Thread: Do you think 9/11 was staged?

At this point it honestly doesn't matter WHY it happened to me. We need to seriously reconsider our foreign policy. If our GOVERNMENT wrote the letter from Osama as a cover... they had a lot of good points.

If Osama wrote it... he had a lot of good points. Maybe we should listen to what he said.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

At this point it honestly doesn't matter WHY it happened to me. We need to seriously reconsider our foreign policy. If our GOVERNMENT wrote the letter from Osama as a cover... they had a lot of good points.

If Osama wrote it... he had a lot of good points. Maybe we should listen to what he said.

This is also true, in fact the biggest sell for me that it was terrorists was Osama's very believable account as to why he attacked us. We're over there. If we fight over there, we bankrupt ourselves in foreign wars. His strategy was to engage us in futile guerrilla warfare until we were so stretched we could no longer sustain ourselves.

His strategy was to unbalance the US economy?

Err what? I said his plan was too provoke us into exhausting our resources in foreign wars.

As far as I can tell, US financial mismanagement is the reason the wars can't be maintained. They didn't run out of bullets.

I really don't think Bin Laden cared about your 'resources'. He wanted to change world history and attract people to his cause. He hated the US and so he attacked it.

He hated the US... based on all of the reasons he said he hated the US. Our "Freedom and ways of life" were not reasons. In fact he wanted freedom for his own people. He supports freedom... and thinks that America is oppressive. Indeed, we are.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver If you want to read what he said, here it is.

He did recommend that Americans become Muslim, which was a little extreme, but everything else is very logical. He even said he would use diplomacy with us for mutual benefit and to come to a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Xei

As far as I can tell, US financial mismanagement is the reason the wars can't be maintained. They didn't run out of bullets.

Bullets cost money.

If the top part of the building fell in 10 seconds (9-ish seconds would have been free fall) where is the extra energy coming from to collapse every consecutive floor down the tower? And if the impact of the South tower occurred to the columns on the south-east side (the building even leans in that direction for a moment as it begins to fall) how likely is it for structural failure to occur in the columns on the opposite side once the building picks up speed in the direction of the original failure? The top of the building should have fallen towards the side of the impact, but instead we saw a completely symmetrical, global failure of the tower. How?

Before everyone screams that the fire was hot enough to weaken the steel beams to the point of failure (the Windsor Tower burned for over 20 hours and did not suffer anywhere near global collapse), we should ask ourselves why this lady is standing in one of the impact holes, apparently alive and not burned to ashes.

Are you guys saying that the buildings are going down at "free-fall speeds" on crack? You can clearly see debris around the building dropping faster than the structure itself.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Are you guys saying that the buildings are going down at "free-fall speeds" on crack? You can clearly see debris around the building dropping faster than the structure itself.

To me it honestly looks like something on top suddenly collapsed or a bomb exploded on top, then a split second after a controlled demolition occurs. I feel like I can remember it very vividly without watching a video but maybe I should check again.

Are you guys saying that the buildings are going down at "free-fall speeds" on crack? You can clearly see debris around the building dropping faster than the structure itself.

Well they didn't come down at free fall, as you can see with the debris. The 9/11 commission put the estimate at 10 seconds. I don't know anything about physics, so I can't say if that is fast or not for a building of that size. However it seems like the floors below should have greatly slowed the descent.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Are you guys saying that the buildings are going down at "free-fall speeds" on crack? You can clearly see debris around the building dropping faster than the structure itself.

Originally Posted by Invader

building fell in 10 seconds (9-ish seconds would have been free fall)

Glad I had that base covered yo.

Originally Posted by Invader

Glad I had that base covered yo.

I'll give you a chance to show how you came up with those numbers before I prove you wrong.

And the debris was actually being propelled downwards by a coating of doublet Higgs Bosons which was sprayed on prior to the collision.

Originally Posted by cmind

Building 7 was actually a controlled demolition due to damage suffered from the collapse of 1 and 2.

You are half correct. A controlled demolition yes. But not because it was somehow damaged. Fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. What should disturb you about this is two things. Firstly it's impossible to plan a controlled demolition in the space of a few hours from when the attacks happened. No-one would admit its normal to plan a demolition of building 7 days before the towers were even attacked. The attack had not even happened when they would have had to set it up the demolition. If you realized that and were not bias and more sensible you might have the ability to stop and think "hang on what was even inside building 7 and what was it used for?".

Buildng 7 : At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.

I would also add that to say such a thing as cmind has said bout wtc7 without thinking anything is suspicious you would have to fail to grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper and its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, and the illegality of such an operation. But people will believe anything that suits them so its not always about what makes sense but what they want to believe. So even if such a thing was grasped, they may want to ignore it.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

I'll give you a chance to show how you came up with those numbers before I prove you wrong.

I used the kinematic equation: X = X₀ + v₀t + (1/2)at²
If we call the height of the tower the origin, X₀=0 and since initial velocity of course is 0 that leaves us with
X = (1/2)at².
Rearranged this is: t = sqrt((1/2)X/a), where displacement X is 415 meters (distance between the roof of the shorter tower and the ground) and a is the gravitational constant 9.8 m/s².
Plugging these values in gives us a free-fall time of 9.2 seconds.

For the observed fall-time of the tower, I used a stop-watch.

I'd like to see the physics proven wrong, so go ahead.

On the collapse of the towers

Both Steven Jones, and an engineer from MIT cover the in-depth scientific impossibilities of fire bringing the gigantic North and South Towers down. But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two? The notion is, of course, absurd. So why is it not also absurd in the case of the Twin Towers - which were designed specifically to support the impact of an airplane?

9/11 - Hard Facts, Hard Truth | The Twin Towers

Originally Posted by Invader

I used the kinematic equation: X = X₀ + v₀t + (1/2)at²
If we call the height of the tower the origin, X₀=0 and since initial velocity of course is 0 that leaves us with
X = (1/2)at².
Rearranged this is: t = sqrt((1/2)X/a), where displacement X is 415 meters (distance between the roof of the shorter tower and the ground) and a is the gravitational constant 9.8 m/s².
Plugging these values in gives us a free-fall time of 9.2 seconds.

For the observed fall-time of the tower, I used a stop-watch.

I'd like to see the physics proven wrong, so go ahead.

I don't disagree with your physics, I disagree with your stopwatch.

World Trade Center Collapse NBC - YouTube

You can see the antenna start dropping at 0:53. At 1:03 you can clearly see the majority of the building still above the surrounding skyscrapers with large chunks of surviving concrete not falling out of view until 1:12. A large section of the building's metal core stays up for another 10 seconds after that before completely collapsing. By comparison the falling debris around the tower is falling much faster.

But simpler logic works as well. If fire from kerosene (jet fuel) and office debris were sufficient equipment to bring a steel-frame building neatly down into its footprint, then why the need for the intensely sophisticated demolition industry? And all its fancy crews and engineering techniques? Why not, when a building needs tearing down, just spread some jet fuel on a few floors, light a match, and stand back for an hour or two?

Lol seriously?

Stopwatch is not the most accurate way to measure, but there are seismographs that recorded the events that corroborate the 10 second mark.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/WTC_20010911.html
The rumble from the collapse at least appears to taper off at around 10 seconds, there looks to be some residual rumble. At 1:02 in the video the rest of the tower is obstructed from view, and much of what is falling in the air at that point is moving much slower than the debris that fell previously. Lighter, more air resistant pieces of material? I have heard reports of as high as 18 seconds for the building to fall, but the seismic evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

You don't even needs equations to figure out the speed of the fall. Steel skyscrapers don't fall neatly down from a fire. Does anyone really believe the towers were so flimsily built that an airplane could make it collapse like a pack of cards. This is a massive steel skyscraper designed for multiple impacts. Not something made of plastic that melts and collapses. The idea that one floor could drop neatly down onto the other pushing the next one and next one perfectly down to the ground. That is like something out of a cartoon.

So you think it's less ridiculous that somehow a huge demolition crew managed to sneak in and prep the towers perfectly without anyone noticing?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

So you think it's less ridiculous that somehow a huge demolition crew managed to sneak in and prep the towers perfectly without anyone noticing?

there was a ‘power down’ on the week-end prior to September 11 for approximately 24 to 36 hours. During this period, he says, “there was a complete breakdown of security that weekend because of the power down.

Forbes said they had been notified 3 or 4 weeks in advance by the Port Authority-NY/NJ about this power down and that it was “extreme and unprecedented.” He also said that “without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower.”

you're telling me that isn't suspicious an unprecedented extreme power down with many engineers coming in and out with no security. Shortly before the attacks.

World Trade Center Employee Discusses pre 9-11 Power Downs | 9-11 News | World for 9/11 Truth

Well dayum - that DOES sound suspicious!!

I had never heard about it before. However, that's Tower 2, only from floor 50 up. Other ideas that occur to me - How many engineers would it take, and how long, to fully prep a building that size? And keep in mind, somehow they'd have to do it in such a way that the employees coming into their offices the next day wouldn't notice any det cord or drilled holes or anything. For a controlled demolition, it seems they pretty much have to drill holes in every wall of every room and run det cord all over. How would it be possible to conceal all that? And especially in such a short timeframe?

And then - what about Tower 1 and the lower 60 stories of Tower 2?

Another question that occurs - were employees allowed on the upper 50 stories of Tower 2 on the day of 9-11?

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

Well dayum - that DOES sound suspicious!!

I had never heard about it before. However, that's Tower 2, only from floor 50 up. Other ideas that occur to me - How many engineers would it take, and how long, to fully prep a building that size? And keep in mind, somehow they'd have to do it in such a way that the employees coming into their offices the next day wouldn't notice any det cord or drilled holes or anything. For a controlled demolition, it seems they pretty much have to drill holes in every wall of every room and run det cord all over. How would it be possible to conceal all that? And especially in such a short timeframe?

And then - what about Tower 1 and the lower 60 stories of Tower 2?

Another question that occurs - were employees allowed on the upper 50 stories of Tower 2 on the day of 9-11?

yeah I'm not claiming to know how it was done, what knowledge do you have of the towers construction or what it takes to bring it down? Other than you have to drill holes and run cord around. its not employees job to monitor engineers and they would hardly be doing it next to their office but within the walls of the cable system internally. Ofcourse I will assume it has been demolished rather than it fell down though. Have you seen the collapse its an explosive event its not accidentally falling down how would that even be possible?