11th Anniversary September 11th

yes you say you believe in common sense but you suspend it when it soesnt support your view, how were fighter jets supposed to shoot down planes when they didnt even know they were hijacked, the terrorists hardly shouted the flight number when they stormed the cockpit and you would have to coordinate with the busiest air traffic controllers in the world, they crashed into towers built to withstand a plane half the size, they towers did not fall into themselves as any engineer or any photograph of ground zero could tell you, and there are no numerous eye witness accounts of secondary explosions, there are people who say they heard a loud crack when the tower collapse which is what they would hear when steel snaps from the pressure of the floors above it after being weakened by fire. And the Pentagon and pennsylvania crash sites look like crash sites, plus the parts from the airplane that crashed there would seem to add to that, oh and CCTC footage was released of the pentagon, but do you really expect security cameras to be in a rural farm field?

 

is it not possible to suggest say Mossad for example posed as al-queda ops and then recruited these fanatics to fly the planes into the buildings.... would be a lot simpler than some of the mad conspiracy theories doing the rounds

 

Galileo, In Fema appendix c the show steel that has been attacked by sulphur. There is evidence of molten iron in the dust and evidence of melted steel. None of this is at all possible due to a plane crash.

NIST also had to admit that tower 7 collaped at freefall for 2.5 seconds but after years of computer nidelling the claim 1 column failure brought an entire building down. They will not release deyails of the model they used to reach the conclusion, the request under the freedom if unformation act was denied as it would 'jepordise public saftey'

we have 3 buildings collapse to dust through tge path of most resistance due to fires with the evidence that would prove demolition ignored

 

Rude Bhoy made an excellent point yet people on here still criticize him when they didn't need to. For * sake, typical of some people here, although not surprised by the actual person who first took issue with his post.

 

sorry mate but no evidence was ignored by investigatorshttp://www.911myths.com/html/sulfur_at_the_wtc.htmlalso no building of that size has ever been demolished, a building less than half that size took 10,000 charges to bring down, know do you honestly think that in the 2 busiest buildings in the world could be rigged to blow with no one noticing and no proof that there was any demolition left over? Oh and to top it all off they arranged for planes to crash into them.

 

It's an office, workmen are a regular occurence, the light next to my desk was flickering today and the guy came and fixed it. I've seen him a few times, I dont take second glances at him thinking he is planting bombs . What exactly would people notice?

 

I was under the impression the thread was one for people to pay tribute to those that died, or share their memories of the day, which is why i took issue with his post.If his point is relevant, then so is mine.I have no problem with people bringing up stuff like that, in the appropriate thread.
Next time, just say my name!

 

Rigging questions only apply once you realised they were blown up.

If it would take thousands of charges then how can fires across a few floors achieve the same result as thousands of charges?

An object can only unifornly accelerate if the supporting structure below is removed.

The roof of the north tower uniformly accelerates meaning the structure below was removef. Tower 7 went from standing to freefall because tge supports were removed. All gravity collapses must experience a jolt or deceleration. this was not observed in 9/11

There has never been an explanation for the eutectic formations and intergranular melting of steel at the WTC.

If you remember correctly the evnbts of 9-11 meant our first group game un the CL was postponed. by the time the last fire was put out at ground zero Valencia had knocked us out of the UEFA cup, can office fires last months underground? There are NASA imaging from days later showing temperatures over 1400 degrees at the 3 collapse sites and workers said molten steel flowed under the debris.

 

100,000 people work there everyday and it was one of the most high security areas in the country, numerous banks and finance firms kept cash and bonds in the building, there is no chance that the building could be wired to collapse without anyone noticing, have you ever seen a building being detonated, it involves months of work, drilling and laying wires, and thats just for a small building

 

a plane flew into the building the crash itself did most of the damage, and you are incorrect about the north tower accelerating, it took the time to collapse that would be expected in that type of situation, I gave you a link you should try looking at it, and everything was explained just because you havent bothered to look doesnt mean that its not there science does quite a good job of explaining this stuff http://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_molten_steel.html http://www.911myths.com/html/grimmer__thermite_and_the_wtc.html

 

I heard Robin Hood himself came back from mytholigy and set a few arrow traps on the base of tower 4,thats why it never collapsed,just a theory?

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32-Ctx7MhKY&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]North Tower Acceleration by David Chandler - YouTube[/ame]

The top section of the north tower measured anf uniform acceleration of roofline proven.

The problem with your links is they provide theories/ calculation that are not based on any observable evidence.

as for tower 7 here is the very evidence Chandler posed to NIST that made them conced the fascade went from standing to freefall.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

NIST then removed references to their model being "consistent with physical principles" a building cannot fall at freefall due to a fire based collapse. The only way what we see in the video can happen is if all supports are removed within miliseconds allowing the structure to uniformly accelerate downwards.

Why do NIST feel that releasing the details of their computer model would jepordise public saftey?

There is only one side of this argument who is basing claims on observable footage and open to scrutiny, the other decieves and uses computer simulation that others cannot review and ignore what can be seen in the actual collapse footage

 

see yet again you have failed to read the links I provided becase you keep claiming the same incorrect information, you are are either close minded or you dont want to even glance at anything that shows you are wrong, here is the link again, maybe this time you will actually read it instead of continuing with the BS you just postedhttp://www.911myths.com/html/freefall.html

 

I have read the links but all they do is
a) create their own argument
b) debunk their own argument
Im not disputing the entire time the tower was turned to dust.

Im saying that the upper section of the north tower at the second collapse initiation is reached drops straight down. measuring the rooflin shows this falling section (around 15 floors) is uniformly accelerating. This means it can not have impacted the structure below as it would decelerate or jolt.

Bazants theory (backed by NIST) states the upper smaller section crushed the lower larger section acting as a pile driver, then crushed itself to dust.

The dispute is that measuring the speed of the upper sections collapse it cannot be crushing or impacting any structure below. it can only be moving the way its moving if the upward force was removed.

Then in every piece of footage the top section disappears and explodes outwards. Its no longer there to crush the lower section. NIST back the pilde driver theory rather than "pancake collapse" theory in their own FAQ. "NIST findings do not support the pancake theory of collapse"

So looking at the picrure on your very own link we see a large section of the building still in tact but with dust and building material ejecting outward and being turned to dust

What is actally destroying the tower if
a) the upper section has not impacted the lower section
b) the crucial 'pile driver' has been turned to dust while it still has a huge section of building to crush.

These sites are fairly convincing but only when you are unsure of the true question that need asked and the real anomolies that need addressed.

I appreciate your time but the links dont touch any of the points I make other than their manufactured "conspiracy claims" they themselves set.

 

In the sidebar of the link I provided this exact issue was addressed, you are citing a article that was proven wrong about 5 years ago, to date no evidence has come to light that suggests that there were demolition charges in place, until you can back up your claims with fact they will be laughed at, and rightly so.

 

Well what evidence would there be if self consuming charges were used?

No one is saying they know exactly what was used.

Theyre saying the physical principles of the three collapses are not consistent with fire enduced progressive collapses.

Throw in the iron microspheres, nasa thermal imaging, molten steel before and after collapse, intergranular melting, pyroclastic clouds at each collapse, eyewitness accounts of explosions at ground level and basement level before collapse and there is more and more evidence that disproves the official claims.

 

there is no such thing as a sel consuming charge, and all of the things you mentioned have been debunked, over and over. What evidence we do have makes it quite clear that the buildings fell because of the planes

 

Thats just not true, as is a couple of things you say here.

Here is a link to just some of the witness reports from that day.

http://wzeu.search-results.com/r?t=...appened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_firefighters.html

 

Tower 7 wasnt struck by a plane, went from standing to freefall all the same due to office fire and impact from some debris.

This building also had steel attacked by sulphur, pyroclastic dust clouds, explosions at groynd level according to eyewitnesses.

How has Nasa imaged been debunked?

How was the images from fema appendix C debunked

and so on