• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

The 2 way zone at the NE corner does not initially descend with the one way area but rather is pushed East as can be seen in the aluminium cladding at initiation.

Here is a markup of the screen capture showing where the 2 way zone was located. I cannot see how you think the above statement is correct when part of 2 way zone is descending (perimeter columns 146 to 142).
PC150 stepped.webp
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

As per the drawing below, the 2 way zone starts at perimeter facade column 142. That part of the perimeter area that descended as shown by the video of the north facade face. I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to explain here as this would indicate that part of the 2 way zone (up to perimeter facade column 150) descended and the other did not.
View attachment 67251933

I am aware the the four corners of the OOS flooring are referred to as *2- way*. Clearly the 4 regions directly opposite the 4 sides of the core were 2 way... ie spanning between the core belt girder and the facade. As an aside it should be noted that the truss spacing did not correspond with the column spacing and they were supported at the facade spandrels and on the core's belt girder.

The corners had to span between the transfer structure and the facade.. between the core perimeter (belt girder) and the facade spandrel. I had assumed that the location of these transfer structures were located at the corners of the core... or very close to it... and the floor trusses would be spanning ONE way.. not TWO way. I assumed the transfer was spaning the short span direction... and the the trusses in the corner were spanning the same way at those in were opposite to the core.. something like the graphic below.STRUCTURE PLAN.webp
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I am aware the the four corners of the OOS flooring are referred to as *2- way*. Clearly the 4 regions directly opposite the 4 sides of the core were 2 way... ie spanning between the core belt girder and the facade. As an aside it should be noted that the truss spacing did not correspond with the column spacing and they were supported at the facade spandrels and on the core's belt girder.

The corners had to span between the transfer structure and the facade.. between the core perimeter (belt girder) and the facade spandrel. I had assumed that the location of these transfer structures were located at the corners of the core... or very close to it... and the floor trusses would be spanning ONE way.. not TWO way. I assumed the transfer was spaning the short span direction... and the the trusses in the corner were spanning the same way at those in were opposite to the core.. something like the graphic below.

SanderO,

The post you quoted was directed toward gerrycan not you. It sounds like you thought it was directed toward you.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

SanderO,

The post you quoted was directed toward gerrycan not you. It sounds like you thought it was directed toward you.

My point was really about the use of the term two way and what is the implication of this and what was the extent/boundaries of the two way slabs?
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Back to the OP. imo, there is no evidence 9/11 was an inside job conducted by the US Govt.

Why does it have to be the US Government?

That's an extremely limited view, not to mention a Straw Man, and suggests a total inability to comprehend conspiracies and how they operate.

In recent years, there have been a number of news stories, one in particular where two Burger King employees conspired to put marihuana on a Whopper and serve it to a police officer.

According to your very parochial view, that is a conspiracy by Burger King, or its board of directors or its shareholders.

Really?

You're saying the CEO, COO, CFO and other executives, the board of directors, the shareholders, they were all in on it. They all conspired to put marihuana on the cop's hamburger, right? How did they know? Does it involve mental telepathy or leprechauns and unicorns?

Apparently, you're incapable of distinguishing between government employees acting under their own volition and color of authority without any direction from superiors and the government itself, and the government.

9-11 does not require government involvement, it only requires literally a handful of government employees acting under their own authority without any knowledge or approval of the government.

You could very well have participated in a conspiracy and never had idea you did.

If someone tells you to drive a truck from Houston to Los Angeles, and then a day later a nuclear device detonates in Los Angeles, maybe you'll suspect that you actually delivered the nuclear device or maybe not.

That's the whole point.

You didn't know what was in trailer or why it had to be in Los Angeles. You were just told to get your truck and take the trailer to Los Angeles, drop it at a certain place and go home.

The person who told you doesn't know anything about it, either, and neither does the person who told them. I know, but none of you do.

That's how conspiracies work. You get other people to do things, and normally things they would do anyway, in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The Principals, the ones who come up with the idea or scheme, never get their hands dirty. The Principals get Actors to do the dirty work for them, and if the Actors are smart, they will heavily insulate themselves from suspicion by getting other people to do things, things they would typically do anyway, to carry out the conspiracy.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was privatizing all of its assets. It did that by preparing bid specifications for assets, and then publishing the bid specifications so that private entities can bid on purchasing the assets.

The World Trade Center wasn't scheduled to be bid out until 2004, yet for some strange reason it was moved up to 1999.

Why?

As a conspirator, acting without the authority or consent of the US government, I would ask someone to get someone to get someone else to convince a majority of board members of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to move the World Trade Center bidding up to 1999.

Did you read the interview transcripts?

Oh, that's right, no criminal investigation was ever attempted.

This person talking to the board members had no idea the WTC would be destroyed. All this person knew was that someone wanted the time-table for bidding on the WTC moved up, and if successful in convincing board members to do that, this person would curry favor with whoever wanted the job done, and perhaps this person might benefit career-wise or benefit financially or both.

Like I said, these are things these suck-ups would normally do anyway, because they're always looking to advance their career or financial position.

Vornado Realty won the bid, but they backed out allowing Larry Silverstein to get the bid.

Why?

Vornado would be a problem. I'd get someone to get other people to get someone else to convince Vornado to renege on their bid.

How? I don't care, so long as it's done. Maybe threatening the owners and their families with violence, or the threat of IRS audits, or maybe all it took was a financial incentive, because for a realty company to renege on a winning bid in the realty world means their name is "mud" and no one will ever take them seriously again.

As a CIA agent, it would be child's play for me to get a Pakistani ISI agent who was a known al-Qaida member, supporter or sympathizer to relay a message to Mohammed Atta that bin Laden wants two planes to fly into the WTC.

Atta wouldn't know any different. He would actually believe bin Laden sanctioned it, even though it was actually me.

Anyway, that's how conspiracies work, and as anyone can plainly see, it doesn't require the US Government, it only requires a handful of people acting on their own.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Why does it have to be the US Government?

That's an extremely limited view, not to mention a Straw Man, and suggests a total inability to comprehend conspiracies and how they operate.

In recent years, there have been a number of news stories, one in particular where two Burger King employees conspired to put marihuana on a Whopper and serve it to a police officer.

According to your very parochial view, that is a conspiracy by Burger King, or its board of directors or its shareholders.

Really?

You're saying the CEO, COO, CFO and other executives, the board of directors, the shareholders, they were all in on it. They all conspired to put marihuana on the cop's hamburger, right? How did they know? Does it involve mental telepathy or leprechauns and unicorns?

Apparently, you're incapable of distinguishing between government employees acting under their own volition and color of authority without any direction from superiors and the government itself, and the government.

9-11 does not require government involvement, it only requires literally a handful of government employees acting under their own authority without any knowledge or approval of the government.

You could very well have participated in a conspiracy and never had idea you did.

If someone tells you to drive a truck from Houston to Los Angeles, and then a day later a nuclear device detonates in Los Angeles, maybe you'll suspect that you actually delivered the nuclear device or maybe not.

That's the whole point.

You didn't know what was in trailer or why it had to be in Los Angeles. You were just told to get your truck and take the trailer to Los Angeles, drop it at a certain place and go home.

The person who told you doesn't know anything about it, either, and neither does the person who told them. I know, but none of you do.

That's how conspiracies work. You get other people to do things, and normally things they would do anyway, in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The Principals, the ones who come up with the idea or scheme, never get their hands dirty. The Principals get Actors to do the dirty work for them, and if the Actors are smart, they will heavily insulate themselves from suspicion by getting other people to do things, things they would typically do anyway, to carry out the conspiracy.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was privatizing all of its assets. It did that by preparing bid specifications for assets, and then publishing the bid specifications so that private entities can bid on purchasing the assets.

The World Trade Center wasn't scheduled to be bid out until 2004, yet for some strange reason it was moved up to 1999.

Why?

As a conspirator, acting without the authority or consent of the US government, I would ask someone to get someone to get someone else to convince a majority of board members of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to move the World Trade Center bidding up to 1999.

Did you read the interview transcripts?

Oh, that's right, no criminal investigation was ever attempted.

This person talking to the board members had no idea the WTC would be destroyed. All this person knew was that someone wanted the time-table for bidding on the WTC moved up, and if successful in convincing board members to do that, this person would curry favor with whoever wanted the job done, and perhaps this person might benefit career-wise or benefit financially or both.

Like I said, these are things these suck-ups would normally do anyway, because they're always looking to advance their career or financial position.

Vornado Realty won the bid, but they backed out allowing Larry Silverstein to get the bid.

Why?

Vornado would be a problem. I'd get someone to get other people to get someone else to convince Vornado to renege on their bid.

How? I don't care, so long as it's done. Maybe threatening the owners and their families with violence, or the threat of IRS audits, or maybe all it took was a financial incentive, because for a realty company to renege on a winning bid in the realty world means their name is "mud" and no one will ever take them seriously again.

As a CIA agent, it would be child's play for me to get a Pakistani ISI agent who was a known al-Qaida member, supporter or sympathizer to relay a message to Mohammed Atta that bin Laden wants two planes to fly into the WTC.

Atta wouldn't know any different. He would actually believe bin Laden sanctioned it, even though it was actually me.

Anyway, that's how conspiracies work, and as anyone can plainly see, it doesn't require the US Government, it only requires a handful of people acting on their own.

" it only requires literally a handful of government employees acting under their own authority ". Really?

It is one thing to post an opinion. It quite another to prove what you stated.
You do realize your post provides no evidence (links ) to back up what you posted.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Mircea

Your excellent point is very well made sir.

All the government did was ensure the cover-up was complete with the Commission, and thanks to a few conscientious members of that commission, it was made clear the commission was a fraud, set up to fail.

If the CIA can smuggle dope for 50 years, acting with its Mossad partners, the events of 911 could be arranged easily.

Dov Zakheim went to work at the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. From there on it was pretty well downhill.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Why does it have to be the US Government?

....

Anyway, that's how conspiracies work, and as anyone can plainly see, it doesn't require the US Government, it only requires a handful of people acting on their own.


Sure people can use their occupation as cover to hide some illegal activity. It happens all the time.

However to pull off 9/11 as CDs would involve a level of coordination and rehearsal that even the CIA with all its resources could likely not pull off. And it's not only coordination... but pulling off 911 as a secret plot would involve so many people it's preposterous to thing a few masterminds could hire and train and plan the attacks.

One of the biggest problems is getting explosives or whatever into the building and placed with no one noticing anything odd. And what about the engineering...who did that and if someone did engineer the demolition... why has not a single truther come forth with the details in 18 yrs? Surely the truther engineers could show how to demo the buildings.

On the other hand the official story with all its flaws makes perfect sense and was low tech.

It required suicide types who appear to be easy to find in the ME
It involved minimal effort to get through the lax security in place at the time
There was no procedure to take out a hijacked plane by grind to air or air to air missiles at the time. Today there is no capability to do that to a civilian commercial flight
The conspirators did not necessarily and likely did not... intend to make the buildings collapse. The Pentagon certainly didn't collapse.Military exercises or not... the military would not be mobilized to shoot these planes down. No cover or confusion was required.
A strike of the intended buildings by a commercial jet would do more than enough damage to achieve the terrorists goals... humiliating the great satan, demonstrating that they had means to harm and to terrorize. Terrorists were likely just as surprised as most people that these buildings collapsed as easily as they did indirectly revealing the vulnerability of the designs.
No it's not hard to fly a large jet into huge highly visible buildings on a day of unlimited visibility as many with limited experience have done so in simulators.
US had been warned many times that their activities around the world would have repercussions... which was dubbed blow back. The notion that oppression and exploitation will not produce "kink back" is accepted. Tit for tat in low intensity warfare... We've seen it in the ME for half a century.
Wars are not fought on battlefields any more for the most part... bombing and insurgencies and counter insurgencies... guerrilla warfare and non state actors. US military is not designed for this sort of warfare. And when they do try to fight on the ground ferreting out these groups they are not very successful. Witness the length of the conflicts in SE Asia and Afghanistan.
Of course for truthers... blow back is pure rubbish and used as an excuse to hide false flag operations.
And it is not unheard of for a criminal to pin their crime on a patsy when possible. As I recall AQ took responsibility because they wanted to be know as heroes in the Islamic world.
It may be true that GWB et al wanted to get back at Sadam and 911 was used an excuse because US cannot attack another nation unless it has been attacked. No nation attacked the US on 911 and the attack was a terrorist crime not an act of war. USA then decided that terrorism could be the basis for a military response. And they chose Iraq... which they completely destroyed giving birth to more terrorists groups. Mission Accomplished. More gnats to strike with drones and drop bombs on.

If the twin towers were was a known and understood outcome of collapse from a commercial flight... no engineers had simulated or calculated this outcome in one of the busiest air spaces in the world. Calculations were done for a 707 but the fuel was not part of the calculation as an accelerant for fires... only the kinetic energy of the impact. Fire suppression was clearly a weakness / vulnerability of the designs and that was what did them in. I doubt Bin Laden et al understood that fires would lead to the collapse. And ironically did on 7wtc which caught fire that morning and it too had inadequate fire suppression and a vulnerable design with transfer structure supporting 40 of the 47 stories.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

... However to pull off 9/11 as CDs would involve a level of coordination and rehearsal that even the CIA with all its resources could likely not pull off.

But 19 nonexistent Muslims were able to pull this off? Some people will believe absolutely anything.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

If the CIA can smuggle dope for 50 years, acting with its Mossad partners, the events of 911 could be arranged easily.

Difficult or easy, it really doesn't matter in the least. What really matters is that volumes of evidence have been presented that show there were no Muslims; that only leaves the folks who "CUI BONOed". Let's all make a guess at who those "people" are.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Difficult or easy, it really doesn't matter in the least. What really matters is that volumes of evidence have been presented that show there were no Muslims; that only leaves the folks who "CUI BONOed". Let's all make a guess at who those "people" are.

Please provide links to the "volumes of evidence...…..that show there were not Muslims".
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Please provide links to the "volumes of evidence...…..that show there were not Muslims".

Provide one piece of evidence to show there were.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Provide one piece of evidence to show there were.

Why do you answer a question with a question? Your refusal to provide is telling.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Why do you answer a question with a question? Your refusal to provide is telling.

The telling thing is that no one who pretends to believe in the US story has any evidence to support those mistaken beliefs. The evidence is in, the evidence is voluminous, the evidence is unimpeachable because it is based on solid, irrefutable science. The US story is a huge lie.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The telling thing is that no one who pretends to believe in the US story has any evidence to support those mistaken beliefs. The evidence is in, the evidence is voluminous, the evidence is unimpeachable because it is based on solid, irrefutable science. The US story is a huge lie.

OMG, since you posted it on the internet it must be true. The evidence is overwhelming. We all know everything posted on the internet is "true".

Have a good one ralph. It is clear you do not want to present the evidence you are talking about. The reason is also very clear.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

OMG, since you posted it on the internet it must be true. The evidence is overwhelming. We all know everything posted on the internet is "true".

Have a good one ralph. It is clear you do not want to present the evidence you are talking about. The reason is also very clear.


I am not the one talking about evidence from the internet although that is certainly part of what the courts will look at. But again, note well, there isn't any evidence from any person who seems to believe/pretends to believe/clings lamely to the belief that the US story has any veracity.

It's all over for the US governments' cover ups.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

But 19 nonexistent Muslims were able to pull this off? Some people will believe absolutely anything.

Because what they did pull off was simple, low tech and there was no complex security measures to get around.

However to engineer the demolitions, to get the explosive devices in place and wired for detonation without being seen is very complex and does requires getting around building services and security.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I am not the one talking about evidence from the internet although that is certainly part of what the courts will look at. But again, note well, there isn't any evidence from any person who seems to believe/pretends to believe/clings lamely to the belief that the US story has any veracity.

It's all over for the US governments' cover ups.

Lol the last gasp of a dying truther breed

For evidence of what actually happened, we have RADAR tapes, video, debris, DNA, etc etc etc...
You have imagination, fantasy, lies, incredulity, lack of knowledge about science etc etc etc..
Heck two of your gurus admitted they do it for money, captain Bob and Alex Jones.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The telling thing is that no one who pretends to believe in the US story has any evidence to support those mistaken beliefs. The evidence is in, the evidence is voluminous, the evidence is unimpeachable because it is based on solid, irrefutable science. The US story is a huge lie.

What evidence? Present it.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Why do you answer a question with a question? Your refusal to provide is telling.

Your inability to prove your claim that there were muslims speaks volumes. The 911 Commission could not prove it, and neither can you. Endless repetition of a falsehood does not make it become true, whether the repetition is made by media or dissonant individuals.

63 times the Commission said "we found no evidence"

In that regard, they are more honest than you.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

The recently convened US Federal Grand Jury investigating the controlled demolitions of WTCs 1, 2 and 7 will straighten everything out in due time.

They have very recently been provided with a list of possible perpetrators so lots of US folks, probably many names come to mind for a lot of you, will be called to testify.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Because what they did pull off was simple, low tech and there was no complex security measures to get around/

Yes, the "hijackers" even managed to slip past the hundreds of CCTV cameras with not a shot of them being captured.

However to engineer the demolitions, to get the explosive devices in place and wired for detonation without being seen is very complex and does requires getting around building services and security.

Nevertheless it was all done. The grand jury is now being presented with all the evidence and science that shows it was done, the CDs of WTCs 1, 2 & 7.


Still no evidence for the US government story. It's all over folks. The real criminals are soon to be apprehended.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Yes, the "hijackers" even managed to slip past the hundreds of CCTV cameras with not a shot of them being captured.



Nevertheless it was all done. The grand jury is now being presented with all the evidence and science that shows it was done, the CDs of WTCs 1, 2 & 7.


Still no evidence for the US government story. It's all over folks. The real criminals are soon to be apprehended.


Ralph... There were hundreds of security cameras... and several WERE caught on cameras in the airports... And??? they looked like human beings going about their business boarding a flight. What would a security cam show? They had box cutters which were concealed and at the time not unlawful.

The GJ will see no evidence of an inside job... CD or whatever your fantasy is.

There is plenty of evidence to support the main thrust of the official account, though not every minor detail.

The FBI has gathered thousands of pages of evidence and the truthers don't have evidence... they have DISBELIEF.
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

Ralph... There were hundreds of security cameras... and several WERE caught on cameras in the airports... And??? they looked like human beings going about their business boarding a flight. What would a security cam show? They had box cutters which were concealed and at the time not unlawful.

The GJ will see no evidence of an inside job... CD or whatever your fantasy is.

There is plenty of evidence to support the main thrust of the official account, though not every minor detail.

The FBI has gathered thousands of pages of evidence and the truthers don't have evidence... they have DISBELIEF.

And still no evidence for any Muslim "hijackers".
 
Re: Evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.[W:57]

I am not the one talking about evidence from the internet although that is certainly part of what the courts will look at. But again, note well, there isn't any evidence from any person who seems to believe/pretends to believe/clings lamely to the belief that the US story has any veracity.

It's all over for the US governments' cover ups.

Please provide links to the sources you are using to come to your conclusions.
 
Back
Top Bottom