9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

reply to post by bjarneorn


There is such a massive hole in your understanding of how the towers were engineered. If you actually believe what you've just written it's no wonder you believe such crazy things about the collapse of the towers. Another examle of the insanely aggressive and hugely misinformed nature of so many truthers. Pretty scary really.

Yawn.

Second line.

Originally posted by ccs08
First off, the difference between those burning buildings that you showed and the twin towers are that both of the towers were hit by gigantic airplanes going 400-500 mph.

The debate is why the towers collapsed in the manner they did.

"hit by gigantic airplanes" just won't do.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


Sorry why won't it? The wtc towers were the only examples of those types of buildings so I know you don't have a lot of evidence of similarily engineered buildings that were hit by massive planes and didn't collapse. Do you? No you don't.

One thing we know is true: the opening post has far more evidence than any of the 'official' government investigations. It's getting official story believers all frothy at the mouth.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

It won't do because "hit by gigantic airplanes" is not an explanation for why the towers collapsed.

It's something an adult would say to a very young child.

In a mature debate I would expect more critical thinking, and...um...an explanation that is consistent with the facts.

reply to post by FOXMULDER147


Actually it will do as the primary reason.

If you said, "my friend was hit by a car and died" I wouldn't say, "that didn't kill your friend you idiot; was it multiple organ failure, or a brain damage or shock or....". That would make me a pedantic ass. Instead I would accept that when the car hit them it had consequences and those are what killed them. Saw with the planes. Either you get that, or you don't but most people do. consequences and those are what killed them. Same with the planes. Either you get that, or you don't but most people do.

reply to post by TheComte


No it didn't. Getting a bunch of conspiracy theorists to defend a conspiracy isn't exactly difficult.

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by FOXMULDER147

 

Actually it will do as the primary reason.

If you said, "my friend was hit by a car and died" I wouldn't say, "that didn't kill your friend you idiot; was it multiple organ failure, or a brain damage or shock or....". That would make me a pedantic ass. Instead I would accept that when the car hit them it had consequences and those are what killed them. Saw with the planes. Either you get that, or you don't but most people do. consequences and those are what killed them. Same with the planes. Either you get that, or you don't but most people do.

edit on 13-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-9-2011 by captainnotsoobvious because: (no reason given)

So if you were a doctor and a family asked you for their daughter's cause of death, you would say:

"She got hit by a car."

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Yes it does and it's not even close.

Why are you spending all your time in this thread? I'm still waiting for you to present your evidence in your own thread that the official story is true. Put some in there so we can discuss it. Oh, you can't because there isn't any?

Either you get that, or you don't, but most people do.

Excellent, thorough, and amazingly concise post, especially considering its length. I have read about or seen much of what you condense into your post, but it is always great to see someone making a real effort to figure out something, rather than just blurting a "I heard someone tell someone else..." statement.

Contrary to what many people think of "truthers", I think it is extremely partriotic and American to find out the truth of a situation, especially when so many people were killed and physically and emotionally scarred from such a travesty. Patriotism may not be pretty, but it is a whole lot prettier than deceit and blind acceptance of the status quo. This my friend, what you have done here, is patriotic. You want to live in a country where truth matters, lives matter, and people stand up for the freedoms they have been promised, however eroded and non-existent they seem to be. Bravo.

reply to post by mountaingirl1111


well cheers for that reply it is how i think also....The truth would be more beneficial to those lives lost than to live in a world of constant lies...well said....star for you.

Originally posted by ccs08
That entire OP has been disproved time and time again. I don't know why people can't let it go that there is no conspiracy involving the September 11th TERRORIST attacks.

If that is true, then you are a terrorist ... are you?

First off, the difference between those burning buildings that you showed and the twin towers are that both of the towers were hit by gigantic airplanes going 400-500 mph. That along with the fire is what made the WTC's collapse. As far as the explosions heard in the towers, what did you expect there would be in a raging inferno like that? There are so many possibilities for the sounds of the explosions that I can't even list them all.

Even if you ignore the fact, that the buildings were designed to withstand such impact. You have simple newtonian law, the impact would scew the towers and they would not fall down symmetrically. The fires are not evenly distributed over the building, so the damage would not be equally distributed over the support columns, and no symmetrical collapse could occurr.

Secondly, when people discuss WT7 they always conveniently leave out facts like firefighters reporting that 1/3 of the building was missing, and the fact that there was a gas line in WT7 that exploded. If you actually research things instead of blindly following conspiracies you would know this.

An explosion is not enough, you have to have a sustainable fire at over 1535 Degrees celcius to melt the steel. Since, when fire started, I suspect all gas lines were closed to the lines. There would be no sustainable fire at that heat level, only a single explosion causing havoc, but not enough to melt the steel columns.

And you should know, that steel bends, when it melts ... the building would not collapse in on itself.

I guess you think that some demolition team snuck into all 3 buildings that collapsed, planted explosives without being seen, and they payed off the FBI, CIA, NYPD, NYFD, WTC employees, and anyone else involved so no one would tell the truth? It simply didn't happen. Terrorists attacked the buildings and they collapsed due to their gravity, fire, and their support being destroyed. But of course, everyone on this site became a physics expert and an engineer the second those towers collapsed.

I AM a physics expert ... and so are many others around here. And you don't even have to be a physics expert to realize, that anything in nature will occurr random ... an accident will occurr, random. These towers did not fall down random ... that should be obvious, even to a retard.

Let me put it this way for you ... IFF this had been a natural event (i.e. not a controlled demolition), one of the larger towers should have bent and fallen to the side as the upper part of it was more or less whole when it fell. The tower should have broken to large pieces, that would have damaged buildings besides it over a large area ... causing HUGE damage, and massive loss of life. That would be "natural disaster" event caused by the structural failure.... why? because all steel have different "strength" or stretch areas. So a failing structure, would have different failing areas, causing a non-symmetrical failure, and the structure would fall aside, rather than crumble down. And the top part should have fall off the build and mostly fall down ... whole. And even if it would have started to fall, as it did. Very clearly the upper part of the building is breaking apart, and as it breaks apart it is no longer the weight column that is causing the structural failure. So the structural failure would have stopped half way, rather than continue all the way down.

That tower fell, CONVENIENTLY, to save you from all that disaster ... in on itself.

I know its hars to put it like that ... but its the truth.

I'd be stupid to think that we know the entire story about what happened on September 11th, but the bomb theory is just too far out there to be true.

It'd be stupid not to ask questions ... the official story is so rediculous that you have to be a retard, not to question it.

First, there are no interceptors to stop the second flight ... and because the US is holding a nation wide "taining" session on the exactly same sort of events, so nobody thinks it's real. Really? are you daft? You have to be a moron to believe that.

A terrorist passport is found away from the building, its like reading Al Qaida members having a written list of their compatriots in their pockets. You have to be a serious moron to think this is a possibility. The plane totally destroyed in an engulfing fire that supposedly melted the entire building, that destroyes everything ... but the terrorist, probably opened a window on his aeroplane flying at 500 mph, just to throw out his calling card ... right? Jesus christ? or just "god" interviened to let you know, who it was. are you daft enough to believe this?

A news network, is talking to a guy on the street ... who is giving techical and engineering session about what is going on, at the same time it is going on. A guy who talks as he's reading a script ... wow, now on top of everything else. There has to something seriously wrong, if you think this is normal. Everyone in New York is shocked, crying and screaming out of panic. But here is one guy, who is like a paid actor in a movie ... reading the script of the movie, as it happens. Yeah ... right ... don't you have flying cows in America too? and Aliens, right? Oh, it was all Usama Bin Ladin, he was in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan, controlling it all from his laptop ... connected over a cellphone, through a satellite ...

And nobody pulled the plug on the satellite? Where was the CIA? oh, I forgot ... they were in WT7, that collapsed ... right? conveniently? or was that the investigation that collapsed, help me ... I forget.

And then all three buildings symmetrically fall upon themselves ... wow. A plausible possibility, of a symmetrical collapse of three buildings at the same time? Not even one in a trillion. Unless they were built to symmetrically fall upon themselves when some stress point was reached ... were they? if so, this is a fault in the building ... not a terrorist act.

And in the end, over a million peole have perished and when NATO went into Lybia. Al Qaida, is NATO's allies on the battlefield. What? No reaction? that's not even a little suspicious? huh?

I say "high treason" ... and anyone who harbours these treasonous men, should be brought to justice with them ... just as harshly as they themselves caused over a million people to perish over this. A million, women and children ... children, born deformed because of the use of radioactive amunition.

We are not about to forgive it ... do you think the world is going to say "Amen" over all the deformed children and torture chambers?

reply to post by Akasirus

Please stop hiding behind your gross perversion of the scientific method. You have conducted no experiments that can be independently replicated and verified.

What about the metallurgical analysis of the eutectic steel, or the active thermitic material discovered in the dust samples?

You linked to secondary and tertiary research, you 'tested' your hypothesis by picking and choosing data that confirmed it, and you analyzed your preformed conclusion to determine the results. This is not the scientific method, as their is nothing scientific about what you have done in your original post.

I diagree. True, the evidence presented was used to back up the controlled demolition scenario, but the research of building collapses is what led to that hypothesis. So really the "preformed conclusion" was formed by the observations made during the initial research of how fire affects buildings, the characteristics of natural building collapses, explosions, or fire damage.

There is nothing wrong with providing articles and resources that support your theory, but trying to elevate it under the guise of the 'scientific method' is a disservice to the validity of some of the research you have presented.

I believe the scientific method was utilized to prove the controlled demolition theory. I did my best to explain how each step was followed in this post.

Plus since the fire-damage theory did not support the hypothesis, FEMA should have started over and developed a new hypothesis, but they didn't.

Also, due to the chaotic nature of fire and the many variables present in a buildings construction, you cannot use case studies of other burning buildings to conclusively rule anything out. Even two buildings built to the exact same specs and set on fire at the same location would burn very differently. It can provide some good insight as to what would potentially happen, but on its own doesn't prove anything.

Good point, however when looking at several examples of steel-framed skyscrapers as opposed to just one, all of them yielding the same results is pretty hard to argue against.

reply to post by TechniXcality


Hmm....lots of newly made accounts backing the official story, interesting.

I really would like to know, and I registered just to ask this question. What purpose dose it serve to believe your government is out to get you? How is it practical to be paranoid and always out in left field?

That's a good one, did you come up with that yourself at the lastest CIA dis-info meeting?

It's not a matter of thinking the "government is out to get you" and being "paranoid", it's about looking at the facts about 9/11, the things that you don't hear about from politicians or the corporate media, and making an educated decision on whether or not the damage was sufficient to cause the collapses based on what evidence you look at.

Do I think the governments "out to get [me]"? Well, the 4th amendment violations under the Patriot Act, 8th amendment violations at Guantanamo Bay, and the removal of habeus corpus wasn't exactly done to look out for me, so I think that can definitely be argued. Hell there's probably members of the government that spy on this very website. In fact it would be foolish to think that the internets largest conspiracy site wouldn't have government officials crawling out of the woodwork.

What do you gain even if your right, the most you can do about it is post "scientific" data on a conspiracy website, then what, what’s next pinky how shall we convince the world, and save the world?

Well first off we need to start by convincing the people, the majority of people I talk to are completely shut off to the idea and aren't even rational enough to listen to what I have to say regarding the subject. Having a conversation with many people who believe the official story is like talking to a 10 year old who puts their hands over their ears, closes their eyes, and yells "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!".

I’m sorry but if the idea isn’t practical then I believe it should be thrown out, or atleast put on the back burner. Why hold an ideology of paranoid conspiracies that will never be accepted by the mainstream there for changing nothing

The idea that the corporate controlled media would give these "paranoid conspiracies" legitimate consideration and attention is laughable.

You have no means to an end you offer no solution and quiet frankly there is no solution because the ideas are beyond fringe therefore they are not practical to your everyday life and only serve to devalue your credibility whether right or wrong this is true.

I gave quite a few courses of action in the OP:

No, you can all be a part of the solution and not the problem. Send this YouTube video to others and spread the word. Demand a real investigation. Call and write your elected representatives in Congress, local television stations, radio stations, newspapers, national TV and radio networks, newspapers, and magazines. Print off flyers that briefly summarize the key pieces of evidence that prove the official story to be false and validate a controlled demolition. Sign the petition to support a new investigation.

reply to post by ccs08


Hmm.....another new account backing the official story, nothing out of the ordinary here.

That entire OP has been disproved time and time again.

Point out one post in this thread that comes even remotely close to accomplishing this.

I don't know why people can't let it go that there is no conspiracy involving the September 11th TERRORIST attacks.

Ah terrorist in caps, I'm sure at the CIA dis-info meeting the emphasis on the TERRORISTS was stressed.

First off, the difference between those burning buildings that you showed and the twin towers are that both of the towers were hit by gigantic airplanes going 400-500 mph. That along with the fire is what made the WTC's collapse

It's brilliant! You're incredibly well-thought out analysis has successfully debunked all of the evidence in the OP! You are an official story superstar!

As far as the explosions heard in the towers, what did you expect there would be in a raging inferno like that? There are so many possibilities for the sounds of the explosions that I can't even list them all.

In fact there are so many that you can't even name one.

Secondly, when people discuss WT7 they always conveniently leave out facts like firefighters reporting that 1/3 of the building was missing, and the fact that there was a gas line in WT7 that exploded. If you actually research things instead of blindly following conspiracies you would know this.

Yeah and when you discuss WTC7, you forget to include facts like it wasn't struck by an airplane. 1/3 of the building is a massive overstatement and quite simply a blatantly false statement. If you could actually debunk anything in the OP, that would give you at least a shred of credibility.

I guess you think that some demolition team snuck into all 3 buildings that collapsed, planted explosives without being seen, and they payed off the FBI, CIA, NYPD, NYFD, WTC employees, and anyone else involved so no one would tell the truth?

I can't say exactly what happened, but I don't need to have a video of the demolition team setting it up and documentation of this contract in order for the 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition that match up perfectly with its collapse to be any more of a match.

It simply didn't happen.

If you say so!

Terrorists attacked the buildings and they collapsed due to their gravity, fire, and their support being destroyed.

You can think that, I don't care. But if you're going to come in here and push your beliefs, you need to show us how our beliefs are wrong. Start by debunking a small fraction of the 7 posts worth of evidence that backs up a controlled demoliiton.

But of course, everyone on this site became a physics expert and an engineer the second those towers collapsed.

Um....no.

I'd be stupid to think that we know the entire story about what happened on September 11th, but the bomb theory is just too far out there to be true.

"Bomb theory", yes there was a big bomb planted in the bottom. That's how controlled demolitions work, there is a single bomb that goes BOOM and the building collapses.

It's not too far out there to be true, because it's in fact been proven to be reality in the OP of this thread.

www.911myths.com...

Sweet! A link to 911 myths, thanks!

Originally posted by lkpuede

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

...

...
Osama probably ALSO stole that $7 Billion in cash that the Bush operatives lost in Iraq.

-- the ONLY conclusion I could make is; Allah is a greater God than our God and he's obviously on the side of the terrorists.

Because THAT is some damn Miracle Terrorist fairy dust right there if you think that Osama set the buildings up to fall ahead of the planes -- AND he told the Mossad he was going to do it so they'd be on hand to videotape, AND he was sure that nobody would listen to that guy at the FBI who sent in 72 notices; "Osama determined to attack."

sooo...how did OBL "probably" steal the $7 Billion in cash that the Bush operatives lost in Iraq?
and you might not know...but you'd need something like 4 or 5 53' trailers to move $7 Billion dollars.

i been watching this thread all day and it just gets loopier and loopier as the hours go by. ain't no tellin what people are gonna be saying by midnight.

edit on 12-9-2011 by lkpuede because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2011 by lkpuede because: (no reason given)

If you cannot tell I was being Sarcastic with my remark about the $7 Billion stolen in Iraq -- I think you might FIND a lot of loopy comments.

However -- the point I'm making, is that if it was simply "bad al Qaeda guys attacked us" -- how on earth did they force the Bush administration like it was covering up its own misdeeds?

I relate this to the "cover up" with the JFK assassination, because if it were simply a sniper, then a lot of things like JFK's brain being stolen would NOT have taken place. In that particular instance -- there were a lot of people who were initially ONLY involved in a coverup because they were afraid it was an assassination by Castro -- so in order to prevent a war with Cuba (and by extension a nuclear war with the USSR), they helped cover it up. Last week, Jacky Onassis' family released a video interview where she claims she suspected the Johnson administration assassinated her husband -- though I think the Johnson administration might have been part it, I don't think they were the ones who set it up -- whoever did had connections with the Cuban Mafia (as there were three cuban mafia who attempted to kill JFK in Florida three days before), and someone with connections in the CIA and perhaps FBI (because Hoover did NOT investigate).


>> But the MAIN point here -- is that people who say there are "no conspiracies" -- are usually ignorant of actual history. And people who claim that Osama was the principle behind 9/11 -- have to ignore all the misdeeds that he could NOT POSSIBLY have been involved in.

The Bush administration is already guilty of; War Crimes, War Profiteering, Extraditing POWs to be tortured by other countries, enabling a torture Program against Geneva Conventions under the standards that we set forth at the Nuremberg trials, fraud, graft, Election Fraud, treason, distributing nuclear secrets (see; testimony of Sibel Edmonds), racketeering, domestic spying program BEFORE they made it legal, assassinations both foreign and domestic (of which, Cheney's "Executive Assassination Squad"), etc. There was even a book published called; "The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder" -- which was written by a lawyer as a how to manual to convict him in court and distributed to many Federal Prosecutors who failed to follow up.

9/11 is only a psychological barrier for people to understand how false flags manipulate us. Consider that ON THE RECORD, our government has a history of using False Flags to engage us in war. Korea (according to the Pentagon), Vietnam (according to the Pentagon), the Spanish American War (according to General Smedley Butler in his book; "War is a Racket"). Likely more.

So I think the BURDEN OF PROOF, needs to be with the Prime suspects in the Bush administration.

Originally posted by lkpuede

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by jonnywhite

 

...

...
Osama probably ALSO stole that $7 Billion in cash that the Bush operatives lost in Iraq.

-- the ONLY conclusion I could make is; Allah is a greater God than our God and he's obviously on the side of the terrorists.

Because THAT is some damn Miracle Terrorist fairy dust right there if you think that Osama set the buildings up to fall ahead of the planes -- AND he told the Mossad he was going to do it so they'd be on hand to videotape, AND he was sure that nobody would listen to that guy at the FBI who sent in 72 notices; "Osama determined to attack."

sooo...how did OBL "probably" steal the $7 Billion in cash that the Bush operatives lost in Iraq?
and you might not know...but you'd need something like 4 or 5 53' trailers to move $7 Billion dollars.

i been watching this thread all day and it just gets loopier and loopier as the hours go by. ain't no tellin what people are gonna be saying by midnight.

edit on 12-9-2011 by lkpuede because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2011 by lkpuede because: (no reason given)

If you cannot tell I was being Sarcastic with my remark about the $7 Billion stolen in Iraq -- I think you might FIND a lot of loopy comments.

However -- the point I'm making, is that if it was simply "bad al Qaeda guys attacked us" -- how on earth did they force the Bush administration like it was covering up its own misdeeds?

I relate this to the "cover up" with the JFK assassination, because if it were simply a sniper, then a lot of things like JFK's brain being stolen would NOT have taken place. In that particular instance -- there were a lot of people who were initially ONLY involved in a coverup because they were afraid it was an assassination by Castro -- so in order to prevent a war with Cuba (and by extension a nuclear war with the USSR), they helped cover it up. Last week, Jacky Onassis' family released a video interview where she claims she suspected the Johnson administration assassinated her husband -- though I think the Johnson administration might have been part it, I don't think they were the ones who set it up -- whoever did had connections with the Cuban Mafia (as there were three cuban mafia who attempted to kill JFK in Florida three days before), and someone with connections in the CIA and perhaps FBI (because Hoover did NOT investigate).


>> But the MAIN point here -- is that people who say there are "no conspiracies" -- are usually ignorant of actual history. And people who claim that Osama was the principle behind 9/11 -- have to ignore all the misdeeds that he could NOT POSSIBLY have been involved in.

The Bush administration is already guilty of; War Crimes, War Profiteering, Extraditing POWs to be tortured by other countries, enabling a torture Program against Geneva Conventions under the standards that we set forth at the Nuremberg trials, fraud, graft, Election Fraud, treason, distributing nuclear secrets (see; testimony of Sibel Edmonds), racketeering, domestic spying program BEFORE they made it legal, assassinations both foreign and domestic (of which, Cheney's "Executive Assassination Squad"), etc. There was even a book published called; "The Prosecution of George Bush for Murder" -- which was written by a lawyer as a how to manual to convict him in court and distributed to many Federal Prosecutors who failed to follow up.

9/11 is only a psychological barrier for people to understand how false flags manipulate us. Consider that ON THE RECORD, our government has a history of using False Flags to engage us in war. Korea (according to the Pentagon), Vietnam (according to the Pentagon), the Spanish American War (according to General Smedley Butler in his book; "War is a Racket"). Likely more.

So I think the BURDEN OF PROOF, needs to be with the Prime suspects in the Bush administration.

I honestly dont understand why you took all this time to put this together,its sad and disturbing if you ask me.

Seriously how can anyone after watching the OP video still believe the official story? it tears it apart ,you have to be in denial if you still believe the official story after watching this.