The Anomalies

reply to post by neformore


That is definitely NOT what happened at the towers, and I think you ought to know very, very well.
It's a SLOW increase of pressure on a round concrete sample, until internal forces are overcome by external forces.

In the towers there were long thin steel slabs filled with a few inch of concrete and re-bar embedded, INSIDE THE FLOORS UNDER THE ONSET OF COLLAPSE, THE STILL FULLY INTACT FLOORS.
Lots of weight/mass suddenly fell upon them, they crack, then bend, then get "eaten-up" in the ensuing grinding process.
I could spend lots of words more on it, but it's not worth it. You know you can not compare the two events.
Now, that's the official NIST, FEMA, 911 Commission explanation, which is untrue.

Now, however at onset, there were clearly explosives used, and by the way also in the rest of the way down.
That's the only sane explanation for the petal of debris racing all the way down, as NAM already touched on above.
Why did you not see the same petal effect at the WTC 7 demo? According to you and others, if WTC 1 and 2 were gravitational collapses and nothing more, then WTC 7's gravitational part of its collapse, after the 2.3 secs of free fall (the explosions) should have shown the same petal effect?

Lot's of more debate coming.

reply to post by neformore

neforemore : 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.

Please explain how this happened then :

A whole upper block of the building stays INTACT all the time, then suddenly ONLY one Vierendeel component including ALU-cladding is INSTANTLY pushed aside (left) while the above Vierendeel portion falls down.
Still the whole consistency of the rest of that upper floors block + outer walls + corners of that block keep up their consistency, i.o.w., I see nothing move in that second (what happens internally, we both can't say a logic word about).
However, David Chandler has measured fall velocities, and its outcome is a STRAIGHT LINE, till his measurement point disappeared in the explosive clouds.
EXPLAIN that to me, if you can.
You know that a failing block of floors can exist, but will show a downwards leading velocity outcome, that goes abruptly upwards after it encounters the MASSIVE RESISTANCE of the INCREASINGLY thicker core columns.

IT DID NOT !

The Vg graph from David Chandler for the onset of the NT collapse shows a constant acceleration during ALL measurable seconds, as its outcome.!
See my signature, the first ones of my LIST.
The REAL gravitational collapse showed a duration of only 0.3 seconds,
that's 3 / 10th of one second, a straight line, then the line bowed up, showing with that, the deceleration effects of the underlaying still intact structure.
David Chandler's graph showed that same straight line for a much longer duration, more than 3 seconds, that's 30 / tenth of multiple seconds.

And that long straight line showing gravitational acceleration NEVER BOWED UP.
Clear evidence of no structural resistance of any importance under that falling top block, which means in every physics book, no resistance = explosive eradication of all resistance.

I can debate you for weeks and weeks on my 3 signature line links.
Are -you- ready for that? Or -all- doubting, skeptical mods from this CONSPIRACY forums website? Or -all- like minded skeptic members here?

By the way, I see myself as one of the biggest DOUBTING SKEPTICS. I doubt EVERYBODY until their proposals are proven righteously based on solid facts.
Only such evidence, that I can and will defend at all times, anywhere, has been, or will be in the future, added to my sig lists.

---------------------V

This is the far best evidence video on the www, that shows the ONSET of the WTC towers collapses.
Now what exactly caused that ONSET, that NIST didn't want to touch with a 10 foot flagpole?
In my opinion, we can make a short list of possible causes, and remove them one by one, after determination of the logical and illogical causes.

VIDEO EXAMPLE : 9/11 Early ejection of building materials Freeze Frame evidence of controlled demolition :

www.youtube.com...

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.

I just proved you slightly wrong with that video, and you also forgot the bending outwards of one floor surface at all sides of the towers, just before collapse onset.
And what about the hinging of the top of the South tower first, to correct itself moments later?

Just moments before the whole floor gave way, a whole pack of aluminum cladding strips, attached to Vierendeel outer wall components, weighting metric tons, suddenly moves to the left, as one entity, like from this :

|||||||||||||||||||||||||................||||||||||||

to this :
||||||||||||||||/////////................||||||||||||

Please explain with or without general engineering skills, why, but specifically HOW this sudden movement took place. Which building part could put enough force at work to cause that huge Vierendeel component to deform like that?

1. Note that there was a huge gaping hole to the right of that suddenly, a meter at least, left-moving cladding pack.!
2. Note also that you first have to determine which side we are looking at, and how the floor slabs thus were attached to the outer wall at that spot we see in the video.
3. Note that I once explained the same floor slab construction layout, and thus send the NIST explanation for the sagging floor trusses they wrote in their NIST report, to fairytale heaven. They wrote that such a sagged truss was visible in one of their photos, where some kind of dangling long thin strip was sagging in front of a row of windows, they think.
Easily explained by me as in fact being a sagging lowered ceiling aluminum side strip + still attached ceiling.
Notably on one of the Tower sides where the floor slabs WITH their underlaying trusses, were laid out perpendicular to the outer wall Vierendeel components and thus also under the outer wall windows. That sagging "something" in that photo from NIST could NEVER have been a floor-truss.!

I believe that the importance of that observation slipped past all the ATS readers attention span, while it was their (NIST) main motive + evidence to bring in that crazy floor-trusses sagging theory, as their main evidence HOW the global collapses started.

It's NOTABLY the core of their whole theory, trusses sagging from the heat of office fires, then pulling the outer walls inward, oh wait they said the expansion of the steel of the trusses pushed the outer wall first outwards, oh wait, they also said the expanding trusses broke the bolds in the seats welded on the inner core column brace beams and let the trusses walk off those seats, fall downward and then pulled the outer wall they were still attached to inward (why did those not break off their seats), oh wait, that miraculously ONLY happened inside that pesky little WTC 7 Tower........But seemingly not in the Twin towers? Same fires...same heat?....same forces? Not the same duration of those raging fires?...

An office fire lasts for about half an hour they said in the Final WTC 7 report.
Before that, the fire jumped already to the next room, and the heat died out.

How on earth those leap-frogging fires could have ever heated the above trusses so evenly that they expanded EVERY truss on each floor that burned over the same distance, causing the bolds in the seats at BOTH ends to break, according to NIST, is beyond my imagination. (A whole floor-surface worth of windows, all around the towers, bended OUTWARD first before collapse started ! )
Let's also not forget that all trusses were certified fireproofed...under the floors where the bending and subsequent collapse STARTED, these floors were UNDER the LOWEST impact points of the wing tips ! )

Knowing that at two opposite sides of the Twin towers the concrete-on-thin-steel-boards floor slabs, were laid out perpendicular to the outer wall Vierendeel components (3 thick steel columns, three +++ per component), like this (from above) :

| . . | . . | . . |
| . . | . . | . . |
| . . | . . | . . |
| . . | . . | . . |
|+ + +|+ + +|+ +

And at the two other opposite outer wall sides the floor slabs were laid out parallel with the outer wall Vierendeel components, like this (from above) :

______________
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
______________
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
______________
|+ + +|+ + +|+ +

The only remaining question we have to solve is what side we are looking at in this video. Then we know what layout the floor-slabs had on this side, which we can find in the floor-plans in the NIST report. Or just Google NIST floor-plan, or WTC floor-plan, whatever.
If it was the latter, parallel layout, then what tells us that sudden left shift of that Vierendeel packet.?

Contemplate, how on earth and in heaven, could a "sagging" floor truss have ever caused that sudden left-shift event, a second before the whole top collapsed.

-----------------------------

neforemore : 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. (LT : no, parts of it drop, the top parts)

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.
(LT : nobody said that, it should have MEASURABLY SLOWED down its velocity.! )

Haven't you lately paid attention to a real gravitational PARTIAL TOP collapse such as the WINDSOR Tower in central Madrid ?
That's EXACTLY how both WTC's should have behaved.
A chaotic wood of broken beams partitioned around a STILL FIRMLY ERECT top core column part, after a raging burning inferno of 16 hours and more. Especially around that top part that partially collapsed late night, no more.

The WTC beams, floors, columns DID NOT, they RACED as a whole block through the more and more stronger central core as if it did not exist anymore.....which core was blown apart already milliseconds before.

neforemore : 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.

\

JUST as the real gravitational part of the WTC 7 collapse, the one part of it, after the 2.3 seconds free fall (which can only mean human intervention).

There's ONLY one pesky little detail there.
It was a bottom up demolition. So there was a HUGE mass impacting on a tiny (in comparison), still erect very strong, over-engineered bottom mass, and fast accelerating, pushed by gravity (an immense force combined with enough mass) through 8 non existing anymore, floor-spaces. Those were already blown to kingdom-come, just before global collapse onset!

THEN a gravitational collapse can and will proceed.
Not as seen on the tops of the WTC 1 and 2, and the WINDSOR tower in Madrid.

But in New York those two towers their tops overcame the whole resistance of the biggest, still standing bottom parts.

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

.

Yep. Concrete, many times in my long life (avatar is the opposite of my Now).

Not very impressive, concrete breaking...especially not re-barred concrete, like in the towers. It can not compete at all with real HE explosives.
As you should know, I am sure thermobaric and HE explosives were used, and those TB's have a very low sound profile. Easily drowning in the ensuing global collapse cacophony of immense noise.
And HE cutter charges are disappointing in their noise level, it's like fire crackers at that distance from the mostly far away cameras.
You only hear them faintly in the running away BBC cameraman video, ask _BoNeZ_ . That noise came from 300 meters up ! And had to come through an umbrella of already spit out building debris, a great muffler of these high pitched sounds. Lower sounds you heard only because those TB's were not small at all, the ones that blew up whole floors.
It was surely planned that way, that umbrella of debris petalling out as a great muffler of the otherwise much to clear and loud demo-sounds.

A steel beam nor a steel column snaps, it BENDS, or stretches, then bends, see the famous double-folded NIST beam.....that did not shear !
Ever seen that engineer on camera in front of that one, telling the interviewer that he could not believe his eyes, since that sort of thick steel column must have been heated far above 1000 degrees C to make it possible to be bended like that without a shimmer of shear cracks on the outer and inner longitudinal sides.
That can only be accomplished in a smelter-oven, with extra oxygen fed to it.

By the way, show me SNAPPED steel from the NIST report !

You can't, it never snaps. If it would have done so, it would be the first to be saved, as an example for every college and university teaching engineering.

The only things that snap eventually are bolds in their seats, but they also don't snap much, most "shave"off, and eventual welding lines shear off, they also don't snap. Many NIST photos from these examples.
Where does that snap-idea come from? 9/11 Myths?


While you're at it, has any INNER CORE column packet (42) steel ever surfaced that was damaged by the plane impacts? Should be easy to find, on top of the two debris piles....
Those two planes were so thoroughly disintegrated already by their meeting with the outer wall Vierendeel columns grating, and the perpendicular in their path, concrete floor surfaces, which both acted as a French fries cutter, that only landing gear struts and jet engine cores could survive that ordeal, and bounced off the much thicker core columns and their brace-beams.
Perhaps a few core columns were severely damaged or even cut by those parts.
The rest has been scratched at the most.
Most of the plane debris its velocity was lost already after meeting the outer wall and cutting through it, pushing those broken-loose Vierendeel columns in front of them, which ACTED IN FACT AS AN ENORMOUS brake mechanism.

Look at the HD pictures from NIST from the gaping holes where planes plowed in, you clearly see all the still horizontal standing Vierendeel components standing upright deep inside, with heaps of plane debris positioned in front of them. And those big flat surfaces impacted first that huge inner core columns packet. Pushed by heaps of plane debris.

You really do believe what they want you to believe, that those planes cut through those Vierendeel components like butter?
Of course not, they dislodged them, separated them from each other by that huge impacting but mostly hollow mass, and shoved them as a shovel in front of the now debris heap. Accumulating more and more office debris on the way in, too.
It were solely relatively small, but sturdy and heavy plane components that reached the opposite outer walls. And ended up on the streets far under in their curved paths.

Imagine yourself those planes entering those two buildings as a snow plow, the only difference being there is no driving force from the jet nor diesel motors left. Try it out, lend a snow plow and steer it full gaspedal down into a huge heap of snow, and at the moment of impact, floor the coupling pedal, so there's only momentum and mass at play anymore. I advice you to wear a hardhat with soft padding inside. And use a safety belt.
You will cut into that snow heap, but within a few meters your vehicle will be so fast decelerated, that you come to a halt. Hopefully without injuries.

neforemore : 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.

Energy transfers in the 3 WTC's have been very CHAOTIC.
For the NIST beam-truss-expansion theory they at last came up with, to become true, all those BEAMS and trusses must have been heated EVENLY. Just as in that Scottish University experiment.
Columns when heated evenly, will RISE a few mm to cm max, that's all. But only when heated for a very long period, is an awful lot of heat transferred to them. And office fires last half an hour, die down, while proceeding further in the wind direction.

And you know as an engineer, how much heat you have to get into a steel part to even let it bend a bit under normal loads.
I of course believe there were beams and trusses bend, but not in such massive amounts that the whole top fell down mostly as one part.
It should have been chaotic as hell. Just as the WINDSOR Tower in Madrid.

You know, the WINDSOR fire sure looked as some kind of proving ground for skeptic non-US politicians. Those who could not believe in another false flag in American history of false flags.
It was abandoned, to be renovated, and probably well insured. Perfect to make a point.
That high risers do not collapse from fires alone.

And they showed a perfect job, it burned like hell far longer and still only partially collapsed around the top columns (which stayed erect), just as should have happened in New York on 9/11.

Yes, I know, planes were involved. Partial damage, just as all rescue worker chiefs thought too,,,!

LaBTop,

Imho, it's better to clearly demonstrate something in incontrovertible and unequivocal self evident terms, and then just let the detractors hang themselves with their own ridiculous absurdity.

Once again, you've overdone it..

There's no need to try so hard, and inadvertently muddy it all up.

It takes as much discipline sometimes, when appropriate, not to post, as to post.

It was clear as day.

No sane and rational person, without an agenda of some kind, after seeing what needed to be seen, clearly, is then going to re-present or parrot the official story without that effort being seen plainly for what it is by the discerning readership.

You have to learn how to read between the lines and when to hold back and simply allow the reader to interpret, evaluate, discern and differentiate for themselves who's sharing truth and who is attempting, rather unsuccessfully, to protect and guard the Big Lie.

It's like they say in sales. Once something is sold, you don't buy it back by continuing on.

I don't think your efforts are very helpful to be honest, but please don't be hurt by that and try to get even but instead accept the constructive criticism and learn the art of debate.

The silence itself was speaking so loudly, how could you not see and recognize that...? Why the need to try to fill it..? You have to learn how to hand people all the rope they need while at the same time reading between the lines between the lines.
Imagine what the reader sees and interprets, whereby more often than not the detractor, if you are in the right and sharing the truth, is nothing more than a useful foil against which the truth is revealed but not more than that, so it's not even as much of a "debate" with those who can never be persuaded to change their minds based on any information presented, obviously, so what's the point of trying to attack or flood them while at the same time turning off the reader with an overload, when they already saw and perceived everything that was needed, already. Why the need to turn the page..? think about that, about what compelled you.

I think it's very very important in regards to an issue like this, to really step back and ask ourselves what master are we serving, whether knowingly or unwittingly..


Anyway, i'm just glad to see you and to know that you didn't make that trip to Washington.

Best Regards,

NAM

You think you still have a lot of lifetime left to debate, I hope the same.

That's why I dump posts I wrote in silence, hoping those to be of help for future researchers, with more patience. And time.
Who calmly read the lines themselves, and not the non-existing ones in between.

One advice, read the NIST reports, but now only on the look-out for those witness reports from still living inhabitants of floors that were plane-impacted, or those that worked above, and how they described the interior of the floors they had to pass to get out alive.

Then review those fairytale animations of those reputable science institutes that all tried to let the TV junkies believe that nearly all plane debris cut through as good as empty office spaces.
Then take your invaluable time to enlarge those NIST photos of the impact regions.
You see a huge heap of shoved and pushed inwards, outer wall column packets, mixed with curled-up floor-slabs, office parts etc. With lots of plane debris in front of them.

Conclusion : those core columns with their floor by floor bracelet beams all around them, and all their crossbeams at each floor were by far not so damaged as they want you to believe. And were a very sturdy "steel bunker" inside the rest of the tower, and much bigger than they let you believe in the first days after 911, with those childish drawings they showed over and over on TV.
So, why should they FAIL first at collapse onset? As is the inevitable conclusion when you study the collapse onsets, especially easy to see at the North tower with its sinking antenna mast. While at the same time the roof rim stays in place.
Study the make-up of that top floor construction, and then look at the rising smoke patterns in my above posted collapse onset video.

Sremmos80


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

Then they could have done it after the war. They were desperate to find something, absolutely desperate. It had formed their whole causus belli. As you say, they controlled most of the country after the war, and most of the country is uninhabited. Do you really think it would have been hard to get 15 guys to drive out into the desert with something that looks like a missile, dig a bunker, and then photograph it?

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.

Okay, so some missiles with a few extra bits that look like chemical delivery systems. Why would that be harder? Why not just build some in America and send them over on a secret flight?

So tell me how you just a drive weapon of MASS destruction in the desert and take a picture of it.

You drive it into the desert and take a picture of it. Why is that hard?

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

I don't know how old you are but if you remember that period you'd know that 9/11 gave them some cause, but even with that they spent 18 months painstakingly putting together a reason for war - which included as its central plank Iraq's WMDs.

I'll take you through my conspiracy and then I'll go through yours.

1 CIA buys a WMD of some kind through undercover agents posing as criminals
2 CIA transport WMD to Iraq through black flights (which are proven to have existed)
3 Deserted area sealed off, small bunker built
4 Weapon driven by small team to bunker
5 "Discovery"!

9/11

1 Conspirators buy missile and launcher of some kind
2 Conspirators find safe, secret place for launcher and keep it there
3 Conspirators gain access to WTC and plant hundreds of explosives
4 Conspirators infiltrate jihadi groups and over the course of presumably years encourage them to consider 9/11, train jihadis
5 Conspirators infiltrate army to organise exercises on the same day as false flag
6 Conspirators infiltrate fire service to persuade fire chiefs to lie about Building Seven
7 Conspirators set in motion hijackings and fire missile at Pentagon
8 Conspirators arrange for faked cell phone calls, either via voice morphing or by landing planes and forcing passengers to fake 'calls' - the latter of which obviously creates another huge raft of practical problems
9 Conspirators dispose of Flight 77 and passengers/crew in unspecified manner. Perhaps evading all air traffic control to blow it up over the sea (obviously involving operatives somehow planting a bomb on the plane), or force landing it, killing everyone and disposing of the plane
10 Conspirators dismantle missile launch site in secret
11 Conspirators plant plane debris at Pentagon
12 Conspirators recruit journalists and editors at news outlets to report 'story'. Most toe the line but BBC accidentally report Bldg 7 early. Oops!
13 Conspirators infiltrate NIST and other authorities so that reports ignore or cover up the conspiracy
14 Conspirators ensure that nobody involved in any of these events (at the absolute minimum 100+ people, probably more like 1000+) ever says anything

Of course if one decides that more exotic means were used - replacement planes, r/c, nukes etc - then all of this gets an enormous amount harder.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


Cell phone calls can't be made at altitudes of 10-31,000 feet at aircraft speeds.

Therefore, they were made from the ground - no caller ID spoofing or "voice morphing" required.

Just because you can't believe it, doesn't make it untrue.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I cover that in my post. Obviously it's the simplest thing in the world to land a plane somewhere, remove the passengers and force them to call their loved ones and pretend they are in a hijack situation. Much harder than taking photos of some missiles in a desert where you have thousands of troops and a license to kill anyone you like.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


You didn't refute it though nor post an argument against it (the cell phone calls). Did you notice that?

JuniorDisco

Sremmos80


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

Then they could have done it after the war. They were desperate to find something, absolutely desperate. It had formed their whole causus belli. As you say, they controlled most of the country after the war, and most of the country is uninhabited. Do you really think it would have been hard to get 15 guys to drive out into the desert with something that looks like a missile, dig a bunker, and then photograph it?

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.

Okay, so some missiles with a few extra bits that look like chemical delivery systems. Why would that be harder? Why not just build some in America and send them over on a secret flight?

So tell me how you just a drive weapon of MASS destruction in the desert and take a picture of it.

You drive it into the desert and take a picture of it. Why is that hard?

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

I don't know how old you are but if you remember that period you'd know that 9/11 gave them some cause, but even with that they spent 18 months painstakingly putting together a reason for war - which included as its central plank Iraq's WMDs.

I'll take you through my conspiracy and then I'll go through yours.

1 CIA buys a WMD of some kind through undercover agents posing as criminals
2 CIA transport WMD to Iraq through black flights (which are proven to have existed)
3 Deserted area sealed off, small bunker built
4 Weapon driven by small team to bunker
5 "Discovery"!

9/11

1 Conspirators buy missile and launcher of some kind
2 Conspirators find safe, secret place for launcher and keep it there
3 Conspirators gain access to WTC and plant hundreds of explosives
4 Conspirators infiltrate jihadi groups and over the course of presumably years encourage them to consider 9/11, train jihadis
5 Conspirators infiltrate army to organise exercises on the same day as false flag
6 Conspirators infiltrate fire service to persuade fire chiefs to lie about Building Seven
7 Conspirators set in motion hijackings and fire missile at Pentagon
8 Conspirators arrange for faked cell phone calls, either via voice morphing or by landing planes and forcing passengers to fake 'calls' - the latter of which obviously creates another huge raft of practical problems
9 Conspirators dispose of Flight 77 and passengers/crew in unspecified manner. Perhaps evading all air traffic control to blow it up over the sea (obviously involving operatives somehow planting a bomb on the plane), or force landing it, killing everyone and disposing of the plane
10 Conspirators dismantle missile launch site in secret
11 Conspirators plant plane debris at Pentagon
12 Conspirators recruit journalists and editors at news outlets to report 'story'. Most toe the line but BBC accidentally report Bldg 7 early. Oops!
13 Conspirators infiltrate NIST and other authorities so that reports ignore or cover up the conspiracy
14 Conspirators ensure that nobody involved in any of these events (at the absolute minimum 100+ people, probably more like 1000+) ever says anything

Of course if one decides that more exotic means were used - replacement planes, r/c, nukes etc - then all of this gets an enormous amount harder.

Ya 18 months and NOTHING... hence needing one thing just to spark the mass because they had no evidence of WMDS, which are not just missiles with extra bits and pieces...
They needed FACTORIES that were MAKING the weapons... that is what they were looking for. We know they had missiles and bombs.

Replace the "conspirators" with the CIA like you did in your breakdown and it becomes just as easy. Why can they be part of the conspiracy you want but not the one you don't agree with?

reply to post by Sremmos80


If you choose to believe that the section above where the planes hit had enough weight and energy to bring down the entire building at an almost free fall speed and leave nothing but bent steel, pulverized concert and glass, and fires of 2800 degrees than that is you choice.
Take a top section of a nail and drop it onto the bottom section and see if it puts the nail in the wall in one drop. Video tape that and I will believe you.
And then a building that doesn't have a plane hit it shows the same anomalies that have never happened until a plane hit a building.
And show me where temps reached the required temps to weaken steel...
Show me why what looks like squibs happened down the side of the building as it was falling.
Look up firefighter eyewitness as to what they heard. Seems pretty clear to them.
So you are right, no vodoo needed here.
Never said there was, just a well planned attack with a poorly planned cover up.

NewAgeMan
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

You didn't refute it though nor post an argument against it (the cell phone calls). Did you notice that?

edit on 28-1-2014 by NewAgeMan because: typo

Yes. Because my post was about something else. Not sure why you didn't notice that, to be honest.

Sremmos80

Ya 18 months and NOTHING... hence needing one thing just to spark the mass because they had no evidence of WMDS, which are not just missiles with extra bits and pieces...

Yes they are. Certain kinds anyway. What is a nuclear missile if not a missile with some extra parts?

They needed FACTORIES that were MAKING the weapons... that is what they were looking for. We know they had missiles and bombs.

No they didn't. You just made that up. Any kind of WMD presence would have sufficed. Even some parts would have been better than nothing.

Replace the "conspirators" with the CIA like you did in your breakdown and it becomes just as easy. Why can they be part of the conspiracy you want but not the one you don't agree with?

I only altered it because you seem not to know who your conspirators are. Which is of course another flaw in your narrative. But if you think changing Conspirators to CIA makes the second list as easy as the first then you're in denial.

JuniorDisco

Sremmos80

Ya 18 months and NOTHING... hence needing one thing just to spark the mass because they had no evidence of WMDS, which are not just missiles with extra bits and pieces...

Yes they are. Certain kinds anyway. What is a nuclear missile if not a missile with some extra parts?

They needed FACTORIES that were MAKING the weapons... that is what they were looking for. We know they had missiles and bombs.

No they didn't. You just made that up. Any kind of WMD presence would have sufficed. Even some parts would have been better than nothing.

Replace the "conspirators" with the CIA like you did in your breakdown and it becomes just as easy. Why can they be part of the conspiracy you want but not the one you don't agree with?

I only altered it because you seem not to know who your conspirators are. Which is of course another flaw in your narrative. But if you think changing Conspirators to CIA makes the second list as easy as the first then you're in denial.

edit on 30-1-2014 by JuniorDisco because: (no reason given)

Yes they were looking for factories.. that was the entire point.. Would need more then just a missile or some parts to push a war on a country. They needed to scare the masses and just a couple pictures or odd ball parts would not do the trick.
I have no problem putting the cia behind these attacks, with help form the fbi and DHS and other gov agencies.
Where did I say i didn't know who was behind it? You put those words in my mouth when you used your ridiculous conspiracy breakdown. Like i said if you put any the alphabet boys in your 911 breakdown it doesn't become that hard. Even with your crazy missile parts of the story... Which I never said was part of the conspiracy.
Just like you stated in your breakdown that if you do everything in secret it is not that hard. When the agencies release what they found that day as far as "evidence" and not hide behind the withholding due to nation security bs then i won't be in "denial" like you say i am.
And the difference between a nuke and a regular missile is that it is a NUKE... and there is more going on then just some extra parts in a NUKE. You think you can just take a sidewinder and turn it into a nuke?? And you think any factory can just add those extra parts willy nilly? Our gov needs to get you to make there nukes if you figured out a way to just add some parts to a regular missile to make it a nuke.
There is factories for the uranium alone.... that is the type of thing that we were looking for and did not find

Sremmos80


Yes they were looking for factories.. that was the entire point.. Would need more then just a missile or some parts to push a war on a country.

Um, dude. The war actually happened. You do know that? So they obviously didn't require it. You said yourself earlier that they only needed 9/11.

Once in Iraq they wanted any kind of WMD. A few old bits of biological warfare supplies would have done it. Literally a couple of dozen gas canisters would have been seized upon. It might not have been the ideal result but it would have been something. And how hard would that have been to fake?

If you think about it, your position amounts to some guys faking 9/11, then saying they attacked a country because of WMD, getting there and finding none, and not even bothering to stick some tins of cyanide in a shed, which would at least have been something. It's not persuasive.

"Hey Bob, I found a nuke, that's a WMD, surely?"
"Nope, you know the rules Stan, unless it's a factory we are just going back to the American people and pretending to have found nothing."

They needed to scare the masses and just a couple pictures or odd ball parts would not do the trick.

Although it would presumably be an improvement on 'nothing at all'?

I have no problem putting the cia behind these attacks, with help form the fbi and DHS and other gov agencies.

So that's who did it?

Where did I say i didn't know who was behind it? You put those words in my mouth when you used your ridiculous conspiracy breakdown.

Why is it ridiculous? Point to a bit that isn't required for your belief to be correct. If you don't believe an element I've included then fine, feel free to mention it.

Or - radically - you could just tell me what happened and how. Just a precis is fine.

And the difference between a nuke and a regular missile is that it is a NUKE... and there is more going on then just some extra parts in a NUKE.

Like what?

You think you can just take a sidewinder and turn it into a nuke?? And you think any factory can just add those extra parts willy nilly? Our gov needs to get you to make there nukes if you figured out a way to just add some parts to a regular missile to make it a nuke.

A nuclear missile is a missile with a warhead attached. That's all. It's really not particularly complicated. And getting one wouldn't be that hard for the US government and the alphabet boys, would it?

Or would it? You tell me. I'm looking forward to the logical hoops you make yourself jump through with this one.

reply to post by JuniorDisco


What your offering is an assumption and not a real argument or refutation of the evidence in relation to the 9/11 event. It's a supposition.

You don't know the reasoning, and it has nothing to do with 9/11 based on what you think certain people should and should not have done.

Neither is incredulity an argument.

Give it up, and stop guarding and protecting the crime of the century, for the sake of the victims one and all.