The 9/11 attacks

Just browsing the forum and came across this thread.

In a past life I worked in a team concerned with protecting Very Sensitive Buildings (!) from hazards such as aircraft impact and earthquake. By coincidence, I was working, in anothere role, in an office in one of the towers some months before they were brought down.

Couple of observations therefore:

Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. There is even film of the owner, Siverstein, saying they decided to "pull" the building. So a 50+ steel frame building, not impacted and not seriously burning, falls down. The debris heap of the the pancaked floors was say fifty feet tall. All in its own footprint.

Engine spools. Jet engines have a core consisting of one or more shafts, spinning at very high speed which connect the compessor stages at the front of then engine with the turbine stages at the rear of the engine. he core, or spool is high grade steel or titanium, about two meters long and contains enormous spinning kinetic energy and cannot readily be deflected. These spools are the most difficult thing to stop, since the aircraft is mostly lightweight chaff and will generally stay outside a protected building, but the spools will leave behind the wings, engine casing and turbine blades and will continue onwards even through reinforced concrete. I did not see the spools come through the twin towers. Only one spool was identified at the Pentagon, not two.

The last undeniable fact, which will make people think you are crazy if you say it, is that the towers never hit the ground. There is little debris at ground level and pancaked floor heaps were completely absent. The superstructures above the failure should have arrived at street level mostly intact and should have finished on top of debris heap. They were not there, not even the TV mast. I am not going to speculate on how this happened but it did, anyone can see it, but it shows that people see what is suggested, not what is really there. Looking at the collapses you can see that towers turned to very small pieces and dust which departed firstly upwards. If free fall collapse had occurred, the floors below the impact should have behaved like WTC7 and the floors above would have descended mostly intact onto the floor pile at street level.



I am not even going to mention the cast iron melting in the cars and fire trucks !

Yes, my conviction too, also based on some other experts opinion, that building 7 was professionally demolished. If my information is correct, it had been emptied just day[s] before. Also my conviction, that "everyone" was aware of a planned attack on the Towers, but never thought - communication problems - they would be Boeings, but thought rather private plane[s]. Attack on the Pentagon is not realistic, as both wings should have been left outside the building or at least have left marks after impact. And there's still one airliner missing, which nobody seems to refer to. On top, the moment the Boeings went off course, military planes should have been in the air pronto, as they've done so many times in other cases.

I always thought the beer can effect was helpful at bri ging home the fact that a it wasn't so much a matter of an airplane hitting a building as a building hitting an aircraft.

Engines should have dropped off just as happened with the El Al flight which crashed in Amsterdam.
Allegedly one engine was found?

A lot of the amateur footage doesn't make sense in much the same way that the Tavistock square footage doesn't.

I must have recommended 'Unter Falschen Flagge' about a hundred times, there is an English subtitled version on youtube. A German ex cabinet minister as well..

Precisely Tigger. A tin can being hit by a building.

They pictured one engine complete with fragile blades attached at the Pentagon, but could not explain what it was that burrowed right through the building. The second engine remains unaccounted for. No impact holes for the two engines.

At the twin towers big airliners stopped dead inside the building. They did not pass through and they did not break up and fall on the impact side. Even the very tips of the wings maintained their momentum and passed through very robust steel columns. Nothing or almost nothing except the fuel passed through, except the passport, that passed straight through alright. But there was nothing inside the buildings, which were very small and cramped inside, to stop an airliner, and nothing to catch the engine shafts, once the entire plane had passed inside and had decelerated to a dead stop.

Etc etc...

I totally believe that the whole 911 scenario was an inside job. Another thing that deems me a nutter to those who care not to question what governments are capable of. The accepted thinking being "Do you seriously suggest that the US government sanctioned the death of 3000 of their own citizens?"
Answer , "Yes!"
I have disbelieved the official story almost from the start. I worked for an American company at the time and we lost 11 employees.
I realise that it is quite possible that there were far fewer casualties than reported because the planes were not passenger planes, but those that did die were collateral damage and sacrificed for the cause.
The thing that set me off on this tack was the passport. Then I started digging deeper.
I could never explain the more technical aspects of demolition, use of thermite or thermate but there are enough credible experts who question the veracity to keep me looking.

It raises my spirits to see how many people are well-informed on this topic. But I must say in the real world it's not the same. I recently had the occasion to spend some time with the 20 something generation, i.e people who have grown up with social media. These people were not only educated, they were also physicists, chemists, engineers, and indeed Mulsims.

I had expected that at least some of them would have an idea about 9/11 truth, so I was incredibly dissapointed to learn, when I raised the issue, that none of them had; and that, moreover, they found my ideas both ridiculuous and distasteful. One engineer immediately went into reptilian mode, saying she knew best because she had worked as an engineer and so it was obvious to her that al-qaeda were responsible because 1) they showed a video on TV of the planes hitting the building; 2) they said on TV that al-qaeda did it; 3) al-qaeda are really evil and 4) because she was an engineer, QED

Here is Unter Falsche Flagge which is indeed an excellent documenatry: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWcg4BqO96k

@Tigger. I have to confess I find it strange that you don't subscribe to the idea that the McCann case is also a big conspiracy. I recently did a video outlining ten strong reasons why I feel it must be and why it simply cannot be a case of infantcide at the hands of the parents, who then proceeded to fool the world and rope in MPs, CEOP and the media etc. I'm surprised you don't think that anyway; but even more surprised given that you think something as big as 9/11 could be a conspiracy.

I'm halfway there or halfway back TBR, i first believed it to be a large conspiracy. Now I think it was a plan  worked out by a small group who each had various contacts  'higher up'. 2006 is the year for me (I'll post it up tomorrow).
These last were on stage pretty soon and also realised pretty soon that  the -let's call it the McC party - had not executed their original plan and were still in  quite a bit of trouble due to an unfortunate accident.

I was stuck at first with the fact that there was too much ready, prepared. those cuddlecats for one.
But it's obvious that they were not ready or capable of hiding a body by themselves. Therefore that was not in the original plan imo.
Besides, the reactions from the family alone are a massive red flag. They were all ready for a 'disappeared Maddie'.
I don't want to go into the state of Maddie's health but  I think that is the key.

Ceops et all, Missing People all got roped in as planned. Because they all had their own agendas to use this event.  Branson, Blair, PACT etc.  
I'm still favouring microchipping as a motive.
However it turned into a soap opera thanks to the media. Politicians (MI5 etc) tried to put the whole thing to bed, find the killer, wrong one doesn't matter. by the time he's pronounced innocent we're two years on and by then the microchipping/DNA database whatever (plus all that lovely money) would be rolling in.

It didn't happen for many reasons but after September 07 most of those waiting in the wings simply melted away. Too risky...?

Errm, forgot to say, all my imaginings..

I see. I remember you once posted your thoughts about a sick Madeleine over on CMOMM and how you thought that that was the key to this mystery. I'd be happy to hear it again (as I dont recall everything), if you want to post it up some time, as I thought it was quite intriguing and came at the problem from a totally different angle.

chirpyinsect wrote:I totally believe that the whole 911 scenario was an inside job. Another thing that deems me a nutter to those who care not to question what governments are capable of. The accepted thinking being "Do you seriously suggest that the US government sanctioned the death of 3000 of their own citizens?"
Answer , "Yes!"
I have disbelieved the official story almost from the start. I worked for an American company at the time and we lost 11 employees.
I realise that it is quite possible that there were far fewer casualties than reported because the planes were not passenger planes, but those that did die were collateral damage and sacrificed for the cause.
The thing that set me off on this tack was the passport. Then I started digging deeper.
I could never explain the more technical aspects of demolition, use of thermite or thermate but there are enough credible experts who question the veracity to keep me looking.

Chirpy, it the same principle here with the case of M.

The more you look at minutiae the happier They are.

Far better to look at big picture and from there it is obvious that things are not right. Find clear fixed points that are not debatable and work from there.

Such as the scripted announcement of the astonishing collapse of WTC7, made by the BBC 20 minutes too early.
This up there with monumental cock- up here of announcing the shutters were smashed and calls to the Uk too early for example. Then there are mobile call details and the crèche records. I do not think that the (to me) ridiculous checking stories, TLP and so on help understand the big story. Sure keeps us busy though !!!

By the way the BBC is required to keep copies of all its output for public scrutiny. They lost it though.
BBC is also required to archive news footage in a vault. But they lost that too. They looked really hard though !

All IMO. Not based on facts. Except BBC TV coverage

Or W telling a young schoolboy that when he saw the first plane hit the tower he thought "pilot error".
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwhatreallyhappened.com%2FWRHARTICLES%2Fbushlie.html&ei=J25zVL7YFKGxygPbtYH4BA&usg=AFQjCNHnt-RTwAhP8RZO9-t9AiFIN76Ykg&bvm=bv.80185997,d.bGQ

snipped
There is a problem with the above statements. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of the first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit World Trade Center 2.

As somebody who (as I'm sure you're all well aware!) goes by evidence as far as possible, I think that there are many questions that need answering about 9/11, and doubt that they ever will be.  I don't believe the official story.  Especially not where Building 7 is concerned.

And in my opinion the 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' are not the kind of people to be conspiracy theorists. I value their expertise.

wlbts wrote:As somebody who (as I'm sure you're all well aware!) goes by evidence as far as possible, I think that there are many questions that need answering about 9/11, and doubt that they ever will be.  I don't believe the official story.  Especially not where Building 7 is concerned.

And in my opinion the 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' are not the kind of people to be conspiracy theorists.  I value their expertise.

Some extremely credible people. And brave too to speak out.

Here is someone all too happy to speak out !

This extract is from article kindly published by the redoubtable Chris Spivey at http://chrisspivey.org/ground-zero-nuclear-demolition-of-the-world-trade-center/

Extract below.

"First off, what caught their attention was that the order in which the Twin Towers collapsed did not correspond to the order in which they were struck by planes. The South Tower, which was hit second, collapsed first, and the North Tower, which was hit first, collapsed second. This meant that it took the “fires” 1 hour and 42 minutes to “collapse” the first Tower and only 56 minutes to “collapse” the second Tower.

Considering that the fires in both Towers were caused by approximately the same quantities of kerosene and considering that the Towers were Twins (i.e. they were absolutely identical in their strength), this became the first clear indication that their collapses had nothing to do with fire alone. The next realization came after 9/11 researchers began to consider that World Trade Center building #7 (an enormously strong modern steel-frame 47-story high skyscraper) had also collapsed in a similar manner later on that afternoon on that very same day, but without having been hit by a plane.

If the collapse of the Twin Towers was to be officially blamed on kerosene carried by “planes”, then the collapse of WTC-7 was unexplainable to such an extent that the official Report of the 9/11 Commission preferred not to mention the collapse of WTC-7 at all – as if the collapse of a 47-story high modern skyscraper was not worthy of a single mention. Comparison of these three events and a lot of irregularities surrounding their collapses brought the first 9/11 researchers to the realization that they were being lied to by the authorities and that the destruction of the World Trade Center had nothing to do with kerosene or any “planes” because no planes were needed in the first place.

The mere collapse of WTC-7 later on that same afternoon on September 11, 2001 proved that no actual terrorist planes were required in the first place and that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings would have occurred regardless– irrespective of any “planes”. Someone simply needed the World Trade Center buildings to collapse and that is why they collapsed. From this point on, the so-called “9/11 Truth Movement” had begun."

And from the same article is the corollary with the Mac case

"There are even more bizarre conspiracy theories that pin the collapse of the Twin Towers’ on supposed “high-tech weapons” – such as laser beams originating from space for example. Of course, none of these conspiracy theorists actually ever agree with one another and they focus their time not only on accusing the US Government of having been the main culprit behind 9/11, but they also accuse each other of “muddying the waters of the truth”. The problem with all these conspiracy theorists in general is that they do not really know what happened to the World Trade Center and, more importantly, they don’t know why it happened."

Muddying the waters of truth and thus losing the plot, so they don't know why it happened. This is where we are I suggest.

I will leave to you all to suggest how the waters are being muddied...

The more we disappear into the minutiae the happier They are.

It is dreadful to think that events like 9/11 and 7/7 could have been carried out by anyone other than the handful of people whom we are told were responsible. It certainly would be more reassuring to believe that the official stories are true and that these horrors could not have been foreseen and stopped.

However, you only have to look at the evidence in front of your eyes - particularly with 9/11 - to know that things could not be as we were told.

I do agree though that, on the subject of paedophilia for example, the media does go overboard and I do not believe that it's rife everywhere.

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:

For me 9/11 was the ultimate science education fail. If we had a proper education system, every science student, teacher and academic, would have stood up at the moment the planes went through the building, or when the towers fell, and said 'hang on, I'm not buying this'.

Just to pick up on this,I'm not of a scientific bent,so therefore you could explain away a theory on how the towers were brought down until the cows come home,but if I don't understand the science and I'm sure millions of us don't then that is just another conspiracy.

sure caricature I understand your point and a lot of good PR works by using scientific language to talk scientific drivel, and thereby convince people who are not in the know. I would be the same with technology or computers for example, I could easily be 'dazzled with jargon'.  

But what you have to believe is that every A-level student and Science graduate should have spotted the FLAWS of the official version. In fact trying to understand what actually went on requires deep engineering or scientific insight; and even debunking some of the official version requires knowledge of material science that I don't have.

But two principles -- transference of momentum and Newton's third law -- can be used to say the official version is wrong. And every good science student knows these principles. So what are we talking about? Maybe 30% of the population.

Incidentally, other issues -- like 7 of the alleged hijackers turning up alive -- can indicate to non-scientists that something is not right.

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:
Incidentally, other issues -- like 7 of the alleged hijackers turning up alive -- can indicate to non-scientists that something is not right.

Not heard that one before,but I think I'm right in thinking there is no film of the first plane hitting the tower or is there?

Yes there is; it was caught on a documentary being made about the work of a fire crew. I'll add a link later.

What caught my attention was that the fire crew immediately rushed to the scene and the ground floor of the building was wrecked. Yet at this point there had only been an impact some 80 floors up - how could that have left the ground floor looking as if a bomb had hit it?

@caricature. Here is the film:

I think what you're thinking of, is that this was not on live TV like the second one, and indeed the video only surfaced, I think, a day later. For that reason, many people were surprised when George Bush said, on that first day, that he saw a plane go through the first building.

I don't think that George Bush's comment about seeing the first plane live on TV has any significance. He quite literally didn't know what day it was even at the best of times.

I feel sure that he meant to say that he saw the second plane.

Freedom here is a short video where he talked about how he came to know about the plane hitting the first tower. He thought it was pilot error. I am quite sure if he had already known about the first plane he would not be describing the second hit as pilot error.

There are pictures of him being told AFTER the second plane hit the tower that America was under attack. He delivered a speech to the children before boarding Airforce 1 to make his way back to Washington.
No mistake. He knew in advance and with his usual aplomb he got it wrong again.
There is also footage of him mention explosives going off when all intelligence is meant to point to the planes being responsible for the destruction

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:@caricature. Here is the film:

I think what you're thinking of, is that this was not on live TV like the second one, and indeed the video only surfaced, I think, a day later. For that reason, many people were surprised when George Bush said, on that first day, that he saw a plane go through the first building.

Thanks for that,they heard a plane and a camera panned to see an explosion,did it show a plane though.

caricature wrote:

Thomas Baden-Riess wrote:
Incidentally, other issues -- like 7 of the alleged hijackers turning up alive -- can indicate to non-scientists that something is not right.

Not heard that one before,but I think I'm right in thinking there is no film of the first plane hitting the tower or is there?

I didn't either. Where did these seven men surface? Very interesting.

I agree Freedom that Bush could have been mistaken, and indeed I think it's a huge mistake to think he was somehow the mastermind of 9/11 or even that he ever had any real power.

But I agree in general with Chirpy. Why did he not panic when he heard the news and think he himself could be a target? Why did he continue with the lame goat story?