HAVING PROBLEMS VIEWING THE SITE? GET FIREFOX! | A NOTE ON ADVERTISING

   

9/11 Questions and Answers

Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1. How could the attacks be faked in such a massive operation? Surely one of the hundreds of people involved would step forward and declare what they know to the media.

Answer: Three major elements in the operational security of the September 11 Black Op would not be guessed by the average citizen, this amounting to a fourth element.

First, most of the participants in the operation had no idea they were participating in it. Instead, they thought they were involved in a war game scheduled for that day (coincidence number 123). For example several fighter wings had been flown out of the area as part of the games, providing scant air cover in the event. Later, when 911 itself resulted in the call down of all commercial aircraft, this would have made it possible to land three of the hijacked flights in the confusion, while substitute aircraft took over. Thus, 911 acted as its own cover, in effect, as well.

Second, many of the key participants in the operation already belonged to intelligence agencies from one of the participating countries, principally (at a guess) the CIA, MI6, and Mossad. All three agencies are known to have black ops and Mossad, in particular, has a very long history in explosive ordnance disposal (EOD, as it is known in the trade. (This branch of special operations has little to do with “disposal” and much to do with “explosives.”) No intelligence officer is likely to blow the cover on an operation to which he/she is fully committed. Even if an intel type decided to tell all, he or she would be scheduled for immediate “extreme prejudice” treatment, not to mention the barrier he or she would face in the next paragraph.

Third, as our own experience with the media suggests, stories that directly contradict the spin are unwelcome, to say the least, even from undercover agents. The extremely sensitive nature of the story would trigger a series of consultations up the chain of ownership to the top, from which a flat “no” would be issued. The mere possibility of Israel being involved in such a story would send owners into a panic. It is a matter of public record that all five principal owners are committed zionists for whom Israel can do no wrong. (See the MEDIA tab at the top of our index page for further information.)

Question 2. The mere possibility that the attacks were faked just sounds preposterous to me. Who could believe such a thing?

Answer: The true nature of 911 could be called “the secret that keeps itself.” It had predecessors in both American and middle eastern history in which the true perpetrators of “terrorist” acts had already been painted as victims, in effect, by the media. From the Gulf of Tonkin incident which triggered the Vietnam War back to the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1945 which enabled the creation of the the state of Israel, the attack of 911 is hardly an isolated example. Moreover, the Operation Northwoods plan (now public under the FOIA) called for hijackings of passenger aircraft, blowing up a US ship, and orchestrated terrorism in American cities - all to be blamed on Fidel Castro.

Question 3. What benefit would the perpetrators of the 911 attacks, the ones you claim are most probably behind them, get from such an operation?

Answer: In a nutshell, American and British Oil interests would benefit hugely from the resulting invasions of Afghanistan, namely in a pipeline corridor from the central Asian oil fields to the existing middle eastern pipeline network, including new terminal facilities at Haifa. The Iraqi oil fields are the main prize, however. They are likely to remain in American hands for the foreseeable future. The ultimate profits from such operations are enormous and swell the coffers of companies owned by the Bush (Carlyle Group and Zapata Oil) and Cheney (Halliburton) Families, not to mention Unocal and other oil giants. There would be additional benefits to the arms industry in the manufacture of arms and war materiel to accommodate the new conflict.

In addition, a global master plan for the conquest of the Middle East had already been worked out by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) drawn up by the neocon element in Washington. The plan even called for a “new Pearl Harbor” as the trigger that would set it in motion.

Finally, Israel would get a green light for a new wave of oppression in Gaza and the West Bank. World opinion would not turn against draconian new projects such as “The Wall,” if neighboring Islamic Countries (including Palestine) were viewed generally as a source of terrorism. There appears to be a long-term plan in effect, one that passes from government to government in Israel. The plan calls for a “divide and conquer” strategy by which all of Palestine will eventually become part of Israel.

Question 4. If the attacks of September 11 were faked, what about the long string of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings attributed to Al Qaeda?

Answer: Al Qaeda is almost certainly a long-term black operation that began shortly after the end of close cooperation between Ousama Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen with the United States in Afghanistan during the 1990s. Bin Laden, who is known to have suffered from terminal kidney disease, was visited by the CIA section chief in a hospital in Dubai in mid-2001. He survived just long enough after 911 to issue a statement that the attacks were not his work or the work of any Muslim. The denial appeared in a Pakistani newspaper, but was ignored by western news sources. In the words of one of a Panel member from the intel community, “Al Qaeda is us.”

In view of the fact that the same pattern of anomalous circumstances surrounds both previous and subsequent attacks attributed to Al Qaeda (see OTHER ATTACKS - this website), Al Qaeda appears to serve as a kind of universal boogeyman to herd frightened western legislators into a neo-fascist political program that will, in the long run, result in dictatorial powers concentrated in the hands of a small cadre in Washington.

Question 5. If you people are right, why aren’t you all dead by now?

Answer: If you’re asking why we haven’t been "taken care of" by the true perpetrators, the answer is twofold. a) There are far too many of us to be "taken care of" without raising more suspicion than the perpetrators could handle. There are now literally hundreds of 911-skeptical websites, thousands of people working on the issue, and millions of people who have reached the same degree of skepticism or suspicion. (b) We assume that the perpetrators have enough control/influence over the mainstream media to keep 911 issues off the page and off the screen. (See the answer to Question 1.) Thus, they may not be particularly worried about our efforts - so far.

If they are worried, they will launch (or already have launched) a disinformation campaign. This would consist of one or more elements in an internet setting of articles and websites: Limited Hangout (a partial analysis, along with blame placed on the military-industrial complex, for example); Well-poisoning (the appearance of an investigative effort accompanied by stories or ads that refer to UFOs, mental telepathy, or what have you); Blackballing (a mixture of name-calling and misdirected analysis that leaves the impression that legitimate websites are either run by "conspiracy nuts" or are themselves engaged in a disinformation campaign run by terrorists); Denial of Evidence (a specific piece of 9/11 evidence is analyzed with seeming care - but for the omission of one or two crucial elements. The analysis may conclude that a particular video or photo or document was faked, unreliable, or in some other way unacceptable as evidence.)

The fact that websites with some of these qualities already exist (not a large percentage) creates problems with interpretation; there would be no easy way to distinguish such a website mounted by a trained psyops professional from one designed by a well-meaning but off-track investigator.

Question 6. Are you saying the Jews are behind 911?

Answer: Certainly not. Although Israel is ostensibly a Jewish state, its actions in the middle east are in direct conflict with Jewish Law, ethics and morality. The European (Khazarite) Jews may be described as double victims, suffering not only from centuries of persecution after the fall of Muslim Spain, but from the deceptive practices adopted by the Zionist planners responsible for Israel. Myths such as “a land without people for a people without land” (both questionable propositions) misled thousands of settlers in the Jewish proto-state, followed by millions later.

As a general rule, zionist organizations in the west have only one tool with which to counter revelations of the myth-building exercise. Whoever makes such claims is labeled an “anti-semite,” a peculiarly ironic charge under the circumstances.

http://physics911.net/faq
http://physics911.net/exp...
There are dozens of live video captures of the multiple internal explosions that brought down the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7.

http://physics911.net/dem...
This news camera caught a rapid sequence of loud and visible explosions going off in rapid sequence down the building.

http://physics911.net/ima...
http://911research.wtc7.n...
http://911research.wtc7.n...
http://911research.wtc7.n...
http://911research.wtc7.n...
http://911research.wtc7.n...
If you study the still images of the collapse you can see a bulb like shape which resembles a shock wave that would occur from high explosives. Infact some of the debris is being shot straight up.

output

Comment viewing options

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

As for #6 it's pathetic some

As for #6 it's pathetic some people equate Mossad with "Jews" or "Israelis" and will try to paint you as anti-semitic. It's the same as equating the CIA with Americans.

Agreed... But it's a great tool for deflection for them.

"New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths."

Pre-demolition charges

http://physics911.net/dem...
Listen to the demolition sounds that set the collapse in motion. What do think?

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

Re-Post!!

The September 11, 2001 Attacks

9/11Like many buildings built in the 1970s, the twin towers were constructed with vast quantities of cancer-causing asbestos. The cost of removing the Twin Tower asbestos? A year's worth of revenues at a minimum; possibly as much as the value of the buildings themselves. The cost to disassemble the Twin Towers floor by floor would have run into the double-digit billions. In addition, the Port Authority was prohibited from demolishing the towers because the resulting asbestos dust would cover the entire city, which it did when they collapsed, resulting in many cancers with a confirmed link to the WTC dust.
Despite its questionable status, in January of 2001, Larry Silverstein made a $3.2 billion bid for the World Trade Center. On July 24, the Port Authority accepted the offer. Silverstein then took out an insurance policy that, understandably, covered terrorist attacks, which happened seven weeks later. To date, Silverstein has been awarded almost $5 billion from nine different insurance companies. What was an asbestos nightmare turned into a $1.8 billion profit within seven weeks.

Donald Rumsfeld said about the Pentagon on the morning of September 10, 2001: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." That bombshell was pretty much forgotten by the next morning. So, as a reward for losing $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, taxpayers patriotically forked over another $370 billion and counting to invade Iraq. True to form, the Pentagon promptly lost $9 billion of that money, too.

Eight days after the attacks, the 342-page Patriot Act was given to Congress. That same week, letters armed with anthrax from a US military lab entered the mail. Subsequently, while Congressional offices were evacuated, examined, cleaned and nasal cavities swabbed, the Patriot Act remained largely unread. Then, with little debate, the Patriot Act became law, giving the Bush administration unprecedented power to access people's medical records, tax records, information about the books they bought or borrowed and the power to conduct secret residential searches without notifying owners that their homes had been searched.

In early 2001, executives from Shell, BP, and Exxon met with Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force while it was developing its new national energy policy. Later, the companies freely admitted interest in profiting from Iraq's oil fields, even before the US invaded Iraq. And now? A new Iraq hydrocarbon law expected to pass in March 2007 will open the door for international investors, led by BP, Exxon and Shell, to siphon off 75 percent of Iraq oil wealth for the next thirty years.

According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a Bronze Star recipient with 22 years of experience in intelligence operations, a classified intelligence program codenamed Able Danger had uncovered two of the three 9/11 terrorist cells a year before the attacks and had identified four of the hijackers. Shaffer alerted the FBI in September of 2000, but the meetings he tried to set up with bureau officials were repeatedly blocked by military lawyers. Four credible witnesses have come forward to verify Shaffer's claims.
In August 2001, a Pan Am International Flight Academy instructor warned the FBI that a student (Zacarias Moussaoui) might use a commercial plane loaded with fuel as a weapon. The instructor asked "Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?" Moussaoui was then arrested on immigration charges, but despite the repeated urging of the school and local agents, FBI headquarters refused a deeper investigation. The US also received dozens of detailed warnings (names, locations, dates) from the intelligence agencies of Indonesia, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, India, Argentina, Morocco, Russia, Israel, France and even the Taliban. It would seem that the entire world was onto the bungling Saudi hijackers and somewhat perplexed that the US wasn't taking preventative actions. But in each case the US, as if by design, chose not to investigate. Instead. Condoleezza Rice, on May 16, 2002, stated: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon."
We also know that on the morning of 9/11, multiple Air Force war games and drills were in progress. The hijackers would have never made it to their targets without these war games: Operation Northern Vigilance ensured that many jet fighters that would have normally been patrolling the east coast were flying over Alaska and northern Canada in a drill that simulated a Russian air attack, complete with false radar blips.
Remarkably, operation Vigilant Guardian simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector, while real hijackers were in the same airspace. This drill had NORAD and the Air Force reacting to false blips on FAA radar screens. Some of these blips corresponded to real military aircraft in the air posing as hijacked aircraft. That's why when NORAD's airborne control officer, Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, heard Boston claim it had a hijacked airliner, her first words were, "It must be part of the exercise."

Changing colours

If you follow the money, you can see that the people with the most to gain occupied the key military and civilian positions to help 9/11 happen, as well as to cover up the crime. Such is the hallmark of false flag operations throughout history. But the incredible scale of the 9/11 sham, and the sheer number of people who still refuse to see the mountain of truth in front of their eyes...that's what makes the September 11, 2001 attacks the greatest false flag operation of all time.
Hermann Göring stated: "Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
Adolf Hitler in Mein Kampf, a book still forbidden in some countries (such as France), wrote: "In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people...will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one." A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

It won't be worth watching... White WASH!

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

Hit TV Series To Feature 9/11 Conspiracy Plot

Rescue Me star makes revelation during book signing but disagrees with 9/11 truth advocates

conspiracy and reinvestigation into 9/11 are, in fact, major plot lines in the first 10 episodes of Rescue Me season 5, set to premiere in April 2009 for a 22-episode run on FX,

http://www.prisonplanet.c...



Want Government out of your life??
get off your asses and do something about it.
Hiding will solve nothing.

Quote--ThePatriot


★★★thank you RON PAUL★★★

Whitewash

"New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths."

Bump for 9.2241703825857625667 seconds

Or was that 15.92839477467263754 seconds?

Whatever... because it sure wasn't 9.2018678475872475 seconds. And if you look very careful, you can see that it actually might have been 24.723947657492 seconds, in which case anyone who says 22.972946596924 seconds is clearly misinformed and distracted-ing away from the really important issue at hand; if you don't include decimal places in a conversation about demolition taking less than a minute ......

wait wait wait!!!!

Go back and read the article of 6 MACRO-arch questions. Why would we need to split hairs by the decimal, on the knuckle of the macro fist punching us in the face?

Funny

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

Hiatus bump

"There can be only one permanent revolution - a moral one: The regeneration of the inner man."
—Tolstoy

AWESOME!

This is one excellent post.
I would say you have nailed it completely.
Great big thank you and a BUMP!

bump

Taking a Closer Look: Hard

Taking a Closer Look: Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

by Dave Heller, article originally appeared in Garlic and Grasshttp://physics911.net/closerlook

While it may be difficult to awaken everyone from their state-induced fog of fear, we are at a critical point in history which requires us to try. We truly must take an objective look at the facts and evidence surrounding 9-11.

While none of the many 9-11 researchers knows exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago, any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us.

And these inconsistencies are huge. They range from the apparent stand-down of our immense military arsenal (for over an hour and a half) to the small hole and lack of debris at the Pentagon. There was Bush’s bizarre, uninterrupted photo op in a Florida elementary school, and then there is the matter of the remains of Flight 93 being scattered over eight miles of Pennsylvania farmland, a fact which suggests the plane may have been shot down. The official story seems wrong on all of these points.

But the focus of this article is on just one point: the odd collapse of the three buildings in the World Trade Center complex.
How I First Began to Question: WTC7

The World Trade Center (WTC) contained seven buildings. The Twin Towers were called buildings One (WTC1) and Two (WTC2). They collapsed in truly astounding fashion, but the event that caused me first to question the official story about the events of 9-11 was viewing videos of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7).

If you’ve forgotten, WTC7 was a 47-story building that was not hit by an airplane or by any significant debris from either WTC1 or WTC2. Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 were struck by massive amounts of debris from the collapsing Twin Towers, yet none collapsed, despite their thin-gauge steel supports.
Viewing the Collapse of WTC7
The 9-11 commemorative videos produced by PBS and CNN are best. Both clearly show WTC7’s implosion.

Lower resolution Internet movies are also available.

WTC7, which was situated on the next block over, was the farthest of the buildings from WTC1 and WTC2. WTC7 happened to contain the New York City Office of Emergency Management (OEM), a facility that was, according to testimony to the 9-11 Commission, one of the most sophisticated Emergency Command Centers on the planet. But shortly after 5:20 pm on Sept. 11, as the horrific day was coming to a close, WTC7 mysteriously imploded and fell to the ground in an astounding 6.5 seconds.

6.5 seconds. This is a mere 0.5 seconds more than freefall in a vacuum. To restate this, a rock dropped from the 47th floor would have taken at least 6 seconds to hit the ground. WTC7, in its entirety, fell to the earth in 6.5 seconds. Now, recall, we’re supposed to believe that each floor of the building “pancaked” on the one below. Each of the 47 floors supposedly pancaked and collapsed, individually. Yet WTC7 reached the ground in 0.5 seconds longer than freefall. Is this really possible?

Judge for yourself. Watch WTC7 go down. It takes 6.5 seconds. Take out your stopwatch.
What About Towers One and Two?

The odd, swift collapse of WTC7 made me reconsider the Twin Towers and how they fell. As I had with WTC7, I first studied video footage available on the web. Then I acquired and watched a DVD of the collapses, frame by frame.

What struck me first was the way the second plane hit WTC2, the South Tower. I noticed that this plane, United Airlines Flight 175, which weighed over 160,000 pounds and was traveling at 350 mph, did not even visibly move the building when it slammed into it. How, I wondered, could a building that did not visibly move from a heavy high speed projectile collapse at near freefall speed less than an hour later?

WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 are the buildings in gray.

Next, I turned my attention to steel beams that fell in freefall next to the building as it collapsed. The beams were falling at the same rate that the towers themselves were descending. Familiar with elementary physics, including principles of conservation of energy and momentum, this seemed quite impossible if the towers were indeed "pancaking,”which is the official theory.

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren’t hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?

Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn’t.

And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.

Thus, put simply, the floors could not have been pancaking. The buildings fell too quickly. The floors must all have been falling simultaneously to reach the ground in such a short amount of time. But how?
What About the Fires?

The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they’re built from steel that doesn’t melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.
Steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire.

It’s also odd that WTC7, which wasn’t hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn’t even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

According to the 9-11 report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), "the specifics of the fires in WTC7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this tim."

Aside from its startling nonchalance, this statement makes a rather profound assumption. Again, no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire.

The flattened ruins are WTC1 and WTC2 (in the middle), and WTC7 (at the bottom)

This fact was known to firemen. Hence their unflinching rush up into the skyscrapers to put out the fire. Partly it was bravery, to be sure, but partly it was concrete knowledge that skyscrapers do not collapse due to fire. Yet after 100 years, three collapsed in one day.

Did the FEMA investigators not think to ask the New York City Fire Department how they thought the fire started, or how the fires could have caused the astounding, historical collapse? This would seem to be an elementary step in any investigation about a fire. Instead, they chose to leave the cause of the collapse “unknown.”
Conclusion

So if the science in this article is correct (none of it goes beyond the tenth grade level), then we know that the floors of the three WTC buildings were not pancaking but were falling simultaneously. We also know that fire is an insufficient explanation for the initiation of the collapse of the buildings.

Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.

A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete. Controlled demolition would also explain the seismic evidence recorded nearby of two small earthquakes, each just before one of the Twin Towers collapsed. And finally, controlled demolition would explain why three steel skyscrapers, two of which were struck by planes and one of which wasn’t, all collapsed in essentially the same way.
WTC collapses with huge explosions
The massive energy required to pulverize concrete into microscopic dust
suggests the use of explosives
Ongoing Questions

But having established that all three WTC towers had to have been assisted in their failures, I asked myself, Who could have planted the explosives to blow up the buildings in a controlled demolition? Could fundamentalist Muslim fanatics have gotten the plans for those buildings, engineered the demolition, and then gotten into them to plant the explosives?

This seemed improbable. And after learning that WTC7 housed the FBI, CIA, and the OEM, it seemed impossible. Then I thought, Why would terrorists engineer a building to implode? Wouldn’t they want to cause even more damage to the surrounding buildings and possibly create more havoc and destruction from debris exploding away from the building? And if they’d planted explosives in the buildings, why would they have bothered hijacking and flying planes into them? Perhaps WTC7 was demolished to destroy evidence that would answer these questions. To this day, I don’t know. But this is how I began to question the official story about 9-11.

Recently I learned that President Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, is a part owner of the company that not only provided security for both United and American Airlines, but also for the World Trade Center complex itself. I also discovered that Larry Silverstein, who had bought the leasing rights for the WTC complex from the NY/NJ Port Authority in May of 2001 for $200 million, had received a $3.55 billion insurance settlement right after 9-11 - yet he was suing for an additional $3.55 billion by claiming the two hits on the towers constituted two separate terrorist attacks! He stood to make $7 billion dollars on a four month investment. Talk about motive.

In conclusion, I’ll repeat myself. None of the many 9-11 researchers can definitively say exactly what happened on that fateful day in September almost 3 years ago. But any sensible person can easily spot dozens of inconsistencies in the official story that is being forced upon us. And the fact is, most of the available 9-11 evidence points to at least some level of government complicity or foreknowledge.

Please, read more for yourself. Don’t take my word for it. Most of all, do not buy the double-speak that visible politicians and the media use to discount any question about 9-11. Clearly, there are no "conspiracy theories”surrounding 9-11. The official story itself affirms that there was obviously some kind of conspiracy. It’s just a question of which conspiracy occurred. We know it wasn’t mere coincidence that several hijackers happened to be on several different airplanes and happened to hijack them at the exact same time and happened to pick the World Trade Center as a target. The real question is, "Who was involved in the conspiracy?”

Dave Heller, who has degrees in physics and architecture, is a builder and engaged citizen in Berkeley, California.

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

Very good, concise info.

This lays out the truth as it is. Of course, there are a thousand other incriminating rabbit holes, but mentioning too many at once makes the fluorinated brain shut down.

I noticed the Disinfo whores.

aren't touching this

I'll answer it if you agree to be intellectually honest

The last time I argued about the free-fall theory I clearly showed that the buildings did not fall at free fall speeds. They took about double the speed of gravity.

Yet not one of you "truthers" had the intellectual honesty to say, "Yes, you are correct about the free fall theory." Even now I bet you still won't admit that the free-fall theory is bunk. Here's your chance, prove me wrong.

So if you are prepared to talk about this honestly, either by agreeing or disagreeing (with logical statements to back up your disagreement) with no name calling, then I would be prepared to enter into a dialogue. Otherwise it is a pointless waste of time to argue with people who are clearly not interested in reason.

Oop

this spot is like bein' in limbo so I'll move it. Guess I won't move it.

By just attacking one aspect

By just attacking one aspect of the argument doesn't make you right either. The key issue isn't necessarily how fast the buildings fell. There are a whole host of other, intelligent questions that can be raised that contradict the official story.

Double the speed of gravity?

Now it's semantics.. Fact is they shouldn't have fell period and if they did fall the Official Pancake theory would have taken much longer than 15 seconds..

Especially WTC 7 for that matter.

I'll prove you wrong by the simple fact that WTC 7 couldn't have just collapse into itself at NEAR free fall speed.

Unless of course you rigged it with Demolition Charges.

Ok, this raises more questions

Apparently you are admitting that they did not fall at free-fall speed, correct? First things first, I would like to have this verified. Please state that you agree they did not fall at free-fall speeds.

Moving on, what are your calculations of what the actual speed of fall should have been for the North Tower and the South Tower? You stated that they should take longer - the South Tower took 22 seconds, but I guess you calculated it would take even longer than this to pancake? Please tell me how long and how you calculated this.

As for WT7, is there even clear footage of the fall? The footage I saw clearly shows it falling in two stages. First the side closest to the North Tower goes down, then the other side. So what are your calculations for what the speed should have been, and what is your estimate of the actual collapse time?

Satisfied?

Have you read the posts that answer your questions?
What think you now?
Pray tell....

Yes clear video of wtc7

Extremely clear video in fact. Even shows demo squibs.

http://www.veoh.com/video...

Simple Physics explained of how the Pancake theory is IMPOSSIBLE

http://www.youtube.com/wa...

Oops

Oops, you forgot something about our agreement. I'll give you another chance: "First things first, I would like to have this verified. Please state that you agree they did not fall at free-fall speeds."

Let's not be condescending

Let's not be condescending please.

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

If not exactly.

Then extremely close.. But entirely and impossibly to fast to have been mere collapse. Demolition or some other form of extremely high energy was used to destroy that building. Gravity alone does not posses the energy needed.

Extremely close???!!!

How is 22 seconds "extremely close" to 9.22 seconds? And that's not even counting the fact that the building collapse started partway down, and the rubble pile at the bottom moved the street level up.

And you never did tell me how long the collapse should have taken. Please tell me how long it should have taken for the buildings to fall?

BTW So you admit that it did not free-fall? Please categorically say yes or no on this.

this is clearly reaching and well just completely wrong.

watch the video footage of the bulding collapse again and again until you start making some sense this just got rediculous. It was under 9 seconds.

~Mikael / Peace, love, Light and unity ~

Too funny

Bzzt. Wrong again! Watch the video I posted below.

BTW I notice Oruval won't answer just how long the tower collapses should have taken. The truthers here say they collapsed too fast. Okay smarty-pants, how long should they have taken to collapse? Please, just give me a number.

Here's the figures

t = √(2x/g)

t= √(2*1362ft/32 ft/s/s)

t= 9.22s

I think that video was slowed down. I've seen the collapses a lot (back when I gave a shit about 9-11) and none were that slow.

I counted between 10-14 seconds on every one I ever saw except that one.

That is dropping an egg off he top

You misunderstood what I was looking for. I wanted the calculation for how long he expected the buildings to take to fall. He said 15 and 22 seconds was too fast. Well, if that is too fast, what is the expected time for the buildings to fall then?

And no, the video is not slowed down. I've watched numerous videos of the collapses and the 15 second one comes up always. It's harder to find video of the other tower though - usually it disappears behind other buildings and you can't see the whole thing in one clip (hence relying on the fireman footage).

How long in the real world ?

with office fires burning for ten years maybe the rust would have built up enough to perhaps make a couple of the structural beams sag a couple inches. I'll guess maybe a thousand years for complete collapse.
~Mikael / Peace, love, Light and unity ~

Please give the source for 22 secs

I would like to research that myself.
Thanks

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

Here's a video that shows

Here's a video that shows video of both towers collapsing. I used seperate ones myself but this one shows them both in the same video. Go ahead and count along with the timer on the bottom of the YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/wa...

The 22 seconds is also backed up by seismographic data. There were no seismic events until debris started hitting the ground (i.e. while still up there nothing is impacting ground to cause vibrations), and by comparing the times on the CNN feed with the seismic data you can tell that it took around 22 seconds total.

BTW This "official" time of ten seconds is bogus! No one here would provide a link to it so I found it myself. Here is the line in the official report:
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".

Now obviously this was not a scientific timing of the two collapses. It has no decimal places. You know very well that TWO towers fell at vastly different times, so naming ONE time as the official one is ludicrous. That alone should tell you how meaningless this statement is. It is a one-off line by some politician writing about the towers. It was never meant to be taken as the "official" time of the towers collapse, yet you "truthers" choose to cling to that line above the many other sources for accurate times. This just demonstrates how you grasp at misinformation.

http://www.9-11commission...

30 seconds

is too fast for it to fallen for the reasons given by the official story. I wouldn't call that debunking. No matter what if you don't question 3 buildings going down like that on the same day you live in lala land. I'm not saying I know the facts but to just except all of those bizzare coincidences of that day is not realistic. Not saying I know what it is but there is much more to the story. I would call the non truthers the crackpots.

What is a bizarre coincidence exactly?

Ok, two buildings were hit with passenger airliners filled with fuel. Guess what? They burned (no surprise there) and they were weakened dramatically (again no surprise) and then they fell (the expected result).

The third building, WTC7, was hammered with rubble from the towers, got a 20 story hole ripped in the side, the deisel power generator tanks started on fire and it too burned down. What is the surprise there? I'm just surprised more buildings didn't fall when the rubble from the two buildings slammed them.

"There were no seismic

"There were no seismic events until debris started hitting the ground (i.e. while still up there nothing is impacting ground to cause vibrations), and by comparing the times on the CNN feed with the seismic data you can tell that it took around 22 seconds total." NOT TRUE

If demolition initiated the collapse it would have preceded the collapse. Will you accept that possibility?

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

How do you tell the difference?

So you think you could tell the difference between seismic waves caused by rubble and an explosive squib? I think not. The fact is that the seismic predictions match up with the observed video of the collapse. It also matches up with the audio (collapse is accompanied by sounds of collapse - i.e. when the sound stops that means the collapse stopped). You are just spouting more meaningless nonsense meant to camouflage your misunderstanding of physics.

Watch and listen please...

http://physics911.net/dem...
This collapse happens in less than 14 seconds but listen to the demolition like sounds that set it in motion. What do think?

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

What do I think?

What do I think? I think a building falling down would make some seriously loud sounds. I think they also echo around the surrounding buildings as sound tends to do when you are downtown. I also think your chances of distinguishing between concrete cracking and an explosion are doubtful.

Add to that the visual evidence that there are no shock-waves when the collapse starts. You've seen a building demolished by explosives before, right? Watch carefully. It throws off powder and shock waves - none of which we saw on 9-11. The collapse was totally passive - first a huge sagging then complete structural failure.

This WAS NOT passive... Please use the gifts bestowed!

The shock waves were visible in the form of the debris cloud - HERE.
http://911research.wtc7.n...
http://911research.wtc7.n...
http://911research.wtc7.n...

Listen to the explosion going off here. Do you really think that is a pre-collapse sound?
http://physics911.net/exp...

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

Ridiculous

There is nothing that looks or sounds like an explosion. Do you watch Mythbusters? I've seen and heard lots of explosions as they sound when recorded with electronic equiptment and it sounds nothing like this.

Times according to the 9/11 commision

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

The Pancake theory would put the collapse at closer to a 1:30 given resistance and height for WTC1 & 2.

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

10 seconds "official time" is bogus

See my reply above.

22 seconds?

What...for both buildings?
Where the hell did you dig that BS up at?

For the South tower

See my reply, with video, above.

Times according to the 9/11 commision

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

The Pancake theory would put the collapse at closer to a 1:30 given resistance and height for WTC1 & 2.

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

10 second figure

Did the report say they measured EXACTLY 10 seconds, or was this some comment by some politician that it took about 10 seconds? Please show me your source for this figure. Whoever said 10 seconds must have been mistaking the shroud of debris that fell unimpeded BESIDE the building. You can't count the shroud of debris hitting the ground as the collapse time. You need to only time the structural collapse, which is very visible though somewhat hidden behind a dust cloud.

It is mentioned numerous

It is mentioned numerous times from NIST and FEMA in the 9/11 Commission Report which range from 0.8 - 4.8 seconds of freefall speed being 9.2 Sec.

Link to the FEMA report in PDF
http://911research.wtc7.n...

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy

Wrong

The line that mentions 10 seconds is (see my reply above):
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds".

Does this sound like the scientific times from the report? I'll give you a clue: where are the decimal places? I'll give you another clue: How can they list ONE time of ten seconds when TWO towers fell? So pathetic.

I am not interested in name

I am not interested in name calling... just some intelligent back and forth on the subject. If you don't mind I will refer to this site which I found to be helpful:
http://physics911.net/clo...

I Have posted it above but if you want the pictures as well follow the link. To answer your question:

The height of the South Tower is 1362 feet. I calculated that from that height, freefall in a vacuum (read, absolutely no resistance on earth) is 9.2 seconds. According to testimony provided to the 9-11 Commission, the tower fell in 10 seconds. Other data shows it took closer to 14 seconds. So the towers fell within 0.8-4.8 seconds of freefall in a vacuum. Just like WTC7, this speed seemed impossible if each of the 110 floors had to fail individually.

As I was considering this, another problem arose. There is a principle in physics called the Law of Conservation of Energy. There is also the Law of Conservation of Momentum. I’ll briefly explain how these principles work. Let’s assume there are two identical Honda Civics on the freeway. One is sitting in neutral at a standstill (0 mph). The other is coasting at 60 mph. The second Honda slams into the back of the first one. The first Honda will then instantaneously be going much faster than it was, and the second will instantaneously be going much slower than it was.

This is how the principle works in the horizontal direction, and it works the same in the vertical direction, with the added constant force of gravity added to it. Jim Hoffman, a professional scientist published in several peer-reviewed scientific journals, took a long look at all of this. He calculated that even if the structure itself offered no resistance, that is to say, even if the 110 floors of each tower were hovering in mid-air, the “pancake” theory would still have taken a minimum of 15.5 seconds to reach the ground. So, even if the building essentially didn’t exist, if it provided no resistance at all to the collapse, just the floors hitting each other and causing each other to decelerate would’ve taken 15.5 seconds to reach the ground.

But of course the buildings did exist. They had stood for over 30 years. The floors weren’t hovering in mid-air. So how did the building provide no resistance?

Yet another observation one makes in watching the collapsing towers is the huge dust clouds and debris, including steel beams, that were thrown hundreds of feet out horizontally from the towers as they fell. If we are to believe the pancake theory, this amount of scattering debris, fine pulverized concrete dust, and sheetrock powder would clearly indicate massive resistance to the vertical collapse. So there is an impossible conflict. You either have a miraculous, historical, instantaneous, catastrophic failure that occurs within a fraction of a second of freefall and that kicks out little dust, or you have a solid, hefty building that remains virtually unaffected after a massive, speeding projectile hits it. You either have a house of cards or a house of bricks. The building either resists its collapse or it doesn’t. And we know the WTC Towers were made of reinforced steel and concrete that would act much more like bricks than cards.

A nation which has forgotten the quality of courage which in the past has been brought to public life is not as likely to insist upon or regard that quality in its chosen leaders today - and in fact we have forgotten.
John F. Kennedy