9/11: 9 years have passed... STILL NO TRUTH !

[eyeball]

Planned built and installed by lots of little people, not one of which has had a twinge of remorse or guilt or said a peep about it.

Get a grip.

[On Guard for Thee]

To hell with all the conspiracy nuts, let's just focus on one point. If building 7 fell as it did from fire, then there should have been an investigation into the the engineering and construction of the building, as would have been done on any other day. Someone should have been nailed to the cross (sort of speak) for that kind of failure. Either the design was wrong or the contractor who built it cheated somehow. Everyone who cares, should focus on that, and that alone. Demand to see the reviewed permit structural and architectural drawing for that building; make them public. Did they not build it according to design, or, was the design so bad that a fire could take it down.

Even if you believe that 0.01% of the conspiracies are correct and there are very powerful people out there than can do this kind of thing, don't you think that they would have also planted there own conspiracy opposition just to 'muddy' the waters?

I reckon most of us don't find the waters muddy at all. Large airplanes hit buildings, buildings fell down. What exactly was going through the minds of the hijackers I doubt we will ever know for sure. That's where you might find some muddy waters.

[Hoser360]

I reckon most of us don't find the waters muddy at all. Large airplanes hit buildings, buildings fell down. What exactly was going through the minds of the hijackers I doubt we will ever know for sure. That's where you might find some muddy waters.

No air planes hit building 7. If that building fell today (completely, in its own footprint, in 6 seconds) do to a fire, there would be a MAJOR investigation into the construction of the that building. The materials would have been examined as well.

[segnosaur]

No air planes hit building 7.

No, but the building was significantly damaged be debris from the collapse of Towers 1&2.

It wasn't the primary cause of the collapse, but it did damage some of the supports, and was the likely cause of fires.

If that building fell today (completely, in its own footprint,

It didn't collapse into its own footprint. Other nearby buildings were significantly damaged from the collapse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borough_of_Manhattan_Community_College#Fiterman_Hall_and_the_September_11_attacks

in 6 seconds)

Tower 7 did not collapse in 6 seconds.

It took between 19 and 37 seconds (depending on how the end of the collapse is measured).

do to a fire, there would be a MAJOR investigation into the construction of the that building. The materials would have been examined as well.

The events on September 11 were unique... structural damage from the collapse of the other towers, long-lasting fires, problems with the sprinkler system, etc. Building 7 was likely constructed properly under the building codes that existed at the time, but even the best constructed building will eventually collapse if enough stress is put on it.

The collapse has been investigated, and yes, there have been recommendations for improving building standards. But that doesn't mean that the building was poorly constructed, nor does it mean that the collapse had any other cause other than fires and damage from the twin towers collapse.

[Hoser360]

No, but the building was significantly damaged be debris from the collapse of Towers 1&2.

---SNIP---

The collapse has been investigated, and yes, there have been recommendations for improving building standards. But that doesn't mean that the building was poorly constructed, nor does it mean that the collapse had any other cause other than fires and damage from the twin towers collapse.

The damage from the debris and the resulting fires can not account for the building suffering a 100% failure. Even with the trusses over the substation failing completely, the four corners came down virtually at the same time.

The building essentially fell in its own foot print, sure there was damage to some of the adjacent buildings. The building did not rotate.

In review of the collapse I'll adjust the timing to about 15 seconds, maybe a few more, however, after the core went down the bulk of the building came down in 7 seconds.

Unfortunately the bulk of the wreckage was never analysed.

I have found a copy of the structural drawings but not the architectural as of yet. In Canada we build mostly out of cast in place concrete so this kind of failure would be virtually impossible. In the case of steel buildings usually the elevator cores are walled in with reinforced concrete block, which have helped prevent this kind failure. The long an short of it is, this building collapsed in away that cannot be adequately explained by the official reports.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Charles Anthony
excessive quoting; [---SNIP---]

[taxme]

There are hundreds of witnesses who saw planes crash. Why do you choose selective the blindness of the troother version ?

Did you ever think about the possibility that you can pay people to lie? It does happen quite often.

[taxme]

Do we have to care? Just to keep you happy in Canada?

Maybe you should care and try to make those Americans happy who do believe that 9/11 was part of a conspiracy. Silverstein, the owner of the twin towers, took out an insurance policy against the possibility of a plane flying into them. Well golly, it did happen. And planes are not allowed to fly over or near the city. And no one seems to be able to explain as to how those towers came straight down as if they were demolished by explosives. And why did another building in the same area called building 7 come down just like there was explosives planted inside the building? Interesting, eh?

[taxme]

It has been 9 years since the tragic events that took almost 3,000 lives... and yet the nation that endured these losses is oblivious to the truth...

Is it because they are to scared to face the obvious facts or just don't give a damn?

The government they elected and then re-elected has killed thousands of its own citizens in 3 controlled demolitions, fired a rocket into its own command center and faked 2 plane crashes... to lead their country into 2 wars under false pretext... wars that killed over 1 Million people, and keep killing...

WAKE UP!

It is OK to believe your eyes and not the press and television!

They have been brainwashing you for a long time, but a lie is always a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it...

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/facts/fahrenheit-911

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

http://www.loosechange911.com/

Only after the major globalist players are long gone then maybe the truth will come out. But it won't happen in your life time. And some people are still waiting to find out who really were involved in the killing of JFK. That was over 53 years ago and they are still waiting. There does appear to be another government running the world, a government that we the people know nothing about. It appears to be a well guarded secret. Aw well.

[On Guard for Thee]

Maybe you should care and try to make those Americans happy who do believe that 9/11 was part of a conspiracy. Silverstein, the owner of the twin towers, took out an insurance policy against the possibility of a plane flying into them. Well golly, it did happen. And planes are not allowed to fly over or near the city. And no one seems to be able to explain as to how those towers came straight down as if they were demolished by explosives. And why did another building in the same area called building 7 come down just like there was explosives planted inside the building? Interesting, eh?

Obviously you know nothing about aviation, or buildings for that matter. But tell me, how are planes supposed to get to the airports if they can't fly over cities?

[Hoser360]

Maybe you should care and try to make those Americans happy who do believe that 9/11 was part of a conspiracy. Silverstein, the owner of the twin towers, took out an insurance policy against the possibility of a plane flying into them. Well golly, it did happen. And planes are not allowed to fly over or near the city. And no one seems to be able to explain as to how those towers came straight down as if they were demolished by explosives. And why did another building in the same area called building 7 come down just like there was explosives planted inside the building? Interesting, eh?

Your not helping the cause. In this city our airport is practically in the middle of it and planes fly over all parts of it, all the time and always have.

[taxme]

Obviously you know nothing about aviation, or buildings for that matter. But tell me, how are planes supposed to get to the airports if they can't fly over cities?

I don't understand what you mean that I know nothing about aviation? I do know that planes can fly. Anyway, anyone with any commons sense can see that those twin tower buildings were brought down by explosives. They came straight down period. No building as high as those towers were, would come straight down, they would tip over somewhere on their way down. But they did not. If you have ever watched other buildings being brought down by explosives, they come straight down. The towers did just that. There is no way that planes flying into those towers way up near the top could have brought them down. It is impossible. Firemen on the site reported that they had heard what sounded like explosions going off in the basement area. Explosives going off in the basement no doubt to weaken the steel support beams. Controlled demolition brought them down. Conspiracy is all around this event. Even building 7 came down like the foundation pillars were weakened with explosives before it came down.

Believe it or not. Source: AE911.

[On Guard for Thee]

I don't understand what you mean that I know nothing about aviation? I do know that planes can fly. Anyway, anyone with any commons sense can see that those twin tower buildings were brought down by explosives. They came straight down period. No building as high as those towers were, would come straight down, they would tip over somewhere on their way down. But they did not. If you have ever watched other buildings being brought down by explosives, they come straight down. The towers did just that. There is no way that planes flying into those towers way up near the top could have brought them down. It is impossible. Firemen on the site reported that they had heard what sounded like explosions going off in the basement area. Explosives going off in the basement no doubt to weaken the steel support beams. Controlled demolition brought them down. Conspiracy is all around this event. Even building 7 came down like the foundation pillars were weakened with explosives before it came down.

Believe it or not. Source: AE911.

The towers pancaked. You can find videos of how demo crews bring down buildings similarly by placing explosives in a similar location as to where the planes hit. When you detonate them the top part falls into the lower part and the building ends up in a pile of rubble in its own footprint. Standard stuff. What you don't know about aviation is that planes are meant to fly at reduced speeds near airports, and the towers were built to withstand an impact at speeds well under that which the planes hitting the towers were travelling.

[Wilber]

These aircraft were hijacked, they weren't obeying speed limits.

[taxme]

Your not helping the cause. In this city our airport is practically in the middle of it and planes fly over all parts of it, all the time and always have.

Not helping what cause? Indeed there are cities that allow planes to fly over them. There is no choice. But in New York this is not allowed.

[taxme]

These aircraft were hijacked, they weren't obeying speed limits.

Ya, and so was the plane that supposedly flew into the Pentagon. But yet after the event there were no airplane parts found. How does one explain that?

Just one big round hole in the Pentagon which looked like a missile went thru it. But hey, what do I know.

[taxme]

The towers pancaked. You can find videos of how demo crews bring down buildings similarly by placing explosives in a similar location as to where the planes hit. When you detonate them the top part falls into the lower part and the building ends up in a pile of rubble in its own footprint. Standard stuff. What you don't know about aviation is that planes are meant to fly at reduced speeds near airports, and the towers were built to withstand an impact at speeds well under that which the planes hitting the towers were travelling.

Indeed, it was not the planes that brought those buildings down but explosives. Yet many believe the mainstream media lie that the planes brought those towers down. Conspiracy abounds here.

[Hoser360]

The towers pancaked. You can find videos of how demo crews bring down buildings similarly by placing explosives in a similar location as to where the planes hit. When you detonate them the top part falls into the lower part and the building ends up in a pile of rubble in its own footprint. Standard stuff. What you don't know about aviation is that planes are meant to fly at reduced speeds near airports, and the towers were built to withstand an impact at speeds well under that which the planes hitting the towers were travelling.

I've never seen a steel structure building brought down by explosive demolition, they are simply too easy to take down piece by piece. Reinforced cast in place concrete buildings are the common building type displayed in demolition videos. WTC 1&2 were steel structure with concrete on metal deck (hence the concrete was not a structural element). Once this mass started moving towards gravity, the structure would cave like tooth picks and the line of least resistance would be straight down; the lower floors would account for almost no resistance to the mass above. That said, building 7 is the anomaly those who doubt the official story should concentrate on since the logic of the science in this case, is the hardest to dispute. (the lack of air plane parts from all four planes is the next most important scientific item to be investigated and debated. The the long and short of it is, only get into arguments where there is an overwhelming amount of evidence to support the overall agenda (pick your agenda and fight only the battles you can win), focusing on wtc 1&2 is a lost cause regardless of the truth.

"May your God go with you" Dave Allen

[On Guard for Thee]

Indeed, it was not the planes that brought those buildings down but explosives. Yet many believe the mainstream media lie that the planes brought those towers down. Conspiracy abounds here.

I've heard stories from the 9/11 conspiracy theorists that the planes didn't even fly into the towers. How's that for googley eyed nonsense? The planes hit the towers at high speed. The impact combined with heat of fire caused the structures to collapse vertically and pancake the rest of the building. #7 caught the worst of the shrapnel and with the ensuing fire, it did the same. Oh well, I guess coming up with conspiracies is good fodder for paranoid minds.

[Hoser360]

And, just to give my position some context for those who care. I have been responsible for structural steel and cast in place concrete structures as a construction superintendent, so I have a decent knowledge of the structural durability of these structures. In Canada almost all high rise buildings have a reinforced concrete core. If it is post and slab concrete construction, than the core is often infilled with concrete block, with a a structural steel building the core is cast in place reinforced concrete. WTC buildings had neither and thus the resistance to mass from above would be negligible once movement started.

[Wilber]

Ya, and so was the plane that supposedly flew into the Pentagon. But yet after the event there were no airplane parts found. How does one explain that?

Just one big round hole in the Pentagon which looked like a missile went thru it. But hey, what do I know.

That's nonsense. There was aircraft debris found outside the building. Large pieces such as major engine parts and landing gear were found inside the building. Much of the lighter structure would have been consumed in the fire where temperatures reached 2000 degrees, high enough to turn aluminum into a puddle.

[On Guard for Thee]

That's nonsense. There was aircraft debris found outside the building. Large pieces such as major engine parts and landing gear were found inside the building. Much of the lighter structure would have been consumed in the fire where temperatures reached 2000 degrees, high enough to turn aluminum into a puddle.

Wow I hadn't heard that old nonsense trotted out for a long while. I never did hear what the story was about what the conspiracy theorists did with the people on that flight.

[On Guard for Thee]

Wow I hadn't heard that old nonsense trotted out for a long while. I never did hear what the story was about what the conspiracy theorists did with the people on that flight.

Just looked it up again: 64 on the flight, 125 in the Pentagon. I wonder how they faked that?

[taxme]

That's nonsense. There was aircraft debris found outside the building. Large pieces such as major engine parts and landing gear were found inside the building. Much of the lighter structure would have been consumed in the fire where temperatures reached 2000 degrees, high enough to turn aluminum into a puddle.

There were several holes created that went into buildings behind the first wall hit by what they said was a plane of the Pentagon complex. There is no way a plane could have penetrated other buildings behind like that. If the nose of a plane hit the building and created the hole that we all saw then why didn't we see where the wings would have gouged out a part of that wall also? There was just one big hole. Witnesses have said that they saw no airplane debris. Were they lying? Believe what you want to believe. I will believe what AE911(architects and engineers)have said about this incident. I think that they are more reliable to listen too.

[Wilber]

There were several holes created that went into buildings behind the first wall hit by what they said was a plane of the Pentagon complex. There is no way a plane could have penetrated other buildings behind like that. If the nose of a plane hit the building and created the hole that we all saw then why didn't we see where the wings would have gouged out a part of that wall also? There was just one big hole. Witnesses have said that they saw no airplane debris. Were they lying? Believe what you want to believe. I will believe what AE911(architects and engineers)have said about this incident. I think that they are more reliable to listen too.

The engines and landing gear would be the only pieces to make a major penetration of the building and be found largely intact. The rest of it would have been consumed by the fire. Temperatures reached over 2000 degrees F and the only thing in the building that could have caused that kind of fire would have been the fuel carried by the aircraft. Witnesses are notoriously unreliable when it comes to aircraft accidents.

I flew B767's and know what I and other pilots believe. The B757 that hit the Pentagon was basically a narrow body version of the same aircraft.

Edited February 26, 2016 by Wilber

[On Guard for Thee]

There were several holes created that went into buildings behind the first wall hit by what they said was a plane of the Pentagon complex. There is no way a plane could have penetrated other buildings behind like that. If the nose of a plane hit the building and created the hole that we all saw then why didn't we see where the wings would have gouged out a part of that wall also? There was just one big hole. Witnesses have said that they saw no airplane debris. Were they lying? Believe what you want to believe. I will believe what AE911(architects and engineers)have said about this incident. I think that they are more reliable to listen too.

How about the number of lamp poles the a/c knocked over on approach, and the gouge one of the engines put in the buildings standby generator before impact? And how about the dozens of people who saw it hit, including the crew of a C-130 Herc. who reported it to ATC? I guess they are all unreliable?