Carlton Supporters Club

From that list, I singled this one out and used science as went is different.

It's easy to lump all the eggs in the same basket with the heading conspiracy theory.

It's harder to look into things and think for yourself.
Science calls BS on 9/11!

If the US weren't so focussed on themselves they would realise that their 'story' has more holes than a fly screen and the rest of the world is starting to see through it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpXGMcohR8A

Richard Gage represents approx. 3,400 architects, globally, not satisfied with the official explanation of 9/11.

Good on you.

But if you consider the three WTC buildings were brought down by planes you have a very limited understanding of basic physics - and chemistry for that matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpXGMcohR8A

No, I just know you or others will bite after a loss, it's pointless having any serious topics discussed here today!

Of course, scientists are like any sector of society, is no different to any other. But the chains of decision making you imply are corrupt involve thousands if not tens of thousands of people involved, no one or few have enough control to corrupt the process. The globe isn't the USA, and Trump isn't pulling the strings.

The absence of evidence is not a sign of an even greater conspiracy, the QAnon world isn't real!

Again, with the black and white, you sure you dont barrack for collingwood?

There is a clear grey area that exists between believing everything you hear and believing nothing you hear. I am not implying tens of thousands of people are corrupt with this AZ thing. Not even close.

If I am Australia, I am just saying, look into it. Why are major nations gun shy. Why are they flipping? And flipping back? Something doesn't add up. Don't believe the media, do the research yourself.

Ive pointed out a few times that there are always issues on the front line....hang back and see first. Read the room. Adapt, improve....don't simply follow.

You say you agree but continue to argue and paint me as an extremist when its far from the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpXGMcohR8A

Richard Gage represents approx. 3,400 architects, globally, not satisfied with the official explanation of 9/11.

There is a good doco (loose change) that has gone through multiple incarnations that show similar.
They don't force feed it down your throat, but provide the story being told, show the evidence and its up to you to work out if it fits.

It's as obvious as saying the government says this is an Apple....shows a picture of a banana
....does the story make sense?
It's that obvious the holes in the stories.

It's about time some learned professionals people are doing the same thing.

Wonder how long before American government comes clean?

Then we can finally focus on the really important issues like whether the moon landing was faked.

Then we can finally focus on the really important issues like whether the moon landing was faked.

You are embarrassing yourself now.

Go watch any 10 minutes of the video linked above and I guarantee you many questions you never thought you'd be asking get stuck in your head.

Rabbit holes do exist, and sometimes you'll actually find the rabbit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpXGMcohR8A

Richard Gage represents approx. 3,400 architects, globally, not satisfied with the official explanation of 9/11.

I think you are underselling it by saying they are not satisfied with the explanation.

They provide evidence of 100s of statements, audio and video evidence proving the official statements are false.....and point out none were used in the hearings.

They show the basic calculations made in the official reports are completely inaccurate. Not only that, they defy the laws of physics.

As best I can tell it's about 6 hours of proper scientific method, pointing out the innacuracies in the official report. Through use of peer reviewed journals and professionals.

Its about the biggest, 'mic drop' of all time.

Thanks, but no thanks. Why should I care about a 20 year old event when “finding the truth” has so little relevance to the here and now. Perhaps you can inspire me by distilling its significance: if X, then Y & Z.

If the point is that it will show that the US Govt can be nefarious, I should point out that 4 years of Trump and the current QAnon Congress have made the point already.

Thanks, but no thanks. Why should I care about a 20 year old event when “finding the truth” has so little relevance to the here and now. Perhaps you can inspire me by distilling its significance: if X, then Y & Z.

If the point is that it will show that the US Govt can be nefarious, I should point out that 4 years of Trump and the current QAnon Congress have made the point already.

If...
Something so world shaping is the result of nothing other than government cover up and manipulation
Then...
1. What do they get out of it? Why did they do it?
2. How often has similar occurred that is less obvious
3. What is next in the pipeline
And perhaps the biggest question...
4. What happens when the rest of the world confront the US about this.

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Ignore it at your own risk.

If you want to call out conspiracy theories...educate yourself first

Again ... Trump. He said all the quiet bits out loud. His anti-democratic white supremacist administration has left much more relevant and alarming damage in its wake than the 9/11 conspiracy could ever uncover. And it has current real-world implications. Sorry if I won’t obsess over a hang-nail when cancer is mestasticising all over the place.

Again ... Trump. He said all the quiet bits out loud. His anti-democratic white supremacist administration has left much more relevant and alarming damage in its wake than the 9/11 conspiracy could ever uncover. And it has current real-world implications. Sorry if I won’t obsess over a hang-nail when cancer is mestasticising all over the place.

White supremacist?

That's total, fabricated spin.

Again ... Trump. He said all the quiet bits out loud. His anti-democratic white supremacist administration has left much more relevant and alarming damage in its wake than the 9/11 conspiracy could ever uncover. And it has current real-world implications. Sorry if I won’t obsess over a hang-nail when cancer is mestasticising all over the place.

For all trumps trumping all it did was damage the US brand and show how ignorant the American public can be.
9/11 started wars, witch hunts and...scared the public into giving up basic human rights like privacy...the world over.

Trump was a person.
9/11 was a while government

Trump was the whole govt.

Again, with the black and white, you sure you dont barrack for collingwood?

There is a clear grey area that exists between believing everything you hear and believing nothing you hear. I am not implying tens of thousands of people are corrupt with this AZ thing. Not even close.

If I am Australia, I am just saying, look into it. Why are major nations gun shy. Why are they flipping? And flipping back? Something doesn't add up. Don't believe the media, do the research yourself.

Ive pointed out a few times that there are always issues on the front line....hang back and see first. Read the room. Adapt, improve....don't simply follow.

You say you agree but continue to argue and paint me as an extremist when its far from the case.

No black and white in my statement, only what you think you see, you're always paranoid after our losses.

Richard Gage represents approx. 3,400 architects, globally, not satisfied with the official explanation of 9/11.

As part of basic bushfire research, CSIRO did extensive testing of various building materials, and found steel and some metals although less likely to catch would also suffer the most catastrophic failures at lower temperatures or from being heated to high temperatures. The structural members buckle and fold like a melted straw once they get above a critical temperature.

The longest survived structures in bush fires are solid log constructions, because although they burn the timber chars on the outside but doesn't become structurally weaker in the process lasting much longer before failure. Sort of makes sense when you see the charred forests after regional fires. For this reason they are now developing new building codes that may permit construction up to 10 stories structurally built out of wood.

It's probably fair to say the Twin Towers must have been exposed to some extreme heat, they were basically 100 story chimneys. I think CSIRO and other local scientists debugged the 9/11 conspiracies very well a long time back on The Conversation website, you might still be able to find that information.

There will always be alternate opinions, some because they just refuse to accept what they think is right is wrong, others because they have some external motive affecting their judgement, others because they want there to be a conspiracy.

As part of basic bushfire research, CSIRO did extensive testing of various building materials, and found steel and some metals although less likely to catch would also suffer the most catastrophic failures at lower temperatures or from being heated to high temperatures. The structural members buckle and fold like a melted straw once they get above a critical temperature.

The longest survived structures in bush fires are solid log constructions, because although they burn the timber chars on the outside but doesn't become structurally weaker in the process lasting much longer before failure. Sort of makes sense when you see the charred forests after regional fires. For this reason they are now developing new building codes that may permit construction up to 10 stories structurally built out of wood.

It's probably fair to say the Twin Towers must have been exposed to some extreme heat, they were basically 100 story chimneys. I think CSIRO and other local scientists debugged the 9/11 conspiracies very well a long time back on The Conversation website, you might still be able to find that information.

There will always be alternate opinions, some because they just refuse to accept what they think is right is wrong, others because they have some external motive affecting their judgement, others because they want there to be a conspiracy.

All that is debunked lp.

I watched 20minutes of what was posted before. ive seen others talking about it too.

No skyscraper has ever been brought down by fire.....ever......anywhere. 3 happened on the same day.

Jet fuel can't burn hot enough to get to the heat required for the type of failure seen.

Even still, all beams and columns are fire rated to withstand fire and heat for 2-3 hours. They were completely down in an hour.

They fell at free fall.

Clearly if this was the perfect storm of a freak accident and a 1 in a trillion event, you'd want to look at evidence.....but that was shipped off immediately to China and destroyed. Maybe it wasn't a freak accident and maybe they didn't want to look at the evidence.

Fwiw, military grade thermite was found in an a nearby apartment where it was analysed in a lab.

The way some beams were sheared/cut is not consistent with a fall but rather....yep....thermite and controlled demolition.

All that is debunked lp.

Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in something like concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.

Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering...

Apparently YOU can.

Listen to the people who designed them, architects and engineers. THEY are the ones who have done the research.

Stop arguing about something you havn't seen.

Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.

The steels beams/supports of the WTC were painted with a special fire / heat retardant (forget the name) making them almost 4 times more resistant for fire / heat.

Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.

Yeah right.
80 plus floors were not even impacted by the plane.....

That's really poor for a scientist.

By the by, even the NIST report concurs that a minimum 90% of the fuel load was expended outside the building ie in the explosion during impact.

What energy source then brought the building down in next to free fall speed?

Heard of the law of conservation of momentum?

That's not even addressing the symmetry of descent, the vapour point of jet fuel and the melting temperature of treated steel......

Yeah right.
80 plus floors were not even impacted by the plane.....

That's really poor for a scientist.

By the by, even the NIST report concurs that a minimum 90% of the fuel load was expended outside the building ie in the explosion during impact.

What energy source then brought the building down in next to free fall speed?

Heard of the law of conservation of momentum?

That's not even addressing the symmetry of descent, the vapour point of jet fuel and the melting temperature of treated steel......

The NIST report has so many errors in it that are 'tweaked to try and cover up what really happened. Even if there was no tweaking..it still has so many errors.

@lp
You reckon its been debunked,  show me your evidence. I'll point out the inaccuracies in it for you.

The NIST report has so many errors in it that are 'tweaked to try and cover up what really happened. Even if there was no tweaking..it still has so many errors.

@lp
You reckon its been debunked,  show me your evidence. I'll point out the inaccuracies in it for you.

Nah, not going over that ground again, the myths persist longer than the facts.

We all know fairy-tales from 400 years ago, will take some to our grave with great accuracy, but finding out facts about real world events is almost impossible because the vast bulk of what we read is painted by opinion not data. Humanity is far to too fallible.

The stuff isn't meant to last, it's built to a price, we can't even assume the metallurgy in those towers was the same as the day they were built. We know now just a trace element in that steel can form an irreparable defect over time, just like the Westgate Bridge, similar vintage. And no modern building built today can withstand a large fraction of it collapsing down on itself, not one. The pyramids have lasted a thousand years pretty much untouched externally, there is hardly a skyscraper built today that would survive 100 without regular maintenance, just like our bridges which are constructed to an even tighter standards than a building.

Apparently YOU can.

Listen to the people who designed them, architects and engineers. THEY are the ones who have done the research.

Stop arguing about something you havn't seen.

So it's all black and white for you then? :o

All I can comment on is what specialists and scientists have reported, I'm not an engineer and won't pretend to be one from my armchair, neither are most architects they employ engineers to do the math for them.

The universal consensus doesn't really exist amongst the experts as some would like to think, but you can get that perception by choosing who to believe or cherry-picking the data.

So you say it's a conspiracy and there is proof.

I ask for evidence because I want to read it and you say no.

I on the other hand,  with others, says it's bs and here is why....and you refuse to entertain the idea.

You can lead a horse to water...

I'll get the screen and the shotgun...

So you say it's a conspiracy and there is proof.

I didn't say there was a conspiracy, I said there were various hypothesis.

Come back when your less grumpy and more likely to post sensibly.

So it's all black and white for you then? :o

All I can comment on is what specialists and scientists have reported, I'm not an engineer and won't pretend to be one from my armchair, neither are most architects they employ engineers to do the math for them.

The universal consensus doesn't really exist amongst the experts as some would like to think.

Both architects and engineers are in agreeance as was clearly stated in the post you quoted suggesting otherwise.

You COULD comment on the link... but you won't. Got a touch of the fonzies have you and mav.

I'm trying to learn what the other side thinks...and am getting nothing back.

I'll give air time to any competing theories and am happy to educate myself on such matters.
I once watched a flat earth doco to see what logic they used. Best comedy I've seen in ages.

I didn't say there was a conspiracy, I said there were various hypothesis.

Come back when your less grumpy and more likely to post sensibly.

Yes there are....and the one trotted out to the public is completely wrong.

....and I havnet even started on the non twin towers inaccuracies....

And I'm completely well fine thanks for caring. :D

Yes there are....and the one trotted out to the public is completely wrong.

....and I havnet even started on the non twin towers inaccuracies....

And I'm completely well fine thanks for caring. :D

I generally don't offer the conspiracies trotted out by think tanks, I won't offer "evidence or opinion" from such entities, because much of it is worthless or selectively distorted.

I prefer to discuss the un-doctored reports posted by authorities through authorised channels and verified by collegiate entities like universities or research organisations. If Cambridge, Oxford, CSIRO or Harvard come out as an entity and state these people are onto something, I'll take notice.

And I apply the same applies for COVID-19 disease or vaccine, I don't change tactic dependant on the subject matter or personal preference!

I prefer to discuss the un-doctored reports posted by authorities through authorised channels and verified by collegiate entities like universities or research organisations

....

And I apply the same applies for COVID-19 disease or vaccine, I don't change tactic dependant on the subject matter or personal preference!

If you find one, let me know.

The videos show that the report used was presented 2 days after the incident.
Full and thorough you reckon?

I don't change tact either. I question things and don't believe what the government says because the government said it.

The videos show that the report used was presented 2 days after the incident.
Full and thorough you reckon?

I don't change tact either. I question things and don't believe what the government says because the government said it.

Is CSIRO government? That's news to a lot of the leftish researchers working there, funded partially by Federal government no doubt, partially by State government too, and partially by private enterprise or foundations, but that is only partial funding of course! It will be hard to find one that speaks kindly of the government, any government for that matter, and good luck silencing or distorting their research for political or social engineering purposes and expecting them to stay quiet! :o

I'm not commenting on the validity of the reports linked by yourself or others in earlier posts, as I mentioned I don't comment on Think Tank type reports or statements from interest groups as they are often politically or socially coloured.

I've made a general post discussing reports from seriously qualified individuals and organisations about scientific and engineering testing that just happens to coincidentally be very relevant to the specific 911 case. In general the CSIRO commentary was about how buildings fail under fire conditions, all types of building and all types of fire including combustible explosions. These studies often expose rules of physics or materials that can be universally applied, not just applied selectively in a very choice set of circumstances, but general global findings. Usually, such global findings occur in every instance, usually but not always. These specialists from all around the globe would be all over any systemic false reporting, followed by the mainstream and political media, but all you are hearing is crickets. It's a significant tell!

I'm not commenting on the validity of the reports linked by yourself or others in earlier posts, as I mentioned I don't comment on Think Tank type reports or statements from interest groups as they are often politically or socially coloured.

Thats funny, thats exactly what the official report has done.

The link, happens to go into detail on the scientific method and how it must be done without prejudice and points out why its not the case.

What you are arguing, i agree....and so do these conspiracy theorists.

What was in the report was not peer reviewed. It has since been found to be incorrect and posting the corrections has been knocked back. I forget the term they used as to why, but it was a two word vague term which explained nothing.

So don't comment on the views of those in the video, but watch the videos that were given by firefighters and bystanders at the time, that were aired worldwide in the initial stages of the collapses......and then buried within hours never to be spoken about since....including being excluded from the report....where of the 118 statements collected from firefighters who were there....ZERO were used in the report as it was not relevant! (read, contradicted the lie we were being fed)

All the evidence is there, more people are coming across it and doing their own, scientifically motivated investigations and coming to the same conclusions.

On the other hand....you can not provide any evidence which disproves any of it.

What is more likely....US sticking together doctoring some report to cover their tracks
or
The rest of the world coming together with facts that discredit the US?

People from all corners of the globe are researching this. Qualified people, not affiliated with the US government, or the US in any way and are coming to the same conclusions.

Kruddler, my superpower is the ability to resist being drawn in by conspiracy theories. I’m like superman. Just as you’d be better off letting Superman jump in front of a speeding train or a speeding bullet, you should let me shield you from the warping power of conspiracy theories which you are apparently incapable of resisting. Follow me and I’ll lead you out of the rabbit hole ...

Kruddler, my superpower is the ability to resist being drawn in by conspiracy theories. I’m like superman. Just as you’d be better off letting Superman jump in front of a speeding train or a speeding bullet, you should let me shield you from the warping power of conspiracy theories which you are apparently incapable of resisting. Follow me and I’ll lead you out of the rabbit hole ...

Question.
Define conspiracy theory.

I've talked to a lot of people about this. The hardest thing for people to believe about this whole scenario is the US government doing that to their own people. Seems unthinkable, i agree. However, there are unclassified documents from the US that have stated they have done exactly that in the past. Its called a False Flag. Keep the people scared and they will do what you want.

So once the unthinkable has been proven to have existed previous, everything else is more plausible. The more you look into it, the more not only plausible it is, but more unlikely it is anything else but.

Once upon a time i was in your shoes mav. Instead of keeping my head in the sand, i looked into it. This whole thing works because people like you are sucked in to the lies and thinking anything else is 'crackpot' stuff. They don't want you to look, because when you do, it all falls down.

Mostly I don’t look because I have a low tolerance for bull crap and boredom. Flyboy used to set us homework by linking hour-long videos but I tuned out after a couple of minutes. I was going to look at Plandemic but somehow ended up watching Plan 9 From Outer Space (which was actually pretty good fun).

Mostly I don’t look because I have a low tolerance for bull crap and boredom. Flyboy used to set us homework by linking hour-long videos but I tuned out after a couple of minutes. I was going to look at Plandemic but somehow ended up watching Plan 9 From Outer Space (which was actually pretty good fun).

I've got a love/hate relationship with flyboy. We don't see eye to eye on a lot of things, but we agree on this.

Plan 9 is the greatest worst film of all time. Its collected dust on dvd somewhere.

As for the long videos....do yourself a favour....pick a spot in the middle of one and watch for a few minutes. You don't like, turn off. But just watch a snippet.

If nothing else you get to come back on here and have a go at all the nutters. Bet you won't.

Kruddler, my superpower is the ability to resist being drawn in by conspiracy theories. I’m like superman. Just as you’d be better off letting Superman jump in front of a speeding train or a speeding bullet, you should let me shield you from the warping power of conspiracy theories which you are apparently incapable of resisting. Follow me and I’ll lead you out of the rabbit hole ...

Ill be your Aquaman if you want, we can form our version of the Justice League.

Not really debunked @kruddler just hypothesised, there is a huge difference.

You can't ignore the basic engineering, the steel only survives for a long period of time if it's clad in something like concrete, but that cladding probably didn't survive the plane impact. Jet fuel isn't the only fuel in the fires, zinc and aluminium cladding burn very well as we all know from the London high-rise tragedy. Both metals, at least one of them, is a basic ingredient of thermite and that is also what contributed to the famous Zepplin fires, they were basically painted with thermite to make them hydrogen leak proof.

WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane.

The fires within that building were few in number, small in size and puffing grey smoke (limited intensity) in short order.

Bang on about WTC1 and WTC2 all you like.

WTC7 is the unassailable problem.

A 47 story skyscraper collapsed symmetrically in near on free small speed - weakened or buckled steel simply does not do that.

Free fall speed demands no resistance from below.....hmmm.

That's fact, not hypothesis.

WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane.

The fires within that building were few in number, small in size and puffing grey smoke (limited intensity) in short order.

Bang on about WTC1 and WTC2 all you like.

WTC7 is the unassailable problem.

A 47 story skyscraper collapsed symmetrically in near on free small speed - weakened or buckled steel simply does not do that.

Free fall speed demands no resistance from below.....hmmm.

That's fact, not hypothesis.

These things didn't happen simultaneously as the conspiracy theorists like to paint, they have an order of events which is import.

The fires at the surrounding buildings weren't few in number, that is fake news, the report gleamed from the recordings of emergency workers suggest that the building at one stage had a full 10 stories ablaze from falling twin tower debris. Are you suggesting some of those who died are in on the conspiracy? I can't help but feel those claims are juvenile and irresponsible, like Trump, like QAnon.

It's probably surprising more buildings around the twin towers weren't destroyed! That fact is due to the efforts of many emergency workers some of whom died, not due to some desperate conspiracy.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

"It is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved," stated actress and TV personality Rosie O'Donnell

"For the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible," she said.

So says one of the heavy hitters of science and engineering! ;D

So says one of the heavy hitters of science and engineering! ;D

You don't want to listen to 3400 people who design the building, maybe you need celebrity endorsements to buy in.....like the US public.  ;)

These things didn't happen simultaneously as the conspiracy theorists like to paint, they have an order of events which is import.

The fires at the surrounding buildings weren't few in number, that is fake news, the report gleamed from the recordings of emergency workers suggest that the building at one stage had a full 10 stories ablaze from falling twin tower debris. Are you suggesting some of those who died are in on the conspiracy? I can't help but feel those claims are juvenile and irresponsible, like Trump, like QAnon.

It's probably surprising more buildings around the twin towers weren't destroyed! That fact is due to the efforts of many emergency workers some of whom died, not due to some desperate conspiracy.

Those same emergency workers, along with witnesses on the street that all claim they heard explosions like a controlled demolition.
The buildings fell down like a controlled demolition.
Debris from the building showed evidence of a controlled demolition.
The cloud of debris eminating from the top of the building was the same as a controlled demolition.
The evidence of thermite, a specific military grade, in nearby apartments, are the same as a controlled demolition.
The video showed evidence of all the above, like a controlled demolition.

No skyscraper has EVER been brought down by fire.....ever. Yet 3 went in the same day....in a manner that was identical to a controlled demolition.

Its amazing no other buildings were taken out....but thats what you get from good planning of a controlled demolition.

The 'evidence' behind the fact it could NOT have been from a controlled demolition.....because it started from the top, not the bottom. Yet....there are plenty of examples of controlled demolition starting from the top.

The actual story is full of holes.

The odds of the buildings

These things didn't happen simultaneously as the conspiracy theorists like to paint, they have an order of events which is import.

The fires at the surrounding buildings weren't few in number, that is fake news, the report gleamed from the recordings of emergency workers suggest that the building at one stage had a full 10 stories ablaze from falling twin tower debris. Are you suggesting some of those who died are in on the conspiracy? I can't help but feel those claims are juvenile and irresponsible, like Trump, like QAnon.

It's probably surprising more buildings around the twin towers weren't destroyed! That fact is due to the efforts of many emergency workers some of whom died, not due to some desperate conspiracy.

That's BS LP.

Watch the video.

Hint: how hot does an office fire burn?

You avoid entirely the symmetrical fall and the free fall speed.

You're beaten and you know it.

Those same emergency workers, along with witnesses on the street that all claim they heard explosions like a controlled demolition.
The buildings fell down like a controlled demolition.
Debris from the building showed evidence of a controlled demolition.
The cloud of debris eminating from the top of the building was the same as a controlled demolition.
The evidence of thermite, a specific military grade, in nearby apartments, are the same as a controlled demolition.
The video showed evidence of all the above, like a controlled demolition.

No skyscraper has EVER been brought down by fire.....ever. Yet 3 went in the same day....in a manner that was identical to a controlled demolition.

Its amazing no other buildings were taken out....but thats what you get from good planning of a controlled demolition.

The 'evidence' behind the fact it could NOT have been from a controlled demolition.....because it started from the top, not the bottom. Yet....there are plenty of examples of controlled demolition starting from the top.

The actual story is full of holes.

The odds of the buildings

Plenty of evidence of explosions at the bottom too!

Plenty of evidence of explosions at the bottom too!

Yes, but it was a top down controlled demolition rather than a bottom up.

The report says it couldn't have been controlled demo because it started at the top......which is a bald faced lie.

Any argument LP puts out with respect to covid and the vaccine needs to be seen in context of the 9/11 rhetoric.

That event smells to high heaven, and he's well and truly pushing the company line without even an iota of independent thinking.

Be very afraid following that same logic with an event that thus far smells to high heaven.

Ever wondered why we are still wearing masks with minimal positive infections in the state?  Sure, we might have a few carrying covid and distributing around but sooner or later SOMEONE should have turned up covid positive by now, else the masks are no longer required.

This is priceless! One conspiracy theory makes another conspiracy more likely and its critics unreliable. I think that’s what they call a bootstrap argument ...

https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/

That really should be the end of the debate.  Actually, it’s not a debate because you can’t debate a conspiracy theory lacking any credible scientific evidence   ::)

That really should be the end of the debate.  Actually, it’s not a debate because you can’t debate a conspiracy theory lacking any credible scientific evidence   ::)

Hole 1....columns would need to be blasted to replicate what happened. Wrong.
"found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

Thermite requires no such blast and would do that easily. There is already evidence of thermite being found in nearby apartments who had their windows blown out.

There was also evidence of extremely high heat melting/cutting through steel that could not be caused by the temperatures of office furniture. Jury is very much out on if the fire can burn hot enough to cause the collapse described, even if going for 7 hours.

Today's report confirms that a fire was, indeed, the cause. "This is the first time that we are aware of, that a building taller than about 15 stories has collapsed primarily due to fires,"

3rd time ever if you include 2 hit by planes in WTC1 and WTC2.

No skyscrapers have fallen due to planes hitting them before 9/11 also. They are actually designed with this in mind.

Hole 2...collapse speed

Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

The collapse descibed is certainly possible and plausible. However, the speed in which it fell disproves this theory.

Floor collapsing on floor collapsing on floor is resistance upon resistance upon resistance.

However, speed it fell was free fall....that is, no resistance.

Physics backs all of this up.

That really should be the end of the debate.  Actually, it’s not a debate because you can’t debate a conspiracy theory lacking any credible scientific evidence   ::)

Thats funny, i'd say the same from my side of the fence.

Watch the videos.

You're beaten and you know it.

That desire to win is misplaced, the desire should be for truth based on evidence, not opinion based on Hollywood plots. So for me there is no win or lose, just the truth, no coloured by hysteria that some seem susceptible to!

Falseties and fakes cannot be debated, because they are based in fantasy which means there is no evidence anyone can find to counter them.

Proof of real world events is loaded with evidence, like millions of vaccine doses helping millions of people avoid illness, while fake cures and false treatments like the way HCQ did and continues to do nothing in the fight against COVID-19 despite being in use in many locations for many many months before any of the vaccines became available! ;)

The rabbit hole is filling with water, those searching for the Mad Hatter are drowning, when all they needed to do was look inside!

That desire to win is misplaced, the desire for me is truth based on evidence, not opinion based on Hollywood plots. So for me there is no win or lose, just the truth, no coloured by hysteria that some seem susceptible to!

Falseties and fakes cannot be debated, because they are based in fantasy which means there is no evidence anyone can find to counter them.

What do all the people who are 'toeing the government line' have in common?

None of them have even the slightest idea on what the other side is saying.

Perhaps if they got their head out of the sand, looked into it, they might find that there is solid science behind every single point.
Further to that, it will show that 'the government line' is based upon blatently wrong facts that defy common sense, and more importantly, the laws of physics.

Ever wondered why we are still wearing masks with minimal positive infections in the state?  Sure, we might have a few carrying covid and distributing around but sooner or later SOMEONE should have turned up covid positive by now, else the masks are no longer required.

Some people have pre-existing medical conditions, that might make them extremely vulnerable to an infection like COVID-19, and some have pre-existing conditions that will mean they can never safely have a vaccine.

So you think they shouldn't protect themselves just to preserve your perception of freedom, it's an interesting insight into your perspective!

What do all the people who are 'toeing the government line' have in common?

None of them have even the slightest idea on what the other side is saying.

Perhaps if they got their head out of the sand, looked into it, they might find that there is solid science behind every single point.
Further to that, it will show that 'the government line' is based upon blatently wrong facts that defy common sense, and more importantly, the laws of physics.

Ironic that you accuse others of wearing tin foil hats! :o

It probably says far more about yourself than others! ;D

Further to that, it will show that 'the government line' is based upon blatently wrong facts that defy common sense, and more importantly, the laws of physics.

@kruddler Teach us the physics, I'm happy to learn from you in your own words and numbers!

I suspect we all are, but please I can't speak for others, if they are not they can tell us here, perhaps we can even make a special thread for it so the rights of others can be preserved!

Any argument LP puts out with respect to covid and the vaccine needs to be seen in context of the 9/11 rhetoric.

@Thryleon You are desperate now, I suppose you've committed to the the anti-vaccine push in blind faith like a fanatic, and can't see the truth that they save lives.

Please feel free to exercise your own freedom, in fact I would argue for your right to refuse the vaccines, but I don't support your right to hurt those around you by poisoning their view of the world with unfounded rhetoric. Which I'll never leave unquestioned or unchallenged, or of course you can just support your spurious claims with valid evidence!

Some people have pre-existing medical conditions, that might make them extremely vulnerable to an infection like COVID-19, and some have pre-existing conditions that will mean they can never safely have a vaccine.

So you think they shouldn't protect themselves just to preserve your perception of freedom, it's an interesting insight into your perspective!

What's that got to do with me being required to wear a mask on public transport and at shops with less than 4 confirmed active cases in the state, and 0 community transmission for 18 days?

Mask wearing should no longer be mandatory.  Before you debate this point, think hard about the impact of mandatory mask wearing with no threat.  When people are required to wear them when needed you are going to get a much greater resistance because it reeks of an over reaction now, and it will be similar later

@Thryleon You are desperate now, I suppose you've committed to the the anti-vaccine push in blind faith like a fanatic, and can't see the truth that they save lives.

Please feel free to exercise your own freedom, in fact I would argue for your right to refuse the vaccines, but I don't support your right to hurt those around you by poisoning their view of the world with unfounded rhetoric.

Not an anti vaccer, so your point is moot, and your opinion of any rhetoric is irrelevant.

Think about what you're saying in context of a government that performed the atrocities of a holocaust.   Should we trust everything we are being told or should we question everything?  Its very easy to label someone to discredit them, but its very difficult to admit you might have it wrong.  I might be wrong, it all might be legitimate but science points to many inconsistencies which makes me wonder, are we being lied to?

If covid was actually harmless and the stats deliberately muddied to allow a cover up, would we ever be told? 

@kruddler Teach us the physics, I'm happy to learn from you in your own words and numbers!

I suspect we all are, but please if others are not they can tell us here!

I did 4 years of physics @ uni a couple decades ago.

One thing is for sure, the only physics you need to know to disprove the government line, you learn in high school.

You want to learn it, watch the video.

If you want to do your own tests, i suggest you start with this one.
h = 1/2 gt^2

Technically, you know all of them, so compare them with the videos and tell me if it works out. ;)

I did 4 years of physics @ uni a couple decades ago.

One thing is for sure, the only physics you need to know to disprove the government line, you learn in high school.

If you want to do your own tests, i suggest you start with this one.
h = 1/2 gt^2

Continue, I'm still curious.

PS: Where were the alleged explosives?

Continue, I'm still curious.

You want an education, watch the video.

You want an education, watch the video.

I doubt I'll get anything about physics, materials or engineering from it. Maybe I don't understand that stuff, you did four years of uni physics, so just assume I need your interpretation to help me understand! Actually, it probably makes you qualified to explain it all to pretty much everyone here, even perhaps @DJC!

Public posts only please, no PMs, no other links to crazy videos or cutting and pasting, just your own words and numbers.

Will I need any special software to follow the explanations or work the examples, perhaps something from https://www.compadre.org/osp/ this for example https://physlets.org/tracker/? Free for everyone to use apparently, even beginners like me!

Irrespective of what the rhetoric states, the likelihood of the 9/11 attacks being exactly as described to us from start to finish, actually occurring the way we were told they were is extremely low.

From start to finish it reeks.  Even the Pentagon's damage doesn't look like a plane hit it.  It looks like a bunker buster missile.

The fact that we have 4 average joes who all managed to teach themselves how to fly a proper jet on something as mundane as Microsoft flight simulator is yet another piece of the puzzle that doesn't quite fit well.

I was always taught if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck, its probably a duck.  If someone tells you its a moose, don't believe them, they're probably lying to you.

The only reason the lie still stands is because there is likely no real way to learn the truth, and it won't change anything anyway.

Applying that to covid is a very different prospect.   Its very hard to learn the truth, but im hearing many stories of clinical staff going in for their vaccine and rejecting it unless its the Pfizer one because they aren't fully disclosed which they will receive until they line up to get the jab.

Covid isn't a lie, but I think we aren't being told the full truth about it.  Imagine being in a pandemic and still getting flaky information regarding the number of people hospitalised by it not with it for a moment.  Why?  Why not be up front and tell us?  Maybe because the government doesn't want to admit they stuffed it? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/flight-school-owner-recalls-training-9-11-hijackers-1.951384

MS Flight simulator?  Fantasy.

I'm starting to understand where some of these weird perspectives come from, or could it be one MPD?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/flight-school-owner-recalls-training-9-11-hijackers-1.951384

MS Flight simulator?  Fantasy.

Not being a pilot myself, I’ll echo what I’ve read: take-offs & landings are the most dangerous & demanding part of flying (and the most exciting for pilots). Manoeuvring once aloft is a doddle.

The terrorists found a way around the old pilot’s joke: take-offs are optional but landings are compulsory.

The only reason the lie still stands is because there is likely no real way to learn the truth, and it won't change anything anyway.

That’s my point.

In one sense,  there shouldn’t be all that much harm if people become obsessed with the 9/11 conspiracy despite there being little point in pursuing it. Surely it’s a better use of time than watching Keeping Up with the Kardashians or MAFS. As Kruddler notes, maybe you’ll learn about physics along the way. But the downside is that becoming obsessed with it predisposes people to being drawn into other conspiracy theories. It’s like a gateway drug. The anti-vaxxers know this and have joyfully welcomed the QAnon movement.

Not being a pilot myself, I’ll echo what I’ve read: take-offs & landings are the most dangerous & demanding part of flying (and the most exciting for pilots). Manoeuvring once aloft is a doddle.

The terrorists found a way around the old pilot’s joke: take-offs are optional but landings are compulsory.

The flight plan for the operation is logged way before takeoff with the airport and Air Traffic Control and set into the aircraft systems.  In effect, it rarely needs captain or pilot control UNLESS unforeseen weather and / or diversion and congestion at the destination (or a/c faults) come into play.

Landings are far far more difficult than takeoff.

Unless you never intend to place wheels on tarmac, simply alter course manually, go off radar, turn off transponders and aim for a tall building.

Flight sims?  Horse Shoot

Annabelle Tuckfield, a clot doctor, was on the wireless this morning and it was interesting to hear her analysis of the AstraZeneca vaccine situation.

She pointed out that 20M AZ vaccines have now been administered and there have been 18 cases of blood clots (that’s 0.00009%).  She also pointed out that blood clots are one of the more common consequences of COVID-19 infections. In fact, data from France and the Netherlands indicates that 30-70% of patients with coronavirus who are admitted to intensive care units develop blood clots in the deep veins of the legs, or in the lungs.  One in four COVID patients in ICU will develop pulmonary embolisms.  Dr Tuckfield made it very clear that the AstraZeneca vaccine significantly reduces one’s chances of developing blood clots.

Dr Tuckfield also pointed out the contraceptive pill significantly increases the probability of blood clots - but most of us don’t have to worry about that.

I'm not given to conspiracies, never have been. I find them entertaining at times but tend to view it more in psychological terms, ie the 'mental' profile of those drawn to 'way out' explanations. I have a good buddy who was convinced that the magician, Dynamo, possessed some special powers... I suggested watching a few episodes of Penn and Teller... problem solved - logical solutions provided.

I know the Earth is round, I know vaccines are safe though they can be a little 'rough around the edges' to begin with, I don't believe Democrats drink the blood of baby goats or whatever it is. I am sure Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, and I'm also sure there are no secret DNA altering things in vaccines, 5G or certain foods.

However, 9/11 does fascinate me... and I can assure you Wing Man Mav, that it hasn't seduced me into other conspiracy theories! I've read some bizarre interpretations of 9/11, which were comical and I won't give them any energy here.

To me, we have not been given the truth as to how these buildings pancaked so perfectly into their own footprints and the 'real' explanation is probably a political bombshell best kept concealed for another few decades. And I am content to leave it at that, just not knowing what really happened but somewhat curious. I am sure there is bullshizen in the explanation somewhere and to some degree, but, equally there is likely much that has been reported that is true.

If I was an architect, or family member of one of the deceased from 9/11, then I am sure I would be, still, to this very day, wanting and pursuing the truth/more information.

No skyscraper has EVER been brought down by fire.....ever. Yet 3 went in the same day....in a manner that was identical to a controlled demolition.

How many individual buildings have had 767’s deliberately crashed into them ?

How many individual buildings have had 767’s deliberately crashed into them ?

;D No, it was fire, much like the Japanese Tsunami, which was really man-made to cover up a nuclear accident! You know this well! ::)

The failure of the Twin Towers is so obvious it's not worth debating, the 3rd is the target of conspiracists because that is their want given the organisations that it held.

We will ignore or discount the real facts, like the one that says most high-rise fires have hundreds of firefighters available to continue the fight, they hadn't been decimated by the deaths of 340+ firefighters, destroyed fire fighting appliances , and water pressure dwindling, in the minutes and hours before they collapsed! We must ignore these things, or we'll have nothing left to question! :o

Annabelle Tuckfield, a clot doctor, was on the wireless this morning and it was interesting to hear her analysis of the AstraZeneca vaccine situation.

She pointed out that 20M AZ vaccines have now been administered and there have been 18 cases of blood clots (that’s 0.00009%).  She also pointed out that blood clots are one of the more common consequences of COVID-19 infections. In fact, data from France and the Netherlands indicates that 30-70% of patients with coronavirus who are admitted to intensive care units develop blood clots in the deep veins of the legs, or in the lungs.  One in four COVID patients in ICU will develop pulmonary embolisms.  Dr Tuckfield made it very clear that the AstraZeneca vaccine significantly reduces one’s chances of developing blood clots.

Dr Tuckfield also pointed out the contraceptive pill significantly increases the probability of blood clots - but most of us don’t have to worry about that.

Now now @DJC‍  you're being mischievous, this is no place for facts! :o

PS: I'll send you some tinfoil, I've got plenty apparently which seems ironic given the last couple of days in this thread! ::)

How many individual buildings have had 767’s deliberately crashed into them ?

Not really about the aeroplane but more about aviation fuel/heat. And no steel framed building (plus all steel is treated with heat resistant coverings), has ever collapsed due to fire. In fact the only way to bring down a steel framed building is through professional demolition... and they use a variety of products and methods to collapse a steel framed building onto its own footprint.

None @northernblue

But look what a small commuter plane did to this not so far back.  I saw it.

A fully loaded 767 jet at cruising altitude of 850 kph per hour with 90,000 litres of fuel?

khttps://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-21/five-passenger-plane-crashes-near-melbournes-essendon-airport/8288964h ?

Not really about the aeroplane but more about aviation fuel/heat. And no steel framed building (plus all steel is treated with heat resistant coverings), has ever collapsed due to fire. In fact the only way to bring down a steel framed building is through professional demolition... and they use a variety of products and methods to collapse a steel framed building onto its own footprint.

Perhaps, I'm not sure how many tall buildings have had an even far taller building right next door collapse next to them, then had pretty much nobody there of any consequence left to fight the fire.

Now now @Baggers‍ you're being mischievous, this is no place for facts! :o

Mistaken identity... David deserves the credit for providing such overwhelming, scientific evidence.  ;)  ;D  ;D

Mistaken identity... David deserves the credit for providing such overwhelming, scientific evidence.  ;)  ;D  ;D

 Oopps, my bad!

Sorry @DJC‍ 

Perhaps, I'm not sure how many tall buildings have had an even far taller building right next door collapse next to them, then had pretty much nobody there of any consequence left to fight the fire.

If you check out the footage you'll see the fire in building 7 was contained to one specific area... yet the entire building collapsed uniformly.

Again, I don't offer any explanation other than the official versions do not stack up... and that leads folks, as Wing Man Mav might say, heading down all kinds of 'rabbit holes' and emerging with some 'tantalizing' theories to feed the vulnerable.

Baggers, all good then. Nothing wrong with being curious. I tend to go with the “truth is stranger than fiction” approach. Trying to analyse individual parts of a problem and then synthesising the likely results in order to reach the conclusion an event is impossible is problematic.

One example is the problem of “fat tails” in financial maths. How do you account for extremely unlikely events which nevertheless happen from time to time such as the mortgage crisis? A lot of work is put into analysing convergence and divergence of improper integrals describing financial markets. Financial analysts whinge about fat tails after such crises rather than resorting to claims of nefarious shadowy plots.

If you check out the footage you'll see the fire in building 7 was contained to one specific area... yet the entire building collapsed uniformly.

Have you checked that?

I'm not being facetious, but if you search all you'll get is the conspiracies at the top of the results if you spent the last few hours reading about that stuff from earlier searches. The search engines preferentially give you what they think you'll read and click through.

You can try searching while the browser is in private mode, that can often that will give you very different search results.

I wonder whether there were conspiracy theories floating around after the Challenger Space Shuttle blew up. The Russians had a motive to cripple the US Space program as did the Europeans as they were involved in launching satellites via their Ariadne rockets. Could the official explanation of degraded O-rings really explain the explosion when there had been numerous successful launches without any problem in that regard?

I wonder whether there were conspiracy theories floating around after the Challenger Space Shuttle blew up. The Russians had a motive to cripple the US Space program as did the Europeans as they were involved in launching satellites via their Ariadne rockets. Could the official explanation of degraded O-rings really explain the explosion when there had been numerous successful launches without any problem in that regard?

The Aricebo Radio Telescope (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssHkMWcGat4) was destroyed by the Chinese who want the world to rent and help pay for the 500m FAST (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-hundred-meter_Aperture_Spherical_Telescope) they have already built.  :o ;D ::)

Listen to Beatles albums. They've left heaps of  clues in their music and album covers. ;D

If you check out the footage you'll see the fire in building 7 was contained to one specific area... yet the entire building collapsed uniformly.

Again, I don't offer any explanation other than the official versions do not stack up... and that leads folks, as Wing Man Mav might say, heading down all kinds of 'rabbit holes' and emerging with some 'tantalizing' theories to feed the vulnerable.

Check out the FAQs on the National Institute of Standards and Technology website:

4. What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?

The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.

According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.

Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Check out the FAQs on the National Institute of Standards and Technology website:

Even basic analysis of undoctored footage shows the collapse didn't happen in free fall at all, the base claim of the conspiracists is dead and buried before it even remains standing!

You have to be careful which video you choose, there are plenty out there in circulation where the frame rate has been doctored to show the building collapsing in free fall, but they are brought undone by sequences and small debris which then appear in doctored videos to fall faster than gravity despite being on ballistic trajectories.

I wonder whether there were conspiracy theories floating around after the Challenger Space Shuttle blew up. The Russians had a motive to cripple the US Space program as did the Europeans as they were involved in launching satellites via their Ariadne rockets. Could the official explanation of degraded O-rings really explain the explosion when there had been numerous successful launches without any problem in that regard?

There were a few.  24 flights in all before 51L.  ALL had some level of "blow by" on the Solid Rocket Boosters before the O rings were redesigned to cover for any shrinkage in the seals if a "go" was given in cold weather.  Morton Thiokol (SRB manufacturers told NASA to scrub the flight on the 51L launch morning)  That warning was ignored, and  disaster followed.

It was freezing on the 26th January and major ice on the gantry.

The exhaust from the right hand SRB section just burnt thru and collapsed the bottom struts holding the booster to the external tank.  G forces, after the strut gave way, swung the solid rocket booster straight into the full loaded external tank. 

And once ignited, the SRBs cannot be controlled or shut down

All 110 missions that followed 51L worked to perfection. 

So humans aren't perfect, and it's not always disaster by negligence or deliberate design. :(

What will the lawyers do, who will they sue! :o

How many individual buildings have had 767’s deliberately crashed into them ?

I'm not sure of the answer, but i know there are at least 3 other buildings that have been crashed into by planes and survived....easily.

Technically, you could add the 2 WTC's into that too, because planes didn't bring them down either. ;)

I doubt I'll get anything about physics, materials or engineering from it.

Just another example of how you are wrong.

THis is the thing that people don't get.....not all conspiracies are equal. I said it from the beginning, physics calls BS on this one.
Not flat earth, fake moon landings....whatever.

They are not linked in any way apart from the mind of person disrespecting them.

Yes, the whole thing is unlikely. Doesn't mean its not true.
Some random pattern clerk was probably a billion to one to change the world, but here we are.

I'm not sure of the answer, but i know there are at least 3 other buildings that have been crashed into by planes and survived....easily.

Technically, you could add the 2 WTC's into that too, because planes didn't bring them down either. ;)

The next biggest equivalent crash was a B-25 into the Empire State Building.

B-25 = 15m wide x 15,000kg flying at 230mph.

767 = 40m wide x 150,000 to 200,000kg MTOW flying at +550mph. 10x the weight and at least 2x the speed,

We need a physicist to tell us all about kinetic and potential energy! ;)

THis is the thing that people don't get.....not all conspiracies are equal. I said it from the beginning, physics calls BS on this one.

Perhaps, but maybe real physics has called bullsh1t on the faked physics.

Oddly enough, it's the rules published by the patent clerk that proved Newton wasn't quite right! Yet even Newton given access to the video and some background on the rules of encoding would be able to prove the base claim in the WTC7 Conspiracy isn't true! ;)

In the world, 1 solitary second makes a difference!

Annabelle Tuckfield, a clot doctor, was on the wireless this morning and it was interesting to hear her analysis of the AstraZeneca vaccine situation.

She pointed out that 20M AZ vaccines have now been administered and there have been 18 cases of blood clots (that’s 0.00009%).  She also pointed out that blood clots are one of the more common consequences of COVID-19 infections. In fact, data from France and the Netherlands indicates that 30-70% of patients with coronavirus who are admitted to intensive care units develop blood clots in the deep veins of the legs, or in the lungs.  One in four COVID patients in ICU will develop pulmonary embolisms.  Dr Tuckfield made it very clear that the AstraZeneca vaccine significantly reduces one’s chances of developing blood clots.

Dr Tuckfield also pointed out the contraceptive pill significantly increases the probability of blood clots - but most of us don’t have to worry about that.

My daughter read somewhere that more people developed clots in placebo trials than the vaccine trials, has anyone else read this?

Have you checked that?

I'm not being facetious, but if you search all you'll get is the conspiracies at the top of the results if you spent the last few hours reading about that stuff from earlier searches. The search engines preferentially give you what they think you'll read and click through.

You can try searching while the browser is in private mode, that can often that will give you very different search results.

I didn't rely on any other footage that what I saw live! Yep, sat up most of the night watching the reports and live coverage... saw the 2nd plane hit the other tower live as well. Building 7 had a small fire burning, relative to the size of the building, to one side of it... then it surprised the bejesus out of the live reporters when it collapsed. I haven't with conspiracy footage... too easy to skew.

My daughter read somewhere that more people developed clots in placebo trials than the vaccine trials, has anyone else read this?

It's potentially true in specific trails, but not globally true, because the medicine or vaccine being tested might actually reduce clotting.

How many individual buildings have had 767’s deliberately crashed into them ?

Fully laden with jet fuel.

I'm not sure of the answer, but i know there are at least 3 other buildings that have been crashed into by planes and survived....easily.

Technically, you could add the 2 WTC's into that too, because planes didn't bring them down either. ;)

The question from @northernblue was confined to fuel loaded jets ... the answer is still zero.

I wonder whether there were conspiracy theories floating around after the Challenger Space Shuttle blew up. The Russians had a motive to cripple the US Space program as did the Europeans as they were involved in launching satellites via their Ariadne rockets. Could the official explanation of degraded O-rings really explain the explosion when there had been numerous successful launches without any problem in that regard?

I heard that an O ring was incorrectly fitted, or the wrong size ... either way, I have absolutely no doubt the reports are reliable - human error... and I suspect your tongue is firmly planted in your cheek. Grinning here...  ;)  ;D

I didn't rely on any other footage that what I saw live! Yep, sat up most of the night watching the reports and live coverage... saw the 2nd plane hit the other tower live as well. Building 7 had a small fire burning, relative to the size of the building, to one side of it... then it surprised the bejesus out of the live reporters when it collapsed. I haven't with conspiracy footage... too easy to skew.

@Baggers‍ The truth seems to be it had 10+ floors fully burnt out over 7hrs, which has been pieced together from official audio and footage from multiple observer angles and sources, in the end due to the risks and earlier decimation the building was left to fend for itself, so not really a fire contained and controlled in a small area as the conspiracists like to make out!

A few words easily skew the truth.

However, 9/11 does fascinate me... and I can assure you Wing Man Mav, that it hasn't seduced me into other conspiracy theories! I've read some bizarre interpretations of 9/11, which were comical and I won't give them any energy here.

To me, we have not been given the truth as to how these buildings pancaked so perfectly into their own footprints and the 'real' explanation is probably a political bombshell best kept concealed for another few decades. And I am content to leave it at that, just not knowing what really happened but somewhat curious. I am sure there is bullshizen in the explanation somewhere and to some degree, but, equally there is likely much that has been reported that is true.

If I was an architect, or family member of one of the deceased from 9/11, then I am sure I would be, still, to this very day, wanting and pursuing the truth/more information.

I just said something similar.

This cannot be lumped into the rest of it.

It doesn't add up.

If the government came out and said, we had evidence that the towers were going to fall down, so we used an inbuilt 'auto-desctruct' system to ensure it came down correctly, without destroying the rest of new york in the process. I could accept that. It makes sense.

But no, shear 'dumb luck' for 3 buildings to fall into perfect little piles......and at the same time exhibiting ALL the trademarks of a controlled demolition...as said by experts in that field, eye witness reports from fire fighters and public....but still managed to find the passports of all the people involved, barely singed, among the rubble......Is it really believable? Really?

BTW, Mav said something about flying is easy.....its true. Landing is hard....its true.
So the 'plane' that crashed into pentagon.....that left basically no debris....and disappeared into a tiny hole you could barely get a car in....and left no damage on the grass leading up to it......that 'landing' is supposedly something you cannot do in a similator because the plane have to do the 360 degree dive perfectly would stall. One of my best mates has an uncle who is high up in the aviation area, so much so he one of the blokes they come to when they are trying to work out what happened to those malaysian airlines. He said there is only a handful of people in the world capable of pulling off the manouvre that went into the pentagon. So some random playing a game at home as zero chance. Together with the lack of evidence of a plane at the crash....and the lack of footage of any plane even being there......yeah.....not dodgy at all.

Occams razor....

The question from @northernblue was confined to fuel loaded jets ... the answer is still zero.

Most of the fuel was reported, live at the time, to have exploded and belched out of the buildings. This was later confirmed. As I've mentioned... I simply remain suspicious of the official story and probably am in the 'splinters on clacker' group.

Dear Bluebaggers,

To date, 430 Million vaccinated!

FFS stop this insanity, those deadly vaccines must be killing tens of millions!

Love Karen

I just said something similar.

This cannot be lumped into the rest of it.

It doesn't add up.

If the government came out and said, we had evidence that the towers were going to fall down, so we used an inbuilt 'auto-desctruct' system to ensure it came down correctly, without destroying the rest of new york in the process. I could accept that. It makes sense.

But no, shear 'dumb luck' for 3 buildings to fall into perfect little piles......and at the same time exhibiting ALL the trademarks of a controlled demolition...as said by experts in that field, eye witness reports from fire fighters and public....but still managed to find the passports of all the people involved, barely singed, among the rubble......Is it really believable? Really?

BTW, Mav said something about flying is easy.....its true. Landing is hard....its true.
So the 'plane' that crashed into pentagon.....that left basically no debris....and disappeared into a tiny hole you could barely get a car in....and left no damage on the grass leading up to it......that 'landing' is supposedly something you cannot do in a similator because the plane have to do the 360 degree dive perfectly would stall. One of my best mates has an uncle who is high up in the aviation area, so much so he one of the blokes they come to when they are trying to work out what happened to those malaysian airlines. He said there is only a handful of people in the world capable of pulling off the manouvre that went into the pentagon. So some random playing a game at home as zero chance. Together with the lack of evidence of a plane at the crash....and the lack of footage of any plane even being there......yeah.....not dodgy at all.

Occams razor....

Hilary did it, she had a big curry the night before and lit a fart in the foyer!

That bit in bold is dead set rubbish, actually most of that post is dead set rubbish, I can't be bothered reading it again to try and find something that is true!

Perhaps, but maybe real physics has called bullsh1t on the faked physics.

Oddly enough, it's the rules published by the patent clerk that proved Newton wasn't quite right! Yet even Newton given access to the video and some background on the rules of encoding would be able to prove the base claim in the WTC7 Conspiracy isn't true! ;)

In the world, 1 solitary second makes a difference!

Speaking of time making a difference.

Ever watched fahrenheit 9/11? I think it was in that, and loose change. They show how the reporting of the events changed with time.

....and no....i don't mean with more information. I mean the first hour or 2 after collapse.....across EVERY channel.
"explosion" "controlled demolition"  "bang bang bang"
Every single person interviewed immediately after, all across the airwaves said the same thing.
Within an hour or 2, every single report that went to air changed their tune and all of those comments were never seen again. Instead they managed to find completely different take on things from people. One that was almost word for word what news stations started saying.

It was almost (read entirely) like initially they were reporting the truth and then they got a phone call from the higher ups who changed their tune, and then....somehow magically found....a group of people who had a completely different experience to the people who were interview first.

What possible reason could there be for the complete 180 degree change in reporting of the incident? Any takers?

This is fact. Those recordings are all out there, with times. Take whatever conspiracy theory you want completely out of the equation. Why would the reporting change like that?

Not really about the aeroplane but more about aviation fuel/heat. And no steel framed building (plus all steel is treated with heat resistant coverings), has ever collapsed due to fire. In fact the only way to bring down a steel framed building is through professional demolition... and they use a variety of products and methods to collapse a steel framed building onto its own footprint.

Fire rating of beams, walls etc is typically limited to a time, 2hr, 4hr etc. Buildings of structural steel construction (as they do in in the US) are not designed to support an impact by a jetliner full of Jet A. Nothing more complicated than that IMO.

That bit in bold is dead set rubbish!

....and this is based on......
Your opinion....which TBH i give no creedence too based on your debating methods.

The next biggest equivalent crash was a B-25 into the Empire State Building.

B-25 = 15m wide x 15,000kg flying at 230mph.

767 = 40m wide x 150,000 to 200,000kg MTOW flying at +550mph. 10x the weight and at least 2x the speed,

We need a physicist to tell us all about kinetic and potential energy! ;)

Do you need an engineer to explain to you the different relative strengths of the buildings they crashed into?

Fire rating of beams, walls etc is typically limited to a time, 2hr, 4hr etc. Buildings of structural steel construction (as they do in in the US) are not designed to support an impact by a jetliner full of Jet A. Nothing more complicated than that IMO.

Building was actually designed to withstand the impact of a plane flying into them.

Which adds to the level of mystery of why it didn't work.

Well, fellow CSC Members, yours truly has just learned of a tragedy close to home. One of my closest mates of around 46 years has just died of Covid. Shattered. Top bloke. Super intelligent. Overweight but otherwise healthy... he was on secondment in the Philippines. 66 years of age. Family shattered. We're all in disbelief. Not one of those to die from Covid with another underlying issue. Covid... then pneumonia (no previous lung issues)... then gone. Apparently received full, quality medical care.

I lived with his family in 1974 when serving at HMAS Waterhen, Waverton (I was a 'spook' - encryption and decryption stuff). Waterhen was a land base for patrol boats/mine sweepers etc. Beautiful family. Like a brother. He was doing an economics degree. Although a Sydneysider I steered him to the BlueBaggers in the AFL. Communicated with him only a few days ago... he was as bright as ever.

Well, fellow CSC Members, yours truly has just learned of a tragedy close to home. One of my closest mates of around 46 years has just died of Covid. Shattered. Top bloke. Super intelligent. Overweight but otherwise healthy... he was on secondment in the Philippines. 66 years of age. Family shattered. We're all in disbelief. Not one of those to die from Covid with another underlying issue. Covid... then pneumonia (no previous lung issues)... then gone. Apparently received full, quality medical care.

I lived with his family in 1974 when serving at HMAS Waterhen, Waverton (I was a 'spook' - encryption and decryption stuff). Waterhen was a land base for patrol boats/mine sweepers etc. Beautiful family. Like a brother. He was doing an economics degree. Although a Sydneysider I steered him to the BlueBaggers in the AFL. Communicated with him only a few days ago... he was as bright as ever.

Sad news Baggers, sympathies to you and your friends family...

Ask the parents of that kid who was killed in Canberra by the controlled demolition, and the people around him at the time.

Buildings don't collapse in silence, the noise after a demolition implosion is bigger and louder than the bang that sets them falling, described by many wrongly as a second series of explosions after the demolition explosions are long long gone! That is frequently the internal floors pancaking, and when tonnes of flat surface pancake it creates a shockwave / pressure wave akin to an explosion, the same mechanism as clapping your hands.

The innocent bystanders on record are not expert witnesses, seeing something dramatic once in their life that they have never seen before, they neither have the words or training to explain what they saw, and most of the words gleamed from interviews are placed there by inadvertent suggestions from the interviewers. It is the experts listening to those reports, and making the associations with real world actions, that build a picture of the event.

Do you need an engineer to explain to you the different relative strengths of the buildings they crashed into?

 Yes, go for it!

Building was actually designed to withstand the impact of a plane flying into them.

Which adds to the level of mystery of why it didn't work.

I remember watching something about the design of it and they said it wasn't defined for it. Ill Try and dig it up.

Well, fellow CSC Members, yours truly has just learned of a tragedy close to home. One of my closest mates of around 46 years has just died of Covid. Shattered. Top bloke. Super intelligent. Overweight but otherwise healthy... he was on secondment in the Philippines. 66 years of age. Family shattered. We're all in disbelief. Not one of those to die from Covid with another underlying issue. Covid... then pneumonia (no previous lung issues)... then gone. Apparently received full, quality medical care.

I lived with his family in 1974 when serving at HMAS Waterhen, Waverton (I was a 'spook' - encryption and decryption stuff). Waterhen was a land base for patrol boats/mine sweepers etc. Beautiful family. Like a brother. He was doing an economics degree. Although a Sydneysider I steered him to the BlueBaggers in the AFL. Communicated with him only a few days ago... he was as bright as ever.

Sorry to hear this @Baggers, reality of this is not nice at all and not trivial.

Most of the fuel was reported, live at the time, to have exploded and belched out of the buildings. This was later confirmed. As I've mentioned... I simply remain suspicious of the official story and probably am in the 'splinters on clacker' group.

Nothing wrong with that. You are at least looking into the other side of the debate, which is more than anyone else arguing against it.

Truthfully, i was on the complete other side of the fence.
As mentioned before, the biggest road block for people entertaining the possibility that it was deliberate is the 'Why?' question.
Why would the US (potentially) do that to themselves?

They have a history of it in their own declassified documents.

Once that question, the biggest road block, had gone....i looked at other questions....and there was more than enough evidence as to why the official party lines didn't make sense either.
The more you look, the more you find.
As Mav said, its a rabbit hole.
However, just because you are curious about 1 rabbit hole, doesn't mean you bother heading down others.

Play the ball on its merits.

Yes, go for it!

Sure.

I've found this video. Its compiled by 3400 architects and engineers and they explains things in a way that even you can understand.
There are actually 3 parts to it.

Would you like a link?

I'll be bowing out of this and other discussions for a while. The death of my mate makes discussion about fires and buildings seem somewhat tiny at the moment. Still in shock and disbelief. Just communicated with his sister and his mum, time for Shano to head north and support my 'other' family.

I remember watching something about the design of it and they said it wasn't defined for it. Ill Try and dig it up.

Take out the "wasn't" and you have @kruddler‍ have posted the same thing.

Surely one word can't bring down a building?

PS: I believe I saw the same interview, someone involved with the original design. I suppose he was just "covering his ar5e!"

I remember watching something about the design of it and they said it wasn't defined for it. Ill Try and dig it up.

I've heard otherwise.

The US government has even had war game scenarios which involves what would happen if terrorists tried to fly planes into the WTCs. I think it was talking about that where it was mentioned that the buildings were designed with this possibility in mind.

Sure.

I've found this video. Its compiled by 3400 architects and engineers and they explains things in a way that even you can understand.
There are actually 3 parts to it.

Would you like a link?

No, I'd prefer an explanation in your own words, using your physics training.

If you've gone to the trouble to watch it all, I'm happy for you to summarise and explain it in the common language I can understand.

I'll be bowing out of this and other discussions for a while. The death of my mate makes discussion about fires and buildings seem somewhat tiny at the moment. Still in shock and disbelief. Just communicated with his sister and his mum, time for Shano to head north and support my 'other' family.

There are more important things in life to worry about.

You do you.

Apologies.

No, I'd prefer an explanation in your own words, using your physics training.

I couldn't give a flying f*** what you'd prefer.

I'm not your mother...you are a big boy.

I couldn't give a flying f*** what you'd prefer.

I'm not your mother...you are a big boy.

So, you want to be all expert and no evidence, just crackpot conspiracy videos and mic drops.

Then do not expect to be taken seriously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

(https://www.clipartmax.com/png/middle/325-3252453_mic-drop-mic-drop-emoji.png)

Sincere condolences Baggers. A tragic loss.

So, you want to be all expert and no evidence, just crackpot conspiracy videos and mic drops.

Then do not expect to be taken seriously, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

If i'm trying to teach you how to paint and describing the differing methods used between Michaelangelo and Leonardo, i don't need to recreate the pictures for you, i can point to them.

Tada.

I don't care if you believe me.
You have proven, consistently, that you are not about trying to seek the truth.....or discredit, legitimately, those who disagree with you. Instead you prefer to attack the poster and not take it seriously.

If you legitimately want to learn, its there for you. But we both know you have no interest in it.

Sincere condolences Baggers. A tragic loss.

Same here Baggers. The worst thing is he was within sight of sanctuary, assuming the vaccines will do the trick. It’s reminiscent of soldiers dying at the end of WWI just before the 11 o’clock ceasefire.

Some basics;

The WTCs weigh 450,000,000kg each.

To make things easy lets say roughly about 10% of them on average was above the impact point. Reports before the collapse from people trapped inside the upper floors stated that multiple floors had collapsed making escape impossible, so lets keep it simple at 3 floors for a rough height of 10m.

That is 10% of a WTC falling 10m under gravity after structural failure, that 10m impact equates to;
E(Newtons) = mgh
E = 45,000,000kg x 9.81 x 10 E = 1,324,350,000 Newtons

Now actually because I've chosen easy units if we keep it simple we can simplify this to an impact force in kilograms, this is because fundamentally the impact force in kilograms is going to be F = E/g.
1,324,350,000 / 9.81 = 135,000,000kg

The truth is though, that the collapsing structures absorb a lot of that energy, but it is the available energy.

Nothing we build could have survived, it was like a sledge hammer falling on stack of straws.

As for the collapse on it own footprint, that is bogus as well. Both towers had the facades peel away from between the 40th and 60th floor, they peeled outwards like a banana. Now by facades we are not talking cladding as some conspiracists like to make out, we are talking full exterior walls, concrete, steel; and glass. Some of those facades directly hit other buildings up to 250m away falling (actually a better description is launched ballistically) from a height above 40 stories, causing multiple buildings to be damaged or collapse. So much for claims about falling straight down, and just this alone would have had significant structural effects on surrounding buildings, it is probably a miracle more were not damaged!

Building was actually designed to withstand the impact of a plane flying into them.

Which adds to the level of mystery of why it didn't work.

Not the one I was looking for but the statement about the the designers not expecting 90,000L of jet fuel on one floor was what I remember, Ill keep looking though for the what I was looking for. Some other pertinent points are made about why the buildings fell straight down.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Some basics;

The WTCs weigh 450,000,000kg each.

To make things easy lets say roughly about 10% of them on average was above the impact point. Reports before the collapse from people trapped inside the upper floors stated that multiple floors had collapsed making escape impossible, so lets keep it simple at 3 floors for a rough height of 10m.

That is 10% of a WTC falling 10m under gravity after structural failure, that 10m impact equates to;
E(Newtons) = mgh
E = 45,000,000kg x 9.81 x 10 E = 1,324,350,000 Newtons

Now actually because I've chosen easy units we can simplify this to an impact force in kilograms, this is because fundamentally the impact force in kilograms is going to be F = E/g.
1,324,350,000 / 9.81 = 135,000,000kg

Nothing we build could have survived, it was like a sledge hammer falling on stack of straws.

As for the collapse on it own footprint, that is bogus as well. Both towers had the facades peel away from the between the 40th and 60th floor, Now by facades we are not talking cladding as some conspiracists like to make out, we are talking full exterior walls, concrete, steel; and glass. Some of those facades directly hit other buildings up to 250m away falling from a height above 40 stories, causing multiple buildings to be damaged or collapse. So much for he claims about falling straight down.

Guesses and estimates.

You want figures and details explanation, watch the videos. You are severly undestimating the depths they have gone too.

One video they show is of the mast on top of the towers. That fell in before the collapse of any other part (only just, by a few frames).
Bring up the design of the top of the tower where the mast was situated and it was on the hat trusses, which was supported by the internal supports......the backbone of the whole thing. (They have detailed the size of these supports and how they get increasingly bigger the further down until they are almost solid steel).

How does the strongest part of it fail, before anything else fails?

Sure, a partial collapse can cause further collapses etc....but that does not happen instantly. If you take out the load bearing structure first, then we see what we see. If the whole structure gradually gets weaker, the smaller sections collapse first, and then maybe it will take the laodbearing structure with it. That did not happen.

Just a reminder guys that this is the Covid thread? Or does "mad panic behaviour" also cover 9/11?

Guesses and estimates.

No actually that is physics, ............... just the basics though .............................. remember any?

As basic as it may be, it shows the forces are extraordinary, unlike the conspiracy evidence which it seems is just plain ordinary! :o

PS; Complex solutions, still have to fit with in the basic physics, the laws do not change with complexity or scale.

Not the one I was looking for but the statement about the the designers not expecting 90,000L of jet fuel on one floor was what I remember, Ill keep looking though for the what I was looking for. Some other pertinent points are made about why the buildings fell straight down.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Yep Jet fuel on the floor and intense heat, the clue is debris being forced out the windows...the fireproofing was probably mangled and therefore not effective. At 1000 degrees Celsius the columms, support structures would be melting causing the floor to collapse. Like I said it would have been the heat that would have been the real problem and not the impact so much IMHO.

No actually that is physics, ............... just the basics though .............................. remember any?

As basic as it may be, it shows the forces are extraordinary, unlike the conspiracy evidence which is just plain ordinary it seems! :o

The numbers you are using is what i'm referring too.

What you described is also mentioned as being INNACURATE in the initial report.

It has to do with your 10m.

It, wrongly, assumes a free fall at that point. For the acceleration to be 9.81, means the collapse, and everything above it, happened instantly. It simply could not. The only way that is even remotely possible is through a controlled detonation.

So, back to the drawing board.....

No actually that is physics, ............... just the basics though .............................. remember any?

As basic as it may be, it shows the forces are extraordinary, unlike the conspiracy evidence which it seems is just plain ordinary! :o

PS; Complex solutions, still have to fit with in the basic physics, the laws do not change with complexity or scale.

Unless you try and teach them....and copy the same exact errors made in the actual reports.

Sorry for the loss of your friend Baggers. Even harder when, as Mav said, there was hope and prevention of such events in sight.

Not the one I was looking for but the statement about the the designers not expecting 90,000L of jet fuel on one floor was what I remember, Ill keep looking though for the what I was looking for. Some other pertinent points are made about why the buildings fell straight down.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

I've had a look through that and its not bad. The issue i have is with the 90,000L. Didn't the submitted report say that most of this was dissipated on impact, so all the issues of that used in that report are a non-issue.

Just a reminder guys that this is the Covid thread? Or does "mad panic behaviour" also cover 9/11?

Agree Cookie, should be moved to general discussion.

TGA approves CSL AZ vaccine today, final batch testing and can be released for use. AZ have declared its safe and effective in response to countries who have suspended its use.

So sorry for the loss of your mate @Baggers ... I know that feeling and not a day goes by without me thinking of my best friend.  They sure leave their mark. 

The numbers you are using is what i'm referring too.

What you described is also mentioned as being INNACURATE in the initial report.

It has to do with your 10m.

It, wrongly, assumes a free fall at that point. For the acceleration to be 9.81, means the collapse, and everything above it, happened instantly. It simply could not. The only way that is even remotely possible is through a controlled detonation.

So, back to the drawing board.....

No not all all.

You know the math can't lie, you could halve all the figures from the actual and the resulting energies are still way beyond anything a building could resist. That is how back of the envelope calculations like this work, you don't end up an order of magnitude out.

For example; Looking 1/2 Mass(5% of WTC 1 or 2), 1/2 Gravity(reduced acceleration), 1/2 fall height
E = 22,500,000 x 4.9 x 5
E = 551,250,000 Newtons

F = E/g
F = 551,250,000 / 9.8
F = 56,250,000kg ;)

Nothing we build today can withstand even that, it's at least an order of magnitude too high for any building to withstand and transmit that energy down through the structure to the foundations like a shockwave.

For comparative reference, the recent Beirut fertilizer blast was about 1/10th the collapse energy of just one WTC.

Ockham's Razor at work, I think I've read that somewhere before! ;)

But undeterred.....................

Not the one I was looking for but the statement about the the designers not expecting 90,000L of jet fuel on one floor was what I remember, Ill keep looking though for the what I was looking for. Some other pertinent points are made about why the buildings fell straight down.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

@Gointocarlton‍

To handle these immense forces, the engineers "designed the World Trade Center essentially as a large beam section," explained another panel member, Robert McNamara, president of the engineering firm McNamara and Salvia.

Newspapers and TV newscasts reported that the twin towers had been designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707. The events of September 11th show that this was indeed the case. "However, the World Trade Center was never designed for the massive explosions nor the intense jet fuel fires that came next a key design omission," stated Eduardo Kausel, another M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering and panel member. The towers collapsed only after the kerosene fuel fire compromised the integrity of their structural tubes: One WTC lasted for 105 minutes, whereas Two WTC remained standing for 47 minutes. "It was designed for the type of fire you'd expect in an office building paper, desks, drapes," McNamara said. The aviation fuel fires that broke out burned at a much hotter temperature than the typical contents of an office. "At about 800 degrees Fahrenheit structural steel starts to lose its strength; at 1,500 degrees F, all bets are off as steel members become significantly weakened," he explained.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-twin-towers-fell/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-twin-towers-fell/)

Unreal :D

No not all all.

You know the math can't lie, you could halve all the figures from the actual and the resulting energies are still way beyond anything a building could resist. That is how back of the envelope calculations like this work, you don't end up an order of magnitude out.

For example; Looking 1/2 Mass(5% of WTC 1 or 2), 1/2 Gravity(reduced acceleration), 1/2 fall height
E = 22,500,000 x 4.9 x 5
E = 551,250,000 Newtons

F = E/g
F = 551,250,000 / 9.8
F = 56,250,000kg ;)

Nothing we build today can withstand even that, it's at least an order of magnitude too high for any building to withstand and transmit that energy down through the structure to the foundations like a shockwave.

For comparative reference, the recent Beirut fertilizer blast was about 1/10th the collapse energy of just one WTC.

Ockham's Razor at work, I think I've read that somewhere before! ;)

So 1 order of magnitude....
Get rid of your 5m, that is saying that 1.5m of floors were essentially not there.
10% (reduced to 5%) may be the height, but the base is more dense than the top, as the weight distribution may make it even less than that. 1/2 of gravity is still a hell of a lot of accelaration to happen all at once. Change those figures and there goes your order of magnitude before we even try.

Still....this assumes a uniform, whole collapse at once which is simply not practical.

So 1 order of magnitude....
Get rid of your 5m, that is saying that 1.5m of floors were essentially not there.
10% (reduced to 5%) may be the height, but the base is more dense than the top, as the weight distribution may make it even less than that. 1/2 of gravity is still a hell of a lot of accelaration to happen all at once. Change those figures and there goes your order of magnitude before we even try.

Still....this assumes a uniform, whole collapse at once which is simply not practical.

1.5m high floors, really?

You're so far from reality, one minute you want to claim WTC7 collapses under free fall proves a deliberate implosion, even though that facts show it fell for a total of 1.4s slower than a free fall speed. Then you want the WTC towers to fall at 1/10th of the real world rate for 1/6th the distance collapse height. I don't know a building that has 1.5m high floors clear span floors, they just don't exist. A heated and buckled structural member functionally presents no resistance at all.

The weight of collapse goes up as the floors pancake, the total collapsing energy and mass doesn't decrease or stay static, it accumulates as it goes until it hits solid earth or compacted rubble.

btw., You seem to not get the math, lets use 5% weight, 1/10th gravity and 1.5m fall even though it's absurd figures to assume.

E = mgh
E = 22,500,000 x .98 x 1.5
E = 33,075,000 Newtons

F = 33,075,000 / 9.8
F = 3,375,000kg

An impact of 3 Million kilograms is still way beyond anything a building is design to withstand. 3 Million kilograms is just two WTC floors collapsing without even the mass of the walls.

@Gointocarlton‍  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-twin-towers-fell/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-twin-towers-fell/)

From this link...

Though the Boeing 767s airliners that hit the towers were somewhat larger than the Boeing 707 (maximum takeoff weights: 395,000 pounds versus 336,000 pounds) the structures were designed to resist, the planes carried a similarly sized fuel load as the older modelabout 24,000 gallons versus 23,000 gallons, according to Kausel.

So they were built to withstand plane attack. Albeit couldn't foresee the future in aviation design, the impacts were similar. Given the amount of redundancy built into the structure, we can safely assume it could withstand the slightly bigger version.

1.5m high floors, really?

You're so far from reality, one minute you want to claim WTC7 collapses under free fall proves a deliberate implosion, even though that facts show it fell for a total of 1.4s slower than a free fall speed. Then you want the WTC towers to fall at 1/10th of the real world rate for 1/6th the distance collapse height. I don't know a building that has 1.5m high floors clear span floors, they just don't exist. A heated and buckled structural member functionally presents no resistance at all.

The weight of collapse goes up as the floors pancake, the total collapsing energy and mass doesn't decrease or stay static, it accumulates as it goes until it hits solid earth or compacted rubble.

Typo. 1.5x floors. As in 1 and a half floors that your numbers are stating simply weren't there.

But undeterred.....................

If you want to split the thread....

Typo. 1.5x floors. As in 1 and a half floors that your numbers are stating simply weren't there.

I can only report what the phone calls from the WTC reported, that several floors had collapsed entirely preventing any escape. I've no basis to ever question that, each floor is about 3m.

I'm not sure anyone can refute those reports, a bit like the suggestion made by some the that people calling their families from the plane that crashed in to the Pentagon weren't really there at all!

I mean it isn't just absurd, it's basically offensive sort of rubbish Daesh would come up with!

I can only report what the phone calls from the WTC reported, that several floors had collapsed entirely preventing any escape. I've no basis to ever question that, each floor is about 3m.

I'm not sure anyone can refute those reports,

You are confusing yourself. You said 3 floors or 10m. Fine. I pointed out that those floors don't instantaneously vanish, so you halved it. So, 1.5 floors rather than 3. I pointed out that you are still 'vanishing' floors. This means your numbers don't work.

Then you talk about people making phone calls about floors collapsing. Which is fine, i believe that to be true. But you tell me, is it the floors collapsing that caused the whole thing to fall down? Or is it some floors, then they made phone calls. Then other floors? I can tell you that they certainly didn't have time to make a phone call once it started collapsing completely.

Also, by that link, they can;t agree on how exactly it failed either. They have some theories, but are not 100% certain. Which is fine.
There are other theories on how they came down which also fit the bill. There is theories which can be equally as plausible....but are scoffed at by blokes like you who (unlike me) refuse to look at the other side of things.

a bit like the suggestion made by some the that people calling their families from the plane that crashed in to the Pentagon weren't really there at all!

I mean it isn't just absurd, it's basically offensive sort of rubbish Daesh would come up with!

Nobody has commented about phone calls and the pentagon.

Only thing that i've said is the manouvre required could not be done with the precision it was by a novice pilot.
and
If there was a plane crash, you usually see evidence of the plane that crashed....and/or footage of the plane itself.

You are confusing yourself. You said 3 floors or 10m. Fine. I pointed out that those floors don't instantaneously vanish, so you halved it. So, 1.5 floors rather than 3. I pointed out that you are still 'vanishing' floors. This means your numbers don't work.

Then you talk about people making phone calls about floors collapsing. Which is fine, i believe that to be true. But you tell me, is it the floors collapsing that caused the whole thing to fall down? Or is it some floors, then they made phone calls. Then other floors? I can tell you that they certainly didn't have time to make a phone call once it started collapsing completely.

Also, by that link, they can;t agree on how exactly it failed either. They have some theories, but are not 100% certain. Which is fine.
There are other theories on how they came down which also fit the bill. There is theories which can be equally as plausible....but are scoffed at by blokes like you who (unlike me) refuse to look at the other side of things.
Nobody has commented about phone calls and the pentagon.

Only thing that i've said is the manouvre required could not be done with the precision it was by a novice pilot.
and
If there was a plane crash, you usually see evidence of the plane that crashed....and/or footage of the plane itself.

There is no vanishing floors, each floor, the ones below and above the impact weighed about 1,450,000kg. The floors falling from above alone has a mass of about 15,000,000kg even without the walls and other structures. The collapsed floors reported would create a void only filled by structural members two or three floors in height, once those structural members fail buckling the next impact of the 10 or more stories above that are collapsing is 2 or 3 floors below, it's not hard to understand. The top floors collapsing at WTC1 or WTC2 were like a dead blow hammer that was 4050sqm and 22,500,000 kg in size.

Even if we assume 50% error in all the estimates of weight, rate or fall or distance the figures are still extraordinary and well beyond the design limits of any building. In effect we have tens of millions of tonnes impacting vertically somewhere between the 80th and 90th floor.

The situation was even worse at WTC7, because the heat affected structures on the lower floors had even more weight above them than the top sections of WTC1 or WTC2.

There is no vanishing floors, each floor, the ones below and above the impact weighed about 1,450,000kg. The floors falling from above alone has a mass of about 15,000,000kg even without the walls and other structures. The collapsed floors reported would create a void only filled by structural members two or three floors in height, once those structural members fail buckling the next impact of the 10 or more stories above that are collapsing is 2 or 3 floors below, it's not hard to understand. The top floors collapsing at WTC1 or WTC2 were like a dead blow hammer that was 4050sqm and 22,500,000 kg in size.

I understand the concept of pancaking, but it is reliant on all structural members failing in unison (or close enough too) which is not practical.

This is all on the proviso that the structural members were sufficiently weakened to begin with. Talk about the heat/temperature of fires and it getting hot enough to get to 50% structural integrity is somewhat of a best case scenario, but with the redundancy built into the structure, it should still be able to withstand that kind of weight.

On another note, the fire rating of structural members is also something that cannot be agreed upon from 'your side'.
Somewhere it said all asbestos fire rating was removed from the buildings.
Elsewhere it says that the debris was hazardous due to asbestos.

Is it all gone or not?

Did it come down due to no fire rating?? Or is that a cover story?
Did they cite asbestos in the wreckage to keep people away so they could cover their tracks? Why was all evidence in such a big crime ultimately destroyed before any proper investigation could be done?

Do you see why there are many questions over this matter? There would be 100's more..

No one has commented about witness reports and the media blackout on them which followed.

If you want to split the thread....

I'll get around to it eventually.

The next biggest equivalent crash was a B-25 into the Empire State Building.

B-25 = 15m wide x 15,000kg flying at 230mph.

767 = 40m wide x 150,000 to 200,000kg MTOW flying at +550mph. 10x the weight and at least 2x the speed,

We need a physicist to tell us all about kinetic and potential energy! ;)

Apart from the size difference LP, the fuel capacity is significant.

A B-25 with long range tanks carried 974 US gallons of fuel.  A 767 carries 29,980 US gallons; more than enough to create fires of very high but variable intensity.  Those fires were hot enough to cause the steel to lose structural strength and to distort as a result of temperature variation.  It's just basic metallurgy.

.. and both aircraft banked to hit more than one floor

Inspired by the 9/11 critics & having heard that various locations around NSW were floodproofed and yet allegedly they flooded anyway, I can only conclude the government flooded those areas deliberately. The people claiming that rain caused the flooding of their properties must be crisis actors.

Apart from the size difference LP, the fuel capacity is significant.

A B-25 with long range tanks carried 974 US gallons of fuel.  A 767 carries 29,980 US gallons; more than enough to create fires of very high but variable intensity.  Those fires were hot enough to cause the steel to lose structural strength and to distort as a result of temperature variation.  It's just basic metallurgy.

Um, rubbish.

The NIST report acknowledges 90% of the remaining fuel load went on impact. But that's a red herring.

Wait, so you're telling me next to no fuel exploded (was vaporised) when the plane hit the building? Sweet.

Loss of structural strength in 80+ floors (below the impacted floors) of mega reinforced, over engineered steel.

And a remarkable, symmetrical fall in next to free fall speed.

Zero chance.

Try harder.

Loss of structural strength in 80+ floors (below the impacted floors) of mega reinforced, over engineered steel.

No number of floors can withstand the mass of the 20 floors or so above collapsing on them, just the floors pancaking, without the weight of the folding superstructure without the exterior walls weighed at least 28,000,000 kg. It doesn't really matter how that mass gets to the 80th floor or lower levels, it's an irrelevant argument, because even if it collapsed at 1/10th free fall it would still destroy the levels below.

The NIST report also correctly points out that structural steel fails completely at about 1500°F, while aluminium and titanium once ignited burn at above 3200°F, both are common material components of aircraft. Water cannot be used to extinguish these pyrophoric fires, because water(H2O) starts to disassociate into it's main components Hydrogen and Oxygen at those temperatures, which further fuels the fire and actually increases the combustion temperature which then feeds back into a cascading thermal event. If a nitrogen saturated environment is present, some fire fighting systems use nitrogen, titanium will ignite at temperatures as low as 550°C because it is part of a rare group of metals that reduce in nitrogen preferentially to oxygen.

Without knowing for sure, I can't understand why a building would collapse under its own weight.

It happily holds itself up there anyway, so whether those floors are collapsing or not is quite irrelevant one would think.  Also fire tends to spread upwards not downward, so I would have thought the top part of the building suffering some structural issues as it went up would weigh less not more as half its mass is incineratwd in the process.  These planes didn't hit the base of the towers, and I remember one of them hitting quite high up.

Sure things happen but the whole thing smells a bit.  Was any of the building left standing?  I just remember them falling.

Anyway, I'm no engineer, firebug or physicist.

The official line on 9/11 is just one more reason why I think that modern democracies are dictatorships that are dressed in sheep's clothing.  We are provided the illusion of choice whilst society keeps running for the benefit of the same group of oligarchs that continue making millions whilst more people fall into poverty.

It happily holds itself up there anyway, so whether those floors are collapsing or not is quite irrelevant one would think.

@Thryleon You can rest a 5kg sledge hammer on your foot no problems, but I dare you to put it there by dropping it from the metre or two! ;)

Even if you deliberately slow it's fall, or halve the distance, it is still going to hit your foot with forces many many times it's resting mass.

It's all about kinetic energy, @kruddler studied physics he can give you some advice.

I'm sure you can extend a home from two stories to four stories building it piecemeal, but I don't know anyone that drops an extra two stories on top of a two story house, not even from the tiniest bit above!

The area of physics that covers this in the real world and is used by engieers to solve load problems is called Statics and Dynamics.

LP, the mass of that part of the building below the fires would have offered huge resistance to the floors falling from above, even if the fall had started instantaneously, i.e. were vapourised. Have you done the calculations taking that into account? Say 13 or 14 floors falling on top of the rest. Are you assuming the steel throughout the whole building had failed?

LP, the mass of that part of the building below the fires would have offered huge resistance to the floors falling from above, even if the fall had started instantaneously, i.e. were vapourised. Have you done the calculations taking that into account? Say 13 or 14 floors falling on top of the rest. Are you assuming the steel throughout the whole building had failed?

exactly my point.  The planes hit about a third from top and the building was flattened like a pancake top to bottom.

Like I said I'm no physicist.  The dropping a sledge hammer on your foot analogy is possibly the worst analogy, your foot isn't capable of supporting a sledge hammer in the first place.

Anyway, I could probably read up on it, but from start to finish this event will never sit well with me Nd is just one more reason why you always take the official story with a grain of salt.  If its too simple to be true, it probably is.

I'm not one to put much credence into conspiracy theories.
That's just me though.
The basic reason is that it requires so many folks to be involved in the planning and execution, and they then have to maintain a level of secrecy with few or no leaks that it just defies logic.
From an initial thought (e.g. 'Let's start a war on terror')... how do you get from that point to recruiting people of power and expertise to your cause, and the end result of crashing planes and bringing down buildings?
Somewhere along the way someone must think it's not the brightest idea and say so.

That's not to say I don't believe in cover ups or distortions that individuals may promote to protect their own deficiencies or lack of action.

Perhaps the biggest problem with some of these theories is that the internet has provided such a wide range of information that you can find a group or article to support any idea or view of history.
We naturally gravitate and give more weight to those articles that support our own pre-conceived ideas.

A well written article with a couple of eminent names thrown in can have us questioning some theory.
A quick google and you can have a completely opposite view.

How do you make sense of that?
The more you read, the more confused or more zealous you get. (I'm in the confused camp)
The more technical the article the more confusing for simple folk.
It becomes a case of 'my eminent person' is more credible than 'your eminent person'... but again that's largely based on a personal bias.
We discard or discredit views that don't fit with our concept of things.
In such cases it's not necessarily a case of... 'the more you read the more informed you become.'

History shows that there are numerous cases of folks swimming against the mainstream of thought that in the end have been vindicated....but that works as an argument for both sides of the conspiracy debate.

People can believe what they want to believe, or choose to believe...you'll struggle to change folks minds on a football forum with links at ten paces.

Lods, I am not putting forward any conspiracy theories but just trying to understand how the "official" explanation hangs together.

LP, the mass of that part of the building below the fires would have offered huge resistance to the floors falling from above, even if the fall had started instantaneously, i.e. were vapourised. Have you done the calculations taking that into account? Say 13 or 14 floors falling on top of the rest. Are you assuming the steel throughout the whole building had failed?

@cookie2  Most buildings are basically eggshells or hollow wire frames with central/internal supporting columns, not solid like the pyramids. Those columns work in very specific circumstances, kept in alignment by the floors which act as supports and dampeners. As the floors begin to pancake they reduced lateral support to the columns and effectively the columns develop kinks from a shockwave, initially they almost ring like a guitar string at some fundamental frequency, then eventually under compressive force they bow like overloaded straws, once bowed even slightly in any direction they have a fraction of the required strength to support even the buildings static mass, let alone the ongoing force of continuing impacts.

But really, in a failure like this, you only test the very weakest component, and in this case it was probably the stays and struts that supported the floors.

Like I said I'm no physicist.  The dropping a sledge hammer on your foot analogy is possibly the worst analogy, your foot isn't capable of supporting a sledge hammer in the first place.

What's your foot made of, crepe paper?

A sledge hammer is typically only 5kg, the weight of a very healthy baby! :o

Well said, Lods. As well as the problem with confirmation bias, there’s also the issue of relying on our intuition/gut/common sense to evaluate scientific matters.

Intuition can sometimes mislead even highly-trained people: pilots with many hours of flying under their belts can experience spatial disorientation and conclude their instruments are faulty. Flash Airlines Flight 604 ended up crashing into the Red Sea because the experienced captain continued to bank to the right as he thought he was correcting excessive banking to the left. It’s thought that John F Kennedy Jnr put his Cessna into a death spiral on a calm night for much the same reason.

But intuition can improve with training or education. Unfortunately, many don’t bother trying to improve their intuition, believing that their “common sense” gives them superior judgement to those Ivory Tower academics.

This makes it easy for good marketers to appeal to common sense. Nigel Parkinson, a Tory politician wrote a book 50 odd years ago in which he marketed conservative economic policies by arguing running a government was like running a household, so everyone could just apply common sense. He then suggested that households needed to operate on a balanced budget, so governments running deficits invited disaster. That set the table for guys like Peter Costello to demonise deficits which has poisoned the well for anything but PPP deals (even though we’ve had extremely low interest rates for a long time). The only “good deficits” have been those caused by conservative governments cutting taxes on the rich on the specious basis that the benefits would trickle down (or a rising sea would lift all boats). A recent study of 17 countries over 50 years have disproved this “common sense” policy but has demonstrated that it sure does increase the wealth of the rich and inequality.

There are plenty of examples in science that show the limits of uneducated or undereducated intuition.

One of the most relatable is the Monty Hall problem, loosely based on the game show Let’s Make a Deal:

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

Those who haven’t studied conditional probability would say that there’s 2 choices remaining and there’s 50% chance of the car being behind either, so there’s no benefit in switching. But it turns out that switching would increase your chances of winning the car. I was told that you can realign your intuition to operate in the conditional universe but I haven’t made that jump. My intuition is still stuck in simple probability mode even though I don’t doubt the mathematical conclusion.

Another example is the Painter’s Paradox aka Gabriel’s Horn aka Toricelli’s Trumpet which involve certain hornlike shapes stretching out to infinity. Oddly enough, despite the rim projecting out forever it has finite volume! Even more bizarrely, even though it has finite volume, it has infinite surface area! This is where the Painter’s Paradox comes in. You could fill such a horn with a finite (though immensely large) amount of paint. But even though it’s sitting in the horn, there’s not enough paint to cover the inside of the horn (cue Twighlight Zone music).

Then you have Quantum Mechanics which requires you to throw out common sense completely. It also requires you to throw out Newtonian Classical Mechanics (as you also need to do where you have speed more than a tenth of the speed of light). An object can’t be in 2 places at the same time, right? No Grasshopper, it can be everywhere at the same time! Quantum Entanglement Internet could see us receiving data simultaneously to its generation at a distant place. Mindblowing ...

None of the above suggests I am one of those gifted individuals who know everything. I’d like to think I have more than average knowledge but I’m more like a trained monkey who can do a limited number of tricks. To go anywhere near being able to debate something as complex as the destruction of the WTC buildings, I’d need to do a load of preparatory work in a variety of areas. And even then, maybe I’d end up being like a budgerigar trying to learn calculus.

None of the above suggests I am one of those gifted individuals who know everything. I’d like to think I have more than average knowledge but I’m more like a trained monkey who can do a limited number of tricks. To go anywhere near being able to debate something as complex as the destruction of the WTC buildings, I’d need to do a load of preparatory work in a variety of areas. And even then, maybe I’d end up being like a budgerigar trying to learn calculus.

@Mav‍ very very nicely put! ;D

I mentioned earlier a class of Mechanics called Statics and Dynamics, a nice book is freely available to read about this, but the reader best be prepared to have their mind mashed like potato regardless of how good they think they are at maths!

Introduction to Statics and Dynamics (http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/Book/RuinaPratap-Jan-20-2015.pdf) (40MB download)
Andy Ruina and Rudra Pratap (These guys are a tad clever, one of them wrote the MathCAD manuals!) :o

I keep a copy in my library, to remind me of how stupid I really am!

...............................
This makes it easy for good marketers to appeal to common sense. Nigel Parkinson, a Tory politician wrote a book 50 odd years ago in which he marketed conservative economic policies by arguing running a government was like running a household, so everyone could just apply common sense. He then suggested that households needed to operate on a balanced budget, so governments running deficits invited disaster. That set the table for guys like Peter Costello to demonise deficits which has poisoned the well for anything but PPP deals (even though we’ve had extremely low interest rates for a long time). The only “good deficits” have been those caused by conservative governments cutting taxes on the rich on the specious basis that the benefits would trickle down (or a rising sea would lift all boats). A recent study of 17 countries over 50 years have disproved this “common sense” policy but has demonstrated that it sure does increase the wealth of the rich and inequality.
........................................

So so true. Poor suffering slobs have been fleeced for decades.

So so true. Poor suffering slobs have been fleeced for decades.

Even though they (the perpetrators of this heinous crime) are kents, ......... they are also likely to be savants!

There is a reason why corporate psychopaths dominate industry, the rest of us just can't think like them even when we try!

Are politicians a special class of the very same, a class that has realise being correct or truthful doesn't really matter as long as it seems you know what you are talking about?

@cookie2  Most buildings are basically eggshells or hollow wire frames with central/internal supporting columns, not solid like the pyramids. Those columns work in very specific circumstances, kept in alignment by the floors which act as supports and dampeners. As the floors begin to pancake they reduced lateral support to the columns and effectively the columns develop kinks from a shockwave, initially they almost ring like a guitar string at some fundamental frequency, then eventually under compressive force they bow like overloaded straws, once bowed even slightly in any direction they have a fraction of the required strength to support even the buildings static mass, let alone the ongoing force of continuing impacts.

But really, in a failure like this, you only test the very weakest component, and in this case it was probably the stays and struts that supported the floors.

Well LP I will have to defer to your expertise on these matters. They are outside of my area so I will make no further comment.

Well LP I will have to defer to your expertise on these matters. They are outside of my area so I will make no further comment.

Use this very day to day analogy.

Take a chopstick or straw and stand it vertically like a model of a column, you push straight down from one end the line of force you exert travels directly through the core to the other end. Now imagine the same model column with a significant bend or bow in it, the force you exert on the top still points towards the bottom, but the force no longer travels in a straight line between the top and the bottom, how can it there is nothing but empty space there!

The amount of bow and magnitude of force needed to deform or collapse the columns depends on the materials and rigidity, but none are infinite.

@LP

Thanks, but as I said, nothing further to add.  :-X

while aluminium and titanium once ignited burn at above 3200°F, both are common material components of aircraft.

Should i call you a conspiracy theorist now?

You keep stating it, even your own articles have suggested this did not happen.

I'm not one to put much credence into conspiracy theories.
That's just me though.
The basic reason is that it requires so many folks to be involved in the planning and execution, and they then have to maintain a level of secrecy with few or no leaks that it just defies logic.
From an initial thought (e.g. 'Let's start a war on terror')... how do you get from that point to recruiting people of power and expertise to your cause, and the end result of crashing planes and bringing down buildings?
Somewhere along the way someone must think it's not the brightest idea and say so.

This is not an area i have put too much research into, but playing devils advocate somewhat.

Firstly, this sort of thing has been planned (and i believe executed) multiple times in the past. We know why they do it, its just a matter of how often can they pull it off.

Secondly, the secrecy part of it is relatively easy to explain. Keep people in the dark. Give people a small job, don't tell them what its for or why they are doing it and they can't 'spill the beans'. Anyone who speaks out about it automatically a crack pot.
You see how many people who believe the standard line are happy to take pot shots at others who question it and flat out to refuse to look at any evidence the other side presents.
Alternatively, my drive is to get questions answered and am looking at what has been provided too me.....and have pointed out some questionable (IMO) parts of it in the process.

Thridly, the Nazis.
Follow orders, no matter how over the top they may seem. You'd be shunned if you refused (or worse).

This is not an area i have put too much research into, but playing devils advocate somewhat.

Firstly, this sort of thing has been planned (and i believe executed) multiple times in the past. We know why they do it, its just a matter of how often can they pull it off.

Secondly, the secrecy part of it is relatively easy to explain. Keep people in the dark. Give people a small job, don't tell them what its for or why they are doing it and they can't 'spill the beans'. Anyone who speaks out about it automatically a crack pot.
You see how many people who believe the standard line are happy to take pot shots at others who question it and flat out to refuse to look at any evidence the other side presents.
Alternatively, my drive is to get questions answered and am looking at what has been provided too me.....and have pointed out some questionable (IMO) parts of it in the process.

Thridly, the Nazis.
Follow orders, no matter how over the top they may seem. You'd be shunned if you refused (or worse).

Re the silence bit, I reckon that happens all the time and its done to not give people ideas and then "copy cat". Its like suicide, it happens every single day (sadly) and in public places but the news services don't report it. Partly because is gruesome, partly out of respect to families and those struggling, partly because of the copy thing. I remember talking to an architect in the 90s on a building site and we were talking about how the old buildings had a large gap between the stairs in the stair wells and he went on to explain they stopped doing it as people were talking their lives by jumping down them. I was shocked to learn this and he told me I'd be even more shocked how regularly it occurred (ie daily). Not reported on or details provided.
Can also add if you're feeling down, please talk to someone, anyone.

Without knowing for sure, I can't understand why a building would collapse under its own weight.

I've got no doubt it can, overall the biggest concern is how quickly it did and how easily it did.

There are a few things that bother me about the whole thing.

1. Buildings were designed to withstand a plane crashing into them.
2. Fire has NEVER bought down a skyscraper.
3. Buildings fell down extremely quickly, both in terms of time after they were hit....and once it started.

Official line....
1. Oh yeah, but that plane was slightly bigger.
2. Oh yeah, but the sprinklers were not working....and there was lots of fire.....in each of the 3 buildings.
3. Oh yeah, thats because they are heavy....and there was lots of fire.

Take that further and you see....
- The cleanup was remarkably quick with no real investigation done on the rubble.
- The media all changed their tune almost to the minute.....clearly informed of something.
- Any witness reports that had any contrary evidence were completely ignored.
- All of the passports of the hijackers had their passports found, with barely a mark of fire upon them.

Then if you start looking at the other plane crashes that occurred on 9/11....and you find that there is barely an evidence of an actual plane crash.

....and there are plenty more questions that are not answered, but raise more questions.

And i'm the conspiracy theories for seeking them

I wouldn't call nine months to clear the WTC site quick.  And rightly so as they were mindful of searching for all remains of the fallen.

As for the passports, how many passengers carry them on a domestic flight?  Very very few

Should i call you a conspiracy theorist now?

You keep stating it, even your own articles have suggested this did not happen.

No they don't you've made that up!

They write about about molten metals pouring down the side of the buildings being unlikely to be pure aluminium given the yellowish colour, and that aluminium is not likely to ignite at normal building fire temperatures.

You've taken an uncertainty, and morphed it into a certainty to supporting your case, isn't that a sign of a conspiracist?

You're too heavily invested in this, you'll keep making those mistakes if you don't stick to the facts.

No they don't you've made that up!

They write about about molten metals pouring down the side of the buildings being unlikely to be pure aluminium given the yellowish colour, and that aluminium is not likely to ignite at normal building fire temperatures.

You've taken an uncertainty, and morphed it into a certainty to supporting your case, isn't that a sign of a conspiracist?

You're too heavily invested in this, you'll keep making those mistakes if you don't stick to the facts.

Which is exactly what the articles said.
It COULD be this.
It COULD be that.
You've taken an uncertainty and morphed it into a certainty......

OK, it wasn't disproven, but it was suggested it was highly unlikely.
You know what else fits that bill? A controlled demolition.

Its funny how you don't see that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of.

I wouldn't call nine months to clear the WTC site quick.  And rightly so as they were mindful of searching for all remains of the fallen.

As for the passports, how many passengers carry them on a domestic flight?  Very very few

Months to clear, steel was on the boat to china within days, and weeks.

I don't care about passenger passports. I'm talking about the hijackers passports. THEY were found....amongst over 200 floors of rubble, looking nice and clean with only the slightest blemishes on them.
So the fire is hot enough to deform metal to the point of collapse....but those passports....THEY are indestructable!!!

You're forgetting about a major scientific truism: sheet happens!

Which is exactly what the articles said.
It COULD be this.
It COULD be that.
You've taken an uncertainty and morphed it into a certainty......

OK, it wasn't disproven, but it was suggested it was highly unlikely.
You know what else fits that bill? A controlled demolition.

Its funny how you don't see that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of.

So what's the reason behind the controlled demolition?

So what's the reason behind the controlled demolition?

Ask different people, get different answers.

The most logical one, should you go down that path, is the false flag theory.

eg....We want to invade someone, so lets pin something so disastrous on them that we will get the full backing by our people.
If people are scared, they will do what we tell them to do.
Essentially, its PR spin.....but on the biggest scale.

The father of PR is Edward Burnayse. Look into some of the stuff he could do by spinning a few lies here and there. You may have heard of the banana republic.....look into that. Burnayse was able to literally overthrow a government, simply to sell more bananas.
The Nazis actually credited him directly with showing them the way to use propaganda to get the public onside with them (initially, not by the end of it all obviously).

Who got blamed for 9/11. Where was he from? Who got invaded?

Americas biggest business is war. Getting the public onside with war keeps that country running smoothly and allows them to bully the rest of the world, while making out they are the good guys....they are just fighting terrorists after all. Its got nothing to do with oil....honestly.  :-[

So what's the reason behind the controlled demolition?

Alternatively, maybe its not false flag.
Maybe the tower was indeed going to come down. Maybe they did it themselves to ensure minimum casualties.

re false flag...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Yes its wikipaedia but it has a picture of the actual document as well as a brief explanation on what its about.

There are others. It does occur.

Months to clear, steel was on the boat to china within days, and weeks.

I don't care about passenger passports. I'm talking about the hijackers passports. THEY were found....amongst over 200 floors of rubble, looking nice and clean with only the slightest blemishes on them.
So the fire is hot enough to deform metal to the point of collapse....but those passports....THEY are indestructable!!!

So youre suggesting all four passports were found at the WTC? I don't believe that's correct.

They found the ringleader's baggage (mohammed atta) in Boston .... it never made it on to the connecting jet.  His passport was inside.

So youre suggesting all four passports were found at the WTC? I don't believe that's correct.

It isn't GTC ... see above

So youre suggesting all four passports were found at the WTC? I don't believe that's correct.

No, there was 4 that were found in total. 1 was from flight 11, that hit WTC.

Passports recovered
According to testimony by Susan Ginsberg, a staff member of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks upon the United States, in the January 26, 2004, Public Hearing:

Four of the hijackers' passports have survived in whole or in part. Two were recovered from the crash site of United Airlines flight 93 in Pennsylvania. These are the passports of Ziad Jarrah and Saeed al Ghamdi. One belonged to a hijacker on American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Satam al Suqami. A passerby picked it up and gave it to a NYPD detective shortly before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. A fourth passport was recovered from luggage that did not make it from a Portland flight to Boston on to the connecting flight which was American Airlines flight 11. This is the passport of Abdul Aziz al Omari.
In addition to these four, some digital copies of the hijackers passports were recovered in post-9/11 operations. Two of the passports that have survived, those of Satam al Suqami and Abdul Aziz al Omari, were clearly doctored. These passports were manipulated in a fraudulent manner in ways that have been associated with al Qaeda.
WTC site
The passport of hijacker Satam al-Suqami was found a few blocks from the World Trade Center.[8][9]

Flight 93
According to the 9/11 Commission, the passports of two of the Flight 93 hijackers were also found intact in the aircraft's debris field.[10]

Oh hey.....you dropped this. It might be important.  :o

Ummm.....sounds legit.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-satam-al-suqami-passport.2788/
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/911zion03_05-jpg.33840/)

Survived fires that brought down a 110 story building.

There are a few things that bother me about the whole thing.

1. Buildings were designed to withstand a plane crashing into them.
2. Fire has NEVER bought down a skyscraper.
3. Buildings fell down extremely quickly, both in terms of time after they were hit....and once it started.

The claim the buildings were designed to withstand a plane crashing into them is a very weak link in your circumstantial case. The inference is that the design was so foolproof that the building couldn't possibly be taken down by a plane. To that I say: the Titanic. When it was launched, the unequivocal claim was made that it was unsinkable. It was designed that way. One of the biggest threats at the time to shipping was icebergs. By implication, the Titanic was designed to withstand a collision with an iceberg. I'm building up the dramatic tension here before the big reveal ...

Interestingly enough, there's another similarity with the collapse of the WTC buildings. One theory is that there had been a fire in one of the Titanic's coal bunkers which continued to smoulder but the owners decided it should set sail anyway on its maiden voyage. The argument goes that this fire may have weakened the metal in the hull, leaving it vulnerable to an iceberg collision. And here we are a century later talking about fires in the WTC buildings weakening the integrity of the metal supports. Spooky, hey?

Another eerie parallel is how quickly the unsinkable Titanic sank, although you'd have to say that the WTC buildings hardly collapsed quickly (unfortunately for the firefighters who went into them).

Marketing hype tends to add "-proof" to products. For instance, bullet-proof glass isn't a real thing. It resists bullets but it isn't completely impenetrable. I guess "bullet-resistant glass" isn't quite as reassuring.

And just why are we saying that the design of the WTC buildings was capable of resisting plane collisions? They opened in 1974 and I think we'd all agree that engineering has come a long way since then. Even with upgrades made from time to time, we're talking about 30 year old buildings when they were destroyed. As others have noted, planes sure became a lot bigger after they were designed. And just how were they tested? Was there some scale model they used. Or did they use 1960s computers to do a worst-case scenario?

An interesting engineering problem occurred with a building of the same vintage: the John Hancock Building. Professors teaching differential equations celebrate this building as it featured an amazing flaw. It just happens that there's a thing called vortex shedding which means that considerable wind forces are applied to tall buildings that are built just so. These forces are sinusoidal, so they move the building back and forth. In this particular building, those forces led to windows popping out and it became known for plywood filling the holes. They had to introduce a tuned mass damper which was a large weight on a near-frictionless surface in one of the upper floors attached to the building by a system of springs. This created a system governed by a 4th order inhomogeneous differential equation which could be adjusted so that the building remained static while the weight, the tuned mass damper, oscillated within it. What a snafu!

The Green Building at MIT, opened in 1964 had similar problems which was a bit embarrassing given it was designed by MIT graduates. Apart from windows popping out and the like, the high winds the building faced prevented anyone from entering or leaving the building by its foyer and they had to use tunnels to escape. 

Fact is, it's pretty hard to design anything that's totally impervious to every eventuality. And real life has a way of throwing up unanticipated challenges. One great example is the sinking of the Bismark. Again, that was a ship that was virtually unsinkable. Its armour-plating was thick as. Indeed, when the British battleships engaged it, it was hardly damaged while HMS Hood blew up when one of the Bismark's shells happened to hit the magazine holding its ammunition. It sank within 3 minutes despite the British public being told it was unsinkable. Even when struck by torpedos dropped by British planes, there was hardly a scratch on the Bismark. Until one torpedo struck the rudder of the Bismark and failed to explode. If it had exploded, the Bismark could have made it to port. But the steering was jammed and the Bismark was condemned to sailing in circles. That enabled forces to muster and bring it down.

Who the hell would ever have thought that would happen? You'd have more chance of winning Tattslotto. But that's the thing. All the best plans of mice and men are oft ripped asunder. And saying that something never happened before doesn't mean it won't ever happen. There's a first time for everything.

Survived fires that brought down a 110 story building.

What does that mean that is of any relevance? ;D

It's amazing what can survive and what should survive and does.

Which is exactly what the articles said.
It COULD be this.
It COULD be that.
You've taken an uncertainty and morphed it into a certainty......

OK, it wasn't disproven, but it was suggested it was highly unlikely.
You know what else fits that bill? A controlled demolition.

Its funny how you don't see that you are doing the same thing you accuse me of.

Most of us here are quite use to be dragged into your rhetoric, especially after we lose a game, you do it so predictably trying to reflect everything and launch baseless accusations with nothing supporting them, very Trumpesque, very passé!

You like to light fires from your own growing pile of rubbish, .............................. are you Thermite Man?

I suspect what is being exposed says more about some of those individuals debating than the facts or conspiracies, which leaves most of us unsure where to head. I almost suspect the forum should ban non-football related subject matter, but that would do a community disservice, because leaving this type of information misdirection unchallenged ultimately breeds a generation of recruits for organisations like Daesh.

Like the COVID thread, it possible to resort to Popper's question and invert the burden of proof onto the conspiracists. But when those debating resort to Trump like tactics it's hard because nothing they write really exists so it can't be debated. So immature is this Trump like tactic, that they might as well post that terrorist fairies lit their farts in the foyer and blew the joint to pieces! There is no debate to be had when conspiracists invent facts along the way, and even if that action gets exposed they just resort to the Trump defence of no it didn't?

I don't think either position is implausible or untenable. We are far removed from those in the know, and as such these things are debated / discussed as abstractions - it's exactly the same with football discussions. None of us are really close to the action - none of us have access to team meetings, what happens at board meetings etc. All we can do is enjoy the discussions for what they are. There's a spectrum of opinion that seems reasonable, and that's really the best we can hope for IMO.

Enjoy the debates, enjoy the theorising, enjoy the discussions, but don't take them for something they aren't, and never can be.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/the-satam-al-suqami-passport.2788/
(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/911zion03_05-jpg.33840/)

Survived fires that brought down a 110 story building.

Could it have been part of the debris on impact, it was found in the street.

The claim the buildings were designed to withstand a plane crashing into them is a very weak link in your circumstantial case. The inference is that the design was so foolproof that the building couldn't possibly be taken down by a plane. To that I say: the Titanic. When it was launched, the unequivocal claim was made that it was unsinkable. It was designed that way. One of the biggest threats at the time to shipping was icebergs. By implication, the Titanic was designed to withstand a collision with an iceberg. I'm building up the dramatic tension here before the big reveal ...

Interestingly enough, there's another similarity with the collapse of the WTC buildings. One theory is that there had been a fire in one of the Titanic's coal bunkers which continued to smoulder but the owners decided it should set sail anyway on its maiden voyage. The argument goes that this fire may have weakened the metal in the hull, leaving it vulnerable to an iceberg collision. And here we are a century later talking about fires in the WTC buildings weakening the integrity of the metal supports. Spooky, hey?

Another eerie parallel is how quickly the unsinkable Titanic sank, although you'd have to say that the WTC buildings hardly collapsed quickly (unfortunately for the firefighters who went into them).

Marketing hype tends to add "-proof" to products. For instance, bullet-proof glass isn't a real thing. It resists bullets but it isn't completely impenetrable. I guess "bullet-resistant glass" isn't quite as reassuring.

And just why are we saying that the design of the WTC buildings was capable of resisting plane collisions? They opened in 1974 and I think we'd all agree that engineering has come a long way since then. Even with upgrades made from time to time, we're talking about 30 year old buildings when they were destroyed. As others have noted, planes sure became a lot bigger after they were designed. And just how were they tested? Was there some scale model they used. Or did they use 1960s computers to do a worst-case scenario?

An interesting engineering problem occurred with a building of the same vintage: the John Hancock Building. Professors teaching differential equations celebrate this building as it featured an amazing flaw. It just happens that there's a thing called vortex shedding which means that considerable wind forces are applied to tall buildings that are built just so. These forces are sinusoidal, so they move the building back and forth. In this particular building, those forces led to windows popping out and it became known for plywood filling the holes. They had to introduce a tuned mass damper which was a large weight on a near-frictionless surface in one of the upper floors attached to the building by a system of springs. This created a system governed by a 4th order inhomogeneous differential equation which could be adjusted so that the building remained static while the weight, the tuned mass damper, oscillated within it. What a snafu!

The Green Building at MIT, opened in 1964 had similar problems which was a bit embarrassing given it was designed by MIT graduates. Apart from windows popping out and the like, the high winds the building faced prevented anyone from entering or leaving the building by its foyer and they had to use tunnels to escape. 

Fact is, it's pretty hard to design anything that's totally impervious to every eventuality. And real life has a way of throwing up unanticipated challenges. One great example is the sinking of the Bismark. Again, that was a ship that was virtually unsinkable. Its armour-plating was thick as. Indeed, when the British battleships engaged it, it was hardly damaged while HMS Hood blew up when one of the Bismark's shells happened to hit the magazine holding its ammunition. It sank within 3 minutes despite the British public being told it was unsinkable. Even when struck by torpedos dropped by British planes, there was hardly a scratch on the Bismark. Until one torpedo struck the rudder of the Bismark and failed to explode. If it had exploded, the Bismark could have made it to port. But the steering was jammed and the Bismark was condemned to sailing in circles. That enabled forces to muster and bring it down.

Who the hell would ever have thought that would happen? You'd have more chance of winning Tattslotto. But that's the thing. All the best plans of mice and men are oft ripped asunder. And saying that something never happened before doesn't mean it won't ever happen. There's a first time for everything.

Thats a very long answer debating something that i wasn't debating.

But at least its better than your past couple of posts that added nothing and was just trying to get a rise out of me.

I've already said i've got no doubt that all of this COULD happen.
All of the alternatives i've explained COULD happen.

We are evaluating the likelyhood of these things occuring, the problems with each side of the argument and the questionable actions, evidence, stories, motives etc etc that go along with it.

The take home point is this. There are so many 'leaps of faith' and weird coincidences etc etc that need to be explained away in order for the original story to be 100% true.
People on both sides of the debate cannot agree on 100% of things, which is fine. I think its highly likely that in no way are 100% of the events as told by the government completely accurate. I don't expect them to be. I expect them to manipulate a bad thing into a good thing. Telling a porky pie or 2 is acceptable IMO.
BUT, there are so many parts of the equation that just doesn't fit.

Like a man in a suit handing a passport into a cop he found on the street (up-wind) of where the plane entered the building.....BEFORE it had even collapsed and  leaving without identifying himself in any way.....and not coming forward since.....and that happening to be the key piece of evidence that allowed America to go to war.
That doesn't seem fishy to you at all?

What about eye-witness reports that the plane that crashed into the 2nd tower was not an AA plane and instead was a grey plane with blacked out windows....more of a military plane than a commercial airliner.

What about the lack of a plane full stop at the pentagon?
Or flight 93?
The guy they called to investigate that plane crash, went home after 20 minutes because there was no wreckage, no bodies, nothing to investigate. Pictures show what he was looking at.

No video proof of what flew into the pentagon has even been shown/released apart from 2 frames (1/15th of a second) that was retrieved from a servo across the road. How the hell does the pentagon have no video surveillance? Perhaps they do and it shows something different to the public story.

Questions questions questions....

It's good you're backing away from the suggestion the buildings couldn't be destroyed by plane collisions.

Could it have been part of the debris on impact, it was found in the street.

It COULD have been, but what are the chances?

As i've said all along. In isolation, these things could happen.......it'd be like winning tattslotto.....every week.....for a year.....but they could happen.

But....is it likely?

You tell me what you think is more likely.
It blew out of a 110 story builiding that had fire hot enough to deform steel, into the wind and landed next so someone who thought enough of it to hand it into the police.....and didn't have any marks on it that would suggested it came from there.....and it happened to be the one guy who was flying the plane...and they were able to work that out....somehow.

Or....
It was planted there....or simply handed in by a plant to frame someone.

It's good you're backing away from the suggestion the buildings couldn't be destroyed by plane collisions.

Its not about couldn't.
Its about shouldn't.....either at all....or that quickly....or twice in the same manner....etc.

You want to focus on that one point, then you are missing the whole 'conspiracy theory' point of view. That is but 1 question of 100's.

"It could....but...."

What about the lack of a plane full stop at the pentagon?
Or flight 93?
The guy they called to investigate that plane crash, went home after 20 minutes because there was no wreckage, no bodies, nothing to investigate. Pictures show what he was looking at.

No video proof of what flew into the pentagon has even been shown/released apart from 2 frames (1/15th of a second) that was retrieved from a servo across the road. How the hell does the pentagon have no video surveillance? Perhaps they do and it shows something different to the public story.

Questions questions questions....

From the 2020 Popular Mechanics article:

Flight 77 Debris
Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

flight77
AP
FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

This tactic of conspiracists where people's experiences are obliterated in order to push alternative facts is pretty sad. As Trump would say, don't believe your lyin' eyes.

By the way, what happened to the crew members and passengers on those 2 flights? Were they lined up and shot by the Govt and buried in a ditch somewhere? Or maybe they're in witness protection or imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay?

From the 2020 Popular Mechanics article:This tactic of conspiracists where people's experiences are obliterated in order to push alternative facts is pretty sad. As Trump would say, don't believe your lyin' eyes.

Have a look at the photos of the hole in the pentagon. There is a blown up version down at ground zero in new york for you to view in detail if you wish.

With that in mind, have a look at the aerial shots taken before any cleanup was undertaken.

You tell me where the plane is.

Not PARTS of a plane...as there is maybe 5% of a plane....possibly people/uniform too.....but where is 95% of the plane.
Its not outside, so it must be in that hole....look at the hole. Tell me a plane fits in there. a 1:16 model, maybe....maybe....

Just look. If you are happy with what you see, tell me. Fine. If you look with an open mind, no chance in hell would you see a plane there.

All the government has to do is release 1 second of footage showing it....yet they do not. Why not? Why not put all this to bed??

NASA is sick of moon landing stuff so they released hours upon hours of footage of man walking around on the moon. That put to bed a lot of deniers. Those who refuse to look though, still hold true to their beliefs.

By the way, what happened to the crew members and passengers on those 2 flights? Were they lined up and shot by the Govt and buried in a ditch somewhere? Or maybe they're in witness protection or imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay?

Dunno. Don't pretend to know.

Do you think its above the american government to kill innocent people to further their own greedy desires though?

Gee, I used to think that Alex Jones was just a complete plick for claiming that the parents of allegedly murdered schoolchildren were crisis actors whose kids were never killed at all. But maybe the Govt really was so manipulative that they concocted all those school shootings.

I wonder why he went soft, though, when he was sued for defamation. His defence that he was just an entertainer having a bit of a laugh at the expense of the parents seemed to amount to a surrender to a repressive Govt. Why didn't he maintain the rage?

It COULD have been, but what are the chances?

As i've said all along. In isolation, these things could happen.......it'd be like winning tattslotto.....every week.....for a year.....but they could happen.

But....is it likely?

You tell me what you think is more likely.
It blew out of a 110 story builiding that had fire hot enough to deform steel, into the wind and landed next so someone who thought enough of it to hand it into the police.....and didn't have any marks on it that would suggested it came from there.....and it happened to be the one guy who was flying the plane...and they were able to work that out....somehow.

Or....
It was planted there....or simply handed in by a plant to frame someone.

Firstly, I'd guess its difficult to quantify probability of such events so comparing them to tattslotto wins doesn't wash with me. I believe it was found in the street as described, just like many other items in many plane crashes. I remember watching an episode of Air Crash Investigations and in one plain crash which had many fatalities, one passenger walked out of the wreckage, collected his luggage on the ground and walked away. Seems unlikely but it happened.
They didn't need to frame him or anyone else, their names were on the passenger manifests were they not?
I just can't believe the theory that US Government Agencies would murder 3000 citizens to justify starting a war (or whatever other reason). I do however believe that a crew of radicalised lunatics funded by OBL learnt to fly planes, hijacked them and flew them into building to murder innocent people "in the name of Allah". Its that simple for me.

.............................................I do however believe that a crew of radicalised lunatics funded by OBL learnt to fly planes, hijacked them and flew them into building to murder innocent people "in the name of Allah". Its that simple for me.

If you're interested, you should read the work Robert Pape and Lydia Wilson. Pape in particular, studied every suicide attack since 1980 (as at 2015). They are not really motivated by Allah, 72 virgins or anything similar. What spurs them into such action is that they've had enough of decades of foreign occupation, decades of war, instability, abuse, mistreatment, and lack of self determination, most of which is at the hands of the US. All of this should surprise precisely no one.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/heres-what-a-man-who-studied-every-suicide-attack-in-the-world-says-about-isiss-motives/

Firstly, I'd guess its difficult to quantify probability of such events so comparing them to tattslotto wins doesn't wash with me. I believe it was found in the street as described, just like many other items in many plane crashes. I remember watching an episode of Air Crash Investigations and in one plain crash which had many fatalities, one passenger walked out of the wreckage, collected his luggage on the ground and walked away. Seems unlikely but it happened.
They didn't need to frame him or anyone else, their names were on the passenger manifests were they not?
I just can't believe the theory that US Government Agencies would murder 3000 citizens to justify starting a war (or whatever other reason). I do however believe that a crew of radicalised lunatics funded by OBL learnt to fly planes, hijacked them and flew them into building to murder innocent people "in the name of Allah". Its that simple for me.

....and you know what, that part might turn out to be true.

But there are too many questions about all of that, and all the other things as well.

As i said earlier, i expect the government to cover up parts and tell lies for parts.
It could be very embarrassing for them for a bunch of blokes they let in, taught how to fly in 20 hours and were able to unite and bring the greatest nation in the world to its knees. So they add a bit of mayo here and there and make it a more acceptable story.

But there are just too many parts of it that don't make sense for me to go along with the story.

Have a look at the photos of the hole in the pentagon. There is a blown up version down at ground zero in new york for you to view in detail if you wish.

With that in mind, have a look at the aerial shots taken before any cleanup was undertaken.

You tell me where the plane is.

Not PARTS of a plane...as there is maybe 5% of a plane....possibly people/uniform too.....but where is 95% of the plane.
Its not outside, so it must be in that hole....look at the hole. Tell me a plane fits in there. a 1:16 model, maybe....maybe....

Just look. If you are happy with what you see, tell me. Fine. If you look with an open mind, no chance in hell would you see a plane there.

All the government has to do is release 1 second of footage showing it....yet they do not. Why not? Why not put all this to bed??

NASA is sick of moon landing stuff so they released hours upon hours of footage of man walking around on the moon. That put to bed a lot of deniers. Those who refuse to look though, still hold true to their beliefs.

Re the moon, And the photos purportedly taken up there....

Some compelling - but basic - maths.

ps maybe the numbers are wrong, I don't know - haven't researched this aspect.

https://nomoregames.net/2010/04/13/an-interview-with-photo-analyst-jack-white-on-jfk-apollo-and-911/

Firstly, I'd guess its difficult to quantify probability of such events so comparing them to tattslotto wins doesn't wash with me. I believe it was found in the street as described, just like many other items in many plane crashes. I remember watching an episode of Air Crash Investigations and in one plain crash which had many fatalities, one passenger walked out of the wreckage, collected his luggage on the ground and walked away. Seems unlikely but it happened.
They didn't need to frame him or anyone else, their names were on the passenger manifests were they not?
I just can't believe the theory that US Government Agencies would murder 3000 citizens to justify starting a war (or whatever other reason). I do however believe that a crew of radicalised lunatics funded by OBL learnt to fly planes, hijacked them and flew them into building to murder innocent people "in the name of Allah". Its that simple for me.

So your cognitive dissonance won't let you accept fundamental, irrefutable principles of physics....

That's all you're really saying.

Gee, I used to think that Alex Jones was just a complete plick for claiming that the parents of allegedly murdered schoolchildren were crisis actors whose kids were never killed at all. But maybe the Govt really was so manipulative that they concocted all those school shootings.

I wonder why he went soft, though, when he was sued for defamation. His defence that he was just an entertainer having a bit of a laugh at the expense of the parents seemed to amount to a surrender to a repressive Govt. Why didn't he maintain the rage?

Settle down Karen.

Was it not you who said....

Thanks, but no thanks. Why should I care about a 20 year old event when “finding the truth” has so little relevance to the here and now. Perhaps you can inspire me by distilling its significance: if X, then Y & Z.

If the point is that it will show that the US Govt can be nefarious, I should point out that 4 years of Trump and the current QAnon Congress have made the point already.

All of a sudden you are leader of the bleeding hearts club.

Nothing you, or I, say has anything to do with the people who died.

They wouldn't kill citizens......except the millions of Americans who have died in wars....all of which were 100% completely justifiable, just ask them. Who knows how many other millions of women and children the US government has killed that didn't salute the same flag as them.

Re the moon, And the photos purportedly taken up there....

Some compelling - but basic - maths.

ps maybe the numbers are wrong, I don't know - haven't researched this aspect.

https://nomoregames.net/2010/04/13/an-interview-with-photo-analyst-jack-white-on-jfk-apollo-and-911/

Thanks but no thanks. You wanna take that path, open a new thread now. ;)

So your cognitive dissonance won't let you accept fundamental, irrefutable principles of physics....

That's all you're really saying.

Dunno what cognitive dissonance means, which fundamental irrefutable principles of physics am I not accepting?

Interesting ad hominem attack there, Kruddler. A Karen has a sense of entitlement and feels free to harass minorities, especially Blacks, using police as a weapon to this end. I'm struggling to find how this is relevant here. But ... whatever. Great debating skills.  

Interesting ad hominem attack there, Kruddler. A Karen has a sense of entitlement and feels free to harass minorities, especially Blacks, using police as a weapon to this end. I'm struggling to find how this is relevant here. But ... whatever. Great debating skills.  

You reckon that's bad, I googled cognitive dissonance and found this

Cognitive dissonance occurs to a person who voluntarily engages in (physically or ethically) unpleasant activities to achieve a goal.

I'm a Kent and didn't know it.

Interesting ad hominem attack there. A Karen has a sense of entitlement and feels free to harass minorities, especially Blacks, using police as a weapon to this end. I'm struggling to find how this is relevant here. But ... whatever. Great debating skills.  

A Karen is someone who gets enraged and offended over things that have no relevance nor justification for doing so.

Not sure if this has been asked, but can anyone tell me how a jet liner with a 185m2 wing span and a 47m long fueselage completely disintegrates on impact with the Pentagon leaving no wreckage?

Boy, has it really been sanitised that much in your milieu?

Not sure if this has been asked, but can anyone tell me how a jet liner with a 185m2 wing span and a 47m long fueselage completely disintegrates on impact with the Pentagon leaving no wreckage?

I asked the same question a page ago....and got a quote from a guy who picked up a couple of things.

THAT is enough proof for some.

Pictures suggest otherwise.

I ask people to look before they speak.....they refuse.

Boy, has it really been sanitised that much in your milieu?

....you don;t get out much do you mav.

Are you one of those types who don't know what a meme is too?

Not sure if this has been asked, but can anyone tell me how a jet liner with a 185m2 wing span and a 47m long fueselage completely disintegrates on impact with the Pentagon leaving no wreckage?

Who said there was no wreckage?

By a couple of things, do you mean body parts of the flight crew? Geez, I wandered out the house today and found a foot hanging from a tree. Happens all the time ...

....you don;t get out much do you mav.

Are you one of those types who don't know what a meme is too?

Does Playschool do memes? That must be where you learn current lingo. Nothing that might scare the kiddies ...

Who said there was no wreckage?

Where did the wings go.

(https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_35/1694026/160903-pentagon-sept-11-attacks-mn-1245_2d559fd72a1058b6dc83496d35e16a79.fit-1120w.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8e/63/e5/8e63e5cb03baf4ec6aff31599c29a6ab.jpg)

Does Playschool do memes? That must be where you learn current lingo. Nothing that might scare the kiddies ...

You wanna play around in the kiddie pool, continue down this path.

When you wanna play with the grown ups, stick to the topic

But you were the one who brought up the Karen thing. Don't tell me you've tired of it already?

Where'd that part of the Pentagon go? Was it always like that?

Where'd that part of the Pentagon go? Was it always like that?

No, that happened after a missile flew into it, and someone called it a plane.

Then realised that planes had wings.....and hoped nobody would notice.

Shhh...don't tell anyone Karen.

If America didn't land men on the moon, why did they repeat the "faked" exercise for another five Apollo missions?

Only an addled brained fool with a screw loose would ever suggest they didn't.   

 

Where did the wings go.

(https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_35/1694026/160903-pentagon-sept-11-attacks-mn-1245_2d559fd72a1058b6dc83496d35e16a79.fit-1120w.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8e/63/e5/8e63e5cb03baf4ec6aff31599c29a6ab.jpg)

In the building I'd imagine, did you expect it to bounce off the wall and land in the front garden?

In the building I'd imagine, did you expect it to bounce off the wall and land in the front garden?

I expected it to scratch the wall at least and maybe leave some evidence that they existed.

There was some overhead shots taken straight after the crash which i'm trying to track down....but can't.
It gives a clear idea on how improbably the story is.

Who said there was no wreckage?

Thanks for the reply GC. Yep, the FBI released photos, but look at the crash footage and photos of the fire fighters trying to put the blaze out. Look at the hole. Wouldn't there be damage on either side where the wings impacted? Where are the wings or the tail?

Again from Popular Mechanics 2020 article:

Big Plane, Small Holes
Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media.

In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile—part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.

The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide—not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

There you go Karen.

Thanks for the reply GC. Yep, the FBI released photos, but look at the crash footage and photos of the fire fighters trying to put the blaze out. Look at the hole. Wouldn't there be damage on either side where the wings impacted? Where are the wings or the tail?

This will help people understand what we are talking about.....
https://www.serendipity.li/wot/crash_site.htm
That link has plenty of photos from the day.


(https://www.serendipity.li/wot/pent_before1.jpg)
Before it collapsed....where did the plane go? Where is ANY wreckage? Why is the hole so small??

Again from Popular Mechanics 2020 article:There you go Karen.

Yeah, nah.

Look at the link i posted with photos and tell me if you believe the story you just posted.

But Karen, if it was a cruise missile, surely the damage would have been far greater given those things have, you know, explosives?

75 foot hole?

(https://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg)

They are some HUGE windows if thats a 75 foot hole.

BTW, the pentagon is 77 foot high.

So....someone is telling porky pies!

Dunno. Don't pretend to know.

Do you think its above the american government to kill innocent people to further their own greedy desires though?

I think 9/11 is above them.

"The American Government" is a pretty all encompassing term.
Who are we talking about...George W, Republicans, CIA, Crazy Generals, Military Industrialists?

This is where I find it difficult.
The who and the why.

Who comes up with this idea?
It's not like one person could dream it up and carry it out.
Who's in the know.... who's excluded.
Dozens would need to be involved and that's only at the top end.
Hundreds when you take into account the implementation and cover up.
Does agent A have the trust of the planners and Agent B need to be kept in the dark.
It would take years of planning and preparation to make sure all the possible areas where things could be discovered were covered.

Why go to the trouble of killing thousands and traumatizing millions when you could get the same result....a population with vengeance in their hearts, with something of a much lower scale (blow up an embassy/ sink a destroyer).

The first Gulf war didn't require an attack on American citizens. They wouldn't have needed to crash planes into buildings to start a war on terror.

And what about the consequences for the planners and perpetrators if such an action was uncovered.
You would have to be supremely confident in your ability to maintain a cover-up.

Perhaps as much emphasis needs to be on questioning the motivation and logistics of such a plan rather than the physics.

I expected it to scratch the wall at least and maybe leave some evidence that they existed.

There was some overhead shots taken straight after the crash which i'm trying to track down....but can't.
It gives a clear idea on how improbably the story is.

This animation gives a pretty good summation of what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

The first Gulf war didn't require an attack on American citizens. They wouldn't have needed to crash planes into buildings to start a war on terror.

As i said earlier, i'm not really into that side of things. I'm more about the evidence. The government has said they have planned similar in the past, thats enough of that rabbit hole for me.

But...on the above....why did America invade for the second time? WMDs! Did they find any?
Somehow, they managed to blame Al Qaeda and Afghansitan on 9/11 and turn that into an excuse to reignite the gulf war.

"Oh, well.....while we are there....."

Aircraft wings carry far more fuel than in the tanks / belly of the fuselage.  They are also light and flexible.  Impact with a structure like the Pentagon would have sheared them off within half a second .... 

But Karen, if it was a cruise missile, surely the damage would have been far greater given those things have, you know, explosives?

Sorry Mav, don't mean to poke the bear, but how much explosives do you think you need to punch a hole that big in to one of the most fortified buildings in the world...? Cruise missile would do the job I'm guessing...

Aircraft wings carry far more fuel than in the tanks / belly of the fuselage.  They are also light and flexible.  Impact with a structure like the Pentagon would have sheared them off within half a second .... 

....and then they'd be sucked into the hole from which the explosion is coming out of?

They would shear off with barely breaking a window?

Where are they in the link i posted?

It would also cause a lot more damage. But I'm guessing Karen will tell us the bunker-busting warhead was replaced with a whoopee-cushion or something like that ...

Can't wait for him to fight the video from GTC with a cartoon featuring the roadrunner watching an ACME missile heading towards the Pentagon with a defeated looking Wile E Coyote riding it all the way.

This animation gives a pretty good summation of what happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

OK, now look at the photos i showed you and compare that to the video.

Does the hole in the pictures represent the 'major damage' of the video?

Before it collapsed due to fire, the hole/damage was minute and it was exactly that, a round hole. There was no 'major damage' to the side as your video suggested.

Also in your video a lot of the wreckage is taken close up and could be from any wreckage.
I've heard someone argue that a part (possibly the engine) is from a completely different plane......but that area is out of my depth.

(https://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2016_35/1694026/160903-pentagon-sept-11-attacks-mn-1245_2d559fd72a1058b6dc83496d35e16a79.fit-1120w.jpg)

The pentagon is 77 feet high and according to Karens link, the damage was 75 feet wide.

Do i need to get out the ruler? I think someone is compensating for something.

....and then they'd be sucked into the hole from which the explosion is coming out of?

They would shear off with barely breaking a window?

Where are they in the link i posted?

Have to check, I remember watching all this live after a night shift, did anyone else? Not validating my arguements. Just wondering...

Karen, the mystery is this:

The Govt showed amazing attention to detail by knocking down various light-poles, generators & the like which couldn't have been taken out by a single missile. They even had the foresight to move aircraft debris including heavy engines onto the site. Hell, they even moved in some body parts in flight crew clothing for people to find. (Heavens knows what Pentagon staff made of all of those preparations - maybe they thought a movie was being shot there ...)

BUT, they forgot to bring the wings! What the hell? And why didn't they shape the damage to fit the assumptions of the armchair aircrash investigator? Damn, it was Gomer Pyle all over again. You can never give him any job or he'll stuff it up ...

Have to check, I remember watching all this live after a night shift, did anyone else? Not validating my arguements. Just wondering...

I remember flicking channels and see a burning building, watched a video (vhs lol) and after that flicking through the channels again and the same thing being on every channel, and seeing one come down. Was in shock

Tenerife aiport 1977.  Runway collision.  One about to leave the tarmac the other one on  the taxiway. 563 dead.  KLM / Pan Am.  Negligent relative speed in terms of a jet. 

Karen, the mystery is this:

The Govt showed amazing attention to detail by knocking down various light-poles, generators & the like which couldn't have been taken out by a single missile. They even had the foresight to move aircraft debris including heavy engines onto the site. Hell, they even moved in some body parts in flight crew clothing for people to find. (Heavens knows what Pentagon staff made of all of those preparations - maybe they thought a movie was being shot there ...)

BUT, they forgot to bring the wings! What the hell? And why didn't they shape the damage to fit the assumptions of the armchair aircrash investigator? Damn, it was Gomer Pyle all over again. You can never give him any job or he'll stuff it up ...

Why didn't the damage fit your experts decryption?
He was either lying or incompetent, so I'll treat everything he says in the same fashion.

You rely on hearsay and computer models (which don't add up either) I'll rely on actual pictures from the event. All that debris and body parts and what not and engines (no, 1 engine, possibly from a different plane and could be from any location as there are no wide shots showing it) all seem to vanish from the wide shots.

I never said they put them there later, but I don't know where they were at the time.

Klingus, as Trump said, "'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening". Don't let them know you saw anything or they'll have to tie you to the conspiracy.

Yep, I watched the whole thing. It's difficult to square what I saw with the conspiracy theory. All of this talk about the towers falling down quickly doesn't gell with my recollections. It was slow motion stuff and I watched it unfold over a long time while texting the GF who was inconveniently in Egypt at the time.

Tenerife aiport 1977.  Runway collision.  One about to leave the tarmac the other one on  the taxiway. 563 dead.  KLM / Pan Am.  Negligent relative speed in terms of a jet. 

(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/Travel/2017/March/tenerife-airport.jpg)
I like this one, the guy standing in the engine... that engine is about the size of the whole planes hole in the pentagon...
And there were 2 engines.....and the rest of the plane.

I specifically said RELATIVE speed of the jets.  This "discussion" is becoming way too bizarre.

I specifically said RELATIVE speed of the jets.  This "discussion" is becoming way too bizarre.

I thought you were trying to point out the amount of debris from a plane crash in relation to what we see at the pentagon.

I thought the size of the engines painted a good picture of damage we come expect to see.

You tell me, are you satisfied with the damage at the pentagon consistent with the size of the aircraft...including its wings

Something I’ve noted over the years is that amongst new agers, anti vaxxers, and conspiracy “theorists” is that to a man and woman they think they are smarter than the average joe.
They cherry pick their “experts” add in some “common sense” and add a little personal touch/life story.

If the government is so powerful and well organised as to be able to influence so many individuals to keep their despicable and criminal acts secret from the public how then do they allow these “experts” to expose their wrongdoings  on YouTube ?

Far better in my opinion to watch reruns of Xfiles, A grade conspiracy’s from the comfort of your lounge...

Something I’ve noted over the years is that amongst new agers, anti vaxxers, and conspiracy “theorists” is that to a man and woman they think they are smarter than the average joe.
They cherry pick their “experts” add in some “common sense” and add a little personal touch/life story.

If the government is so powerful and well organised as to be able to influence so many individuals to keep their despicable and criminal acts secret from the public how then do they allow these “experts” to expose their wrongdoings  on YouTube ?

Far better in my opinion to watch reruns of Xfiles, A grade conspiracy’s from the comfort of your lounge...

Its amazing how the conspiracy anti theorists (for want of a better word) also seem to share the same hubris when dismissing said conspiracies.

Not all of them are equal.

What we are seeing is a residual burnout of more and more people as they feel like they've been lied to.

Anti vaccination...  nope.
5g... nope.
Covid19...  has elements of dodginess to it.  Hence why rolling a vaccine into it is problematic for people who are sick of being lied to.

9/11 dodgy but in lieu of other details ill accept parts of it.  The planes did hit buildings, not the pentagon and I dont know what caused that one.  Were they piloted by middle easterners...  not likely.  This one isn't one conspiracy hoax, its about 10 rolled into one which is why it divides so many opinions and why people have a hard time believing it.

I think people are just worn out from all the crap.

Remember the allegedly election tampering from both sides, the leaked Hillary emails.

All of it just adds up to a bunch of people told so many mistruths and half truths that they really don't know what to believe any more.

What we are seeing is a residual burnout of more and more people as they feel like they've been lied to.

I think people are just worn out from all the crap.

Ironic, given it's the conspiracy nutters generate the vast bulk of the lies, doctor videos, publish deep fakes, etc., etc..!

They see themselves as whistle-blowers, when they are really crying wolf!

I like this one, the guy standing in the engine... that engine is about the size of the whole planes hole in the pentagon...
And there were 2 engines.....and the rest of the plane.

 What a stupid statement, worse than Trump, making Trump look like a conservative!

75 foot hole?

(https://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg)

I suspect the above is a fake image composite of two separate images, a hole left inside the Pentagon basement and a view of the outside façade.

Here is the real view from inside the basement. The possible fake even has the chamfer remaining on the upper right corner.

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/8580d258b0fffec1e5c97d25a9b08f70520fd2d1/0_27_2048_1566/master/2048.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=ddb750567006fce8a17e1bae3ccb1dff)

75 foot hole?

(https://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagonhole.jpg)

The 75ft hole is where the fuselage hit, not the secondary hole where the right engine hit.

I suspect the above is either a fake image composite of two separate images, a hole left inside the Pentagon basement and a view of the outside façade, or it's the secondary hole in the pentagon wall made by the right engine.

Here is the view from inside the basement, the chamfer remaining on the upper right corner poses a big question!

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/8580d258b0fffec1e5c97d25a9b08f70520fd2d1/0_27_2048_1566/master/2048.jpg?width=700&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=ddb750567006fce8a17e1bae3ccb1dff)

This highlights the fundamental problem with the conspiracy theorists, they invent so many facts they start to contradict each other, then end up fighting amongst themselves about who is correct, they don't want some competitor eventing a fact that undoes there own reality, and it is so easy to start the argument between them it's a joke!

The web ends up flooded with fake reports and fake images, the business of producing poor quality fakes is just too easy, and finding the verified reports and imagery becomes harder and harder because the search algorithms favour the fakes.

Something I’ve noted over the years is that amongst new agers, anti vaxxers, and conspiracy “theorists” is that to a man and woman they think they are smarter than the average joe.
They cherry pick their “experts” add in some “common sense” and add a little personal touch/life story.

If the government is so powerful and well organised as to be able to influence so many individuals to keep their despicable and criminal acts secret from the public how then do they allow these “experts” to expose their wrongdoings  on YouTube ?

Far better in my opinion to watch reruns of Xfiles, A grade conspiracy’s from the comfort of your lounge...

I'd say it's more about curiosity rather than intelligence.

Most people can't be bothered questioning the official narrative.....busy with life, work, raising kids, footy, buying a new SUV etc.

Moreover, with respect to 9/11 (and climate change for that matter) if you don't have a fair or better grasp of physics and chemistry you simply aren't going to get a lot of the arguments.... even if they are straight forward.

That's not necessarily a reflection on anyone's intelligence.

Ironic, given it's the conspiracy nutters generate the vast bulk of the lies, doctor videos, publish deep fakes, etc., etc..!

They see themselves as whistle-blowers, when they are really crying wolf!

They are crying wolf because they see one, and are trying to alert others.

Whether or not there is one is sometimes a matter of what you want to believe as much as anything else.

This image sums up what I am saying best I think.

(https://beautifulsoulswithnonye.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/perspectivechangeseverything.png?w=700)


At the end of the day, the "conspiracy nutters" to coin your phrase, might just have a different view of things, and rather than be lumped into one pot, perhaps if you took the time to understand them, they might have a point.  A broken clock is still right twice a day.

I know one anti vaxer family that needs to believe that rhetoric because they say that not everyone responds the same way, and they are generally correct with this statement.

The fact that they use this to explain their son's autism disorder is another tenuous link, but not one completely without foundation, and belittling their perspective serves only to cast judgement on them, and not understand them.

Ultimately, we get lied to a lot by governments.  THEY are the ones that deserve to be questioned, and we should never shout down someone questioning the official line, because they are the ones that might have been the ones to call out the holocaust, but too many people might have told them that they were crazy, and there is no way that the mass extermination of people could be occurring in their own backyard.

The fact that they use this to explain their son's autism disorder is another tenuous link, but not one completely without foundation, and belittling their perspective serves only to cast judgement on them, and not understand them.

Ultimately, we get lied to a lot by governments.  THEY are the ones that deserve to be questioned, and we should never shout down someone questioning the official line, because they are the ones that might have been the ones to call out the holocaust, but too many people might have told them that they were crazy, and there is no way that the mass extermination of people could be occurring in their own backyard.

Btw., What they might suffer from is confirmation bias, not a conspiracy at all, so nobody is really belittling them!

In regards to the confirmation bias, the problem is the tenuous links from a confirmation bias aren't a foundation for a cause at all, the absence of evidence isn't confirmation of a great conspiracy or a real world effect. It's just correlation. The problem is humans do not weigh these effects evenly, just like we make a big deal about someone getting ill in correlation to receiving a vaccine, while ignoring the vast bulk who do not.

Science and medicine doesn't ignore those who get ill from a vaccine shot, they investigate them, it's not a cover up.

That "They" is interesting, in the context you use it it means "us and them", the trouble is when the "they" is government the them is really us, the bulk of the government are ordinary Jills and Joes going about the daily grind. The biggest employer in the land. Like health industry workers, which in the context that you use it "they" would be all part of the "they", doesn't that include yourself?

Most conspiracies and conspiracists are fundamentally are looking for someone to blame, ironically in the 9/11 stuff it seems the dead blokes who hijacked the planes and Osama bin Laden aren't enough, they want to blame somebody living! They seem to want revenge, and a sacrifice.

I do wonder how much Daesh manipulate these forums, the Australian who was arrested was a specialist in social media and communications studies, someone who made a career from digital social influence.

Btw., What they might suffer from is confirmation bias, not a conspiracy at all, so nobody is really belittling them!

In regards to the confirmation bias, the problem is the tenuous links from a confirmation bias aren't a foundation for a cause at all, the absence of evidence isn't confirmation of a great conspiracy or a real world effect. It's just correlation. The problem is humans do not weigh these effects evenly, just like we make a big deal about someone getting ill in correlation to receiving a vaccine, while ignoring the vast bulk who do not.

Science and medicine doesn't ignore those who get ill from a vaccine shot, they investigate them, it's not a cover up.

That "They" is interesting, in the context you use it it means "us and them", the trouble is when the "they" is government the them is really us, the bulk of the government are ordinary Jills and Joes going about the daily grind. The biggest employer in the land. Like health industry workers, which in the context that you use it "they" would be all part of the "they", doesn't that include yourself?

Most conspiracies and conspiracists are fundamentally are looking for someone to blame, ironically in the 9/11 stuff it seems the dead blokes who hijacked the planes and Osama bin Laden aren't enough, they want to blame somebody living! They seem to want revenge, and a sacrifice.

I do wonder how much Daesh manipulate these forums, the Australian who was arrested was a specialist in social media and communications studies, someone who made a career from digital social influence.

Not all levels of government employee are the same, and I too being one, see exactly what lies, half truths and mistruths are reported.

Ill refer you back to Nazi Germany.

"Just do it."

The soldiers are complicit and execute the orders leading to the action, but they are just following orders that they havent questioned.

Who do you think sounds more like that?  The conspiracy nutters?  Or those telling them they are nutters, and that everyone is perfectly safe, after all the science says so.

My perspective is, that I can only trust my own eyes, and my own ears, and everything else is hearsay be it double blind and tested, because ultimately, all we are doing is putting our faith in one organisation or  set of people over another.  Then you introduce corruption, or even a simple formula used commonly in manufacturing processes, and you end up with a cost benefit analysis occurring.

THAT is the part that everyone understands, which gives birth to all the questions, correlations, confirmation biases etc.

The definition of ironic, is having yourself pointed at every single juxtaposition you hold, and continue to undermine the opposite opinion by calling people things like conspiracy nutters.

My friends are simply explaining away something the best way they know how, because the truth is, that their combination of genes, may very well be the reason their child has autism, and its often easier to externalise that blame, rather than wear it yourself and part of the issue is the way we recognise ASD these days.

Keep that in mind in context of there is no such thing as normal.

My perspective is, that I can only trust my own eyes, and my own ears, and everything else is hearsay be it double blind and tested, because ultimately, all we are doing is putting our faith in one organisation or  set of people over another.  Then you introduce corruption, or even a simple formula used commonly in manufacturing processes, and you end up with a cost benefit analysis occurring.

The first part of good science is doing the exact opposite, not making assumptions about the validity of your personal perceptions and not trusting your common sense perceptions.

Good science in the double blind is designed to ignore personal human bias, most problems with science arise when individuals refuse to believe the results of studies because they fly against common sense experience.

The last bit, the cost benefit part, often has little to do with science, I've seen many times good science ignored because of an economic analysis. It's not part of the science. A good example is choosing short term benefits over long term benefits, the good science is ignored all the time like in the climate change debate.

This is universally a human problem, nature always obeys the science it's just that it takes humans a long long time to work it out!

Not all levels of government employee are the same, and I too being one, see exactly what lies, half truths and mistruths are reported.

Ill refer you back to Nazi Germany.

"Just do it."

The soldiers are complicit and execute the orders leading to the action, but they are just following orders that they havent questioned.

Who do you think sounds more like that?  The conspiracy nutters?  Or those telling them they are nutters, and that everyone is perfectly safe, after all the science says so.

My perspective is, that I can only trust my own eyes, and my own ears, and everything else is hearsay be it double blind and tested, because ultimately, all we are doing is putting our faith in one organisation or  set of people over another.  Then you introduce corruption, or even a simple formula used commonly in manufacturing processes, and you end up with a cost benefit analysis occurring.

THAT is the part that everyone understands, which gives birth to all the questions, correlations, confirmation biases etc.

The definition of ironic, is having yourself pointed at every single juxtaposition you hold, and continue to undermine the opposite opinion by calling people things like conspiracy nutters.

My friends are simply explaining away something the best way they know how, because the truth is, that their combination of genes, may very well be the reason their child has autism, and its often easier to externalise that blame, rather than wear it yourself and part of the issue is the way we recognise ASD these days.

Keep that in mind in context of there is no such thing as normal.

My wife (a teacher) was blamed by a mother for her childs autism. True story.
As for nutters, the only nutters were the hijackers who flew the planes into to the buildings killing 3000 innocent people (oh and maybe the mum who blamed my wife for causing her kids autism).

I have no problem with folks questioning 'official' versions of events.

But many seem to just stop there.
They've made up their mind.
They don't take the questioning any further.
They've picked their side and they've identified (very vaguely) a villain

But as LP suggests.....put another hat on and argue the opposite.

Again... Who, How Many and Why

Put a couple of planes into  a building....there's your war.
Why bring the buildings down on top of New York's finest?
It cant be to hide evidence because any investigators would no doubt have to be complicit for the plot to work.
And with that many people killed some of  the plotters would no doubt have had friends and relatives amongst the dead.

Who's idea?...the President's, the military.
How do you go from.... "I've got an idea how to start a war" to executing 9/11?
How do you gather people to your cause.
You would have to be a super judge of character to get that right because one wrong choice and you're sunk.
Somewhere along the way someone who's drawn into it with a bit of a conscience is bound to say "whoa"

In the twenty years since (as far as I know) they've been no 'deathbed confessions'(Edit- apparently there was one a Malcolm Howard.)...there's been no "I can't live with what I've done" suicides.
Even if your small part was something you didn't know you were doing at the time the after-guilt would be enough to drive you a little crazy.

And one can only imagine the damage to the country's stability and political structure if it were found to be true...not to mention the fate of those involved.

Even if some of the physics raise questions the human side of things (in terms of an American involvement) just doesn't make any sense.

With autism, I suspect parents prefer to find a scapegoat to take all the blame given that their genetics and age at conception are likely suspects. One guy I played football with has a girl with Aspergers and when he went to some specialist he was surprised when he was told she may have inherited it from him. He’d never realised he might qualify for that diagnosis but I had to bite my tongue when he told me as it’s so obvious.

That’s not to say parents who pass on heritable conditions to their children should feel guilty. But how difficult would it be to see your children suffer when you do feel guilty about it.

I admit I'm too quick to use disparaging terms like "nutters", it's really a sign of frustration when some of those involved in a debate blatantly choose to ignore or consider very solid evidence rather than explain how the conspiracies account for it.

But I'll repeat what I said earlier, it's very wrong to lump someone suffering confirmation bias like those with autistic children, in with the group I would refer to as "Conspiracy Nutters" like 9/11 or COVID-19 vaccines!

Vaccines do not have 5G chips in them, 9/11 wasn't caused by cruise missiles, etc., etc., the stranger the claims become the less sensible the debate becomes.

I have no problem with folks questioning 'official' versions of events.

But many seem to just stop there.
They've made up their mind.
They don't take the questioning any further.
They've picked their side and they've identified (very vaguely) a villain

But as LP suggests.....put another hat on and argue the opposite.

Again... Who, How Many and Why

Put a couple of planes into  a building....there's your war.
Why bring the buildings down on top of New York's finest?
It cant be to hide evidence because any investigators would no doubt have to be complicit for the plot to work.
And with that many people killed some of  the plotters would no doubt have had friends and relatives amongst the dead.

Who's idea?...the President's, the military.
How do you go from.... "I've got an idea how to start a war" to executing 9/11?
How do you gather people to your cause.
You would have to be a super judge of character to get that right because one wrong choice and you're sunk.
Somewhere along the way someone who's drawn into it with a bit of a conscience is bound to say "whoa"

In the twenty years since (as far as I know) they've been no 'deathbed confessions'(Edit- apparently there was one a Malcolm Howard.)...there's been no "I can't live with what I've done" suicides.
Even if your small part was something you didn't know you were doing at the time the after-guilt would be enough to drive you a little crazy.

And one can only imagine the damage to the country's stability and political structure if it were found to be true...not to mention the fate of those involved.

Even if some of the physics raise questions the human side of things (in terms of an American involvement) just doesn't make any sense.

As the Hells Angels always say, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead".

Interesting, if you go through imagery of airliner crash sites, you rarely if ever see imprints of the wings. Often the engines will be found separately in their own depression often many meters away from the fuselage impact site, but the wings just never seem to make a significant dent even in something as soft as dirt. The only examples I can find is aircraft crashing into forest, at which time the wings seem to become giant brush cutters.

There must be a very good physical reason for this, perhaps the heaviest part of the wing is next the fuselage, so that a shearing impact causes them to fold up along the line of impact like a dart straightening it's flight through the air resistance on it's lightweight wingtip.

Maybe @capcom‍ can tell us where the maximum air resistance is on a wing, I won't be at all surprised to find it's out near the wingtips.

As the Hells Angels always say, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead".

How many dead are there from 9/11, about 3,000?

Can you imagine the complexity of that social network, the number of nodes? There is a whole field of maths dedicated to this sort of question, well above my paygrade. Some of you may be aware of the classic travelling sales problem, working out the shortest route to visit a number of towns, just 20 or 30 towns becomes incalculable for anything but giant supercomputers to solve, 3000 nodes is probably way way beyond anything we have on earth.

For those interested, here is a little link to the TSP (https://blog.routific.com/travelling-salesman-problem#:~:text=The%20Travelling%20Salesman%20Problem%20(TSP)%20is%20the%20challenge%20of%20finding,computer%20science%20and%20operations%20research.).

The problem can be solved by analyzing every round-trip route to determine the shortest one. However, as the number of destinations increases, the corresponding number of roundtrips surpasses the capabilities of even the fastest computers. With 10 destinations, there can be more than 300,000 roundtrip permutations and combinations. With 15 destinations, the number of possible routes could exceed 87 billion.

Interesting, if you go through imagery of airliner crash sites, you rarely if ever see imprints of the wings. Often the engines will be found separately in their own depression often many meters away from the fuselage impact site, but the wings just never seem to make a significant dent even in something as soft as dirt. The only examples I can find is aircraft crashing into forest, at which time the wings seem to become giant brush cutters.

There must be a very good physical reason for this, perhaps the heaviest part of the wing is next the fuselage, so that a shearing impact causes them to fold up along the line of impact like a dart straightening it's flight through the air resistance on it's lightweight wingtip.

Maybe @capcom‍ can tell us where the maximum air resistance is on a wing, I won't be at all surprised to find it's out near the wingtips.

You nearly always see the tail intact, sit at the back I say.

As the Hells Angels always say, "Three can keep a secret if two are dead".

Problem is it would take a lot more than 3 to carry out the events of 9/11

How many dead are there from 9/11, about 3,000?

So we just gotta find the guy who pushed the detonator button (or was he part of the 3000).

...........................
As for nutters, the only nutters were the hijackers who flew the planes into to the buildings killing 3000 innocent people............................

With all due respect GTC, America wrote the playbook on killing innocents, both directly and indirectly through their state funded terrorism.

I just find that the international ripple effect that people clearly don't get is the fact that it killed economies (and permanently, a few airlines) across the world for years.

Incalculable damage caused by a manufactured and deliberate action with intent to murder your own countrymen?  Horse s***

It's fine to question, it's not when there is no basis or evidence behind the argument.

I heard on radio that in one study conducted the USA during 2020 prior to the election, almost 18% of middle America had enough doubt to leave open the possibility that the world was flat. We are not talking about illiterates or disadvantaged, these people are also nurses, doctors, accountants, lawyers, police, emergency workers, bureaucrats and politicians. A functional cross section of society.

@LP ... it's evenly distributed given the weight / strength /width of the the pivot points to the fuselage tapering to the wing tips .. and the bladders holding the fuel.

Governed by the jet engine placements underwing.

But the closest point of failure (very generally) is at the fuselage connection or the engine failure regardless of their distance between fuselage and tip. 

EDIT .... There are numerous  aircraft maintenance checks on the airframes ranging from overnites to full on pull down :



https://www.naa.edu/types-of-aviation-maintenance-checks/

TAA sold a 727 to Coninental Airlines in the States in the late 70's.  The ONLY remaining complete piece of hardware from the original aircraft was the passenger door !!.

https://www.naa.edu/types-of-aviation-maintenance-checks/

Problem is it would take a lot more than 3 to carry out the events of 9/11

The official explanation of events says you only need 4 that are extremely well co-ordinated. 

Then a random passport found for good measure.

A simpler answer would be that they're not sure who did it, but they would never admit that publically which ratifies the opinion that the official version of events are dubious.

See how this works?  This is where the conspiracy theories come from.

Its all very easily explained by incompetence and poor communication but invariably never admitted to because politicians never get it wrong. 

@LP ... it's evenly distributed given the weight / strength /width of the the pivot points to the fuselage tapering to the wing tips .. and the bladders holding the fuel.

Governed by the jet engine placements underwing.

But the closest point of failure (very generally) is at the fuselage connection or the engine failure regardless of their distance between fuselage and tip. 

Thanks @capcom

So that makes sense, from that I presume weight is generally/basically roughly evenly distributed either side of the engine mount position.

For my own reference, when fuel is consumed, does it come out of all bladders proportionally, or are they drained in a specific sequence? I presume this has to be controlled, so that in banking manoeuvres you do not get drastic changes in plane behaviour subject to fuel load.

I must admit, when I thought about it I was surprised just how much of a modern plane MTOW goes in fuel, they are basically flying fuel tanks with some room here and there for a bit of something else.

Cynics, sceptics and conspiracists make a big deal about the wings being mostly fluid, but anyone who has jumped off the high diving board knows exactly how hard liquid can be when you hit it, imagine doing that at 550MPH! Can you imagine throwing a full 30,000 litre water tank at a house or building at 550 MPH? (FYI; Human free fall terminal velocity is only about 120 MPH at the most, high dives are roughly half that!) :o

The official explanation of events says you only need 4 that are extremely well co-ordinated. 

Then a random passport found for good measure.

A simpler answer would be that they're not sure who did it, but they would never admit that publically which ratifies the opinion that the official version of events are dubious.

See how this works?  This is where the conspiracy theories come from.

Its all very easily explained by incompetence and poor communication but invariably never admitted to because politicians never get it wrong. 

The North eastern corridor in the US is probably the most heavily militarised air space in the world, without exception.

On that day 2, 3 or 4 commercial jet liners flew way off their designated respective courses, for up to 45 minutes and not one jet popped up alongside and said 'hello, wtf...."?

An F15 can fly at 2500km/hr+ and there are air bases dotted all along the eastern seaboard and inland of the coast.

Then there's the 270 degree turn (with triple reverse pike :) ) required by whatever smacked into the Pentagon.....

Too funny.

@LP The Centre belly tank (fuselage) is always used first, both for safety and then the wings as they are designed to compensate for that loss and wing flex in flight.

The fully loaded wings in any event, can support the entire fuselage, belly tank, pax, cargo etc.  Wings generally hold 70% of the entire fuel load.

Burning that centre tank first, in turn, reduces strain on the wing roots though less wind bending movement.

9:37:46 A.M.: Flight 77 crashes into The Pentagon.

9:25:46 A.M.: Dept of Transportation grounded all civil aircraft.

Roger that?

Then there's the 270 degree turn (with triple reverse pike :) ) required by whatever smacked into the Pentagon.....

 I thought they were fly-by-wire, ie attached to a string and only flying in circles! ;D

The official explanation of events says you only need 4 that are extremely well co-ordinated. 

Then a random passport found for good measure.

A simpler answer would be that they're not sure who did it, but they would never admit that publically which ratifies the opinion that the official version of events are dubious.

See how this works?  This is where the conspiracy theories come from.

Its all very easily explained by incompetence and poor communication but invariably never admitted to because politicians never get it wrong. 

Officially there were 19 terrorists.

Ironic, given it's the conspiracy nutters generate the vast bulk of the lies, doctor videos, publish deep fakes, etc., etc..!

They see themselves as whistle-blowers, when they are really crying wolf!

Firstly, in the story, the boy who cried wolf, you might remember, there was actually a wolf....and nobody noticed because they were too busy ignoring him because of previous experiences.

How many times do you want to lump everyone in the same group? It does your arguments damage.
That like calling you a Collingwood supporter.....well its all football isn't it.

Oh Karen, Karen, Karen ...

Go to any bar in Loserville USA and you are bound to find a number of Government Conspiracy 'Specialists' who have often very sophisticated and intricate tales about how the Government is trying to destroy its own people in order to satisfy their evil plans (I've heard quite a few stories....).  Any nasty event can be turned into a Government-sponsored attack, and there are any number of 'experts' who will testify to that fact.  For example, there's truckloads of these experts standing outside the Texas School Book Repository on a daily basis who all know who actually shot JFK (on a local note, wasn't Harold Holt picked up by a Chinese Submarine....?). 

The root cause behind the 'Good Ol' Boys' need to sprout conspiracies is generally the justification to maintain their right to keep vast quantities of high powered armaments in their suburban homes so they are prepared in case the Government comes calling.

The Internet has given them an even more potent method to add credence to these stories, and it turns all manner of nuff-nuffs into experts all of a sudden. 

Just remember, everyone has an agenda, conspiracy theorists included.  We are all entitled to believe what we like, but please don't try to convince me that a whole bunch of websites represents actual proof. 

 

Oh Karen, Karen, Karen ...

K. Ruddler? :o