September 11

GCBRONCO

State of Origin Captain
11,923
5,737
Gold Coast
but I'm a firm believer that there's a *lot* we're not being told about that day.
Certainly there would be things about that day the majority of people wouldn't know, there will always be things that are done or not announced for national security reasons, doesn't make it a conspiracy(flipside to that is conspiracies do exist, but often more mundane then the loonie ones like to push).
 
Last edited:

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
20,590
16,840
I'm going to cop a bit of flack here, but IMO #7 has never been properly explained. A steel-framed highrise had never collapsed before that day. I guess I can accept the towers - I've watched plenty of doco's, I've read all the reports (NIST, the Commission, etc), I'm an engineer so I can grasp the technical details and the design/structural implications - but #7 is definitely different. It wasn't addressed in the initial Commission report. It had its own separate report issued years later, which did not adequately address the situation in any way. I don't know what did happen - not many of the 'conspiracy theories' hold a great deal of water - but I'm a firm believer that there's a *lot* we're not being told about that day.
Anyone have links to any decent summaries of the concerns?

Edit: Quoted wrong post.
 
Last edited:

Jedhead

NRL Player
1,536
1,696
I was awoken by a sibling at about 6am with apologies but something amazing was happening and to turn on the tv. To this day I still can't think of more full-on images.



The conspiracy theories interested me greatly too, however it didn't take long to realise they were all a load of crap.

Firefighters at ground zero had been reporting all day that #7 was coming down, it was inevitable, it had been burning out of control. It had, afterall just had 2 of the world's tallest buildings collapse on top of it. It's not hard to imagine that on such a full-on day with so many unconfirmed reports flying around that some Chinese whispers between the firefighters and the media occurred.

For a building 7 conspiracy to be feasible it would have required the co-operation from all ranks of the FDNY.....An organisation that lost hundreds of people that day.
Would not require the whole FDNY and building seven was quite a bit away from the twin towers so they" never did "collapse on top of it" and if you look at the pictures of the building just as they 'pull it' which is demolition speak for blow a controlled demolition through explosives. There was no real outwards sign of fire. There was also footage shown on yank tv of the FDNY telling a news crew to clear the hell away from the building as they were about to 'pull it'. Something did not gell with building seven when it happened in real time.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,125
647
Bundy
Morkel Morkel - short on time, and don't know of any 'professional'-type summaries, but try the professional-type groups:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/
https://www.ae911truth.org/

http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ has a reasonable summary of WTC7 in particular; it's an ongoing detailed engineering study through the engineering faculty of a university.


Tom Tom - the video you linked to simply regurgitates the NIST report and throws some strawman arguments in to boot. The issue is that the NIST report is inaccurate. From my third link above:

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) opened an investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in August 2002. NIST released its final report on WTC 7 in 2008, finding that the fires that were ignited by falling debris from WTC 1 caused the collapse of WTC 7. Independent researchers, however, have assembled evidence that has raised profound questions regarding the notion that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire. (My comment - such as the NIST report leaving out critical structural components in their models - see http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf)

The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18. At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously" (my emphasis).


I haven't looked at any of this stuff for years, but some other information I recall is that the NIST model of collapse called for some of the steel components to have been heated to 600 degrees C for a number of hours (even aside from the other concerns). Yet a) office fires don't generally burn that hot (and certainly not for hours) and b) NIST's own investigations into the actual steel components from the building failed to find any steel which had been heated above about 250 degrees C (from memory, don't quote me on that please).

So, while there are plenty of 'crackpot' views on what happened that day, there are also serious and legitimate questions which have not been adequately addressed. I offer no opinions on what did actually happen...I prefer to focus on what can be defined and discovered and quantified, rather than suspected or presumed.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
20,590
16,840
Morkel Morkel - short on time, and don't know of any 'professional'-type summaries, but try the professional-type groups:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/
https://www.ae911truth.org/

http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ has a reasonable summary of WTC7 in particular; it's an ongoing detailed engineering study through the engineering faculty of a university.


Tom Tom - the video you linked to simply regurgitates the NIST report and throws some strawman arguments in to boot. The issue is that the NIST report is inaccurate. From my third link above:

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) opened an investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in August 2002. NIST released its final report on WTC 7 in 2008, finding that the fires that were ignited by falling debris from WTC 1 caused the collapse of WTC 7. Independent researchers, however, have assembled evidence that has raised profound questions regarding the notion that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire. (My comment - such as the NIST report leaving out critical structural components in their models - see http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf)

The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18. At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously" (my emphasis).


I haven't looked at any of this stuff for years, but some other information I recall is that the NIST model of collapse called for some of the steel components to have been heated to 600 degrees C for a number of hours (even aside from the other concerns). Yet a) office fires don't generally burn that hot (and certainly not for hours) and b) NIST's own investigations into the actual steel components from the building failed to find any steel which had been heated above about 250 degrees C (from memory, don't quote me on that please).

So, while there are plenty of 'crackpot' views on what happened that day, there are also serious and legitimate questions which have not been adequately addressed. I offer no opinions on what did actually happen...I prefer to focus on what can be defined and discovered and quantified, rather than suspected or presumed.
Thanks mate, I know what I'm doing at lunch time.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
20,590
16,840
For what reason would they lie?
Not sure if serious.

On 9/11 as a complete event, it's already certain that America armed and funded the Taliban and Bin Laden. Whether they were complicit in the events if 9/11 or not is a different story, but they certainly enabled the beast. Were they complicit, the obvious motive would be to give America justifiable reason to do what they eventually did - "liberate" many areas of the middle east in the name of peace, AKA, seizing control of the resources and furthering the gains of their allies over there (SA).

Specifically WTC7, the Pentagon, etc. To cover up other shit or to damage the interests of other enemies of the government / powerbrokers. One of the motives for the Pentagon is supposedly taking out a whole bunch of investigators and accountants who were getting to the bottom of $2.3 trillion "missing" from the defence budget. The investigation was announced the day before 9/11. And they hit that particular office inside the Pentagon perfectly.
 

Jedhead

NRL Player
1,536
1,696
For what reason would they lie?
Money. Power. Control.

I also find it very disturbing that shortly after this event the UK was subjected to its own tragedy in London. Both allowed the respective governments to make huge changes to the laws that effected individual's freedoms and privacy. Those changes to civil liberties would have been almost impossible without these two tradgedies occurring. More importantly, America's changes would not have been half as effective or indeed workable without the UK and then the rest of Europe following suit.

But then immediately afterwards - nothing? It was like those raft of draconian changes resolved the terrorist issue overnight. One would expect those changes would have needed time to be implemented before they took effect. But magically the atrocities ceased overnight. So in effect, the two heinous acts had did the job for both goverments and gave them unprecedented control over their respective populations, then for some reason the terrorists took a long vacation and just simply stopped.

I know it sounds wacky, but the timing of events and then the ceasing of events seem so precise and so orderly that it leaves me wondering. The only one thing I know for sure is that countless innocent people either lost or had their lives changed for ever. The West, as a civilisation became more atomised, insular, controlled, and more suspicious of anyone and everything. Civil liberties and freedoms that we once took for granted were lost almost overnight so I often ask myself who benefitted most from those two catastrophes.

Was it the everyday common folk, the terrorists, or the governments?

The madcap Neo-nazi and holocaust denier, Alfred Strom (not- as so often incorrectly attributed - Voltaire) said “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise". No matter how distasteful his ramblings might seem, I think he got that axiom right.
 

Jedhead

NRL Player
1,536
1,696
Not sure if serious.

On 9/11 as a complete event, it's already certain that America armed and funded the Taliban and Bin Laden. Whether they were complicit in the events if 9/11 or not is a different story, but they certainly enabled the beast. Were they complicit, the obvious motive would be to give America justifiable reason to do what they eventually did - "liberate" many areas of the middle east in the name of peace, AKA, seizing control of the resources and furthering the gains of their allies over there (SA).

Specifically WTC7, the Pentagon, etc. To cover up other shit or to damage the interests of other enemies of the government / powerbrokers. One of the motives for the Pentagon is supposedly taking out a whole bunch of investigators and accountants who were getting to the bottom of $2.3 trillion "missing" from the defence budget. The investigation was announced the day before 9/11. And they hit that particular office inside the Pentagon perfectly.
This link reveals quite a bit that is not openly discussed very often and so not many people are aware of these facts.
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/15/larry-trial/

At the time I recall that WTC 7 also housed one of the departments of the inland revenue and it was within this department that all the evidence relating to the massive Enron swindle was being held. They also held many records relating to the $trillions of dollars that the Defence department had lost.

To iterate, that was Trillions of dollars! Of course the fires ensured most of that evidence would never be recovered, and within 6.5 seconds someone's nightmare simply disappeared in a pile of rubble. To date no one has ever been held accountable for that astronomical amount of filthy lucre being, shall we say- misappropriated?
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,125
647
Bundy
Nashy Nashy - do you think the government is always honest with the populace? Have you heard of Operation Northwoods, as an example?

From Wikipedia:
"The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming it for terrorist acts that would actually be perpetrated by the U.S. Government.[6] To this end, Operation Northwoods proposals recommended hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:
The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.
Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. militaryand civilian targets. The operation recommended developing a "Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington". The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense. Although part of the U.S. government's anti-communist Cuban Project, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy."


So a plan to conduct false flag operations to legitimise going to war with another country was developed and authorised at all levels except for the President at the time himself.


Even if we leave aside the "true crackpot type" precedents, "lying" isn't necessary to claim the official reports/responses are inaccurate and insufficient. No doubt there was political pressure to get these reports completed and issued, to answer the questions. With many more years of investigation, is it not possible that inaccuracies or inconsistencies from a potentially rushed report may have been found? Or additional information discovered which has not been adequately addressed in the official reports? There's no need to invoke "lying"...reminds me of a saying along the lines of 'never ascribe to malice what can simply be ascribed to incompetence'.

If you don't wish to spend the time to look into the issue, that's cool. But to dismiss out-of-hand the opinions and questions of people who have, is not. The official story when it comes to political hot-potatoes is often incomplete or inaccurate...or simply incorrect.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,621
5,702
Morkel Morkel - short on time, and don't know of any 'professional'-type summaries, but try the professional-type groups:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/
https://www.ae911truth.org/

http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ has a reasonable summary of WTC7 in particular; it's an ongoing detailed engineering study through the engineering faculty of a university.


Tom Tom - the video you linked to simply regurgitates the NIST report and throws some strawman arguments in to boot. The issue is that the NIST report is inaccurate. From my third link above:

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) opened an investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in August 2002. NIST released its final report on WTC 7 in 2008, finding that the fires that were ignited by falling debris from WTC 1 caused the collapse of WTC 7. Independent researchers, however, have assembled evidence that has raised profound questions regarding the notion that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire. (My comment - such as the NIST report leaving out critical structural components in their models - see http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014JanLetterPepper.pdf)

The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18. At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously" (my emphasis).


I haven't looked at any of this stuff for years, but some other information I recall is that the NIST model of collapse called for some of the steel components to have been heated to 600 degrees C for a number of hours (even aside from the other concerns). Yet a) office fires don't generally burn that hot (and certainly not for hours) and b) NIST's own investigations into the actual steel components from the building failed to find any steel which had been heated above about 250 degrees C (from memory, don't quote me on that please).

So, while there are plenty of 'crackpot' views on what happened that day, there are also serious and legitimate questions which have not been adequately addressed. I offer no opinions on what did actually happen...I prefer to focus on what can be defined and discovered and quantified, rather than suspected or presumed.
I posted the video because I felt it answered most of the concerns being raised here,including your own that #7 was left out of the commision report.

I cannot argue the physics or validity of any of the findings as I am not an expert or qualified to. Am also curious as to what type of an engineer you are? Any experience in highrise? The NIST report has had several peer-reviewed papers based on it published in scientific journals. All I can really do is point out that the studies you have linked were funded by ae911,who has a vested interest in the outcome of these findings being positive towards their ideas. I would hardly call them a professional type group either.

Their sole purpose is to "fundraise" for a new investigation but they don't even tell their followers how close they are to that new investigation, they just keep collecting donations from gullible truthers. Their numbers account for less than 1%of their profession and they will give membership to anyone with any engineering degree. They count landscape engineers in their numbers.

A little research into this group exposes them for the frauds and charlatans that they are.

Their leader is richard gage who has never even designed anything higher than 3 storeys. This video demonstrates better than any other just how stupid his ideas are. I highly doubt he actually believes them himself.


Do you really take this guy seriously?

I also invite you to look up the Plasco building in Tehran, a steel framed highrise that collapsed solely due to fire.

Morkel Morkel
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.t165/
 
Last edited:

Jedhead

NRL Player
1,536
1,696
I posted the video because I felt it answered most of the concerns being raised here,including your own that #7 was left out of the commision report.

I cannot argue the physics or validity of any of the findings as I am not an expert or qualified to. Am also curious as to what type of an engineer you are? Any experience in highrise? The NIST report has had several peer-reviewed papers based on it published in scientific journals. All I can really do is point out that the studies you have linked were funded by ae911,who has a vested interest in the outcome of these findings being positive towards their ideas. I would hardly call them a professional type group either.

Their sole purpose is to "fundraise" for a new investigation but they don't even tell their followers how close they are to that new investigation, they just keep collecting donations from gullible truthers. Their numbers account for less than 1%of their profession and they will give membership to anyone with any engineering degree. They count landscape engineers in their numbers.

A little research into this group exposes them for the frauds and charlatans that they are.

Their leader is richard gage who has never even designed anything higher than 3 storeys. This video demonstrates better than any other just how stupid his ideas are. I highly doubt he actually believes them himself.


Do you really take this guy seriously?

I also invite you to look up the Plasco building in Tehran, a steel framed highrise that collapsed solely due to fire.

Morkel Morkel
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-rumsfeld-says-2-3-trillion-missing-from-the-pentagon.t165/
Hey Tom, I'm interested to hear your take on the link I posted to Morkel's. In it the owner of WTC7 is actually recorded saying he directed the fire department to 'pull it'. I'm not one for conspiracies either but this is a statement straight from the horses mouth so to speak and he tells the FDNY to demolish the building. Now I have to ask how long does a controlled demolition of that nature take to set up?

For that building to be 'pulled' on they day it would have had to be pre-wired several days in advance.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,621
5,702
Hey Tom, I'm interested to hear your take on the link I posted to Morkel's. In it the owner of WTC7 is actually recorded saying he directed the fire department to 'pull it'. I'm not one for conspiracies either but this is a statement straight from the horses mouth so to speak and he tells the FDNY to demolish the building. Now I have to ask how long does a controlled demolition of that nature take to set up?

For that building to be 'pulled' on they day it would have had to be pre-wired several days in advance.
You actually have the quote wrong. It's "they decided to pull it". They as in the FDNY, as in pull everyone out from #7. He didn't direct them to do anything, he was recounting the days' events. 0 casualties in building 7, because all efforts to save the building had been stopped, everyone was out. He also wasn't the owner, he was the leaseholder. It was owned by the port authority.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/is"pullusedbydemolitionsprostomean"demol

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/"pull"=withdrawfirefightersfromdanger

Larry Silverstein lost a lot of money on 9/11, I don't understand where the insurance job conspiracy theories come from. The insurance he collected was nowhere near enough to pay for the re-building of the complex.

No idea how long it would take to rig up but I would say at least a month with holes being drilled and walls being knocked down to wire up charges on important structural components. A controlled demolition on buildings 1 and 2 would have taken months and I would say it would appear very obvious to anyone who saw them what they were doing.

Have been having some keyboard issues with my laptop lately and have been popping into the library to reply, won't be able to get back here until tomorrow and they are closed Sunday and Monday. Another week or 2 before I get a new laptop.
 

Jedhead

NRL Player
1,536
1,696
You actually have the quote wrong. It's "they decided to pull it". They as in the FDNY, as in pull everyone out from #7. He didn't direct them to do anything, he was recounting the days' events. 0 casualties in building 7, because all efforts to save the building had been stopped, everyone was out. He also wasn't the owner, he was the leaseholder. It was owned by the port authority.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/is"pullusedbydemolitionsprostomean"demol

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/"pull"=withdrawfirefightersfromdanger

Larry Silverstein lost a lot of money on 9/11, I don't understand where the insurance job conspiracy theories come from. The insurance he collected was nowhere near enough to pay for the re-building of the complex.

No idea how long it would take to rig up but I would say at least a month with holes being drilled and walls being knocked down to wire up charges on important structural components. A controlled demolition on buildings 1 and 2 would have taken months and I would say it would appear very obvious to anyone who saw them what they were doing.

Have been having some keyboard issues with my laptop lately and have been popping into the library to reply, won't be able to get back here until tomorrow and they are closed Sunday and Monday. Another week or 2 before I get a new laptop.
Okay silverstein's exact line is" maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". So he is referring to 'it' ie the building. 'It' refers to an inanimate object not to people. He then says"they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". He never once mentions anything that remotely sounds like he means 'pull everyone out from building 7". I'm not sure why you say he lost a lot of money. He reportedly took over the lease some six weeks before 9/11 and paid $115 million insurance in that insurance he had a clause inserted for terrorism (understandably as they had been a target previously). From that outlay he has since collected over $4.5 billion in insurance payouts. The thing about the BBC I mentioned yesterday has never been explained either.
 

Tom

State of Origin Rep
6,621
5,702
Okay silverstein's exact line is" maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it". So he is referring to 'it' ie the building. 'It' refers to an inanimate object not to people. He then says"they made the decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". He never once mentions anything that remotely sounds like he means 'pull everyone out from building 7". I'm not sure why you say he lost a lot of money. He reportedly took over the lease some six weeks before 9/11 and paid $115 million insurance in that insurance he had a clause inserted for terrorism (understandably as they had been a target previously). From that outlay he has since collected over $4.5 billion in insurance payouts. The thing about the BBC I mentioned yesterday has never been explained either.
Why.would.he.tell.a.journalist.in.a.filmed.interview.that.he.decided.to.commit.treason..questionmark
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now

Twitter

Top