Architects and engineers 9/11

[Eisegerwind]

If only crashing commercial airliners into skyscrapers had been studied in depth. Wish I hadn't typed that, got a feeling that some links will be heading this way.

[thplinth]

You have to distinguish between the controlled demolition debate about WTC 7 and WTC 1&2.

WTC 7's demolition (probably a timing problem IMO) was the huge mistake on the day, the 'truth beachhead' in many ways, the loose thread. I don't think you can underestimate its importance. (It was initially what slapped me in face personally speaking... after that it was a cascade. It really is very obvious if you look into it all.)

WTC 1&2 demolition theories were in turn fueled (no pun) massively (rightly and wrongly) and understandably by WTC7's obvious demolition. Both Towers were downed we were told by the same pancake theory but both were very different to WTC7. They both collapsed downwards from what looked like (before the dust obscures it) roughly the impact zone. WTC7 was a much more and obvious lazy demolition. 

So if WTC1&2 were controlled demolition it was a very high tech military demolition. And consequently it took a relatively long time to work out how it may have been done. But that said don't be skeptical this was still a demolition, it is very possible. The whole civilian building demolition industry is a 100% spin off of the US military demolition 'industry'. The US military have demolition technology the commercial sector perpetually cannot dream of yet and that was just as true in September 2001 as now.

I honestly think (and was laughed at on here years ago for saying it it) that their fundamental mistake (the planners of 911) was not foreseeing the (exponential power of the) internet. They planned 11/9/2001 from way back... they just never foresaw the internet nor what would happen on it post 9/11. In the nineties they were thinking with a 80's mindset not a 00's one.

9/11 was a pivotal event.

The old world v the new. It is going to come out IMO. Maybe not in my lifetime but not long after. 

I think this will all be considered very obvious by future generations. Like how were they so stupid to ever believe that 9/11 pish levels of incredulity.

 

 

[Scotty CTA]

On 12/10/2016 at 0:41 PM, Ormond said:

Where's ScottyCTA when you need him?

On 12/10/2016 at 1:44 PM, thplinth said:

WTC 7 was always an obvious case of controlled demolition. The first 20 minutes of that video above are more than enough. Asymmetrical damage, symmetrical collapse. It just does not happen.

Correct.

On 12/10/2016 at 1:44 PM, thplinth said:

i was always critical of scotty going on about controlled demolition in WTC 1&2 as the evidence was relatively weak and there were so many other things that made up far better evidence.

But I think now even 1&2 are becoming obvious. Rigid steel frame buildings cannot collapse look this. It not plausible. The thermite findings in the dust really is damning.

Thank you... however, it appears that at least 3 different methods were employed to take down the Twin Towers.

1. Traditional controlled demolition (with the explosions in the basement floors).

2. Nano-thermate.

3. The (publicly) unknown technology that caused the 'dustification' of the steel and concrete.

On 12/10/2016 at 1:44 PM, thplinth said:

The only thing holding back the flood of awareness is that folk cannot believe they would do it.

'The enemy' cleverly took fear and cognitive dissonance into consideration during the planning.

On 12/10/2016 at 3:31 PM, thplinth said:

It is an excellent video.

The scientific method being used to show that the explanation of 911 is likely false.

The number of heavily credentialed people they have, it is hard to ignore them. 

So not all bad then (science) Scotty.  

Science is (and always has been) valid.

Being able to identify it in the murky quagmire of pseudo science and faux science is another thing though.

22 hours ago, phart said:

" The "truthers" believe that the Bush Administration planned 9/11 from beginning to end. The al-Qaeda hijackers were either non-existent, innocent bystanders, or government agents. "

No one I know believes this, the majority of the Bush administration were clueless, Al Qeada hijackers do exist, although we don't know exactly who cause they used stolen identities. Thats why some fo the hijackers still turn out alive, cause they stole the identity, but the person is still living.

It's strawman fallacies

I believe that the attacks of 9/11 were planned, carried out, and covered up by a joint CIA/Mossad plot.

(I do not believe that there were any Muslim hijackers on any of the planes.)

22 hours ago, phart said:

Griffin and other "truthers"also question the claim that American Airlines Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon. They question that the plane could basically disappear "into the Pentagon with next to no wreckage and no indication of what happened to the wing sections." Griffin speculates that the Pentagon was hit with a guided missile or a military plane

anyone who doesn't think the Pentagon was hit by anything other than a plane is a not in possession of the facts.

Again who is this actually debunking?Should have read it before posting.

And I don't believe that there were any planes at any of the 'crash' sites.

20 hours ago, phart said:

Yeah a plane hit each tower. A plane hit the pentagon and the other flight crashed. Probably because of interference with passengers. There was a top level Judoka on the plane someone with a box cutter wouldn't concern them too much.

So, that's NO planes (at any of the 4 'crash' sites) and NO Muslim hijackers on 9/11.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9/11 was a trick... an illusion.

The whole thing was layered deception planned a long, long time ago.

It's one big 'Russian Doll' (and I finally got to the last one).

Ever watch (say) an NFL game on TV?

See the 'projected' line of scrimmage and the 'projected' first down line?

(Or maybe just advertising on the field that you wouldn't see if you were in the stadium?)

That's called 'live video editing'.

Television was the 'filter' for 9/11.

We had the official story but...

- a missile hit the North Tower (and we didn't see the footage till the next day).

- a missile hit the Pentagon (and they refuse to show us the footage).

- a bunker buster was set off in the field in Shanksville in a (poor) attempt to mimic a plane crash site.

And then we got the visual to cement the lies they told us about the other 3 'planes'...

- advanced holographic technology supplied the 'plane' that 'hit' the South Tower.

(A real fibreglass and aluminum plane would have smashed against the side of a steel and concrete building with most of the debris falling to the ground below. It wouldn't have entered the building like an Olympic diver trying hard not to make a splash.)

The video of that 'plane' 'hitting' the South Tower was then replayed ad infinitum to the world in brainwashing proportions.

So, what's it all about?

9/11 accomplished so much for the NWO, but the birth of the antichrist demanded a massive satanic blood ritual in front of the world.

(As you were.  )

 

 

 

[Ally Bongo]

There are reasonable conspiracies (the celebrating israelis)

And then there are absolutely bonker nutjob ones

 

[thplinth]

Ahh Scotty. I really missed you.  Good to see you .

[phart]

2 hours ago, thplinth said:

Ahh Scotty. I really missed you.  Good to see you .

I hope he is well

but this is just disinformation spreading(non wilful): " And I don't believe that there were any planes at any of the 'crash' sites. "

They want folk to think "truthers" think were no planes and it was planned by a cabal of satanists , cause then nobody will take it seriously.

 

[Scotty CTA]

3 hours ago, phart said:

I hope he is well

but this is just disinformation spreading(non wilful): " And I don't believe that there were any planes at any of the 'crash' sites. "

They want folk to think "truthers" think were no planes and it was planned by a cabal of satanists , cause then nobody will take it seriously.

That's the built-in safety net that they have.

They are, however, satanists and there still weren't any planes or Muslim hijackers (regardless of who thinks what).

They show one fake plane so that we'll believe their made-up stories about the other three planes (that no one conveniently saw).

The tip of a fibreglass and aluminum jet plane wing that has barely enough strength for it to hold a light bulb can't cut through thick steel.

'Tin foil' loses against steel at 500mph every time.

Instead of the fibreglass and aluminum plane heading toward the South Tower at 500mph, imagine the steel and concrete South Tower heading toward the fibreglass and aluminum plane at 500mph. 

Physics tells us that the result should be the same, but I doubt very much that it would look anything like we saw with the fake plane being 'absorbed' into the South Tower like in the video below.

(Cartoon physics isn't, and couldn't be, real.)

 

 

[phart]

Scotty I've read everything on the no planes, i have all the documentaries , claiming that no one saw the planes doesn't match with reality, you can say it a thousand times it is not correct.

The 2nd hit was witnessed by thousands of people, broadcast on several networks and also dozens of camcorders.

Using that experiment as representative of the impact in the WTC is sophistry.

Scotty i appreciate you trying to instruct me on the physics regarding an inelastic collision, perhaps you don't recall i'm a physics "major".

here is evidence of 18 different camcorders and dozens of people reacting to the 2nd impact.

 

[phart]

I'm going to deal withe Physics as they were taught to me at Strathclyde university.

let's take a tiny tiny particle of dust say 1 milligram and put it in space and assume it has a velocity of 1/2C. To find out it's energy we use 1/2 mv^2

Which gives us 1.1 x 10^17 ergs (erg is a unit of energy equal to 10−7 joules)

This particle has an equivalent energy of 6 stone child travelling at about 14 miles per second.

It's a massive amount of energy and if that particle hit you you would blow up. That's why particles you can't see break the outer lair of the shuttle.

Fling a pale of water at the WTC and what would happen? By your logic this should be impossible. Look cutting through steel with just water.

How can water cut through steel beams?

Why can i jump into the bath OK but i can't jump into the forth from the top of the bridge?

Edited December 12, 2016 by phart

[Dillinger]

I agree it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. The idea that there's no footage of it is simply ludicrous. 

[thplinth]

7 hours ago, phart said:

I hope he is well

but this is just disinformation spreading(non wilful): " And I don't believe that there were any planes at any of the 'crash' sites. "

They want folk to think "truthers" think were no planes and it was planned by a cabal of satanists , cause then nobody will take it seriously.

 

I know. The last time Scotty discussed this on here I provided links to the many many different witnesses who saw the plane coming in at the pentagon. You cannot possibly read their witness statements and still believe it was anything but a plane. There were so many different people who saw it and gave an account of it flying in low towards the pentagon.  And this information has been there from the start.

No planes... I mean wow.

[Ally Bongo]

The truther's comeback is that there is only one recording (maybe two) of the first plane hit which is convenient for them to pick holes in

It's like the God of the Gaps

First it was no planes hit

Then it's only the second hit was a plane

And im sure that there is footage of the plane that hit the pentagon - certainly the moments prior to the impact 

[phart]

17 minutes ago, Dillinger said:

I agree it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. The idea that there's no footage of it is simply ludicrous. 

A plane hit the Pentagon specifically American airlines flight 77. There is footage but it isn't released for reasons that can be speculated upon. How can you deduce it was no plane based on that, especially considering all the plane parts scattered around, the DNA of the passengers of American Airlines being present. Dozens of people who witnessed a plane fly into the pentagon.

What's more likely in my opinion was a secondary explosion inside the pentagon (it had just been refitted and contained all the folk looking for the mission trillions the MIC couldn't account for) we have reports of victims with jet fuel in their lungs and everything, the balance of possibilities means there cannot have been a missle. Too many assumptions needed for a missle, the DNA team were in on it, dozens of people misidentified a plane as a missle. agents scattered American airline debris seconds after impact. They must have taken the passengers somewhere and killed them etc etc.

If you just fly a plane into the pentagon then you dont need anyone to cover for you, as it happened as said.

[thplinth]

Here are the witnesses that saw the plane. 87 people... C'mon.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/F77penta03.html#p3

[phart]

14 minutes ago, Ally Bongo said:

The truther's comeback is that there is only one recording (maybe two) of the first plane hit which is convenient for them to pick holes in

It's like the God of the Gaps

First it was no planes hit

Then it's only the second hit was a plane

And im sure that there is footage of the plane that hit the pentagon - certainly the moments prior to the impact 

Well the popular 9/11 film is loose change and they only show the 2nd floor of the pentagon which has a smaller hole. Or show one of the inner rings that just the engine and landing gear were solid enough to punch through.

whistle blowers like J. Michael Springmann : detailed how the CIA issued visas to most of the hijackers through the Saudi Jeddah consul they were issued by Shayna Steinger. Springmann is the former head of the visa section at the U.S. Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

He wrote this book

Every name is known along the way, it isn't a shady nameless group of satanists, it was particular people who are known doing things they shouldn't, however to type everything out will take so long i can't be arsed, it's a huge subject.

Edited December 12, 2016 by phart

[phart]

Here's the primary sources DOJ documents 166 pages worth. Need to have no life like me to be able to read all this shit.

https://www.scribd.com/document/16842336/T5-B51-Hijacker-Primary-Docs-AA-11-1-of-3-Fdr-Entire-Contents-Chronology-of-Saudi-Visa-Apps-Officers-Issuing-Visas-and-Atta-Tab-InS-and-DOJ-IG-Do

[Scotty CTA]

6 hours ago, phart said:

Scotty I've read everything on the no planes, i have all the documentaries , claiming that no one saw the planes doesn't match with reality, you can say it a thousand times it is not correct.

The 2nd hit was witnessed by thousands of people, broadcast on several networks and also dozens of camcorders.

Using that experiment as representative of the impact in the WTC is sophistry.

Scotty i appreciate you trying to instruct me on the physics regarding an inelastic collision, perhaps you don't recall i'm a physics "major".

here is evidence of 18 different camcorders and dozens of people reacting to the 2nd impact.

 

I already posted that the South Tower was the one they 'showed' and that people 'saw' (so goodness knows why you are trying to prove it to me).

Folk saw a live video edit of an advanced photographable hologram 'co-inciding' with a timed 'cut-out' explosion (courtesy of 'The B Thing').

That way, they were guaranteed of the plan unfolding.

Not only couldn't a passenger jet fly that fast at such a low altitude, it wouldn't have 'ghosted' it's way into the Tower when it hit the steel and concrete.

[Scotty CTA]

6 hours ago, phart said:

I'm going to deal withe Physics as they were taught to me at Strathclyde university.

let's take a tiny tiny particle of dust say 1 milligram and put it in space and assume it has a velocity of 1/2C. To find out it's energy we use 1/2 mv^2

Which gives us 1.1 x 10^17 ergs (erg is a unit of energy equal to 10−7 joules)

This particle has an equivalent energy of 6 stone child travelling at about 14 miles per second.

It's a massive amount of energy and if that particle hit you you would blow up. That's why particles you can't see break the outer lair of the shuttle.

Fling a pale of water at the WTC and what would happen? By your logic this should be impossible. Look cutting through steel with just water.

How can water cut through steel beams?

Why can i jump into the bath OK but i can't jump into the forth from the top of the bridge?

Apples and oranges.

The fibreglass and aluminum passenger jet is full of air (hollow) and extremely fragile to begin with.

[Scotty CTA]

4 hours ago, Dillinger said:

I agree it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. The idea that there's no footage of it is simply ludicrous. 

There's probably plenty of footage that exists as long as any of the 100(?) security camera were working, it's just that none of it has been released to the public (for some reason).

My guess is that the Pentagon was hit by a Global Tomahawk missile 'disguised' (painted) to look like a passenger jet.

[Scotty CTA]

3 hours ago, thplinth said:

No planes... I mean wow.

I know, eh?

They had one shot at it, and there's no way they were going to take any chances with actual planes and hopeless pilots.

[Scotty CTA]

3 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

The truther's comeback is that there is only one recording (maybe two) of the first plane hit which is convenient for them to pick holes in

It's like the God of the Gaps

First it was no planes hit

Then it's only the second hit was a plane

And im sure that there is footage of the plane that hit the pentagon - certainly the moments prior to the impact 

- there's one (conveniently) publicly known video of the North Tower impact

- it's still no planes

- no publicly known video of a passenger jet hitting the Pentagon

 

[phart]

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

Apples and oranges.

 

Isn't the tower full of air anyway as well? In fact the towers i would bet are more hollow than the plane, being they are dozens of meters across instead of 4 or 5. So what does hollow have to do with it?

No it isn't. How come water can cut through steel in that video but if you flung a pale of it at the tower it would do nothing. It's all about the energy contained in the water.

You haven't explained why a high energy collision with an equal and opposite reaction wouldn't explain it? The plane hits transferring the energy into the building which is enough to fracture the facade, the material doesn't matter it's the energy in the collision. Also Aluminum has a higher specific energy density than steel so can contain more energy.

The Columbia disaster happened cause a bit of polyurethane foam hit the wing, polyurethane foam is this stuff , throw that at a space shuttle and see what happens? throw it hard enough and you have a disaster

 

Finally to determine a substances toughness you subject it to the Charpy impact test, which tests the amount of energy a material can take. If we're talking physics it's energy that is the factor, not some randomly ascribed motivations for the shadowy satanists running the operation.

Edited December 12, 2016 by phart

[phart]

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

 

Folk saw a live video edit of an advanced photographable hologram 'co-inciding' with a timed 'cut-out' explosion (courtesy of 'The B Thing').

That way, they were guaranteed of the plan unfolding.

Not only couldn't a passenger jet fly that fast at such a low altitude, it wouldn't have 'ghosted' it's way into the Tower when it hit the steel and concrete.

Is there any evidence for this? Beyond your credulity?

How fast was the hologram traveling and how did you calculate the speed?

Is ghosted a scientific word for a particular phenomenon? Cause it was loud as feck and debris spattered everywhere so not sure what you mean by "ghosting", it was a high energy collision.

[Kirk]

On 11/12/2016 at 0:37 AM, phart said:

Yeah a plane hit each tower. A plane hit the pentagon and the other flight crashed. Probably because of interference with passengers. There was a top level Judoka on the plane someone with a box cutter wouldn't concern them too much.

 

I'd argue a plane went nowhere near the pentagon as there is no evidence for it, no debris of a plane and no bodies. the cameras just happened to not catch anything either.

Have been a big believer of the inside job since early on, Scotty was just OTT with some of it.

[phart]

Just now, Kirk said:

I'd argue a plane went nowhere near the pentagon as there is no evidence for it, no debris of a plane and no bodies. the cameras just happened to not catch anything either.

Have been a big believer of the inside job since early on, Scotty was just OTT with some of it.

Yeah no evidence apart from.

dozens of eye witness reports, tonnes of debris (no idea why you say none, it's clearly visible). all the passengers DNA was recovered from the site(bodies). the landing gear and engines punching holes into further rings, engines inside the pentagon as well.

If you have seen no evidence of a plane then you haven't looked at the majority of the evidence on the Pentagon.