Simple and Elegant Plan (9/11)

Ok this is what I am see being said
"Conjecture without proof. Conjecture without proof. Conjecture without proof. Conjecture without proof. BIG conjecture without proof. Conjecture without proof. Conjecture without proof. Conjecture without proof. Conjecture without proof. Conjecture without proof. "

Conspiracy theories are great for speculating but most need more than conjecture and tea leaf reading of pictures and so called evidence.

Real evidence of any of this stuff has yet to materialize. And trust me in my tenure here I have seen a lot of so called evidence that is anything but.

Joining you people would be a lot easier than trying to convince you there are other possible interpretations of what you so eagerly call evidence.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Looks like this thread has come alive again. I'll have to go back to read through some more of the recent posts, but I have to toss one thing your direction Wraith. And that is, to keep in mind, that Scott Petersen is sitting on death-row right now for murdering his wife, and he was convicted without the murder weapon or solid physical evidence.

The government had their chance to make their case, and decided to lie instead. Now the onus is on them to prove themselves innocent. If they do not, and are not held accountable by the American public, the world at large will hold ALL Americans accountable in the end.

[edit on 3/10/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox


Simple fact of the matter is man.
I think physics support unintentional collapse. Have yet to see anyone present any sort of evidence to disprove the model I have in my head for the whole thing.

As I said as I started this thread:
Do I think it may have been planned within our government? Yes.

Do I think OBL had a hand in it? Yes.

Do I think our government at large do more than obfuscate facts to confuse the matter, allow intelligence out saying when and how we will not be looking, and put blinders on the good people in government? Yes.

Do I think they planned, supplied and implemented a plan using American Resources (people and material)? Hell no for a great many reasons.

Do they have some as Ricky Ricardo would say "Splaining to do."???
HELL YES but it is also incumbent on those making such claims to provide some tangible backup which so far all I have seen is:

1) complete trust put in some people while not others in a pattern that as long as they say exactly what they want to hear
2) massive pattern recognition sessions spent reading a still photo for proof of fluid events
3) a large amount of attempts at intellectual bullying thought highly unjustified because they focus on one thing and ignore all other parts, party lines, and egomasterbation which is something that particularly ticks me off
4) a complete lack of objectivity to the point other interpretations are actively ignored if not the mentioned above bullying does not come into play

But not to the extreme and might I add almost crazy levels I see people take it.

We have people saying physics are against ANY building (or just those two designed back in the 70s) suffering a complete collapse.
We have people saying that exotic weaponry we have no chance of proving it was used muchless ACTUALLY EXISTS.
And the list goes on and friggin on.

In short man the whole "truther" movement seems to want anything but the truth unless it is how THEY say it should have been.


Oh. And Griff if you happen to read this.
Still working on that. Life seems to like to try to make me busy when I am trying to do something.
But the point of the animation is to point out the fact that the structure was made up of parts hold other parts up holding other parts up.
If say 20% of those parts on one level fail that leaves pressure on the remaining 80% and is going to degrade their performance as a matter of course and the more parts you have fail the more a domino effect will ensue.

[edit on 11-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


As you know, I admire your ability to exercise critical thinking. There is nothing wrong with demanding proof when someone is trying to present their opinion as fact.

My own opinions about 9/11 have changed over the years, allowing for the presentation of data I had not been previously exposed to. At this point, there are a few things that leap out at me, regarding the WTC collapses in particular.

The first thing is that the buiding collapsed at free-fall speed. This means that there was absolutely no resistance from the lower floors, as the upper floor descended. In other words, the floors did not fail under the weight of the upper floors. Instead, the structural integrity of the lower floors had already been negated by the time the floors above had descended to that point.

The second thing that leaps out at me is the lake of molten steel which burned for weeks after the attack. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. During the firestorms created by Allied bombing of cities like Hamburg and Dresden, the temperatures still only reached temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Farenheit.

And of course, we have the lead NIST engineer flat out lieing about the molten steel at WTC.

EDIT to add: I do not believe that 19 cave-dwellers had the means to create lakes of molten steel, which then leads me to ask who actually does have such technology and the means to deploy it. (I'm not referring to plasma-ray guns or anything like that either necessarily.)







[edit on 3/11/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by jackinthebox

The first thing is that the buiding collapsed at free-fall speed. This means that there was absolutely no resistance from the lower floors, as the upper floor descended. In other words, the floors did not fail under the weight of the upper floors. Instead, the structural integrity of the lower floors had already been negated by the time the floors above had descended to that point.

Not at the beginning. And I think the reason it started seemingly going at free fall speeds is because of the accumulated weight at that point.

The second thing that leaps out at me is the lake of molten steel which burned for weeks after the attack.

And of course, we have the lead NIST engineer flat out lieing about the molten steel at WTC.

I have heard nothing outside the "truther" movement about lakes of molten steel. Now as I mentioned, post collapse with the fires still burning and under a pile of debris I could see it easily melting some, you do after all, have in effect a oven with those effects. And it wasn't just jet fuel burning.

I do not believe that 19 cave-dwellers had the means to create lakes of molten steel, which then leads me to ask who actually does have such technology and the means to deploy it. (I'm not referring to plasma-ray guns or anything like that either necessarily.)

These people weren't "cave dwellers", its convient to call them such. But how many "cave dwellers" travel internationally? And there is evidence that is mostly ignored by the "truthers" of them training here in the states at commercial airline training courses at accredited colleges.



Simple fact of the matter is I can think of alternate reasons and point out obvious discrepancies in each and every aspect. And when I do I get ignored or attacked out right. What would that say to you?

[edit on 11-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Not at the beginning. And I think the reason it started seemingly going at free fall speeds is because of the accumulated weight at that point.

This is an inaccurate assumption. The arithematic has been posted elsewhere here on ATS, sorry I don't have the formula handy. But it shows that the building collapsed at "x" amount of seconds. The time figure actually shows that total collapse occured in slightly less time than allowable by terminal velocity. Some use this as evidence that not only was there no resistance whatsoever at any point during the collapse, but that there was actually an accelerant "pushing" the bulding down faster than gravity would allow.

I have heard nothing outside the "truther" movement about lakes of molten steel. Now as I mentioned, post collapse with the fires still burning and under a pile of debris I could see it easily melting some, you do after all, have in effect a oven with those effects. And it wasn't just jet fuel burning.

Perhaps you should view the video evidence which I posted above. It clearly shows the molten steel, along with witness statements of firefighters at the scene.

You also have to understand a little about fire itself. What little fire we did see in the WTC was a red-orange color, indicating a burn temperature well below what is needed to melt steel. Furthermore, once the buildings collpsed, the fire was starved for oxygen, further degrading the temperatures.

The maximum temperature of an atmospheric hydrocarbon fire is 1517ºF. To reach any temperature higher than that you need to have an intentionally pressurized and pre-mixed fuel-air formula.

It takes very precise and controlled conditions to create the temperatures needed to melt steel and iron. 2750ºF, and 2795ºF respectively.

I know of no way that those conditions could have been met accidentally, nor any material that would have been innocuously present in the buildings which could have burned hotter than jet fuel.

What do you suggest was in the buildings that was more flammable than jet fuel?

These people weren't "cave dwellers", its convient to call them such. But how many "cave dwellers" travel internationally? And there is evidence that is mostly ignored by the "truthers" of them training here in the states at commercial airline training courses at accredited colleges.

They did train here in the States, this seems to be true. But their instructors have said on the record that they were not good students, and would never become pilots.

But this is besides the point really anyway, considering that they may very well have crashed the planes into their targets, this did not create the molten steel at WTC. Even if I were to blame al-Qaeda outright, I would still have to ask where the other operatives were that actually caused the buildings to collapse, because clearly the planes did not.

Simple fact of the matter is I can think of alternate reasons and point out obvious discrepancies in each and every aspect. And when I do I get ignored or attacked out right. What would that say to you?

I think people are angry at what happened, frustrated by what they have learned, and even more frustrated that we still don't really know exactly what happened that day.

Ignoring your evidence is fruitless. All evidence must be taken into consideration. This isn't about proving one's own point of view to be the truth, it is about finding the truth. That is only achieved through examining ALL of the evidence.

And attacking you personally would be even more ignorant. I would rather present you with evidence that may show you a truth beyond the opinions you may hold now. My opinions on 9/11 have changed many times over the years, but the changes were based on evidence, not rhetoric.

reply to post by jackinthebox

This is an inaccurate assumption. The arithematic has been posted elsewhere here on ATS, sorry I don't have the formula handy. But it shows that the building collapsed at "x" amount of seconds. The time figure actually shows that total collapse occured in slightly less time than allowable by terminal velocity. Some use this as evidence that not only was there no resistance whatsoever at any point during the collapse, but that there was actually an accelerant "pushing" the bulding down faster than gravity would allow.

Before I start my response please understand I do respect you.
Your contridicting yourself. You go from saying that it fell down at free fall speeds and when I say "No duh, but it didn't start out that fast. The fall accelerated as the accumulated weight rose.".
First you insinuate that the structure was wired to explode.
Now your insinuating that it was caused by something that made gravity stronger?????
As for the math of it. I don't think math would work for such a thing. Tooo many variables. Chaos Theory comes close but still doesn't cover all variables that would exist in a collapsing buildings.

What do you suggest was in the buildings that was more flammable than jet fuel?

Not talking flammable man. Any number of things once gotten burning burn energetically. And any number of them could have been there.

They did train here in the States, this seems to be true. But their instructors have said on the record that they were not good students, and would never become pilots.

But this is besides the point really anyway, considering that they may very well have crashed the planes into their targets, this did not create the molten steel at WTC. Even if I were to blame al-Qaeda outright, I would still have to ask where the other operatives were that actually caused the buildings to collapse, because clearly the planes did not.

All hearsay and I seem to remember Ata being said to have achieved his degree.

I think the planes did and really have yet to have one show me conclusive evidence otherwise. This is where you start insulting me I guess.

I think people are angry at what happened, frustrated by what they have learned, and even more frustrated that we still don't really know exactly what happened that day.

Ignoring your evidence is fruitless. All evidence must be taken into consideration. This isn't about proving one's own point of view to be the truth, it is about finding the truth. That is only achieved through examining ALL of the evidence.

Hey. It's not me that actively ignores stuff. I know the arguments. And as I have said before, doesn't sway me. If anything I have seen rung true to me I would be with you. But it doesn't.

And attacking you personally would be even more ignorant. I would rather present you with evidence that may show you a truth beyond the opinions you may hold now. My opinions on 9/11 have changed many times over the years, but the changes were based on evidence, not rhetoric.

hEh. Yet it happens every time without fail. Wouldn't be surprised if ANOK didn't show up to start his BS with me again soon.


Long story short man.
I have not seen anything that I cannot dismiss as hearsay or outright lies.
That I have yet to see any information that I cannot see perfectly possible alternative explanations.
And I ALSO see the perceived advantages to individuals in persisting in mixing up the story and making it the train wreck we see today.
1) The "truther" movement alienates most people to the point they get sick of 9/11, EVERYTHING to do with 9/11 which is advantageous for "them".
2) As I mentioned in this thread I can see the advantages of setting up holes to further fuel the "truther" movement.

And I also see the gains for authors and movie makers in SELLING half baked theories to the "truther" movement. Greed abounds man.
Or for someone to say what they say. Greed. It's a chance to make a cheap buck. If someone like for example Alex Jones was legit do you honestly think he'd still be alive?

And there is more but I am tired and want sleep.



[edit on 12-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Before I start my response please understand I do respect you.

Mutual. This is what real debate is supposed to be about. Two people who can objectively debate the facts without uncontrollable emotion, hyper-ego, or a pre-set agenda. I don't see any real need to "convince" you of anything. I am happy to debate with you for the sake of truth, wherever it may lay.

Be back in a few to respond to the "meat" of your post...

reply to post by WraothAscendant

The fall accelerated as the accumulated weight rose.

This is to be expected obviously, up to the point of terminal velocity. The problem is however, that whenever there is resistance, that speed will be interrupted. Even the air itself can act in a resistant manner, as you know I'm sure. If two objects of the same weight were dropped off of a building, the one with the larger surface are would land last.

Now in this case, we have much more rigid resistance to the downward force of the collapse. Even if the weight of the floor above caused the failure of the floor below, there would have been a slight delay at each floor during the failure. There was no interruption. The physics calculations show, that the collpase was a free-fall, and not met by any resistance whatsoever from the floors below.

As for the math of it. I don't think math would work for such a thing. Tooo many variables

This is basic physics. The variables you speak of cannot defy the laws of gravity.

First you insinuate that the structure was wired to explode.
Now your insinuating that it was caused by something that made gravity stronger?????

As you may recall, up until a short time ago, I was a believer in the "official" line regarding the Twin Towers (though not WTC 7.) I no longer am, based on the evidence that I have reviewed. However, as I am still researching, I have not yet reached definative conclusions as to what caused the anomalous collpases.

I will be back to reply to your post further....

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Not talking flammable man. Any number of things once gotten burning burn energetically. And any number of them could have been there.

Thermite is the one substance I know of that burns hot enough to reach the necessary temperatures to melt steel. I cannot think of anything that one would expect to find in those buildings, that would do the same. Things like plastic chairs and reams of dopcuments are governed by the figure of an atmospheric hydrocarbon burn, 1517ºF.

What would have cause the fire to burn so hot, if what would be expected to be found in the building does not burn that hot?

Will be back again to further address your response...

reply to post by jackinthebox

This is to be expected obviously, up to the point of terminal velocity. The problem is however, that whenever there is resistance, that speed will be interrupted. Even the air itself can act in a resistant manner, as you know I'm sure. If two objects of the same weight were dropped off of a building, the one with the larger surface are would land last.

Now in this case, we have much more rigid resistance to the downward force of the collapse. Even if the weight of the floor above caused the failure of the floor below, there would have been a slight delay at each floor during the failure. There was no interruption. The physics calculations show, that the collpase was a free-fall, and not met by any resistance whatsoever from the floors below.

This is where you are in error though my friend. The floors would not stay intact. They would be quickly turned into a bunch of rubble. They would not fall as the name "pancake" suggests. As a floor failed it would have broken up. Most people seem to want to say that the floors would have stayed intact in their fall that is of course wrong.
It would be rather like dropping alot of rocks on a floor.

This is basic physics. The variables you speak of cannot defy the laws of gravity.

1) Those laws are our laws that we use to explain why things are the way they are and thusly falliable.
2) Even if our current "knowledge" of gravity is dead on, of course you can't defy a natural law. But you can "bend" a natural law, that is what technology is of course getting better and better at doing. Or modify it with added situations. Gravity is not the only factor in a collapsing building.

On a simular topic I feel its worth adding.
1) Engineer's asessments of what their buildings can take tend to be by their very nature over optimistic as they of course want the money for designing the building.
2) Construction firms OFTEN cut corners in materials and everything else. I am inclined to believe the materials inside that building weren't as good as they like to try to tell us. And I think that is one of the things the NIST wanted to cover up was shoddy materials.

As you may recall, up until a short time ago, I was a believer in the "official" line regarding the Twin Towers (though not WTC 7.) I no longer am, based on the evidence that I have reviewed. However, as I am still researching, I have not yet reached definative conclusions as to what caused the anomalous collpases.

I remember man. And please don't take this the wrong way I think you have allowed yourself to be misled somehow or are not taking the whole picture in.

I will be back to reply to your post further....

Cheers! Sorry I had responses now.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

All hearsay and I seem to remember Ata being said to have achieved his degree.

This may be true. I have not yet dug far enough to determine with any certainty, what skills the accused may have had.

I think the planes did and really have yet to have one show me conclusive evidence otherwise.

The laws of physics are a good place to start. I am not saying that to be insulting. This is what got be second-guessing, quite recently.

When I began to consider that the planes themselves did not actually cause the collapse, I started looking at witness statements. Just yesterday, I saw a post by a relatively new member here on ATS, who was at Ground Zero on 9/11. He corroborates the testimony of many other witnesses, as well as video evidence, of multiple explosions just before the collapse.

This is where you start insulting me I guess.

I apologize if something I said led you to fell insulted.

Will return once again...

reply to post by jackinthebox


Eye witness testimony = crap.
As I said before. Ask any psychologist.
And I could see where the start of the collapse would sound like an explosion.

Here's a god read for you.

In many cases psychologists have discovered that recollections can deviate greatly from the way the events actually occurred, just as in the anecdote about Piaget.

Source:Memory (psychology) @ MSN Encarta

Oh and I didn't mean you insulted me but that is where most "truthers" start.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Hey. It's not me that actively ignores stuff. I know the arguments. And as I have said before, doesn't sway me. If anything I have seen rung true to me I would be with you. But it doesn't.

Well, it certainly doesn't make any sense to go along with something you don't really believe. For whatever reason.

As to the rest of the post I just reponded to, what you say there makes a lot of sense. Just because we don't see eye to eye on this topic, I still like the way you think.

reply to post by jackinthebox



Thank you sir.
You know you keep being a "truther" your going to ruin my view of ALL "truthers" being pretend they know it all pains in the arse.


Oh an interspaced amongst your responses are mine.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The fall accelerated as the accumulated weight rose.

Physics doesn't necessarily support this. When one mass is moving, and it impacts another mass and "sticks" (continues moving with the additional mass), the kinetic energy is distributed and remains the exact same for that instant. That means more mass (if mass is added), slower velocity after the impact (the velocity decreases). What would effectively then be a single mass (only theoretically, I think all of this crap is absurdly simple and naive when actually applied to the tower "collapses," literally this is trying to apply physics 101 to try to account for something no one really understands) can continue to accelerate. There would have to be sufficient mass by the first floor to be impacted, to continue this theoretical reaction. NIST contradicts that, though. And this is all ignoring moments of inertia and everything else that would actually make it realistic. Like I said, it's a pretty naive picture to paint with physics, and even NIST says it doesn't seem likely that an entire floor could just fail together like that, let alone free-fall from that point all the way until the next floor (as if there was nothing in the way?). And as a single, point-mass, no less.

reply to post by bsbray11


Exactly.
It wasn't a massive failure. It was parts failing which in turn caused other parts to fail. And once a tipping point we got to the stage that it was TONS of falling debris that caused the acceleration.

I personally and know you guys agree. The NIST people should be strung up by their eyelids for a number of reasons. We just disagree on the reasons.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

This is where you are in error though my friend. The floors would not stay intact. They would be quickly turned into a bunch of rubble.

But they would not turn to a bunch of rubble without first offering resistance. ANY resistance, would have delayed the collapse, and increased the running time of the event.

1) Those laws are our laws that we use to explain why things are the way they are and thusly falliable.
2) Even if our current "knowledge" of gravity is dead on, of course you can't defy a natural law. But you can "bend" a natural law, that is what technology is of course getting better and better at doing. Or modify it with added situations. Gravity is not the only factor in a collapsing building.

This is where you lose me. Physics is not a theoretical field. I am not about to insert a hypothesis challenging the laws of physics, without proof of something ocurring that has never before been observed by man. This would be tantamount to accpeting that the super-secret space-station melted the towers with their x-ray gamma plasma beam.

I agree that gravity is not the only factor in a collapsing building, and this is precisely why we should have seen a different sort of collapse. The top sliding off sideways for example. What we have seen here instead, is that gravity was deliberately made the single most important factor in the collapse, circumventing all of the other variables, and putting the towers straight down in their own footprint.

Be back again momentarily...

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
It wasn't a massive failure. It was parts failing which in turn caused other parts to fail. And once a tipping point we got to the stage that it was TONS of falling debris that caused the acceleration.

Actually only gravity could cause an acceleration. But either way, NIST actually gave figures for the dynamic loading a single floor could take, and not just contradictory data for which they pick a meaning. They said in their last FAQ that one generalized floor could take 6 under dynamic loading, and I think 11 under static. In other words, one floor falling onto one floor stops the "reaction" dead in its tracks. So for two, three, four, five, and six.

reply to post by WraothAscendant

On a simular topic I feel its worth adding.
1) Engineer's asessments of what their buildings can take tend to be by their very nature over optimistic as they of course want the money for designing the building.
2) Construction firms OFTEN cut corners in materials and everything else. I am inclined to believe the materials inside that building weren't as good as they like to try to tell us. And I think that is one of the things the NIST wanted to cover up was shoddy materials.

This I have to agree with. In fact, I have come across evidence of this as being one of the reasons why the WTC was "slated" for destruction. The Towers were about to be condemned. Guiliani knew it, and so did Silverstein. They probably saw the problem upon inspections after the first attack back in the 90's. I posted about this a while back. I'd really have to dig to find it though.

I remember man. And please don't take this the wrong way I think you have allowed yourself to be misled somehow or are not taking the whole picture in.

Taking in a bigger picture, and I just follow the leads like any investigator. As you know, I am not beyond changing my opinion, so long as it the change is dictated by fact.

Cheers! Sorry I had responses now.

Hey, it's all good. Makes for more intersting reading anyhow.