This will answer 99% of your questions about 9/11.

a reply to: neutronflux

The lie for the twin towers is they fell through the path of greatest resistance.

The path of greatest resistance was definitely falling straight down through the lower 80+ undamaged floors.

Except, when the tower was falling the structurally sound lower floors provided next to nothing in the form of resistance.

a reply to: Xtrozero

"Massive amounts of energy"

Funny how these talking points came about.

They actually sound like an alien like statement.

I especially like the part about this fabulous new form of energy that stays trapped in time and space and never dissipates UNTIL the f'in thing blows up.

That was the longest lasting energy of all time that was not designed to be a storage cell.

Some kind of trance occurs in the minds of you people as you chant about fully loaded planes with fuel...the effects somehow result in total annihilation of SOLID STEEL later on...and then of course you argue that demolition explosives of any kind could never have done it...only time delayed already burnt fuel and some weird thought that planes that crashed over an hour earlier would result in a building mostly vaporizing into thin air.

Entirely bizarre logic abounds...But But Kinetic energy!

Planes loaded with fuel!!

500 mph!!!

It all makes total sense!!!!

a reply to: ParasuvO


Here's a thought about the kinetic energy of the planes hitting the buildings at 500 mph:

As far as kinetic energy and the resulting damage, that scenario is exactly the same as the following scenario:

Imagine one of the aluminum planes hanging stationary in the sky. Now imagine that you could pick up one of the twin towers (with its massive steel outer columns and weighing more than half a million tons) and swing it like a baseball bat, aiming for the plane. Upon connecting with the stationary plane, the building's velocity is 500 mph (How's THAT for kinetic energy?! LOL).

There is NO difference. But we are expected to believe that the swinging building will swallow the plane whole, including the tail and wing tips, all of it. Yeah, OK!

soulwaxer

originally posted by: ParasuvO

They actually sound like an alien like statement.

I especially like the part about this fabulous new form of energy that stays trapped in time and space and never dissipates UNTIL the f'in thing blows up.

It all makes total sense!!!!

You tell me...

So the towers started their collapses at the points of impact that were basically unpredictable. One was between the 93 and 99 floors and took almost two hours to start the collapse. The other one was lower between 77 and 85 and started the collapse quicker at about an hour, much more weight would you not say?

Man there is a lot of variables with impossible timing if it was anything other than that we saw with the planes. With the planes there is zero variables and zero timing.

Once those six floors weaken and started the collapse you tell me the energy that would be created by 110 floors falling close to free fall by the end. No new energy other than weight and speed...gravitational energy is not a small force.

Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. However, it remains to be determined whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not. The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but, despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on which these allegations rest. It is shown that the observed size range (0.01–0.1mm) of the dust particles of pulverized concrete is consistent with the theory of comminution caused by impact, and that less than 10% of the total gravitational energy, converted to kinetic energy, sufficed to produce this dust (whereas, more than 150t of TNT per tower would have to be installed, into many small holes drilled into concrete, to produce the same pulverization). The air ejected from the building by gravitational collapse must have attained, near the ground, the speed of almost 500 miles per hour (or 223m∕s, or 803km∕h) on average, and fluctuations must have reached the speed of sound. This explains the loud booms and wide spreading of pulverized concrete and other fragments, and shows that the lower margin of the dust cloud could not have coincided with the crushing front. The resisting upward forces due to pulverization and to ejection of air, dust, and solid fragments, neglected in previous studies, are indeed found to be negligible during the first few seconds of collapse but not insignificant near the end of crush-down. The calculated crush-down duration is found to match a logical interpretation of seismic record, while the free fall duration grossly disagrees with this record.

a reply to: kyleplatinum

No, the floor connections to the vertical columns were the weakest link in the towers. The load rating of each twin tower floor was rated for a maximum dynamic load only equal to the force applied by the mass of six falling stories. The buckling of columns as witnessed by video that resulted in 11 or 29 stories falling into the building below was enough to shear or elongate floor connections. The floor connections offered negligible resistance. That is different than no resistance. The falling mass only grew as the collapse proceeded.

app.aws.org...

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
Failure of connections, as a result of overloading, occurred within the heat-affected zone of the base metals

a reply to: soulwaxer

You do realize if you could swing A twin tower at 500 mph, air less dense than the jet would rip the tower apart.

a reply to: ParasuvO

You do realize the WTC columns where hollow? Is that false?

The metal in the columns decreased in thickness with height of the columns. Is that false.

The wings alone held 8000 gallons of fuel, or 24 tons. Or 12 tons per wing. I would think the 12 tons of fuel in each wing traveling 500 mph would be enough to take columns out. Much less a jet weighing over 200,000 LBS with wings made to support fuel load.

a reply to: soulwaxer

Nice of you to ignore that seismic evidence alone debunks your whole narrative.

Can seismologists determine the depth of the epicenter of a seismic event? Yes they can.

All seismic data from the WTC shows the WTC was a surface event.

There is no seismic data that indicates the seismic event started in the bedrock under Manhattan.

The seismic data does not hold the correct waves that would be indicative of planted explosives setting off at the WTC.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale

originally posted by: notsure1
Ive said it before . I want to believe the OS but the whole no cameras at the pentagon thing make my BS sensors max out.

It was the 21st century and this was the Pentagon for christs sake.

In 03 or 04 there was local girl who got kidnapped from Target . They had video of her car pulling in the pot then video of his car pulling in the lot.

They had video of her walking across the parking lot and into the store then video of him walking through the lot and into the store.

They had video of her walking around the store and video of him stalking her.

video of both of them leaving. then video of him grabbing her in the lot, then video of him driving out of the lot with her.

This was at Target for christs sake, but the PENTAGON had no camera.

Yeah thats some bull caca right there.

Does one really need to explain how retail stores operate and what keeps them operating and what may hurt their business and why they install surveillance?


Why would the Pentagon need HD cameras filming the buildings surroundings?

What logical purpose?

The cameras that were there were there and had a purpose.

It seems that Americans or fanatical conspiracy theorists are upset because they cannot get the simple reason why what they think should be happening wasn't and isn't.

What logical purpose?

You're being serious? This is you being serious, or, is this some kind of strange form of sarcasm?

Just in case you are being serious, my reply would be as follows:

Well, it's called security. DUH!!!
People toss a rock onto the white house lawn, and secret service will always know exactly where it landed.

But the Pentagon? I guess that is just a glorified janitors closet. Nothing much to secure. If someone drove by and launched an RPG drive by style, they would probably not care too much about having the ability to find out who did it and how it happened. So video footage would not be very useful, and it would be far too expensive to waste on something as cheap and easily replaceable as the Pentagon, because our gov is so frugal with our money, we often have to encourage them to spend more, so Im not even suprised this happens.

Yeah, your version of reality makes plenty of sense. Please continue to educate us on any other topics you are knowledgeable about.

a reply to: 3n19m470

You do realize the pentagon is next to a major airport and flight path for the landing strips.

The jet was on radar. They did not know it’s target was the pentagon.

And the military does not have the authority at any given moment to shoot down commercial jetliners.

Any more false arguments.

a reply to: Fallingdown

Personally I don't think today is the proper time for this circular discussion. Today is a day of respect not a day of another endless argument over this subject .

Then out of respect for those that died you should endeavor to find the truth.

a reply to: notsure1

Thats is all so stupid the camera s at target would have picked up a plane in the parking lot. LOL. Do you think they have cameras now? And why do they?

Your incoherent questions and whatever you are trying to say make no sense what so ever.

Just reply telling what I believe again to make yourself feel better

a reply to: 3n19m470

Yes there is no other surveillance anywhere around the Pentagon,

None.

even none at the Pentagon to capture what vehicles come and go, none right, there was none ...oops there was but because its not set up top capture planes Its an inside job or according to OP a nuke.

Yet so many of us complain about surveillance states that we live in.

The poster I was replying too mentioned OKC, if a similar attack happened on the Pentagon where the plane hit it would have been secure for those inside.

Yeah, your version of reality makes plenty of sense.

I guess it doesn't to many conspiracy theorists that can only parrot things and cannot think for themselves.

I was quite embarrassed when I woke up out of my initial awakening that so many conspiracy theorists are stuck in.

The alternative news and conspiracy circles are simply another box to get stuck in that conspiracy theorists realize they were in before their awakening and what they say most of society is in, they use terms like sheeple, asleep, etc.

stuck in the same box just with a different inner lining to make you think you are awake and its others that are asleep.


logic and reality don't make much sense to those that don't spend much time experiencing reality.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Well, it's called security. DUH!!!
People toss a rock onto the white house lawn, and secret service will always know exactly where it landed.

But the Pentagon?

You are trying to compare 2018 security to 2001.
Back in 2001 all recording devices used video tape. Expensive.
As such you didn't have a separate recorder for every camera.
I serviced the recorders and most had 4 cameras on what was less than 480p quality tape decks.
Cameras were angled to watch entry doors and loading docks. Normal entry points.
You certainly didn't aim them at the streets and open skys.
I challenge you to show us ANY business that has cameras aimed at the sky.

originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: ParasuvO

Here's a thought about the kinetic energy of the planes hitting the buildings at 500 mph:

As far as kinetic energy and the resulting damage, that scenario is exactly the same as the following scenario:

Imagine one of the aluminum planes hanging stationary in the sky. Now imagine that you could pick up one of the twin towers (with its massive steel outer columns and weighing more than half a million tons) and swing it like a baseball bat, aiming for the plane. Upon connecting with the stationary plane, the building's velocity is 500 mph (How's THAT for kinetic energy?! LOL).

There is NO difference. But we are expected to believe that the swinging building will swallow the plane whole, including the tail and wing tips, all of it. Yeah, OK!

soulwaxer

No they would not be the same.

If you took them into the vacuum of space they would be the same.

Or if you put them in a 500 mph wind tunnel with the plane stationary and the building moving then they would be the same.

originally posted by: soulwaxer
a reply to: ParasuvO

Here's a thought about the kinetic energy of the planes hitting the buildings at 500 mph:

As far as kinetic energy and the resulting damage, that scenario is exactly the same as the following scenario:

Imagine one of the aluminum planes hanging stationary in the sky. Now imagine that you could pick up one of the twin towers (with its massive steel outer columns and weighing more than half a million tons) and swing it like a baseball bat, aiming for the plane. Upon connecting with the stationary plane, the building's velocity is 500 mph (How's THAT for kinetic energy?! LOL).

There is NO difference. But we are expected to believe that the swinging building will swallow the plane whole, including the tail and wing tips, all of it. Yeah, OK!

soulwaxer

there is no difference?


are you serious?

you just showed that you have no clue about kinetic energy.

So in one scenario the plane and its mass and momentum is creating the kinetic


and the other its the building with all its mass and speed and you think there is no difference?



Try this out,

get a friend,


get them to stand some distance away so you get a good run up and gain good momentum.

Charge into them,


What happened?


Did your friend go flying backward away from the direction at which you came?

Now, you stand there at some distnace and get your friend to do the same.

When your friend charges at you and impacts you, do you or them go flying in the opposite direction?

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: soulwaxer

As far as the 19 highjackers: LOL! At least 8 of them were found alive after 9/11. (read the pdf) Pretty tough guys, those highjackers...

The issue of them being found alive has been totally debunked. Link

See how that works, I make a claim, I provide a reference to back it up.

Now you try.

Actually, your link offers only an opinion as to "the most likely explanation:" mistaken identity. It literally begins with "Our take..." That's not a "total debunking." It's just another theory.

Additionally, under the USA Today article cited within, which purports that Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the 19 hijackers were Sauds, I couldn't help but notice this:

Nayef said bin Laden was a "tool" of others rather than the mastermind of the attacks against the World Trade Center, Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. He did not say who he thought was the mastermind.

Link

So, the *debunking* article you cited largely relies on statements from another 9/11 'truther'...who also happened to be SA Interior Minister Prince Nayef, btw.

I wonder who the real mastermind was, too.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: one4all
a reply to: soulwaxer


@ 24:44 of the video I realised something....could the Aluminum from the planes have been used as a component of thermite...if the rest of the ingredients and needed catalysts were already inside the building....makes me wonder if they painted the inside of the building with the other ingredients besides aluminum needed to produce or enhance thermite or its reaction and accomodated the process.

Thermite?

Dude I thought we were talking about how it was mini-nukes.

Or where the planes all holograms.

Hang on no, av got it, it was space weapons.

Couldn't possibly have just be 19 bad guys who hijacked some planes and smashed them into buildings though, that would be way to far fetched.....

I know.

What is so far fetched that 19 hijackers crashed the planes...while the President was reading a book about Baphomet the Pet Goat while children chanted "Plane Must Hit Steel!", and the hijackers passports were all found within minutes, undamaged, and a plane crashed in Pennsylvania but only left as much wreckage as the Wright Brothers first plane, and the insider trading,
missing gold from the basement,
immediate destruction of tons and tons of evidence (recycling/melting the steel),
No real footage of the Pentagon released, the unconstitutional Patriot Act was already written, waiting and ready for a disaster of opportunity to strike before 9/11 occured and dozens of other strange coincidences...

I just can't understand why anyone would be suspicious about any aspect of this 🤔🤷🏻‍♂️

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: 3n19m470

You do realize the pentagon is next to a major airport and flight path for the landing strips.

The jet was on radar. They did not know it’s target was the pentagon.

And the military does not have the authority at any given moment to shoot down commercial jetliners.

Any more false arguments.

i was talking about security cams.

Click the highlighted portion in my post you replied to. It should say InhaleExhale. Click that. A box should pop up showing you what i was replying to.

I wonder who the real mastermind was, too.

I linked this on page 1 but seems appropriate here too. This theory suggests it was Cantor Fitzgerald that was targeted by Russia due to their laundering of Russian money.

Twitter Thread

@ToestringRd For example, I now understand that Cantor Fitzgerald, the brokerage firm that suffered such massive casualties that day, is in fact a Russian mob front. This is not to say that the Cantor Fitzgerald employees who died that day were bad people. Usually, in cases like this, 10/ 5:10am · 11 Sep 2018 · Twitter Web Client 17 REPLIES 86 RETWEETS 272 273 LIKES Reply Retweet Like Options Reply to @ToestringRd ToestringRd's avatar Chris Nethery @ToestringRd 1d only the firm's top echelon is involved. It's a disturbing thing to come to grips with. And it's confusing, in the context of what I'm about to share with you.