Trillion Dollar Conspiracy... 9/11 Mounting Evidence...

a reply to: canDarian

I won't debate about explosives or Tesla energy weapons - that's all just noise and distraction to keep everyone occupied safely away from the real conspiracy.

The fact is, and we DO have overwhelming proof of this, that people in positions of authority enabled the attacks to happen. The real crime is that we allowed them to get away with it. Not a single punishment or punitive action against the supervisors at the FBI who buried the warnings, the CIA case officers who allowed the Executive branch to ignore dozens of warnings from other nations - nothing.

These people are NOT stupid. They know how to play the game, manipulate the public and use the media - that's the crime they fully managed to get away with. Not endless, circular debates about possibilities we can never, ever prove.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yet another thread making the same claims as a dozen's of other threads on here about the same subject, as for your concrete dust, 4 and a half inches of concrete some of it falling a 1000+ft and being impacted by other falling concrete and thousands of tons of steel do you really think it will survive?

The buildings did survive the initial plane impacts even although it was never CONSIDERED they would be rammed at high speed with a full fuel load !

As for looking like a demolition job how could anyone know what this event would look like as it had never happened before.

Now section 4, the buildings NEVER repeat NEVER fell just due to fire alone did they that statement is as bad as creationist when they say man is descended from apes when evolution never claims that

a reply to: stosh64


According to you the construction was woven together in such a manner that neither component would be able to stand on its own. So, when they build the core according to you they HAD to put floors and exoskeleton in place, or else the core would have collapsed. Is that correct?

I still can't understand how this is supposed to work, though. Plane crashes into the building - building is damaged but not fatally, as it stood for still roughly an hour. Fire rages. Steel is heated. Fire cools down, smoldering. Black smoke. Steel is weakenend but still supports the building which is still standing. Then "something" happens: a floor caves in. I don't know which one, but it seems to make sense it is one of the floors ABOVE the point where the plane hit. That floor crashes down and the floor below it is too weak to stop it and breaks down too. Okay so far?

Now, how come the central core caves in? I can't understand it: if the trusses are merely bolted to the exoskeleton and the core, you'd expect these bolts to rip. Yes, they could take out part of the outer construction of the core, but not the entire core (which contained elevator shafts made of very solid concrete for safety reasons, I may hope)? How do relatively light floors (they were made of 10 cm thick plates of concrete) that fall down say 5 meters break away the central core they are attached to by bolts? I can't picture it.

But even so: if that is what happened, how come the entire construction was demolished that fast? I mean: breaking down a core with 46 steel beams, elevators etc. costs energy - where did that energy come from?

You haven't convinced me yet. I like the way you oppose the conspiracy theories - but your theory sounds almost as strange as the "controlled demolition / inside job" explanation.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Firstly you've picked exactly the wrong example on that page: the Windsor building was actually not a real steel frame building, it was a building made of concrete reinforced with steel. Also if you keep narrowing down the selection criteria, we WILL end up with the conclusion that it only happened at WTC 1,2 and 7, of course. You couls say "Okay, but show me one heavily damaged, steel framed building that was burning and did not collapse on 9/11" and I would not be able to do that ..

But the point was that steel buildings can survive much longer lasting fires for a much longer period of time than a mere 1-2 hours. Even damaged buildings. Remember the Empire State Building? A plane flew in there, structural damage, fire broke out - building was repaired (at high cost) and still stands today. Or take the Mandarin hotel (designed by my landsman Rem Koolhaas): that building actually DID contain a central atrium and so it WAS indeed the perfect furnace / chimney. Still stood after the fires had been put out.

So, it's highly infeasible that the limited amounts of energy that came from the remaining fuel - most of it shot through and exploded OUTSIDE the Towers - created such heavy damage that the entire building could collapse. But it did.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

No, I said this

"Name ONE steel framed building that had suffered heavy damage and burned that DID NOT collapse."

You keep forgetting that all three of those buildings were heavily damaged, THEN they burned, THEN they collapsed. Still waiting for an example of a building that has suffered that kind of heavy damage, burned and did not fall.

No they weren't heavily damaged.
A few floors may have been heavily damaged but the buildings were not.
Can you explain why those buildings came down so fast ( less than two seconds per floor ) ?
Something was used to help bring them down at such a speed. No one has ever explained the reason for this speed.
Can you explain why the majority of the building turned to dust...to a fine powder ?
Not just the concrete but the whole contents of the buildings.
I doubt you can.....

originally posted by: lambros56

Can you explain why those buildings came down so fast ( less than two seconds per floor ) ?

How fast should they have come down, and please show your calculations for your numbers.

Can you explain why the majority of the building turned to dust...to a fine powder ?
Not just the concrete but the whole contents of the buildings.

Please provide some proof that happened.

I doubt you can.....

Well, as the whole building did not turn to dust....

a reply to: ForteanOrg. You should read the investigation of the Windsor fire. The section that collapsed was steel. The section that did not collapse had concrete reinforcement. The investigation credits the concrete transfer slab with arresting the collapse. Then, you mention the ESB, which is comparing apples to zebras. It is in no way a comparable event.

a reply to: lambros56

They were not heavily damaged? Well that is amazing, since the people who were there, say different.

a reply to: lexyghot

If You are Trying to back up the Official Story, (Fantasy Story at that) Then why did it fall in like 10 seconds? Let's say You are right. I would think that it would take at least One Second for each floor to drop, smash into the one below it, and continue the process to the ground. Then that being said, there were what, 100 floors in the trade center bldgs? !00 seconds is WAY longer that it took to drop those buildings. Even given One HALF second each, there is 50, seconds, NOT 10. ONE Quarter second each, would result in a 25 second drop, NOT ten!
SO That blows the O.S. right out the Friggin window from what I can see......
Then You have The JetLiner that freakin dissappeared into the ground in Penn? I mean Really!??!? WTF'n Hell is that all about. I mean C'Mon, give Me a break and give it a rest....... You seem intelligent enough to see the real picture. Just open Your eyes a little more and see what really happened. ( I hope at least You didn't buy the story of how they found that passport, on the Freakin ground intact?! After it just went through a huge fire??) REALLY?!?!?! WOW!! Just WOW!!!......

a reply to: ecoparity

Thank You for That!! Well put!!! Syx.

originally posted by: SyxPak
a reply to: lexyghot

If You are Trying to back up the Official Story, (Fantasy Story at that) Then why did it fall in like 10 seconds? Let's say You are right. I would think that it would take at least One Second for each floor to drop, smash into the one below it, and continue the process to the ground. Then that being said, there were what, 100 floors in the trade center bldgs? !00 seconds is WAY longer that it took to drop those buildings. Even given One HALF second each, there is 50, seconds, NOT 10. ONE Quarter second each, would result in a 25 second drop, NOT ten!
SO That blows the O.S. right out the Friggin window from what I can see......
Then You have The JetLiner that freakin dissappeared into the ground in Penn? I mean Really!??!? WTF'n Hell is that all about. I mean C'Mon, give Me a break and give it a rest....... You seem intelligent enough to see the real picture. Just open Your eyes a little more and see what really happened. ( I hope at least You didn't buy the story of how they found that passport, on the Freakin ground intact?! After it just went through a huge fire??) REALLY?!?!?! WOW!! Just WOW!!!......

Apparently the plane did not disappear into the ground in Shanksville. You see, the feds knew it was a terror attack as soon as the plane hit the ground so they picked up all the pieces of the plane and threw it in the garbage before the cameras came because the FBI likes a clean crime scene or something. Same as the Pentagon, they are all OCD so when all this debris was scattered on the lawn a bunch of staff ran out to clean it up because they don't like a messy lawn.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
but not the entire core (which contained elevator shafts made of very solid concrete for safety reasons

Really underlined above care to show the proof of that

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yet another thread making the same claims as a dozen's of other threads on here about the same subject, as for your concrete dust, 4 and a half inches of concrete some of it falling a 1000+ft and being impacted by other falling concrete and thousands of tons of steel do you really think it will survive?

The buildings did survive the initial plane impacts even although it was never CONSIDERED they would be rammed at high speed with a full fuel load !

As for looking like a demolition job how could anyone know what this event would look like as it had never happened before.

Now section 4, the buildings NEVER repeat NEVER fell just due to fire alone did they that statement is as bad as creationist when they say man is descended from apes when evolution never claims that

Concrete was pouring out like a fountain almost instantly following the start of collapse.







Oh wait, I forgot. That was just drywall pouring out

This thread made lose sleep last night I watched a tiny part of the video and started reading up on the whole matter again, I believe I was 10 at the time it happened. Some years after I dived into the subject but due to changes in my life I stopped reading about it. Well, and last night I got the interest in it sparked again, it was such a violent and horrible thing, all those poor people especially above the floors where the airplanes impacted... there's a lot to see and to read about this.

The OP has a very compelling video imo, with the experts explaining why it was a controlled demolition or why the government's explanation was so weak and unconvincing. What struck me as odd was the fact that indeed, WTC 7 hardly gets mentioned anywhere. Mind you, last night I was reading the 'mainstream' sources and watching the 'regular mainstream' videos about the disaster and WTC 7 just didn't get mentioned! Very strange things going on. I don't know who or how or what, but if these experts are correct the official investigation lacks severely.

If you believe the theories to be true, it must feel eerie to be an American citizen, knowing they're capable of throwing your life away in such a manner, literally with thousands at a time, just like that.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

And not just that, it's also supposed to be strange that the buildings collapsed so elegantly, balanced and smoothly. If it'd be due to the mere airplane impact, supposedly the columns wouldn't have collapsed in that way, just imploding and falling straight down. If it were due to the plane impact several parts of the buildings would have been under different amounts of pressure, and let's not forget that the circumstances in terms of pressure, amount of destruction due to the impact and fire/heat were different in each part of the construction. It all just doesn't seem to add up.

It also gets mentioned in the video that most if not all of the supporting steel construction at the base of the building would've remained standing if there'd be no planted explosives. They basically vanished and one of the experts in the video then says that the gov report simply decided to deny the existence of said construction!

Besides, the fires weren't that hot anyways, also according to the video, considering the smoke and the fact that office fires wouldn't lead to such an inferno, besides the fact that the kerosine alone couldn't have triggered such a chain of events. A lot remains unexplained.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Don't shoot the messenger please...

Like I said a lot of the testimonies were new to me, & possibly others...

Now section 4, the buildings NEVER repeat NEVER fell just due to fire alone did they that statement is as bad as creationist when they say man is descended from apes when evolution never claims that

If you read the OP carefully you'll notice I did actually agree with that...
& Darwinism did claim such a lie...

However, on topic, maybe you'd like to share what else may have caused the collapse of it wasn't Fire alone...
Instead of slagging off the video, add something to the hypothesis.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: ForteanOrg. You should read the investigation of the Windsor fire. The section that collapsed was steel. The section that did not collapse had concrete reinforcement. The investigation credits the concrete transfer slab with arresting the collapse. Then, you mention the ESB, which is comparing apples to zebras. It is in no way a comparable event.

If we're trying to find comparable events we won't find any, of course. This was the first time this happened (and I hope it was the last time). But .. we can find similar situations and if we do we immediately see that there is something strange going on. Steel buildings are rigid, solid, earthquake proof buildings, not flimsily interwoven rags as you seem to suggest. They simply never just cave in like WTC 1, 2 and 7 did.

But let's play your game: give me ONE, just ONE example of a damaged steel frame building that did collapse in similar fashion before or after 9/11? So, a building that simply imploded and sank in roughly freefall speed into its own footprint? I bet you can't.

a reply to: MALBOSIA

I know right?!! I saw those apes picking up debris on the Pentagon lawn and thought, what the F K Are they doing!!??? What a sham this whole affair is. EVERY Official story of ALL the incidents lack solid ground to be believable, in My Opinion. They are so full of holes, one can't help but to just fall through them, hit the ground, and look back to see that ALL The O.S.'s are The Biggest Piles of Bull Sh it spewed from their mouths.....
And Yes it Does Suck living here knowing that My life and those of My Friends and Family are disposable...... Very unsettling to say the least!!! Syx.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: stosh64


According to you the construction was woven together in such a manner that neither component would be able to stand on its own. So, when they build the core according to you they HAD to put floors and exoskeleton in place, or else the core would have collapsed. Is that correct?

Yes.

The building is a SYSTEM of parts. They all pretty much supported and braced each other.

While it's commonly understood to all that the core columns could support their own gravity loads, and that the floor beams inside the core were used to, obviously, provide support for the floors while at the same time making the unbraced length shorter, thereby making buckling less likely. What's NOT so commonly understood is that the connections of the floor beams to the core columns were NOT of a kind called moment connections. Moment connections are the kind that can prevent sway in a structure. So the core columns used the connections to the floors and ext columns as their resistance against sway.

Therefore, the core columns can't be very tall and unsupported without the rest of the structural SYSTEM built around it.

I still can't understand how this is supposed to work, though. Plane crashes into the building - building is damaged but not fatally, as it stood for still roughly an hour. Fire rages. Steel is heated.

Good so far.

Fire cools down, smoldering. Black smoke.

No. There's no resaon to think that the fires were cooling down.

Steel is weakenend but still supports the building which is still standing.

Yes.

Then "something" happens:

Actually, there's a whole bunch of things going on from the moment of plane impact: load distribution from the impacts, heated columns creep shortening, loads redistributing due to column shortening. columns buckling, etc.

a floor caves in. I don't know which one, but it seems to make sense it is one of the floors ABOVE the point where the plane hit. That floor crashes down and the floor below it is too weak to stop it and breaks down too. Okay so far?

No.

That is a theory originally put forth by FEMA. It is the "pancake theory" of collapse initiation.

NIST believes that column buckling started the collapse, without any floor failures.

Now, how come the central core caves in?

They buckled.

I can't understand it: if the trusses are merely bolted to the exoskeleton and the core,

They were.

you'd expect these bolts to rip.

Well, since you've got the initiation sequence wrong, I'd need better explanation of when/where this is happening.

but not the entire core (which contained elevator shafts made of very solid concrete for safety reasons, I may hope)?

No. The elevator shafts were heavy drywall.

How do relatively light floors (they were made of 10 cm thick plates of concrete) that fall down say 5 meters break away the central core they are attached to by bolts? I can't picture it.

You don't need to picture that, cuz the OS doesn't say that.

But even so: if that is what happened, how come the entire construction was demolished that fast? I mean: breaking down a core with 46 steel beams, elevators etc. costs energy - where did that energy come from?

The confusion about collapse speed/increasing resistance can be traced to a paper that BAZANT did a couple of days after 9/11. He released a paper that proved that it collapsing to the ground was inevitable by using a limiting case model whereby the upper part fell perfectly straight and true onto the columns below, all the way to the ground. If you think about it, that kind of perfect alignment is not possible. But he used that case anyway cuz he wanted to makes the best case for collapse arrest.

Unfortunately, many truthers ( and debunkers ) use this hypothetical case as an explanation of what really happened during the collapse progression. It isn't. It's a hypothetical case.

The truth is, stuff fell on the floors. The floors and their connection are of similar strength from top to bottom. The floors and their connections gave the resistance to the falling upper part and rubble, etc.

The energy to do all this is called Potential Energy. There is a lot of it in relation to the ground.

You haven't convinced me yet. I like the way you oppose the conspiracy theories - but your theory sounds almost as strange as the "controlled demolition / inside job" explanation.

Well. you've misunderstood a few pieces of the "OS". My outline above was obviously pretty brief and I skipped over a LOT of points. Feel free to ask specific questions.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg

Also if you keep narrowing down the selection criteria,

That's what truthers do though - arrow down the selection criteria to JUST steel framed high rises. Cuz in the beginning of discussion of 9/11, the challenge was, "name me one steel strucrure that has collapsed from fire" And so we did. And they just keept narrowing down the criteria until it has become so narrowly focused to be meaningless.

Steel structures can fail in fire. Just because ALL do not fail in a fire does not mean that ALL shouldn't.

But the point was that steel buildings can survive much longer lasting fires for a much longer period of time than a mere 1-2 hours. Even damaged buildings.

Can survive does not mean must survive.

So, it's highly infeasible that the limited amounts of energy that came from the remaining fuel - most of it shot through and exploded OUTSIDE the Towers - created such heavy damage that the entire building could collapse. But it did.

Agreed.

The remaining fuel that fed the fires came from the same source as in the other fires that you have cited. Office contents.

Fire science engineering plans on protecting steel from office content fuel fed fires. Not on office content fuel fed AND jet fuel started simultaneously over several floors fires.