If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Note - video “9/11 Truth: Scott Forbes describes power-downs in WTC” below the article
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
“WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?”
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
“In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!”
Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out:
“The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn’t the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?”
Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government’s account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.
See also this.
source
VIDEO:
9/11 Truth: Scott Forbes describes power-downs in WTC
here ...A very intersting interview with someone who orked in the towers ...
http://dissentmag.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/14-structural-engineers-now-publicly-challenge-governments-explanation-for-destruction-of-the-world-trade-center/
Even though the Vietnam War ended 30 years ago, the US.s saturation chemical bombing is still wreaking havoc on millions, including the newly born . making them third-generation victims. Nobody knows when the congenital deformities, one of many horrific health consequences of the toxic chemicals, will end.
Before the '91 Gulf war, Iraq was the 3'rd largest armed forces in the world, after it was nothing really.
But I'd have made a go of it for kicks in a MiG-25. Fly over the radar, then dive and have a go at one of them tasty carriers.
What is there to suggest (and I note you use the word 'suggest' as opposed to anything more decisive) that this had 'fuck all to do with Islamic militants'? For almost every question that is raised by the conspiracy theorists, there is a plausible explanation. Of course, some points are difficult to explain ... but you get the same questions hanging over incidents to do with Madeline McCann, Diana, David Kelly, etc etc. That's life. Not all questions are easily answered and it is often impossible to square the circle.
In my opinion, any 'rational-minded person ' would weigh up both sides of the story and then add 'plausability' to the question. At the moment, there is more substantial proof in favour of the official line than there is by the conspiracists.
I can't comment on the other people as I don't know anything about them, but Michael Meacher was sacked in 2003 and has a history of going off party lines i.e. he is a bit of a maverick - and with an axe to grind against Tony Blair.
However, it's all very well wheeling in a few 'celebrity' names as supporters of the idea that there was a conspiracy but a percentage of any number of people will have a contradicting view. Why do you dismiss the opinions of people with as great, or greater, standing and their subsequent credibility?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhauHfDJ4b4
There is no plausible explanation for the collapse of 3 towers, one of which wasn't even hit by a plane. A building can't fall in on itself at freefall speed from a single impact unless the base support has been blown out, least of all collapse from some fairly minor fires on one side as happened with WTC 7.
Then you've got the guys who trained the supposed terrorists who have publically said they were incompetant pilots and could barely fly a cesna - improbable that they're able to locate and hit 3 out of 4 of their targets if they could barely fly a plane - not to mention that these supposed 'Islamic extremists' were getting pissed and shagging hookers in Vegas shortly before the attacks. Not exactly what you'd expect from hardline Muslims willing to carry out mass-murder for their faith.
Plus there's the NORAD delay, a record high of put options on American Airlines the day before the attacks, the removal of evidence from the scene which was shipped to China for disposal, the refusal by the US government to accept assistance in capturing bin Laden, the Project for the New American Century's statement that a "new Pearly Harbour" is required to act a catalyst for "full spectrum dominance"...I could go on.
What is this 'substantial proof' and where can I find it?
I suggest anyone who thinks the weight of proof is on the side of the the US government reads David Ray Griffin's New Pearl Harbour and Debunking 9/11 Debunking - as coldly rational a study as you will find.
People have vested interests. And a great many are willing to accept whatever officialdom tells them to accept, regardless of the evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmp4Ller8l4
This applies to anyone else too - check out Loose Change 2nd edition (google it).
Not that i subscribe to any such conspiracy theories, but i do find them interesting.
No matter what is said, there are unanswered questions. I just think though there are too many unknowns to say 'oh, it was terrorism' or 'nah, it's all a cover up by the U.S.'
For example, relating to the 'plane' (in inverted comma's, as i did not see the 'plane' go in to the Pentagon or anything else, so i'm on the fence) - if this was not a plane and a missle as some suggest - what happened to the people who were supposedly on the plane that went into the Pentagon? But for the same matter, if the plane was destroyed, why is the I.D. (assigned to that plane) still shown as in service?
Were these people just bunged a couple of million and took to paradise? I don't think so - even if you do buy people off and tell them never to go back to their friends and family, i'm sure that at least one person would make contact with someone they love.
With regard to invading Afghanistan and Iraq over a) retaliation and b) WMD, it's stupid. There has never been any conclusive evidence provided showing that Afghanistan's government assisted in the attack or that Iraq held WMD.
What I am unable to fathom though, is how our governments can 'liberate' the people of Iraq from that 'terrible dictator', yet no-one is lifting a finger to oust Robert Mugabe...much oil in Zimbabwe? http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/maps/greatest-crude-oil-reservers.jpg Didn't think so.
As for a plane hitting the pentagon ...it just simply didn't. No one can tell me or anyone else ...how does the soft nose of the plane ...drill a hole throug=h reinforced concrete ...reinforced with steel that is ...yet the hard tungsten steel engines which wiegh nine tons each ...don't hit the building on either side of the nose ...they didn't scratch the building ...didn't plough intpo the lawn ...as you would expect seeing where the nose supposedly drilled through the most reinforced fortress in the world.
Funny how it hit the building exactly where ...it had been draped in heavy canvas and scaffolding for twelve months. Hiding what ...the making of the hole and the placing of the wrong wrecked engine?
The central heating oil catches fire in building seven and it folds in on itself! Come on.
Unacol wanted to build a pipeline across afghanistan ...before 9/11 ...the bushbots wanted to invade Iraq before 9/11 ...the president of Afghanistan ...put in by the yanks ...was and is a mjor shareholder in Unacol ...the list goes on and on.
Not to mention the very people who wrote the panac agend of controling the mideasts oil ...building the pipeline ...saying they needed a new pearl harbour to get the people and the world on side ...all end up in the whitehouse and low and behold ...all these things come to pass.
A diesel tank on fire ...never brunged a fifty story city block wide building down in history and never will again.
As for where peope go ...murdered i would think.
These people don't mind sacrificing 3000 people in the towers ...4000 of their own troops so far ...hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans ...two million diplaced people ...why on earth anyone would expect thes people not to kill is beyond me.
ZIMBABWE ...IT GROWS CARROTS ...NPOT OIL.
aMERICAN TROOPS ARE IN iRAQ TO STAY ...PERMANENT Bases ...super fortresses are under construction right now.
Iran ...your next.
It's called resource wars.
In comparison to what exactly? I'd hardly state that the nose of a plane was 'soft'. However, when crashing in to a solid object in the region of 350+mph, no object stands a chance of not suffering any damage. Re-inforced steel can withstand massive amounts of pressue and movement, but the pounds of pressure applied following an object striking something at 350+mph would be so tremendous that some damage would occur.
I'm getting a mix of information - you're basically saying that there's not much debris left of a plane, but the building seems quite damaged which wouldn't happen from a plane? Think of it as a car and crumple zones, which if you have an object travelling at over 350mph, hitting a stationary object, the moving object will crumple.
'yet the hard tungsten steel engines which' Tungsten????? Tungsten is used to make electrical connectors and plugs, not jet engines as a far as i know.
'Placing the wrong engine'? If you are referring to a small 'fan' that looks like an engine, then I think you are actually referring to the Auxilary Power Unit, found in the tail section of many aircraft. They provide the plane with auxilary power, whilst the main engines shut down on the ground.
According to some websites, the black boxes were recovered, although i don't believe everything i read on the net! The reason it hasn't been 'publicised' is that the authorities don't want the victims' families to be upset/reminded of this.
Plus, the Size of a 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet. The tail section wouldn't cause too much damage, therefore the hole would be the above mentioned size and not around 40 feet.
Some engine parts photographed inside the Pentagon match a Rolls-Royce RB211 - which is on some AA 757's. They also use Pratt & Whitney engines too.
Structural components photographed in wreckage match (Green) Boeing paint primer schemes.
I've not mentioned building 7????
You can't state that X amount of people would have been 'murdered' - i don't theoretically see how this would work? Surely if you were getting on a plane and something 'kicked off', you'd at least have a crack at stopping it, especially if you thought you were going to die anyway?
Like i said previously, i'm not saying it was a plane, i'm not saying it wasn't. But you paint a too 'black and white' picture.
The hole is at ground level ..and it goes straight through the building like a drill. How come the two nine ton engines made of whatever ...didn't touch the floor didn't plough the lawn up if the nose was at ground level?
How come the two nine ton engines didn't impact with the building?
Look at the pictures of damage ...theres just a hole ...nothing on either side. Rolls royce have said that aint their engine or any part of.
The familys are seeking the truth and not getting it ...according to a growing number of the families involved.
I only mention building seven as there are just so many questions the government refuse to answer but ...the owner of building seven stated on camera that because of the chaos that day ...there was no one to put out the fires in number seven so the order was given to pull it ...the term used to mean pull it down. He hasn't been available for interview since. The families and me ...would like to know how the hell it was pulled ...pulled meaning a controlled demolition. How the hell could you get the right explosives ...the right ammount of explosives ...in all that chaos ...through all that chaos ...and assemble a team ...and place the explosives and wire it all up and bring it down ...all in seven hours? It fell seven hours after the twin towers.
Have you tried any of the links i supplied ...the radio interview doesn't prove anything but it is very interesting.
Someone in this thread ccused me of anti americanism ...which is very untrue ...i think America has given so much to the world in all manner of ways from art music literature movies science and tech ...the list goes on.
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main
See you want me to believe a boeing 757 went through this 16 foot wide hole ...a boeing 757 is
a 155 five feet long 45 feet high has a 124 feet wingspan and wieghs almostr a hundred tons ...and sorry i said nine tons before but ...the engines are six tons ...Your asking me to believe the impossible.
You seriously want me to believe a hundred ton plane dissapeared through little hole?
Have a listen to the phone call.
These guys aren't as nuts as me ...these guys fly boing 757 and they aint happy with YOUR version of events.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
The pilots' number 1 priority is the safety of the passengers. Number 2 priority is to get them to their destination on time. Pilots dont just give up their airplane to someone with a knife.. regardless of what the press has told you about The Common Strategy prior to 9/11.
We don't actually live in the movie '300'. People say lots of stupid and offensive things when it comes to these events. Anyone remember Michael Moore claiming that, "Heh, if the passengers on the planes had been black, heh, they wudda fought those hijackers off; am I right or am I right? AmIright?!" No matter that many of the passengers were black. No matter about real life or vulgar racial stereotypes.
As regards the disappearing plane, Flight 77, which of course did not hit the Pentagon because we have inquisitive minds and the internet to tell us otherwise, this plane is supposed to have... err... either have been crashlanded (by remote control, or co-conspirator, naturally) in the sea, at another location, or landed safely at some military base or other, at which point the passengers were shot or perhaps sent to an island where they met The Others and got eaten by a black smoke monster.
That would be a monumental cover-up. It's like the moon-landing theories: too far-reaching, too many people would have had to have known. Yet nothing really leaks. Just hearsay and wild flights (that don't hit the Pentagon) of fancy. The government really isn't that great. Everyone likes to crack jokes about how dumb George W. Bush is yet he and his cronies are supposed to have orchestrated the most intricate, mindfucking, convincing and organised conspiracy in history. Or was he a puppet for the Illuminati?
Loose Change is a well-made piece of fiction. You have to applaud the adolescent audacity of it. But beyond that it's full of unverifiable claims, bad research, conjecture or lies just about every 20 seconds. Obviously that doesn't stop it being really, really convincing on a first watch, because that's the power of anything presented as fact. Like the power of news reporting with the attempt to make people forget that there is no such thing as 'The News' but only what specific newspapers and stations choose to broadcast or deny, and their political and moral slant on it.
To many holes in the whole story of that dreadful day ...every where you turn ...the impossible happens on that day.
Dream on.
A more likely explanation is that it was damaged by debris and was structurally unsound.
What about the landlords statement about pulling the building?
What about pilotsfortruth911.org?
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
It was hardly a small diesel fire, it was a fucking great big couple of planes laden with aviation fuel crashing into them at top fucking speed and then two buildings collapsing and spewing debris everywhere
I'm not sure what pilots know about structural engineering (and your average pilot is a trained chimp who knows lots about planes, but wouldn't trust half of them to put a shelf without it falling down).
and the pulling has been answered so many times before, for example http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html
Still doesn't answer my question. Bush and colleagues orchestrate this great conspiracy and then knock-down a completely unrelated building - doesn't this strike you as bit of a boo-boo in planning terms?
That is the level of their argument. They are not prepared to concede any point from their 90-minute 'analysis' even when called on it. In essence, then, they fashion themselves a 'Truth' movement while actively rejecting the truth. If anyone uses science, history or testimony to refute their outrageous claims, these people are branded liars. Despite claiming that no one should accept the standard version of events, all they're doing is giving, forcing their own version of events which cannot be challenged. That's unbearable hypocrisy - they say "look up this stuff for yourselves," etc., but they mean "find out that we're right;" their reaction in the face of any sort of debate means that they do not value discussion, moving towards the truth, but only their truth. Evidently never do they mean think for yourselves, because that could very well end up with people doubting their theory and therefore becoming 'liars'.
The pilots are talking about flying not structural engineering.
This conspiracy would not have been done by Bush ...it would have been the inteligence services.
Time will tell ...the truth will come out ...and your going to be upset when it does ...we've done this thread so many times and i keep getting sucked into it ...
No plane wreckage in Pennsylvania either ...http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/defaulte.htm
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.
http://www.physics911.net/
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.
http://www.physics911.net/
Healthy scepticism is good, it means we don't get the wool pulled over our eyes. Calling everything a conspiracy is not.
They all said he was the kind of guy who would have acted. Who would have saved the lives of the passengers whatever. And he knew what to do.
So why not do it? If you are really lucky, the hijacker breaks his neck. If not, he is still a fair bit fucked up. And you can easily subdue him after.
Everything about 9/11 is suspicious.
There's been plenty of hijackings pre-9/11 (none of which turned into suicide runs it has to be said) and yet in the majority of them the pilot has decided it's a good thing to do what the hijackers say and let special forces take them down when landed...