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 -
darkbreed

911: Professional experts says it was staged

512 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

booNyzarC

I love all these so predictable comments by people with the engineering credentials to understand that which they speak to (sic).

We keep coming back to CD rather than an understanding of the fact that these so-called "squibs" are natural effects from hundreds of tons of pressure from above pushing smoke and air out of the windows of the floors below as progressive collapse happens.

Jesus, the entire first floor lobby windows of the North Tower were blown out when first responders entered the building! They found a woman on fire in that lobby burning!

Why?

CD?

Fools. The jet fuel from above had compressed down the elevator and had exploded out into the lobby! It blew the glass out, and one poor woman was ignited on fire by it.

My God, does it ever end?

Does anyone ever think about what happened up there that day in New York, or does distrust of Government and these nonsense ideas just so completely dominate the frontal lobes of these folks that they simply can't bother to learn about the facts? Is it simply so impossible to fathom such a thing happening that we must resort to idiotic ideas rather than bother to learn?

You think that all engineeers and such are people of integrity, and not capable of being infected by the draw of publicity and the ignorance of masses of people who think they're right?

Explosions heard in the buildings. Hell I heard them on the films made inside the towers!

"Jesus What the hell is that?" I heard from the firefighters.

Crashing bangs...sounded like hell. Made you twitch! ("What the ****," the firemen said as they ducked...) And it repeated itself time and time again until the towers fell.

It was representative of the roughly 200 lives that ended as human bodies crashed into structure, after jumping to their deaths rather than burn 8 or 900 feet above! The blood in the streets bore witness...

i don't get this idiocy.

What we should be doing is what real engineers did. Understand, and design to prevent it from ever happening again.

What we should be doing is honoring all those who lost their lives on that terrible, terrible day 10 years ago, and resolve never to sleep as we did then.

1500 folks huh?

How about the tens of thousands of real engineers and scientists who disagree?

Doesn't mean much when you weant to believe in idiocy, I suppose?

I couldn't agree more MID. I just wish that more people had this kind of common sense.

Personally, I find the whole 9/11 truth movement to be an exercise in deception. It makes me wonder if the masterminds behind the conspiracy theories are the same a-holes who choreographed the attacks themselves.

I don't know about anyone else, but I spent the weekend watching 9/11 tribute shows. Survivors. Audio tapes. Ground Zero responders. People in the towers who described what they saw and experienced. What did they see? Absolute carnage. Floors that were off kilter after the impact and initial explosions. Doors that wouldn't open because the structure of those floors was so thrown out of whack. Raging fires above and below the impact zone. Rubble everywhere, including support beams. Stairwells and elevator shafts destroyed, impassable, and filled with structural material.

How obvious can it get?

Planes were crashed into the towers and the explosive damage from the impact caused the eventual collapse. If there had been explosives in there for a controlled demolition, wouldn't the planes crashing have ignited those demolitions and initiated an immediate collapse or destroyed the wiring required to remotely detonate it?

I usually steer clear of these threads because of how emotional I get about this subject. It just p***es me off to no end that there appear to be so many people ready to p*** on the memory of this tragedy by creating a conspiracy theory out of it. I find that disgusting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

I know some air defense and NORAD stuff. Been there, done that...a lot. [Michael Ruppert] is certainly no expert in the air defense business.

Anyone can give a put down line. Let's get down to specifics; -why- do you feel that Michael Ruppert is "certainly no expert in the air defense business"?

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

Are you saying that the U.S. could have been attacked by any outside airforce that day. What if the Russians decided to fly bombers that day. hmmm.

i don't think so, i think the argument is that the air defenses were designed to look outwards, to look for something coming in from outside, rather than to track things within the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

I don't know about anyone else, but I spent the weekend watching 9/11 tribute shows. Survivors. Audio tapes. Ground Zero responders. People in the towers who described what they saw and experienced. What did they see? Absolute carnage. Floors that were off kilter after the impact and initial explosions. Doors that wouldn't open because the structure of those floors was so thrown out of whack. Raging fires above and below the impact zone. Rubble everywhere, including support beams. Stairwells and elevator shafts destroyed, impassable, and filled with structural material.

How obvious can it get?

How obvious indeed. You just don't understand what becomes obvious from the statements you've just made. What becomes obvious is that the planes couldn't have made such extensive damage. If, on the other hand, explosives had been placed beforehand in elevator shafts and other places, it makes much more sense. The basement of one of the towers, for instance, which had its first explosion a second or so -before- the plane hit it above, according to William Rodriguez, one of the workers at the WTC, and one of the last survivors out of the buildings. Here's him stating what he saw:

Planes were crashed into the towers and the explosive damage from the impact caused the eventual collapse. If there had been explosives in there for a controlled demolition, wouldn't the planes crashing have ignited those demolitions and initiated an immediate collapse or destroyed the wiring required to remotely detonate it?

The initial crashes may well have detonated -some- of the explosives, but not all of them; they didn't hit the whole building, after all, only a part of it. The fact that you're asking whether it would have done it instead of stating that it would have is a good sign; it suggests that you yourself aren't sure, which is always better then pretending that you're sure. Tell me booN, are you an architect or an engineer with some serious knowledge as to what can and can't be done with explosives? Judging by your statement, I seriously doubt it. It's ok to not be knowledgeable as long as you can admit it. The reason for this is that once you admit that you don't know something, you can proceed to learning that which you don't know. You may wish to start with the very group that this thread is about: the site of the 1,500 architects and engineers who want the government to begin a new investigation of 9/11. Here's a link to the evidence they've gathered that demonstrates why the building had to have been rigged with explosives; they have shorter and longer videos, depending on how much you wish to learn:

http://www.ae911trut...n/evidence.html

I usually steer clear of these threads because of how emotional I get about this subject. It just p***es me off to no end that there appear to be so many people ready to p*** on the memory of this tragedy by creating a conspiracy theory out of it. I find that disgusting.

Emotions can be very good at times, but at times they can blind us to the truth. Sometimes, to learn the truth, you need to just focus on the evidence. I wish you the best of luck.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

i don't think so, i think the argument is that the air defenses were designed to look outwards, to look for something coming in from outside, rather than to track things within the U.S.

That's the official story argument, yes. The reality is much different. I strongly recommend you take a look at veteran reporter Barrie Zwicker's documentary on 9/11, entitled The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw. Here's a good introduction that explains what truly happened in regards to the US Air Defense capability:

Barrie Zwicker: Welcome back to The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw. The events of 9/11 begin with aircraft going wildly off-course. Incredibly, despite radar tracking for almost two hours, the whole of the mighty US Air Force goes AWOL that morning. It's a mind-bending anomaly. Not a single US Air Force interceptor turns a wheel until it's too late. There are no jets at all. It's a matter of historical record. That could happen only two ways. Either it was staggering multiple simultaneous coincidental incompetence at all levels in many agencies, defying known laws of averages, a 54-million-to-one chance, which is the 9/11 Commission official story. [Or] there's another explanation: the US Air Force is neutralized by design. The evidence indicates this is about a one-to-one chance.

Feel free to watch the rest of the documentary here:

http://video.google....571017565436923

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Space Commander Travis

See booN, it's ok not to be knowledgeable as long as you can admit it. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
I've heard it said that they used thermite, but there's no evidence for that
I don't think you can say there is no evidence.

have you read Niel Harrit's paper?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13049

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

iron oxide and elemental aluminium intermixed at the nanoscale that produces molten iron on ignition.

that is exactly thermite.

except for molten metal which can be any metal

that looks like lava?

is something that looks like lava to be expected in fire situations?

this group of experienced firefighters are surpised and puzzled by it, which suggests they have never seen it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mitchall

It's been a decade now... screw it! The "Man" might have lied to us *GASP!".

Were you part of it ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

Are you saying that the U.S. could have been attacked by any outside airforce that day. What if the Russians decided to fly bombers that day. Are you saying that when transponders are disabled that doesn`t raise a red flag. Are you saying that planes flying around for an hour with disabled transponders didn`t make one go hmmm.

What was the timeline from the first plane being confirmed hijacked due to onboard phone calles to the last plane crashing. Even though the transponders on 4 planes going off course was not reported. They were tracked on radar no matter there transponders or was it that the entire east coast of the United states lost radar.

Plane transponders are also turned off when landing or in an electrical failure. On that day NORAD wasn't alerted the moment it happened. They had to be alerted by the FAA. NORAD had all their focus looking outward.

Even being tracked on radar, without a transponder it is just an unlabled return. With all the other traffic if you're not looking for it it is easy to lose. That doesn't even take into account the clutter, random single radar returns of weather or ground objects that every radar has. The computer will do its best with various algorithims to eliminate excess clutter but it can never get rid of all of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
frenat

i don't think so, i think the argument is that the air defenses were designed to look outwards, to look for something coming in from outside, rather than to track things within the U.S.

That's exactly it.

Here's the radar they used

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/arsr-4.htm

Notice the locations on the map?

At the time NORAD didn't have any radar feeds or screens looking inward. They do now. At the time they had to rely on the FAA for guidance inward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robbie333

911Truth: Architects & Engineers agree it was staged controlled demolition

Experts Speak Out. Altogether more than 1,500 Architects & Engineers that have signed the calling for a new investigation of the destruction of the 3 buildings in WTC , 911.

Source:

http://conspiraciesf...?num=1315022038

VIDEO EMBED

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=player_embedded

... and darkbreed is not one to start anything. The buildings were hit by two large planes and fell down. Vast quanitys of jet fuel, heat, metal, huge weight and weakening of the structure. JMO

Edited by Robbie333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish
The buildings were hit by two large planes and fell down.
two skyscrapers were hit by 2 planes, one plane crashed in shankesville before reaching its target. 3 skyscrapers fell down. was the MO bombs and planes in each building?
Vast quanitys of jet fuel
majority of which burnt up on impact. compared to the size of the buildings, it was not vast.
heat
fire doesn't bring skyscrapers down. never before or since when hundreds of skyscrapers have burnt for longer and more fiercely.
, metal, huge weight
twin towers had safety factor of 4:1, and wtc7 had SF of 3:1, meaning the towers were built to hold up 4 and 3 times the weight, so huge weight yes, but compared to the safety factor not huge. the SF were huge compared to other buildings.
and weakening of the structure.
the planes caused only a few core columns to be cut as per simulations done by NIST, not enough to seriously weaken its structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bildr

i hope this hasn't been post before but;

more and more people are thinking that it was a false flag.

[March 07, 2010] Iranian president: 9/11 was 'big lie'

Edited by Bildr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie
Vast quanitys of jet fuel, heat, metal, huge weight and weakening of the structure. JMO

Here is an image showing you the amount of fuel that was available in comparison to the size of the towers.

See that litte dot at the side of the towers, that's how much fuel there was. Nothing like vast quantities I'm afraid, even though most of it was consumed in the fireballs.

post-94025-0-73172600-1315938808_thumb.j

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie

He also thinks there was no holocaust, and that not cheating during elections ruins all the fun of having elections.

President Bush also thinks there is no such thing as evolution, that the world is only a few thousand years old, and that by not cheating during elections, ruins all the fun of having elections too.

You should always address the argument and not the arguer, even if he denies the holocaust or even evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robbie333

two skyscrapers were hit by 2 planes, one plane crashed in shankesville before reaching its target. 3 skyscrapers fell down. was the MO bombs and planes in each building?

majority of which burnt up on impact. compared to the size of the buildings, it was not vast.

fire doesn't bring skyscrapers down. never before or since when hundreds of skyscrapers have burnt for longer and more fiercely.

twin towers had safety factor of 4:1, and wtc7 had SF of 3:1, meaning the towers were built to hold up 4 and 3 times the weight, so huge weight yes, but compared to the safety factor not huge. the SF were huge compared to other buildings.

the planes caused only a few core columns to be cut as per simulations done by NIST, not enough to seriously weaken its structure.

Okay LF. I will bite on this one. I am always open to learning the truth. It was my opinion that when a large plane such as these hit the towers I look at it this way. Plane hits tower and destroyes or weakens the area it hit by heat and weight. The above weight came down upon this area and created a well, domino effect. Okay, have at it, LOL. Take a look at this if you would. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Edited by Robbie333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MID

Here is an image showing you the amount of fuel that was available in comparison to the size of the towers.

See that litte dot at the side of the towers, that's how much fuel there was. Nothing like vast quantities I'm afraid, even though most of it was consumed in the fireballs.

The volume of fuel was a bit over 20,000 gallons per tower.

20,000 gallons of high energy JP-4, almost 4000 cubic feet of it, enough to fill a hallway 60 feet wide, 8 feet tall, and 8 feet wide.

Your picture is just a little off. You'd need 4 / ~30 foot long tanker trucks to hold that amount of fuel.

Add that exploding, expanding, burning mess to all the fuel inside the structures and you've got a recipe for an inferno, which is what we saw.

The piciture is ridiculously off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robbie333

The volume of fuel was a bit over 20,000 gallons per tower.

20,000 gallons of high energy JP-4, almost 4000 cubic feet of it, enough to fill a hallway 60 feet wide, 8 feet tall, and 8 feet wide.

Your picture is just a little off. You'd need 4 / ~30 foot long tanker trucks to hold that amount of fuel.

Add that exploding, expanding, burning mess to all the fuel inside the structures and you've got a recipe for an inferno, which is what we saw.

The piciture is ridiculously off.

Thank you, I need the help, LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zenfahr

I may be wrong, but aren't skyscrapers built to withstand being hit by an airplanes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

I may be wrong, but aren't skyscrapers built to withstand being hit by an airplanes?

Not necessarily. There are so many variables that cannot be accounted for in the design to make the statement "this building is built to withstand airplane collisions" virtually meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafterman

is it a numbers game? I like the statement made before.... where are the 1500+ experts who actually aggree with the findings.

Yes, it is a numbers game. If an insignificant number of people believe something, what does it matter.

As I said before, I can probably find 1,500 people who believe I can blow poodles out of my ass.

As for those who believe it, I would argue that if they're not in that 1,500, they do agree with the findings.

At least every architect I've spoken with about it have no issues at all with the official version of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
portraitartist

Yes, it is a numbers game. If an insignificant number of people believe something, what does it matter.

As I said before, I can probably find 1,500 people who believe I can blow poodles out of my ass.

As for those who believe it, I would argue that if they're not in that 1,500, they do agree with the findings.

At least every architect I've spoken with about it have no issues at all with the official version of events.

"poodles out your a**" omg lol, I do love your humor rafter and I am in agreement with you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stundie

The volume of fuel was a bit over 20,000 gallons per tower.

The NIST didn't use that value, I seem to think it was between 9000-10000 gallons.

A quick wiki check...

Flight 175 crashed into the southern facade of South Tower of the World Trade Center (Tower 2) at 9:03:02, traveling at approximately 586 mph (943 km/h)[20] and striking between floors 77 and 85 with approximately 10,000 U.S. gallons (8,300 imp gal; 38,000 L) of jet fuel on board

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

The aircraft, traveling at about 404 knots (465 mph; 748 km/h) and carrying about 10,000 U.S. gallons (8,300 imp gal; 38,000 L) of jet fuel, hit between the 93rd and 99th floors of the North Tower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11

And the size of the fuel is in correct proportion to the WTC, based on the figures from the NIST.

Share this post


Link to post
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.