[W:57: 1585]Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I've already told you what his role was. Played a huge part in it. Skilling was the lead structural engineer and the man responsible for the towers structural engineering. Having worked with the army, you should know about chain of command, and in terms of structural engineering the buck stopped with Skilling. Read a book FFS.

Why/how is this relevant to the discussion topic in the OP?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

No truther type has nor will they ever advance any detailed explanation of how the buildings were taken down by devices placed inside them. All they ever seem to do is make a snit over some detail or make broad and false statements that free fall acceleration is the tell tale sign that there was a CD.

And no person who today still does not realize he was deceived on 911 has been able to prove that the official narrative is even remotely true. It's a draw.

One has the choice of either believing an impossible story told by liars with an agenda to advance, OR one has the choice to doubt that claim.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Why/how is this relevant to the discussion topic in the OP?

It's your buddy that's making an issue of it, not me. Personally I prefer discussing the demise of the building rather than addressing his derail.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

And no person who today still does not realize he was deceived on 911 has been able to prove that the official narrative is even remotely true. It's a draw.

One has the choice of either believing an impossible story told by liars with an agenda to advance, OR one has the choice to doubt that claim.

There are no proofs and there is no competition.

NIST advanced a flawed explanation for the collapses of the WTC towers. Other engineers have put forth explanations which are a better fit to the observations of the collapses.

The explanations are driven by accurate OBSERVATIONS and applicable physics and engineering. Truthers have not advanced ANY explanations for the movement and accordingly used no physics or engineering. They have made poor observations of the collapses and they can be shown to be incorrect. They have alleged CD without credible mechanics supporting same.

THERE IS NOTHING TO PROVE.... THERE ARE ONLY OBSERVATIONS TO CREDIBLY EXPLAIN.

Flawed explanations are not lies or deceit. They contain errors.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

NIST advanced a flawed explanation for the collapses of the WTC towers. Other engineers have put forth explanations which are a better fit to the observations of the collapses.

So we agree that the official story is invalid. Show me one of these "better fit" explanations that demonstrates how it could happen that the core failed first, which is something else we agree on. Otherwise you can put your "better fit" explanations in the same file as NIST's.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

So we agree that the official story is invalid. Show me one of these "better fit" explanations that demonstrates how it could happen that the core failed first, which is something else we agree on. Otherwise you can put your "better fit" explanations in the same file as NIST's.

NIST got some things right... but clearly in my opinion presented sequences which although may be possible they don't make the most sense to me. In 7wtc their sim looks nothing like the actual collapse. I think this may be because they did not use the transfers as the driver of the FORM / SEQUENCE of the collapse.

For the towers the ROOSD explanation presented at the 911 Free Forum is a much better fit for the collapse phase. It presumes that there was a driving mass made up from the OOS floor slabs which did not have to come down as a plate or a pancake or square donut... but all the area of slabs produced the driving destructive mass which raced down inside the cage of the facade... de stabilizing the facade and the core columns which could not stand without bracing.

The initiation has been foggy as we don't have many signs of what is going on inside the towers at and above the crash zones. We have flames, smoke and some glowing fluid emerging from the NE corner of 2wtc.

NIST does use HEAT at what drives the initiation. The question is what did the heat do? Nist claims it caused the OOS trusses to sag and pull the facade in. Makes no sense in 2D.

The other driver would be something the heat is doing inside the core. It could be all or any of the following:

driving down axial capacity of the core columns
sagging / buckling the bracing beams
expanding/warping the frame shearing column to column spliced, causing column to bow/buckle, pushing or pulling column ends out of alignment reducing bearing area capacity below service load demand

What ever it was... it PROGRESSED until core lost bearing capacity below service load demand. As the damage was more than 10 stories below the at hat truss it is possible that the hat truss and bracing and slabs were able to carry transfer loads from the damaged floors transferring those loads to undamaged columns. However it appears that as things progressed the columns left to carry the loads aggregate capacity feel below the service load and with that the top dropped.

The antenna movement before the top block plunges seems to indicate that it was the central region of the core and hat truss which failed first, initiating the top drop.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The antenna movement before the top block plunges seems to indicate that it was the central region of the core and hat truss which failed first, initiating the top drop.

The core failed in the areas shaded red below. Perhaps a slightly smaller area.


You can see evidence of this in the antenna movement coupled with observation of the North face at initiation, where the destruction does not extend to the corner 2 way zones......

YouTube

The core destruction did not extend to columns 501, 508, 1001, and 1008 and perhaps those adjacent to each of those cores at the perimeter too. I certainly cannot for the life of me explain how the damage and subsequent fire could possibly cause this pattern of destruction, but feel free to try and shed some light on that if you wish.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The core failed in the areas shaded red below. Perhaps a slightly smaller area.
View attachment 67250509


The core destruction did not extend to columns 501, 508, 1001, and 1008 and perhaps those adjacent to each of those cores at the perimeter too. I certainly cannot for the life of me explain how the damage and subsequent fire could possibly cause this pattern of destruction, but feel free to try and shed some light on that if you wish.

My suggestion is that the damage/failures in the core PROGRESSED from the region of initially plane destroyed columns. Obviously the initial core damage was no sufficient to initiate the collapse. That would come when the core's capacity had fallen too low as a result of additional columns in the center failing/non performing. YES the four corners were the LAST surviving columns in my understanding. The mechanism driving the failures was HEAT from fires.
conceptually not literally it was like this:

pre plane strike

X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X

plane strike

X X X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X

plane strike +/- 30 minutes

X X X X
X X X X
X X
X X X X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X X X

plane strike +/- 60 minutes

X X X X
X X

X X
X X X X
X X X X X

collapse

X X X X
X X


X X
X X X X

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

There are no proofs and there is no competition.

NIST advanced a flawed explanation for the collapses of the WTC towers. Other engineers have put forth explanations which are a better fit to the observations of the collapses.

The explanations are driven by accurate OBSERVATIONS and applicable physics and engineering. Truthers have not advanced ANY explanations for the movement and accordingly used no physics or engineering. They have made poor observations of the collapses and they can be shown to be incorrect. They have alleged CD without credible mechanics supporting same.

THERE IS NOTHING TO PROVE.... THERE ARE ONLY OBSERVATIONS TO CREDIBLY EXPLAIN.

Flawed explanations are not lies or deceit. They contain errors.

For the rational and curious person there is competition. The official theory and narrative is clearly invalid, so competing theories and observations are more worthwhile to examine.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

For the rational and curious person there is competition. The official theory and narrative is clearly invalid, so competing theories and observations are more worthwhile to examine.

No problem comparing the thinking informing any explanation for the same set of observations. As I have said for years, I believe NIST's *thinking* informing their explanations seem unconvincing. Not all their work is useless. Much of it is.

Truthers have presented no compelling, logical, scientific and engineering based to support their CD, False Flag, or Inside Job concepts. Their thinking is largely informed by their belief that the media lies or is grossly inaccurate, that the government has a motive to cover up wrong doing they are/were involved in, incorrect engineering and physics (misapplied and misunderstood), that the deep state, foreign intel or some other entity other than the non state actors who the official account asserts pulled off and covered up 9/11 usually for the purpose of invading the ME.

 

[gerrycan]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

No problem comparing the thinking informing any explanation for the same set of observations. As I have said for years, I believe NIST's *thinking* informing their explanations seem unconvincing. Not all their work is useless. Much of it is.

Truthers have presented no compelling, logical, scientific and engineering based to support their CD, False Flag, or Inside Job concepts. Their thinking is largely informed by their belief that the media lies or is grossly inaccurate, that the government has a motive to cover up wrong doing they are/were involved in, incorrect engineering and physics (misapplied and misunderstood), that the deep state, foreign intel or some other entity other than the non state actors who the official account asserts pulled off and covered up 9/11 usually for the purpose of invading the ME.

This from the guy who's thinking on what hapened contains "a miracle happened" in the place where he should be able to explain just how a fire did this.

You have presented nothing other than an inability to logically think through the forensic engineering thought process required to get closer to the cause. You have applied little or no engineering and physics to the issue, but you do prefer to go straight to the finish line and pat yourself on the back as you proclaim that fire must have somehow did it.

This is what debunkers do, and you are nothing special that sticks out in that bereft of logic camp. All you have is snide with no substance whatsoever to back it up.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

This from the guy who's thinking on what hapened contains "a miracle happened" in the place where he should be able to explain just how a fire did this.

You have presented nothing other than an inability to logically think through the forensic engineering thought process required to get closer to the cause. You have applied little or no engineering and physics to the issue, but you do prefer to go straight to the finish line and pat yourself on the back as you proclaim that fire must have somehow did it.

This is what debunkers do, and you are nothing special that sticks out in that bereft of logic camp. All you have is snide with no substance whatsoever to back it up.

So which was it gerrycan. Was it conventional explosives, thermite, nanothermite, mini neutron bombs, nuke in basement or energy beam? Don't dodge. Tell is what you believed was use, how the CD was carried out, and who did it.

You also have presented nothing but pages upon pages of drawings, debating who was lead engineer, and avoiding the OP. Provide your evidence of inside job.

I will make it more simple for you. Is Gage correct in saying the CD was done with conventional explosives and thermite/nanothermite. No nukes were involved. Or is Jeff Prager correct in stating it was mini neutron bombs and no thermite or conventional explosives.

Better yet, do you have a source you can provide that provides a one concise alternative controlled demolition explanation with proof? If so provide it.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

This from the guy who's thinking on what hapened contains "a miracle happened" in the place where he should be able to explain just how a fire did this.

You have presented nothing other than an inability to logically think through the forensic engineering thought process required to get closer to the cause. You have applied little or no engineering and physics to the issue, but you do prefer to go straight to the finish line and pat yourself on the back as you proclaim that fire must have somehow did it.

This is what debunkers do, and you are nothing special that sticks out in that bereft of logic camp. All you have is snide with no substance whatsoever to back it up.

I don''t do engineering nor physics because I am neither an engineer nor physicists. I am not a forensic engineer either.

I describe what I think may underline the observed movements based on my architect's understanding of statics.

You are more than welcome to show what's wrong with the description of the process I advanced...

I don't debunk... I am pro active in that I put forth a progression of plausible failures leading to the total collapse.

Why don't you give it a try!

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

No problem comparing the thinking informing any explanation for the same set of observations. As I have said for years, I believe NIST's *thinking* informing their explanations seem unconvincing. Not all their work is useless. Much of it is.

Truthers have presented no compelling, logical, scientific and engineering based to support their CD, False Flag, or Inside Job concepts. Their thinking is largely informed by their belief that the media lies or is grossly inaccurate, that the government has a motive to cover up wrong doing they are/were involved in, incorrect engineering and physics (misapplied and misunderstood), that the deep state, foreign intel or some other entity other than the non state actors who the official account asserts pulled off and covered up 9/11 usually for the purpose of invading the ME.

Neither have you and the other believers in the OCT presented compelling, logical or science or engineering facts or evidence to support the Official Theory. Indeed, all those things contradict the fantasy. Thus we have a draw in the court of public opinion, as so many people are unable to assign meaning to the fact that the Commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" to support various claims made by the official theory.

Most Americans are very well conditioned to believe what they are told by authority figures. Casey wasn't kidding when he noted that when everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.

 

[mike2810]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Neither have you and the other believers in the OCT presented compelling, logical or science or engineering facts or evidence to support the Official Theory. Indeed, all those things contradict the fantasy. Thus we have a draw in the court of public opinion, as so many people are unable to assign meaning to the fact that the Commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" to support various claims made by the official theory.

Most Americans are very well conditioned to believe what they are told by authority figures. Casey wasn't kidding when he noted that when everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.

Yet, what you stated has nothing to do with the CD supporters proving it was CD.

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Neither have you and the other believers in the OCT presented compelling, logical or science or engineering facts or evidence to support the Official Theory. Indeed, all those things contradict the fantasy. Thus we have a draw in the court of public opinion, as so many people are unable to assign meaning to the fact that the Commission noted 60+ times that "we found no evidence" to support various claims made by the official theory.

Most Americans are very well conditioned to believe what they are told by authority figures. Casey wasn't kidding when he noted that when everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts.

I don't speak for what most Americans think about the government or the media or NIST or PR firms and so forth. On the topic of 9/11 I speak for me and me only.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I don't speak for what most Americans think about the government or the media or NIST or PR firms and so forth. On the topic of 9/11 I speak for me and me only.

Yes, I know that. I agree. Most people speak for themselves.

You claim the 'truth movement' hasn't presented compelling evidence, and I pointed out that neither has the government or media. And the government and media do not treat the many facts that contradict the story, or that the Commission noted 60 times that "we found no evidence to support" one element or the other of the official narrative.

What's your point sir?

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Yes, I know that. I agree. Most people speak for themselves.

You claim the 'truth movement' hasn't presented compelling evidence, and I pointed out that neither has the government or media. And the government and media do not treat the many facts that contradict the story, or that the Commission noted 60 times that "we found no evidence to support" one element or the other of the official narrative.

What's your point sir?

Henry... much of the information presented by the government via NIST is accurate and valuable. Some of it is not in my opinion. I would say that the broad strokes they got correct for sure:

19 radical Islamic suicide bombers hijacked the 4 planes and managed to fly 3 of them into their apparent targets.
The towers all came down as a result of mechanical failures much of them caused by heat from unchecked fires which were the result of airplane fuel burning... some of the mechanical failures were caused by impact. There was no need for placed devices because enough potential energy was contained within the towers which was freed by the foires and mechanical damage. There was no evidence found which indicated such devices were used.

There were a number of what appeared to some as anomalous. All of those observations have been explained and are not anomalies.

The USA had no policy to intercept or shoot down hijacked commercial flights, whether or not jets could have been scrambled for an intercept.

No extraordinary skill is required to steer a commercial airliner into a huge highly visible target.

+++++

For many the mystery was to explain the sequence of failures which led to the form of collapse we saw. And there can be no proof that the sequence is the only one.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Henry... much of the information presented by the government via NIST is accurate and valuable. Some of it is not in my opinion. I would say that the broad strokes they got correct for sure:

19 radical Islamic suicide bombers hijacked the 4 planes and managed to fly 3 of them into their apparent targets.
The towers all came down as a result of mechanical failures much of them caused by heat from unchecked fires which were the result of airplane fuel burning... some of the mechanical failures were caused by impact. There was no need for placed devices because enough potential energy was contained within the towers which was freed by the foires and mechanical damage. There was no evidence found which indicated such devices were used.

There were a number of what appeared to some as anomalous. All of those observations have been explained and are not anomalies.

The USA had no policy to intercept or shoot down hijacked commercial flights, whether or not jets could have been scrambled for an intercept.

No extraordinary skill is required to steer a commercial airliner into a huge highly visible target.

+++++

For many the mystery was to explain the sequence of failures which led to the form of collapse we saw. And there can be no proof that the sequence is the only one.

Your first sentence is reasonably accurate, but the important part is that the NIST conclusion, how it interprets various data, is utterly false. That is, the damage observed, the collapsed buildings, could not possibly have been the result of only office fires on the upper levels and gravity. Because of the nepotism involved with NIST and its parent agency, we know that the conclusion is what they started with, and it was all for political expediency.

As to the rest of your post, it is merely a repetition of government propaganda, and neither you nor anybody else has been able to prove any element of the propaganda. The craft that hit the towers were not AA11 and UA175, no airliner struck the Pentagon, and as everyone on site remarked, there was no crashed airliner in Shanksville.

 

[Quag]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Your first sentence is reasonably accurate, but the important part is that the NIST conclusion, how it interprets various data, is utterly false. That is, the damage observed, the collapsed buildings, could not possibly have been the result of only office fires on the upper levels and gravity. Because of the nepotism involved with NIST and its parent agency, we know that the conclusion is what they started with, and it was all for political expediency.

As to the rest of your post, it is merely a repetition of government propaganda, and neither you nor anybody else has been able to prove any element of the propaganda. The craft that hit the towers were not AA11 and UA175, no airliner struck the Pentagon, and as everyone on site remarked, there was no crashed airliner in Shanksville.

Your fantasy world is not reality

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Your first sentence is reasonably accurate, but the important part is that the NIST conclusion, how it interprets various data, is utterly false. That is, the damage observed, the collapsed buildings, could not possibly have been the result of only office fires on the upper levels and gravity. Because of the nepotism involved with NIST and its parent agency, we know that the conclusion is what they started with, and it was all for political expediency.

As to the rest of your post, it is merely a repetition of government propaganda, and neither you nor anybody else has been able to prove any element of the propaganda. The craft that hit the towers were not AA11 and UA175, no airliner struck the Pentagon, and as everyone on site remarked, there was no crashed airliner in Shanksville.

Henry you are in way over your depth. The twin towers came down because mass from the top destroyed the floors below leaving all the columns too unstable to stand... though without the floors columns would be useless.

Anyone who falls for the rubbish that a commercial did not hit the pentagon nor crash in Shanksville is deluding themselves.

What part of the NIST conclusion do you find untenable? I suppose that they concluded no devices were present or needed for those buildings to collapse? And what are your qualifications as a structural engineer or physicist?

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Henry you are in way over your depth. The twin towers came down because mass from the top destroyed the floors below leaving all the columns too unstable to stand... though without the floors columns would be useless.

Anyone who falls for the rubbish that a commercial did not hit the pentagon nor crash in Shanksville is deluding themselves.

What part of the NIST conclusion do you find untenable? I suppose that they concluded no devices were present or needed for those buildings to collapse? And what are your qualifications as a structural engineer or physicist?

No, I started on your side of the fence.

But I started having questions that could not be answered by the official narrative. Then Bush refused for some time to have an official investigation, and an unintended consequence was that many hundreds of citizens with computers began their own investigations. For example, there is a Citizen Investigative Team, thank you Dubya.

I've never been able to figure out how a POTUS with clean hands would refuse to have an investigation into the events of the day. But they say he snorted quite a bit o' cocaine in his younger days, so maybe that explains it?

Finally there was an official Commission, and he named Henry Kissinger to be the main dude, but the Jersey Girls objected and Kissinger had to withdraw. Other men in the investigation noted in public that it had been set up to fail.

The Emperor's New Clothes are just grand aren't they Jeffrey? :mrgreen:

 

[SanderO]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

No, I started on your side of the fence.

But I started having questions that could not be answered by the official narrative. Then Bush refused for some time to have an official investigation, and an unintended consequence was that many hundreds of citizens with computers began their own investigations. For example, there is a Citizen Investigative Team, thank you Dubya.

I've never been able to figure out how a POTUS with clean hands would refuse to have an investigation into the events of the day. But they say he snorted quite a bit o' cocaine in his younger days, so maybe that explains it?

Finally there was an official Commission, and he named Henry Kissinger to be the main dude, but the Jersey Girls objected and Kissinger had to withdraw. Other men in the investigation noted in public that it had been set up to fail.

The Emperor's New Clothes are just grand aren't they Jeffrey? :mrgreen:

The politics around 9/11 was that the MIC used it and particularly GWB to start a war in the ME... they went after Saddam who was a horror but not a threat to the USA. It was all about getting at Iran. They knew it was an AQ mission and the remedy was to track them down... grab them and try them... hard enough... so they wanted a feel good action so they appealed to patriotism and attacked... kicked ass. They did pivot to Afghanistan likely related to energy or maybe some jerks were making money off the dope trade on the side. All was shrouded by the stars and stripes.

So why actually happened was a hurdle for them and they disposed of it as efficiently and quickly as possible because if they opened up the real policy issues and why were were the target of terrorism there would have to be some major foreign and military policy changes... and the MIC and so on would not stand for that.

 

[Thoreau72]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The politics around 9/11 was that the MIC used it and particularly GWB to start a war in the ME... they went after Saddam who was a horror but not a threat to the USA. It was all about getting at Iran. They knew it was an AQ mission and the remedy was to track them down... grab them and try them... hard enough... so they wanted a feel good action so they appealed to patriotism and attacked... kicked ass. They did pivot to Afghanistan likely related to energy or maybe some jerks were making money off the dope trade on the side. All was shrouded by the stars and stripes.

So why actually happened was a hurdle for them and they disposed of it as efficiently and quickly as possible because if they opened up the real policy issues and why were were the target of terrorism there would have to be some major foreign and military policy changes... and the MIC and so on would not stand for that.

The staged events of 911 encouraged many patriotic men to join in the Global War On Terror, including my fine young nephew and Pat Tillman. My nephew is still in one piece, but Pat Tillman was sacrificed at the altar of that bull**** war.

Aside from being "the cause" for the hoax of the war, there were other goals accomplished too, especially by the murder at the Pentagon and destruction of records there. The SEC invoked a rule never used before, and US securities were cleared without any identification papers. Those were related to Project Hammer, essentially the same project that put our man Yeltsin into power in Russia.

Some of us came to realize we were deceived by the government and media misinformation efforts, but some not. C'est la vie.

 

[gamolon]

Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The core failed in the areas shaded red below. Perhaps a slightly smaller area.
View attachment 67250509

The core destruction did not extend to columns 501, 508, 1001, and 1008 and perhaps those adjacent to each of those cores at the perimeter too.

gerrycan, can you please address these two statements? How can you say that the shaded red areas are where the core failed, but then say the the columns "501, 508, 1001, 1008 and perhaps some adjacent columns" were NOT destroyed. These two posts contradict one another which is why I'm asking for further explanation.