The Anomalies

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

common sense tells me fire doesn't weaken or melt steel,

And physics will tell you that fire does weaken and melt steel.

But you know very well that the temps needed were never there in any of the towers.... Except at the bottom of the towers where no plane or jet fuel ever was and that burned for almost 6 weeks... Is that physics too? And even if it did the trusts would not be strong enough to break the otter supports just by sagging.... Tell me your physics law were weakened steel breaks non weakened steel please
And since when is the reaction between fire and steel physics?

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

So it's simple to plant huge numbers of explosives in two of the world's busiest buildings, persuade the military to let you borrow a missile to fire at its HQ, get operatives to commit suicide flying planes into the buildings, and keep all that absolutely silent, but it's difficult to stick some bombs in the desert?

Well seeing as how everything you described first happened in AMERICA then yes it is much easier....Now to do said frame job in another country across the Atlantic ocean...?? You don't see why those can't be compared? You can do what every you want on your home field.

And for your points above, look up turner construction company and they work they did prior to 911 and the massive elevator work right before as well
I never mentioned the cruise missile, that is all you
And if you are going to go with OS then radical Muslims have no problem killing them selfs, i am sure you are aware of that in this day of age.
And WMDs are more then just bombs there chief, so ya it would be a little harder the just burying bombs in the desert

JuniorDisco
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

Common sense tells you fire doesn't weaken steel?

I think you might want to check out how sensible your common sense is.

Look up previous high rise fires with steel frame buildings if you need some context. Should help you out with that one

yorkshirelad

OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by spooky24

 

I am so glad that someone seems to understand what i am getting at!

I think I understand what your trying say is the anomalies, as you call them, are in fact present in any long drawn explanation of a complex event. The fact that everything is not explained is not evidence that the explanation is flawed.

This in a nutshell is what i mean, you seem to be the only person who has managed to keep on topic.

All i am doing really is pointing out that the even in the offical story there are some anomalies that we cannot adequately explain this does not mean we should dismiss the offical narrative and jump to the conclusion that it must have been a false flag. Yet at the same time i am also saying that we should also be mindful that held within these anomalies it is possible (although unlikely) that new evidence could be presented that could have the potential to seriously challenge the offical narrative.

Not te bo forgotten is that there are several agencies involved in this. As we know they are not very good at cooperating with each other !!( which in itself should send shivers down the spines of all US citizens who need to depend on them for security). With an event like 911 plus self interst, cock-ups, ass covering etc etc Is it any wonder there are anomalies.....I mean sheesh I think it would far far far more suspicious if there weren't any anomalies.

If i know something about a murder and I don't tell the authorities I can get arrested and charged with said murder right?

So you are saying it was ok that the info about the terrorist that came down from multiple sources, inside the US and out, but since our agencies can't communicate with each other that it should be brushed off?

Why has NO one been charged with criminal negligence if the only reason these attacks happened is because agencies couldn't talk to each other?

Why have people with key jobs that day that did not preform up to par get promotions? If this thing was all just a big misunderstanding between agencies, why have we not seen a MASSIVE reform?

People died that day and the only ONE person had to take the fall for it.
That one guy didn't cause all the confusion on our side. We had war games using up precious fighters still going AFTER the second tower was hit. They didn't suspend them till after 93 went down.
That guy got promoted...
Is that an anomaly?

Sremmos80


Well seeing as how everything you described first happened in AMERICA then yes it is much easier....Now to do said frame job in another country across the Atlantic ocean...?? You don't see why those can't be compared? You can do what every you want on your home field.

The US military had control over Iraq. You think that it's harder to drive a few missiles into teh desert and take photos of them, in a country you have under military rule, than it is to pull off a false flag like 9/11? You're crazy.

Sremmos80

Look up previous high rise fires with steel frame buildings if you need some context. Should help you out with that one

Previous high rise fires will tell me fire doesn't weaken steel?

Will these fires suspend the laws of physics? Because I can tell you that it is categorically 100 per cent true that fire weakens steel.

Sremmos80
Why has NO one been charged with criminal negligence if the only reason these attacks happened is because agencies couldn't talk to each other?

Why have people with key jobs that day that did not preform up to par get promotions? If this thing was all just a big misunderstanding between agencies, why have we not seen a MASSIVE reform?

There were some reforms. But is it a surprise to you that the apparatus of authority and intelligence in the US was able to largely get away with this? I'd say you must be quite naive if you think they wouldn't rig the game to make sure they didn't lose it.

But hey, keep talking about thermite and faked phone calls. It really makes sure the bad guys get what's coming to them

JuniorDisco

Sremmos80


Well seeing as how everything you described first happened in AMERICA then yes it is much easier....Now to do said frame job in another country across the Atlantic ocean...?? You don't see why those can't be compared? You can do what every you want on your home field.

The US military had control over Iraq. You think that it's harder to drive a few missiles into teh desert and take photos of them, in a country you have under military rule, than it is to pull off a false flag like 9/11? You're crazy.

We had stations there but in no way did we control it till after the war...
Hence us killing Sadam and the liberating them...

They were looking for WMD's not ordinary missiles for the second time, so it isn't as simple as driving a few missiles into the desert.

You know, illegal nukes, chemical bombs, DU armories, things of that nature. So tell me how you just a drive weapon of MASS destruction in the desert and take a picture of it.

And they didn't need to prove anything after 911, that was all they needed. It was put on the back burner after that, but you just ignore that

JuniorDisco

Sremmos80
Why has NO one been charged with criminal negligence if the only reason these attacks happened is because agencies couldn't talk to each other?

Why have people with key jobs that day that did not preform up to par get promotions? If this thing was all just a big misunderstanding between agencies, why have we not seen a MASSIVE reform?

There were some reforms. But is it a surprise to you that the apparatus of authority and intelligence in the US was able to largely get away with this? I'd say you must be quite naive if you think they wouldn't rig the game to make sure they didn't lose it.

But hey, keep talking about thermite and faked phone calls. It really makes sure the bad guys get what's coming to them

Name one reform please, do they share info now? That seems like that should have been the FIRST reform since that was a MAJOR factor in said attack taking place
And then you admit the alphabet boys are totally corrupt but I am naive for believing they had a part in the worst attack since pearl harbor on american soil. The same guys that entire job is to protect us from something like that? Ya I am naive one, most def

Please show me where i mentioned thermite in the thread please, I haven't put words in your mouth, please don't do it to me
And next time your are in plane, try and make a phone call at cruising alt and speed. Just so you can do the experiment your self. Calls on a cell phone from a plane is just now being made possible. And if they were made of air phones, why don't they share that info in the report? And seeing as how it takes an agent to connect those calls, there would be some records of those calls that could be easily shown, where are those?

And i noticed you avoided the criminal negligence part, lack of sharing info led to the deaths of americans regardless of who did the attacks. Why has that not been addressed?

Also intresting that an airphone stayed connected for almost an hour AFTER 93 crashed, you have seen what was left of 93 PLEASE tell me how it is possible for an air phone to stay connected through that. It is the let's roll call that i am talking about, look it up in the official report. The agent on the phone said she never hung up and neither did the other side and the call continued to register as an open line
And keep looking at the wrong guys, that is the exact idea the bad guys want

JuniorDisco

Sremmos80

Look up previous high rise fires with steel frame buildings if you need some context. Should help you out with that one

Previous high rise fires will tell me fire doesn't weaken steel?

Will these fires suspend the laws of physics? Because I can tell you that it is categorically 100 per cent true that fire weakens steel.

No but it gives you of an idea of what it takes for said fire to bend steel.... It doesn't happen in common fires is what i was getting at, you have to create the temps needed to weaken steel. So i guess since no steel got bent or failed in major high rise fires in the united states or internationally, then by your logic it did suspend the laws of physics if any fire will weaken steel..

reply to post by Sremmos80


Let me put this into context for you.

150 tonne jet airplane slams into the side of a building at considerable speed, which then becomes 150 tonnes of shrapnel traveling through the building at high speed, which then is going to smash, rip, tear and considerably mess up anything that is in its path until its momentum is stopped.

In the process of doing so, any fire retardant material around beams and columns are likely to be damaged, exposing them to fire.

Steel heats up up in the fire, and causes the structural elements to start to expand and reduce their strength.

The building now has a serious problem. The impact was significant, its ripped a hole in the outer walls which - due to the building design - are an integral part of the rigidity of the structure. Bolts and welds and any fatigued material just got even more stressed as they absorbed the plane impact and now there is a fire that is not being dealt with adding to the woes.

What you have there are three elements that are combining, and the towers aren't liking that one little bit.

So, one structural element - the weakest one - probably the most damaged - fails. On its own that's not necessarily an issue but the fire isn't being tackled, and whats happening here is a cascade reaction, because the forces on that element are redistributed throughout the structure - only part of that structure has been damaged and the loads spread unevenly until...pop... the next weakest piece goes. Then you are in a rinse and repeat cycle. As the stresses pass down through the building the structural elements are going to respond to the loads on them. Some will blow their mountings, some will break (violently) and suddenly what is designed to be a complex web of interconnecting parts fails.

Structural failure. The whole thing is now several thousand several parts instead of one integrated one. Game over.

No one single part of the building is designed to take the whole weight of the rest of it. It is designed to be part of the load spread. If enough parts of that spread fail, the building drops.

People who say that the bottom should have held/deflected the top collapse are seriously misguided. In order to do that the structural elements in the building would all have to be rated to carry the load of the entire structure.

Here's the kicker. There is no momentum for the collapse to move sideways. The only force acting on it is gravity and that is pulling it straight down.

And straight down it will go.

Explosions? Ever heard a steel beam snap, or concrete breaking under pressure?

Heat? Energy transfer through the structure can manifest itself in a number of ways. Sound, heat and light are all by products of energy transfer and suddenly there is an awful lot of energy on the move.

There is no voodoo there. There is no need for explosives. There is no need to invent anything to cause a collapse.

A large impact, uncontrolled fire and load distribution are more than enough.

9/11 is the rule. Not the exception to the rule. Before the day no one had flown two airliners into the side of those buildings under the conditions and at the speeds that they did. Before the day no one knew what would happen if they did. On the day we found out.

You cannot compare any other event to 9/11, before or since. The event is - mercifully - unprecedented.

OtherSideOfTheCoin
Reading over the last few replies i dont quit think i have articulated my point as well as i could have.

What i am saying is that I believe what you all might want call the "offical story" however I also recognize it does have some anomalies that have created conspiracies. I am also saying that when it comes to 9/11 I accept that, at least for the public, there are some anomalies that will never be explained and that while these should be accounted for i still believe the offical story as it provides a much more robust theory of what happened that day than any of the conspiracies.

Yet I am also saying that I do believe that it is possible that within one of these anomalies it is possible (although I think very unlikely) there exists evidence that could strongly question my current beliefs of what happened that day.

It's much more than 'just' anomalies. Since you mention the work of the NIST, (and their $10 million dollar cartoons) can you say, in all honesty, that they didn't behave in a manner of blithe observance in regard to the molten metal/steel even.
I'll put in this partial video to highlight their credulity.



The thing is, (once you watch and listen to the information given in the video) you will understand that the NIST cartoons require only a softening of metal for a collapse, and in fact they deny any evidence of molten metal. Now, the molten metal may be an anomaly in itself with arguably no good explanation, but for the NIST to deny that there was indeed molten metal and to be visibly uncomfortable with a reporters question about it, makes the NIST highly suspect as to its motivations.

neformore
reply to post by Sremmos80

 

Structural failure.


Here's the kicker. There is no momentum for the collapse to move sideways. The only force acting on it is gravity and that is pulling it straight down.

(1) structural failure, that's what Harley man said! Jeez, Harley man was right then.
(2) all the collapses at the point of failure were sideways in a spectacular fashion, even the North tower mast went down sideways.

Explosions? there were heaps of them, for various reasons, including testimony of explosion before any aircraft impact. Not a singularity then.

I think i might have found an anomaly..

Another one.. (an anomaly)




The buildings, both 110 story buildings "collapsed" in a span of about 14-16 seconds as a fair estimate, although the 9/11 Commission and other official sources pegs it at about 10 seconds.

Now, absolute free fall from the height of the towers for any freely dropped object in a complete vacuum is 9.2 seconds, in nothing but AIR, somewhere between the 10-11 seconds depending on the size and shape of the object which will affect the amount of air resistance.

So, the difference between absolute free fall in nothing but air, and the so-called progressive pancaking "collapse" is about 4 or 5 seconds say.

We also know and recognize that there are countless 1000's of welds and bolts and joints, made of STEEL, both in the core columns as a tower within a tower, as well as the perimeter curtain wall or whatever you want to call it, which was also made of steel and in many cases was ejected so far away the the buildings the it impaled itself into surrounding buildings like the American Express Building, across the street (what, did they "twang" and "sprang" over to there?).






The difficulty here, is that the building basically exploded from the top down with an explosively ejecting debris wave (what's with that?), kind of erupting and.. pouring out the vast majority or a large portion of building material as the destruction ensued. Thus about half way through this process, there was rather significantly less building material above the remaining length of structure, as seen in the photo above, and yet..

Down the explosively ejecting debris wave went continuing to throw the building material outwardly, all the way down the remaining length of structure, to the ground, without any appreciable loss of momentum of any kind, even acceleration and an increase in the ejection of building material.

Absent the use of explosives, as seen in the post above, removing the underlying structure beneath the descending debris wave, throughout the process - I call the official story "the foot of God hypothesis" because that's what it amounts to.

There's nothing there to act as some sort of cumulative weight loading, or a falling from a height onto the remaining structure, but just the opposite, a cumulative weight un-loading - and yet the explosively ejecting debris wave continued, unabated, even to the point of accelerating slightly, yes to very NEAR the speed of absolute free fall in nothing but air.

That aside, we all were taught in basic physics the laws of motion and conservation of momentum. We know that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction and that an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by a force of resistence, in the case of the free fall object, the difference between free fall in a vacuum and free fall in air, from that height, adding about a second or so to it's fall time.

So here's what we're looking at in terms of the DIFFERENCE in "fall time"

AIR vs. STEEL structure

5 seconds, or less, even as little as 3 if the timed destruction is 13-14 seconds.

One, two, three, four.

So how is it that we are to believe that every weld and bolt and joint all the way along the remaining structure, over up to something like 93 floors in the case of the north tower, could break and be smashed by the top part, especially when once it starts to EXPLODE,
there was nothing left of the top part, to then crush the remaining 92, 93 stories, all the way to the ground, to within maybe 5 seconds of absolute free fall from the same height in nothing but AIR, 5 seconds, or less, maybe only three or four, for 2 110 story buildings, made of steel.

Since it probably wasn't the "foot of God", any scientifically minded, sane and rational person who is capable of examining the phenomenon of the actual occurrence of the destruction itself, objectively and scientifically, must conclude that it did not really "collapse" in some sort of progressive pancaking fashion, because THAT IS NOT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.

So-called 9/11 truthers are REALLY 9/11 SKEPTICS, who flat out refuse to believe, the unbelievable.

And it would be funny if it wasn't so sad, but joy to the person who has the courage to recognize that we might have had the proverbial wool pulled over our eyes, and then to say to our fellow man - look at what they did!

It's not about the evil of the abomination of it that's the main point however, but what might be possible, once everyone and history sees this thing clearly for what it was, and to a degree still represents deep down in the American psyche and manifested by the government in the garb of a security guard or a cop "to keep us safe" when we would have a greater chance of being hit by lightning, and surviving, without a cloud in sight, than dying in a terrorist attack.

But when it's undone, the official story narrative, so too us it's "transformative power" (Zelikow), "even as the experience generation passes off the scene" and everything that's ensued in the wake of 9/11 comes back full circle, to inform, and God willing also to console and heal with the only hand that's truly capable of wiping away the tears from our eyes.

Obama wasn't able to save the day simply because he proceeded to carry the ball for Bush/Cheney, launched by the 9/11 event.

The American people were hijacked in more ways than one on September 11th, 2001, and pretty soon all but a few truther haters are going to realize it and recognize it.

How can you NOT?!

The 21st century will eventually get this thing straightened out and there will be healing and justice for the many victims, and as an overall abuse of power at some level it made victims of us all, even as a great point of learning about what never to do or to be.

That's a powerful historical lesson and point of reference, and it isn't all that far back either, even 12 years out.


I have faith and eternal optimism, so there's no worries.

WE didn't do it after all, and they did not have the right.




Lesson learned?


End the war on "terror" whereby it always goes without saying that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. It's their job, but it doesn't give them a special mandate to then take advantage of what they're supposed to be doing anyway.

Security cannot be used against the American people by the government, in the name of 9/11.

That's just not right, particularly given what they obviously did to try to take over the ship of state and steer us all to "Prison Island" in the name of "security" while trying to seize some sort of absolute power within the context of a police and surveillance state. Not right at all.

The truth will out.

It can't not, in the final analysis.


Best Regards, and Cheers,

NAM

Ok. Simple concept time.

Concrete is made of cement and aggregates. 1 tonne of concrete in a block is still one tonne if concrete if it is smashed to smaller pieces.

Drop a solid block, or it's constituent parts, it's still 1 tonne (or thereabouts, you may get a small percentage of fines (dust) dispersed by airflow at the edges)

Point being that the mass in motion hasn't gone anywhere. It's just smaller particles.

It's like that age old addage, what weighs more - 1000 tonnes of feathers or 1000 tonnes of rocks?

The answer is they both weigh 1000 tonnes.

Ejecta out of the side of a collapse shows resistance in the structure, not an absence of it, or sign of explosion.

Again, simple question, has anyone else here heard a stressed beam, or concrete section fail and/or felt the force of such an event?

I have, because I've tested such things to destruction in labs. Structural failure is a violent, noisy process.

neformore

Structural failure is a violent, noisy process.

To borrow a metaphor, I was thinking of something more along the lines of a "quiet revolution", but fast, lightening fast, once the essential threshold is reached beyond which an implosion of sorts, is inevitable.

Here is what happens to concrete when it is compressed beyond it's strength capacity. This is a standard test.



See what happens there? No explosives required

reply to post by neformore

The USA got caught with its pants down and received a very square kick in the backside, and people have been trying to invent reasons for that not to be the case ever since.

I think that in the most simplistic terms that is the rout of all 9/11 conspiracies, prior to 9/11 there was (or still is) a belief steaming form WWII that America was untouchable, that they were top of the food chain. I think this was a arrogant view that was woven into American society with a "we are the best" mentality that said nobody can best us.

9/11 changed all of that.

9/11 showed America to be weak, so weak that a bunch of guys crawling about caves on the other side of the planet where able to strike at the heart of American economic and military strength. Many Americans quite rightly find this a hard concept to swallow so invent these other reasons to explain the "hidden truth" that it was the Jews, it was their own government or it was a secret cabal of individuals who secretly rule the world and even that it was aliens. This attitude is in my mind one of the biggest drivers behind 9/11 conspiracies some people cannot accept that their beloved nation got hit so hard and so easily because they were weak