a forum that was not mainstream 9/11 and at that time I was not aware that the explanation was (would be) contentious.
Independent of my work Major_Tom identified the same mechanism of "1)" and femr2 coined the acronym "ROOSD" - Major_Tom launched it on JREF in 2009 IIRC and started a faeces storm that lasted for years because (a) He was seen as a 'truther', (b) he was right and the culture of that forum could not accept either of those two realities. At that time he and I were challenging the prevailing wisdom which was dominated by abstract one dimensional models based both correctly and incorrectly on interpretations of Bazant's work. The lèse-majesté of two of us daring to disagree with Bazant was not acceptable to the conservative claque... My daring to side with a truther who was right was also frowned upon...

Major_Tom did not explain how the ROOSD process got started, was ambiguous as to whether or not "ROOSD" included the perimeter column peel off and gave no explanation for the collapse of the core.
I filled out the full "three sub mechanisms" of progression AND explained how it got started in posts on several forums including The911Forum. And a few years later I gave a similar explanation on this forum as per the link in my previous post. Not much has changed. Here is the link again: Was "Global collapse truly inevitable"?

The first three responses in that thread are ...."interesting"... the same three personalities of this forum still active nearly six years later...one has changed his user name but still playing "dog in the manger"

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Ozzie,

Thanks for the laying out the history. All three mechanisms you note were different but related of course. The ROOSD mass was the driver... the columns *collapse* and facade peel off were largely from instability lack or bracing and Euler buckling.. nothing revolutionary there. I believe MT pointed out the the so called *pancaking* was not literally entire floor plates collapsing at once but the entire floor plates were broken up, and collapsing in regions.., some lagging behind others. This was observed and makes intuitive sense as to *release* an entire floor in one feel swoop would required that every connection of the floor to the steel frame failed at precisely the same time.

++++

Any discussion of the initiation faithful to the observations would note that the top did not come down uniformly... but the antenna dropped a wee bit before the whole block moved downward and when it did it was slightly tilted. This is the tell tale sign that there was no uniform structural failure leading to *release* but one that had elements of asymmetry which suggests the no simultaneity of the floor plate collapse.. MT observed. The asymmetry included the locations of the elevator and riser shafts.

I would posit that this asymmetry was the tell tale of an organic process of destruction raging through the core as well as the fact that the core itself though a rectangular grid of columns was not bilaterally symmetrical in each axis. And of course the fire itself was an organic process when one considers among other things the fact that the plane itself did not hit the tower flying level

++++

The discussion of collapse initiation would have to include what heat does to steel columns, beams, connections and concrete slabs, pipes, metal pans, and other *things* that were on those floors. And for sure this was not symmetrical though the structure itself is known. The main mechanisms driving the frame failure would be:

expansion from heat
contraction from cooling after being heated
warping (uneven expansion)
lowering of yield strength
cracking of welds
shearing of bolts
spalding of concrete

However knowing that the above were taking place is one thing. Observing them is another.

There are some tells however. The observation of the antenna movement before the top *release* tells us that whatever was supporting the antenna failed before whatever was supporting the facade of the top block. This suggests that the hat truss failed locally. The antenna was not supported by the few columns directly beneath it and the hat truss was designed to share the antenna load to multiple columns of the core. Its design can suggest where the failures first occurred.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The only evidence I need, we discuss right here on DP every single day.


Government incompetence. Are you really gonna believe that our government, which just got shut down over a funding dispute that represented .01% of the total budget...

Has the competence to plan, and execute what is espoused by conspiracy theorists? Thermite explosions, controlled demolition? So, we had a trained team of folks sneak into those buildings and rig them to explode, and managed to keep it secret? That after all this time, and guilt of knowing they participated in the murder of over 5,000 people...that NO ONE has come forward about it?

That's insane.

Do you think that same incompetent government (actually determined individuals within that government) is unable to smuggle illegal drugs into the country, or is that beyond the pale for your imagination?

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Do you think that same incompetent government (actually determined individuals within that government) is unable to smuggle illegal drugs into the country, or is that beyond the pale for your imagination?

And they got away with it? No whistle blowers, no proof, basically making it a conspiracy theory, still?

Or is it conspiracy fact, these days?

 

[gamolon]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I have many times explained the Twin Towers collapses in qualitative descriptive style . The "progression stage" of Twin Towers collapse is the part that NIST chose to not explain. As far as i can recall my first explanation of the Twins' Collapses on this forum was posted May 2013 at this location Was "Global collapse truly inevitable"?. It is still near enough "state of the art".

Simply stated is must be better than NIST's explanation because NIST did not give one. Jokes aside it was written to be understood by persons in the senior high school or undergraduate ranges.

Nicely done.

I agree with your explanation linked above.

Edit:

I've been thinking that way for awhile now.
Why a one-way Crush down is not possible - Page 39 - International Skeptics Forum

 

[gamolon]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

LMAO Watch the slow motion ...its a Magic Trick

That Stupid Tinker Toy was not even fastened together.

It wasn't? How did the all the pieces stay connected together?

 

[gamolon]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The core failed in the areas shaded red below. Perhaps a slightly smaller area.
View attachment 67250509

You can see evidence of this in the antenna movement coupled with observation of the North face at initiation, where the destruction does not extend to the corner 2 way zones......

YouTube

The core destruction did not extend to columns 501, 508, 1001, and 1008 and perhaps those adjacent to each of those cores at the perimeter too. I certainly cannot for the life of me explain how the damage and subsequent fire could possibly cause this pattern of destruction, but feel free to try and shed some light on that if you wish.

Looked at this a little more. Now I'm even more confused as to why you think core destruction did NOT extend to the corner core columns, especially column 508. See below. The last two buckling/moving columns are in line with column 508.


Column 508 is where the corner hat truss outrigger connected to the facade. This is in line with the last two moving/buckling perimeter facade columns below, pointed out by you.


Edit: Added column 508 outrigger perimeter facade connection in correlation to last two moving/buckling facade columns.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

And they got away with it? No whistle blowers, no proof, basically making it a conspiracy theory, still?

Or is it conspiracy fact, these days?

If you recall the case of the San Jose Mercury News and its reporter Gary Webb, and if you happened to see the movie "Kill The Messenger" about Webb, you will recall that his reporting actually caused a furor in Congress and investigations were begun of the Cocaine Importing Agency. Lo and behold, it turns out that Webb had been quite right regarding drug smuggling by the Agency.

Lo and behold, that announcement regarding the Agency's involvement as alleged was released on a Friday, just after the release of news regarding Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton.

Yes Virginia, the Agency acknowledged that the essence of Webb's reporting had been correct, and it was duly swept under the rug by our illustrious mainstream media.

For those like me who had first-hand knowledge of drug smuggling by Air America in Southeast Asia, it was old news. For those who constantly remind themselves that their government would not do such a thing, they continued the pretense and delusion.

Yes Virginia, just as the CIA was in the business years later with Iran-Contra, the agency has been in the business since its start.

 

[KevinKohler]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

If you recall the case of the San Jose Mercury News and its reporter Gary Webb, and if you happened to see the movie "Kill The Messenger" about Webb, you will recall that his reporting actually caused a furor in Congress and investigations were begun of the Cocaine Importing Agency. Lo and behold, it turns out that Webb had been quite right regarding drug smuggling by the Agency.

Lo and behold, that announcement regarding the Agency's involvement as alleged was released on a Friday, just after the release of news regarding Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton.

Yes Virginia, the Agency acknowledged that the essence of Webb's reporting had been correct, and it was duly swept under the rug by our illustrious mainstream media.

For those like me who had first-hand knowledge of drug smuggling by Air America in Southeast Asia, it was old news. For those who constantly remind themselves that their government would not do such a thing, they continued the pretense and delusion.

Yes Virginia, just as the CIA was in the business years later with Iran-Contra, the agency has been in the business since its start.

So...what you're saying us, our government wasn't capable of pulling off a simple drug smuggling operation...which dudes in Columbia with the equivalence of a 3rd grade education have been managing for decades...


But are completely capable of orchestrating the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, without anyone knowing, without anyone getting credible, substantial evidence, and no whistle blowing or leaks.


Your logic is faulty, I'm afraid.

 

[MrBig2430]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I don't think the NIST collapse scenario which was driven by floor truss failures makes much sense. So my starting point is that it was core driven failures.

Well, right off the bat here, you’ve failed miserably.

Cuz the NIST report doesn’t say that. It says that a large portion of the structure, over several floors , failed. Including the core columns.

And again, this bothers me to no end when an otherwise seemingly intelligent guy displays such utter ignorance of a report that he says he disagrees with and actually goes to the trouble of thinking about alternative scenarios.

Ok, so I’m not an active debunker, although I used to to some degree. So, I’ve actually read the NIST report and did my best to understand what it says about these internal, and not observable movements. And I can say with 100% certainty that while I too am not a structural engineer and some of that was beyond my understanding, I understand enough of it to know that you are utterly wrong on so many counts to know that you’ve absolutely wasted years of your life trying to find answers.

The sad thing is, you could straighten yourself out with just a little bit of effort.

But it’s pretty apparent that you never will cuz you just aren’t curious enough to truly dig for answers.

Pretty sad ....

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Nicely done.

I agree with your explanation linked above.

Edit:

I've been thinking that way for awhile now.
Why a one-way Crush down is not possible - Page 39 - International Skeptics Forum

Thank you.

Sadly most serious debate ceased about 2015. At about that time I had clearly stated on both JREF/ISF and The911Forum that the Bazant & Verdure model of "crush down/crush up" could not apply to WTC Twin Towers...and that I could identify four reasons which were independently fatal to the concept. Naturally committing lèse-majesté by saying "Bazant was wrong" was not popular on ISF among the conservative claque of Bazantophiles. The most vehement being tfk who I had challenged several times over related heresies... Ironically and some years previously i had been pursuing discussion about how the Bazant "one dimensional approximations" could be modified to make them valid. Doubly irony in that it was probably Bazant's own goal back in 2001 thru 2007 ... to make a generic model he could leave for posterity with his name on it. But both my collaborators were dedicated Bazantophiles...and could not accept that the King was in error....

And since that time all interest in serious discussion seems to have died... Most debunkers wont even recognise the foundation error of starting premise in the Hulsey project...

 

[ozeco41]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Ozzie,

Thanks for the laying out the history.

No problem. As you should know I've never been interested in "who came first" - it was Major_Tom who put the issue seriously into debate..sadly that had to be on JREF/ISF which led to several years of bigotry distracting from the reality of "our" explanations.

....I believe MT pointed out [that] the so called *pancaking* was not literally entire floor plates collapsing at once but the entire floor plates were broken up, and collapsing in regions.., some lagging behind others. This was observed and makes intuitive sense as to *release* an entire floor in one feel swoop would required that every connection of the floor to the steel frame failed at precisely the same time.

Yes. I'm familiar with M_T's detailed research .. personally I've never seen anything significant is the reality of uneven ROOSD collapse...it doesn't change the essential simplicity of the explanation. EXCEPT when it has been necessary to correct someone who was presuming pure dead flat dropping from the label "pancaking".... but anyone who thinks that way probably has a lot more misunderstandings to deal with. And I usually avoid the term 'pancaking' because of the confusion when FEMA originally thought it was the initiation process. In reality it was a totally different stage during 'progression'.....but lots of people still get the stages confused.

The discussion of collapse initiation would have to include what heat does to steel columns, beams, connections and concrete slabs, pipes, metal pans, and other *things* that were on those floors. And for sure this was not symmetrical though the structure itself is known. The main mechanisms driving the frame failure would be:.

As you should recall I have explained the underlying physics in some detail on other forums specifically this ISF thread: WTC Twin Towers - Ozeco41 accepts a Jango Challenge to explain "Initiation" - International Skeptics Forum and on The 911Forum - I've probably posted a lot of separate bits on this forum but IIRC not on this forum.