Question for 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: madenusa
I only believe what I see ,I don't fallow the media.
I was driving a truck that day my dispatcher sent me a message don't get off the road forget about hours of service.
When I saw the towers go down that day I said wow looks like controlled demolition.
so don't blame everybody for believing what they read.
I only believe what I see with my own two eyes I could careless about science.

I agree. To see these buildings pulverize to dust, from a plane hit, and fires, on a few floors, in a 110 floor skyscraper, is laughable. To see it twice, is beyond absurd.

The media wants us to NOT believe our own eyes, do NOT think for yourself.

Wile E. Coyote runs off a cliff, and levitates in mid-air. Until he looks down, and sees where he is...and then he plummets to ground.

A building 110 stories high, with the strongest, most massive, support structure ever known, is hit by a plane, which had
about the same effect as a flea hitting an elephant's ass.

Nobody actually thought the towers would collapse to the ground, and certainly nobody had ever seen a building pulverize into dust, either.

Nobody would think it would happen, because everybody knows it does NOT happen. Unless it's a CD.

And that's what we see, and we know, and the media swine is a pack of liars, telling us it was perfectly normal, and let's go kill those Muslim terrorists, in Iraq, okay?

They were NOT pulverized into dust what could be crushed into dust was so we have thousands of sq mtrs of sheetrock, hundreds of cubic mtrs of sprayed on fire protection, vermiculite from behind the aluminium cladding and of course concrete dust from the thin concrete floor slabs.

You people know nothing about construction

Use this link to see some real hi res images of the debris at the towers you can left click on the images twice to see the highest res now please show how everything was turned to dust I see plenty of steel and other building components

Nice try. Everyone knows it was not 'entirely' turned to dust!

However, the dust was clearly significant, and it's absolutely impossible by weight alone.

Not one example of it exists, ever before, or after...


Why would all the people who were in the towers turn to dust? It's utter nonsense!

I suppose the planes completely vaporized into microscopic-sized particles, too??


Nothing shows there was an engine, which is even more ridiculous!


Entire planes disappear all at once, being that planes will sometimes 'vaporize' instantly, in crashes....

Nobody knew about how planes can suddenly 'vaporize', before 9/11. Since no plane had ever 'vaporized' before 9/11, we had no idea!


All the people vaporized, and both planes, with massive engines, vaporized...


A passport sucked itself out of the plane, from a person who turned to dust, in a plane that turned to dust....which is truly a miracle, no?

When they said it was a passport of one of these 19 terrorists, wow!!! What would be the odds of that??


The falling mass cannot pulverize planes and people into dust particles, not a chance...

Physics shows it is impossible. Every past example shows it is impossible, as well.


Your argument is about some type of mass that defies physical laws. Proof is not required, nor possible to prove it. A mass so great is beyond proving.


The structure was designed to support that very same mass, and DID support it. Easily.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yet again you talk total BS do you want to try the red neck challenge if you think was was not a problem lets give you a little example.

You hold both your arms rigid above you head from approx 3.6 mtrs the height of a WTC Tower floor would you let anyone drop a 5kg mass onto them, I wouldn't advise it, to let YOU know because you don't have a clue if your arms slowed that mass over 0.1 mtr ie 100mm or 4 inches the force would be around 1764 newtons or 179.88 kg.

A floor slab in the towers alone is 1000 tons or 1 MILLION KGS.

The structure was designed to support the static mass but NOT a dynamic load the floors were supported at either end of the trusses they could drop internally now like I say it you think the structure could absorb an impact I would be interested to see if someone built a replica tower if the truth community would be willing to be locked in while like the North Tower the top 15 floors collapsed just to help you decide.

Just the top floor slab failed



Collapse finished ground level 14 men killed

You DON'T have a clue about physics.

a reply to: turbonium1

Funny you choose to ignore the chance to debate over this document that shows your whole stance is BS?

www.implosionworld.com...

Can you use something other than pure speculation, one out of context reference to a news paper article, and cite actual sources to refute this referenced document?

a reply to: turbonium1

False argument. Please quote who said the jets vaporized beyond the ability to recover wreckage?

True or false. Recognizable jet wreckage was recovered at shanksville, the pentagon, and the WTC.

True or false. Most of the Highjackers were Identified ending up at the crash sites by DNA analysis of human remains.

a reply to: wmd_2008

The goal is not real evidence, referencing the collapse video/audio, citing sources, building design limits, or science.

The goal is enabling the lies of the truth movement.

A truth movement that embraces charlatans selling a product to a specific target audience.

As Kean & Hamilton suggested, the goal was for the commission to fail in its search for truth and justice. The goal was to protect the guilty parties and deceive the public.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

originally posted by: Salander
As Kean & Hamilton suggested, the goal was for the commission to fail in its search for truth and justice. The goal was to protect the guilty parties and deceive the public.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!

Who is talking about the commission?

What does your rant have to do with actual eyewitness accounts, collapse video, and physical evidence.

Do you have proof to supersede:

The towers were brought down by impact/fire/thermal stress leading to inward bowing and buckling of columns.

The damage at the pentagon was caused by a large commercial jet impact.

The scattering of human remains, jet wreckage, the burying of jet wreckage, and the scorching of trees at the shanksville crash site was caused by the impact of a large commercial jet.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: turbonium1

Yet again you talk total BS do you want to try the red neck challenge if you think was was not a problem lets give you a little example.

You hold both your arms rigid above you head from approx 3.6 mtrs the height of a WTC Tower floor would you let anyone drop a 5kg mass onto them, I wouldn't advise it, to let YOU know because you don't have a clue if your arms slowed that mass over 0.1 mtr ie 100mm or 4 inches the force would be around 1764 newtons or 179.88 kg.

A floor slab in the towers alone is 1000 tons or 1 MILLION KGS.

The structure was designed to support the static mass but NOT a dynamic load the floors were supported at either end of the trusses they could drop internally now like I say it you think the structure could absorb an impact I would be interested to see if someone built a replica tower if the truth community would be willing to be locked in while like the North Tower the top 15 floors collapsed just to help you decide.

Just the top floor slab failed

Collapse finished ground level 14 men killed

You DON'T have a clue about physics.

All the evidence was there.

The cause(s) of failure CANNOT be known before the evidence is collected, and studied.

It is fine to have a theory on cause(s) of failure, beforehand.

But it was their only conclusion, from the very start.


These failures began within specific areas of the structures. Any cause of failure is most likely within those two regions.

Even a complete moron would know what evidence is most critical to collect, to study....

All the evidence within the two areas of initial failure, obviously.

That's where to find what caused the failure, most likely.

But all that evidence wasn't collected, deliberately.


Only the evidence of fire and impact damage was collected. When they dismissed all other evidence, we know it's a sham.

a reply to: turbonium1

Your such a hack....


Funny you choose to ignore the chance to debate over this document that shows your whole stance is BS?

www.implosionworld.com...

Can you use something other than pure speculation, one out of context reference to a news paper article, and cite actual sources to refute this referenced document?

a reply to: turbonium1

Can you even show one floor of the towers could handle more the the equivalent dynamic load of six floors hitting it.

You cannot even cite the capacities for the the floors of the towers.

We are supposed to believe one floor composed of relatively light weight tresses could take the falling weight of 12 falling stories?

Yes I get the context kinetic energy increases with velocity. We are shown a jet less than 300,000 pounds could cut through the vertical and core columns?

But you want use to believe that one floor of one tower could take the equivalent of 25 percent or 10 percent of the building falling into it and not fail?

www.nist.gov...

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren't the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

I have a 9/11 conspiracy that has owned everything in my mind to why it was enabled, let alone actually carried out. Look for the words "Hierophant is a child molester" in the media, commonly as an overtone said above other words. South Park: Bigger, longer, uncut makes it something that Terrance and Phillip are corrupting onto their children, masked by other words, causing them to sing "Blame Canada". Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, shows the deception at the start of the film when Ace is walking by his landlords window, it is said on the T.V.

Is this a deception dating back to Nimrod's doing? Convincing the world to accept "The Hierophant's a child molester" to completely destroy higher spiritual existence? Because it makes perfect sense to me why other countries might have a desire to prosecute the world for accepting it and deceiving everyone with materialism/sexualism. It seriously exists, and I just want everyone to know that nothing would make the spiritual realm happier than to for us all to realize this deception before the innocent are harmed and deceived further than the last 9000 years or so have caused.

My two cents, I hope it helps!

Just wouldn't surprise me if Bin Laden and others had something going on all this time over the rest of all of us. Talk about feeling like a sheep.

If I had just one picture of an airplane either approaching or impacting the Pentagon, I think that I could get over that feeling inside me that we've been played.

Just one picture. The building has to be one of the most secure in the entire world, there are cameras, thousands, pointing in all directions. There are businesses all around it, the metro, all have security cameras. If I had just one picture of plane going into the Pentagon, I'd be much more able to buy explanations about how buildings fell, etc.

A real explanation for how WTC 7 fell would be nice, also. How it become a steel building that collapsed straight down, not piece by piece, but straight down as in C.D. Or at least a real investigation as to how it happened ....

Maybe also if the Bush administration hadn't fought having a commission, and maybe if Bush/Cheney hadn't refused to testify, would do it only if not placed under oath, and together ....

Those nagging details bother a person like me, someone who definitely doesn't want to be a truther. I just want to see ONE picture of whatever hit the Pentagon, just one. But, I haven't seen a thing, just a flash.

a reply to: Scrubdog

For the pentagon....


Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate
911truth.org...


For WTC 7?
The truth movement has had over 15 years to provide a credible theory to supersede fire/thermal stress initiated collapse of WTC 7

Here is a good quote for perspective....

By: benthamitemetric
www.metabunk.org...

www.metabunk.org...

Each of the the NIST, Arup, and WAI studies were conducted by multiple PhDs with expertise in forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science, and the NIST WTC7 report was also independently peer reviewed by the Journal of Structural Engineering (whose editors and peer reviewers have similar levels of expertise), while not a single expert on forensic engineering, tall building engineering or fire science worked on Hulsey's study.

a reply to: neutronflux

See? The very fact that there is no picture at all, not a still shot from any of the thousands of cameras in that area, public and private, not one, is evidence in and of itself. I can even make the argument that the lack of any picture is scientific evidence that the official story has a problem with it because of the dog that didn't bark. There should be dozens and dozens of iconic photos, still shots from security cams, and yet there isn't a single one.

Bothers me.

But, I find it ironic that, to prove that a plane went into the Pentagon, you point me to a site that supports a plane having gone into the Pentagon, but also concludes that CD is what brought all WTC buildings down, though 2 were also hit with planes. So, you trust its plane analysis in the Pentagon, but they got it wrong on the WTC towers?? Or do you agree with them that CD brought down all the towers?

Why did the administration fight having a commission? Why did Bush/Cheney refuse to testify? I'd love to see what'd happen if Obama had tried that.

a reply to: Scrubdog

Would you like to actually read the article cited.

You do understand the pentagon is a glorified office building built around WW II to carry out the ADMINISTRATION duties of the armed forces that historically was protected by a manned watch.

The cameras were for ground traffic, foot traffic, reading license plants, were early 2000’s technology, and to supplement a facility who historically relied on an actual man guard force.


Why do you need photos? You have air traffic controllers backed by radar data backed by flight recorder data backed by scores of civilian accounts backed by DNA evidence backed by physical evidence.

Any who, here are the facts the truth movement jet deniers don’t want you to know so they can push there little con.

Bringing Closure to the 9/11 Pentagon Debate


911truth.org...

Pentagon Security Videos: Recent work on the video from two Pentagon security cameras shows that they captured images of the approaching, low-flying plane. In his paper “The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras,” Ken Jenkins explains the images, how the date error came about, and the likely origins for the trailing white smoke. There is no evidence at this time that the government is withholding other images of the event captured by the surveillance cameras.

Ken Jenkins and David Chandler also recently took pairs of sequential images from the Pentagon surveillance video cameras, putting them together as you would see them in what is called a blink comparator. In this way, the image of the plane “pops out.” If you watch the image cycle a few times, the details of the plane are clearly visible. You can find the blink comparisons on David Chandler’s website, 911SpeakOut.org.

The 85 Pentagon Area Surveillance Cameras

www.9-11tv.org...


From that starting point, the numbers of useful recordings regarding the Pentagon event begin to fall dramatically:

Very nearly 2/3rds of the 85 recordings, specifically 56 “of these video recordings did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11.”
Of the remaining 29 video recordings, 16 did show some part of the Pentagon, but “did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon.”
Of the 13 remaining recordings, 11 “only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77.” An example is the video that was released from the Doubletree Hotel. That camera was initially pointed away from the Pentagon, then repositioned minutes after the crash to point towards the smoke cloud rising from the Pentagon crash site.
The two remaining recordings, from the Pentagon’s two security cameras both clearly showed the Pentagon impact fireball. One of those two recordings seems to show only the fin of the plane, due to a foreground obstruction. The other recording seems to show the entire plane, but also at low resolution.

www.judicialwatch.org...


Judicial Watch v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No.06-1135)

November 01, 2011
Judicial Watch lawsuit to obtain previously unseen footage of Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to camera recordings from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation.On May 16, 2006, Judicial Watch forced the Department of Defense to release video footage of American Airlines flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon on 9/11. The videos had been kept secret by the DoD until Judicial Watch filed the FOIA request and, eventually, a lawsuit stating that the DoD had “no legal basis” to refuse release of the footage. On September 15, 2006, Judicial Watch released videos from the CITGO gas station near the Pentagon, which was released by the FBI in response to the FOIA request.Judicial Watch is committed to completing the public record of the 9/11 attacks.

a reply to: Scrubdog

Remember, the pentagon buildings itself is something like 23 acres in size....... That is not counting the parking lots and guarded gates. so very few cameras were going to be amid at the crash wall....

a reply to: Scrubdog

The very fact that there is no picture at all, not a still shot from any of the thousands of cameras in that area, public and private, not one, is evidence in and of itself.

One, there were not "THOSANDS OF CAMERAS" ....

FBI gathered some 85 cameras in the vicinity to check if had recorded anything

Found nothing

WhY? Because cameras are focused on area of interest to building owners ie entrances/parking lots. They are not focused on the sky looking for passing aircraft

The only shot is a long range from parking lot camera in North lot which took picture every few seconds

www.youtube.com...

I didn't know that a lawsuit had been filed to get the video.

Am I allow ed to wonder why they would fight the release of that video? I mean, they ended up showing nothing, basically, am I right?

Now, if they fought the release of that video through months of litigation, am I supposed to 100% trust that no one would alter it or trust that absolutely everything that was held was turned over?

I also don't understand your condescending tone, though I do appreciate gathering stuff for me. As I have noted, I don't WANT to be a "truther" in any way. But so much of 9-11 bothers me, and now learning that they FOUGHT the release of this video bothers me even more. When I ask legitimate questions (and "Why isn't there a single frame showing a plane at the Pentagon?? IS a legitimate question), and get rapid response documented, linked answers, with dripping condescension, it makes me wonder if there's someone assigned to monitor websites like this, to get out information and endure derision is heaped upon anyone asking.

You need not talk down to me in telling me about the Pentagon being 23 acres and blah blah blah, I'd been there, prior to 9-11, been to an entire Conference in Pentagon City over a Fri/Sat. I find the lack of a picture of the plane somewhere in the sky, somewhere as it turns, on any of those cameras, odd. I find it odd that they would litigate a request to see the footage. I find it odd that the footage wasn't part of the commission's report.

a reply to: Scrubdog
Why not let known the inadequacy of the pentagon security, and the video system was not cutting-edge for even the 2000s. Might be part of the real effort to cover up the government’s failures and incompetence before and during 9/11? The real conspiracy.

You tell me...

Because about 10 minutes of honesty research, and verifying the narratives of the truth movement known to lie against cited sources, would answer your questions.

But you choose to mindlessly take what the truth movement pushes without verifying its credibility.

The truth movement is out to exploit 9/11 through the hiding of facts, using out of context quotes/ facts, and blatant misinformation.

There is a reason the truth movement has no credibility.

a reply to: neutronflux

This oral history interview gives a good shake down on the camera systems at the pentagon.

history.defense.gov...