Donald Trump running for president

[thebigt]

BigT - I don't know enough about govt corruption to weigh in on it. I don't really know if the trillions story is accurate, what was held where, or why... and what ever became of it.

I only know construction (with a B.A.E. degree from Penn State) and some weapons systems stuff (as a Marine).

I have no opinion on the significance of WHERE the plane hit the pentagon.

Only saying with absolute certainty that a plane (flight 77) did in fact hit the pentagon plowing a giant hole some 12-16ft in diameter and 300 feet deep into the building.

WHY that happened and who arranged it (or let it happen) is for you guys to ponder... with the baby dinosaur.

it is my honest belief that the odds of whatever it was that hit the pentagon destroying that small area is beyond belief!!!!

i place the odds at 2.3 trillion to 1....the trillions story is accurate, you can rest assured that if it wasn't @Jiigzz would be piping in.

 

[ax1]

I just want to know what actually happened to WTC 7.

The collapse (at virtually free fall speed) of this 47 story building, is the real smoking gun, IMO.

Exactly, the Pentagon is so well kept and secret its harder to get into that, WTC7 was a clear controlled demolition.

 

[ax1]

Here is a good video on building demolition with explosives. CDI are some of the top guys in that field.

If you have full sound recorded, you always hear numerous loud booms in rapid fire as the charges go off in sequence to 'guide' the collapse.

Was there audio of rapid fire explosions like this prior to WTC7 coming down??

Invalid Link Removed

There were explosions all day inside the building according the New York City's emergency coordinator who was the last person out of the building. There was nanothermite found by scientists at the site. Also, there were 1,200 toasted cars as far out as the FDR drive which was 7 blocks away and the building wasnt on fire, it was sizzling.

The owner of WTC7 is on public record stating he called to "pull the building" which is building code to bring it down, they told everybody on the street to back up because they are going to blow it up, the BBC was airing live in PBS that day and I remember watching on live TV that if fell, then they said it didnt fall until it actually fall.

Also backtrack a few pages and check out the AE911truth group of thousands of architects, engineers and other professionals from various relevant fields.

 

[ax1]

100% sure it was a plane... THAT plane, flight 77, that was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon. No other viable option was ever presented with any kind of evidence or explanation.

Even if you want to doubt the plane, you would then have to come up with something else to cause that damage AND explain where the very real Flight 77 plane went instead. Impossible.

But following your theory of an inside job, I don't think robotics. Because we had actual hijackers who took over the plane. If using non-expert pilot hijackers you would have to steer them into the specific plane outfitted with robotics. Possible, but overly complicated.

A better guess (it seems to me) would be that the hijackers were far more experienced than presumed. Making the lead pilot the CIA controlled agent.

Not likely a CIA direct agent because how are you going to get him to do a suicide flight. But maybe a terrorist (cia asset) that they guide/train and allow/help accomplish the mission they needed.

That's all the tinfoil I can come up with, given the fixed and known variables...

This guy calling you out on your bullshyt

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

Here is a good video on building demolition with explosives. CDI are some of the top guys in that field.

If you have full sound recorded, you always hear numerous loud booms in rapid fire as the charges go off in sequence to 'guide' the collapse.

Was there audio of rapid fire explosions like this prior to WTC7 coming down??

Invalid Link Removed

Free-Fall Acceleration | World Trade Center Building 7

Today, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) acknowledges that WTC 7 fell at a rate of free fall (or the rate of gravity) for a period of approximately 2.25 seconds before it started to slow down.1 David Chandler, a physics teacher who has studied the behavior of WTC 7 extensively, explains the significance of free fall in the article titled “Invalid Link Removed”: 2

Invalid Link Removed
WTC 7 is shown falling symmetrically into its own footprint. It accelerated at free fall for 2.25 seconds of its descent.

“Newton’s third law says that when objects interact, they always exert equal and opposite forces on each other. Therefore, while an object is falling, if it exerts any force on objects in its path, those objects must push back, slowing the fall. If an object is observed to be in free fall, we can conclude that nothing in the path exerts a force to slow it down....”

Applying this to WTC 7, he explains:

“[F]ree fall is not consistent with any natural scenario involving weakening, buckling, or crushing because in any such a scenario there would be large forces of interaction with the under- lying structure that would have slowed the fall.... Natural collapse resulting in free fall is simply not plausible....”

Chandler and others therefore interpret WTC 7’s free fall as evidence of controlled demolition. How does NIST explain the occurrence of free fall according to its hypothesis of fire-induced failure? To answer that question satisfactorily, we must first examine NIST’s initial attempt to deny the occurrence of free fall.

NIST’s Denial of Free Fall

On August 21, 2008 — six years to the day after NIST’s World Trade Center investigation was first announced — NIST released its draft report on WTC 7 for public comment. In it, NIST described the collapse time of WTC 7 as being 40 percent longer than the time it would take to collapse in free fall:

“The time the roofline took to fall 18 stories was 5.4 s[econds].... Thus, the actual time for the upper 18 floors of the north face to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time....” 3

NIST repeated this claim in its Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation (WTC 7 FAQs), stating unequivocally, “WTC 7 did not enter free fall.” NIST’s lead investigator, Dr. Shyam Sunder, repeated it again at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical Briefing on August 26, 2008, when asked the following question, which had been submitted by David Chandler:

Chandler: “Any number of competent measurements using a variety of methods indicate the northwest corner of WTC 7 fell with an acceleration within a few percent of the acceleration of gravity. Yet your report contradicts this, claiming 40 percent slower than free fall, based on a single data point. How can such a publicly visible, easily measurable quantity be set aside?”
Dr. Sunder responded by articulating the meaning of free fall in the clearest terms possible, but denied that is what happened in the case of WTC 7:

Invalid Link Removed
Dr. Shyam Sunder explains the meaning of free fall at NIST’s WTC 7 Technical Briefing on August 26, 2008.

Sunder: “[A] free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the analysis shows...is that same time it took for the structural model to come down...is 5.4 seconds. It’s about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case.”

NIST’s Alleged 5.4-Second Collapse Time

The reason for the discrepancy between Chandler’s measurement and NIST’s measurement is contained in Dr. Sunder’s statement above, where he explains that NIST’s computer model showed a collapse time of 5.4 seconds. As Chandler comments in Part 1 of the video series Invalid Link Removed:

“Don’t you find it interesting that the 5.4 seconds [NIST] measured for the collapse time just happens to exactly match the theoretical prediction of their model? That kind of precision is incredibly rare when modeling real world events.”

Indeed, when we count backwards 5.4 seconds from the point at which the roofline disappears from view, we find that there is no obvious, continuous movement of the building that could be reasonably interpreted as the start of the collapse. According to Chandler, “Since their model predicted 5.4 seconds for the 18-story collapse, they dutifully conjured up a 5.4-second measurement to match [the model].” Then, NIST assumed that the downward acceleration during those 5.4 seconds was “approximately constant” 4 — even though the building was almost entirely motionless for more than a second. Based upon this inaccurate characterization of WTC 7’s motion, NIST denied the occurrence of free fall.

NIST’s Acknowledgment of Free Fall

To the surprise of many observers, NIST reversed its position in its final report, acknowledging that WTC 7 did enter free fall for 2.25 seconds. But NIST still maintained the total collapse time of 5.4 seconds, which now comprised three separate stages:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall)
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity 5

However, in the first stage — which NIST characterizes as “a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded with the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors” — the building is actually nearly motionless. By asserting a first stage in which we are to imagine “the buckling of exterior columns” causing “a slow descent,” NIST is obscuring an important feature of WTC 7’s free fall: its sudden onset. In Invalid Link Removed of the video series NIST Finally Admits Free Fall, Chandler observes:

“What is particularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. The graph [plotting the rate of acceleration] simply turns a corner. The building went from full support to zero support instantly....”

Chandler then describes a second important feature of WTC 7’s free fall:

“The onset of free fall was not only sudden, it extended across the whole width of the building. My measurement of the acceleration was based on the northwest corner. NIST’s recent measurement confirming free fall was based on a point midway along the roofline.”

Taking the rate of acceleration, suddenness, and symmetry of WTC 7’s descent into account, Chandler concludes:

Invalid Link Removed
David Chandler’s graph from Part 3 of “NIST Finally Admits Free Fall” plots the velocity of WTC 7’s roofline versus time. The slope shows a free-fall rate of acceleration. The sudden change in slope shows the sudden onset of free fall.

“The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed over the span of eight floors low in the building simultaneously to within a small fraction of a second, and in such a way that the top half of the building remains intact and uncrumpled.”

While the hypothesis of controlled demolition explains WTC 7’s free fall readily, simply, and completely, NIST’s final report provided no explanation for how free fall was accomplished. It simply asserted, “The three stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analyses discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9,” (the chapter that presents the results of NIST’s “global model”). But that statement is incorrect. As discussed in Invalid Link Removed, the free fall in Stage 2 is not shown in NIST’s model.
Endnotes
[1] NIST: NCSTAR 1A, p. 48.
[2] Chandler, David: “Invalid Link Removed,” (Reprinted by AE911Truth in April 2014).
[3] NIST: NCSTAR 1A Draft Report, p. 41.
[4] NIST: NCSTAR 1A Draft Report, p. 40. The term “descent speed,” used in the cited sentence, was an error made by NIST. “Acceleration” was meant.
[5] This condensed description of the three stages of WTC 7’s collapse appears in NIST’s WTC 7 FAQs.

 

[ax1]

Here is a good video on building demolition with explosives. CDI are some of the top guys in that field.

If you have full sound recorded, you always hear numerous loud booms in rapid fire as the charges go off in sequence to 'guide' the collapse.

Was there audio of rapid fire explosions like this prior to WTC7 coming down??

Invalid Link Removed

9/11 Families and Experts Submit New Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in Building 7

AE911Truth December 7, 2020

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) claimed in its final report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 that “there were no witness reports” of an explosion when the 47-story skyscraper fell straight into its footprint late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001.

That claim, long discredited by eyewitness reports of a Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed, was further challenged in a Invalid Link Removed made today by 9/11 families and Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. The letter, sent to NIST as part of an ongoing effort to have the federal agency overhaul its report, provides the accounts of four reporters who were close to the scene as Building 7 went down.

Most notably, NY1 reporter Gigi Stone Woods, reporting at 6:30 PM, described a “loud, incredibly loud explosion.” A second NY1 reporter, Annika Pergament, reporting at 5:30 PM, said, “You could feel the ground rumble.” WABC’s Jeff Rossen recounted hearing a “tremble” from six blocks away. And Daily News reporter Peter DeMarco wrote, “[T]here was a rumble. The building’s top row of windows popped out. Then all the windows on the thirty-ninth floor popped out. Then the thirty-eighth floor. Pop! Pop! Pop! was all you heard until the building sunk into a rising cloud of gray.”

Invalid Link Removed

NY1 reporter Annika Pergament at 5:30 PM: “I mean, it was a rumble. You could feel the ground rumble.”
Invalid Link Removed

NY1 reporter Gigi Stone Woods at 6:30 PM: “All of a sudden, a loud, incredibly loud explosion.”
Invalid Link Removed

The submission of these four eyewitness accounts is the latest filing in a pending “Invalid Link Removed,” initiated in April of this year under the Data Quality Act, which asks NIST to reverse its conclusion that fires were the cause of the building’s sudden, total destruction. The original request identifies eight items of information in the NIST report that it argues violate NIST’s information quality standards.

NIST issued an initial denial in August, which AE911Truth denounced as “egregious” and a “mockery of the Data Quality Act.” Then, on September 28, 2020, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters filed an appeal, which is now under review by Dr. James K. Olthoff, NIST’s associate director for laboratory programs.

After the non-binding 60-day deadline for Dr. Olthoff to respond to the appeal came and went, AE911Truth and its fellow requesters moved to submit the additional eyewitness evidence, which had been brought to their attention only after they filed the appeal in September.

The collapse of Building 7 at 5:20 PM on 9/11: The east penthouse falls first. The structure then instantaneously goes into free fall.
Invalid Link Removed

In addition to the eyewitness accounts of the four reporters, the new filing includes the Invalid Link Removed of Lieutenant Brian Becker of the New York Fire Department.

Becker’s oral history is intended to bolster the claim made in the original request that two men who were attempting to evacuate Building 7 earlier in the day — Michael Hess, the New York City corporation counsel, and Barry Jennings, deputy director of the Emergency Services Department for the New York City Housing Authority — witnessed an explosion that trapped them in the building.

Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed each appeared on television later that day describing what they had witnessed as an explosion, and Jennings continued to maintain — until his death in 2008 — that he witnessed multiple explosions while attempting to evacuate Building 7, including the initial one that caused the 6th floor landing he was standing on to give way.

NIST’s explanation that the event Hess and Jennings witnessed was not an explosion, but was damage caused by debris from the collapse of the North Tower, relies on the agency’s untenable claim that it took the two men from 9:59 AM until 10:28 AM to make it from the 23rd floor to the 6th floor — which averages out to one minute and 42 seconds to descend a single floor. The request argues that since Hess and Jennings must have reached the 6th floor much earlier than 10:28 AM, the event they witnessed could not have been caused by the collapse of the North Tower at 10:28 AM.

NIST: “As [Hess and Jennings] went to get into an elevator to go downstairs, the lights inside WTC 7 flickered as WTC 2 collapsed [at 9:59 AM]. At that point, the elevator they were attempting to catch no longer worked, so they started down the staircase. When they got to the 6th floor, WTC 1 collapsed [at 10:28 AM] . . . and the staircase filled with smoke and debris.”


The oral history of FDNY Lieutenant David Becker demonstrates that he and his team were easily able to descend 30 floors in the North Tower after the collapse of the South Tower at 9:59 AM, even while “checking floors intermittently on the way down.” Becker’s account thus proves beyond any doubt the implausibility of NIST’s claim that it took Hess and Jennings 29 minutes go from the 23rd floor to the 6th floor of Building 7.

The Invalid Link Removed asks Dr. Olthoff to include the additional evidence in the revisions that NIST has been requested to make to its report, since it is directly relevant to the claims already made in the original request.

AE911Truth and its fellow requesters are now awaiting Dr. Olthoff’s final decision, hoping he will direct the responsible NIST personnel to develop a new “Probable Collapse Sequence” that is consistent with evidence of explosions. Should Dr. Olthoff decline to order the requested revisions, AE911Truth plans to file suit against NIST for noncompliance with the Data Quality Act.

Note: This article was updated on January 8, 2021, to reflect that the NY1 reporter who at 6:30 PM described a “loud, incredibly loud explosion” was Gigi Stone Woods and not Annika Pergament. Given the poor video quality, AE911Truth’s best guess at the time of submitting the supplemental letter was that Annika Pergament was the reporter featured in the 6:30 PM clip. However, Ms. Woods has personally confirmed via email that she was the reporter in the 6:30 PM clip. AE911Truth has informed NIST of the correction and urged NIST to try to interview Ms. Woods, per the correction requested in Section G of the Request. In addition, AE911Truth has added a footnote to the supplemental letter informing readers of the correction. Also, on page 5 of the originally published supplemental letter, Church St. was incorrectly written as Chambers St. It now reads Church St.


Downloads

Invalid Link Removed

Request Exhibits Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Appeal Exhibits Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed, Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

 

[BamBam54]

That last 23 sec video showing the actual collapse of WTC7 with sound has no explosions heard. (*only one I had time to watch)

I see the roof top equipment fall first into the center of the building. A delay. And then the whole building falls fast!

This seems to match the govt story, where the inside structure collapses first and then the outside veneer drops fast (free falls) as an empty shell.

Or.... maybe during the many hours of burning, the city had time to get some demo guys in there to set charges and accelerate it coming down safely ("pulling it")?? I dunno.

We DO KNOW planes hit the nearby twin towers. And an hour later fires took them down in a classic pancake collapse that "looked" like controlled demolition... BUT WASN'T.

Could the fires burning even longer at the WTC7 have taken it down in a similar manner? I suppose.

It's certainly more likely than flying planes and taking down both twin towers just to cover up an explosive demolition gold heist in WTC7 kept secret by the hundreds of necessary people involved. Could (dozens?) Of demo guys have kept quiet all these years about blowing a building on the day of 9/11 day covering for terrorists and a robbery? I just don't think so....

 

[thebigt]

That last 23 sec video showing the actual collapse of WTC7 with sound has no explosions heard. (*only one I had time to watch)

I see the roof top equipment fall first into the center of the building. A delay. And then the whole building falls fast!

This seems to match the govt story, where the inside structure collapses first and then the outside veneer drops fast (free falls) as an empty shell.

Or.... maybe during the many hours of burning, the city had time to get some demo guys in there to set charges and accelerate it coming down safely ("pulling it")?? I dunno.

We DO KNOW planes hit the nearby twin towers. And an hour later fires took them down in a classic pancake collapse that "looked" like controlled demolition... BUT WASN'T.

Could the fires burning even longer at the WTC7 have taken it down in a similar manner? I suppose.

It's certainly more likely than flying planes and taking down both twin towers just to cover up an explosive demolition gold heist in WTC7 kept secret by the hundreds of necessary people involved. Could (dozens?) Of demo guys have kept quiet all these years about blowing a building on the day of 9/11 day covering for terrorists and a robbery? I just don't think so....

just imagine if you agreed to going along with/being involved with a cover-up this horrendous-would you ever find a right time to come clean...even if on death bed you would worry about how this would effect family-eh?

 

[ax1]

We DO KNOW planes hit the nearby twin towers. And an hour later fires took them down in a classic pancake collapse that "looked" like controlled demolition... BUT WASN'T.

In regards to the Twin Towers, why were there large exposion blasts popping out of the building ahead of the collapse?

 

[ax1]

That last 23 sec video showing the actual collapse of WTC7 with sound has no explosions heard. (*only one I had time to watch)

Could the fires burning even longer at the WTC7 have taken it down in a similar manner? I suppose.

It's certainly more likely than flying planes and taking down both twin towers just to cover up an explosive demolition gold heist in WTC7 kept secret by the hundreds of necessary people involved. Could (dozens?) Of demo guys have kept quiet all these years about blowing a building on the day of 9/11 day covering for terrorists and a robbery? I just don't think so....

It takes at least several weeks of planning and preparation to blow up a incredibly strong steel structure building such as WTC7, you dont just go in there and rig it with explosives, especially while its on fire and blow it up in several hours.

Fires alone would have been impossible, they spread and as they spread what they leave behind cools.

 

[THOR 70]

IF* it was a plane flown into pentagon, it for sure was a drone with extremely precise programmed coordinates.

The thing is, science can be very convincing both ways. But sometimes if you step back and use simple logic, things can be blatantly obvious.

 

[BamBam54]

In regards to the Twin Towers, why were there large exposion blasts popping out of the building ahead of the collapse?

As each floor drops (even an inch) the air trapped below is compressed and blows out the windows like a blast (pressure)

 

[ax1]

That last 23 sec video showing the actual collapse of WTC7 with sound has no explosions heard. (*only one I had time to watch)

I see the roof top equipment fall first into the center of the building. A delay. And then the whole building falls fast!

This seems to match the govt story, where the inside structure collapses first and then the outside veneer drops fast (free falls) as an empty shell.

Or.... maybe during the many hours of burning, the city had time to get some demo guys in there to set charges and accelerate it coming down safely ("pulling it")?? I dunno.

We DO KNOW planes hit the nearby twin towers. And an hour later fires took them down in a classic pancake collapse that "looked" like controlled demolition... BUT WASN'T.

Could the fires burning even longer at the WTC7 have taken it down in a similar manner? I suppose.

It's certainly more likely than flying planes and taking down both twin towers just to cover up an explosive demolition gold heist in WTC7 kept secret by the hundreds of necessary people involved. Could (dozens?) Of demo guys have kept quiet all these years about blowing a building on the day of 9/11 day covering for terrorists and a robbery? I just don't think so....

University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause 3rd Tower's Collapse on 9/11


News provided by
Invalid Link Removed
Sep 04, 2019, 16:20 ET

FAIRBANKS, Alaska, Sept. 4, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of September 11, 2001, was not a result of fires, according to a draft report released yesterday by researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) following a four-year computer modeling study funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Invalid Link Removed
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

The UAF team's findings contradict those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, which concluded in a 2008 report that WTC 7 was the first tall building ever to collapse primarily due to fire. The collapse of WTC 7 has long been the subject of controversy, with critics of the government's account arguing it was brought down in a controlled demolition.

UAF civil engineering professor Leroy Hulsey was the study's principal investigator. Feng Xiao, now an associate professor at Nanjing University of Science and Technology, and Zhili Quan, now a bridge engineer for the South Carolina Department of Transportation, were research assistants and co-authors.

"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7 could not have caused the collapse recorded on video," said Professor Hulsey. "We simulated every plausible scenario, and we found that the series of failures that NIST claimed triggered a progressive collapse of the entire structure could not have occurred. The only thing that could have brought this structure down in the manner observed on 9/11 is the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building below Floor 17."

The UAF study was funded by Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth), a nonprofit representing more than 3,000 architects and engineers who have signed the organization's petition calling upon Congress to open a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center towers on 9/11.

The release of the draft report begins a two-month period during which the public is invited to submit comments. The final report will be published later this year. The research team plans to make public by the end of September all of the data used and generated during the study, a decision that contrasts with NIST's withholding of key modeling data on the grounds that releasing it "might jeopardize public safety."

For more information, visit Invalid Link Removed and Invalid Link Removed.

 

[ax1]

As each floor drops (even an inch) the air trapped below is compressed and blows out the windows like a blast (pressure)

The twin towers had multiple large fireball explosions coming out of the building underneath the collapse area and this wasnt just once, we arent talking about windows popping out.

 

[BamBam54]

It takes at least several weeks of planning and preparation to blow up a incredibly strong steel structure building such as WTC7, you dont just go in there and rig it with explosives, especially while its on fire and blow it up in several hours.

Fires alone would have been impossible, they spread and as they spread what they leave behind cools.

I agree it usually takes weeks of careful planning to set a building with demo charges. And all the people involved would have talked, so I don't believe it was a demo job.

Fires are totally possible. Once the steel is weakened its design strength is cut in half. Holding (thanks to some requires over-design) until enough members are weakened (if fire continues) and they drop in rapid succession as the overall load failure affects the entire design.

Build a house of cards and try to make it a partial failure.

 

[ndiguy]

In regards to the Twin Towers, why were there large exposion blasts popping out of the building ahead of the collapse?

Not to mention reports from people INSIDE the towers, who heard explosions before a plane even made contact with the building. William Rodriguez (janitor in the North Tower) was thrown across the basement during a blast, before the first plane even hit. He was the last man to escape the tower, alive.

Let's not forget the countless police officers and firefighters who describe hearing rapid fire explosions.

I'm not claiming to know what happened on that morning; but the "official story" isn't the truth. Thousand of architects and engineers would & do agree.

 

[ax1]

I agree it usually takes weeks of careful planning to set a building with demo charges. And all the people involved would have talked, so I don't believe it was a demo job.

Fires are totally possible. Once the steel is weakened its design strength is cut in half. Holding (thanks to some requires over-design) until enough members are weakened (if fire continues) and they drop in rapid succession as the overall load failure affects the entire design.

Build a house of cards and try to make it a partial failure.

No, its completely impossible, never happened before and never will. And this building was build for the CIA, FBI and IRS.

 

[BamBam54]

IF* it was a plane flown into pentagon, it for sure was a drone with extremely precise programmed coordinates.

The thing is, science can be very convincing both ways. But sometimes if you step back and use simple logic, things can be blatantly obvious.

Your idea that the plane impact location was exact is incorrect from the start. And messing up your overall assessment. Some mideast knucklehead with a pilots license hit one of the biggest buildings in the world. Not that hard to imagine.

The trillions the military wastes every year was not covered up and destroyed. It still continues. It's up to 6 trillion lost now. The plane hitting the building didn't change/hide/destroy/alter ANY aspect of that story. Black ops steal money all the time. Its the name of the game. No need to destroy anything.

And mideast terrorists hijack planes and crash them. That is the name of their game. Happens on more than 9/11.

 

[ax1]

There were several Explosions in the World Trade Center basement before the Plane struck the tower. William Rodriguez, worked as a Janitor on level B1 of the tower. He used his pass key to open the doors of the stairwells on 9/11, helping people to escape. He received a bravery award from George Bush. However, Rodriguez questions what caused these explosions prior to plane impact at the top of the tower and points out that it could NOT be Gas or Oil in the basement because the Kitchens ALL ran on Electricity. Having been commended for bravery on 9/11 by George Bush, Rodriguez is subsequently put out of work and loses his home.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

9/11. FireFighter - "THREE EXPLOSIONS after the plane hit, three explosions then the whole lobby collapsed". FireFighter - "You people don't understand, there may be more, anyone of these fucking building could BLOW UP". FireFighter - "Your in the building trying to help people and ...

Invalid Link Removed

 

[BamBam54]

The twin towers had multiple large fireball explosions coming out of the building underneath the collapse area and this wasnt just once, we arent talking about windows popping out.

The planes crased through the elevator/stairs shafts. The subsequent explosion blew down the shaft and out the bottom. Didn't any of you guys see Die Hard?!?!??!?

 

[ax1]

Witnesses from the 82nd floor talk about making their way down WTC 2 building to exit after the plane hit. Once they reach the 4th floor they experience a big explosion from the lobby.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

More witness that a bomb hit the lobby first

9/11 Basement And Lobby Explosions During The First Strike On WTC

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

9/11 witness lobby explosion (bombs)

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

9/11 Eyewitness - A Bomb Went Off In The Lobby Before Plane Hit

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

9/11 Eyewitness Blast Victim - Major Explosion In The North Tower Lobby After The First Explosion

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

9/11~World Trade Center Bombs [Thermite]

What people, law enforcement, fire fighters are saying was there were multiple explosions inside the World Trade Centers. This was probably caused by Thermite, because at ground zero there was

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

9/11 Construction Worker Phillip Morelli - Elevator Shaft Explosion In The Basement

Invalid Link Removed

 

[BamBam54]

Ax - so now you are trying to sell the theory that the twin towers were dropped by controlled demolition too?? And the two planes we watched fly into the towers were what... a clever CIA distraction??? To steal gold in some other building? And hide govt corruption at the pentagon (that still continues anyway)?

How about, instead of posting 20 pages of interviews of what other people think, to doubt everything and say nothing... you just post what YOU think. In your own words. No cut and paste.

What do YOU think happened on 9/11 and why???

 

[ax1]

Your idea that the plane impact location was exact is incorrect from the start. And messing up your overall assessment. Some mideast knucklehead with a pilots license hit one of the biggest buildings in the world. Not that hard to imagine.

At the most impossible place in the world, no most impossible place in human history. There is no need for imagination.

 

[ax1]

Ax - so now you are trying to sell the theory that the twin towers were dropped by controlled demolition too?? And the two planes we watched fly into the towers were what... a clever CIA distraction??? To steal gold in some other building? And hide govt corruption at the pentagon (that still continues anyway)?

How about, instead of posting 20 pages of interviews of what other people think, to doubt everything and say nothing... you just post what YOU think. In your own words. No cut and paste.

What do YOU think happened on 9/11 and why???

Yes of course, I have alot more up my basket.

I usually like to stick to WTC7 because thats the easiest, thats Sesame Street level common sense material and easy to understand backed by pure science.

Here is a question, why dont they show anything I ever show here on TV? HHmmmm???

 

[ax1]

What do YOU think happened on 9/11 and why???

I know for sure the official story is fake news.

Why? Problem, reaction, solution.....put those 3 pieces together and you will find your answer.

 

[ax1]

How about, instead of posting 20 pages of interviews of what other people think, to doubt everything and say nothing... you just post what YOU think. In your own words. No cut and paste.

Im posting what witnesses saw and experiences that they dont show or ever talk about on TV, this isnt about other people thinking.

Did you bother even watching the NYC's Emergency Coordinators interview from last night? The guy who was the last one out of WTC7???? The guy who said bombs were set off inside that building?

 

[thebigt]

Your idea that the plane impact location was exact is incorrect from the start. And messing up your overall assessment. Some mideast knucklehead with a pilots license hit one of the biggest buildings in the world. Not that hard to imagine.

The trillions the military wastes every year was not covered up and destroyed. It still continues. It's up to 6 trillion lost now. The plane hitting the building didn't change/hide/destroy/alter ANY aspect of that story. Black ops steal money all the time. Its the name of the game. No need to destroy anything.

And mideast terrorists hijack planes and crash them. That is the name of their game. Happens on more than 9/11.

i've never seen a secdef have his feet to the fire like rumsfeld...the story of that $2.3 trillion was major news.

 

[thebigt]

ok...lets talk about a more recent cover-up....there must be at least 50 people in bidens inner circle who realized he was/is a total dotard who had no business running for president and none of them spoke out.

at this point pelosi and schumer HAVE to be aware of biden's incompetancy---in my opinion it is a act of treason for them not to speak up and act on getting him removed...furthermore if it is discovered that they were 'in on' a cover-up of biden's mental incompetence they should be impeached, removed from office and tried for treason.

here is another cover up...where is robert mueller? after watching him testify before congress i was and am convinced he was/is suffering from dementia...in my opinion it was a criminal act to pretend he was actively at the head of the investigation with his name on it.

 

[thebigt]

here is a prediction...i predict the 2021 super bowl to have lowest ratings of all time!!!!

at least i am hoping so...and i USED to be a huge fan!!!!

 

[ax1]

We didnt even get into all the molten steal yet....

Invalid Link Removed

A December 2001 paper, "Invalid Link Removed," dismissed early reports about molten steel at the demolished World Trade Center. Dr. Thomas W. Eagar, a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his graduate research student, Christopher Musso, pointed out that the theoretical maximum temperature of a building fire (maximum 1000°C/1800°F) is not even close to the melting point of steel (approximately 1500°C/2750°F). And they noted that the observed black smoke emanating from the Twin Towers was consistent with a typical oxygen-starved building fire.

Eagar and Musso concluded that the actual temperature most likely remained below 650°C/1200°F. In so doing, they dispelled the myth that the jet fuel could have made the fires unusually hot, noting that it was "highly unlikely" that the temperature rose above 800°C/1470°F.

Full article: Invalid Link Removed

 

[thebigt]

We didnt even get into all the molten steal yet....

Invalid Link Removed

A December 2001 paper, "Invalid Link Removed," dismissed early reports about molten steel at the demolished World Trade Center. Dr. Thomas W. Eagar, a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his graduate research student, Christopher Musso, pointed out that the theoretical maximum temperature of a building fire (maximum 1000°C/1800°F) is not even close to the melting point of steel (approximately 1500°C/2750°F). And they noted that the observed black smoke emanating from the Twin Towers was consistent with a typical oxygen-starved building fire.

Eagar and Musso concluded that the actual temperature most likely remained below 650°C/1200°F. In so doing, they dispelled the myth that the jet fuel could have made the fires unusually hot, noting that it was "highly unlikely" that the temperature rose above 800°C/1470°F.

Full article: Invalid Link Removed

View attachment 201987
View attachment 201988
View attachment 201989

molten steel?

 

[ax1]

molten steel?

Well, why do you think scientists found nanothermite on ground zero?

This just popped my head, head of WTC security, Stratesec ......+ George H.W. Bush's youngest son, starts with an M.

 

[BamBam54]

Explanation of how molten metal (aluminum) and water would create explosions heard.
Invalid Link Removed

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable without tangible evidence to back it up, so forgive me if I don't swoon over the youtube janitors account.
Invalid Link Removed

The only thing LESS reliable is a conspiracy without a theory. Nothing? At all??? Even the Qanon wackos had an elaborate storyline for the inauguration with an insurrection act and troops to turn white hat and stop the inauguration at the last minute.

But you've got nothing to share? No opinion of your own? No conspiracy to conspire? Just links and baby dinosaurs?

Or is it so deeply dark and secret that the men in black would take you away if you revealed how you solved their entire puzzle!?!?!?

 

[ax1]

Explanation of how molten metal (aluminum) and water would create explosions heard.
Invalid Link Removed

Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable without tangible evidence to back it up, so forgive me if I don't swoon over the youtube janitors account.
Invalid Link Removed

The only thing LESS reliable is a conspiracy without a theory. Nothing? At all??? Even the Qanon wackos had an elaborate storyline for the inauguration with an insurrection act and troops to turn white hat and stop the inauguration at the last minute.

But you've got nothing to share? No opinion of your own? No conspiracy to conspire? Just links and baby dinosaurs?

Or is it so deeply dark and secret that the men in black would take you away if you revealed how you solved their entire puzzle!?!?!?

Interesting how they never even mentioned nanothermite, LMFAO!

 

[thebigt]

molten steel?

We didnt even get into all the molten steal yet....

Invalid Link Removed

A December 2001 paper, "Invalid Link Removed," dismissed early reports about molten steel at the demolished World Trade Center. Dr. Thomas W. Eagar, a professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and his graduate research student, Christopher Musso, pointed out that the theoretical maximum temperature of a building fire (maximum 1000°C/1800°F) is not even close to the melting point of steel (approximately 1500°C/2750°F). And they noted that the observed black smoke emanating from the Twin Towers was consistent with a typical oxygen-starved building fire.

Eagar and Musso concluded that the actual temperature most likely remained below 650°C/1200°F. In so doing, they dispelled the myth that the jet fuel could have made the fires unusually hot, noting that it was "highly unlikely" that the temperature rose above 800°C/1470°F.

Full article: Invalid Link Removed

View attachment 201987
View attachment 201988
View attachment 201989

molten steal?

 

[thebigt]

biden says more immigration is good for the country....yeah, right...just what this country needs-more non-english speaking unskilled laborers, eh?


more proof the guy is a do[h]tard!!! give him a doughnut maybe he'll shut the f*ck up.

 

[ax1]

But you've got nothing to share? No opinion of your own? No conspiracy to conspire? Just links and baby dinosaurs?
puzzle!?!?!?

I already answered your question.

"PRS"

 

[ax1]

But you've got nothing to share? No opinion of your own? No conspiracy to conspire? Just links and baby dinosaurs?

Now you got him really mad, why you dont hate baby dinosaurs? BDLM, Baby dinosaurs lives matters ya know.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

molten steal?

Or is it stael? lol

Its a really simply operation actually, all you need is paint and a small crew to do the "renovations" and you are able to melt steel.

 

[Jiigzz]

If you believe it’s a plane you do believe it was flown with robotics right? At least? You surely don’t believe some caveman who trained to fly a paperweight and not even learn to land pull that off what professional jumbo pilots can’t right?

Come on man, give me some tin foil.

The maneuver looked doable from the simulations though.

Some guy stole an Alaska Airlines turboprop and pulled off acrobatics with minimal flight experience. Interesting things can happen when the person intends to kill themselves

 

[THOR 70]

@BamBam54 your cognitive dissonance is so strong that you rationalize away your own simple logic. Wild

 

[ax1]

The maneuver looked doable from the simulations though.

Some guy stole an Alaska Airlines turboprop and pulled off acrobatics with minimal flight experience. Interesting things can happen when the person intends to kill themselves

Yeah I understand its possible, cant rule it out. I think there is a difference between random (although impressive) airborne acrobatics vs. flight path a number of professional air pilots say they cant pull off themselves, but that isnt concrete evidence it didnt happen.

 

[Jiigzz]

Yeah I understand its possible, cant rule it out. I think there is a difference between random (although impressive) airborne acrobatics vs. flight path a number of professional air pilots say they cant pull off themselves, but that isnt concrete evidence it didnt happen.

I want to know what happened to MH370