9/11--Was it an inside job?

[Makalakumu]

AE911truth is ALL bout the controlled demo argument....so here we go again.

Please Take Notice That:
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 – specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe there is sufficient doubt about the official story to justify re-opening the 9/11 investigation. The new investigation must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that might have been the actual cause of the destruction of the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned

This is the most important part of the petition, IMO. Pointless as it the demand is because the evidence has been slagged, there is sufficient reason to doubt and demand a new investigation.

The controlled demo theory suffers from the same invalidating test that afflicts the official story. It's a dead end.

 

[Archangel M]

The first half of their cause is overshadowed by the moonbat lunacy of the second. All of these "experts" are tunnel visioned into the movieland fantasy of spooks with C4 and "thermite". If you doubt that airplanes could have brought the towers down, what is the other possibility????

 

[Archangel M]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...9/conspiracy-theorists-is-the-truth-out-there

The strongest predictor of belief in 9-11 conspiracies was belief in other conspiracies. To quote Swami and colleagues: "believing that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman or that the Apollo moon landings were staged increases the chances that an individual will also believe 9-11 conspiracy theories." People build a consistent world view. For these conspiracy theorists, their consistent world view is that the truth is always being covered up. Although this may seem like an obvious finding in retrospect, this didn't have to be true. People could have picked their conspiracy theories based on their political views - then these notions would not have all hung together. But no, people who believe some conspiracy theories are more likely to accept new conspiracy theories.

 

[Makalakumu]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...9/conspiracy-theorists-is-the-truth-out-there

To quote a paraphrase a previous source, a sign of cognitive dissonance is when an individual points it out in others and is unable to recognize it in themselves.

 

[Archangel M]

Out with it then. What is it that YOU think happened? You believe in the controlled demo argument dont you? If not, what? You dont believe in the 9/11 story...you claim to not believe in the controlled demo argument BUT you don't believe the engineering explanation for the collapse.

What I cant believe is that people think the government thought that the towers collapse was a necessary component of their "false flag operation" flying plane loads of innocent people into buildings wouldn't have been enough? Pulling that off alone wouldn't have been complicated enough? Lets toss in some controlled demo??

Please.

 

[Tez3]

Out with it then. What is it that YOU think happened? You believe in the controlled demo argument dont you? If not, what? You dont believe in the 9/11 story...you claim to not believe in the controlled demo argument BUT you don't believe the engineering explanation for the collapse.

What I cant believe is that people think the government thought that the towers collapse was a necessary component of their "false flag operation" flying plane loads of innocent people into buildings wouldn't have been enough? Pulling that off alone wouldn't have been complicated enough? Lets toss in some controlled demo??

Please.

Isn't it all over complicated? If the government wanted reasons to start wars etc and thought blowing up buildings would do it, why go to the lengths of flying planes into them? An old fashioned bomb would have had the same effect, no sneaking around putting in explosives where ever they were supposed to have, all that stuff, just a bomb and someone Arabic claiming responsibility. Of course I may be missing the point and conspiracies are supposed to be complicated and convoluted so only 'certain' people can see the truth!

 

[elder999]

Isn't it all over complicated? If the government wanted reasons to start wars etc and thought blowing up buildings would do it, why go to the lengths of flying planes into them? An old fashioned bomb would have had the same effect, no sneaking around putting in explosives where ever they were supposed to have, all that stuff, just a bomb and someone Arabic claiming responsibility. Of course I may be missing the point and conspiracies are supposed to be complicated and convoluted so only 'certain' people can see the truth!

Oh, no, Irene-the planes we all saw flying into the buildings were holograms, and the destruction of the buildings was due to controlled detonations set up months in advance, the hijackers were prearranged digital patsies who never really existed, as were the passengers and flight crews.

To quote a paraphrase a previous source, a sign of cognitive dissonance is when an individual points it out in others and is unable to recognize it in themselves.

Irony, thy name is maunakumu......JESUS H. CHRIST!!!!<facepalm!>[ :lfao:

 

[Archangel M]

I mean..just think about the overcomplexity of the whole thing. The necessity of the planes hitting the EXACT floors so that the collapse didn't happen above or below the impact site. Twice. Not to mention that the impact/fires/etc didn't cut connections between charges, detonation telemetry etc? The whole thing, from the set-up to the execution, would have been so complex that it would have all but been impossible to pull off. The risk of a Murphy's law **** up ruining the whole thing would have scrapped such a plan.

 

[jks9199]

doubt ALWAYS looms. does that mean that it's the complete opposite of what the official story is?

The standard of proof in a criminal trial is "beyond a reasonable doubt." The word reasonable is in there because you can always generate a doubt or a "what if." What if the guy who actually robbed the bank was the long lost, separated at birth twin that nobody knew existed, not the defendant who was arrested? What if there really are shape-shifting aliens or monsters a la Fringe, The X-Files, or The Twilight Zone. But are those reasonable doubts? Not to most of us.

Is there doubt about 9/11? Of course. But are those doubts reasonable? Not in my opinion. The physics and engineering supports that the buildings went down because they were hit by planes. My experience with people tells me that massive conspiracies are unlikely to succeed or be kept secret long.

Do we know the full story? Nope. There are details that we don't know and will never know; the people with those answers are no longer around to answer. But the basic story is simple, and it's what has been presented: A group of terrorists executed a horrifying plan successfully, exploiting multiple weaknesses and failures in our systems to do so. Planes full of fuel struck two of the tallest buildings in the world, subjecting them to multiple stresses in ways that had never been seen before (and, God willing, will never be seen again!), and the buildings collapsed. In doing so, collateral damage took out a third building that was very close, and integrated into the complex where those skyscrapers were. Meanwhile, another plane struck the Pentagon. One saving grace there was that it hit a recently fortified side; why that was could be anything from approach path to dumb luck. A fourth plane didn't hit its target through the heroic sacrifice of the passengers and crew on board.

All of this happened, as I've said more than once now, through a combination of careful planning and target selection by the terrorists and complacency, negligence, and downright ignorance on the part of people here at all levels of the government and outside the government, as well.

 

[elder999]

. My experience with people tells me that massive conspiracies are unlikely to succeed or be kept secret long. .

Oh, but they have. That's not a valid argument at all.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

 

[Archangel M]

Oh, but they have. That's not a valid argument at all.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

If they REALLY have you wouldn't know about them.

 

[jks9199]

One more thought...

Did someone within the government know it was going to happen? I wouldn't be at all surprised if a thorough review of all the intelligence data available found indications and missed signals or other things that, had they been properly recognized, would have prevented it. They were missed. See comments above about complacence, etc.

I will state with confidence that counter-terrorism experts did foresee large, complicated plans. I know because I had some of them as instructors over the years. My first serious counter-terrorism training was in the early to mid 90s; I'd have to look up some notes to be more precise. We came up with some pretty scary plans in that class -- and I'll freely admit, none of us came up with hijackers taking control of planes and flying them into buildings. I'm willing to bet that if someone received a travel brief or training about how to handle hijackings at 7 AM on 9/11, they would have been advised to go along with the hijackers; it was pretty standard because 9/11 was just about the first time that hijackers took control of aircraft to use them as missiles. I sure can't think of another incident, though there may have been one.

 

[jks9199]

Oh, but they have. That's not a valid argument at all.

Otherwise, I agree with your post.

I didn't say "never succeed or be kept secret." I merely said "are unlikely to..." After all, if one has been kept secret, then, by definition, I wouldn't know about it, right?

 

[elder999]

I didn't say "never succeed or be kept secret." I merely said "are unlikely to..." After all, if one has been kept secret, then, by definition, I wouldn't know about it, right?

@archangel as well: it only has to be kept secret long enough to succeed-then you might just know about it, when it makes no difference.

9/11 is a good example of this.

 

[Makalakumu]

Irony, thy name is maunakumu......JESUS H. CHRIST!!!!<facepalm!>[ :lfao:

LOL! Actually, I've been thinking of changing my name to obtusekumu...

 

[Makalakumu]

Out with it then. What is it that YOU think happened? You believe in the controlled demo argument dont you? If not, what? You dont believe in the 9/11 story...you claim to not believe in the controlled demo argument BUT you don't believe the engineering explanation for the collapse.

What I cant believe is that people think the government thought that the towers collapse was a necessary component of their "false flag operation" flying plane loads of innocent people into buildings wouldn't have been enough? Pulling that off alone wouldn't have been complicated enough? Lets toss in some controlled demo??

Please.

I don't know what happened. My intuition says it was an inside job somehow, but I've been clawing back from that and asking myself what explanation can REALLY be supported? The answer is none at all. Ever. When two structural engineering professionals can sit down at the table and look at the same evidence and give you completely different conclusions, that should tell you something about the quality of the evidence present.

 

[Archangel M]

Only if you believe that all structural engineers are equal.....

 

[Sukerkin]

Come on now, Angel, you know better than to take a cheap shot like that.

Not all professionals are equal, I agree but when it comes to tangible things like engineering if there is a wide divergence of opinion from the same starting event then there is clearly something debateable in the data.

It's not like a social science, such as economics :angel:, where there is much that is suppositon and interpretation of observation from the most chaotic of samples of all (human beings).

Engineering has 'fiddle factors' too, make no mistake but these tend to be "Calculate the predicted maximum stress this is designed to take and then triple it".

When the Twin Towers fell, that was a mechanical engineering failure caused, in my view, by a policy failure. A policy failure in more than one place I would argue.

Two I would point to in particular are failures in the Intelligence Services (understandable given the tide of 'threats' from which they have to sift the real from the imagines) and in the construction oversight that plagues all large projects. It is the former that allowed the attack to take place but it is the latter that caused the disaster.

Those towers were designed from the outset to withstand precisely what happened to them. Not a deliberate aircraft impact but an accidental one. Admittedly those specs were for smaller planes but the reason that the towers really fell is that the construction was nit-picked and penny-pinched down the quality scale. Whether graft or 'economy measures' I guess we'll never know.

 

[elder999]

I don't know what happened. My intuition says it was an inside job somehow, but I've been clawing back from that and asking myself what explanation can REALLY be supported? The answer is none at all. Ever. When two structural engineering professionals can sit down at the table and look at the same evidence and give you completely different conclusions, that should tell you something about the quality of the evidence present.

Only if you believe that all structural engineers are equal.....

Indeed. It also brings to mind that I've seen scientists back away from data or deny it when it didn't support heir preordained conclusions.Some scientists, anyway.

However, the numbers-strict calculations-don't lie. The planes were full when they left Boston, and were 767-200's. We know how many passengers were on them and what the weather was for their flight path-based on that, we can come up with a reasonably accurate weight of the planes as projectiles. Ditto the amount of fuel left to add to the burn. Based on radar, video, and altitude, we can fairly accurately describe the speed of the planes. We also know what floor they crashed into-so we know what sort of structural damage would ahve been done on initial contact. We can also calculate, with a very slim margin of error, how much fire damage and deformation would have been done due to the fire, based on time of crash to time of collapse. All of these calculations add up to the buildings collapsing-the numbers don't lie, and the only way they can be made to is if the original calculations are disputed, and other values substituted for them-but the planes were 767-200s, and they were fully fueled. It was a relatively calm day, and they did fly from Boston to New York.

So: weight, speed and area of contact cannot be disputed. All support the conclusion that planes brought down the buildings and no other agents of destruction were involved or needed-it keeps coming back to this, John. It's not that I can't know: it's that I can and I do, just as accurately as, given the mass, temperature and ambient temperature(s) and relative humidity, I can tell you accurately within seconds how long it will take a block of ice to become a puddle, and then to evaporate.

Math doesn't lie, and, as you know, neither does science. I'd expect better from you.

Those towers were designed from the outset to withstand precisely what happened to them. Not a deliberate aircraft impact but an accidental one. Admittedly those specs were for smaller planes but the reason that the towers really fell is that the construction was nit-picked and penny-pinched down the quality scale. Whether graft or 'economy measures' I guess we'll never know.

They were designed, in 1961, for the 707-the largest jetliner that existed at the time. While the 707 is a little faster in terms of cruising speed, the 767 is significantly heavier. The building was also not engineered for the subsequent fire, from a nearly fully fueled 767, nor the dislodging of antiquated and somewhat decayed fireproofing from impact. Of course, these are the very factors that John's structural engineer will discount: that the fireproofing would have degraded over 40 years, and wasn't meant for impact-that the heavier 767 would deliver more energy at a slightly lower air speed, that the fires could reach the needed temperatures, etc., etc., etc.

They are, of course, clearly wrong-since the buildings collapsed and all.

 

[Sukerkin]

Aye, I know what they were designed to take, Elder. I also know that if they were built properly (as specified) they would have had enough of a safety factor to have a good chance of surviving what happened.

You know as well as I do that safety (aka fiddle) factors of between 300 and 1000 percent are not unknown when it comes to building projects (note that of course things may differ between our countries and note the provsio that my job-related knowledge only applies to power stations and substations).

As an aside, if you could point me to the sources that says that the towers were not designed to withstand massive fire, I'd be most grateful.