15 years of deception; 9/11 reviewed

[Woobie]

Exactly....and we all know that if something was "designed to withstand" a certain force, it is absolutely, positively going to be able to withstand that impact.

...I will be sure to let my friends who do products liability defense know this.

I think it did withstand the force. The top of the building didn't fly off at impact. But the weakened structure was not going to take the impact and the fire both.

 

[rhino]

The other night I was goofing around with a little blade I was making, and decided to do my own heat treat. I was able to get it up over 1425 degrees with a small propane torch. And propane doesn't burn that hot. Did I melt it? Of course not, steel melts at a much higher temperature. But it is exceptionally easy to bend at that temperature. All the jet fuel and other combustibles had to do was burn hot enough for the structure to become pliable. At that point, the millions of pounds on top of it does the rest.

And not even that pliable. It just had to compromise the yield strength of a short section or two enough for the columns to start buckling. After that, gravity takes over and you get that classic pancake failure.

 

[Alpo]

Exactly....and we all know that if something was "designed to withstand" a certain force, it is absolutely, positively going to be able to withstand that impact.

...I will be sure to let my friends who do products liability defense know this.

Well, there can be errors in the design, materials and/or fabrication. For example, the Citibank Building in NYC. The architect didn't model for quartering winds. A Princeton undergrad asked a question about such winds and after the designer recovered from shock, they retrofitted bracing in the building. But, had the question not been asked, a power failure and winds above 60 knots (say, a Cat 1 hurricane) could have toppled the building quite easily. I've only been in that building once and would not advise anyone to take a job working there.

 

[david890]

The government gave us one theory, and though other theories seem far more plausible to me, we'll still likely never know all the details.

Let's say someone pulls a Snowden and dumps EVERY record available. It shows Bush, Cheney, the Saudis, etc. all in on the plot, so that Bush/Cheney could invade Iraq and finish what his daddy didn't. A false flag; a COMPLETE cover-up. You've been right the whole time.

What would YOU do? What could thousands or millions of Americans do?

If the govt is evil enough to pull off something like that, they're smart enough to have contingencies in case the plot is exposed.

Millions rioting in the street? Fine. The govt shuts off the power. No Internet, no TV, no radio, no fuel, no money, food goes bad, etc. The govt tells people to go home and STFU, or they'll keep the power off for a month. They were willing to kill 3000+; they'll have no problem killing 30K or 300K.

My point is this: if there were a chance for average Americans to regain control of the govt, that time was LONG before 9/11. Probably about the time Eisenhower left office and warned us all about the Military-Industrial Complex.

 

[bobzilla]

So... if jet fuel can't weaken steel, how did blacksmith's in the dark ages make blades of steel? Or armor? I mean, we're talking about a ton of heat being applied to a contained area tat was already structurally weakened by a massive blow. So what DOES make steel weak?

 

[rhino]

So... if jet fuel can't weaken steel, how did blacksmith's in the dark ages make blades of steel? Or armor? I mean, we're talking about a ton of heat being applied to a contained area tat was already structurally weakened by a massive blow. So what DOES make steel weak?

Rosie O'Donnell.

 

[david890]

All I know is that not a single Shabbos goy was on the job that fateful Tuesday and that can't have been a coincidence.

Shabbos goy? You mean "a non-Jew who performs certain types of work which Jewish religious law enjoins the Jew from doing on the Sabbath."?

Huh. Didn't realize Tuesday was the Jewish Sabbath....

 

[bobzilla]

Rosie O'Donnell.

Touche

 

[HoughMade]

I wish more people had a sense of humor.

 

[BugI02]

See its the same aliens who killed JFk, Lincoln, started WW!, own all the money in the world, and run The Illuminati.

Well, you know flying saucers are really time machines (tip of the hat to Miller)

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I wish more people had a sense of humor.

I see you are new to INGO. Welcome.

 

[Captain Bligh]

Some of you people scare me.

 

[Alpo]

Some of you people scare me.

That's why they have full cavity searches at INGO meet & greets.

 

[Hoosierkav]

Did the video discuss the lack of a plane at the Pentagon?

 

[Vigilant]

That's why they have full cavity searches at INGO meet & greets.

And no dentists, or dental hygienists? Suspicious I say!

 

[ATM]

From the majority of comments, I must assume that most of you, like NIST, chose not to examine for evidence beyond that which you wanted to find.

Pancake theory? What is this, 2001? That hasn't needed refuted again for over a decade. What would have brought down the core columns those floors would have detached themselves from? (Those massive core columns were missing from the simple graphic which first introduced that short-lived theory).

Steel only needs softened to lose strength? How does that attempt to explain the molten steel? How does that explain the sudden, symmetrical, absolute pulverization of such a huge percentage of undamaged, sound structure beneath the areas of damage? You know, the small areas that actually sustained and dispersed all that energy you like to calculate, just as they were designed to do.

The buildings had shrugged off that initial damage. Then, later, they just demolished themselves in the manner we saw? Right!

Does it really seem plausible to anyone that a small section at the top could demolish everything beneath it, all the way to the ground, through all that undamaged structure (certainly a path of great resistance) at nearly the speed of free-fall (very little resistance) without demolishing itself very early in the process?

Did you all quit thinking about this stuff 15 years ago when the media first mentioned Bin Laden? Was that it?

So much dismissal. Why? What is the motivation to dismiss? Our government covers up so many things it is SOP for them to do so. How was this event different?

In fact, we know they covered up certain aspects of 9/11, but the rest of the narrative is somehow trustworthy? Why is anything they claimed accepted as truth?

Please do try harder folks. The pulse of INGO on this topic is rapid and weak. Take some deep breaths, have a sports drink and come on back.

 

[david890]

Does it really seem plausible to anyone that a small section at the top could demolish everything beneath it, all the way to the ground, through all that undamaged structure (certainly a path of great resistance) at nearly the speed of free-fall (very little resistance) without demolishing itself very early in the process?

Someone doesn't understand how momentum works...

 

[david890]

From the majority of comments, I must assume that most of you, like NIST, chose not to examine for evidence beyond that which you wanted to find.

Kettle, meet pot.

 

[ATM]

This is more where I sit on it. I'm not going to be confrontational to skeptics... that wouldn't fit me, a natural skeptic. I'm also not going to shut them down or declare the thread junk because I think they're crazy.

I'm open to ideas and discussion on the subject. I believe most of what we see happened is what happened... but I'm happy to entertain alternative views. ATM isn't a nutjob, I'm a fan of him. I'd be interested in hearing what he thinks happened, and comparing that with what I believe is plausible.

I don't think we'll ever know what happened, too much evidence was secreted away and destroyed. I find the 'official' theory to be among the least plausible of the many out there for various reasons.
We know there was a cover-up, the only uncertainty relates to the magnitude.

I don't intend in this thread to support any particular competing theories, only to discredit the official one and further expose the cover-up attempt.

Trust me, that's enough to make most Americans lose their cool.

Outside of America, this is more readily accepted as fact.

 

[ATM]

Someone doesn't understand how momentum works...

By all means, school me. Show how that would be plausible. That should be easy because ...momentum, right?

Try a demonstration. Drop a small block of ice onto a large column of ice. Let's see how far the top block of ice demolishes the column beneath it.

All the way to the ground? You win.

If it stops shortly with minimal damage to both objects or, more likely, the block topples off the column (as we'd expect), I win.

Go!