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 "witness" reports early on were very "diverse" on the news coverage, to say the least. I am still amazed at the footage showing a massive hole in the north tower, while the talking heads are talking about a "small commuter plane. Then, when the second plane hits, there's discussion of it being "at least a 727".

Now, visually mistaking a stretch 737 with a 767-200 is understandable, but a small commuter or a 727? The commentators and eyewitnesses were out of their league.

But the hole in the North tower says 767, not 737. That, along with the live news footage and the subsequent private videos made available, they were certainly 767s. Without pods or missiles. Airliners with frightened passengers and madmen aboard.

Sorry, LLL, the evidence says big heavy jets. If you have real evidence to the contrary, we'd love to see it. Tarheel, and many others, saw it happen first hand. You can't fake that.

(Tarheel, got bros. on the Outer Banks, haven't been there since the 70s, used to go every summer when it was a "sleepy" place, don't think I could handle the change if I went back today...and knew the Hendersonville area well, back then).

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

I do not know the procedures used in scrambling the Langley fighters that morning. It appears that, lacking specific instructions, and confusion in the "090/60" instructions in the order, it was an honest foul up. I don't know what info is sent to the fighters in the order, or how it's coordinated...my experience is dated with slightly more de-centralized procedures.

To say this was a “foul up” is an understatement. After the WTC devastation, NEADS clearly requested cover over Washington due to another incoming hijacked airliner… and fighters were sent in completely the wrong direction! Do you think that failure in the command chain should have been investigated and detailed by the 9/11 Commission?

The Langley birds were wheels up at 0930. The Pentagon was struck at 0938. Eight minutes is not enough time for them to have gotten there to intercept the AA77.

I didn’t realise the fighters from Langley weren’t in the air until 09:30, I just saw the request from NEADS was made at 09:21. In that case, as it turned out, I agree they wouldn’t have made it in time to intercept Flight 77.

It appears that neither the NEADS training exercise or that the Langley fighters flew in the wrong direction made a difference in the end. I am though thinking, if I have a plan that relies on airliners impacting their targets, do I assume all will run to plan, the hijackings will be discovered too late and leave it to chance that the military won’t have time to intercept… or do I do everything possible to ensure the missions success?

Again, there would have been no need for "hold fire" orders. These are a given regardless of what's going on, unless a weapons free ROE had been previously declared. It hadn't. Without authenticated shootdown orders (as it was that morning), the pilots would not be launching on civil airliners on their own. The "stand down" was simply peacetime ROE in force at the time, despite the activities leading up to that moment.

I understand what you are saying, though that assumes that the military were not specifically requesting shootdown authorisation from Cheney. If the request had been made and specificially denied by Cheney, then a follow up request would be met with, “the orders still stand”. In any case, I am sure you have guessed from what I have said above that my opinion has shifted toward suspecting Cheney’s “order” could be in relation to the Langley fighters – is it possible Cheney had put an order in place for them to follow standard training procedure despite the NEADS request?

For all we know they wanted to evacuate Cheney to another location, he said no, and when asked again, "the orders still stand". Seems just as reasonable.

Not impossible, though as Cheney was already safe and where he should have been (in an underground bunker/command centre), your theory does not appear at all likely. The facts, frenet/mrbusdriver, are: -

  1. Cheney had an order in place in relation to the incoming airliner.
  2. The 9/11 Commission attempted to cover-up that this order existed.
As agreement is not going to be reached on what the “order” was, perhaps it is best to focus on the second point. Why was Norman Mineta’s testimony, which clearly places Dick Cheney in control and at the PEOC prior to the Pentagon impact, excluded from the Commission report and an alternative timeline created?

We had this exchange, mrbusdriver: -

Interesting. The Commission report gives a pretty detailed timeline of events, and Mineta's account doesn't fit. I'd like to read some of the other key player testimony. There is no mention of Mineta in the shelter, but that doesn't mean anything.

Mineta states with certainty that he arrived at the PEOC at 9:20am. I agree that the 9/11 Commission left this vital testimony out of the final report – it didn’t get dubbed the ‘Omission’ Report by sceptics for nothing.

You then suggested Mineta may have been mistaken and asked for any other evidence supporting his testimony which I addressed and supplied links to in my post here. Have you had a chance to come to a comprehensive conclusion, taking all the facts into account, yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To state the bleeding obvious, I said if you had any evidence, why not test it in court, you said US courts were government controlled, I said try a non-US one. The purpose would be to test how good your evidence is. Your lack of enthusiasm for the idea suggests to me a corresponding lack of faith in your evidence.

I will rephrase my question because you obviously aren’t getting it - what jurisdiction does a foreign court have over the US? How could a case be brought before a foreign court when the event is outside of their jurisdiction? There were no nationals from countries supposedly involved in 9/11 that would gain by souring relations with the US.

I don't see that the clarity of the Reichstag fire events has increased. We still don't know who started it. The Nazi courts were obviously biased in one direction, and the post-war court reversal of the decision corrects this. There was only circumstantial evidence against either Van der Lubbe or the Nazis as the guilty party.

Yes, the evidence for the Reichstag fire and the 9/11 false flag operations are of a similar persuasion (though I would say more convincing for 9/11) yet you see the former as possible and the latter as not. I know what you will say – the Reichstag fire did not involve the controlled demolitions or remotely flown Boeings that you have difficulty understanding. Ok, let’s say there really were hijackers with airliners and the WTC buildings collapsed ‘naturally’. Then do you see the 9/11 operation as possible in a ‘let it happen on purpose’ way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of this is obvious from my post. "More columns" are the ones to the south and west of 76 and 80, the internal structure "detaches" because the beams break (probably at the fastenings), the stronger floors 5 to 7 didn't break away from the outer structure but instead distorted after being themselves distorted by falling debris, "outer walls" is shorthand for the outer structural elements at floors 5 to 7.

Timing depends on which of the possible progressive collapse mechanisms occurs - load redistribution is fast, damage from falling elements a lot slower - and both would have occurred. I would be guessing if I said exactly which of the columns failed and which didn't, but I don't see how this affects the validity of my argument. I could give a list, but I couldn't justify it and you couldn't disprove it. The symmetry of the collapse was due to the final collapse initiation factor being an internal distortion of the strong floors, which are attached to the outer structure all round.

I do not feel that I need to answer any of this when you refuse to answer my counter-question, see below.

- So within 1-2 seconds (?) of the single column 79 failing, the adjacent columns 76 and 80 simultaneously fail. Within the next couple of seconds this failure progresses to the adjacent West and South columns 73, 77 and 81. Perhaps columns 74 and 78 are the next to go.

At this point, if almost the whole East structure has failed, how is it still standing? Why has a collapse of the entire structure not begun on the East side?

- Next, around 5-6 seconds (?) after the column 79 failure, the majority of the penthouse debris reaches and damages the 7th floor. This would impact the East perimeter and East end of the North and South walls.

Now the entire East structure is effectively missing and the Eastern perimeters are damaged, yet still no collapse movement on that side? As the main structure is still standing, supported only by the Western side presumably, which way will forces be acting on those remaining columns? The whole structure has to be ‘pulling’ to the East.

- During the next step, let’s pretend the WTC1 debris had damaged columns 69, 72 and 75. In the next 1-2 seconds (?) the remaining columns, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71 and the approximately 25 external columns for some reason all at once fail.

How can this many columns fail together so quickly? Why do they fall straight down through the path of most resistance when there are undoubtedly sideways forces acting on the columns, rather than falling to the East? With a progression from East to West over an approximately 7 second period, how can the West wall fall at precisely the same time as the East?

Apart from the above questions, where do the beams break as the internal structure ‘detaches itself from the perimeter columns – the fastenings with the internal or perimeter columns? Is it reasonable for this level of failure to occur all the way through 40 floors, especially with no visible effect from outside the building?

The features of the collapse that your explanation doesn't even attempt to address are:

Penthouse collapse method and timing, reason for high-level charges and time delay?

CD set-up surviving damage and fire, any previous example or a CD expert saying it could be done?

CD set-up of occupied building, more than just your usual "security and maintenance staff involved".

Absence of physical evidence of CD, in spite of Jones examining material.

Not your usual frantic hand-waving on these aspects, either, but evidence.

Regarding the penthouse failure, I have explained that initial charges used to weaken the structure ensuring complete collapse are a possible cause. I have shown other controlled demolitions exhibiting these early charges prior to the main collapse, notably the Fort Worth building. I have said the penthouse collapse was not likely a design of these charges but, due to column 79 being more isolated than others, loads were not able to be redistributed and the structure below the penthouse failed. What is your problem with understanding this?

The other issues you mention are not physical characteristics of the collapse; a separate issue to the failure process of the structure. All have been explained and that you personally choose to reject the possibilities is irrelevant.

A car-bomb is going to show physical evidence of explosives, residues and shrapnel holes.

I don’t see any evidence of explosives, residues or shrapnel in the photograph. A tree impact and fire obviously caused the damage :innocent: How can you know from the picture that this was a car bomb?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "witness" reports early on were very "diverse" on the news coverage, to say the least. I am still amazed at the footage showing a massive hole in the north tower, while the talking heads are talking about a "small commuter plane. Then, when the second plane hits, there's discussion of it being "at least a 727".

Now, visually mistaking a stretch 737 with a 767-200 is understandable, but a small commuter or a 727? The commentators and eyewitnesses were out of their league.

But the hole in the North tower says 767, not 737. That, along with the live news footage and the subsequent private videos made available, they were certainly 767s. Without pods or missiles. Airliners with frightened passengers and madmen aboard.

Sorry, LLL, the evidence says big heavy jets. If you have real evidence to the contrary, we'd love to see it. Tarheel, and many others, saw it happen first hand. You can't fake that.

(Tarheel, got bros. on the Outer Banks, haven't been there since the 70s, used to go every summer when it was a "sleepy" place, don't think I could handle the change if I went back today...and knew the Hendersonville area well, back then).

Well, if you go in the "off season" it really is a "sleepy" place. But yeah it's definitely changed since the 70's.

It's truly amazing that people think that if the government is invovled somewhere it's automatically a conspiracy. :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never considered any of these things before, and call me blind but I was unaware of why the government would do anything like this. Of course after reading the first post and all of the attachments I am kinda embarrassed that I even considered the story of 911 to be true in the first place. I am not a uneducated person although I did believe the reports of what happened. Now of course I feel really uninformed.

The question in my mind remains. Was this a form of population control, or what??? It is very amazing the information regarding the heat and collapsing of the towers, and of the terrorists that we found to be alive after they were supposedly to have died.

I just do not know what to think and really feel that I am living in an alternate reality.

Whispering Eagle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning, Eagle,

There are a couple of basic scenarios bouncing around there. One is the "official" story, the one we saw unfold on TV and read about in the papers and Commission report. Some of the information is incomplete, details are missing, with some conflicting accounts. The government/military response was slow, trying to maneuver the government and military into a response to a rapidly unfolding and confusing situation. Mistakes were made, operational procedures were inadequate for the threat that came that morning.

The other scenario, the government conspiracy, assumes airtight operational security, the rapid design, planning, and execution of an incredibly complex multi skyscraper demolition scheme. This includes the selection of demolition experts, secretly installing a large amount of explosives throughout the three enormous skyscrapers, coordinating the preparation and flights of four large airliners. The aircraft impacts into the towers had to be in such a way as to not disable the installed explosives chains in the buildings. Perfect timing and infallable secure communications. This entire operation needed to be completely secret, involving hundreds if not thousands of specialists. There could be no mistakes, no foulups, no leaks whatsoever, with perfect command, control and communications.. And it had to be done in a matter of months, with a brand new administration, and with the previous President's bueracracy in place in the intelligence, political, and administrative positions. The entire government does not "roll over" on election day. It also presumes a evil in government beyond measure. Many point to Operation Northwoods, the "blame it on Cuba" conspiracy. What is seldom mentioned in that case is that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who presented it to the President was quickly fired. Such loose cannons are not well tolerated in the military and government, it showed a dangerous lack of judgement and was not tolerated.

Knowing the way the government and military works, I choose to see the former scenario as more plausable. The terrorists knew our military defenses were small and in a "peacetime" mode. Our operational security was lax, airport security all but non existant. They caught us completely unprepared, knowing the response would be slow, measured, and confused by the rapidly unfolding events. The perfection of the latter, "conspiracy" scenario is beyond reality in my opinion. It resembles TV movies, with absolutely perfect operational C3I. That's not how things work. Hindsight is 20/20, and we can easily see the many systemic flaws and mistakes made that morning. None are surprising. The conspiracy demands no mistakes whatsoever.

The conspiracy theory, like so many, depends on the suspicion and ignorance of the viewer. Folks don't understand why "Mach 2" fighters couldn't zip to the targets while talking to the President for shootdown authority and vectors to target. It "looks like" controlled demolition. Bush and Cheney are evil.

No, it's just not that simple...think, and study, for yourself. Be as suspicious of the conspiracy claims as you are of the "official" story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, when a building across the street falls for no reason, and the "official" report does NOTHING to explain that, none of the other buildings in the area were damaged, alot of money was made, and we go into a 7 year war obviously over oil.

These were not mistakes, plain and simple.

In the various 9/11 plane crashing vids, where do you see debris falling from the buildings? and why then, nearly a year later thousands of pictures of PAPER are suddenly released?

EDIT: i have nothing to gain, i only want to spread what i know.

Edited by Zaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, when a building across the street falls for no reason, and the "official" report does NOTHING to explain that, none of the other buildings in the area were damaged, alot of money was made, and we go into a 7 year war obviously over oil.

These were not mistakes, plain and simple.

In the various 9/11 plane crashing vids, where do you see debris falling from the buildings? and why then, nearly a year later thousands of pictures of PAPER are suddenly released?

EDIT: i have nothing to gain, i only want to spread what i know.

Check again, the other buildings in the complex were demolished in the collapse. Look up the Deusche Bank building, across the way. Also taken down due to damage. WTC7 had been damaged by debris, a "large gash in the face".There was significant fire. You are wrong.

War over oil? Iraq is number 7 in our sources, behind the top 3, Canada, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. You are again wrong and misled.

No debris? There was a lot of debris that fell from the impacts, gobs of it! Plane bits, building bits, body bits. Many were injured and a few killed by it. Read the accounts, man! Look at the many, many videos!The paper "like confetti"was mentioned countless times by eyewitnesses that morning (on the air), some found it eerily pretty. Strike three sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning, Eagle,

There are a couple of basic scenarios bouncing around there. One is the "official" story, the one we saw unfold on TV and read about in the papers and Commission report. Some of the information is incomplete, details are missing, with some conflicting accounts. The government/military response was slow, trying to maneuver the government and military into a response to a rapidly unfolding and confusing situation. Mistakes were made, operational procedures were inadequate for the threat that came that morning.

The other scenario, the government conspiracy, assumes airtight operational security, the rapid design, planning, and execution of an incredibly complex multi skyscraper demolition scheme. This includes the selection of demolition experts, secretly installing a large amount of explosives throughout the three enormous skyscrapers, coordinating the preparation and flights of four large airliners. The aircraft impacts into the towers had to be in such a way as to not disable the installed explosives chains in the buildings. Perfect timing and infallable secure communications. This entire operation needed to be completely secret, involving hundreds if not thousands of specialists. There could be no mistakes, no foulups, no leaks whatsoever, with perfect command, control and communications.. And it had to be done in a matter of months, with a brand new administration, and with the previous President's bueracracy in place in the intelligence, political, and administrative positions. The entire government does not "roll over" on election day. It also presumes a evil in government beyond measure. Many point to Operation Northwoods, the "blame it on Cuba" conspiracy. What is seldom mentioned in that case is that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who presented it to the President was quickly fired. Such loose cannons are not well tolerated in the military and government, it showed a dangerous lack of judgement and was not tolerated.

Knowing the way the government and military works, I choose to see the former scenario as more plausable. The terrorists knew our military defenses were small and in a "peacetime" mode. Our operational security was lax, airport security all but non existant. They caught us completely unprepared, knowing the response would be slow, measured, and confused by the rapidly unfolding events. The perfection of the latter, "conspiracy" scenario is beyond reality in my opinion. It resembles TV movies, with absolutely perfect operational C3I. That's not how things work. Hindsight is 20/20, and we can easily see the many systemic flaws and mistakes made that morning. None are surprising. The conspiracy demands no mistakes whatsoever.

The conspiracy theory, like so many, depends on the suspicion and ignorance of the viewer. Folks don't understand why "Mach 2" fighters couldn't zip to the targets while talking to the President for shootdown authority and vectors to target. It "looks like" controlled demolition. Bush and Cheney are evil.

No, it's just not that simple...think, and study, for yourself. Be as suspicious of the conspiracy claims as you are of the "official" story.

Well reasoned points as ever. Plus, Operation Northwoods was on a quite different scale; it talked about "faking" hijacks of supposedly civilian planes and such like, if I remember rightly. Nowhere was there any intention that US citizens would actually be killed. And that is the major problem with all the conspiracy theories to me: they assume that Bush is on a different level of evil even to Hitler (no one was actually killed in the Reichstag fire), or Stalin. That just seems a fantastic leap of suppostion to me. And it also, as you say, assumes that the Bush administration was the most flawlessly efficient government that's ever stalked the earth; and that, even now, seven years on, every single one of those who were involved in the conspiracy is still keeping quiet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WTCs 4, 5, and 6 were steel-structured buildings, eight or nine stories tall.

As debris fell from WTC 2, the impact collapsed most of WTC 4, and burned one section.

Impacts from the twin towers perimeter columns caused localized collapses and fires in WTCs 5 and 6.

WTC 5 suffered extensive damage.

None suffered progresive collapse, despite localized failures.

linked-image

A burning section of WTC 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these "9/11 conspiracy" threads seem to ignore the fact that there was indeed a conspiracy involved. But the conspirators were Osama, Atta, etc.

Edited by Dowisetrepla
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So despite the collapse of two 110 storey buildings and subsequent debris piles on top of WTC5, as well as an extensive fire...the structure still failed to collapse.

Interesting.

Also to add...I do happen to have the building codes and requirements for high rises and skyscrapers on a disk somewhere(I hope)...I will try and find it and post it soon. Or at least I will try to find the link as to where I found it. That will at least add some extra information to this debate from a structural POV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...here is one file that I have uploaded. I am somewhat new to the rapidshare system...and I do not know how many times I can upload it etc.

If anyone has any other sharing methods or sites let me know please

PM me for the link to the file

ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for buildings and other Structures (pdf format)

Edited by MolonLabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a quick list of the files I was able to find that I have stored:

Civil Handbook Of Structural Engineering

ASCE Interaction of Shear Walls and Frames

ASCE 7-05 Minimum Design Loads for buildings and other Structures

CRC- Structural Engineering Handbook - Chen Wai-Fah -1999

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics Vol.34 Issue 1 Jan 2005

Engineering - Structural - Ansys Tutorials

Engineering - Structural Steel Designer's Handbook (3rd Edition)

Forensic Structural Engineering Handbook

Handbook of Structural Engineering

Maple - Civil & Structural Engineering

Statistics and Probability for Engineering Applications with MS Excel - 2003

Modern Physical Metallurgy and Materials Engineering

Passive And Active Structural Vibration Control Of Civil Engineering

Schaum's Outline - Engineering Statics And Dynamics

Solidworks - Engineering design with Solid Works

Structural Engineering analysis statics2004

Structural Engineering Handbook 2004 - Structural Concrete Design

Structural Engineering Handbook - Basic Theory of Plates and Elastic Stability - E Yamaguchi

Structural Engineering Handbook - Fatigue & Fracture

Structural Engineering Spreadsheets in MS Excel

Engineering Civil Calculator v1.0

I hoard stuff...what can I say :)

Edited by MolonLabe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these "9/11 conspiracy" threads seem to ignore the fact that there was indeed a conspiracy involved. But the conspirators were Osama, Atta, etc.

Ah, no, that's impossible, because "a bunch of Arabs" couldn't possibly be able to learn how to fly a commercial aircraft.

(not my words, that's how some of the conspiracy believers seem to look at it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So despite the collapse of two 110 storey buildings and subsequent debris piles on top of WTC5, as well as an extensive fire...the structure still failed to collapse.

WTCs 4 and 6 were not safe to inspect. WTC 5 had fire damage from the fourth floor to the ninth floor. Those floors had localized collapse from debris impacts and fire.

Those buildings were not affected the same way, or constructed the same way, as the twin towers. WTC 5 had beams, not trusses like the towers. The failure in WTC 5 was in the beam connections. Just the opposite occured in the twin towers- the joints between the trusses and the perimeter columns held fast, snapping the perimeter columns when the trusses experienced thermal sagging and stresses.

The fires may have had one small thing in common. Flammable debris piled up to one side of the twin towers, causing concentrated fires on the structural supports.

In the case of WTC 5, it might be possible collapse happened where flammables were stored in higher concentrations.There was some fire-related buckling, but the beams were not generally twisted or warped. Instead, the failure occured at connection joints.

Examples from a test conducted in Cardington, U.K.-

linked-image

Beam shear buckling, and flange buckling.

linked-image

End plate split.

linked-image

Sheer failure of bolts in fin plate connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of these "9/11 conspiracy" threads seem to ignore the fact that there was indeed a conspiracy involved. But the conspirators were Osama, Atta, etc.

right?!!?!?....did you know that the man that wired atta 100,000 dollars was meeting with porter goss on 9/11??? nevermind the videos of the implosions,eye witness testimony,microsperes,wtc meteorites and ensuing cover-up-- oh yeah ossama's cia codename was tim ossman and he did live in falls church,virginia for a while close to the cia headquarters-- did you know that the leading profiteering defense contractor "the carlyle group" is owned by the queen,osama bin laden's dad and the bushes in that order according to shares? just coincidence????? c'mon just say it

Edited by Sunofone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, no, that's impossible, because "a bunch of Arabs" couldn't possibly be able to learn how to fly a commercial aircraft.

(not my words, that's how some of the conspiracy believers seem to look at it.)

learning how to fly it and hi jacking one youve never been in,turn off tracking/navigation instruments,navigate across mutiple states staring into a windshield full of clouds then deciding at the perfect moment to pull a 330 degree bank,while descending 7000ft in just two and a half minutes perfectly leveling off to strike the "SIDE" of the pentagon with out scraping the lawn IS QUITE ANOTHER STORY!! why dont you consult some actual pilots here is a link with many experts ready to give their opinions

pilotsfor911truth.org

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.