what happened on 9/11/2001?

[n0spam4me]

9/11/2001 has become a taboo subject, and that is VERY bad for AMERICA.
there are some of us who actually seek truth, quoting one "ex-truth seeker"
doesn't do anything toward actually setting the issue. Neither does calling people crazy (etc... ). What is needed here is a real quest for TRUTH. and people could get all emotional and bring up the victims of 9/11/2001 and complain that this truth seeking is an insult to the departed, but really the greatest tribute we can pay the them is to seek the truth and embrace the truth. The official story has all sorts of problems, and setting up road-blocks such as emotional arguments about the hijacked airliners and all those people .... etc .... however, we need to actually examine the available evidence and ask the court of public opinion to issue a verdict.

 

[irosie91]

9/11/2001 has become a taboo subject, and that is VERY bad for AMERICA.
there are some of us who actually seek truth, quoting one "ex-truth seeker"
doesn't do anything toward actually setting the issue. Neither does calling people crazy (etc... ). What is needed here is a real quest for TRUTH. and people could get all emotional and bring up the victims of 9/11/2001 and complain that this truth seeking is an insult to the departed, but really the greatest tribute we can pay the them is to seek the truth and embrace the truth. The official story has all sorts of problems, and setting up road-blocks such as emotional arguments about the hijacked airliners and all those people .... etc .... however, we need to actually examine the available evidence and ask the court of public opinion to issue a verdict.

the "court of public opinion" -------gee-------it reminds me of
----"lets ask the demented to vote on the correct diagnosis" ----
a comment sometimes made during medical grand rounds

do not worry-----there is a poster here Mineva----who knows
exactly what happened that day-----someday she will tell us

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[n0spam4me]

The latest posts in this thread are rock solid proof of what I've been saying
you see, if anybody really wanted to put the whole "truther" movement to rest for once & for all time, all you would have to do is provide the same sort of DOCUMENTATION that any other airline disaster or for that matter any other major event would have, but you see, 9/11/2001 is the most poorly documented disaster ever, and I really mean that.
If anyone does have the DOCUMENTATION, please present it and lay the matter to rest right now, but then again, not only does the show-stopper documentation not exist even the documentation of how the NIST faked a computer simulation is kept secret on the excuse that to release it would endanger public safety. ..... and some people refuse to see the farce here.... oh well ....

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[daws101]

Seems spammy didn't get what he wanted for festivis

 

[Rat in the Hat]

 

[Freewill]

I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001, 4 airliners virtually disappeared, 3 skyscrapers "fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
These facts need to be taken into account when discussing the events of 9/11/2001.
Speculation is fruitless and should be avoided.

And yet you speculate.

 

[n0spam4me]

I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001, 4 airliners virtually disappeared, 3 skyscrapers "fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
These facts need to be taken into account when discussing the events of 9/11/2001.
Speculation is fruitless and should be avoided.

And yet you speculate.

Note that it is NOT speculation to observe the fact that WTC7 spent 2.25 sec in free-fall acceleration, it is NOT speculation to observe that the twin towers were completely destroyed, it is NOT speculation to observe the lack of documentation of the alleged 4 airliner crash sites.

There is so much that constitutes hard evidence here, and people are labeling it speculation? The psychological warfare has really shifted in to high gear ......

 

[Freewill]

I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001, 4 airliners virtually disappeared, 3 skyscrapers "fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
These facts need to be taken into account when discussing the events of 9/11/2001.
Speculation is fruitless and should be avoided.

And yet you speculate.

Note that it is NOT speculation to observe the fact that WTC7 spent 2.25 sec in free-fall acceleration, it is NOT speculation to observe that the twin towers were completely destroyed, it is NOT speculation to observe the lack of documentation of the alleged 4 airliner crash sites.

There is so much that constitutes hard evidence here, and people are labeling it speculation? The psychological warfare has really shifted in to high gear ......

Sigh, maybe what you do is not speculation:

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

 

[n0spam4me]

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

RE: your link, first of all, the text at the top of the page above the pix
"The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds...."

However, below free fall ACCELERATION would be something less than 9.8 m/s^2 and that is exactly what was observed in the case of the twin towers.

additionally the term "speed" is inaccurate because the real term to use in this case is ACCELERATION.

Also if you look at the bottom paragraph right below the top-most picture on this page, and read "the more weight, the less resistance each floor gave"
However this is IMPOSSIBLE, the resistance of any given structure is what it is without regards to any force imposed upon it. and indeed the resistance of each level would be increasing as the destruction progressed down the tower.

There is also the matter of focus of the energy, the individual who wrote that page, adds up the energy from various sources such as the alleged aircraft impact and then proclaims that it constitutes more energy than what destroyed Hiroshima .... great, HOWEVER there is a problem here, lots of energy alone, does not produce the complete & total destruction of a building as if it were subjected to controlled demolition unless that energy is focused & directed in such a manner as to produce the result, that is complete & total destruction of the skyscraper. This clearly points to an engineered event.

 

[irosie91]

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

RE: your link, first of all, the text at the top of the page above the pix
"The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds...."

However, below free fall ACCELERATION would be something less than 9.8 m/s^2 and that is exactly what was observed in the case of the twin towers.

additionally the term "speed" is inaccurate because the real term to use in this case is ACCELERATION.

Also if you look at the bottom paragraph right below the top-most picture on this page, and read "the more weight, the less resistance each floor gave"
However this is IMPOSSIBLE, the resistance of any given structure is what it is without regards to any force imposed upon it. and indeed the resistance of each level would be increasing as the destruction progressed down the tower.

There is also the matter of focus of the energy, the individual who wrote that page, adds up the energy from various sources such as the alleged aircraft impact and then proclaims that it constitutes more energy than what destroyed Hiroshima .... great, HOWEVER there is a problem here, lots of energy alone, does not produce the complete & total destruction of a building as if it were subjected to controlled demolition unless that energy is focused & directed in such a manner as to produce the result, that is complete & total destruction of the skyscraper. This clearly points to an engineered event.

thanks for the jibberish ------all motion is characterized by a SPEED--------distance by time. acceleration is simply another characteristic of a moving object ---JERK----based on forces exerted upon the objects whilst in motion JERK. Lots of buildings which were not destroyed by controlled demolition are COMPLTELY GONE

 

[daws101]

I see a huge problem here, whenever people start discussing the events of 9/11/2001, the arguments start developing tangents where people speculate as to who may be responsible, why they did it ( etc.... ) please lets not speculate, the facts of the case are VERY clear, on 9/11/2001, 4 airliners virtually disappeared, 3 skyscrapers "fell down" at an unnaturally rapid pace and into complete and total destruction ( and total destruction of anything is a red flag for investigators! ) other bits like the worlds greatest military power failed to defend even its own HQ.
These facts need to be taken into account when discussing the events of 9/11/2001.
Speculation is fruitless and should be avoided.

And yet you speculate.

Note that it is NOT speculation to observe the fact that WTC7 spent 2.25 sec in free-fall acceleration, it is NOT speculation to observe that the twin towers were completely destroyed, it is NOT speculation to observe the lack of documentation of the alleged 4 airliner crash sites.

There is so much that constitutes hard evidence here, and people are labeling it speculation? The psychological warfare has really shifted in to high gear ......

as always bullshit! ONLY PART OF WTC7 FELL IN 2.25 SEC AND ONLY A FRACTION OF THAT WAS FREE FALL.
You are free to lie to yourself about it but not to others.

 

[daws101]

Debunking 9 11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall

RE: your link, first of all, the text at the top of the page above the pix
"The towers did not fall at or below free fall speeds...."

However, below free fall ACCELERATION would be something less than 9.8 m/s^2 and that is exactly what was observed in the case of the twin towers.

additionally the term "speed" is inaccurate because the real term to use in this case is ACCELERATION.

Also if you look at the bottom paragraph right below the top-most picture on this page, and read "the more weight, the less resistance each floor gave"
However this is IMPOSSIBLE, the resistance of any given structure is what it is without regards to any force imposed upon it. and indeed the resistance of each level would be increasing as the destruction progressed down the tower.

There is also the matter of focus of the energy, the individual who wrote that page, adds up the energy from various sources such as the alleged aircraft impact and then proclaims that it constitutes more energy than what destroyed Hiroshima .... great, HOWEVER there is a problem here, lots of energy alone, does not produce the complete & total destruction of a building as if it were subjected to controlled demolition unless that energy is focused & directed in such a manner as to produce the result, that is complete & total destruction of the skyscraper. This clearly points to an engineered event.

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

• Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
• Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
• Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation

 

[daws101]

5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions

 

[irosie91]

I am a witness-----it went down real fast. I did not have a watch that could time in microseconds-----in fact I did not have a watch----or a camera -----just my own startled self---
looking thru a window. It went down fast-----I will never
forget that sight. It was a long way off and I assumed---since it had burned so long------that everyone got out. ----
There was no sign of a blast at the base------as one sees in
controlled demolitions----the smoke at the base rose up
from the collapsed building-----not before it collapsed. Also---as far as I could see-----no evidence of implosion

 

[n0spam4me]

Lots of buildings which were not destroyed by controlled demolition are COMPLTELY GONE

Please cite reference as to what building and when and under what conditions.

& Thank U