9-11 was an inside job

[error]

I wasn't talking about the movie.

[Insurgent]

[You guys wouldn't know that, though since you haven't seen the film or listened to Michael's presentation afterwards.

He does have a good point... how to talk about the movie if you haven't seen it?

Thank you, Chris for helping to point out the painfully obvious! 

[Insurgent]

The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed.  What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed.  That wasn't part of the design.

These details are specifically discussed in the film. I'd be curious to see what your sources are for this statement.

[Insurgent]

I wasn't talking about the movie.

OK, Michael--what are you talking about?

[MaineShark]

Basic Physics says that it could, what? That buildings specifically built to withstand the crash of a comparable aircraft and associated fires would collapse at free-fall speed? Which law of Physics is that?

Have you ever studied engineering?

First of all, just because something is "designed" to withstand a given event, doesn't mean that it will.

Secondly, I described the mode of failure in a thread on the FSP forum.  If you like, I can try to find it and re-post here.

The statement that I made about verifiable facts was in reference to all of the events pertaining to 9/11, not just the building collapses. That being said, the one aspect that no skeptic will be able to explain is the speed at which the buildings fell--including Building 7 which wasn't even hit by a plane. If one buys in to the "pancake theory" then explain why there was no resistance from the lower floors during the collapse.

And by what method was the speed determined?  The resistance of the lower floors would have been small, but present.  Remember also that there was an impressive basement under the WTC complex.  The lower floors were pushed downward into it.  In other words, the "lower" floors that are visible are actually mid-level floors, and their behavior is consistent with such.

Again, I need to point out that "the government" murdered the people at Waco and Ruby Ridge, as you referenced. "The government" did not orchestrate 9/11. This is what confuses many people and causes them to cast aside any "conspiracy theories". While we will likely never be able to finger every individual who was involved in the attacks, we can certainly point to rogue figures within the government and intelligence agencies.

I cast aside "conspiracy theories" because they are based on falsehoods.  And, for the demolition that is claimed to have been orchestrated, it would take a huge chunk of the government, not just a few rogues.  That would be a massive operation.

The film does go in to great detail about the collapse of the buildings, shredding the "official story". It was a perfect opportunity to view it and take part in a q&a with the film maker afterwards. While that window has closed, the opportunity to watch the video still exists and I strongly encourage everyone to see it. There are few 9/11 "conspiracy videos" that I will recommend, but this is one that I will.

Oh?  Please share...

Joe

[JonM]

The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed.  What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed.  That wasn't part of the design.

These details are specifically discussed in the film. I'd be curious to see what your sources are for this statement.

I was watching Modern Marvels about engineering disasters and buildings that collapsed, they interviewed the architect of the WTC.

[jaqeboy]

The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed.  What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed.  That wasn't part of the design.

These details are specifically discussed in the film. I'd be curious to see what your sources are for this statement.

I was watching Modern Marvels about engineering disasters and buildings that collapsed, they interviewed the architect of the WTC.

That was probably the Leslie Robertson (chief engineer) interview - I think I saw the Modern Marvels one. He has conducted several interviews, and he is often shown in 9-11 Truth videos. A friend of mine has spoken with him before and after the collapses - I'll have to ask him to review what he learned from him.

The architect, Minoru Yamasaki, died in 1986. Good Wikipedia article on WTC at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center

[jaqeboy]

What's probably good to keep in mind is, as Insurgent has said before, is that it's almost impossible to determine the cause of the collapses, since the forensic evidence has been hauled off and destroyed. What most people are basing their conclusions on are videos, though there are so many interesting ones still coming out of the woodwork, esp. the one showing the molten metal flowing out of the side of one of the towers (shown in Improbable Collapse). I have to say that one was a stunner to me.

Steven Jones (featured in IC) was able to obtain a few fragments of steel from the towers from a monument (obtained by someone else and transported to him for analysis).

Michael Berger revealed while he was on his North East tour that some material has been retained and not destroyed - it's being held in a hangar at JFK in case it's needed in one of the pending lawsuits. It would be interesting to see what an independent analysis of that material yielded!

[jaqeboy]

Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed?  I have a healthy appetite for the truth, so feed me.

Were you the guy up in the balcony with his hand up waving it back and forth with your question in mind - and you never got called on?

Darn.

[jaqeboy]

John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was Controlled Demolition

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KLnaogsm60A

[Insurgent]

Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed?  I have a healthy appetite for the truth, so feed me.

Were you the guy up in the balcony with his hand up waving it back and forth with your question in mind - and you never got called on?

Darn.

::crickets chirping:: Nope, I don't think that was him

[MaineShark]

What's probably good to keep in mind is, as Insurgent has said before, is that it's almost impossible to determine the cause of the collapses, since the forensic evidence has been hauled off and destroyed.

For something that's impossible to do, the conspiracy theorists certainly seem certain of the cause, despite physics.

Joe

[powerchuter]

It's important to respect each individuals right to believe as they so choose...

Some believe certain things...and some don't...
It's not that big of a deal in the overall scheme of things...

What is a bigger deal, in my honest, humble opinion...is that we can let this petty BS come between us and our common efforts and goals...

The buildings are down and gone...the people are dead and buried...and the mourning will continue for many years to come...

We have a greater duty and mission and that is to cause and affect a peaceful transition from the illegitimate "power" that the criminal elite "hold" over us...to a society and world based on the Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule...

And...with all that said...
In my honest, humble, personal opinion...

I viewed the buildings as they came down(via all the video footage) on Sept. 11, 2001...
And from the first time I viewed these(as the events were actually unfolding)...
I formulated an opinion that I have not altered since that day...

Controlled Demolition.

Thank you for respecting my honest, humble, heart-felt opinion...

[jaqeboy]

What's probably good to keep in mind is, as Insurgent has said before, is that it's almost impossible to determine the cause of the collapses, since the forensic evidence has been hauled off and destroyed.

For something that's impossible to do, the conspiracy theorists certainly seem certain of the cause, despite physics.

Joe

To refer to a bunch of individual people as "the conspiracy theorists" (as a class - as if they were of one opinion) is to collectivize, hence "fails to identify" anything - just fogs all individual opinions together. That adds no value to the discussion of the cause of the collapses.

To determine the facts would involve identifying and analyzing individual pieces of evidence, etc. The evidence (re the collapse) available so far (correct me if I miss anything) would include video and audio footage, seismographic records, eyewitness testimony (includes firefighters on the scene), air samples (not sure about these), some few metal samples obtained surreptitiously. What is encouraging is that, per M Berger, there are some metal samples retained over in a hangar at JFK, whereas most had thought that all the metal was removed and destroyed.

Only 3 government reports were issued. The NIST report, I believe, would be the one that spends the most effort on the technical analysis. What most have called for is a re-opening of the investigation, by professionals. The grass roots discontent with the 911 Commission report is understandable, given that they do not answer many basic questions. You would favor a re-opening of the investigation by professionals, wouldn't you? - to put to rest wild theories and get to the truth. The 911 Truth Squads, pose the simple question to presidential candidates that they bird-dog: "Will you re-open the investigation of 911?"

[MaineShark]

As I (and others) have said, I want to see the evidence.  The claim is made by numerous individuals and groups that this was a demolition, and I want to see the proof of that.  Saying "there isn't evidence" isn't proof of that.  It's proof that people are making a lot of claims based on nothing.

Physics and engineering say that the buildings could have fallen due to the impact, or due to demolition.  Either is an option.  I've seen no evidence to indicate the latter.

Joe