9/11 Truth for Dummies: Wrap Your Head Around One Thing

[Psalm 91]

How are you convinced of the legitimacy of the spiritual world based on personal thoughts and feelings, but not convinced that the 9/11 attacks were a terrorist attack despite video footage of planes striking the buildings and despite video footage of the group claiming responsibility?

Can you refresh my memory of what I said concerning the spiritual world?
I've always had questions since 9/11. I was at work and saw the second building get hit. As the first one fell, I wondered how it could fall so fast. Then when they showed the Pentagon after the supposed plane hit I wondered where the plane was. Same with the field in Pennsylvania with a little confetti thrown on it. I've always had doubts but my question about my doubts was, where are the people who were scheduled to be on those planes if they didn't really hit the Pentagon and the field? I also questioned Bldg. 7 since it came down like an implosion with the two ends pointing toward the middle so it could fall in it's own footprint. And the owner, Larry Silverstein, said he gave the order to "pull it". How could they do that unless the building was already wired for demolition. I had read shortly after 9/11 that there was a problem with asbestos in the twin towers so the owners, I think, the Port Authority had considered demolition but they ended up selling them to Silverstein. Actually, the WTC towers fell like an implosion, straight down and very fast. I also think that if it fell because of the heat, as fast as it fell, there would be big chunks of concrete, but there is mostly dust. Where were the flattened desks and chairs? There was nothing but dust and steel.

It's been twelve years, don't any of you feel guilty when 9/11 comes around each year? I do. I couldn't see it then but each year I get a little more sadness and a little more restlessness. I'll watch all of the 9/11 programming on cable again because I don't want to forget that day. But I think this year it will be "eerier" than in the past. Maybe because of what is going on in Syria and Egypt and what if they are just the American gov't. bluffing us again. What if the U.S. gave the gas to the rebels? Sounds crazy, but so does two huge high-rises getting hit by planes and falling to the ground in seconds because of 19 Arabs with boxcutters. I just don't trust the government anymore and I was one who put my flag out every day at the request of George Bush after 9/11. I defended him to the Bush-haters, but I no longer respect him.

 

[ManFromUncle]

So....

If the WTC was a controlled demolition, how did the conspirators get all the explosives, wiring and control gear into a building used 24x7, sight unseen?
Why use a controlled demolition at all when a large explosion would have a similar effect propaganda-wise?
If the WTC was a controlled demolition, why the need for hijackers to fly the planes into the building at all?

Guess it's easier to pretend you didn't see the part in the post about how Marvin Bush, GW's little brother, had the security contract for the WTC right up till 9/11. That gives you 24/7 access to the entire complex.

As to how no one noticed, anyone who asks that must be from some cow town where they roll up the sidewalks at 6pm, and never seen New York City. There is as much activitiy in the streets at 3 in the morning as at 5pm, with delivery trucks, work crews, maintenance crews coming and going from multiple garage ports at all times. It really is the "city that never sleeps." No one knows what other people are doing and no one cares.

October 1996: Security Firm with Connections to Bush Family Acquires Security Contract for World Trade Center

Marvin Bush. [Source: Eric Draper / White House]A security company called Stratesec acquires an $8.3 million contract to help provide security at the World Trade Center. It is one of numerous contractors hired in the upgrade of security at the WTC following the 1993 bombing. Stratesec, which was formerly called Securacom, is responsible for installing the “security-description plan”—the layout of the electronic security system—at the World Trade Center. It has a “completion contract” to provide some of the center’s security “up to the day the buildings fell down,” according to Barry McDaniel, its CEO.

Directors Include Bush Family Member - Marvin P. Bush, the youngest brother of future President George W. Bush, is a director at Stratesec from 1993 to June 2000, when most of its work on these big projects is done. Wirt D. Walker III, a distant relative of George W. Bush, is chairman of the board at Stratesec from 1992, and its CEO from 1999 until January 2002.

And a large explosion wouldn't have had the same impact. We were going to invade Iraq. They needed an awful hole in the NYC skyline, the nation's "eyeteeth knocked out," to remind people constantly that people "hated us for our freedoms," one of the most ridiculous things ever said by George Bush, and he has said many.

We are still giving up our liberties because of that hole in the NYC skyline.

 

[GenetoJean]

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall It took longer than 9.whatever seconds to fall.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Guess it's easier to pretend you didn't see the part in the post about how Marvin Bush, GW's little brother, had the security contract for the WTC right up till 9/11. That gives you 24/7 access to the entire complex. .

So now more people are in on the conspiracy. Simply being a guy that owns the company that has the contract doesn't make all the people who work for your firm suddenly not notice people accessing a building in mysterious circumstances at all times of the day and night.

And what about the guards, the security cameras (on the WTC and other buildings), the people in the loading docks, the WTC maintenance personnel? Are they blind, or are they in on it too?

As to how no one noticed, anyone who asks that must be from some cow town where they roll up the sidewalks at 6pm, and never seen New York City.

I'm pretty sure most people would notice a lot of engineering works going on in their building for weeks at a time right before the attacks. And even if they dismissed it at the time, they would think about it afterwards.

And a large explosion wouldn't have had the same impact. We were going to invade Iraq. They needed an awful hole in the NYC skyline...

Just like they didn't need to invade Iraq in 1990.

Or to bomb Libya in 1986. Or put troops in Lebanon in 1982. Or Grenada in 1983. Or Panama in 1989. Or to bomb Yugoslavia in 1999.

Strange how all these other attacks didn't need a "hole in the NYC skyline"

 

[Psalm 91]

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall It took longer than 9.whatever seconds to fall.

I would still think that it would take longer to fall if it were a free fall from melted steel beams. The initial effect is of an implosion. I know they were big buildings but doesn't the velocity have an effect on that fountain of sand or dust coming out from the building, or isn't that fountain possibly due to explosives? I saw a video in slow motion where you could see occasional light flashes from explosions in side the building as it fell.

I live in a city with many high-rises and shortly after 9/11 there was a fire in one and the city made a big deal of it. It was on the news all night. It was a smaller building than the WTC but still very large and the fire was quite large. After several hours they put the fire out and there was no collapse. I know, I know, you'll say a regular fire is not as hot as jet fuel, but I just can't believe that if people were not incinerated immediately and they were not because they were speaking to the 911 operators, trying to climb out the windows to another room and jumping to their deaths, then the fire couldn't be so hot as to have melted the steel beams very far down the beam. The people I'm describing were very close to the gaping hole in one of the towers.

Also, IF the steal beams melted at the level of the plane, I think the building would tend to fall sideways above the entrance site of the plane. How many buildings would fall straight down into their own footprint if they were not wired to? I'm just asking. I just have too many questions and my very first one was "Why is the building falling so fast?".

 

[Btodd]

I would still think that it would take longer to fall if it were a free fall from melted steel beams. The initial effect is of an implosion. I know they were big buildings but doesn't the velocity have an effect on that fountain of sand or dust coming out from the building, or isn't that fountain possibly due to explosives? I saw a video in slow motion where you could see occasional light flashes from explosions in side the building as it fell.

I live in a city with many high-rises and shortly after 9/11 there was a fire in one and the city made a big deal of it. It was on the news all night. It was a smaller building than the WTC but still very large and the fire was quite large. After several hours they put the fire out and there was no collapse. I know, I know, you'll say a regular fire is not as hot as jet fuel, but I just can't believe that if people were not incinerated immediately and they were not because they were speaking to the 911 operators, trying to climb out the windows to another room and jumping to their deaths, then the fire couldn't be so hot as to have melted the steel beams very far down the beam. The people I'm describing were very close to the gaping hole in one of the towers.

Also, IF the steal beams melted at the level of the plane, I think the building would tend to fall sideways above the entrance site of the plane. How many buildings would fall straight down into their own footprint if they were not wired to? I'm just asking. I just have too many questions and my very first one was "Why is the building falling so fast?".

I want to be nice about this, but please stop it with the 'melted steel beams' claim. NOBODY but conspiracy theorists state that the beams had to melt in order for the building to collapse, and it's a strawman argument. Steel loses half its strength well within the range of the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Core columns had already been severed by the impact of the planes, which weakened the structure. After fires heat the steel enough in the weakened structure, it finally gives way. The floors above it are of enough mass that once they start falling, they crush the next floor in their path, and so on. As each floor collapses, the mass of the debris gets larger and larger, so there is no way for it to 'slow down and come to a stop', as Mr. Copy-and-Paste tried to argue. It gets more and more impossible to stop with each collapsing floor.

The 'dust' is material getting crushed by the mass above it, including tons of sheetrock and other materials. An explosion forceful enough to turn things to dust would be so loud and visible that you would hear it, and see it, on every bit of footage that you watch from that day. But you don't.

Finally, the building would not fall sideways unless there were a force pushing it sideways. Gravity dictates that a falling object will go straight down toward the Earth.


Respectfully,
Btodd

 

[bhsmte]

I want to be nice about this, but please stop it with the 'melted steel beams' claim. NOBODY but conspiracy theorists state that the beams had to melt in order for the building to collapse, and it's a strawman argument. Steel loses half its strength well within the range of the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Core columns had already been severed by the impact of the planes, which weakened the structure. After fires heat the steel enough in the weakened structure, it finally gives way. The floors above it are of enough mass that once they start falling, they crush the next floor in their path, and so on. As each floor collapses, the mass of the debris gets larger and larger, so there is no way for it to 'slow down and come to a stop', as Mr. Copy-and-Paste tried to argue. It gets more and more impossible to stop with each collapsing floor.

The 'dust' is material getting crushed by the mass above it, including tons of sheetrock and other materials. An explosion forceful enough to turn things to dust would be so loud and visible that you would hear it, and see it, on every bit of footage that you watch from that day. But you don't.

Finally, the building would not fall sideways unless there were a force pushing it sideways. Gravity dictates that a falling object will go straight down toward the Earth.


Respectfully,
Btodd

Have you ever seen Carlin's 9 minute clip about religion on youtube?

It is hilarious!

 

[Btodd]

Have you ever seen Carlin's 9 minute clip about religion on youtube?

It is hilarious!

Of course! He was the greatest comedian of all-time, IMO. And I love that bit. I was lucky enough to see him live twice before he passed.


Btodd

 

[bhsmte]

Of course! He was the greatest comedian of all-time, IMO. And I love that bit. I was lucky enough to see him live twice before he passed.


Btodd

Couldn't agree more. The dude was head and shoulders above anyone else because of his level of intellect, yet simplicity in his topics and delivery.

 

[Lethe]

I want to be nice about this, but please stop it with the 'melted steel beams' claim. NOBODY but conspiracy theorists state that the beams had to melt in order for the building to collapse, and it's a strawman argument. Steel loses half its strength well within the range of the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Core columns had already been severed by the impact of the planes, which weakened the structure. After fires heat the steel enough in the weakened structure, it finally gives way. The floors above it are of enough mass that once they start falling, they crush the next floor in their path, and so on. As each floor collapses, the mass of the debris gets larger and larger, so there is no way for it to 'slow down and come to a stop', as Mr. Copy-and-Paste tried to argue. It gets more and more impossible to stop with each collapsing floor.

And for the record, steel can be melted by jet fuel. Ask any designer of industrial turbines what happens to their injectors.

 

[Psalm 91]

I want to be nice about this, but please stop it with the 'melted steel beams' claim. NOBODY but conspiracy theorists state that the beams had to melt in order for the building to collapse, and it's a strawman argument. Steel loses half its strength well within the range of the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Core columns had already been severed by the impact of the planes, which weakened the structure. After fires heat the steel enough in the weakened structure, it finally gives way. The floors above it are of enough mass that once they start falling, they crush the next floor in their path, and so on. As each floor collapses, the mass of the debris gets larger and larger, so there is no way for it to 'slow down and come to a stop', as Mr. Copy-and-Paste tried to argue. It gets more and more impossible to stop with each collapsing floor.

The 'dust' is material getting crushed by the mass above it, including tons of sheetrock and other materials. An explosion forceful enough to turn things to dust would be so loud and visible that you would hear it, and see it, on every bit of footage that you watch from that day. But you don't.

Finally, the building would not fall sideways unless there were a force pushing it sideways. Gravity dictates that a falling object will go straight down toward the Earth.


Respectfully,
Btodd

The "hippy-dippy weatherman..." I want to be nice about this but what you said didn't make sense. I have never heard that the columns in the building had been severed by the planes. I did hear many times that the steel beams were melted by the heat of the jet fuel, so don't scold me, I'm just repeating what I heard many times on the news. So if the core columns were severed by the planes I would think that would cause it to lean to one side during the free fall. If buildings fall straight down due to gravity then why do they need to wire buildings before a demolition to fall toward the middle so they'll go straight down?

As far as hearing an explosion, I would expect the fall of the WTC to be so loud that it drowned out the sound of the explosions. I, watching on tv, never heard anything, except a little rumble when the buildings came down. But I'm sure those close to the buildings heard a lot more.

I didn't see much more than dust and steel. I think there should have been more chunks of concrete, not just tons and tons of dust. Dust was chasing people down the street if you remember.

 

[LostMarbels]

So....

If the WTC was a controlled demolition, how did the conspirators get all the explosives, wiring and control gear into a building used 24x7, sight unseen?
Why use a controlled demolition at all when a large explosion would have a similar effect propaganda-wise?
If the WTC was a controlled demolition, why the need for hijackers to fly the planes into the building at all?

This is covered in the other clips I posted as well. Since you didn't watch them, and probably couldn't care less, I'll explain for those who are following this. There was elevator, and office space renovation going on at the time. Some areas were closed for days.

How they rigged the WTC towers for demolition (Skeptics see this) - YouTube

Everybody asks " How could this possible happen? " An yet they will not research evidence, they will not read articles, and they will not even watch a simple film of clips.

How do these things happen? Because Americans are lazy. It's not worth their time. I mean some one else will get to the bottom of it for me. The info is right there in front of you, on the internet you are now using.

If you have no desire to look into this, than just save the time and admit to yourself you don't care. The official report is all I will believe, and everyone else that thinks it's a conspiracy is an idiot. However this is exactly how people get away with things. Public disinterest. People simply don't want to bothered with doing things them selves. So someone else feeds them their belief.

However, if you do think this is a complete waste of time and have never even taken it in the least bit serious, and have never even researched it; you got to come to the conclusion all you have is your opinion. There are documented facts by real professionals. Eye whiteness accounts of fire officials, and police that were there, that saw the explosions. 180 floors down in the lobby initial responders saw people ripped apart (too graphic to link) still on fire, and the elevators are blown up. How can the lobby be destroyed, and yet all the other levels are just fine, and the firemen were able to go up into them to clear them out? These people, and sights caught on camera are in real time. They were real people at the very moment 911 was happening around them, and they weren't taking the time to make up a story as they were running for their lives. When that one guy yells: " HOLY ****!!! ANOTHER EXSPLOSON!" He was in fear for his life. He did not make up that response.

 

[LostMarbels]

Just wondering. I don't know what happened on 9/11 and I'm not sure I want to know since 3000 people died that day. But I've always wondered: Would buildings that high fall in their own footprints? I mean, I don't know science. I know water will take the path of least resistance, as will most people, lol. Would a falling building do the same thing? I mean, why fight all those floors of steel and concrete when it could just fall sideways? Like I said, I know nothing scientifically. Please don't laugh. Maybe you've already discussed this but I have to log out and will read more later.

The experts say no. No steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history. Also, most naysayers do not account for how much debris was turned into pulver, or the fact that they towers were built to withstand exactly what happened due to the empire state building being hit by a B25. The WTC was massively over engineered to withstand tremendous forces. It a simple as a couple clicks of the mouse, and some searches to see how massively robust the WTC really were.

 

[bhsmte]

The experts say no. No steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history. Also, most naysayers do not account for how much debris was turned into pulver, or the fact that they towers were built to withstand exactly what happened due to the empire state building being hit by a B25. The WTC was massively over engineered to withstand tremendous forces. It a simple as a couple clicks of the mouse, and some searches to see how massively robust the WTC really were.

B25 flying into the Empire State building is like a tinker toy compared to a 767 flying at 500+ mph with thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

The buildings were robust, but robust, has it's limits.

 

[Btodd]

I have never heard that the columns in the building had been severed by the planes.

Yes, columns were severed by the impact of the planes. If you never heard that, then I'll cut you some slack, but it's not some stretch of the imagination, either.

So if the core columns were severed by the planes I would think that would cause it to lean to one side during the free fall. If buildings fall straight down due to gravity then why do they need to wire buildings before a demolition to fall toward the middle so they'll go straight down?

It would depend partially on which core columns were cut, wouldn't it? So without knowing which ones were severed, expecting it to fall to the side without any lateral force acting against it would be premature thinking. And as far as I know, they wire buildings so that they collapse from the bottom-up, with all of the supports across the span being taken out in succession BEFORE the collapse happens by a series of explosions. Not only that, but they have to go in and remove the sheetrock and make cuts in every place that the columns are going to be severed first, and THEN place the explosive charges there. It takes a lot of time and a lot of people. For buildings that large, you're talking about months of work in which the floors being worked on are without sheetrock and exposing the basic structure of the building. Did anyone out of the Twin Towers report anything of the sort before or after 9/11?

As far as hearing an explosion, I would expect the fall of the WTC to be so loud that it drowned out the sound of the explosions. I, watching on tv, never heard anything, except a little rumble when the buildings came down. But I'm sure those close to the buildings heard a lot more.

If the supposed explosion is what brought the building down, then it couldn't be drowned out by a collapse that hadn't been initiated yet. That statement doesn't even acknowledge the rules of cause-and-effect.


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

The experts say no. No steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history. Also, most naysayers do not account for how much debris was turned into pulver, or the fact that they towers were built to withstand exactly what happened due to the empire state building being hit by a B25. The WTC was massively over engineered to withstand tremendous forces. It a simple as a couple clicks of the mouse, and some searches to see how massively robust the WTC really were.

'The experts' say no? Actually, plenty of experts say 'yes', more than those that say no. And they back it up with peer-reviewed articles in legitimate science journals instead of petitions on AE911Truth or blog sites.

And none of those buildings collapsed completely due to fire, because they all sustained (especially the Twin Towers) severe structural damage where the fires continued to burn.

Finally, the Twin Towers were NOT designed to withstand the forces of a 767, almost fully loaded with jet fuel and full of passengers, from smashing into it at more than 500 MPH. THAT is as simple as a few clicks of the mouse.


Btodd

 

[LostMarbels]

Another thing to think about is that inner column always carried the entire load of the building. A lot of that weight would have been reduced by the amount of pulver produced, and even every thing burnt up in the fire. Even the molten steel that ran down to other floors would have resulted in a loss of weight. The undamaged column would not have been under huge overburdened stress by carrying the weight of a plane. The colum would have under gone a compressive load, and compressive load strength of steel is massive. Totally different that tinsel strength. There would have been buckling, and even sheer at horizontal load points, but to say that the falling part of the building was able to smash all the way thru a support structure that was already made to withstand the forces applied is ridiculousness. As we all have seen in the footage, allot of the debris even fell away from the building, even further reducing the load as it fell down, losing kinetic mass with it. However, what ever resistance was present was still constant.

I know people will be all over this but all is good.

 

[Btodd]

Another thing to think about is that inner column always carried the entire load of the building. A lot of that weight would have been reduced by the amount of pulver produced, and even every thing burnt up in the fire. Even the molten steel that ran down to other floors would have resulted in a loss of weight. The undamaged column would not have been under huge overburdened stress by carrying the weight of a plane. The colum would have under gone a compressive load, and compressive load strength of steel is massive. Totally different that tinsel strength. There would have been buckling, and even sheer at horizontal load points, but to say that the falling part of the building was able to smash all the way thru a support structure that was already made to withstand the forces applied is ridiculousness. As we all have seen in the footage, allot of the debris even fell away from the building, even further reducing the load as it fell down, losing kinetic mass with it. However, what ever resistance was present was still constant.

I know people will be all over this but all is good.

Molten steel? Just where, and how, did you affirm that notion?


Btodd

 

[HorsieJuice]

Another thing to think about is that inner column always carried the entire load of the building. A lot of that weight would have been reduced by the amount of pulver produced, and even every thing burnt up in the fire. Even the molten steel that ran down to other floors would have resulted in a loss of weight. The undamaged column would not have been under huge overburdened stress by carrying the weight of a plane. The colum would have under gone a compressive load, and compressive load strength of steel is massive. Totally different that tinsel strength. There would have been buckling, and even sheer at horizontal load points, but to say that the falling part of the building was able to smash all the way thru a support structure that was already made to withstand the forces applied is ridiculousness. As we all have seen in the footage, allot of the debris even fell away from the building, even further reducing the load as it fell down, losing kinetic mass with it. However, what ever resistance was present was still constant.

I know people will be all over this but all is good.

Why would I expect you to get the engineering right when you can't get the spelling right?

 

[LostMarbels]

Molten steel? Just where, and how, did you affirm that notion?


Btodd

What's the point? You won't look.

You didn't even watch what I already presented.