15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[HoughMade]

Tried? Sure, but they'd certainly never have succeeded so spectacularly without considerable inside help.

In fact, they couldn't have accomplished nearly what the government narrative claims at all - nobody could.

Put bluntly- BS. I'm sure they exceeded their wildest expectations regarding the damage they caused (and why that occurred has been explained ad nauseum), but getting into position to cause that damage was not a deep pull. Not in the least.

 

[ATM]

Each tower was 110 stories tall. AA11 hit the North Tower between the 93rd and 99th floors. So, at least 10 floors of structure remained above the point of impact. UA175 hit the SOuth Tower between the 77th and 85th floors, so at least 15 stories of structure above that point.

10 to 15 floors of structure dropping 10 feet will collapse the floor immediately below it. Add that to the moving debris, and the momentum increases.

...and the core columns those floors break free from remain unscathed, reaching to the sky with a large pile of floors stacked up as a mountain of rubble several stories high at their base, right?

Don't feel bad, that's the part the original pancake theory model left out, too (15 years ago) ...and that's the reason it was quickly dismissed since it didn't describe what occurred.

A block of ice vs. several million tons of concrete and steel? Really?

Fine, do it with several million tons of concrete and steel, but no explosives. I just figured scaling would make the fundamental demonstration simpler and easier to do at home, more of a classroom experiment style test.

Which fundamentals you're counting on wouldn't work the same on a scaled model?

 

[Alpo]

Ummm. The buildings weighed about 500,000 tons each. Not "several million tons".

You do recognize that the volume of the building was comprised of greater than 90% air?

 

[ATM]

...Why did it take longer for the first tower hit to fall?
...

Why did any of the three towers fall would be a better question. And not just fall, how did they almost completely pulverize themselves into dust? And how did any portion achieve free-fall acceleration while using so much energy to pulverize all that solid resistance beneath?

Ask better questions, get more important answers.

 

[Alpo]

You don't understand physics or construction, so you don't recognize that your question is nonsense.

 

[ATM]

Ummm. The buildings weighed about 500,000 tons each. Not "several million tons".

You do recognize that the volume of the building was comprised of greater than 90% air?

I only suggested a simple experiment, but he's welcome to use as many tons as he can afford.

 

[Woobie]

What do you mean by lack of evidence? The manner in which those three buildings fell simply screams demolition and refutes the implausible NIST explanation soundly. Have you seen this contrary evidence or would you like a link? Demolition is simply one of the easiest things to prove or disprove from the evidence the government couldn't contain. NIST didn't even attempt to disprove it which is rather telling as well. When you see other buildings demolished in a rather tidy fashion by demolition crews, do you ever wonder if maybe it just caught on fire and got weak? No, that would be preposterous.



A bit more telling than that to be casually dismissed. NIST made the actual claim that they found no evidence of explosives. Only when questioned did they admit that they had not tested for evidence of explosives. That was an attempt to mislead, not casual oversight, another big flag that this was not an investigation but narrative crafting and support.



Showing that the most plausible explanation was avoided on purpose serves to expose the effort to offer another conclusion despite where the evidence would lead. It disproves legitimate investigation and exposes agenda. That, my friend, is described as a cover-up.



It is a major pillar because it is so blatant, the easiest to show people who are willing to see. The falser movement cant refute it, only dismiss it. That's not a handicap.

Look at how easily I hold my own on this one part of the puzzle against several naysayers. I can only hope discussion of other components of the cover up are more challenging if we ever get to them.

Really, you should either try defending NIST or abandon their fanciful theory that you once thought sufficient to adopt. There is plenty of contrary evidence on this one.

I don't care about NIST. I have no interest in defending them. You want to call them all liars? It doesn't hurt my feelings even a little. They probably are. But I haven't seen a better theory. So I must be looking at different evidence than you, because so far the stuff I've seen that disputes the airplane/weakened structure theory just hasn't held up that well. There are holes in the investigation, but since when did the government do anything right? Every other theory presupposes that the government acted in a seamlessly coordinated, perfectly planned and executed manner, which I frankly have never experienced. My theory only has to presuppose they aren't capable of properly handling an investigation.

 

[ATM]

Put bluntly- BS. I'm sure they exceeded their wildest expectations regarding the damage they caused (and why that occurred has been explained ad nauseum), but getting into position to cause that damage was not a deep pull. Not in the least.

Are you sure about that? Getting a huge jet airliner into the perfect position to slam into the pentagon exactly as described in the government theory, that was no deep pull? For a beginner pilot who had trouble handling a small prop plane? Did I mention it was the pentagon? Breaching that heavily defended airspace was no deep pull?

And you called BS on me?

I could go on, but I need to sleep. I'll check back this evening.

 

[ATM]

You don't understand physics or construction, so you don't recognize that your question is nonsense.

NIST avoided it too, don't feel bad. Those questions have one easy answer BTW. You're just not willing to admit it.

 

[Alpo]

Yes: Physics.

Bye. You are not the first to raise the conspiracy theory and likely not the last. It does put you into a group of "thinkers" that I failed to recognize by your posts on other subjects.

That, to me, is a shame.

 

[ATM]

I don't care about NIST. I have no interest in defending them. You want to call them all liars? It doesn't hurt my feelings even a little. They probably are. But I haven't seen a better theory. So I must be looking at different evidence than you, because so far the stuff I've seen that disputes the airplane/weakened structure theory just hasn't held up that well. There are holes in the investigation, but since when did the government do anything right? Every other theory presupposes that the government acted in a seamlessly coordinated, perfectly planned and executed manner, which I frankly have never experienced. My theory only has to presuppose they aren't capable of properly handling an investigation.

But you would have bought your own implausible theories earlier if I hadn't refuted them. How much scrutiny did you give the government's implausible theories? How much scrutiny have you applied to refutations of that theory or competing theories?

I pointed to a rather concrete example of NIST's purposeful attempted misdirection, which they were called out on, why would you dismiss that and choose to believe simple incompetence now?

 

[ATM]

Yes: Physics.

Bye. You are not the first to raise the conspiracy theory and likely not the last. It does put you into a group of "thinkers" that I failed to recognize by your posts on other subjects.

That, to me, is a shame.

Our government/media actually proposed the first conspiracy theory, but you're right, they weren't the last, nor do I believe, the most plausible. In fact, the government theory strikes me as more deceitful than some of the most fanciful versions out there truly believed and proposed by real oddballs. Because I don't think for a second the government believes the narrative they handed you.

If thinking is a shame, I'd like to be shamefully thought of. Have a good day, all.

 

[skulhedface]

Never sat right with me that you can't ask any questions about 9/11 without being ridiculed and everybody climbing on their high horse because, you know...physics.

Building 7. No jet fuel, no impact. Why did it fall?

 

[SteveM4A1]

Never sat right with me that you can't ask any questions about 9/11 without being ridiculed and everybody climbing on their high horse because, you know...physics.

Building 7. No jet fuel, no impact. Why did it fall?

Fire.

 

[JollyMon]

Never sat right with me that you can't ask any questions about 9/11 without being ridiculed and everybody climbing on their high horse because, you know...physics.

Building 7. No jet fuel, no impact. Why did it fall?

Well, it had two 100 story structures collapse onto top of it when caused structural damage as well as fires...... and let see, they left it burning further weaking the structure. But you know..... Bush did it.

 

[Alpo]

The Marriott hotel was smooshed. No jets. No fire.

CONSPIRACY!!!!!

 

[skulhedface]

Well, it had two 100 story structures collapse onto top of it when caused structural damage as well as fires...... and let see, they left it burning further weaking the structure. But you know..... Bush did it.

And somehow the forgotten buildings between the twin towers and building 7 didn't suffer the same fate. Because, fire. Appreciate the condescension though.

 

[Alpo]

Your question appeared to not be one asked after extensive reading on the net (which ATM has accomplished, at a minimum).

So, your question is either lazy ignorance or inadequately expressed. Which is it?

 

[JollyMon]

And somehow the forgotten buildings between the twin towers and building 7 didn't suffer the same fate. Because, fire. Appreciate the condescension though.

The 22 story Marriott was crushed by one of the towers...and WTC 4 and WTC 6..... But nice try ... Shall I continue.... Also some buildings were deconstructed after due to the damage of smoke, water, and mold..... But Bush did that too

 

[Woobie]

But you would have bought your own implausible theories earlier if I hadn't refuted them. How much scrutiny did you give the government's implausible theories? How much scrutiny have you applied to refutations of that theory or competing theories?

I pointed to a rather concrete example of NIST's purposeful attempted misdirection, which they were called out on, why would you dismiss that and choose to believe simple incompetence now?

Look back. I have proclaimed incompetence since my first post in this thread. Maybe you should read what is said and not what you think you want it to say.

If you don't start trying harder, I'm going to be insulted. Right now you're just embarrassing yourself.

Oh, and fuses are often not faster than breakers. You have to look at the design. You haven't refuted the contribution of electricity, except maybe in your own mind.