9/11: What Really Happened

Loud percussive sounds were heard. Loud percussive sounds consistent with entire floors of buildings collapsing onto lower floors. There is no evidence that explosions were the cause of these sounds.

Yes, once the buildings had no structural support, they collapsed at freefall speed. At the same speed as anything falls to the earth's surface.

You wouldn't believe how hard it is to find a straightforward, unedited video of the WTC7 collapse. This one shows the leadup to the collapse of WTC7 in which the Penthouse level collapses in several seconds before the rest of the building falls. Either the loads from the initial collapse transferred to other parts of the building that were subsequently overwhelmed by the transferred loads that would have been held by the building's structure had it not been severely damaged by the collapse of the towers earlier in the day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk

Amazing, planes crash into buildings and you hear loud crashing sounds as things fall down. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable in disaster situations and people can't be counted on to recall what they saw in perfect detail. If you have evidence that thermite and nano-thermite (whatever the fuck that is) residue were found in the debris, share it instead of making bald assertions.

Your opinion is noted. Can we have a discussion in which you provide evidence for your claims?

 

Fine, because the mod team might blow a gasket if I don't act like I care about your complete disregard for the scientific facts, I'll humor you.

Marvin Bush, GW's brother was a principal of the company that provided security at the WTC, fact. Complete blackout power outages and evacuations had occurred at the WTC days before the event, fact. Watch the following video that may shed some light onto how a covert team was able to slip into the WTC undetected and plant the explosives. We have interviews with WTC workers and other documented facts that weren't made public after 9/11 in the following video:

 

The mod team will not be blowing any gaskets because of this thread. Based on our significant differences of opinion I will continue to participate in this thread only as a fellow member and not in any official capacity.

It's not a free-for-all, but as a long-time member of TFP I advise that you make structured and well-supported arguments if you wish to be taken seriously.

 

No structural support? The planes destroyed only a few floors. And a plane never even struck WTC7. What about the entire bottom 2/3's of the building's steel structure? You're trying to tell me that all that steel support gave way at the same time? Because there was no resistance, the buildings collapsed at freefall speed into their own footprints. That means that every supporting element in the buildings had to fail at the same time. Dan Rather watching live even noted that it looked like a controlled demolition.

Where is the resistance in this collapse:


--- merged: Nov 5, 2011 10:26 PM ---

Uh, no. In the youtube video I posted there was live, on-scene video of explosions and the reactions of the firefighters and citizens well after the planes had struck. These explosions were numerous and every time they happened the firefighters would cover there heads and duck. Did you watch the video of the explosions?

 

It didn't fall at the same time. The Penthouse collapsed, then several seconds later the transferred loads overwhelmed the rest of the structure. The top floors fell and overwhelmed the structure of the floors below, which became part of the falling mass and impacted the floor below it, and so on. It's a fairly simple cascading failure. You have seen the reports of damage suffered by WTC 7, right?

edit: my connection is flaking out and I can only get the video in your last post to play about halfway through before it times out. I'll try again later.

 

Yes it did. All 3 WTC buildings collapsed suddenly at freefall speeds. This is most evident in WTC7. Please watch the video I posted. WTC7 suffered relatively minor damage from falling debris and there was once small office fire. That is not enough to bring down a massive steel structure, let alone at free fall speed. All four corners of the building had to fail simultaneously in order to collapse straight down. The sudden collapse rate is what shows simultaneous failure of all supporting elements. There was no tipping which would indicate that different parts of the structure had weakened, there was no resistance.

 

Somehow, I doubt sincerely that the mods would even notice if you choose not to engage me on this line as you expressed a desire not to - let alone 'blow a gasket'. If you don't want to talk about it; don't.

 

Well, be that as it may, I responded to you query about how it's totally inplausible to cover up an inside job. You can view the video above and watch the interviews, look at the facts and see quite clearly that a cover up is highly possible.

Here's something else to read:

"Another popular argument is that in any 'vast conspiracy…there's the likelihood that someone along the chain would squeal.' Even this administration - (defenders of the official story argue) - 'could never have acquiesced in so much human slaughter and kept it a secret. Especially when so many people would have to have been involved.' Although this argument may seem strong at first glance, it becomes less impressive under examination.

"This argument is, for one thing, based partly on the belief that it is impossible for big government operations to be kept secret very long. However, the Manhattan Project to create an atomic bomb, which involved some 100,000 people, was kept secret for several years. Also, the United States provoked and participated in a civil war in Indonesia in 1957 that resulted in some 40,000 deaths, but this illegal war was kept secret from the American people until a book about it appeared in 1995. It also must be remembered that if the government has kept several other big operations hidden, we by definition do not know about them. We cannot claim to know, in any case, that the government could not keep a big and ugly operation secret for a long time.

"A second reason to question this a priori objection is that the details of the 9/11 operation would have been known by only a few individuals in key planning positions. Also, they would have been people with a proven ability to keep their mouths shut. Everyone directly complicit in the operation, moreover, would be highly motivated to avoid public disgrace and the death penalty. The claim that one of these people would have come forward by now is irrational.

"When people suggest that whistleblowers would have come forward, of course, they usually have in mind people who, without being complicit in the operation, came to know about it afterward, perhaps realizing that some order they had carried out played a part in the overall operation. Many such people could be kept silent merely by the order to do so, along with the knowledge that if they disobeyed the order, they would be sent to prison or at least lose their jobs. (see Kevin Ryan as an example of this) For people for whom that would be insufficient intimidation, there can be threats to their families. How many people who have expressed certainty about whistleblowers would, if they or their families or their jobs would be endangered by coming forward with inside information, do so?

"In any case, the assumption that 'someone would have talked,' being simply an assumption, cannot provide a rational basis for refusing to look directly at the evidence." (From, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, by David Ray Griffin, pg.s 20 - 21, Olive Branch Press, 2007.)

 

Not as a truther, but out of curiosity, I've visited scores upon scores of Truther sites over the years (got a bit addicted to them, I'll admit) and yes, some of what they suggest I still consider worthy of consideration and further examination. (Not holding my breath) I've seen a gazillion videos slowed down, sped up, clear, fuzzy, doctored and plenty that made me go hmmm. I've read every article in favor of the idea that Bush did it, Bush knew about it, Bush had no clue, the Mossad was behind it, the guy who owned the twin towers did it for the insurance money, a missile hit the pentagon, missiles hit the twin towers, all the planes were empty and remote controlled, the 'real' passengers on all the flights involved never died - or at least not on those planes, the plane that went down in PA never crashed, the plane that went down in PA was shot down by US fighter jets, phone calls made from the doomed planes never happened, the FBI were too quick to identify the terrorists, some of the 9/11 terrorists are still alive and well, they evacuated both buildings a few weeks prior so Bush Jr's brother's company could plant the demolition explosives, all the Jewish employees were informed in advance, the stock market was informed in advance, it was neo-con plot, it was an Israeli plot, it was a CIA plot, Wolfowitz planned it, Cheney planned it, the Illuminati planned it.

It went on and on and on and on, like cockroaches breeding under a cabinet.

I did my due diligence and spent (wasted) untold hours of my life cross-checking for verification where I could. Some of it was easily debunked. Most of it was so wildly speculative, no one had obviously bothered to bother with it at all.

I found some very interesting questions raised but not enough evidence to make a strong enough case to convince me that the cover story was entirely bogus.

I got to the point where the subject began to make me feel ill. I took stock of the fact that I tend towards obsessive behavior and made the decision to quit cold turkey.

Here I am again. I doubt I'll be staying long.

There are some gaping holes in the cover story which may suggest that what we've been told is not everything. But then again we are never told the real deal about anything. Welcome to America.

My advice, Eddie? Stop now. 9/11 is the 21st century's JFK assassination. The ultimate ferris wheel. A long ride in a big circle that leaves you off where you started.

For the record, If this were an "inside job" I don't think it would have taken scads and scads people to have pulled it off and there is no shortage of indoctrinated individuals who can keep a secret of this magnitude as easily as they can order a cup of coffee and who can watch a city full of innocent people slaughtered without batting an eye.

The main reason why the conspiracy theories fall apart is due to a lack of collective evidence to support them. It's like trying to cover yourself with a blanket, a string of wool at a time. Which is again, not to say that there isn't some very eyebrow raising stuff out there.

/Doh!

 

Some of this information is inaccurate. Marvin Bush had resigned from his position on the board of directors at Securacom and had sold all his shares in the company at least a year before the 9/11 incident. Any connection between Marvin's tenure at Securacom, the fact that the company provided security services to the WTC, and the tragedy that occurred, can only be regarded as coincidental

 

"Relatively minor damage"


"small office fire"


Now here's an unedited video of the collapse. The east penthouse collapses, 8 seconds pass as the load transfers produce a cascading failure, then the rest of the building starts to come down under its own weight.

 

So, a piece of the roof caves in and we're supposed to believe that's what brought down a 50 story steel structure? The collapse of a section of the roof would not cause a pancaking of the steel structure. The supporting elements throughout the entire building had to all simultaneously fail in order for that freefall to take place.

This myth that pancaking can occur in a steel structure is what the government and mass media want us to believe. But engineers and architects have roundly disproven that possibility. They whole point of distributing steel support columns and beams throughout a skyscraper is to prevent weightbearing collapses. When engineers designed the WTC they took into account the possibility of fires and even partial structure damage. Any engineer will tell you that you need to remove all the supporting elements to get a freefall collapse.

The most important thing to focus on here is the sudden freefall, not the moment when a piece of the roof caves in. Take note of the rate of speed at which the freefall begins. There is zero resistance on the way down, zero structural support...and this is a steel structure.

 

After the top part (penthouse?) collapses, the way the largest part of the building sort of wobbles, reminds me of under-construction buildings (like garages) made with two-by-fours collapse if certain structural supports aren't in place yet.

I wonder if a pyramid-like structure would've collapsed so easily?

 

The pancaking theory has been completely, conclusively debunked. Even NIST has recanted their opinion that the collapse of WTC was due to pancaking, here's the NIST link. If you would have watched the first video I posted you would see the NIST officials recanting their pancake theory.

Watch these, they explain why NIST is wrong and why NIST now claims other reason other than pancaking:

 

What really happened? Nobody on this board knows. I don't think that the public will ever know exactly what went down. I don't believe there was some vast government conspiracy, but I also believe that there is more to the story than the public has been told.

 

because they said fire did it under the "summary of findings" section of this page:

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm