Trying to resolve 9/11

a reply to: kwakakev

You

To learn later that it was a false flag

What is false about middle eastern interests (religious and those in the government) conspired to trained and support 19 individuals set on suicide missions?

Wasn’t the war in Iraq about weapons of mass destruction? Not 9/11.

The USA was not the only country involved in the war in Afghanistan.

a reply to: kwakakev

To learn later that it was a false flag hurts hard.

Yes and learning that 2+2=17 hurts hard once you realize that you can do that addition on your fingers and learn it equals 4 instead of accepting the illusions and manipulations that made you believe it equaled 17.

Its very enlightening that certain I have said wont be touched with a 10 foot pole by yourself or some other posters.

I mean certain posters reply to direct questions to simply try and change what I want to discuss, that speaks volumes.

I cant believe people are that stupid anymore, it something much more sinister and disgusts me that certain posters can do this and live with themselves.

Lying is in the rules of war.

all war is deception.

I bow out having learned what I needed too.

a reply to: neutronflux

What is false about middle eastern interests

Our motives for being there where false. Afghanistan was more about getting the opium production back up again rather than finding Osama Bin Laden. Took about 7 years until the public got its little show 'We got him', it helped give the people who still believed the official story some closure.

What i do understand of the middle east is a place with a lot of cultural conflict, oil and guns at the cross roads between Eurasia and Africa. If we cannot be honest about why we are there we will never see an end to the conflict until everyone is dead.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

people who still believed the official story some closure.

What closure? The USA is still over in the Middle East? And even I find the whole Laden capture story suspect.

Your whole narrative seems to be based on half truths?

a reply to: neutronflux

Closure to Osama Bin Laden getting the blame for 9/11 yet no official word on his capture. Quite a few unofficial reports on Osama Bin Laden dying in the years after 9/11.

The parts of the story I have shared is what makes sense from all I have researched and learnt. I am sure there is a lot more to it all than what I have been able to make sense of.

a reply to: kwakakev

Songwriters: Billy Joel
We Didn’t Start the Fire lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group

www.google.com... AfKwPr&oq=we+dint+start+&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.1.0.46i10i275j0i10l7.22288.29670..30593...0.2..1.264.5599.0j29j4....2..0....1.......8..0i71j41j33i16 0j41i10j41i10i275j41i13j0i131j0j46j0i131i67j0i67j46i67i275j0i131i10j46i275j46i10.xtYhIi_mHaY

We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it

a reply to: kwakakev

In case you missed it Bin Laden was shot dead in 2011

Whatever the line about capturing Bin Laden, his ass was dead from September 12, 2001

Capturing Bin Laden was not in the cards - if caught and locked up in Gitmo would be symbol for any two bit
Muslim jihadist wanna be to hijack planes, take hostages or conduct terrorist operations in name of freeing Bin Laden

Last thing wanted was a trial in which Bin Laden denounces USA for any number of crimes as justification for his attacks
on US embassies (1998 Kenya/Tanzania), USS COLE (2009) and September 11

Better off whacking him and them deep six the body to eliminate him from scene ……...

a reply to: firerescue

You're 10 years late. Abbottabad was a hoax.

www.legitgov.org...

He died a natural death and was buried in accordance with muslim tradition.

originally posted by: InhaleExhale
a reply to: democracydemo

War obligated by an event manifested out of the blue - unexpected, is the hammer and driver to gen pop acceptance.

Can you clarify what you men here?

are you saying that 9/11 came out of the blue and was unexpected?

Yes
To the General Public
Hammer and driver being Fear and Solution(acceptance of war).

originally posted by: neutronflux
And still no proof of actual WTC controlled demolition?

That's like proving Wile E. Coyote can't stop in mid-air for awhile, before a 500 feet plummet to the ground below, or the roadrunner doesn't really run through a fake tunnel painted on a granite boulder....

What you want us to prove is that a massive steel-framed building, with 4 inch slabs of concrete laid down on steel framed grids, on each floor, linked to massive steel cores thicker than any other building ever designed, which stood intact, like every other building stood intact before, or afterwards, because these structures were built by experienced, well-proven structural/ design/ etc...engineers, who had already built/designed/studied/knew that thousands of steel-framed skyscrapers were strong, intact, and they knew none had even come close to a collapse, and nobody ever mentioned or suggested this plausible, or possible, in any way.

Why didn't anyone of these engineers, and designers, say a total collapse could happen, might happen, while unlikely to ever happen, it's possible, or plausible?

You're trying to bleat about how these buildings were known, before they were ever designed, or built, that a total collapse was possible, and they all knew it was possible, beforehand.....while they had never, ever mentioned it, before 9/11 !!

The reason nobody mentioned it before 9/11, or ever suggested it was possible, is simply the fact of it being NOT possible, without deliberate collapse, which explains why they never mentioned it before, because they knew it was impossible, and had never happened before, as we all know.


The fact is that nobody can demonstrate this collapse can happen, in the real world, in real physics, because it's absolute nonsense.


Such structures are not even required to prove it's a lie, a falsehood, and utterly ridiculous.


Physics works the same, for any/every/all structures. It has nothing to do with the scale of that structure.

What you are truly arguing here, is not about three buildings collapsing, because physics holds, or doesn't hold, it's not about size, or scale, in any way.

You're simply trying to make excuses about how these three buildings are special cases that cannot be compared to any other structure, three buildings you hope nobody will compare to other buildings, to see how physics proves you wrong, and that's why you change the subject, and avoid it, at all costs.


You're arguing that physics cannot apply to this situation, this scenario, those three 'unique' structures, which is nonsense, and you know it.


If we are all about finding the truth, what actually happened, it is all about the actual physics of this event.


Your claim is all about three, very unique buildings, which are in a unique scenario, which cannot compare to others, which is how you try to dismiss, and ignore, all of the physics, which applies to all cases, all examples, no special cases, no exclusions to it, no excuses of any kind.


You don't seriously believe that they didn't account for the real scale, planned for these structures, well before they set out to build them.....do you?

These buildings were certainly unique, the events were unique, of course, but the physics is no different, that's the reality you try to avoid, and ignore.


The structure of those buildings is all we need to understand here, then it's simple to make comparisons, to demonstrate it in the real world, to try and replicate it, and see what happens....or not..

a reply to: turbonium1

That's like proving Wile E. Coyote can't stop in mid-air for awhile, before a 500 feet plummet to the ground below, or the roadrunner doesn't really run through a fake tunnel painted on a granite boulder....

The collapse of all three buildings are on video.

The collapse initiation and buckling started in the much thinner and not as massive sections of the vertical columns in the upper stories of the twin towers.

After the buckling that caused the upper portions of the twin towers to fall into the buildings below, the floor system were stripped from the vertical columns. The vertical columns toppled after loss of lateral support.

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,

app.aws.org...

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

Collapse initiation of WTC 2. No indication of explosives.



Core columns for the twin towers fell last after the complete collapse of the floor system. The twin towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance.

You

and they knew none had even come close to a collapse

False statement by you.

Below. Fire related failures from WTC 5.


The The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

news.bbc.co.uk...

Sections of a well-known Madrid office building 32 storeys high disintegrated on Sunday morning after a fire raged through the upper floors.

The Windsor Tower Fire, Madrid

materialsforinteriorsind54862016.files.wordpress.com...

Analysis
The main factors leading to the rapid fire growth and the fire spread to almost all floors included:
the lack of effective fire fighting measures, such as automotive sprinklers
the “open plan” floors with a floor area of 1000m2
the failure of vertical compartmentation measures, in the façade system and the floor openings
It was believed that the multiple floor fire, along with the simultaneous buckling of the unprotected steel perimeter columns at several floors, triggered the collapse of the floor slabs above the 17th floor. The reduced damage below the 17th floor might provide a clue.
The fire protection on the existing steelworks below the 17th floor had been completed at the time of fire except for the 9th and 15th floors. When the fire spread below the 17th floor, those protected

a reply to: turbonium1

You

and they knew none had even come close to a collapse

False statement by you.

Then you have the Plasco Building Collapse

Plasco Building

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The Plasco Building (Persian: ساختمان پلاسکو‎, romanized: Sâkhtemân-e Pelâsko) was a 17-story high-rise landmark building in Tehran, the capital city of Iran. At the time of its construction in the 1960s it was the tallest building in Iran[1] and was considered an iconic part of the Tehran skyline.[2] The building collapsed on 19 January 2017 during a high-rise fire.[3]

Then the São Paulo building collapse.

Brazil fire: São Paulo building collapses in huge blaze

www.google.com...

A 26-storey building has collapsed after being engulfed in flames in Brazil's largest city, São Paulo, killing at least one person.

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Why didn't anyone of these engineers, and designers, say a total collapse could happen, might happen, while unlikely to ever happen, it's possible, or plausible?

Senseless argument by you. The dangers of heat and thermal stress to steel buildings are well known. Why do you think steel buildings are required to have their steel structures thermally insulated from the heat of fires by code?

Also. The WTC buildings used less concrete than what was common practice, and lacked concrete columns that prevented collapse in other high rise buildings. Then the design of the twin towers was under 1938 building codes with the port authority given the choice which codes it would commit to under a 1968 draft of updated codes. Nothing sketchy there. How many 1000 ft high rises buildings were built, and how much practical knowledge was there of 1000 foot tall buildings was their to draw from before the drafting of the 1968 code updates for New York?

a reply to: turbonium1

You

Physics works the same, for any/every/all structures. It has nothing to do with the scale of that structure.

You on gravity.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

They haven't predicted anything that proves 'gravity' even exists, whatsoever. Let alone all the magical feats it can do, for that matter.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If gravity exists, and 'pulls' all objects down to Earth, and 'holds' them to Earth, then an opposing force must face RESISTANCE from that same force, as actual forces would show such resistance to opposing forces, like a magnet, for example.

So when an opposing force, like a bird, faces no RESISTANCE from a force 'pulling' down all objects to Earth, that proves there is no force at all, 'pulling' down objects to Earth. Birds fly freely above Earth, without any resistance against their flights.

a reply to: turbonium1

Good luck to your beliefs on physics

Now, then what truth movement theory should I find more credible than contracting floor trusses pulled in on the outer vertical columns to the point they buckled causing the upper portion of the twin towers to fall into the buildings below? The falling masses broke floor connections. Then the vertical columns toppled after losing their vertical support.

Which should I find more credible:

Fizzle no flash bombs as pushed by Richard Gauge?

Thermite paint and ceiling tiles as pushed by Dr. Jones?

Jet holograms with missiles and lasers?

WTC nukes?

WTC fire extinguisher bombs?

Dr Wood’s dustification?

Plasma attack?

a reply to: turbonium1

If we are all about finding the truth, what actually happened, it is all about the actual physics of this event.

This is important to come to the retaliation of state sponsored terrorism. Such a serious allegation does require significant evidence to support it. After so long with so many people working on it there is a strong body of evidence to support these allegations. Some of the evidence has been shared on this thread, there are many other threads on this site with a lot of the other details getting a good thrashing.

The implications of studying the physics of the 9/11 event is troubling. How do we resolve living is a system where we may be killed to justify killing more, all buried in a mountain of lies and corruption?

The fact that nobody can replicate the collapse proves it was completely impossible the buildings could ever collapse, as they've claimed.

If we have the specs for ANY structure, we can prove if a collapse will happen in any specific way, and we do not need to build the identical structure to prove it, either.

The twin towers do not need to be rebuilt, either.

We have everything required to prove it cannot collapse as claimed, right now.

For example, one tower shows the upper section separating from the lower section, right?


It is your claim, among others, that the upper section fell almost directly straight down, through the lower section, is it not?

That is the only claim you have to prove, therefore.

With one small block as the upper section, and a second, much longer object, with the same outer dimensions, placed directly below the small block.

They do not have to be blocks, of course. They can be any two objects of accurate size, weight, and scale. It doesn't matter what the materials used are, it's up to you. The details are up to you, as long as it's in correct scale, size, and weight.

You are trying to claim a smaller object will be able to drive through a larger object below it.

Your claim is defying every law of physics. Do you even realize how ridiculous that is? Obviously not.

The reality is that you cannot defy physics. You cannot demonstrate such a collapse, in any way. It is a complete fantasy, and your excuses avoid that fact.

The physics prove you wrong, and you know it.

It's like a child trying to cram a square block into a round hole. It doesn't work. You are trying to cram a small block right through a massive block, and that doesn't work either.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: turbonium1

If we are all about finding the truth, what actually happened, it is all about the actual physics of this event.

This is important to come to the retaliation of state sponsored terrorism. Such a serious allegation does require significant evidence to support it. After so long with so many people working on it there is a strong body of evidence to support these allegations. Some of the evidence has been shared on this thread, there are many other threads on this site with a lot of the other details getting a good thrashing.

The implications of studying the physics of the 9/11 event is troubling. How do we resolve living is a system where we may be killed to justify killing more, all buried in a mountain of lies and corruption?

The problem is claiming buildings collapse in such a way, which is a claim that defies physical laws, and we know it defies physical laws. That's why we've demanded proof that buildings can actually collapse in such a way. So when they cannot prove it, we know it is a complete lie, a false story, which they have held up as true, since that time.

THAT is the significant evidence we require, we have demanded, and we see is not there. It can never be found. It is impossible to collapse buildings in such a way, with any structure at all, because it defies physical law.


We know this, so it's up to us to throw those involved in prison, for life. It's not going to happen by everybody sitting around their computers, discussing the details, forever and ever. Which is sad, indeed.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yes, it is a sad place to be. it is somewhat healing to find some answers, but does lead to a dark and depressing place with even more madness and questions. Just how could the authorities entrusted to protect and secure turn they way they did?

Trump trying to drain the swamp is important to get to the bottom of it. At the end hopefully some better procedures and systems can help avoid a similar situation from happening again. Ultimately any system is only as good as the people involved. There are some big cultural problems going on, especially in the big end of town.

a reply to: turbonium1

The fact that nobody can replicate the collapse proves it was completely impossible the buildings could ever collapse, as they've claimed.

You ignored the Plasco and São Paulo building collapse. and the structural failures of WTC 5 and the Madrid Windsor Tower.



And the fact the twin towers basically failed and collapsed in the same manner.

If we have the specs for ANY structure, we can prove if a collapse will happen in any specific way, and we do not need to build the identical structure to prove it, either.

The collapse is right on video.


For the twin towers. The video shows what order the structures failed. The buckling of the columns at the area of jet impacts. The buildings above the buckling falling into the buildings below. The falling mass breaking and shearing floor connections. The vertical columns toppling only after the loss of lateral support from the floor systems.

They examined the remains of the structural components.

Failure of Welded Floor Truss Connections from the Exterior Wall during Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers

app.aws.org...

Analysis of the connections supporting the composite floor system of the WTC towers showed that at and below the im- pact floors, the greater majority (above 90%) of the floor truss connections were either bent downward or completely re- moved from the exterior column. This was probably related to the overloading of the floors below the impact region after col- lapse initiation. Depending upon weld joint geometry, detachment of the main load-bearing seats was a result of either fracture in the heat affected zone of the base material (standoff plate detached from spandrel) or through the weld metal (seat angle detached from standoff plate). Failure in both cases was assumed to be a result of a shear mechanism as a result of overloading from floors above impacting those below. There did not appear to be a significant change in distribution of failure modes of the floor truss connections when comparing those connections inside vs. outside of the impact region or those ex- posed to pre-collapse fires and those that were not.

You

We have everything required to prove it cannot collapse as claimed, right now.

Meaningless statement by you. There is video that shows the collapse of WTC 1, WTC 2 and WTC 7. If the building didn’t collapse, then what did the buildings do?

Def of collapse...

VERB

[NO OBJECT]
1(of a structure) suddenly fall down or give way.
‘the roof collapsed on top of me’
More example sentencesSynonyms
1.1with object Cause (something) to fall down or give way.
‘it feels as if the slightest pressure would collapse it’
‘many people tend to collapse the distinction between the two concepts’

www.lexico.com...