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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

Originally Posted by knight31

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?

My questions weren't really aimed at you - i don't expect you to be able to answer them - just thinking out loud, trying to put forth the relevant questions. There ARE people that could answer some of them - who knows, maybe a member of this site works on a demolition team?

I wasn't suggesting it was the job of employees to monitor engineers or anything like that - I was more thinking when the employees walked back into their offices the day after the powerdown, were things normal? Were there scraps of wire strewn all over the floors, or signs that something major had been done? Some people entered and then left before the buildings came down - I wonder if any of them ever mentioned seeing signs of weird tampering in the halls or offices?

Would it be enough to destroy just the central core? Id think to ensure a clean demolition they'd have to blow the outer walls too.

Yes, the collapse looked very much like controlled demolition. But I'm no expert - I'm a complete layman - hell a complete noob! I don't know what happens when such a tall building is struck by a large plane - I have never seen anything similar to compare it to, nor do I know anything about structural dynamics involved. So conceding to complete lack of relevant knowledge I'll refrain from making assumptions.

I did hear recently that scientists eventually figured out the steel didn't actually need to be liquefied - just stressed and heated enough to soften sufficiently. This could have been accomplished by vibrations from impact. Again, I don't know, just conjecturing.

Experts are stumped - I doubt a couple of complete neophytes talking on a message board are going to figure out anything they haven't.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Nanothermite was found in the debris. Nanothermite can be painted on the walls leaving no wiring, no drilled holes or any other trace. It does not become volatile until it dries.

Nanothermite. Hmmm... is it transparent? Does it have a strong odor? That must have left smells and visible traces that every employee would instantly notice when they walked into their rooms. Were any such reports made I wonder? (again just conjecturing - I don't expect you to answer Omnis).

How is nanothermite triggered? Would it still require wiring run all through the building? Or maybe it is enough just to blow the core to bring the whole building down, in which case this whole line of questioning about the state of the offices whn the employees walked in is irrelevant. Still I can't help but wonder out loud here.

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

My questions weren't really aimed at you - i don't expect you to be able to answer them - just thinking out loud, trying to put forth the relevant questions. There ARE people that could answer some of them - who knows, maybe a member of this site works on a demolition team?

I wasn't suggesting it was the job of employees to monitor engineers or anything like that - I was more thinking when the employees walked back into their offices the day after the powerdown, were things normal? Were there scraps of wire strewn all over the floors, or signs that something major had been done? Some people entered and then left before the buildings came down - I wonder if any of them ever mentioned seeing signs of weird tampering in the halls or offices?

Would it be enough to destroy just the central core? Id think to ensure a clean demolition they'd have to blow the outer walls too.

Yes, the collapse looked very much like controlled demolition. But I'm no expert - I'm a complete layman - hell a complete noob! I don't know what happens when such a tall building is struck by a large plane - I have never seen anything similar to compare it to, nor do I know anything about structural dynamics involved. So conceding to complete lack of relevant knowledge I'll refrain from making assumptions.

I did hear recently that scientists eventually figured out the steel didn't actually need to be liquefied - just stressed and heated enough to soften sufficiently. This could have been accomplished by vibrations from impact. Again, I don't know, just conjecturing.

Experts are stumped - I doubt a couple of complete neophytes talking on a message board are going to figure out anything they haven't.



Nanothermite. Hmmm... is it transparent? Does it have a strong odor? That must have left smells and visible traces that every employee would instantly notice when they walked into their rooms. Were any such reports made I wonder? (again just conjecturing - I don't expect you to answer Omnis).

How is nanothermite triggered? Would it still require wiring run all through the building? Or maybe it is enough just to blow the core to bring the whole building down, in which case this whole line of questioning about the state of the offices whn the employees walked in is irrelevant. Still I can't help but wonder out loud here.

It seems to be very exotic, very expensive and very unnoticeable. It is triggered by a high degree of flame. If you've ever made a thermite, they basically take a jet lighter to light. I'm assuming a similar temperature is required for nanothermite. For the building to be a controlled demolition, wiring and such would have to be required. However, the pancake effect of the falls suggest they didn't bother wiring a demolition, just limited the nanothermite to the lower levels and let the heat work its way down.

Nanothermite was found in the debris. Nanothermite can be painted on the walls leaving no wiring, no drilled holes or any other trace. It does not become volatile until it dries.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Nanothermite was found in the debris. Nanothermite can be painted on the walls leaving no wiring, no drilled holes or any other trace. It does not become volatile until it dries.

"Nanothermite", huh? Making it sound fancy to fool the people that don't know shit about chemistry? Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and a reducing agent, usually aluminum. I don't suppose you might find iron oxide dust in a collapsing building? Hmm...

Also, thermite is not used for demolition. It's sometimes used to cut metal, but not to bring down buildings. Furthermore, the "Truthers" claim to have seen explosions, which would not occur during a thermite reaction, which is not explosive.