Conspiracy Theory 9/11 - Part 3

What's your opinion regarding the 9/11 attacks?

  • The official story makes the most sense

    Votes: 48 40.7%

  • The attacks were allowed to happen

    Votes: 28 23.7%

  • Inside job by US/shadow Government

    Votes: 42 35.6%
  • Total voters
    118

Remove this Banner Ad

GG.exe said:
Controlled Dem is done by blowing out supporting columns and beams and floors, in a systemic pattern, not exploded all at once. Detonated from top to bottom at say a second apart intervals. Especially key is blowing out the vertical columns, so that everything is broken apart into small segments and because the very horizontal floors and horizontal beams are contingent on the vertical supports. If the vertical ones arent blown apart, the horizontal would start falling sideways out outways. Controlled demo is everything inside gutted away to allow the external to fall in and down (footprint).

If WTC top affected floors got weakened by 50% and thus horizontal floors started collapsing, again, thered be too much resistance below 70+ floors unaffected, the collapse down would eventually slow down and start sliding sideways and outways. Even more damning is that huge grid of vertical columns in the core, they would still be standing 50+ floors whilst everything else above (concrete etc) fell away to the sides and down. That grid would in fact prevent a pancake collapse from continuing to happen, thered be half a building left largely intact.
Click to expand...

Have you got calculations to support that , or is it your gut feel?

I've seen plenty of "controlled demolition" films where the collapse slows down or starts sliding sideways, but this is driven from the top down, so all the force is acting vertically downward.

Maybe you can stand with a fully grown man standing on your shoulders. If he drops from roof height onto your shoulders, you hit the deck. Your resistance is not prolonged, your legs just buckle.

The NIST investigation's conclusions do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse initiation, in which the collapse is begun by a progressive failure of the floor system. However, "pancaking" was accepted as the mode of collapse progression

How do you believe the collapse progression took place?
 
Zidane98 said:
Mathematics and factual information has never rated highly with 9/11 conspiracy theorists who to be fair are now almost non existent.


Quite funny some of them say "but the fighter jet didn't breach the wall in the test video".


That "wall" is a reinforced protection wall built around nuclear reactors in the US to protect them in the case of a collision or worse deliberate action. No such design existed at WTC 1 / 2 or any building for that matter because it would simply be too heavy and have no windows. Imagine how hot it would get in summer too!!
Click to expand...
So if that’s the case, where was the wreckage from the jet that hit The Pentagon?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

SaintsSeptember said:
Have you got calculations to support that , or is it your gut feel?

I've seen plenty of "controlled demolition" films where the collapse slows down or starts sliding sideways, but this is driven from the top down, so all the force is acting vertically downward.

Maybe you can stand with a fully grown man standing on your shoulders. If he drops from roof height onto your shoulders, you hit the deck. Your resistance is not prolonged, your legs just buckle.

The NIST investigation's conclusions do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse initiation, in which the collapse is begun by a progressive failure of the floor system. However, "pancaking" was accepted as the mode of collapse progression

How do you believe the collapse progression took place?
Click to expand...
As with anything -- art, cooking, manufacturing, engineering, medical -- there are controlled demos that are performed excellently and ones that are performed poorly (where buildings tip over, sections still standing, etc).

That there are poorly done cont.dems doesn't mean WTC "couldn't" have been done via that way exactly or some high-tech military way.

The "how" and "when" are good questions, which we don't have answers for, but purely from observable evidence, videos/sound, sonic measurements, debris analysis, aftermath photos, heat temperatures, etc, and eyewitness accounts of multiple detonations, the idea of an inside-job is not easily/simply ruled out. And the O/S has raised many red flags over the course of time.

It is actually very plausible that some manner of controlled/applied method of destroying those three buildings took place. It's more logically sound than the notion of planes and a fire causing all three buildings to fall the same way (that free-fall-like way that is a signature of controlled demolitions).

Raging fires and storeys collapsing does not account for the way they fell into a footprint, at the rate of speed they did, not meeting such resistance that the collapse would slow down a lot and eventually cease midway, with sections of building rendered unstable skewering over sideways and outwards, a spillage....and importantly....does not account for the near total annihilation of the huge grid of vertical beams.

Even the notion of fire itself. It's been noted before that massive inferno that burned for 24 hrs straight in Madrid or wherever it was that did not cause the steel structure to collapse, the vertical steel structure/beams still like 70+% standing, still concreted, despite being gutted by fire internally.

WTC was obliterated, pulverized into small pieces. Concrete, furniture, walls, steel beams, etc. Explosiveness of some kind evidenced (bits of steel beams and sections of concrete catapulted in the process).
 
GG.exe said:
As with anything -- art, cooking, manufacturing, engineering, medical -- there are controlled demos that are performed excellently and ones that are performed poorly (where buildings tip over, sections still standing, etc).

That there are poorly done cont.dems doesn't mean WTC "couldn't" have been done via that way exactly or some high-tech military way.

The "how" and "when" are good questions, which we don't have answers for, but purely from observable evidence, videos/sound, sonic measurements, debris analysis, aftermath photos, heat temperatures, etc, and eyewitness accounts of multiple detonations, the idea of an inside-job is not easily/simply ruled out. And the O/S has raised many red flags over the course of time.

It is actually very plausible that some manner of controlled/applied method of destroying those three buildings took place. It's more logically sound than the notion of planes and a fire causing all three buildings to fall the same way (that free-fall-like way that is a signature of controlled demolitions).

Raging fires and storeys collapsing does not account for the way they fell into a footprint, at the rate of speed they did, not meeting such resistance that the collapse would slow down a lot and eventually cease midway, with sections of building rendered unstable skewering over sideways and outwards, a spillage....and importantly....does not account for the near total annihilation of the huge grid of vertical beams.

Even the notion of fire itself. It's been noted before that massive inferno that burned for 24 hrs straight in Madrid or wherever it was that did not cause the steel structure to collapse, the vertical steel structure/beams still like 70+% standing, still concreted, despite being gutted by fire internally.

WTC was obliterated, pulverized into small pieces. Concrete, furniture, walls, steel beams, etc. Explosiveness of some kind evidenced (bits of steel beams and sections of concrete catapulted in the process).
Click to expand...

All this stuff has been debunked. 10,000 gallons of fuel exploding started huge fires on multiple floors instantaneously. The building design was protection from your typical building fire which starts small and grows in size at a slow rate.

The buildings also did not collapse directly into their footprint, plenty of material was ejected laterally during the collapse.

Demolition is not plausible. It takes weeks if not months to rig a building that size for a demo. It isnt the least bit surprising that demolition experts disniss the claims of demolition. Never mind the fact that there are plenty of videos of WTC 1/2 and there isnt a single demolition charge recorded on any of them.
 
GG.exe said:
As with anything -- art, cooking, manufacturing, engineering, medical -- there are controlled demos that are performed excellently and ones that are performed poorly (where buildings tip over, sections still standing, etc).

That there are poorly done cont.dems doesn't mean WTC "couldn't" have been done via that way exactly or some high-tech military way.

The "how" and "when" are good questions, which we don't have answers for, but purely from observable evidence, videos/sound, sonic measurements, debris analysis, aftermath photos, heat temperatures, etc, and eyewitness accounts of multiple detonations, the idea of an inside-job is not easily/simply ruled out. And the O/S has raised many red flags over the course of time.

It is actually very plausible that some manner of controlled/applied method of destroying those three buildings took place. It's more logically sound than the notion of planes and a fire causing all three buildings to fall the same way (that free-fall-like way that is a signature of controlled demolitions).

Raging fires and storeys collapsing does not account for the way they fell into a footprint, at the rate of speed they did, not meeting such resistance that the collapse would slow down a lot and eventually cease midway, with sections of building rendered unstable skewering over sideways and outwards, a spillage....and importantly....does not account for the near total annihilation of the huge grid of vertical beams.

Even the notion of fire itself. It's been noted before that massive inferno that burned for 24 hrs straight in Madrid or wherever it was that did not cause the steel structure to collapse, the vertical steel structure/beams still like 70+% standing, still concreted, despite being gutted by fire internally.

WTC was obliterated, pulverized into small pieces. Concrete, furniture, walls, steel beams, etc. Explosiveness of some kind evidenced (bits of steel beams and sections of concrete catapulted in the process).
Click to expand...

No-one has ever demolished a building anywhere near that size. Yet you claim to know exactly how such a demolition would look on a video.

Your logic is akin to , "i knew a guy who crashed his car , and he didn't die, therefore i reject your claim that some other guy crashed a very different car and he died, you must have murdered him and covered it up ".
 
Lebbo73 said:
So if that’s the case, where was the wreckage from the jet that hit The Pentagon?
Click to expand...


800px-Flight_77_wreckage_at_Pentagon.jpg


Landing gear was also recovered plus parts of the engines.

Further to this both flight recorders were recovered from AA 77.


DNA at the crash site was recovered at the crash site and matched to victims on AA 77.


And just for you to help understand a thorough video analysis of all impact videos:






Lasty, and most importantly, in peak hour Washington DC traffic not a single witness was found that said they observed a missile striking the Pentagon. I'm sure you've been following Russia's many missile attacks on Ukranian cities - they have plenty of witnesses to them and Washington DC is far more heavily populated than any of the areas of Ukraine that Russia is attacking at the moment with cruise missiles.



Now that you have these facts I am pretty certain you'll come to the conclusion that any no plane claims about AA77 hitting the Pentagon are simply not true and have no evidence to back them up.
 
Zidane98 said:
Lasty, and most importantly, in peak hour Washington DC traffic not a single witness was found that said they observed a missile striking the Pentagon. I'm sure you've been following Russia's many missile attacks on Ukranian cities - they have plenty of witnesses to them and Washington DC is far more heavily populated than any of the areas of Ukraine that Russia is attacking at the moment with cruise missiles.
Click to expand...

Russia isn't shooting missiles at Ukraine though. It's a false flag operation by the USA. Fake news etc etc...
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Have you got calculations to support that , or is it your gut feel?

I've seen plenty of "controlled demolition" films where the collapse slows down or starts sliding sideways, but this is driven from the top down, so all the force is acting vertically downward.

Maybe you can stand with a fully grown man standing on your shoulders. If he drops from roof height onto your shoulders, you hit the deck. Your resistance is not prolonged, your legs just buckle.

The NIST investigation's conclusions do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse initiation, in which the collapse is begun by a progressive failure of the floor system. However, "pancaking" was accepted as the mode of collapse progression

How do you believe the collapse progression took place?
Click to expand...
There are almost 4 years of calculations in the investigation into Building 7.

NIST can't provide any that they based their so called conclusions on.

Try reading the report, or I've posted detailed summaries on this thread showing the building collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition.
 
Zidane98 said:
View attachment 1445651


Landing gear was also recovered plus parts of the engines.

Further to this both flight recorders were recovered from AA 77.

DNA at the crash site was recovered at the crash site and matched to victims on AA 77.

And just for you to help understand a thorough video analysis of all impact videos:



Lasty, and most importantly, in peak hour Washington DC traffic not a single witness was found that said they observed a missile striking the Pentagon. I'm sure you've been following Russia's many missile attacks on Ukranian cities - they have plenty of witnesses to them and Washington DC is far more heavily populated than any of the areas of Ukraine that Russia is attacking at the moment with cruise missiles.

Now that you have these facts I am pretty certain you'll come to the conclusion that any no plane claims about AA77 hitting the Pentagon are simply not true and have no evidence to back them up.
Click to expand...

This is the biggest load of rubbish I've seem. Some phantom shadows are supposed to be facts that show AA77 in images?

Seriously deluded.

A few small random pieces of fuselage also don't prove anything.

First news report said no evidence at all of a plane, many other eye witness reports saw a plane (some two), but not the colours of AA and one cop outside the Pentagon was interviewed saying he saw a plane pass low, but pulled up as it passed over the Pentagon. All previously posted on here.

The footage shown was altered and strange no other footage exists.

It wasn't a missile either.

However despite there being only a few random pieces of small debri and no evidence of any bodies from the plane (yes Rumsfeld gets to run in front of the cameras carrying a stretcher, people inside certainly at their desks certainly died). you are correct that they had the DNA of all passengers except the hijackers, that they used to come to a financial settlement with the families.
 
BlueE said:
This is the biggest load of rubbish I've seem. Some phantom shadows are supposed to be facts that show AA77 in images?

Seriously deluded.

A few small random pieces of fuselage also don't prove anything.

First news report said no evidence at all of a plane, many other eye witness reports saw a plane (some two), but not the colours of AA and one cop outside the Pentagon was interviewed saying he saw a plane pass low, but pulled up as it passed over the Pentagon. All previously posted on here.

The footage shown was altered and strange no other footage exists.

It wasn't a missile either.

However despite there being only a few random pieces of small debri and no evidence of any bodies from the plane (yes Rumsfeld gets to run in front of the cameras carrying a stretcher, people inside certainly at their desks certainly died). you are correct that they had the DNA of all passengers except the hijackers, that they used to come to a financial settlement with the families.
Click to expand...

OK so not a plane, not a missile.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

BlueE said:
This is the biggest load of rubbish I've seem. Some phantom shadows are supposed to be facts that show AA77 in images?

Seriously deluded.

A few small random pieces of fuselage also don't prove anything.

First news report said no evidence at all of a plane, many other eye witness reports saw a plane (some two), but not the colours of AA and one cop outside the Pentagon was interviewed saying he saw a plane pass low, but pulled up as it passed over the Pentagon. All previously posted on here.

The footage shown was altered and strange no other footage exists.

It wasn't a missile either.

However despite there being only a few random pieces of small debri and no evidence of any bodies from the plane (yes Rumsfeld gets to run in front of the cameras carrying a stretcher, people inside certainly at their desks certainly died). you are correct that they had the DNA of all passengers except the hijackers, that they used to come to a financial settlement with the families.
Click to expand...

1657768722686.png



Once again Blue E gets it wrong.
 
Zidane98 said:
View attachment 1446449



Once again Blue E gets it wrong.
Click to expand...
Where is the link for this?

I did say they did have DNA for all the people that were registered onboard AA77. And paid compensation to the families.

Despite having to believe the speed on a Boeing 757 on the ground was many times faster than possible, it left a 5 m wide round hole, there was no or very little aircraft debris as reported by the first on air report, none of the 85 Pentagon cameras have ever been shown, the Pentagon has a no fly zone that automatically release anti aircraft missiles for planes or missiles that approached, unless a plane had a military transponder.

1657789205900.png

No broken windows above or to the sides of impact.

1657789312176.png

Unclear if caused by explosions or heat?? Are any fire or signs of heat on the bricks?

1657789416489.png

Even after two days and heavy machinery taking down the front of the building at impact, there is hardly any damage
 

Attachments

  • 1657789646634.png
    1657789646634.png
    659.7 KB · Views: 24
BlueE said:
Where is the link for this?

I did say they did have DNA for all the people that were registered onboard AA77. And paid compensation to the families.

Despite having to believe the speed on a Boeing 757 on the ground was many times faster than possible, it left a 5 m wide round hole, there was no or very little aircraft debris as reported by the first on air report, none of the 85 Pentagon cameras have ever been shown, the Pentagon has a no fly zone that automatically release anti aircraft missiles for planes or missiles that approached, unless a plane had a military transponder.

View attachment 1446662

No broken windows above or to the sides of impact.

View attachment 1446665

Unclear if caused by explosions or heat?? Are any fire or signs of heat on the bricks?

View attachment 1446669

Even after two days and heavy machinery taking down the front of the building at impact, there is hardly any damage
Click to expand...
You can't verify DNA by looking at a youtube vid , so we simply ignore that as part of the conspiracy.
 
nut said:
Building 7 .... 2.2 seconds of free fall..... and people are still denying physics.... incredible.
Click to expand...



www.metabunk.org

Debunked: NIST's Lack of Explanation for WTC7 Freefall [They Have One - Column Buckling]

In a recent interview with the BBC, Roland Angle claimed that NIST did not have any explanation for the 2.25 seconds of essentially free fall descent observed during the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, saying: You've got to understand that the way that that building collapsed was...
www.metabunk.org www.metabunk.org


It's all in the report. WTC 7 had an empty atrium area that extended for a number of floors. When the collapsed progressed to that area it had no resistance explaining the 2.2 seconds of freefall. Most notably before and after that stage of the collapse there was no freefall. The total collapse time for the whole building was at a slower rate than freefall.


I'm guessing you've already been told this but simply ignore it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top