Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus

Recommended Posts

The thing is, in my opinion, you don't even have to focus on the buildings and how they collapsed or any of that stuff. The government knew well ahead of time that terrorists had plans of hijacking planes and flying them into the twin towers (and other targets). They chose not to take the proper steps to stop this from happening. They may not have known the dates such an attack was set to take place, but they knew it was being planned and that the day would soon arise. They chose not to stop this from happening, and that is what makes them guilty.

They then used this event to launch this ridiculous war we are now in.

One thing that I've wondered is how could they have prevented it from happening? What were these systems that were in place? Should they have fighters standing by to shoot down any planes that they may have thought might have been acting suspiciously? Imagine the outcry then if they'd pre-emptively shot down an airliner than subsequently just turned out to have a radio failure, say? The hijackers (assuming, for now, that there were), didn't have (according to the official version, at any rate) sophisticated weapons, just knives; and if they'd been prevented from taking them on board, they'd surely have improvised some other weapon. Should they have evacuated the Twin Towers? if they didn't have information as to an exact date, that would hardly seem to have been practical.

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • turbonium

    180

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

One thing that I've wondered is how could they have prevented it from happening? What were these systems that were in place? Should they have fighters standing by to shoot down any planes that they may have thought might have been acting suspiciously? Imagine the outcry then if they'd pre-emptively shot down an airliner than subsequently just turned out to have a radio failure, say? The hijackers (assuming, for now, that there were), didn't have (according to the official version, at any rate) sophisticated weapons, just knives; and if they'd been prevented from taking them on board, they'd surely have improvised some other weapon. Should they have evacuated the Twin Towers? if they didn't have information as to an exact date, that would hardly seem to have been practical.

You are naive to the situation.

They knew who the hijackers were. They had a list of their names. They knew the terrorist group that was planning the attacks. They knew they were going to use planes in order to accomplish their task.

I'm truly amazed at the excuses people make for the government in regards to this information.

Did you know that they knew about the WTC 93 attack ahead of time also and didn't stop it? They had contact with a terrorist involved in the plot. Rather then go through with a plan to subsitute the explosive powder used to make the bomb with one that wouldn't cause any harm they chose to let the bomb be made and go off.

You read about some of this and it's plain as day. People simply refuse to believe it because they can't fathom the possibility. They begin to make excuses and bicker back and forth to the point of nitpicking over things that overlook what the true issue is.

You want to debate 9/11 and the governments role in it then you should start from the beginning. You should be discussing the prior knowledge of the event that the government had before you even get to the discussion of what really caused the buildings to collapse in the fashion that they did.

They had prior knowledge. Please don't be foolish enough to think they didn't realize this was a terrorist attack as soon as that first plane hit. They knew exactly what was going on. There shouldn't have been a single person at the top of the government who didn't realize a terrorist attack was taking place at that very moment. What does George Bush do though even after knwoledge of the first plane hitting? He goes and sits in a first grade classroom waiting for more destruction. Then after he gets told a second plane hit the other tower, he sits there reading with kids as if nothing is happening. Simply goes on with the scheduled events he had planned at the school. This is the President of the United States? It's a joke.

And yes, while I can't give detailed information off the top of my head for the exact protocol when events occur within the United States such as those that happened on 9/11, there is definately a system in place. There is a chain of command for who you contact and rely on to make important decisions. These events occured over hours and not a damn thing was done. No one took control. They all disappeared and/or were conveniently preoccupied. It's one hell of a coincidence that they were running a fake scenario of what was really happening on the exact same day, and at the exact same time this terrorist attack was taking place.

Instead of acknowledging all of that and questioning what, how, and why however, people would rather laugh and scoff at the notion of whether or not the buildings were a controlled demolition. Think about the other things first and figure that out. Once you do, then you'll realize why there are those that question exactly how and why those buildings fell along with a number of other things. Regardless of what really caused them to collapse, there is still so much more behind the scenes information that people refuse to acknowledge or discuss that points to the United States government purposely allowing these attacks to take place.

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They had prior knowledge. Please don't be foolish enough to think they didn't realize this was a terrorist attack as soon as that first plane hit. They knew exactly what was going on. There shouldn't have been a single person at the top of the government who didn't realize a terrorist attack was taking place at that very moment. What does George Bush do though even after knwoledge of the first plane hitting? He goes and sits in a first grade classroom waiting for more destruction. Then after he gets told a second plane hit the other tower, he sits there reading with kids as if nothing is happening. Simply goes on with the scheduled events he had planned at the school. This is the President of the United States? It's a joke.

Ever thought that there might have been some small degree of confusion going on that morning, with people trying to find out what had happened? The first plane hit at 8:46 and the second at 9:03. That really wasn't that much time for them to find out what was going on. I mean, the first I heard on the radio was "a plane has flown into the World Trade Center". It didn't say an airliner, and it didn't say that it had been hijacked. Who knows, perhaps the president's advisors thought, when they first heard, what I suspect a lot of people did, that maybe it was a small Cessna or something flown by an inept learner pilot. Maybe GW Bush might not be an evil mastermind, but merely a slightly dim politician out of his depth whose advisors, probably, knew no more about what was happening than he did? Could the answer not, perhaps, simply be that people can't accept that the President of the United States might actually, just be slightly dim and out of his depth, and so has to be an evil mastermind? It's just my theory. I don't know. Maybe I'm just naive.

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are naive to the situation.

They knew who the hijackers were. They had a list of their names. They knew the terrorist group that was planning the attacks. They knew they were going to use planes in order to accomplish their task.

I'm truly amazed at the excuses people make for the government in regards to this information.

Did you know that they knew about the WTC 93 attack ahead of time also and didn't stop it? They had contact with a terrorist involved in the plot. Rather then go through with a plan to subsitute the explosive powder used to make the bomb with one that wouldn't cause any harm they chose to let the bomb be made and go off.

You read about some of this and it's plain as day. People simply refuse to believe it because they can't fathom the possibility. They begin to make excuses and bicker back and forth to the point of nitpicking over things that overlook what the true issue is.

You want to debate 9/11 and the governments role in it then you should start from the beginning. You should be discussing the prior knowledge of the event that the government had before you even get to the discussion of what really caused the buildings to collapse in the fashion that they did.

They had prior knowledge. Please don't be foolish enough to think they didn't realize this was a terrorist attack as soon as that first plane hit. They knew exactly what was going on. There shouldn't have been a single person at the top of the government who didn't realize a terrorist attack was taking place at that very moment. What does George Bush do though even after knwoledge of the first plane hitting? He goes and sits in a first grade classroom waiting for more destruction. Then after he gets told a second plane hit the other tower, he sits there reading with kids as if nothing is happening. Simply goes on with the scheduled events he had planned at the school. This is the President of the United States? It's a joke.

And yes, while I can't give detailed information off the top of my head for the exact protocol when events occur within the United States such as those that happened on 9/11, there is definately a system in place. There is a chain of command for who you contact and rely on to make important decisions. These events occured over hours and not a damn thing was done. No one took control. They all disappeared and/or were conveniently preoccupied. It's one hell of a coincidence that they were running a fake scenario of what was really happening on the exact same day, and at the exact same time this terrorist attack was taking place.

Instead of acknowledging all of that and questioning what, how, and why however, people would rather laugh and scoff at the notion of whether or not the buildings were a controlled demolition. Think about the other things first and figure that out. Once you do, then you'll realize why there are those that question exactly how and why those buildings fell along with a number of other things. Regardless of what really caused them to collapse, there is still so much more behind the scenes information that people refuse to acknowledge or discuss that points to the United States government purposely allowing these attacks to take place.

FINE! Give us names then or even one name so we can file charges or start prosecuting. You can't say they, the govt or Bush.

Well???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FINE! Give us names then or even one name so we can file charges or start prosecuting. You can't say they, the govt or Bush.

Well???

Right, cause I'm supposed to say know the names of everyone involved with receiving such information.

There is no question information was presented to the FBI about this well before 9/11 happened. Like I said, the government jerks people around and then the people that get screwed give them a free pass. No wonder it can't be any easier for them.

MK-Ultra - using mind control on their own citizens. They even admit to doing this and still people say it's no big deal. Wake up!

Hell, if they admit to doing things like that, why is it so hard to open your eyes and realize how incredibly messed up that is. Why is it so hard to see through the other nonsense they pull on us. It's disgusting. People refuse to believe anything could be corrupt eventhough you can see it everyday if you just read and quit being so willing to push everything aside that the government does.

You want names? Read through this thread to start: Knowledge of 9/11 8 months before it happened

Not just my post, but check out the info Q24 provides in this post alone within that thread: There is much evidence of prior knowledge and forewarning from genuine intelligence operatives that an attack was to occur.....

What do you have to say for it. Wait, I know, you'll turn it into nitpicking over the dumbest things instead of taking it for what is and truly understanding what was done and allowed to happen. People would rather try to shout louder then the other person and pick apart worthless pieces rather than open their eyes to what is presented in front of them.

They'll give a response like 74700 did and act as if the President of the United States has no freaking clue about what's going on in the world. How incredibly naive is that? Look into his family background - do you realize how ludicrous it is to suggest someone in his position and of his upbringing doesn't understand what's really going on.

People act like he's a head coach running an NFL franchise into the ground rather than realizing he is running an entire country. Not just any country, but one that has been long regarded as the best in the world in just about absolutely everything. It's astonishing how foolish people will be in refusing to question anything that they do.

And since you asked, I will try and look into what kind of names I can find, though I tend to believe Q24 will provide a good bit of that in the post I linked you to of his. I still have to read through some of what he presented myself before can truly give my own opinion of what he said.

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They'll give a response like 74700 did and act as if the President of the United States has no freaking clue about what's going on in the world. How incredibly naive is that?
I think I'll put that in my sig, thank you for the commendation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll put that in my sig, thank you for the commendation.

And it begins. Ignoring the real purpose of the post to start with the nitpicking over the stupid things instead.

An I'm sorry, but your response as to what you propose Bush & Co. might have been thinking about when the first plane hit is very naive if that is what you truly believe about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, cause I'm supposed to say know the names of everyone involved with receiving such information.

There is no question information was presented to the FBI about this well before 9/11 happened. Like I said, the government jerks people around and then the people that get screwed give them a free pass. No wonder it can't be any easier for them.

MK-Ultra - using mind control on their own citizens. They even admit to doing this and still people say it's no big deal. Wake up!

Sure, you have someone who admits to knowing this and that, then when it comes to identify who is behind it, there is no one???

Before you cry murder, don't you want to make sure your witness has the tools(names) to back up his claims?

It's you who been had by the conspiracy theorist out to make money, so you wake up!

You want names? Read through this thread to start: Knowledge of 9/11 8 months before it happened

Give me names of who bought the explosives, planted the bomb, hid the planes. Can you even explain why United Airlines is playing along, it is their plane, right?

They'll give a response like 74700 did and act as if the President of the United States has no freaking clue about what's going on in the world. How incredibly naive is that? Look into his family background - do you realize how ludicrous it is to suggest someone in his position and of his upbringing doesn't understand what's really going on.

Show us then some criminal records of the Bush family, well?

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And it begins. Ignoring the real purpose of the post to start with the nitpicking over the stupid things instead.

An I'm sorry, but your response as to what you propose Bush & Co. might have been thinking about when the first plane hit is very naive if that is what you truly believe about it.

It will maybe astonish you to know, but I'm not an admirer of GWB. I, however, think that's he's inept and out of his depth, rather than an evil mastermind.I don't think that's naive, i call it a different opinion from yours. Is it valid as an opinion? Every bit as valid as yours, I'd say. To believe that GWB is an evil mastermind takes just as much, if not a vastly bigger, leap of faith, than to think that he's inept and out of his depth. What evidence do you have that Bush is an evil genius? Bush, specifically, please, not the CIA or any of the vast number of other shadowy figures. What further evidence has he given, throughout his presidency, that he is an evil genius? Is Iraq evidence of his genius? I'd say it supports quite strongly the inept and out of his depth theory.

Edited by 747400
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, you have someone who admits to knowing this and that, then when it comes to identify who is behind it, there is no one???

Before you cry murder, don't you want to make sure your witness has the tools(names) to back up his claims?

It's you who been had by the conspiracy theorist out to make money, so you wake up!

You act as if I have access to all the information that was presented to the FBI. You ask me to come up with things that are to a certain extent impossible for me to come up with given my limited resources.

Give me names of who bought the explosives, planted the bomb, hid the planes. Can you even explain why United Airlines is playing along, it is their plane, right?

When did I say anything about what you just mentioned. I said nothing of explosives, nothing about bombs being planted, nothing about planes being hidden, and not one word about United Airlines being "in" on anything. What I have said is that the government knew a terrorist group was planning on hijacking planes and flying them into the Twin Towers well before the attacks occurred. If you bothered to read the letter in the link I provided you, you would see that the FBI was given the names of 30 terrorists involved in this plan, where they were located, and the targets they planned to hit. If you choose to ignore that, then there is nothing I can do about it.

Show us then some criminal records of the Bush family, well?

I guess you don't think people in powerful positions have ways of avoiding prosecution. Either way, if I take the time to research things I can point out a number of bizarre situations in which the Bush's are involved.

Criminal actions involving them isn't even what I was referring to. What I was referencing was the fact that their family has long been involved in politics and have held highly regarded positions within the United States for decades. If you don't think that places them in a position to know more then the average person, then again, you are being naive.

ETA: I notice you had nothing to say about the post by Q24 I linked you to providing even further evidence of 9/11 long before it happened.

Edited by Left Field
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You act as if I have access to all the information that was presented to the FBI. You ask me to come up with things that are to a certain extent impossible for me to come up with given my limited resources.

You have limited resources you say, and yet you are easy to believe someone with limited resources?

When did I say anything about what you just mentioned. I said nothing of explosives, nothing about bombs being planted, nothing about planes being hidden, and not one word about United Airlines being "in" on anything. What I have said is that the government knew a terrorist group was planning on hijacking planes and flying them into the Twin Towers well before the attacks occurred. If you bothered to read the letter in the link I provided you, you would see that the FBI was given the names of 30 terrorists involved in this plan, where they were located, and the targets they planned to hit. If you choose to ignore that, then there is nothing I can do about it.

And what makes you assume those who works at the FBI are as evil or worst than the terrorist?

What on earth do you have to label those at the FBI as such monsters, they have families too and are Americans themselve. Who has done more than you to protect this country.

And another thing, go research about ABLE DANGER. There was a wall or prohibition put up by the Clinton Administration in intelligence sharing between the CIA and FBI.

I guess you don't think people in powerful positions have ways of avoiding prosecution. Either way, if I take the time to research things I can point out a number of bizarre situations in which the Bush's are involved.

Oh yeah, then show us the record of involvement, a real record. Not from some blogs or gossip magazines.

Criminal actions involving them isn't even what I was referring to. What I was referencing was the fact that their family has long been involved in politics and have held highly regarded positions within the United States for decades. If you don't think that places them in a position to know more then the average person, then again, you are being naive.

Yes, they are a family of politicians. Does that make them criminals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is Iraq evidence of his (George Bush) genius? I'd say it supports quite strongly the inept and out of his depth theory.

If it weren't for the fact he continues to push forward with this war despite the efforts of congress itself to try and stop it, I may be more inclined to believe what you have stated about Bush.

This war, which makes no sense right now, is the most important thing on his agenda. Why is that? Why did he have plans to attack Iraq before 9/11 ever happened? Why was Osama Bin Laden pinpointed as the mastermind behind 9/11, but instead of going after him we were sold on lies about the WMDs Saddam Hussien possessed and the danger he posed to the United States so we could invade Iraq instead?

Why did Bush & co. deny the fact they knew terrorists were planning to attack the WTC and other targets with hijacked planes and then use that stance to push forward with the Patriot Act and the need for a "War on Terror" so that all of us in the United States could sleep safer at night?

9/11 could have been prevented if they wanted to stop it from happening. They knew in advance it was beig planned. This nonsense that a "War on Terror" and the Patriot Act were/are needed in order to prevent this from happening again is BS when you realized they let the attack happen.

If George Bush is such a simpleton, how in the world was he ever put in position to run for President to begin with? Who are the people that thought highly enough of him that he became the Republican nominee in the first place? If he is so absolutely clueless to the point that the average American can realize this, why would people close to him have ever supported him enough for him to get where he is? It doesn't make sense.

As for George Bush and the evil mastermind scenario, that is never a phrase I have used. I will however, if/when I get the time try and post information for you that shows he isn't all that sweet and innocent a person/President.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ETA: I notice you had nothing to say about the post by Q24 I linked you to providing even further evidence of 9/11 long before it happened.

You really believe that all those actually just showed up under the Bush Administration, and thta none of those links existed under the Clinton Administrations?

I'm not blaming Clinton here, just that assuming Bush ignored them and allowed it to happen means only Clinton did ignore it as well, right?

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Nonesense" was a fitting prelude to your post.

I would be inclined to agree with those pilots, who seem to be describing an almost aerobatic maneuver in a Boeing. There's no real data to substantiate whet they're talking about---but they're painting a picture of a spiral dive and an high g maneuver with steep banking that took place right overhead and saw this 757 precisely hit the Pentagon at its conclusion.

I might agree...but I've examined every piece of FDR data from that maneuver, and have concluded that it wasn't close to aerobatic.

It was a long sweeping maneuver, somewhat erratically flown, and was a 330 degree turn completed in ~ 3.7 min. This is about 1/2 of a standard rate turn....relatively mellow.

Airspeed was about 170 KTS at the beginning of the maneuver, and increased to about 300 KTS at the roll out. Then, the throttle was increased to full and airspeed built up quickly over the final 10-15 seconds as the jet approached the building.

The turn was executed with about 30% thrust in, and bank angles that averaged about 25-30 degrees, and which were only about 10 degrees or so during the final seconds of turn. G loads were for the most part mellow...peaking at around 1.7 g during maximum bank angles, which peaked at around 40 degrees for a period of time in the turn. Well within the limit of the aircraft...probably uncomfortable for the passengers for a time, but not what I'd call extreme.

Maximum nose down peaked at about 9 degrees during the throttle up / final phase, and descent rate varied greatly, peaking at about 4500 feet per minute, and actually being as little as zero during the turn...averaging about 1850 feet per minute overall.

The "pilot" of this aircraft wasn't a pro, by any means. He flew the turning descent (not a spiral dive) erratically, with bank angles jumping all over the place, as well as pitch angles, and executed a turn that a professional could've done in a little more than half the time.

He knew how to reduce throttle at least, and did so. What I see in the data is a long, loping and somewhat erratically flown descending right turn. Then, the nose gets pushed down at the target and the throttles go to the wall for the last maybe 2.5 miles or so to the building

I see no data indicating a spiral dive. Just a long, lazy turn to dump altitude, and set up a bee line for the target...then, a high speed hold the nose down at between 6 and 9 degrees...ram the throttles forward and hold it real tight screaming bee line for the building.

The data I'm looking at, and the data your alleged pilots were looking at, seem to be two different sets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it weren't for the fact he continues to push forward with this war despite the efforts of congress itself to try and stop it, I may be more inclined to believe what you have stated about Bush.

Congres can it stop it now if they really want to. Cut the fundings.

If George Bush is such a simpleton, how in the world was he ever put in position to run for President to begin with?

Because he was never labeled as an evil person until he became the President .

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really believe that all those actually just showed up under the Bush Administration, and that none of those links existed under the Clinton Administrations?

I'm not blaming Clinton here, just that assuming Bush ignored them and allowed it to happen means only Clinton did ignore it as well, right?

I don't exactly trust the Clinton's either, so don't think I'm absolving him of anything simply because I've focused on Bush. The last thing I want is to see Hillary Clinton in the White House. I think it'd be an absolute disgrace if Americans were to allow two families alone to run the country for at least 24 years if Hillary Clinton were to be elected.

The simple truth is, I haven't read quite as much about the things surrounding Clinton's presidency as I have about Bush's. One reason for that is because George Bush is the present day commander in chief. The other reason is because when Clinton was President I was a lot younger and at a stage of my life where I didn't really read up on such things.

The fact I'm pointing the finger at Bush doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that I'm absolving Clinton of ignoring certain things as well. The fact remains however that 9/11 happened on George Bush's watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congres can it stop it now if they really want to. Cut the fundings.

I'd have to look into it more closely, but I don't believe it is as simple as you are suggesting. They have tried to cut the funding, George Bush simply doesn't care. Also, cutting the funding won't stop the war. Bush has vowed to follow this thing through regardless of what anyone else thinks or tells him. He's already had interviews in which he talks of how the most important thing for the next President will be to stick with this war regardless of what the public perception would be and the criticism they would have to face for doing so. He acts as if this is his war, and doesn't involve anyone else. He doesn't listen to what the people of America want or say regarding it.

Because he was never labeled as an evil person until he became the President.

That's not as true as you think. And also, simpleton does not = "evil person"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to look into it more closely, but I don't believe it is as simple as you are suggesting. They have tried to cut the funding, George Bush simply doesn't care. Also, cutting the funding won't stop the war. Bush has vowed to follow this thing through regardless of what anyone else thinks or tells him. He's already had interviews in which he talks of how the most important thing for the next President will be to stick with this war regardless of what the public perception would be and the criticism they would have to face for doing so. He acts as if this is his war, and doesn't involve anyone else. He doesn't listen to what the people of America want or say regarding it.

It is that simple believe it or not. No matter what effort Bush does it all comes down to Congress VOTING to cut or continue on funding the war. Did you even hear Congress bringing it up for a vote?

You have to remember Congress approved the war and so theay have the power to cut the fundings.

That's not as true as you think. And also, simpleton does not = "evil person"

What criminal charges has Bush had against him prior to being the President? So, it is not as true as you think then.

Then what do you call someone who you assume has planned for a war from the moment he became a President and allowed a terrorist attack to justify his war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't exactly trust the Clinton's either, so don't think I'm absolving him of anything simply because I've focused on Bush. The last thing I want is to see Hillary Clinton in the White House. I think it'd be an absolute disgrace if Americans were to allow two families alone to run the country for at least 24 years if Hillary Clinton were to be elected.

Alright!!! :tu: At least we agreed with one thing. Anyone but Hillary.

The simple truth is, I haven't read quite as much about the things surrounding Clinton's presidency as I have about Bush's. One reason for that is because George Bush is the present day commander in chief. The other reason is because when Clinton was President I was a lot younger and at a stage of my life where I didn't really read up on such things.

The fact I'm pointing the finger at Bush doesn't mean in any way, shape, or form that I'm absolving Clinton of ignoring certain things as well. The fact remains however that 9/11 happened on Al

I see, I suggest then you read further back in history. As I have suggested go research Able Danger, it will give you an understanding of events prior to 9/11. It is not a conspiracy, it's an actual event.

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgey is a puppet, like most the other modern presidents, the "show" of politics for the masses, who have been so dumbed down they dont even realize they are being deceived on a regular basis.

If you cant see that, then you are their puppet as well, simply following whatever stupid "bait" they give you to justify war and the deaths of innocent people and our own generation. It is simply depopulation by the elite, "for the good of humanity". We are scheduled for WWIII to unfold just as it was written in revelations, because these same organizations have been around for awhile and know how to "manifest" whatever they chose.

It is the use of the will to affect the reality around them. "manifest destiny" was the term described to justify the slaughter and detainment and outright theft of american indians. Back then, do you think they cared whether they were peaceful or not? NO. They wanted the control over the land, and the indians were not warlike for the most part. They defended their lands as best they could with more primitive weapons. Now they are been brought under the fold and given rights to make money via the completely spiritually devoid gambling industry...

With that, i give you the knowledge gap of the last 100 years, this is a link to verified newspaper articles regarding Tesla and the amazing things he was capable of doing.

The modern "wizard" of the industrial age, even outshining Einstein in brilliance and application.

Einstein, in fact was a thief of idea's, working in a patent office with full access to all kinds of practical applications at the time.

Most fascinating of all, is the New York Herald Tribune article on Oct 15, 1911 entitled "Tesla's New Monarch of Machines" which illudes to Tesla having built a flying machine and a perfect pump/engine that is nearly indestructible... an excerpt...

Suppose some one should discover a new mechanical principle--something as fundamental as James Watt’s discovery of the expansive power of steam—by the use of which it became possible to build a motor that would give ten horse power for every pound of the engine’s weight, a motor so simple that the veriest novice in mechanics could construct it and so elemental that it could not possibly get out of repair. Then suppose that this motor could be run forward or backward at will, that it could be used as either an engine or a pump, that it cost almost nothing to build as compared with any other known form of engine, that it utilized a larger percentage of the available power than any existing machine, and, finally, that it would operate with gas, steam, compressed air or water, any one of them, as its driving power.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The data I'm looking at, and the data your alleged pilots were looking at, seem to be two different sets.

You disagree with the 100+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals listed on Patriots Question 9/11 and that is fine; it is your opinion. The specific quotes I posted were only to show that your assertion - “Any professional pilot realizes what happed that day and knows that someone with little real training could've done it.” - was ill-informed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are still missing the key point: the trace is not an exact match to the input because of the way that the instrument responds. This is true of any seismograph, it does not depend on the particular characteristics of this one. Given that there is considerable scatter in the trace because of this factor, you cannot make the deductions you do based on individual cycles of the instrument response.

You can argue in circles forever but all I am asserting is the given fact that reduced activity will produce a reduced reading – there is no disputing this; it cannot do anything else. You yourself then deduced the likelihood of the reduced readings being due to chance or reduced activity.

I hope you do not gamble or play the markets, because your ability to find pattern in data that is actually random could then prove costly.

I am placing my bets on at least an 81% probability whilst you admit your own theory is at best a 19% chance – in the end it really is as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the contrary, there are hundreds of thousands of structural engineers an the world, and less than one tenth of one percent of them (your "hundreds", few of which are actually structural engineers) find any problems with accepting that the collapses were the natural results of the impacts and fires.

Can you give a link to these “hundreds of thousands” of engineers you say support the official story? If they are independent, rather than affiliated with the government, all the better though that is not a prerequisite. I can list details of well in excess of 300 construction professionals who demand a new investigation into the collapses. I am thinking you are all talk and, when it comes to it, you will not be able to get close to even that number.

On the other hand, the "official" theory has come up with a plausible mechanism for collapse initiation which has been verified by lab tests and industry-standard simulation methods.

NIST could come up with a plausible mechanism for a flying pig, also verified by lab tests and computer simulations… so? Getting a mechanism that matches with observable reality is another matter. NIST’s pig, based on the real animal, would not fly as they wanted it to, so they simply gave it wings and problem solved. Some people will not realise how close this scenario really is to NIST's ‘investigation’ but I would suggest those who have not done so should look into it themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello again, Q24. I haven't been following this thread very carefully because I just don't have flyingswan's near-infinite patience when dealing with this particular topic. I did see your "analysis" of the seismic data, though, and since you're still discussing it, I thought I'd add a few comments of my own. Here's the chart you originally posted a few weeks ago:

The seismic data is certainly interesting. I have been reading a few different opinions on the data and have compared it with video footage myself. I am sure people will interpret the information differently but below are my findings for the collapse of WTC1: -

linked-image

  • The first red line indicates the initial collapse movement of the upper block.
  • The second red line indicates the first debris reaching ground level.
  • The third red line indicates beginning of the main debris field impacting the ground.
The above conclusions were drawn from a comparison of the graph and
video evidence of the collapse which seems as good as any.

I'm afraid your complete lack of understanding of even the basics of seismology has led you to make some pretty gross errors in your "analysis" of this seismogram. Your conclusions are completely unfounded and amount to nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

Your first basic error is that you have completely ignored signal propagation time. The chart above shows the East-West component of ground velocity for the Lamont-Doherty seismometer located at the Palisades, NY station (PAL). It is 34 kilometers north/northeast of the World Trade Center site. According to reference (1) below, the primary signals arriving at PAL during the incidents of 9/11 were short-period Rayleigh surface waves (Rg) which propagate through the local rock structure at 2 kilometers per second:

Six stations within the greater Metropolitan New York region (Fig. 2) recorded the two tower collapses. Vertical-component records are shown in Figure 3 as a record section of distance as a function of travel time. The dotted lines indicate velocities from 1.5 to 2.5 km/s assuming propagation along straight paths from the WTC to the stations. Unlike signals at distant stations, the predominant waves are surface waves of short period (about 1 s) called Rg with group velocities between 2.3 and 1.5 km/s. GPD only recorded horizontal components.

Your chart shows the seismometer trace beginning at 10:28:30. The collapse begins at 10:28:31, at t=1 second on the chart. With 34 kilometers to travel at 2 km/s, the Rg waves from the START of the collapse don't arrive at the PAL seismometer until about t=18 seconds on that chart, just about where you've drawn your last red line. You're marking off events that can't possibly be seen in the data because the signals haven't yet arrived at the seismometer!

This propagation delay is clearly shown in Fig. 3 from reference (1):

linked-image

This chart shows the data from the collapse of WTC-1 as recorded by several seismometers in the area. The locations are sorted by distance from the WTC, and you can clearly see that the signal arrival delay is a function of distance from the source.

This is also very clearly shown in this chart prepared by Lamont-Doherty for the Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 (see Ref. 3 below):

linked-image

This chart shows both aircraft impacts and both tower collapses as recorded by the PAL seismometer. Time zero for all for signals is the start of the event. Notice that the Rg waves in each trace begin arriving at PAL at almost precisely the same time, just short of 17 seconds after the start of each event.

Your second major error is that you seem to be assuming that a seismometer records a perfect signal in which every squiggle can be traced back to some distinct event at the source. That's just not true. Seismic events generate multiple types of waves which travel at different speeds and will arrive at a distant seismometer at different times. Even waves of the same type can reflect around inside the earth, resulting in multiple arrivals of the same signal at different times, like a voice echoing through a canyon. As flyingswan has been telling you, seismic waves are periodic oscillations and when different signals overlap, they can cancel or enhance each other. See here for some good information on the different types of seismic waves.

Here's a quote from reference (1), referring to an earlier study of the rock formations around the WTC:

Anderson and Dorman also observed strong lateral refraction of Rg waves caused by the

contrast in shallow rock properties at the boundary of the high and low velocity rocks of the

Manhattan Prong and Newark Basin. Waves propagated to Palisades followed paths through

both provinces, resulting in multiple arrivals of Rg. On the basis of polarization analysis, several

of those wave packets arrived from quite different directions than those predicted for straight-line

propagation. Seismic waves at PAL and MANY also are more complex than those at the other

stations of Figure 3, probably indicative of arrivals refracted through the two terrains. At MANY

10s separates two arrivals.

The constructive interference of two Rg phases at PAL may well account for the large arrivals

on the E-W component even though the azimuth of the direct path from WTC to PAL is

NNE. We do not interpret them necessarily as Love waves; hence, a source with a horizontal

component is not required to explain them. (We verified that the components and polarities of

the digital data at PAL were correct using recordings of distant earthquakes close in time to the

WTC events.).

See the comment about constructive interference on the E-W component at PAL? That's the same signal you've been looking at. It's not just a simple, direct record of the collapse. The authors believe it's a mix of at least two overlapping "echoes" of the Rg waves created during the collapse. Also note their comment about the signals received at the MANY seismometer. Take a look at the MANY trace in Fig. 3 above. Notice that there are two distinct periods of high activity separated by about 10 seconds. Did the tower collapse twice, 10 seconds apart? No, of course not. You're seeing the same seismic signal that has traveled through two different paths to reach the seismometer.

The oscillations you're picking out as evidence of a controlled demolition may be noise in the system, may be a truck driving down a nearby road, or may be faster-traveling L or S waves from the WTC collapse. Only an expert looking at all the data can tell the difference. Did you know that the PAL seismometer records motion in three axes? You've only shown the E-W trace. Have you looked at the data for the N-S axis or the vertical axis?

I'll also point out this interesting quote from reference (1):

A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.

So, the half-ton truck bomb detonating below the WTC wasn't detectable at any of the seismic stations in the area, yet the individual blasts of your supposed "stealth" demolition charges high in the towers were clearly recorded at a station 34 kilometers away. Is that what you're claiming?

References

1) Kim, W.-Y., et al. (2001), Seismic waves generated by aircraft impacts and building collapses at World Trade Center, New York City, Eos Trans. AGU, 82(47), 565. (link)

2) Kim, W.-Y., and Baum, G. R., Seismic Observations during September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attack, Report to the Maryland Depart of Natural Resources, spring 2002. (link)

3) Debunking the 9/11 Myths, Popular Mechanics Special Report, Pg. 5 (link)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure I concede the collapses did not proceed at precisely freefall. I believe a freefall drop would take approximately 10 seconds whereas the observed collapses took around 14 seconds judging by video evidence – thus ‘near’ freefall.
The discrepancy you just pointed out amounts to a difference of nearly 50%.

The fact remains that the Towers should never, through the limited damage and fire effects observed, have entered into a ‘global’ collapse in the first place and even if they could somehow, the upper blocks would lose momentum and be stopped by the intact lower structures. Under no circumstances in this case is it reasonable for a ‘natural’ collapse to reach anywhere near freefall.
I again offer the analogy of a 4 foot tall tower with matchstick support beams and flooring made of playing cards having a bowling ball dropped onto it. The bowling ball will fall with near free fall speed.

You keep emphasizing an irrelevant point. The only valid point of contention here is whether or not the tons of ignited jet fuel could weaken the building to the point that the weakest portion of the building collapsed. Because once the weight of the building above the failure point collapsed, the building would have no other choice than to pancake down in an orderly fashion. It would pancake rather than topple because the elevator shafts and outer support beams would act as guides that route any lateral movement back to the center. The path of least resistance in such a structure is straight down.

And when the entire weight of the building above the current floor suddenly smashes down onto a single floor that is only held up by brackets (which were only designed to bear the weight of a single floor) then you get the bowling ball through a matchstick tower effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.