You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

page: 11
50
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
To all that think it's a demo job!

This post covers a few things as don't have a lot of time to spare tonight.

First of all NO I don't 100% trust any government, I haven't voted for years it just encourages them
BUT do I think you guys are wrong re a controlled demolition 100% yes.

Do I trust my judgment, my practical experience, my knowledge gained over MANY years probably longer than some of you have been alive YES.

Do I think politicians are in the job for my benefit or yours NO


Do I think the US government would be daft enough to kill people working there from countries who are their allies NO.

For the people who dont think WTC7 was damaged enough well this image shown a few posts back is NOT the 20 storey gash.



Will post that picture tomorrow!!!!!!

Are all of you claiming the these NYFD guys are lying because if you don't believe them effectively that's what your are saying.


Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.



Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.



eputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years
...also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.


Would YOU dare say that to their faces ?

As for the Top Gear video watched it when first shown in the UK been to that airport many times on my travels.

So look at this video.



Did I see ANY cars ( a couple passed by) or better still ANY PEOPLE!!!!!!! being blown away NO.


Also I just hope NONE of you people have a job were attention to detail is required.

The plane at the Pentagon was in MOTION the Top Gear one is stationary


747 - 4 ENGINES YES 4 did you not count them
with 58,000 pounds of thrust!
Plane that hit the Pentagon
757-223 2 ENGINES YES 2 DID YOU NOT KNOW
with either Pratt & Whitney engines with 38,400–43,734 pounds-force or Rolls Royce RB 2 11 ENGINES with 40,000 pounds of thrust.

Apples with Apples people!!!! iIf you cant even manage that well ......

I posted the story about the guys trapped in the lift because a video claiming a concrete core was shown if you can't handle being wrong DON'T post. You probably thought the video was true when as you see its BS!!!

Will be back tomorrow cya!!!




posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Do I think the US government would be daft enough to kill people working there from countries who are their allies NO.


If they can get away with it, yes. If you need proof, take a good look at Watergate. If they had gotten away with it, they would never have admitted it.

On a sidenote, that was a pretty rude post.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by totallackey
Please post some sort of reference of WTC 7 having suffered damage from the collapse of WTC 1 that impacted 20 floors, causing a 20 story hole...Thank you.

On this page, the second picture from the top.
If that is, indeed, building 7, I would say it had a 20 story hole in it.
The page says it's a NIST photo, for whatever that's worth.


And it shows 12 stories, if you count the windows next to the hole. Thank you.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Yeah I don't think this is mutually exclusive. So Tower 1 took out the exterior columns from the 8th to 18th floor on the southwest side of WTC 7.

People could see and measure the building wobbling.

Fires engulfed the building.

All this is fine and dandy for everyday reality.

What the conspiracy people are pointing out is WTC 7 was a free fall -- which only happens with a demolition. If WTC 7 had been a new -- totally new case of a steel framed building collapsing -- then it would at least have shown how the structure would slow down as it collapsed.

The pancake theory was discarded even by NIST.


Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.


So the NIST responses appear to answer these claims but Tower 7 is noticeably missing

O.K. so for Tower 7 what does NIST say?


WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.


yeah so I find it very suspicious - so NIST says WTC 7 collapsed due to fires -- not due to structural damage.

But then NIST says ALL the WTC towers had the same type of downward pulling of floor and columns - away from the exterior columns.

So WTC 1 and 2:


the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards.


Then WTC 7:


Interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame.


Now how convenient is this?

So all three towers just coincidentally looked exactly liked controlled demolitions yet their causes of collapses were different.

What are the odds of that happening? It's very suspicious just on the face of it. WTC 7 just happened to have a structure that could not withstand a seven hour fire with no sprinkler system - unlike other steel frame towers.

So for WTC 1 and 2 it is the mass of the top part of the building which supposedly causes the rest of the building to fall at basically free fall speed.

For WTC 7 it is just a peculiar structural design that causes normal fires to create a free fall speed of collapse.


As for the cause of collapse of the adjacent 47 story building, it was suggested in Bazˇant and Zhou ~2002! that the fire heated at least one floor for a longer time or to higher temperatures than considered in the current design practice, or both. It has been objected that decades of fire testing show no need to consider longer heat exposures, nor higher temperatures, if no aircraft fuel is injected into the building. However, it seems that there may have been a huge unstoppable gas leak in the foundation, and that a storage of diesel fuel in the building may have been ignited. This may have heated the floors near the ground for a long time. That may explain why this building collapsed like in a demolition. The mechanism was probably analogous to that analyzed in the paper, except for a reverse direction—the failure happening at the ground level as the floors of the falling building one-by-one hit the ground.


Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis1 Zdeneˇk P. Bazˇant, F.ASCE,2 and Yong Zhou3 PDF link
edit on 14-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



Since the lower section of the building was designed to support several times the weight of the upper block, the reduced force exerted by the falling block was insufficient to crush the lower section of the building. Therefore the falling block could not have acted as a "pile driver."
edit on 14-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)
A pdf debunking the "pile driver" model of collapse


But from the fact that the upper block continues to move downward without deceleration, it is clear that there was no jolt despite the significant deformation of the building in the first three seconds.
edit on 14-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



Videos show that the section of the building above the plane impact point was the first section to disintegrate. It was significantly reduced in size prior to the onset of destruction of the lower section of the building.
edit on 14-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   


O.K. I'm listening to Richard Gage debate Dave Thomas -- the author of the above report I linked.

So this video clip of a "countdown" for WTC 7 seems particularly compelling evidence for demolition

Here there's several testimonies of flashes of lights exploding around the towers before the collapse actually happens - then causing the collapse
edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)




So a fire chief says that WTC 7 would come down or be taken down.
edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)


Evidence of the cutter charges on WTC 7
edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
So as Richard Gage points out -- and shown on their website -- you can see the explosions in the upper section of the WTC tower above the plane crash


That scene is the most puzzling of all. Since the upper floors were not collapsed (the connection between the center columns and the platters were intact), this assembly would present itself to the lower floors as a block of platters WITHOUT a central hole. How then would a platter without a hole slide down the spindle with the other platters? Where would the central columns go if they could not penetrate the upper floors as the platters fell? If the fire melted the floor joints so that the collapse began from the 60th floor downward, the upper floors would be left hanging in the air, supported only by the central columns. This situation would soon become unstable and the top 30 floors would topple over (to use Loizeaux's image) much like felling the top 600 ft. from a 1,300 ft. tree. This model would also hold for the north tower. According to Chris Wise's "domino" doctrine, the collapse began only at the floor with the fire, not at the penthouse. How was it that the upper floors simply disappeared instead of crashing to the earth as a block of thousands of tons of concrete and steel?


O.K. if the upper section did "disappear" into the lower section then how could its mass continue to accelerate in speed?

Either the whole structure was exploded or the top section would have to slow down due to resistance and not just "disappear" inside the lower section.

The "microsecond" slowing down by Dave Thomas only assumes each floor as the static resistance with acceleration recurring based on the previous acceleration speed. But the static resistance deceleration rate is based on the whole lower section, not just one floor.

edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



Do I think the US government would be daft enough to kill people working there from countries who are their allies NO.


If they can get away with it, yes. If you need proof, take a good look at Watergate. If they had gotten away with it, they would never have admitted it.

On a sidenote, that was a pretty rude post.


More than 90 countries lost citizens in the attacks on the World Trade Center how many in Watergate?



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey

Originally posted by subject x

Originally posted by totallackey
Please post some sort of reference of WTC 7 having suffered damage from the collapse of WTC 1 that impacted 20 floors, causing a 20 story hole...Thank you.

On this page, the second picture from the top.
If that is, indeed, building 7, I would say it had a 20 story hole in it.
The page says it's a NIST photo, for whatever that's worth.


And it shows 12 stories, if you count the windows next to the hole. Thank you.




That's not the 20 storey gash.

Again attention to DETAIL starts at 18 floor you cant see the other floors because of the other building so you are wrong as well!.

The gash shown live on TV



Video 16mb download link
20 Storey Gap



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shamatt
The title is not my words. It is the heading of this article which I would urge people to read.

You Can’t Handle the 9/11 Truth

Perhaps some of you won't. Here are some quotes:



"But most American’s have demonstrated that they cannot handle simple truth. Instead, they willfully disregard facts and refuse to think, or engage in Orwellian doublethink, cognitive dissonance, lean on normalcy bias, or continuously entertain themselves with sports and perversion. Many continue to “just think positive” after watching their fellow citizens massacred on live television."

"One of the best places to start investigating 9/11 is Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, where over 1,700 certified architects and engineers prove beyond all doubt that the Twin Towers and Building 7 (not hit by a plane) were destroyed by controlled demolition"

"Additionally, the BBC and other news outlets reported that Building 7 had collapsed 23 minutes before it actually did. This indicates that the news script had been written with foreknowledge of the demolition"






On the morning of 9/11, President George W. Bush visited children at an elementary school. Certain vocabulary words were repeated by the class as Bush watched: “HIT, STEEL, PLANE, MUST.” If we change the order we get PLANE MUST HIT STEEL. In your face.


You will only need to watch the first minute and a half of this video:





There is an abundance of evidence that the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the attacks and insider stock trading on companies most affected by 9/11 increased dramatically the prior week.


That will do for now. This article and the many other bits of info it links to will take me weeks to digest. I will need to go to each of the links, that will take literally many days, full time, and I don't have that sort of time to invest. But I will get through it soon enough. I hope you will too.

It is not possible to read all this and not believe that 9-11 was an inside job.

Perhaps this has already happened?:


Cass Sunstein, the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, considers individual who doubt government propaganda national security threats. He has outlined plans for the government to infiltrate “conspiracy groups”, including the 9/11 Truth Movement, in order to undermine them via postings on chat rooms and social networks, as well as real meetings




IF an American politician personally had carried out 9/11 and knew with 100% certainty that HE and he alone had commanded it to happen. In his mind there would be NO DOUBT!

Forget ALL of the arguments for and against.

The answer is YES! IT WAS AN INSIDE JOB!




posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 


The PROBLEM is that the WTC tower floors were suspended between the outer wall and core on the angle cleats so floors can drop internally


If you look at the collapse videos you see parts of the OUTER wall appear through the dust although the collapse if further down the tower that shows MASS was falling internally!



Look at the first 3 secs of collapse all the mass is inside the outer walls!!!!

So that can only hit core and the 42,000 sq ft floor slabs!!!!!

This is a still at 36 sec red mark round outside wall panel, the collapse wave is further down it peeled like a banana!




posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Read the NIST Report, Chapter 2.2.2. There was no 20 STORY HOLE IN THE BUILDING!!!



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey

And it shows 12 stories, if you count the windows next to the hole. Thank you.

Well, the pic says the damage started on the 18th floor. That's close enough to 20 for me.
You only count 12 because you can't see the ground in the pic, with all the dust.

Your welcome...



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



Read the NIST Report, Chapter 2.2.2. There was no 20 STORY HOLE IN THE BUILDING!!!


The FDNY men who were there say different

sites.google.com...



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 

reply to post by thedman
 


Evidently you are arguing against the NIST Report and you have not even bothered to read it. Please find one sentence in the report indicating damage to 20 floors. Floor Seven to Floor Eighteen equals 12 stories. That may be close enough to 20 for you, but it is not where I come from. Thank you.

It does not matter what the FDNY said. And the NIST Report agrees with me.
edit on 15-9-2012 by totallackey because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-9-2012 by totallackey because: Further content



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


The NIST report says fire brought down WTC 7 -- not structural damage from WTC 1 hitting WTC 7.

So then apparently column 73 or something was the "key" column that caused all the interior columns to fail simultaneously due to fire.

If you listen to the C2C debate I posted - there's a European engineer saying that the Brits did steel building fire tests for something like a decade and they could never cause a building to collapse from fire to steel.

So somehow there was an internal collapse that could not be seen that then later caused a free fall collapse of the exterior.

This internal collapse looked exactly like a demolition taking out the interior columns and there's even video of the charge detonations and the rate of the collapse is the exact same as a demolition.

Also there is testimony of explosions before any damage hitting WTC 7 with Bryan Jennings as the main witness having a death by apparent foul play.


However, to have a dynamic load the the impacting object needs to decelerate at a rate greater than 1 g and the amplification depends on how many multiples of g the deceleration value is. There was no deceleration in the descent of the upper section of WTC 1 and the perimeter walls of the upper section were stiff enough to transmit it if there had been any. Thus the lack of deceleration or constant acceleration of the upper section proves there was no dynamic load.


So Dave Thomas and Bazant are thoroughly debunked eve in the journal of Mechanical Engineering

edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)


edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by fulllotusqigong
 





The NIST report says fire brought down WTC 7 -- not structural damage from WTC 1 hitting WTC 7.

I know. My reference to the report is keeping the record straight as to the reality of structural damage and demonstrates the OS selective and subjective acceptance of eyewitness accounts. In other words, anything that agrees with the idea of all the buildings coming down as a result of planes, fires, and subsequent inflicted damage and fires. If the witness statements could jive with the OS, then they were accurate. If they could not, they were summarily dismissed as being inaccurate or untrue.

These guys trumpeting a 20 story gash are spreading inaccuracies according to the OS.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


Yeah I really dug into the opposing sides arguments and the "pile driver" argument does have some seductive points about it but it ignores the momentum that would be induced to the top section - slowing it down.


In this video, David Chandler examines the rate of descent of the rooftop of the North Tower, and shows that downward motion begins suddenly and accelerates uniformly at about two-thirds the rate of free-fall until it disappears. Although conterintuitive, this indicates that the average force on the intact portion of the Tower is less than when the top was at rest.


So Dave Thomas is arguing that this two-thirds rate of free-fall speed actually means the top section had such an amazing downward force that it continued accelerating despite being slowed down for microseconds on each floor. But again this does not make sense because if the top section has such a force then the momentum has to be transferred into a slowing down of the speed overall -- not an acceleration - or else the force is not being imparted to the lower section.

Yeah this 9/11 research has more on the WTC 7 free fall speed - which again is impossible unless it's a controlled demolition.

So Dave Thomas says -- ah but there was secret fire damage that took out the interior columns until there was a final collapse of the exterior columns as free fall speed.

Hmm. Really? It's never been known to happen before despite numerous tests on steel frame buildings and yet WTC 7 fell just like a demolition.

So Thomas says -- now it wasn't totally symmetrical some of it hit part of another building. Yeah well if you watch it fall it is obviously as close as symmetrical as possible for a controlled demolition of a 47 story building.

edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)


O.K. so now that the mini-nuke explanation has been considered....

Here's the details on the remaining spire -- what Dave Thomas emphasizes as indication of the pile driver and not demolition

Dave Thomas neglected to mention this spire then disintegrated on its own....


This remnant of the core remains standing for a little less than 20 seconds, swaying a bit from side to side but showing remarkably little inclination to topple over. It then abruptly begins to drop straight down on itself in an apparent free fall, but after falling for about a quarter of its height it suddenly turns to dust. It is heavy dust that continues to drop straight down in place with very little dispersion or wind drift, suggesting that the particles were dense, more or less what one would expect to see if the steel of the columns had turned all at once into a coarse powder.
edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 

And what you fail to understand is that many of us who are considered "OS" defenders, do not necessarily agree with the NIST report. We just agree that the controlled demolition theories are horse manure.

ANY investigation into the collapses that day is going to be a semi-educated guess. The ONLY way to have a no BS, this is the reason the buildings collapsed report, would be if all three buildings would have been wired to the wazoo with data collection devices.........which none of them were.



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 



The FEMA report and the NIST report cannot both be true, they are mutually exclusive. That is, the FEMA "pancake" theory requires that the angle clips supporting the trusses broke, while the NIST "column pulling" theory requires that the angle clips held strong and "pulled" the exterior columns inward.


O.K.


the FEMA report says the angle clips broke first, the NIST report says they held strong. Something cannot break and also not-break at the same time. This is as obvious as a blue sky, or a mushroom cloud. The reason NIST had to change the theory was because numerous people pointed out that if the floor pans broke away from the core, the core would be left standing. This all came after the first official theory, which held that fire melted the core. FEMA had to abandon that theory because numerous people pointed out that jet fuel does not burn hot enough, ever.


Yeah so...the ARA report after NIST contracted them for the official reason of WTC collapse-explosion

So at the face of it this argues that tower 2 came down first because the airplane hit it at an angle and therefore did more structural damage to the columns.

So far so good -- lets look at what the critics say:

This tears apart ARA on WTC


Here we have established beyond a doubt that NIST and/or ARA has published false data, knowingly or not. This was done by twisting input data – the cause – in order to match the observed effect. What does this say about the controversial WTC 7 collapse study? What questions does this raise? Could the cause for the “collapse” have been engineered by ignoring seemingly obvious data, like reports of explosions and a NYC Office of Emergency Management (OEM) report of an elevator car being blown from its shaft into the hall?


So anyway you look at it there are severe problems with the official story.


6 Years Later, NIST Has Yet to Explain WTC 7 Collapse "But truthfully, I don't really know. We've had trouble getting a handle on Building No. 7." -- Dr. Shyam Sunder, Acting Director Building and Fire Research Laboratory (NIST)
edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)


Yeah I watched the video you linked and my big question is what caused the camera to shake and the large rumbling sound before the tower collapsed?


"We felt the ground shake. You could see the towers sway, and then it just came down. And I never looked back once I started running." -- Lonnie Penn, E.M.T. (E.M.S.) "... all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet ... The next thing we know, we look up and the tower is collapsing." -- Paul Curran, Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) Slides 326 & 327: The Ground Shake Preceding the Collapse of WTC 2 "It actually shook my bones." -- Louis Cook, Paramedic (E.M.S.) "Shortly before the first tower came down, I remember feeling the ground shaking. I heard a terrible noise, and then debris just started flying everywhere. People started running ..." -- Bradley Mann, Lieutenant (E.M.S.)
edit on 15-9-2012 by fulllotusqigong because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Pedro4077
 





I PET YODA, also says "Hit Steel Plane Must"


kite, kit, steal, playing, must

That's what they were saying.





new topics
top topics
 
50
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join