Your 9/11 truth?

When it happened I wasn't into CT's, but the events of that day and the events that followed made me start to question everything. What people do not realize is that for the most part our whole foreign policy is based off that day (not really when you get deeper). It is used as the main excuse for this bogus war on terror and the preemptive wars that we have been waging (in the past and possibly in the future).

IMO if you take the time to research 9/11 you will quite easily come to the conclusion that the official story is BS. Cognitive dissonance is one of the main reasons that intelligent folk here chose to accept an obviously bogus story. When viewed from as a whole combined with what has lead up to this point in time there is no way the OS is the truth.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Thats the same reply you gave yesterday, can you please answer the question I posed or even respond to the theory I wrote, if it's not to much to ask.

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
When it happened I wasn't into CT's, but the events of that day and the events that followed made me start to question everything. What people do not realize is that for the most part our whole foreign policy is based off that day (not really when you get deeper). It is used as the main excuse for this bogus war on terror and the preemptive wars that we have been waging (in the past and possibly in the future).

IMO if you take the time to research 9/11 you will quite easily come to the conclusion that the official story is BS. Cognitive dissonance is one of the main reasons that intelligent folk here chose to accept an obviously bogus story. When viewed from as a whole combined with what has lead up to this point in time there is no way the OS is the truth.

I agree. There is almost certainly more gross incompetence on the part of the gov't than what they're admitting to. All you need to do is look at how the gov't couldn't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels to see that. What I have issue with is when some people instinctively insert all these absurd "sinister secret plots to takeover the world" to fill in the blanks.

Why can't there be a conspiracy to cover up and conceal monumental negligence AS WELL AS the 9/11 attack was really an attack by Islamic fundamentalists? The two don't cancel each out.

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Thats the same reply you gave yesterday, can you please answer the question I posed or even respond to the theory I wrote, if it's not to much to ask.

"'Tis' fallacy, and not the truth, that need fear critique" -Patrick Henry

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
When it happened I wasn't into CT's, but the events of that day and the events that followed made me start to question everything. What people do not realize is that for the most part our whole foreign policy is based off that day (not really when you get deeper). It is used as the main excuse for this bogus war on terror and the preemptive wars that we have been waging (in the past and possibly in the future).

IMO if you take the time to research 9/11 you will quite easily come to the conclusion that the official story is BS. Cognitive dissonance is one of the main reasons that intelligent folk here chose to accept an obviously bogus story. When viewed from as a whole combined with what has lead up to this point in time there is no way the OS is the truth.

I agree. There is almost certainly more gross incompetence on the part of the gov't than what they're admitting to. All you need to do is look at how the gov't couldn't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels to see that. What I have issue with is when some people instinctively insert all these absurd "sinister secret plots to takeover the world" to fill in the blanks.

Why can't there be a conspiracy to cover up and conceal monumental negligence AS WELL AS the 9/11 attack was really an attack by Islamic fundamentalists? The two don't cancel each out.

Well at least you are open to the idea that there is some sort of massive cover up happening regardless whether it's due to:

1) Incompetence of not preventing an attack due to gross human/systemic error (certainly plausible)

2) Purposeful "hands-off" look the other way scenario by our government looking for a reason to jump into middle east matters.

3) An actual coordinated joint attack with foreign intelligence agencies

4) A sophisticated solo attack planned by a shadow government within our government.

Any of those scenarios would be cause for a coverup. One thing I do know though is that the OS is a lie and the 9/11 Commission report is damage control.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Thats the same reply you gave yesterday, can you please answer the question I posed or even respond to the theory I wrote, if it's not to much to ask.

"'Tis' fallacy, and not the truth, that need fear critique" -Patrick Henry

I was somewhat startled by your use of the quote by Patrick Henry, but then I remembered that you are a pathological liar, and you just can't help yourself. They've done a pretty good job of hiding the truth about 9/11 up 'til now, but every day brings us closer to it. I have no fear, how 'bout you?

Originally posted by dillweed
I was somewhat startled by your use of the quote by Patrick Henry, but then I remembered that you are a pathological liar, and you just can't help yourself. They've done a pretty good job of hiding the truth about 9/11 up 'til now, but every day brings us closer to it. I have no fear, how 'bout you?

Since you "have no fear" then you won't mind answering Windsor's question either. Why ARE these conspirators orchestrating such unnecessarily complex and convoluted plots? You're way deeper down into the conspiracy rathole than Psikey is so your answer would be much more informative.

...and just what have I ever lied about, exactly? Please, point it out to me. You do have an actual example and aren't simply posting childish things before running away giggling, right?

Originally posted by dillweed
...but every day brings us closer to it.

Really? Can you point to anything specific that would argue against the fact that the clown car of 9/11 Truth is anything more - when it is actually significant smaller - that it was 5 years ago?

I have no fear, how 'bout you?

The only fear I have is as each Truther falls by the way side and has to move out of their parent's basement and practice their "Would you like fries with that?" monologue, there is one less reason to log on here or the standard Truther sites and ridicule their laser beams and hush-a-boom explosives and invisible planes and magical fly-overs and forward-spraying-fuel-sprayers and surface-to-air missiles at the Pentagon, etc so on and so forth.

Losing THAT entertainment is what I fear.

Originally posted by windsorblue
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Now I understand what you were saying I will apologise if I came across as curt in my last response.
As for your question asking about what caused the twin towers to collapse…do you know what, I’m going to have a crack it. ……

The aircraft struck the towers as a considerable force, no one knows exactly how fast, but somewhere between 300 -500kts.
The aircraft weighed 181,160 pounds (90 tons), not counting cargo, passengers and fuel load on impact.
The fuel load was probably around 9,100 gallons.

When the planes penetrated the towers, the combined factors of speed, weight and explosive power caused massive damage to the info-structure, which consisted of numerous, closely spaced perimeter columns which provided much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the steel box columns of the core.

It’s the columns I wish to focus on. Imagine you are holding a crowbar and you then hit the crowbar of a solid object you feel a massive vibration from the impact (or oscillate if you will) up your arm (a crude example, sorry).
Now the force of the impact and explosion would have sent a huge vibration wave through the metal columns throughout the building, the problem that this would cause would be to the concrete surrounding the steel, it is inelastic in nature. The massive vibration would have caused the steel columns to destroy the bonding capacity of the concrete and between the metal and hardened concrete, the concrete will break.

The concrete supporting the columns was destroyed, the structure weakened and it then collapsed into itself, as witnessed on the videos. I do apologies if this seems rushed but I’m typing this when I should be working. And apologies if any one has mentioned this theory before, got to go the boss is starring at me….

So you can make up stuff to help you believe what you want.

The plane hitting the north tower was doing 440 mph and the south tower 550 mph according to most sources.

The NIST says the core supported 53% of the buildings weight so most of the weight was not on the perimeter. The south tower deflected 12 inches at the 70th floor due to the impact which occurred at the 81st floor. So the deflection should have been 15 inches at the impact level. The buildings were designed to sway 3 feet at the top due to a 150 mph wind. So there is no evidence that the impact exceeded what the wind would do in terms of sway but the planes created a more concentrated force and hence the localised damage.

FEMA and the BBC said the fuselage either missed or only grazed the core of the south tower which contradicts the NIST claim.

But what is the reason for not having accurate distribution of steel and concrete data down the buildings regardless of who or what destroyed the towers? How can the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the core be computed without that info? Great physics after TEN YEARS.

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

FEMA and the BBC said the fuselage either missed or only grazed the core of the south tower which contradicts the NIST claim.

The FEMA report was preliminary and the BBC is a British television station.

But what is the reason for not having accurate distribution of steel and concrete data down the buildings regardless of who or what destroyed the towers?

Its in the NIST report - not that it matters.

How can the amount of energy required to collapse each level of the core be computed without that info? Great physics after TEN YEARS.

Who cares? Why do you need to know the amount of energy when you still can't tell anybody what happened? "Collapsed" is a nice, simple word but what actually happened was much, much more complex than that - tell you what, you describe exactly what happened - what broke and when - and I'll tell you how much "energy" it takes.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


And what part of that did I make up?

The planes speed, weight and fuel load is not a secret and is quite easy to find on the web.

'consisted of numerous, closely spaced perimeter columns which provided much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the steel box columns of the core.'

Is an exact discription of the structure inside the towers, again easy to find on the web.

And the discription below of the effects of vibration on concrete when surrounding metal is actualy covered in several physics web sites, I will even help you out on this one and point you to the direction of University of Salford's physics department who give a few examples of the effects of vibration.


'It’s the columns I wish to focus on. Imagine you are holding a crowbar and you then hit the crowbar of a solid object you feel a massive vibration from the impact (or oscillate if you will) up your arm (a crude example, sorry).
Now the force of the impact and explosion would have sent a huge vibration wave through the metal columns throughout the building, the problem that this would cause would be to the concrete surrounding the steel, it is inelastic in nature. The massive vibration would have caused the steel columns to destroy the bonding capacity of the concrete and between the metal and hardened concrete, the concrete will break'.

or you could even goggle the question 'does vibration have any effect on concrete?' and watch the answers fly in.

So even if we agree to disagree on this point, would you like to respond to the original question I asked.

And sorry about my awful spelling, just off a 14 hour shift and seeing double at the moment

Here goes. I am both a structural and bridge engineer. I have many issues regardig 9/11 that do not make sense to me. I want to limit myself only to what is observable to all.

Regardless of what caused the towers to collapse, I know that there is NO way that the concrete in lower floors could have been pulverised as it was. It does not matter what anybody's theory on the cause of the start of the collapse was. After the collaspe started the building should have come down in BIG chunks, NOT with everything dissappearing into dust.

reply to post by headorheart


Bush and anyone who is anyone knew about 9/11 before it happened. They didn't believe that it would actually be pulled off and reacted by making up an enemy. They knew who did it, but couldn't touch them.

reply to post by grill

After the collaspe started the building should have come down in BIG chunks, NOT with everything dissappearing into dust.

As an engineer you should know better than to use broad generalizations like "big chunks" and "disappearing into dust". Thousands and thousands of loads of material were hauled out of ground zero - and they weren't trucks loaded with "dust".

Originally posted by grill
Regardless of what caused the towers to collapse, I know that there is NO way that the concrete in lower floors could have been pulverised as it was. It does not matter what anybody's theory on the cause of the start of the collapse was. After the collaspe started the building should have come down in BIG chunks, NOT with everything dissappearing into dust.

Ummm...if everything was clouded by the dust then how do you know whether the building came down in big chunks or not?

Actually, the buildings DID come down in big chunks. The roof of building five had several enormous craters from where large pieces of wreckage from the north tower fell on it. Compare the craters with the size of the vehicles in the street and you can see right away how large the pieces of wreckage were-

NOAA aerial photo of WTC 5

reply to post by grill


Thats assuming you are using reinforced concrete

Only concrete was in the floor decks - to save weight (as a structural engineer should be aware of weight and
effect it has on structure) the concrete was special mix using light weight aggregrates to reduce weight

Concrete was 4" deep on floors (5" on mechanical) - reinforcing was wire mesh not steel bar

Which is why concrete got pulverized in small chunks/dust

reply to post by grill


Welcome to the board, Grill.

Good to have a structural engineer commenting.

Please elaborate on your comments, though. We'd like to know how it is that you know what you claim: the reasoning behind your conclusions.

Otherwise you might as well be any old person at all. No offense, but the way to show you're an engineer is to talk like one and show some knowledge off.

Welcome to ATS.

Originally posted by grill

After the collaspe started the building should have come down in BIG chunks, NOT with everything dissappearing into dust.

Being an engineer it seems to me that you are just trying to bamboozle us lay people with long words and technical stuff.

It may not be the truth but i would like ATS members to investigate this Turner Construction WTC Tennant

Can you help uncover the truth,....Finally?

My 9/11 Truth


soon after the 1989-1990 withdraw of the Soviet war machine in Afghan. many Islamic radicals inspired by the Mujahadeen developed fanciful ideas.

one such group were individual Arab radicals in diverse cells who were taking part in the USA sponsered flight training of 3rd world Arabs etc, who would learn Piloting modern aircraft and take that expertise to their homelands this loose group kept in communication with one another and their sponsers in Saudi Arabia which included members in extremist groups such as al Qaida


A series of meetings, in various places (Indonesia, Pakistan, Malaysia et al), discussed the formulation of an attack on/by aircrafts which had it's inspiration from the loners in USA flight schools...and quite by accident a plot named Bojinka was discovered
en.wikipedia.org...
bojinka was in 1995, it included various schemes like bringing down 12 jumbo jets over the Pacific




what follows is just my speculation, after the 9/11 fact:



the flight schools group were later grouped into a single 12 person cell, and high profile targets were assigned, the targets being the WTC, Pentagon, Washington Monument, (Capitol?, WH?) = 6 in all

because the targets & dates were constantly changed, and because delays were created by the double agent asset the CIA had in place at AQ... It took 6 years for the actual 9-11 event to take place in 2001 ---
~ instead of happening even before the bojinka plot was discovered in 1995 ~