what happened on 9/11/2001?

[n0spam4me]

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

So your gut level feeling about this trumps all of the scientific analysis that has been done? is that it?

 

[irosie91]

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

I watched such demolitions long ago------when I was young (and beautiful) I could not tell you even what
street I was standing upon at the time

 

[daws101]

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

 

[daws101]

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

So your gut level feeling about this trumps all of the scientific analysis that has been done? is that it?

that's not what she /he said.
as to scientific analysis ,the only credible analysis was done by nist and fema ,the rest is pseudoscience yammering.

 

[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

So your gut level feeling about this trumps all of the scientific analysis that has been done? is that it?

none of the "scientific evidence" holds up-------I cannot discuss that issue having forgotten most of the calculus
I once knew-------two of my brothers are absolute experts one an engineer----and the other a physicist -----both brilliant in calculus---------the other brother----the psychiatrist-------did his calculus when he had to----but like me-----has not used it in years

 

[n0spam4me]

Note that NIST agreed with the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration, now it really doesn't do anything for the case to try & say that the bit that is observed falling is a sub-set of the whole building because the North & West walls are seen dropping at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and given that, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached about what is happening is that ALL of the resistance was removed ALL at the same time. Therefore, an engineered event.

 

[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

I watched such demolitions long ago------when I was young (and beautiful) I could not tell you even what
street I was standing upon at the time

WHAT? You start out by specifying "not destroyed by controlled demolition"
and then in subsequent post .... specify "demolitions"
a building is either destroyed intentionally, or not,
what is it?

The destruction of the towers & WTC7 have all the characteristics that point to an engineered event. The picture in a previous post here, shows what is said to be damage to WTC7, but do tell, exactly how is it that said damage in the form show in the photo, should lead to the COLLAPSE as was alleged to have been the result of FIRE?

 

[daws101]

Note that NIST agreed with the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration, now it really doesn't do anything for the case to try & say that the bit that is observed falling is a sub-set of the whole building because the North & West walls are seen dropping at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and given that, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached about what is happening is that ALL of the resistance was removed ALL at the same time. Therefore, an engineered event.

false you have no evidenced to base that conclusion on other than wishful thinking.
that's the same as saying god did that because you have no clue to how the "thing" happened.

 

[n0spam4me]

false you have no evidenced to base that conclusion on other than wishful thinking.
that's the same as saying god did that because you have no clue to how the "thing" happened.

So you do not believe that free-fall acceleration is a clear indication that there isn't any structure under the falling bit, no support, the falling bit is NOT bending, breaking, pushing anything, because if it was doing any of that, it would NOT be falling at free-fall acceleration, therefore because the building is seen keeping its shape as it descends straight down, ALL of the resistance must have been removed all at the same time. The obvious conclusion of an engineered event is based on observation of said event.

You can attempt to negate the evidence but its evidence with or without your opinion.

 

[Skylar]

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 ......

The part that is speculation is the cause. You imagine bombs, thermite, ninja janitors, elaborate cover ups, etc.

And you can't back that claim. Worse, you can't explain the myriad of theory killing holes in it.

1) The complete lack of any girder cut in a manner consist with either thermite or the bombs.

2) The complete lack of any apparatus of explosive found anywhere, before, during or after the collapse.

3) The FDNY explicitly contradicting your claims, indicating that fire and structural damage brought down the building.

4) The NIST contradicting your claims, indicating that fire brought down the building.

5) The fact that the entire WTC plaza was checked for bombs only a week before 911, and neither the Port authority bomb squad nor any of their bomb sniffing dogs found a single bomb.

6) The fact that WTC 7 was on fire. Making any system of explosives a virtual impossibility. As the charges would have either melted, or gone off prematurely.

You can't deal with any of it. So you ignore it. We don't. This is why your argument isn't compelling, why you keep failing to persuade anyone who is even remotely informed: your argument doesn't work.

 

[daws101]

false you have no evidenced to base that conclusion on other than wishful thinking.
that's the same as saying god did that because you have no clue to how the "thing" happened.

So you do not believe that free-fall acceleration is a clear indication that there isn't any structure under the falling bit, no support, the falling bit is NOT bending, breaking, pushing anything, because if it was doing any of that, it would NOT be falling at free-fall acceleration, therefore because the building is seen keeping its shape as it descends straight down, ALL of the resistance must have been removed all at the same time. The obvious conclusion of an engineered event is based on observation of said event.

You can attempt to negate the evidence but its evidence with or without your opinion.

nice rationalizing spammy.
as always you are intentionally mistaking cause for effect.
none of that is an indication of a planned or controlled demolition...

 

[Skylar]

false you have no evidenced to base that conclusion on other than wishful thinking.
that's the same as saying god did that because you have no clue to how the "thing" happened.

Oh, its far worse than that. Not only can't spammy back his claims with evidence. But the evidence disproves his claims. There were no bombs, nor any apparatus of explosives in any building. No residue of explosives, no empty thermite canisters, not even a single thermite reaction ever visible, anywhere. The building was on fire, making his bombs a virtual impossibility. The FDNY explicitly contradict his account. The NIST explicitly contradicts his account. And not a single girder was cut in a manner consistent with thermite or a bomb.

You can't get around these facts. They disprove the bomb theory incontrovertibly.

So spammy ignores them all. A rational person wouldn't. Which is why his theory remains so uncompelling and unpersuasive.

 

[Skylar]

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

I watched such demolitions long ago------when I was young (and beautiful) I could not tell you even what
street I was standing upon at the time

WHAT? You start out by specifying "not destroyed by controlled demolition"
and then in subsequent post .... specify "demolitions"
a building is either destroyed intentionally, or not,
what is it?

The destruction of the towers & WTC7 have all the characteristics that point to an engineered event. The picture in a previous post here, shows what is said to be damage to WTC7, but do tell, exactly how is it that said damage in the form show in the photo, should lead to the COLLAPSE as was alleged to have been the result of FIRE?

There were no bombs. There were no thermite reactions. How does your 'explosive' theory reconcile these two enormous issues.

 

[irosie91]

Note that NIST agreed with the 2.25 sec of free fall acceleration, now it really doesn't do anything for the case to try & say that the bit that is observed falling is a sub-set of the whole building because the North & West walls are seen dropping at free-fall acceleration for 2.25 sec and given that, the ONLY conclusion that can be reached about what is happening is that ALL of the resistance was removed ALL at the same time. Therefore, an engineered event.

The "resistence was removed" how does one accomplish such a feat with an engineered event------create a VACUUM around lower manhattan?

 

[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

I watched such demolitions long ago------when I was young (and beautiful) I could not tell you even what
street I was standing upon at the time

WHAT? You start out by specifying "not destroyed by controlled demolition"
and then in subsequent post .... specify "demolitions"
a building is either destroyed intentionally, or not,
what is it?

The destruction of the towers & WTC7 have all the characteristics that point to an engineered event. The picture in a previous post here, shows what is said to be damage to WTC7, but do tell, exactly how is it that said damage in the form show in the photo, should lead to the COLLAPSE as was alleged to have been the result of FIRE?

There were no bombs. There were no thermite reactions. How does your 'explosive' theory reconcile these two enormous issues.

I invite you to produce documentation that proves an investigation was done,
that is specifically looking for explosives, explosive residue, indications of blast damage ( etc.... ) Was Ground Zero actually investigated?

 

[Dante]

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.

wrong

wrong again

three strikes. outta here

 

[Dante]

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.

OK. I'll tell my people not to speculate. I wouldn't want them to be fruitless. Just tell us what really happened and whodunit.

That's for a special prosecutor to do.
Are you comfortable with the fact no one was ever tried for the greatest crime in our history.
No trial, no conviction?

really? says who? a little nobody like you?

 

[Dante]

Judicial review

Awe shit. Not again.

hey idiot...it's a conspiracy forum

lighten up francine

 

[Skylar]

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

I watched such demolitions long ago------when I was young (and beautiful) I could not tell you even what
street I was standing upon at the time

WHAT? You start out by specifying "not destroyed by controlled demolition"
and then in subsequent post .... specify "demolitions"
a building is either destroyed intentionally, or not,
what is it?

The destruction of the towers & WTC7 have all the characteristics that point to an engineered event. The picture in a previous post here, shows what is said to be damage to WTC7, but do tell, exactly how is it that said damage in the form show in the photo, should lead to the COLLAPSE as was alleged to have been the result of FIRE?

There were no bombs. There were no thermite reactions. How does your 'explosive' theory reconcile these two enormous issues.

I invite you to produce documentation that proves an investigation was done,
that is specifically looking for explosives, explosive residue, indications of blast damage ( etc.... ) Was Ground Zero actually investigated?

I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7. They found no bombs nor evidence of bombs. No one did. Not the FNDY, not the Port Authority Bomb Squad, not their bomb sniffing dogs, not any crew cleaning up the wreckage, no one.

Your argument is perfectly circular: there were bombs because the building collapsed. And the building collapsed because there were bombs.

But there were no bombs. There was no girder ever cut in a manner consistent with explosive demolition, there was no residue of explosives found in any dust sample, there was no bomb or apparatus of explosives ever found, before during or after the collapse, the building was on fire making any system of explosives impossible as any charge would have melted or exploded prematurely. And the entire plaza was searched for bombs only a week before 911 and they never found any bombs of any type.

The NIST found the collapse consistent with a structural failure due to fire. The FDNY, who watched the building's slow structural failure over hours, cited fire and structural damage. And both are far more reliable sources than you are, pretending you know better because you saw a youtube video 10 years after the fact.

You ignore every theory killing hole in your bomb conspiracy. But you can't make us ignore them. Which is why you continue to fail.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I invite you to read the NIST investigation, the most comprehensive ever done on the collapse of WTC 7.

Yeah, it only took them several years after the fact to acknowledge that it happened.