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

[PredFan]

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?

All you're doing is knocking holes in the NIST's theory, and neither I nor many engineers agree with you. Poking holes in the official investigation is easy, proving any kind of grand conspiracy is not. We saw the planes hit and we saw the towers fall. I myself will accept that the towers fell because of the impact from the planes and the subsequent fires. If I'm to believe that something or someone else was involved, that will have to be proven to me and you cannot do that by simply poking holes in the NIST's investigation.

just because YOU find what you see as holes or inconsistancies in the investigation doesn't prove any kind of conspiracy, it only proves government ineptitude, which i will agree with 100%

If you think it was an inside job then prove it, or at least for me, come up with a theory.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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?

All you're doing is knocking holes in the NIST's theory, and neither I nor many engineers agree with you. Poking holes in the official investigation is easy, proving any kind of grand conspiracy is not. We saw the planes hit and we saw the towers fall. I myself will accept that the towers fell because of the impact from the planes and the subsequent fires. If I'm to believe that something or someone else was involved, that will have to be proven to me and you cannot do that by simply poking holes in the NIST's investigation.

just because YOU find what you see as holes or inconsistancies in the investigation doesn't prove any kind of conspiracy, it only proves government ineptitude, which i will agree with 100%

If you think it was an inside job then prove it, or at least for me, come up with a theory.

The 'theory' you ask for is in the video that started this thread, Pred...

 

[SAYIT]

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.

Woo. You speculate about some special, super secret something-or-other as the agent of the Towers' destruction. Of course, nothing was found and there is far more credibility in the known factors, imperfect or incomplete or as they may be, than your baseless speculation.
There is no need for anyone to steer discussion away from your assumptions ... they are yours to post as you see fit. I may believe the moon is made of gouda cheese but I wouldn't post it publically.

 

[SFC Ollie]

The buildings bowed inward, there is visible proof of this fact.

The only explanation is that the steel trusses bent to allow this to happen.

The only thing that could have bent the trusses is heat.

Carry on...........

 

[LA RAM FAN]

two farts in a row from the agent trolls. and four farts in a row from frady cat brainwashed Bush dupe NONPAID troll predfan before Guys last post as well.

 

[PredFan]

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?

All you're doing is knocking holes in the NIST's theory, and neither I nor many engineers agree with you. Poking holes in the official investigation is easy, proving any kind of grand conspiracy is not. We saw the planes hit and we saw the towers fall. I myself will accept that the towers fell because of the impact from the planes and the subsequent fires. If I'm to believe that something or someone else was involved, that will have to be proven to me and you cannot do that by simply poking holes in the NIST's investigation.

just because YOU find what you see as holes or inconsistancies in the investigation doesn't prove any kind of conspiracy, it only proves government ineptitude, which i will agree with 100%

If you think it was an inside job then prove it, or at least for me, come up with a theory.

The 'theory' you ask for is in the video that started this thread, Pred...

But he didn't start this thread and that was 1200+ posts ago.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

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?

All you're doing is knocking holes in the NIST's theory, and neither I nor many engineers agree with you. Poking holes in the official investigation is easy, proving any kind of grand conspiracy is not. We saw the planes hit and we saw the towers fall. I myself will accept that the towers fell because of the impact from the planes and the subsequent fires. If I'm to believe that something or someone else was involved, that will have to be proven to me and you cannot do that by simply poking holes in the NIST's investigation.

just because YOU find what you see as holes or inconsistancies in the investigation doesn't prove any kind of conspiracy, it only proves government ineptitude, which i will agree with 100%

If you think it was an inside job then prove it, or at least for me, come up with a theory.

The 'theory' you ask for is in the video that started this thread, Pred...

Predfan like all frady cat Bush dupes in denial always proves he has no debating skills and only sees what he wants to see.the bush dupes in denial like him and the paid shills that have penetraed this site like sayIt and Gomer Ollie,cowardly run away with their tails between their legs anytime you challenge them to debunk facts in videos dismissing them not being true as youtube videos.

according to the logic of people lie PREDFAN troll,the twin towers never collapsed because guess what? its on youtube and youtube is always wrong in everything they show.

these guys with their debating skills they have ignoring facts in videos would not last ONE MINUTE in a debating hall and would be laughed out of it within that time frame as well.

 

[PredFan]

If anyone is trying to say that the towers were rigged with explosives then that is the most outlandish and improbable theory of all. The holes in that theory are so large you could fly a passenger jet through them.

Occam's Razor still applies to what happened on 9-11.

 

[GuyPinestra]

All you're doing is knocking holes in the NIST's theory, and neither I nor many engineers agree with you. Poking holes in the official investigation is easy, proving any kind of grand conspiracy is not. We saw the planes hit and we saw the towers fall. I myself will accept that the towers fell because of the impact from the planes and the subsequent fires. If I'm to believe that something or someone else was involved, that will have to be proven to me and you cannot do that by simply poking holes in the NIST's investigation.

just because YOU find what you see as holes or inconsistancies in the investigation doesn't prove any kind of conspiracy, it only proves government ineptitude, which i will agree with 100%

If you think it was an inside job then prove it, or at least for me, come up with a theory.

The 'theory' you ask for is in the video that started this thread, Pred...

But he didn't start this thread and that was 1200+ posts ago.

Please don't tell me that Page 1 is too hard to find....

 

[LA RAM FAN]

The 'theory' you ask for is in the video that started this thread, Pred...

But he didn't start this thread and that was 1200+ posts ago.

Please don't tell me that Page 1 is too hard to find....

Him and Gomer Ollie dont know how to click on a link or video.

you might mention to them as well that its been spelled out to them in dummie style in the first two posts on this thread on page one as well.

 

[PredFan]

The 'theory' you ask for is in the video that started this thread, Pred...

But he didn't start this thread and that was 1200+ posts ago.

Please don't tell me that Page 1 is too hard to find....

Dude calm down. I was responding to Mr.Jones and I'm not going to assume that he's still, after all this time, talking about the OP. He didn't start the thread, so does he subscribe to the video's theory? I can't assume that he does.

 

[GuyPinestra]

But he didn't start this thread and that was 1200+ posts ago.

Please don't tell me that Page 1 is too hard to find....

Dude calm down. I was responding to Mr.Jones and I'm not going to assume that he's still, after all this time, talking about the OP. He didn't start the thread, so does he subscribe to the video's theory? I can't assume that he does.

Fair enough, carry on...

 

[candycorn]

Any word on what took down the light poles if it wasn't AA77?

 

[SFC Ollie]

The taxi driver took one of them, he was going to sell it for scrap..........

 

[Gamolon]

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.

You STILL don't get it do you? Even after explaining it to you multiple times.

Tapered, thicker, heavier columns have nothing to do with the individual connections failing due to the force of the upper section/debris pile hitting floors and such. The force sheared those connections..

Are you saying that the floor truss connections were designed to resist the force of the descending upper block?

Please explain how you think the lower components should have resisted. Which components?

 

[Gamolon]

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.

Really? So if I dropped a pile of gravel on your head, it wouldn't hurt a bit because the pile was composed of fragmented material?

 

[Gamolon]

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

Total garbage.

The connections within the buildings could not hold up to the force of the falling debris.

 

[Gamolon]

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.

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

Get your shit straight. NIST clearly says in their paper that they aren't sure if the results scale up to the actual size of the floor trusses.

Also, was there any deflection of bowing of the trusses at any time reported in their report?

What caused the perimeter columns to pull inward?

 

[Gamolon]

Yes, I'm VERY sure. 'Building mechanics' has not a flipping thing to do with structure, building mechanics is the HVAC, power delivery and plumbing.

You need to get a clue.

Building mechanics, structural mechanics. Same thing.

Mechanics of Building Structures - Kyoto University, Department of Architecture and Architectural Engineering
Civil and Environmental Engineering - Structural Mechanics

 

[Gamolon]

"Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed," he said. "The building structure would still be there."

Robertson said they didn't do any analysis as far as how a fire would effect the structure.