A place for actual Proof of 9/11 events

I remember that day very well and how I felt and some of the immediate suspicions I had. Although simply saying "common sense" is all the proof necessary is lacking, I do feel it is significant. That morning the first suspicion I had was that something didn't wash; how could 2 entire buildings come down completely and that fast when both were hit in the top 1/3 of the structure. If I am to take down a tree, where do I chop? To me, that says everything...

[edit on 24-9-2008 by BennyHill]

anomalies on 911
www.worldproutassembly.org...
www.globaloutlook.ca...
www.prisonplanet.com...
edwardmd.wordpress.com...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-99CLdH...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tv_HgK-Z...
911anomalies.wordpress.com/
911anomalies.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/911-military-drones-stewart-air-force-base/
www.prisonplanet.com/070903wtcanomolies.html
www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=5265
e3s.ca/t911truth/index.php?Itemid=0&id=38&option=com_content&task=view - 76k
www.loveforlife.com.au/book/export/html/5258 -

[edit on 25-9-2008 by fmcanarney]

video of planes
www.youtube.com...

another plane video

uhm..........still nothing on the buildings little "black-box"? ok ok no black box....but there are Fire Panels and Monitoring Co.'s WITH NO INFORMATION SHOWING what happened that day.

Interesting the only thing to REALY prove ANYTHING is in the Fire Panels and the Monitoring systems (not to mention security and computer logs) with so little information on them ANYWHERE even in the reports.

This is one item that has been OVERLOOKED and is realy only true truth we are all seeking.

Your Canadian Friend,

I don't understand why you are being so rude to everyone that has taken the time to read your thread and respond to it

Because he asked for evidence and only one person presented any? Its pretty easy to debunk an individual idea or topic or scenario, its rather tricky to prove something. Talking smack doesent help anybody except haters.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
uhm..........still nothing on the buildings little "black-box"? ok ok no black box....but there are Fire Panels and Monitoring Co.'s WITH NO INFORMATION SHOWING what happened that day.

Interesting the only thing to REALY prove ANYTHING is in the Fire Panels and the Monitoring systems (not to mention security and computer logs) with so little information on them ANYWHERE even in the reports.

This is one item that has been OVERLOOKED and is realy only true truth we are all seeking.

Your Canadian Friend,

There are plenty of threads in which to opine over the lack of certain evidence. I am trying to keep this thread on proof to the positive and free from lamenting the lack of negatives. If you have an oppinion, I respect that but there are more than enough places for that thank you.

reply to post by MorningStar8741

Renaming your thread puts my comments on topic and since you took the time to change the title I can do the same and post a reply.

For actual proof, or empirical evidence, I think KaginD is spot on. Gravitational acceleration and conservation of momentum deal with physical laws that are verifiable and observable.

Originally posted by KaginD
As far as proof goes, the only peice of evidence that I have been taken by was the fact that the towers fell in about 9 seconds.... How would the towers fall in under 10 seconds with each floor providing at least one second of resistance??

The rate at which all 3 towers accelerated to the ground seen in some of the videos is also what did it for me. Here is evidence, both observable and provable, that clearly show the official theory in contradiction with the laws of physics.

Towers 1 & 2 were 1360+ feet tall and for any object to free fall this distance would take a little over 9 seconds without any resistance-including air. The exact time it took for the towers to fall is unclear due to the dust obscuring the last few seconds of collapse but it is somewhere between 10-15 seconds. The resistance from the air inside the building between each floor alone would slow the collapse down past 15 seconds not to mention the resistance from the structural steel and concrete.

Not everyone has a clear understanding of the physics involved so I'll point out that the Earth's gravity accelerates all objects towards itself at the same rate, 32ft/sec, no matter the size, shape or density of the object. Resistance from air changes the acceleration rate on objects of different shapes and densities making it's terminal velocity different but this is not an issue here due to there being no resistance observed in any of the videos. No matter how heavy the building is nor how many floors were said to "pancake" increasing the momentum it will not go faster then 32ft/sec without additional force added and we still need to subtract all the resistance like the steel columns, trusses, exterior beams, concrete and don't forget the air.

Conservation of momentum contradicts the pancake theory in a couple ways. To have momentum in the falling floors break the supporting steel below it, floor by floor, and also maintain an unimpeded gravitational acceleration cannot happen, the energy goes one way or another not both. Furthermore what is observed is the concrete being pulverized to dust, billowing out and covering NYC. This is supported by the absent of stacked floors on the ground, there should be some floors visible (where's the pancakes?). The momentum in the concrete floors cannot be in two places at once, it remained in the concrete dust until it settled on the ground.

In order to explain how momentum in the concrete floors can systematically break the steel supports, maintain a free fall acceleration, pulverize itself into dust and then cast itself outward covering the city of New York one would need to replacing the laws of physics for magic. This would then make it the largest magic trick I have ever seen.

The myriad of videos show empirical evidence of what happened but it does not show how it was done or who was responsible. We can claim ourselves to be a truther (whatever that is) or a debunked, adopt any theory we want, ridicule-criticize or label others as crazy CT'ists and point blame in all directions but none of this is truth-not even close IMHO. If we have the courage and patience to see things for what they are we stand a chance of finding Truth.

[edit on 9/27/2008 by Devino]

[edit on 9/27/2008 by Devino]

reply to post by Devino


Well, I thank you for your contribution but I would also thank you to not accuse me of calling anyone crazy CTers or ridiculing anyone for what they believe happend that day. I simply spoke against people posting merely oppinion and nothing else. I am not sure where you get the rest from but the info is nice, thanks.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by Devino

 

Well, I thank you for your contribution but I would also thank you to not accuse me of calling anyone crazy CTers or ridiculing anyone for what they believe happend that day. I simply spoke against people posting merely oppinion and nothing else. I am not sure where you get the rest from but the info is nice, thanks.

After rereading my post I see your point MorningStar and would like to apologize for the mistake on my part. It was not my intention to accuse you of anything and I now see how it appears as though I was addressing you specifically.

I believe that giving ourselves labels does not serve the point we are attempting to make and blaming is about as worthless as ridicule or name calling. These seem to be nothing more then distractions that end up derailing the original topic and happens all too often. The laws of physics are clear and absolute and I find it amazing that so many people I talk to don't understand the implications here.

reply to post by Devino


That is a solid point. Far too many people do not understand enough about physics to realize what is questionable. That is why we need things that people can look at or read and understand that proves something to them. Just saying physics does no good in a room full of people who have no clue about real world physics. Ask everyone you see today to explain how the towers make sense, how magnets work, and how gravity works. I guarantee you will soon realize that people need things more concrete and less etheral to understand.

That is why I started this thread. So that it can fill up with the kinds of things people can see, watch, read, and come to a conclusion completely free of oppinions and the hostility of argument.

Craters at WTC site
This is craters at WTC site that can be viewed in detail in the article at the website www.thepriceofliberty.org




[edit on 28-9-2008 by fmcanarney]

Originally posted by fmcanarney
Craters at WTC site


[edit on 28-9-2008 by fmcanarney]

Please do not take this as an insult but would you mind explaining the source of this picture. If you really want people to consider your evidence, then explaining where it came from might help. Thanks in advance.

Originally posted by Devino
Towers 1 & 2 were 1360+ feet tall and for any object to free fall this distance would take a little over 9 seconds without any resistance-including air. The exact time it took for the towers to fall is unclear due to the dust obscuring the last few seconds of collapse but it is somewhere between 10-15 seconds. The resistance from the air inside the building between each floor alone would slow the collapse down past 15 seconds not to mention the resistance from the structural steel and concrete.

This is not accurate at all, you've simply stated this without providing any proof. Dr Greening, Dr Bazant etc deal with the compression and evacuation of air in their paper. Where are your figures?

Not everyone has a clear understanding of the physics involved so I'll point out that the Earth's gravity accelerates all objects towards itself at the same rate, 32ft/sec, no matter the size, shape or density of the object.

It's worthy of note that 32ft/s is a velocity, not an acceleration. The actual value is approximately 32 ft per second per second. I admit this is being pedantic, but it is a matter of accuracy.

due to there being no resistance observed in any of the videos.

This is just ludicrous, there was obviously massive amounts of resistance unless you believe explosives were planted on every single column on every single floor and detonated at the precise millisecond before the upper section debris reached it. You have absolutely no evidence of this.

No matter how heavy the building is nor how many floors were said to "pancake" increasing the momentum it will not go faster then 32ft/sec without additional force added and we still need to subtract all the resistance like the steel columns, trusses, exterior beams, concrete and don't forget the air.

32ft/s/s but yes you are correct. Actual measured values for descent acceleration are 3/4g and 2/3g for WTC1 and 2 respectively.

Conservation of momentum contradicts the pancake theory in a couple ways. To have momentum in the falling floors break the supporting steel below it, floor by floor, and also maintain an unimpeded gravitational acceleration cannot happen, the energy goes one way or another not both.

This is incorrect, you are assuming that there was no deceleration despite the fact that this is evident from the fall times you quote alone.

Furthermore what is observed is the concrete being pulverized to dust, billowing out and covering NYC. This is supported by the absent of stacked floors on the ground, there should be some floors visible (where's the pancakes?).

Floors were 4" thick and an acre in area. Despite this there are several reports of pancaked floors being discovered. Even Dr Steven Jones has now disclaimed the 'pulverized to dust' theory. You are aware this would require explosives drilled into the floor across every floor right?

In order to explain how momentum in the concrete floors can systematically break the steel supports, maintain a free fall acceleration, pulverize itself into dust and then cast itself outward covering the city of New York one would need to replacing the laws of physics for magic. This would then make it the largest magic trick I have ever seen.

Or you can simply be wrong on almost all of these points, when you start from a false premise, no wonder your conclusion is "magic".

Please read this paper, which is due for publication in an ASCE journal (iirc) in the next month or so: /4wf7td

edit:

Please do not take this as an insult but would you mind explaining the source of this picture. If you really want people to consider your evidence, then explaining where it came from might help. Thanks in advance.

It's sourced from a LIDAR flyover of the WTC, it's a rough altitude plot of the debris. Not sure if it's being used to support any point but it's legitimate as far as I know.

edit: Changed long unparsed URL for tinyurl.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by exponent]

Gravity is = -32ft/sec/sec
drop something from 1,178 feet and it begins accelerating towards the center of the earth.

one sec it is travelling 32 feet per sec and has fallen 32 feet.

at the end of the second sec it is now travelling 64 feet per sec, and has fallen a total of 96 feet, the sum of the first sec and the second sec.

at the end of the third sec it is travelling 96 feet per sec. and has fallen a total of 160 feet.

at the end of the forth sec it is travelling 128 feet per second and has fallen a total of 268 feet.

at the end of the fifth second it is travelling 160 feet per second and has fallen a total of 428 feet.

terminal velocity in air restance becomes a factor here. Terminal velocity is 125 mph or about 187.5 feet per second.

at the end of the sixth second it reaches terminal velocity of 187.5 feet per second and continues to fall at this rate till it hits the earth. at the end of the sixth second it has fallen a total of 615.5 feet.

end of seventh second fallen a total of 803 feel
end of eighth second fallen a total of 990 feet
end of ninth second fallen a total of 1178 feet

reply to post by exponent


Not a day goes by that someone does not come along and prove to me that reading comprehension is a lost art. THIS THREAD IS FOR EVIDENCE AND PROOF ONLY. NOT ARGUMENTS.

If I need to spell it out, ok. I wanted to get a good look at the whole picutre. It is a huge puzzle with so many pieces, I just wanted to try and collect them all. Eventually the well will run dry and at that point it would be feasable to delineate what is good, bad, right, wrong, lies, whatever.

The reason that I asked for no arguing the 'evidence' within the thread is because it does not take long for that to turn into a rebuttal and another and another and before tol ong there are pages of nothing but people argung the same point. There are plenty of 9/11 threads on which to argue. Perhaps it is even a good excuse to start one.

Please, for the sake of just plain info gathering, do not come here to dispute anything. There is a time and place for that.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Please, for the sake of just plain info gathering, do not come here to dispute anything. There is a time and place for that.

Why are you complaining at me? I provided a link to substantiate my posts, something Devino did not.

They are allowed to make whatever points they like, but I am not allowed to rebut them even if they are false? I'm sorry but I don't accept that. One should not allow ludicrous claims to go unchallenged.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
Please, for the sake of just plain info gathering, do not come here to dispute anything. There is a time and place for that.

Why are you complaining at me? I provided a link to substantiate my posts, something Devino did not.

They are allowed to make whatever points they like, but I am not allowed to rebut them even if they are false? I'm sorry but I don't accept that. One should not allow ludicrous claims to go unchallenged.

How about you just post your contradicting info without all the argument. If what you have is evidence or proof, post it. In the end wont that be sufficient to cancel out anything false posted before it?

I am more than happy to receive whatever evidence you have no matter who it contradicts. It is the half a page letter arguing against another poster that I object to.

There are two possible scenarios here

Someone posts bad info and someone else comes along and posts good info that debunks it. The thread is working the way it should

or

Someone posts bad info and someoe else comes along and posts good info and then spends most of their post telling another poster why they are wrong. The first poster has to return fire in defense and then we lose pages watching two people argue a point.

I am all for debate and questioning others. That is just not the point HERE.

If you have info that contradicts someone else's then PLEASE DO POST IT!!!!! I very much want to see that. I just do not want to lose pages to back and forth arguing. Look at it this way. If what you posted truly shoots down something previously posted, then that speaks for itself. Heck, start a thread about that one topic and post your good info and a link to the thread and invite the argument to happen there.

I hope you understand that I am not asking you not to dispute other posts. I am just asking you to present what you have the same way they did. They did not address you. They did not take your post and tear it up part by part. They just posted what they did. You do the same and it will all come out in the end.

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
How about you just post your contradicting info without all the argument. If what you have is evidence or proof, post it. In the end wont that be sufficient to cancel out anything false posted before it?

Unfortunately as I'm sure we're both aware, simply posting a link with relatively little context, especially when that link is to a rather technical paper is not exactly a sufficient rebuttal.

Regardless, I have posted the link and included my rebuttal, and I will refrain from any further argument in this thread regarding either topic. Hopefully that should satisfy you.

reply to post by exponent


You are more than welcome to post your link with as lengthy and explanation of what it is as you like. No one said you had to be brief. I am just asking that you not bother with the "hey that guy is wrong" stuff. Are you not able to post and explain your evidence without first negating someone else's? If it is good and true, it should negate their info on it's own but please, take all the time you like explaining what your link is.