9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed...

[SFC Ollie]

Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.

We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
DUH?

And you don't question it with certain points of logic which would seem to make that explanation questionable in itself. You just accept it as gospel because it came from the government.

I realize that there's engineers who said that's how it happened...but there's also engineers who said that doesn't make sense.

So I remain skeptical.

Paulie, I've looked at all their videos, i've read the official reports, I saw "Loose change" a year before I ever heard about "Fuck Loose Change". Their stories just don't add up.......
They have zero proof that anything other than something very very close to the official investigations are correct.

 

[SAYIT]

Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.

We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
DUH?

And you don't question it with certain points of logic which would seem to make that explanation questionable in itself. You just accept it as gospel because it came from the government.

I realize that there's engineers who said that's how it happened...but there's also engineers who said that doesn't make sense.

So I remain skeptical.

Lame Straw Man argument.
Sarge, like virtually all norms here, has repeatedly posted he finds the NIST report more credible because the CT BS reads like CT BS.
To date there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None. You do the math.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm not sure which is stronger....

the smell of your bullshit, or the smell of you meltdown.

That smell is your upper lip, moron.

You're too stupid to know what 'building mechanics' are, same as Ollie, but it sounded good to your uneducated ears, so you applauded it and demonstrated your ignorance for ALL of us to see.

Take a fucking hike, loser...

You mean building mechanics doesn't include fire alarms and fire-fighting systems or did you conveniently forget them, Princess. Did the study take into account the length of time the fires would burn, the number of floors impacted by the plane and fires, and the effect of the crash on the sprinkler system?

Fire alarms are part of the electrical system and sprinklers, while on a totally separate system, are part of the plumbing, so no, I didn't 'forget' anything, conveniently or otherwise, Bitchlet.

Since no one has proven the fires got hot enough to affect the structural integrity of the truss system it didn't matter how long they burned. The sprinkler system being disabled by the crash also wouldn't make a bit of difference, so your 'point' is pointless.

 

[SAYIT]

That smell is your upper lip, moron.

You're too stupid to know what 'building mechanics' are, same as Ollie, but it sounded good to your uneducated ears, so you applauded it and demonstrated your ignorance for ALL of us to see.

Take a fucking hike, loser...

You mean building mechanics doesn't include fire alarms and fire-fighting systems or did you conveniently forget them, Princess. Did the study take into account the length of time the fires would burn, the number of floors impacted by the plane and fires, and the effect of the crash on the sprinkler system?

Fire alarms are part of the electrical system and sprinklers, while on a totally separate system, are part of the plumbing, so no, I didn't 'forget' anything, conveniently or otherwise, Bitchlet.

Since no one has proven the fires got hot enough to affect the structural integrity of the truss system it didn't matter how long they burned. The sprinkler system being disabled by the crash also wouldn't make a bit of difference, so your 'point' is pointless.

The fires were, in the words of Skilling, a bigger concern than an impacting airliner. The engineer's fears proved to be prescient and the NIST report confirmed it.
"The fires were hot enough to weaken the columns and cause floors to sag, pulling perimeter columns inward and reducing their ability to support the mass of the building above."
WTC Disaster Study

 

[Paulie]

Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.

We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
DUH?

And you don't question it with certain points of logic which would seem to make that explanation questionable in itself. You just accept it as gospel because it came from the government.

I realize that there's engineers who said that's how it happened...but there's also engineers who said that doesn't make sense.

So I remain skeptical.

Lame Straw Man argument.
Sarge, like virtually all norms here, has repeatedly posted he finds the NIST report more credible because the CT BS reads like CT BS.
To date there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None. You do the math.

It isn't an either/or situation. In life, there's gray area. It's highly possible neither are right.

 

[Paulie]

I'm not claiming that because the government explanation might not be 100% correct that it must mean there was explosives.

And I'm not so sure you can say there's zero evidence of a cover-up. The 9.11 report was an insult. Does that mean cover-up? No one can say for sure...but with that kind of hack job it's amazing that there are people who STILL won't question the government's explanations.

 

[Paulie]

And that's all I'm gonna say on this topic. Because at the end of the day I really don't give a fuck. They could come out and announce on national TV that it was an inside job and what's would happen? NOTHING. People would revolt, they'd be killed or imprisoned, and the government who has bigger guns than us would win.

There's no point in worrying about this shit. Just live your life and try and enjoy it. There's already so much wrong with this government that we KNOW about, that shit is already FUBAR.

 

[SAYIT]

And you don't question it with certain points of logic which would seem to make that explanation questionable in itself. You just accept it as gospel because it came from the government.

I realize that there's engineers who said that's how it happened...but there's also engineers who said that doesn't make sense.

So I remain skeptical.

Lame Straw Man argument.
Sarge, like virtually all norms here, has repeatedly posted he finds the NIST report more credible because the CT BS reads like CT BS.
To date there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None. You do the math.

It isn't an either/or situation. In life, there's gray area. It's highly possible neither are right.

Fine but it's been 11+ years and as already established there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None.

 

[SAYIT]

I'm not claiming that because the government explanation might not be 100% correct that it must mean there was explosives.

And I'm not so sure you can say there's zero evidence of a cover-up. The 9.11 report was an insult. Does that mean cover-up? No one can say for sure...but with that kind of hack job it's amazing that there are people who STILL won't question the government's explanations.

Are you claiming the Commission was involved in some sort of conspiracy?

 

[GuyPinestra]

I'm not claiming that because the government explanation might not be 100% correct that it must mean there was explosives.

And I'm not so sure you can say there's zero evidence of a cover-up. The 9.11 report was an insult. Does that mean cover-up? No one can say for sure...but with that kind of hack job it's amazing that there are people who STILL won't question the government's explanations.

Are you claiming the Commission was involved in some sort of conspiracy?

I'm claiming they didn't see ALL the evidence or hear ALL the testimony.

I'm claiming they didn't WANT to.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Lame Straw Man argument.
Sarge, like virtually all norms here, has repeatedly posted he finds the NIST report more credible because the CT BS reads like CT BS.
To date there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None. You do the math.

It isn't an either/or situation. In life, there's gray area. It's highly possible neither are right.

Fine but it's been 11+ years and as already established there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None.

You wont find what you're not looking for, and they've admitted they weren't looking.
Much of what was taken may have contained something, but it will never be known, since it was hauled away, and they weren't looking for evidence of explosives, or incendiaries.
It is possible that such a highly secret, and nefarious operation would not use conventional CD rigging anyway.
We've gone round on this with Ollie many times.
Besides all one needs to know that something, whatever it may have been, was used, is the way they physically, fell down, in rapid succession.
But again this is what you try to steer the discussion away from.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Sagging trusses, the buildings being pulled in.......

Got any explanations for this other than what the official investigations have shown?

Fires testing by NIST to prove this guess, failed. The tests are results are available in the NIST link some pages back. The truss theory is a fail. Whatever failed them could not have been the temps from the kerosene fires.

And you can't deny it because it is visible evidence. The buildings bowed inward.

Fire as the cause is doubtful, if they even bowed. So which is it bowed in, or bowed out?

Plus if I remember correctly there was someone on the 105th floor who reported to a 911 operator that floors below him had collapsed 20 minutes before the buildings came down.... Now I don't remember where I heard that and don't know how he could have known this but it is interesting....

Bottom line is you still can't show what in the NIST report makes their guess so conclusive.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Who said anything about melted steel? According to the Tower's lead structural engineer "The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable..."
Nobody mentioned melted steel - just weakened enough to cause the collapse.

Talk about 'hyperbole-laden'...

'Raging' fires.... Nope, not when a woman can stand there and stick her mug out of the hole the plane created.

"Unimaginable' temperatures.... Only if you lack all trace of imagination. The smoke from the fires indicated low temperatures, in the 650-750 C range.

The comments are those of the Tower's lead structural engineer. How do they differ than Skilling's description of the now 50 year old study of a plane crash fire as "horrendous?"
What you still don't have is any evidence of rigging for demo, none of explosives, none that anything other those airliners attacked the Towers and none of a conspiracy and cover-up. In short, you got nuttin'.

The science and physics betray their theory, and your strawman argument.
NIST has not proven that their theory is plausible, does not account for Newtons law, conservation of momentum, etc. Including fires affects on steel= 15-20 second collapses=BS.

 

[Mr. Jones]

I'm not claiming that because the government explanation might not be 100% correct that it must mean there was explosives.

And I'm not so sure you can say there's zero evidence of a cover-up. The 9.11 report was an insult. Does that mean cover-up? No one can say for sure...but with that kind of hack job it's amazing that there are people who STILL won't question the government's explanations.

Are you claiming the Commission was involved in some sort of conspiracy?

A cover up conspiracy. Haven't you read what some of the panelists have said regarding it?

 

[Mr. Jones]

And that's all I'm gonna say on this topic. Because at the end of the day I really don't give a fuck. They could come out and announce on national TV that it was an inside job and what's would happen? NOTHING. People would revolt, they'd be killed or imprisoned, and the government who has bigger guns than us would win.

There's no point in worrying about this shit. Just live your life and try and enjoy it. There's already so much wrong with this government that we KNOW about, that shit is already FUBAR.

It is about awareness now. The more people that look at their government officials, and media with skepticism the better. It's no coincidence gun sales have sky rocketed recently.
Awareness of the criminality must start at the ground roots level, and local government. The falseness of the OCT including the NIST report, and who is calling shots for American foreign policy and where their loyalties are is very important as well.

The awareness starts with the OCT itself. Those that actually are concerned with their nation, will take an interest, and educate themselves on what the main issue is all about.
It's been generations of mass programming, but I am glad many are waking up, and are aware of what's been done, who was involved, and what needs to be about it.

All of those that are pro OCT, and NIST have posted their views in this thread, but none have answered in detail what it is about the NIST reports ie: what proof within it there is that justifies their adherence to it.

We have posted papers, links, and easy understood videos and explanations that discredit their OCT, and NIST reports, and they have not done likewise.

 

[Mr. Jones]

Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.

We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
DUH?

Does the NIST report back up your claim Ollie? Please show us where, and why you beilieve in something you admit to not even understanding?


All of you.....Please post the reason why the towers came down so fast and only experienced a very minimal resistance to the collapsing upper part.
Do you go with the "pancake" theory, or the "crush down, crush up" theory? Which is it?

 

[Mr. Jones]

If you cannot accept the NIST report, what is your answer then? What happened on 9-11-01?

All we know for sure is that there was something else that must have been used to facilitate the destruction of the towers and WTC7. Why? because they came down with incredible speed, and showed very minimal resistance to the collapsing parts.
The towers exploded, ejecting tons of material away from the collapse fronts. This material could not have been used as any added weight to burden the lower structures with. If each floor gave was to the immediate upper one, this would have taken significantly more time.Why?
Because the lower parts were undamaged by plane impacts or fire, and they were designed in a tapered manner. ie: thicker and heavier in the bottoms and middle, and thinner at the tops.
Kinetic energy is a good reason to use, but as I mentioned, the larger mass, would have been expected to momentarily halt the collapse fronts, and it should have been visibly apparent.
Energy can only be used once. It can not crush and overcome the lowers, and also have the reserve energy to eject tons of perimeter walling.

It has to be asked-
Is there any evidence that the columns reached 800 deg C? to cause the trusses to fail?
If the collapse was started by columns getting too hot, we would expect to see some initial slow, sagging movement. Was that observed?
It is crucial to the NIST/Bazant hypothesis that the falling block deliver its kinetic energy to the lower section. To do so it must retain its structure. Is that what the videos show?
If a falling block existed, and delivered a damaging blow to the lower section, we would expect to see a reduction in its acceleration at the moment of impact. Did this occur?

If these are not observed, then it must be concluded that there was something else in play that assisted the collapses.
NIST has failed in two of its objectives. It has failed to find forensic evidence of the necessary high temperatures in the steel, and it has failed to find, by model testing, that an essential component of their theory, sagging floor trusses, was valid.

It is clear that the top block, far from being a rigid hammer, was disintegrating and cannot possibly provide the impact which Bazant and Zhou/NIST have calculated and depended on. There was a mass of fragmented material falling, which can deliver many very small blows but we can predict that it will be unable to deliver a blow representing its total mass, as the official story requires.
They fell down too fast to overcome the undamaged lower, and NIST and the others have not provided evidence that their theory is correct.

If the top block were to deliver destructive energy through impact to the lower portion of the building, the energy consumed would result in a reduction in its acceleration. No such reduction can be detected, as shown in the paper by MacQeen and Szamboti, The Missing Jolt.
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf


This is the only proof that is needed something else was involved. One can only do what NIST did, and that is supply a logical guess as to what that might have been.
You wont find det cord or wiring as it is well known most of the det cord (if it was even used) would have been consumed in a CD anyway.

It seems you OCT people have run out of strawmen to use, so hows about directing your attacks on what I am asking and pointing out instead?

 

[PredFan]

If you cannot accept the NIST report, what is your answer then? What happened on 9-11-01?

I'm not claiming I KNOW what happened, I only know that the NIST report is not much more than half-baked, unsubstantiated, unPROVEable conjecture.

That is why we need a NEW investigation, one that doesn't protect the 'sacred cow' of government.

Hmmm...I think it would be a waste of money. Unless you actually think the government was in on it, why would we really need to know EXACTLY what happened?

 

[PredFan]

Point is that the planes and only the planes caused the buildings to fail and fall. There has been no proof shown here to refute that.

We now have one telling us that the government is wrong but they don't know why.......
DUH?

And you don't question it with certain points of logic which would seem to make that explanation questionable in itself. You just accept it as gospel because it came from the government.

I realize that there's engineers who said that's how it happened...but there's also engineers who said that doesn't make sense.

So I remain skeptical.

Lame Straw Man argument.
Sarge, like virtually all norms here, has repeatedly posted he finds the NIST report more credible because the CT BS reads like CT BS.
To date there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None. You do the math.

Agreed. Again Occam's Razor. The simplest and most logical explanation, though not perfect by any means, is the NIST report. It might be sketchy but it makes more sense than the CTs.

 

[PredFan]

And you don't question it with certain points of logic which would seem to make that explanation questionable in itself. You just accept it as gospel because it came from the government.

I realize that there's engineers who said that's how it happened...but there's also engineers who said that doesn't make sense.

So I remain skeptical.

Lame Straw Man argument.
Sarge, like virtually all norms here, has repeatedly posted he finds the NIST report more credible because the CT BS reads like CT BS.
To date there has been found no evidence of demo rigging or explosives and none of a gov't/media conspiracy or cover-up. None. You do the math.

It isn't an either/or situation. In life, there's gray area. It's highly possible neither are right.

And I doubt the NIST theory is 100% correct. It's just makes 100% more sense than any of the CTs I've heard.