9/11: What Really Happened

That would require the assumption that those who died were "fellow citizens" of those who planted the explosives.

The better question remains - why not stage the whole shebang on a weekend when the loss of life would be far less but the impact of the event on the American psyche would be devastating enough to justify going to war? That continues to be the biggest theory killer for me. Overkill to no advantage.

 

And, again, what was gained by any of it?

 

If we're still discussing the premise that the 9/11 event was an "inside job", I'd say the gains were the same, whether it was an inside job or it wasn't. It's no secret that the neo-cons were anxious for a reason to invade a middle eastern country. They got their wish. The circumstances are pretty much beside the point now. Aren't they? I don't understand the insistence to defend the official story anymore than I understand the insistence to deny it. It happened, our country has been economically devastated by it, our reputation the world over has been tarnished by abuses such as Abu Gharib and extraordinary rendition, but the wars are coming to an end and we have much to do to get things back together in this country. We have other, more pressing problems to address, in the here and now, than the melting point of steel.

The myriad of questions surrounding the event amount to no more than idle indulgences, in the face of what we need to do to get ourselves back on track. Knowing for "sure" that 9/11 was some neo-con conspiracy is not in the realm of possibility and even if it were, it won't help us now.

 

For every argument one can find a counter argument and a counter argument to the counter argument. For every engineering position on any given point, one can find an opposing position.

As laymen, which I assume most of us are, to adequately judge the validity of any report would require us to fully understand the all science behind it. I admit that I can read that Popular Mechanics report and say "Yeah, that makes perfect sense" without knowing fuck all about whether it does or not. I can read an opposing scientific evaluation of the same point and say "Oh wait, that makes sense too."

We may as well be squirrels sitting in a tree trying to understand what the two hunters below us are talking about. When you consider all the different disciplines of science involved here and all the data out there to be evaluated, we are all squirrels at some level.

Sort of like trying to attempt an accurate, unbiased interpretation of the Bible without knowing how to read Greek, never mind Aramaic.

 

Just as long as I get to hang on to my nuts, that's fine with me .. dear

 

Your nuts do hang quite a bit.

 

Cheeky bitch!

You're getting considerably off-topic (though I suspect they are in freefall ).

 

Free fall! Are you contradicting Eddie's controlled demolition theory? (back on topic)

 

Controlled demolition would take too many people.

 

Can you explain what's happening at the 45 second mark in this video, then?

 

Looks like a fire on the upper floors of a building caused the building to collapse into it's own footprint while the Lawrence Welk orchestra played on without skipping a beat.

Of course, instead of steel it could have been structured out of Lincoln Logs.

Great find, MSD.

 

Here's the aftermath of the fire above. Notice how the steel frame is still intact? And this was a fire that burned for hours upon hours. The steel frame remains and even though you had a partial collapse of the roof, the lower floors provided resistance and the steel remains intact.

 

I suppose it helps that the portion which collapsed was not a stand alone structure but was instead, supported by the greater part of the undamaged structure. The only steel I see still intact, appears to be towards the back where it connects to another portion of the building. What collapsed appears to be pretty much completely gone - steel framing and all. Of course, I'm not a construction engineer and can't tell much from this photo, even if I was.

 

What you saw collapse in the video was the veneer of the front of the building(along with all other non-steel materials) not the steel structure. The entire building was completely gutted by the fire. But the steel frame remains, as has been the case with every steel structure building that has been engulfed by fire.

 

There is a lot more weight at the top of the WTC that came down onto a weak frame.

I'm not sure you can really prove anything just yet from the released videos.

Let's say the government or a different group did this, what steps would they have had to go through to get this done? Did they start before Bush took office? How covert would they need to be, how paranoid would they be that someone wouldn't keep the secret? I think the Truthers need to play it from the start, and make a case for if the Bush Administration and supporters wanted a New Pearl Harbor to build up the military, or if Mossad wanted to get America into the Middle East, maybe it was the CIA, or the Bilderburg group...Even the FSB might of wanted to bring down the USA to get back at us for interfering with the USSR.

Then you get into who could have done this, under whose direction, and for what gain... There are quite a few that come to mind, and Al Qaeda isn't close to the top of that list. I really question how the government was so quick to point the finger at them, when they weren't able to prevent them from boarding a plane.

The administration should have brought in people from the media or clear some people from the internet forums/bloggers and show them all the evidence, and allow them to bring in some experts or witnesses.

 

Excuse me but doesn't a steel frame run through an entire building, as below? I don't see this sort of steel frame structuring left behind in your photos. All I see is debris against the back portion of the collapsed section - a section which is attached to the portion of the building behind it. It makes sense to me that some of the steel would remain if it was attached, reinforced and supported by the back building. If it were standing on it's own, it's unlikely there would be anything left of it at all

Granted the portion of the building that suffered the collapse was narrow but it still seems to me that a good bit of the front portion went down, steel and all. Even in the video of the collapse, it's apparent that the top floors are caving in on themselves. How do they do that unless the structure supporting them has given way?

You can say that it's only the facade of the building that's collapsed but I think the first video clearly shows differently.

Also, do we know what caused this fire? What temperatures were reached? If there had been 50 or 60 floors above the fire might that have been enough to take down the entire building, leaving nothing standing?

 

The "pancake" theory has already been ruled out of the official story. Initially NIST said that the collapse was due to the top of towers falling which caused the rest of the building to fall. But it didn't take long for that to be dis-proven as it's a totally ridiculous assertion.

I don't know who did it, why or exactly how. All I know is that there is overwhelming evidence that the official story is a big lie. Not to mention that the collapse of all 3 WTC buildings look exactly like textbook controlled demo's.
--- merged: Nov 16, 2011 4:45 AM ---

Even if that were the case, it still doesn't prove anything other than a steel building can be engulfed in an inferno for 8 hours and still keep its steel frame largely intact.

 

Can you provide a link to NIST's retraction of their pancake theory?

They do look like controlled demolitions, but that's not enough to prove that they were.

It was the Mossad and the neo-cons obviously.

Comparing apples to apples would help better make your point. but as the twin towers were not your average buildings and no two fires are alike, it will be difficult to do. Good luck with that.