Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: PublicOpinion

God bless you. And wish the best of luck to you.

a reply to: neutronflux

It’s not new insights. Its been around since 2001. Coming up on eighteen years of being in the rabbit hole for you?

Guess I have been stuck in this rabbit hole for 18 years. I did not get the memo to not go to work on 9/11 so I have been out of the loop for a while. Took a bit to catch up with the program. Now that I have I feel like throwing up.

Living in Australia, most of our foreign policy is decided in Washington DC and the City of London. There are a few little regional issues us Aussies get to decide for ourself, but all the big stuff is just carrot on a stick for this little donkey.

Apparently we live in a democracy, which does give each individual a right and responsibility to think, talk and make ones own decisions about things that affect them. We also live in a very conflicted world with many risks, agendas and competitive interests colliding.

In trying to progress through this madness, there are two main risk to consider:

1/ Individual risk. Just how much will the state put up with before deciding to lash back? As a service member with orders to follow, not much. In signing up for the military some personal liberties are sacrificed for the greater good. To see how someone like Richard Guage is still out there playing his tune does provide some hope that the truth may one day enter the foreign policy table. America has not gone extreme totalitarian just yet in managing its own populous. But as the war machine continues to grow, so are the militarized police.

2/ Social risk. The chain of destruction set off by 9/11 is still in progress. I am not seeing a better world emerge from these ashes. How much longer will it be before this monster comes kicking in my door if I am to just hide and pretend it does not exist?

In seeing how and what the perpetrators are fighting for, I am not on board with this policy. 18 years being a truther ain't going to change overnight. I did consider finding my own safe space and mantra, but its not me.

The collapse of the WTC building on 9/11 was a controlled demolition.

Thank you to those trying to protect me. More importantly, how do we protect our foreign policy from more stupid mistakes?

a reply to: kwakakev

What has that have to do with the lies and falsehoods of the truth movement?

a reply to: kwakakev

The collapse of the WTC building on 9/11 was a controlled demolition.

Because you got fooled by a fraudulent truth movement thermite study that never completed the discovery process? Samples that were never released for independent analysis. That is some charlatan BS.

There is zero evidence planted pyrotechnics brought down the WTC.

a reply to: neutronflux

What has that have to do with the lies and falsehoods of the truth movement?

Not much, just part of the program. There are a lot of people on board with the official version of 9/11. Could not of happened the way it did without out. As part of the clean up operations a huge disinformation campaign went out as well to cloud and confuse anyone trying to make sense of it. There was also a lot of well intentioned people just trying to understand themselves. They checked out various theories and possibilities as you do with any 'who done it?' situation.

In the past 18 years a lot of misdirections and theories have been shot down. What remains is a clear picture of state sponsored terrorism.

a reply to: kwakakev

So you have no proof WTC CD, and you turn a blind eye to the lies of the truth movement that killed its credibility. Classy.

a reply to: neutronflux



There is no evidence if all you can see in an apple.

a reply to: kwakakev

Nice laying out of a logical argument with an extensive citing of listed evidence....

Unfortunately....
There is no audio of detonations with the force to cut steel columns indicative of a classic controlled demolition.

No seismic evidence of detonations with the force to cut steel columns indicative of a classic controlled demolition.

No evidence of shockwaves and over pressure events indicative of a classic controlled demolition.

No sparking/flashing, visible burning, and no damaged eyesight from the emitting of UV light which would all be indicative of thermite cutting WTC 7 exterior columns from floor to floor.

No evidence steel exposed to the 3000 pulse degrees Fahrenheit at which thermite burns. Especially when the truth movement claims the fires were never hotter than normal office fires.

A controlled demolition system would not have maintained its integrity after the hours of the wide spread fires in WTC 7 to actuate.

a reply to: kwakakev

Then you have the reports that WTC 7 was slowly failing throughout the day indicating it would succumb to fires and being hit by the twin towers.

It it pretty standard to have heaps of questions on all of this, I did, still do.

You come across as aware of the work by Richard Gauge, he does put together a very sensible and well reviewed presentation about a lot of these questions. Here is a video of just one of his presentation.



If you can find some fault with this presentation rather than it's all bunk, lies, does not exist, I would love to hear it. It is a long presentation, many people do have many questions.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

I am not sure what you said to get your post banned. I do understand the frustration with it all.

a reply to: kwakakev

Again. Great for you to layout a logical argument, and you list compelling evidence. Picking up on the sarcasm......

Let’s start with Richard Gage’s fundamental premise is false. The twin towers did not fall at free fall speed. The twin towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance.

After the buckling that initiated collapse, the falling upper stories fell into the building below. This sheared floor connects.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

The falling mass stripped the floors away from the vertical columns. The vertical columns toppled in the wake of the collapsing floor system from losing lateral support. The vertical columns did not lead the collapse of the falling mass.

The floor systems fell at 60 percent of free fall speed.

THE VERTICAL COLUMNS FELL AT FOURTY PERCENT THE RATE OF FREE FALL.

THE TWIN TOWERS DID NOT FALL THROUGH THE PATH OF GREATEST RESISTANCE.

GAGE’S ARGUMENT IS BASED ON A FALSEHOOD.

This has been pointed out year after year. It’s not just a falsehood at this points. It’s a blatant truth movement lie.

11 and the Science
of Controlled Demolitions

BY CHRIS MOHR

www.skeptic.com...

3WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS? The key is the “almost” modifier. If I told you I was making almost $100,000 and you found out I was making only $67,000, you’d say I was exaggerating. So stop exaggerating the collapse speed of the WTC Towers! The 80,000 tons of structural steel slowed down the collapses of the Twin Towers to about ⅔ (two-thirds) of free-fall.3 And the core collapsed at about 40% of free-fall speed, coming down last.4 According to Richard Gage: “To bring a building symmetrically down, what we have to do is remove the core columns.” But on 9/11 the stronger core columns came down last, which violates this supposed most fundamental rule of controlled demolition.

WTC 1 core collapse
m.youtube.com...

Visible core columns
www.dailymotion.com...

World Trade Centre Core Collapsing
m.youtube.com...

9/11 Footage shows core of both towers standing; Debunks Basement BombsTheory
m.youtube.com...

edit on 22-6-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: stonerwilliam

NO FLOORS ??????

Have o get eyes checked as I can see the floors

Also those dark areas are mechanical floors containing elevator and HVAC machinery

As for interior - what shows is basic shell put up and waiting on interior work to be done

Or is that concept too difficult for you to process

No floors and no cores www.youtube.com...



truedemocracyparty.net... ts-fake-jumpers-complete-paradigm-shift-enjoy/


A wise man once said never argue with a idiot he will beat you with his vast experience

LAST MINUTE LEASING & STACKING OF WTC DECK
How is it possible, especially considering what happened with the world trade center, to see that all of the upper floors were leased only a few years prior to 9/11? That’s an incredible expanse of time, 26 years in most case, some 28 years, where for instance floor 88 had bare floors and no tenants until 1999. The elevators in the north tower never stopped at floor 88 until mid 1999. Might I ask at this time how it is possible that any lights were ever on on floor 88 before 1999? The entire tops of these towers should have been darkened at night between the years 1972 and 1997-98.

There were no tenants. No tenants means no lights and dark floors, both during the day and at night, as lights in the WTC were visible in both daytime and night

a reply to: neutronflux

Lets start with the article first

1/ EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WERE CAREFULLY AND SECRETLY PLANTED IN THE WTC BUILDINGS.

controlled demolition of the two World Trade Center buildings containing 50,000 workers, plus extensive security systems and guards, working round the clock, without anyone noticing anything unusual. Instead, we should accept at face value what we all witnessed:...

You can if 9/11 is a state sponsored operation that owned the building and its security. Work constantly goes on maintaining the building with not one asking question, except security. So lets not look at this possibility and think of something else, is a poor answer in my assessment.

2/ NO TALL STEEL FRAME BUILDING EVER COLLAPSED BEFORE 9/11 DUE TO FIRE

Though it is true that no tall steel frame buildings ever collapsed due to fire alone prior to 9/11, since then, other tall steel framed buildings have. On May 13, 2008, a large part of the tall concrete-reinforced steel architecture tower at the Delft University of Technology...

Here is a picture of that event. Guess we will just have to make up our own minds on what it all means.



3/ WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS?

The key is the “almost” modifier.

A bigger key is how most other controlled demolitions also almost free fall collapse. All depends on just how much needs to be moved and how much stuff you got to move it. How you think adding a couple of seconds here or there negates the controlled demolition theory when seeing all come down has me lost.

If the whole thing came down faster than free fall then I would be thinking space weapons and gravitation machines.

4/ WHAT ABOUT THOSE EXPLOSIVE SQUIBS TWENTY STORIES BELOW THE COLLAPSE POINT, AND THOSE HEAVY METAL OBJECTS FLYING HUNDREDS OF FEET THROUGH THE AIR

During the collapse, one half million cubic feet of air per floor was pushed outwards at the rate of twelve floors per second, creating a “hurricane wind” in the building as reported by survivors, and blowing out windows, and with them the smoke from the fires and other objects

I am not seeing where the energy comes to do that if some trusses did fail. I can see where the energy comes to do that when the building is setup to explode.

5/ WHAT ABOUT THOSE BILLIONS OF IRON MICROSPHERES THAT R.J. LEE FOUND IN A DUST ANALYSIS THAT PROVES THE THEORY THAT THE IRON IN THE BUILDINGS WAS MELTED BY THERMITE?

Thermite would leave tons of formerly melted iron blobs, not just microspheres. But in the 1970s, while workers welded thousands of steel beams together, hot microspheres were splattered everywhere. Concrete has fly ash in it, and I have a photo of iron-rich spheres in Tolk fly ash in my YouTube video response. Even if the microspheres were created in the fires on 9/11, the R.J. Lee dust study said, “Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC … Iron-rich spheres … would be expected to be present in the Dust.

It sounds like he agrees iron microspheres where found. He does not provide any explanation for it. There where many tons of stuff to clean up. Here is one of the 9/11 meteorites as they sometimes refereed too.



6/ WHAT ABOUT THE SULFIDIZED STEEL THAT MELTED AND THAT FEMA FOUND BUT WHICH NIST IGNORED IN THEIR REPORT?

Sulfidized steel melts at temperatures 1000° lower than regular steel so it could have “melted” in a regular office fire

He does sound lost on this one. Sulfidized steel is what was found in the ashes, not a building product.

7/ WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE UNIGNITED NANOTHERMITES THEY FOUND IN THE DUST SAMPLES IN THAT EXPERIMENT?

therefore should have heated up the chips in a nitrogen or argon atmosphere to eliminate the possibility that regular hydrocarbons were burning. They also failed to take the carbon-based products out of the mix, so what we may well be seeing is some kind of carbon-based product burning in oxygen. They compared the sudden energy spike of their burning chips with the spikes of known nanothermites, and found that their chips ignited at around 150° C. lower than the known nanothermites, and the energy release was off between their chips and the nanothermites by a factor of at least two. Yet they called this a match for nanothermite!

He does raise some questions about how the study could of been done better, sure we can all do better.

Attempts to independently replicate this experiment have been dismal. Mark Basile, who appeared in the acknowledgments of the original study, burned the chips in air, replicating the error of the original experiment and not even measuring the energy released. A chemist named Frédéric Henry-Couannier got another dust sample from the original experimenters and wrote, “Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed.” The R.J. Lee Company did a 2003 study on the dust and didn’t find thermitic material.

Attempts to replicate this have been dismal. Sounds like Mark tried and stuffed it. I am not surprised the stuff is tricky to work with. Frédéric gave it a go so good on him. Overall there is no argument to discount the thermite that was found, except that we could not find more many years after the event.

8/ WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE BIG FIRES IN TALL BUILDINGS THAT DON’T CAUSE COLLAPSE, AND THE LITTLE FIRES IN BUILDING 7?

Richard Gage and other 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracists like to show an NYPD photograph of small fires on the north face of Building 7. That’s not the side where tons of flaming debris from the towers smashed into the south face, creating huge gashes and fires on multiple floors. In our debate Gage claimed that the videos I played showed smoke but no fire. When the fires first started on the southwest corner of Building 7, the dust was blocking the view. NIST reported that many fires burned themselves out in 20-40 minutes and then moved on. The fires left behind not only burned out areas, but structurally weakened areas as the beams and columns expanded, sagged, and contracted again. Then the fires started moving to the interior of the building. Is he suggesting that all that smoke wasn’t evidence of fire, or that burned out areas went back to full structural strength?

Even NIST could not pull of attributing WTC7 collapsing due to fire, through they did try. They ended up attributing it to one of the support columns that gave way and pulled the whole building down. All the columns that where still ok as well. All in near free fall speed. Like every other controlled demolition.

CONT...

9/ WHAT ABOUT JANE STANDLEY, THAT BBC REPORTER WHO ANNOUNCED THAT BUILDING 7 HAD ALREADY FALLEN WHEN IT WAS STILL STANDING RIGHT BEHIND HER?

This one is irritating to a guy like me who’s been in radio for over 30 years. Reporters make mistakes! What possible value could there be in letting the BBC in on the “conspiracy”? Here’s what probably happened:

He does ask a very good question. But instead of answering it he provides narrative to ignore the question. This is a good example of a misdirection. What possible value could there be in letting the BBC in on the “conspiracy”?

Part of the 9/11 event is the psychological operation. The main stream media is vital to pull this off. Any military operation like 9/11 is conducted under a strict need to know policy. Most of the people in the media are like the rest of us just trying to make sense of events as they progressed. Some of the higher ups in the media organizations understood the situation a bit clearer as the CIA has had its influence in the media for a long time. The value in letting the BBC know something is in controlling the public perception and subsequent call for war.

It is this call to war that was a prime motivator for the state sanction of the 9/11 event.

10/ WHAT CAUSED BUILDING 7 TO COLLAPSE?

If an Orange is an Apple, then maybe it was those pesky leprechauns...

11/ WHAT ABOUT THOSE ACCOUNTS OF EXPLOSIONS IN THE TWIN TOWERS?

I read 50 randomly selected accounts out of some 118 or so accounts from firefighters of explosions from the New York Times. None were of explosions before the actual collapse.

So he does half his home work am I am suppose to accept that when I can find plenty of evidence of it?

If bombs were going off to create a precise controlled demolition, then there would be a pattern.

There are two main patterns with bombs that day. One was the pattern of looting going on. Security knows exactly where the good stuff is and how much is there. Being a time sensitive operation they did not get all of it, but a good chunk. This does account for the sounds of explosion going off. The other pattern of bombs was with the demolition of the buildings.

12/ WHAT ABOUT THE FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF BUILDING 7? That is the silver bullet that proves controlled demolition!

NIST studied the collapse of one face of the 47-story Building 7 and found that indeed, on that one face, it collapsed “at gravitational acceleration” for eight stories over 2.25 seconds.

So he does agree some free fall happened. Then as before he tries to misdirect and say no evidence.

As for the videos you posted at the end, some new angles I had not seen before. From what I can make of it, it looks like some of the outer structure did trying holding on for a bit, but eventually succumb. Once the dust did settle, the outer shell of the building was the highest bit still standing.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

I don't know about that fake jumpers part. Being trapped in a burning sky rise is one of those nightmare moments no one really wants. When presented with the option of burning to death or falling to death I pick falling. People jumping from tall burning buildings does happen.

As far as I know, anyone who would of been up to pulling such a stunt on that day was either too busy looting the building or stayed well away from it.

a reply to: stonerwilliam

The Towers, were over 90% occupied. Seriously, do some real research.

a reply to: kwakakev



10:15ish mark...multiple examples of the media reporting that White House Press Secretary Jim Brady was dead, the day that him and President Reagan were shot. Only the media had it wrong, Brady, was still very much alive.

www.youtube.com...

The media, somewhere, screws up multiple times on every "breaking" news story. And you think that on 9/11 they were perfect. Sad.

a reply to: kwakakev

1/ EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WERE CAREFULLY AND SECRETLY PLANTED IN THE WTC BUILDINGS.

Then it should be easy for you to cite evidence of audio of detonations with the force to cut steel columns from the WTC audio. But you cannot. Thus why AE 9/11 Truth had to make up fizzle no flash bombs to stay relevant.

Then produce evidence from the WTC video of a single shockwave / over pressure events with the force to cut steel columns. There is none.

Then cite seismic evidence of detonations at the WTC with the force to cut steel columns. There is none.

2/ NO TALL STEEL FRAME BUILDING EVER COLLAPSED BEFORE 9/11 DUE TO FIRE

So? There has never been a controlled demolition for high rise buildings as tall as the twin towers. Ignorant point. Not proof of controlled demolition. Faulty logic. Like, there has never been a car fire before, so there never will be. How many car fires in the 1300’s? How man car fires in 1990?

Then explain why by code steel high rise buildings are required to be installed agains fire.

The steal structure of the Madrid Windsor Building above the 17th floor suffered a complete collapse. The concrete core of the building did not collapse. A concrete core the WTC building did not have to reduce building costs.
www.911myths.com...

3/ WHAT ABOUT THE ALMOST FREE-FALL COLLAPSE OF THE TWIN TOWERS?

Again, the cores fell at 40 percent the rate of free fall. The vertical columns fell after the complete collapse of the floor system. They did not preceded/lead the collapse of the floor system.

Me posting links to video

WTC 1 core collapse

m.youtube.com...

Visible core columns

www.dailymotion.com...

World Trade Centre Core Collapsing

m.youtube.com...

9/11 Footage shows core of both towers standing; Debunks Basement BombsTheory

m.youtube.com...

For Richard Gage to say the towers fell through the path of greatest resistance is a lie.