190 votes

The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

As sold to us by the U.S. Government, the mainstream media, and all the people who bought it, hook line and sinker without a second thought:

Thanks to James Corbett., Patriot for putting this together:

http://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
LIBERTY2ME's picture

Was it really evacuated?

Was it really evacuated?

Of course it was evacuated

The main towers are burning and collapsing. Debris from the collapses has damaged the buildings (WTC7). I don't think they even needed to ask them to leave!


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

LIBERTY2ME's picture

Thank you

I knew I'd get an answer here..

That is a great question. I

That is a great question. I think the building was probubly evacuated, or no one was in it to begin with.

Because it's the smoking gun?

Because it's the smoking gun?

Front page?

Yikes

I don't believe there was a government conspiracy

directly to bring down the buildings on 9/11.

But I do believe they are covering up the truth that would prove gross negligence, if not outright assent to allow it to happen, like FDR wanted Pearl Harbor to occur to bring the US into WW2.

Conscience does not exist if not exercised

"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
---Lily Tomlin

Can we all agree?

To say that building 7 came down due to office fires and bent steel enough to make it collapse like sand falling from an hour glass completely boggles the mind.

That they ignored key witnesses experiencing first hand that they heard and seen explosions.

Recycling all of the steel beams before a investigation was done was at the very least sketchy?

How can we not demand answers to obvious questions? This isn't a conspiracy, it's the truth. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to realize there is way to many holes in the "official" report.

Can we all agree that they did not give us the truth on what really happened? If so, then why would we not want to find out what has since then killed millions and has turned most of our constitution into shredded paper and played a large part in bankrupting this country?

It's a very simple explanation

Did you know that if you put a pot of water on your stove at the LOW setting, it will, eventually, boil? That's right, the LOW setting on a simple kitchen stove will boil an entire pot of water. Don't believe me? Try it.

Different materials can withstand different amounts of heat for different periods of time. That's why people can learn to walk on hot coals. Note that the trick is to WALK (lightly) on hot coals, not STAND (or RUN) on hot coals. Time matters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dgpsI1MdQI

If you have fires burning for hours and hours, yes, the steel will fail. That doesn't mean the steel collapses "like sand falling from an hour glass". The steel weakens, bends, and eventually fails. Then the building mass on top of it does collapse "like sand falling from an hour glass" - this accelerating mass puts tremendous force (F = ma) on the structure below, which also rests on already weakened steel, so it immediately fails as well.

It's really like an avalanche. At one moment everything is in place, then suddenly the one weakest point fails, this shifts the mass that was held by the failed component to something else which has been weakened, so it fails, and the process continues, just as instantaneously as an avalanche. The net effect is a building suddenly collapsing, "like sand falling from an hour glass".

You don't need to be a rocket scientist or any kind of investigation to understand this. It's very simple.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Engineer here...

No I'm sorry. Heat does not build up over time once heat going into the system balances with heat leaving the system via heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation, etc.) By this logic, the sun's heat energy would have turned Earth into a boiling fireball millions of years ago.

As to your avalanche theory, I would point out that avalanches flow through the path of LEAST resistance (i.e. over the surface of the mountain.) Not the path of greatest resistance (through the mountain.) To suggest that randomly located fires led to the symmetrical, instantaneous collapse of a skyscraper is absolutely batshit crazy. I'm sorry, but it is. If this works, why do we have demolition teams that work months to bring down buildings in this fasion. All we need to do, apparently, is put a pile of office furniture inside, set it on fire, and voila!

Heat does not build up over

Heat does not build up over time once heat going into the system balances with heat leaving the system via heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation, etc.) By this logic, the sun's heat energy would have turned Earth into a boiling fireball millions of years ago.

Sure, but how much heat was leaving the system vs. was being created in the building from all those fires? If I've been baking in my oven at 350, that alone heats up my whole house, even with windows open. In many ways with all those fires it was an oven situation, and the heat had to keep increasing, because it had no where to go.

As to your avalanche theory, I would point out that avalanches flow through the path of LEAST resistance (i.e. over the surface of the mountain.) Not the path of greatest resistance (through the mountain.) To suggest that randomly located fires led to the symmetrical, instantaneous collapse of a skyscraper is absolutely batshit crazy.

You must not be thinking clearly. Last I checked, mountains were not vertical like buildings are. An avalanche starting at the top of Half Dome would go straight down (the flat/cut side).

The path of least resistance was not to move horizontally. There was no vector in that direction. On a mountain slope, gravity is pulling the snow down, but the slope pushes the snow away, resulting in an angled vector for the path of least resistance.

In a building, all of it constantly wants to go down, but normally there is (sound) building below pushing up (equal and opposite force) keeping it from doing that. At first, and for a while, that dynamic did not change. But the structure was getting cooked, and weakening. Finally, something somewhere that probably got cooked the most failed. That instantly (and symmetrically) shifted the mass to all other supports, causing the weakest of those to fail, shifting more mass leading to more failure, etc.

Why is this so hard to understand?


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Good point

If you open your oven when it is 350 degrees does the house heat up to 700 ? NO
Explain molten steel from a common fire........

NIST had this exact same problem when they "investigated" the OKC bombing. NIST has been the lead investigator in two building failures.....ever. Both were done pathetically with no peer review or following any "Standards" of structural failure.

Why did NIST investigate this to begin with ?
Why no peer review ?
Why was no evidence kept ?
Why did NIST make the exact same mistake twice, once in OKC and the other with bldg 7 ?

OK

so no crumbling, toppling, i.e. no failure of one section before another.

"The path of least resistance was not to move horizontally. There was no vector in that direction."

Not true. Try crushing a wooden dowl vertically by stepping on it, and then tell me there is no horizontal vector. By this logic, none of the debris of the twin towers would have fallen outward like a mushroom cloud (as is clearly seen in the video.) Everything would have fallen straight down. You can't have it both ways.

In the

history of the world...there isn't another example of a steel frame building collapsing due to fire...ever...even in buildings burning much longer and hotter with similar steel frames. 3 occured in one day on 911. I have a degree in structural engineering....steel is used intentionally to mitigate these issues. Free fall acceleration of a building (building 7) is absolutely impossible unless all supports are severed instantaneously and there is zero resistance left on the structure via vertical support collumns....conservation of energy tells us this.

I don't think most people understand the rigidity of buildings....factors of safety are used to create buildings that can withstand many times the loads they're designed for. They are incredibly strong...and most people don't have a grasp on this. Examples of controlled demolition gone wrong to show this point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xf243Pj0S-Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJDX9V_pPV8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiNrzmbdC1Q&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC8R-kndyn8&feature=relmfu

A few facts

Structural steel melts at 2700 degrees
Nothing in the building burns at 2700 degrees.
Structural steel gains strength when heated to less than 1000 degrees
Nothing in the building burns at 1000 degrees.

These three buildings are the only modern steel structures to fail due to common fire, anywhere in the world.

Watch the video of the towers before they dropped, you will see molten steel dripping from the columns, that takes 2700 degrees to do that.

Explain the molten steel ?

In your scenario the water did NOT boil, it evaporated, big difference.

Explain how there was molten steel burning for weeks after the collapse ? Only way that is possible is to catch it on fire, again taking 2700 degrees.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlkfPQqvSHU&feature=related

Explain the molten steel ?

The video is CGI, ie, not real. They faked it with convesional Hollywood tools. Fake, fake, fake. They faked it all.

and

all the witness testimony (over 100 i believe...firefighters, rescue workers, professional engineers) describing molten steel? Did they dub that into the video's?

What about the active thermitic material presented by an international team of scientists that including nano-Chemist Niels Harrit with 60 scientific papers published in some of the best journals? You can read it for free:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

To date this paper is uncontested in the scientific community.

Ummm

I really dont think that is fake.

Simple huh?

1700 architects and engineers who have signed a petition at AE911truth.org wouldn't agree with your simple explanation. You want simple. Make two scale boxes of the tower of wire mesh. One representing the lower portion of the impact and the other the upper. Since the boxes are separate it would be representative of a complete failure of all columns at the impact even though fire doesn't cause instant failure of an entire system. Just as you mentioned "its a continuing process" which should slow down the pace of free fall.
Now drop that upper box from two or three times the overall models height,or even smash it into the bottom box with your hand if you want to add some extra force. Does it all collapse instantly at the speed of gravity? No it doesn't. And this is a homemade scale model, not a building designed by licensed professionals that was intended to absorb a plane crash.

Yes, simple. F = ma

You have to remember a few points:

1) The enormous amount of spilled jet fuel penetrated many floors down below the point of impact. The fuel itself burned only a few minutes, but it ignited material on dozens of floors below, and some above, the point of impact. All this burned unabated for some 90 minutes, weakening multiple floors of structure.

2) Once the area weakened by the heat of the fires collapsed, the entire upper portion fell with acceleration = g. So you have the mass of dozens and dozens of stories, times g, creating a force that dwarfs the force of a plane crash. No way were the floors below designed to absorb that kind of impact.

3) However many floors initially collapsed, the mass falling as a result of the initial collapse had to be absorbed by the structure of the floor immediately below the collapsed section for the collapse to not continue downward. Of course, no one floor could absorb that, so its structure collapsed, shifting and growing (because the mass coming down increased by one floor's worth of material) the force to the floor below it, which of course could not absorb it, and collapsed, against shifting the force down. Of course it happened immediately. How else could it happen?

So, yes, first there was a plane crash. But that wasn't the impact that collapsed the building. That impact created massive fires that weakened several floors of structure, causing them to eventually collapse. The impact that collapsed the building was the upper part of the building falling onto the lower below it, collapsing it, repeatedly.

In short, the building structure is designed to support the weight above it statically. But no way can it handle all that mass accelerating downward. Think about it like this. You might be able to handle someone on your shoulders. But have that person get up on the roof of a one story house and jump down on your shoulders. See how you hold up to that.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

consider it another way...

when the building is completely static, all the energy of the system is potential energy. When the top of the building is falling with full acceleration, all of the energy of the system is kinetic. If it is falling at freefall speed, all the energy is kinetic. Where, then, is the energy coming from to crush the thousands of tons of material below it into pulvarized dust? Even supposing that the building material could be pulvarized to ashes from the top section, it is physically impossible to happen at free fall speed.

yes at free fall speed, almost

It wasn't free fall speed, but close. This is why.

It's all kinetic energy as the initially weakened floors collapse. So all that mass is dropping, until the moment it strikes the first floor below the failed section. At that point all of that kinetic energy instantly converts to static, like a bat hitting a ball, transferring all that energy into the floor below, making all the above potential again, but the impact pulverizes the floor(s) immediately below, thus making all the energy above kinetic again, and the process continues, until the entire building is pulverized.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

no its nothing like a bat hitting a ball

a ball only has minimal wind resistance so it falls at near free fall rate. The towers however had much more structure below to resist that kinetic energy unlike the ball. Even if the structure below fails, the moment of resistance at each floor would add time to the rate of fall. The towers fell so near to free fall speed that it could not have happened that way unless like your baseball there was no resistance.

why are you debating technical details?

Lets leave that to the engineers.

For many engineers, there are still a lot of questions without sufficient answers. Perhaps there's a legitimate explanation but it has not yet been provided. Therefore we should not stop looking for the answers. The fact that this is considered a closed case with so much yet to explain arouses suspicion. This video is trying to convey that the official govt conspiracy theory is as outrageous as many of the truther conspiracy theories on youtube.

Regarding the details
The impact in the pancake theory causes energy loss in the form of strain absorbed by crumbling or buckling bldg matls required to sustain the collapse. In this way moment um is not conserved and speed cannot increase at the conatant rate of gravity (or accelerate at the rate of gravity / free fall)

ummm

no time involved in this energy conversion? acceleration is not speed. If the building falls and stops at each floor in the "pancake", how is it moving at free fall SPEED. It has to accelerate from 0 each time.

Good point

Then maybe the initial collapse caused buckling and failure throughout the entire structure all the way down.

Note sure why we're reinventing the wheel. It's all clearly spelled out at WP.

Collapse initiation
After the planes hit the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of higher floors. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[50]

Total progressive collapse
The collapse of the World Trade Center has been called "the most infamous paradigm" of progressive collapse.[51] Once the collapse initiated, the mass of failing floors overwhelmed the floors below, causing a progressive series of floor failures which accelerated as the sequence progressed. Soon large portions of the perimeter columns and possibly the cores were left without any lateral support, causing them to fall laterally towards the outside pushed by the increasing pile of rubble. The result was the walls peeling off and separating away from the buildings by a large distance (about 500 feet in some cases), hitting other neighboring buildings. Some connections broke as the bolts snapped, leaving many panels randomly scattered.[52] Significant parts of the naked cores (about 60 stories for the North Tower and 40 for the South Tower) remained standing for some seconds before they also collapsed themselves.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Cen...


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Finally, someone who knows physics.

I knew if I looked hard enough . . .

_____________________________
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -- Joseph Goebbels

A better example

Say you get 10 circus guys who can get on top of each other's shoulders. Okay, no problem. Now have the top five guys get off, and go up to a something say 15-20 feet above the 5th guy.

So now we have 5 guys stacked up on each other's shoulders on the ground, and 5 more stacked up similarly a couple of stories up. Now have the guy on the bottom of the upper 5 jump down and try to land on the shoulders of the top guy below. Assume he aims perfectly.

How quickly do you think that tower will collapse?

The point is that a structure being designed to support a given mass is entirely different from being able to support and absorb the impact of the same mass accelerating downward.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track

Live loading and seimic requirements.

Again, buildings open to the public are designed for live loads as well as the static loads you reference.

Take wind as an example. What is the live load on the third floor of a 100 story building exposed to 60 mph wind from one side ?

Now consider the building was designed for 60 mph wind, while the building was filly occupied, during a 6.0 earthquake....all at once.

You underestimate the over design of a modern building.

You're comparing the force of wind to tons of building falling?

You're comparing the horizontal force from wind, which a mere human can withstand, to the force of tons and tons of building material coming down on it?

Seriously?

Yes, buildings are designed to withstand some live load. An 80 mph wind from the sides. Two hundred pound people jumping up and down. But tons and tons of building material falling at 9.8 m/s^2? No way. It would have to be solid concrete to withstand something like that without collapsing.


"Know what you know, know what you don't know, and understand and appreciate the distinction."

Minarchism
track