FishinMortician

WTC Towers- Doubting the Official Story

Rate this topic

513 posts in this topic

55 mins ago, EBHarvey said:

patchy beat me to it.  

From what I've read on that site (not a ton, a dozen threads maybe), they've done some painstaking and impressive sleuthing.

 

There's only 272 threads in their 9/11 forum, available for inquiring minds. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 mins ago, patchyfog said:

From what I've read on that site (not a ton, a dozen threads maybe), they've done some painstaking and impressive sleuthing.

 

There's only 272 threads in their 9/11 forum, available for inquiring minds. :D

has this issue been resolved yet? Any grassy knoll theories floating around?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, patchyfog said:

You're right, that picture is very prominent in A&E911's argument and *proof* that thermite was used in a controlled demolition of the towers. Cornerstone evidence it's fair to say.

upload_2018-1-27_13-52-44.png.6297c438e27d9ac5a3b5cff1ccdbdd2c.png

 

Their argument includes these points: 1) the cut is obviously evidence of thermite (oh yeah, really, why?), 2) the cut is angled, more obvious evidence of demolition and 3) most critically, before anything else, that picture was taken before ironworkers arrived and demo started.

 

TBC

No way is this a picture from before ironworkers arrived and demo started. I know for a fact on Sept.11 Ironworkers were present with acetylene torches. My brother,a Union Ironworker, who was working a few blocks from the Trade Center took every  Torch, acetylene and oxygen tank  on his job site down to the Trade Center along with all the plumbers and steam fitters. They began cutting steel and rebar as soon as they got there.  That picture is at least from the third week after Sept 11, I know this because of the firemen in Carhartt overalls, before this we were wearing our bunker pants and ruining them. It was cheaper to give us the overalls then replace our bunker pants every couple of days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 mins ago, PCstriper said:

No way is this a picture from before ironworkers arrived and demo started. I know for a fact on Sept.11 Ironworkers were present with acetylene torches. My brother,a Union Ironworker, who was working a few blocks from the Trade Center took every  Torch, acetylene and oxygen tank  on his job site down to the Trade Center along with all the plumbers and steam fitters. They began cutting steel and rebar as soon as they got there.  That picture is at least from the third week after Sept 11, I know this because of the firemen in Carhartt overalls, before this we were wearing our bunker pants and ruining them. It was cheaper to give us the overalls then replace our bunker pants every couple of days.

Good context, thanks for sharing, and for your time on the pile.

Queue the but.. but... but,.. nanothermite comeback. I think too much embalming fumes must explain this, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, JohnP said:

The Patriot Act removed prohibitions placed on the government by the Bill of Rights. A citizen can be arrested, jailed, denied bail, denied a lawyer, denied a hearing in front of a judge, and the government does not have to even present formal charges in court, and the citizen can be kept imprisoned indefinitely. That is a complete gutting of our protections, and all this can occur merely on the say so of an unidentified government official. They have only to say terrorist and you might as well be living in Cuba as far as how the government responds.

That was johnP quoting Fishinmortician

8 hours ago, JohnP said:

The Patriot act identified how the modern financial system keeps terrorists and criminals in business. 

 

If you open a bank account making believe you are a humanitarian relief fund, but you are actually collecting and wiring money to train terrorists Or plot attacks, US agents have the legal tools to identify you, arrest your sorry ass, shut you down, and go after all the other nut jobs in your ring. 

 

8 hours ago, jimmythe bee said:

the Patriot act also allows govt to arrest and detain,indefinitely, anyone thought to be a POSSIBLE terrorist.

There are some serious hurdles that government needs to clear before assigning a terrorist designation.

If you are in violation of PATRIOT, that isn't speculation. Several degrees of proof to be met to get to that point. Detecting or Preventing Terrorist financing and AML  is in my bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

The conspiracy theory is wrong on so many levels I hardly know where to start. I won't bother to regurgitate the two hour TV special in which structural engineers went over exactly how it happened and how predictable the results were given the heat involved. I'll just give my .02 on some of the outside the box theories.

1. If the WTC planes were drones NOT piloted by terrorists where are all the passengers.

2. If the WTC panes were drones and NOT piloted by terrorists it would be a hell of a coincidence that on the same day the passengers on one of the others planes that crashed called their loved ones saying there were WERE terrorists on board and they were going to attempt to retake control. Those passengers have also never returned.

3. The other theory that the building was brought down with controlled demolition is the best one. No building anywhere near that tall has ever been taken down by controlled demolition. Even a 6 story build takes weeks to prep cutting holes in walls and columns to expose precise locations for the explosives. There would be a thousand miles of wire running down hallways and elevator shafts to connect the explosives and associated delay fuses. Why has no one seen any of this in either occupied building? Then the demo would have to be coordinated with actual planes hitting the building.  Why would these mystery charges not be blown when the plane first hit because the fire would have destroyed much of the demolition wires prior to detonation making a controlled demolition impossible, particularly in the building the was hit on the lower floors. 

4 My final point is the fact that the top floor didn't have to crash thru all the others. As every floor collapsed on the one below it it picked up the mass of that floor and added it to what was already falling. The mass and momentum of this was unstoppable and growing all the way down. About 20 years ago  a 5 story parking garage had the top floor collapse and it did the exact same thing, crushing and joining with all the floors below until it was just a pile of rubble.

Edited by epanzella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe some new information will come to light.

 

Alleged 9/11 Mastermind Could Blow Saudi Role Wide Open In Lawsuit Testimony

 

If anyone knows where the skeletons are buried contradicting the official 9/11 narrative then it's none other than alleged terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The Wall Street Journal and others report that he's ready to spill the beans on Saudi Arabia's involvement in the worst terror attack to ever take place on American soil as part of a victims' lawsuit seeking damages from the kingdom as a state sponsor. 

 

A letter filed in the US District Court in Manhattan disclosed an offer to spare Mohammed the death penalty in exchange for his willingness to be deposed by the victims, who are seeking billions of dollars in damage from the kingdom, making it extremely politically sensitive regarding both embarrassing secrets of Riyadh's role in 9/11 and the potential to severely damage US-Saudi economic ties. 

 

 

ksm.jpg?itok=wRuq0tgq

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Red Cross/US government photos.

 

As Al Jazeera noted, however, it's as yet "unclear if US President Donald Trump, who is close to the leaders of Saudi Arabia, would allow a plea deal for Mohammed to give evidence." Furthermore, Bruce Fein, former US associate deputy attorney general, explained of the high stakes that, "If the plaintiffs win in this case, it could be hundreds of billions of dollars." He added, "You have over 3,000 plaintiffs, compensatory plus punitive damages and a jury very hostile to Saudi Arabia, it could virtually bankrupt Saudi Arabia. All their assets in the US and elsewhere could be seized."

 

The victims' lawsuit has been slowly moving forward for years, especially after Congress in 2016 passed the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), allowing US citizens for the first time to sue a foreign state if that state sponsored international terrorism which harmed the victims.

 

Notably the declassification of the famous "28 pages" also in 2016, a secret document part of a 2002 congressional investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks, but which had remained hidden from public view since the report's completion and was the only section to deal with the question of a state sponsor, was a huge milestone in further uncovering Saudi complicity.

 

The missing 28 pages from the 9/11 report began as follows:

"While in the United States, some of the September 11 hijackers were in contact with, and received support from, individuals who may be connected to the Saudi Government..."

 

It's believed that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's crucial testimony could fill in key details surrounding what Saudi Arabia knew of the plot beforehand, and in what ways its intelligence facilitated it. Or his testimony could also open up entirely new avenues previously undiscovered. 

 

911%20attack.jpg

 

However, as Reuters notes, we could still be a long way out from that point: 

According to the letter, the plaintiffs’ lawyers have been in contact with lawyers for five witnesses in federal custody about their availability for depositions.

The lawyers said three, including Mohammed, are housed at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention camp, where they face capital charges, while two are at the “Supermax” maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado.

According to the letter, Mohammed would not agree “at the present time” to be deposed, but that could change.

Ultimately, a lot of delicate issues, not the least of which is the Trump administration's approval of a plea deal to spare the death penalty, would have to fall in line before Mohammed starts testifying. 

 

One person familiar with the case, but who remained unnamed, cited in the WSJ report said the families hope to gain the alleged terror mastermind's cooperation: "One of the main things that the 9/11 defendants have to offer is closure, particularly closure for the victims." He added: "With capital charges gone, there is an opportunity to tell the story of 9/11 once and for all."

 

However, we doubt the US government and specifically the US-Saudi intelligence nexus and 'deep state' has the least bit of interest in doing this. But this is precisely what's motivating the 9/11 victim's families to press on — to expose the ugly truth. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/7/2019 at 8:33 PM, FishinMortician said:

This is what I call evidence of a controlled demolition.

 

 

C97BAAA9-1A38-474F-AE2A-24A7ABE8F53D.jpeg.b5809209f42adc3207762859de9bc3d0.jpeg

I’m not usually one to entertain too many conspiracy theories, but I’m also not one to be scared by the stigma behind the terminology and entertain them for that purpose alone- entertainment, like a brain game. 

 

This picture coupled with countless witnesses (more than 150 reported, 120 or more being firefighters) describing secondary explosions (to the primary being the planes hitting) has to raise a question in any logical person’s mind. 

 

B4A318CA-3F78-45DE-8157-2CBBB5F6F229.jpeg.0baa99669c3ba8f924748aa2b2fe97fe.jpeg

 

Aside from just looking at this picture and scratching one’s head, what supports the theory that at least WTC7 was controlled if not all 3 buildings? 

 

“(1) it came down in a symmetrical collapse and

(2) the collapsing rooftop fell at free fall acceleration for at least eight stories.

 

Symmetry means that all 81 columns in the building would have to fail at the same time and free fall acceleration means that when they fell there was nothing in the way. NIST offered no explanation for either of these facts, even though these inconvenient truths only have one well-established explanation, they are the identifying characteristics of controlled demolition.”

 

^not my words, an engineer’s. 

 

I think the biggest hurdle for people to get over when thinking about alternative (evidence based) explanations is that people are designed to apply a reason to every event in order to file it away and move on. It’s in our code. So the faster someone can have an answer, the better they are and life goes on. The biggest hurdle in this case is the fact that rather than people thinking that they could be lied to and fall for it, they’ll defend something they really know little about regardless of the countless pieces of verifiable data that is presented to them. As seen especially in our current political environment. It’s easier to just accept what they’re told because that’s the easiest thing you could do. 

 

Kudos to the OP for the research and opening up the dialog for this one. It’s an interesting one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/7/2019 at 6:45 PM, epanzella said:

3. The other theory that the building was brought down with controlled demolition is the best one. No building anywhere near that tall has ever been taken down by controlled demolition. Even a 6 story build takes weeks to prep cutting holes in walls and columns to expose precise locations for the explosives. There would be a thousand miles of wire running down hallways and elevator shafts to connect the explosives and associated delay fuses. Why has no one seen any of this in either occupied building? Then the demo would have to be coordinated with actual planes hitting the building.  Why would these mystery charges not be blown when the plane first hit because the fire would have destroyed much of the demolition wires prior to detonation making a controlled demolition impossible, particularly in the building the was hit on the lower floors. 

4 My final point is the fact that the top floor didn't have to crash thru all the others. As every floor collapsed on the one below it it picked up the mass of that floor and added it to what was already falling. The mass and momentum of this was unstoppable and growing all the way down. About 20 years ago  a 5 story parking garage had the top floor collapse and it did the exact same thing, crushing and joining with all the floors below until it was just a pile of rubble.

Im only mentioning your comments because I just skimmed this page and noticed a couple things that you may have not thought about. I’m not going to pretend I’m an expert, but I do understand a fair amount by way of hearing engineers and demolitions experts talk about this just after the Towers fell. I was fascinated by it, but still wouldn’t question the original explanation because I was 20 and naive. 

 

3. Many skyscrapers have been taken down with controlled demolition. Around the world, in the US and in New York specifically. From what was explained to me, the only difference between a steel skeleton building at 30 stories and a steel skeleton building at 100 stories is the amount of rubble to clean up and the number of charges used. They were dropping more than 30 stories in the 60s, I’m sure timing devices and the deploying of wireless detonators has helped things come along a good bit. Why has no one seen any evidence in the other two buildings? There wasn’t much left besides a pile of rubble when it came down. And after the rescue efforts were called off it became a secured cleanup area. Do you think union guys on cranes and backhoes know what to look for? I’m gonna guess no. Why weren’t they detonated as soon as the planes hit? If you had an explanation to offer with the cause of the falling being the jet fuel that doesn’t free burn to the temperature to melt steel nor having enough fuel or oxygen to inject into the mixture to make it burn that hot... and this isn’t 1972 we are talking about. Demolition is done wirelessly and has been for some time now. There wasn’t one guy sitting in the basement with the switch box taking a hit for the team by riding it out. So your wires being melted theory doesn’t really apply. 

 

4. You’re comparing a steel skeleton to a concrete structure which is like apples to pineapples. A building is a building, but what it’s made of matters. You don’t use thermite in a concrete structure, you would use percussion charges to shatter the concrete so you are left with a pile of dust, chunks and tensioning cables. So, like you said, you get one layer to land on the next, which causes a concussion and breaking up of the lower and, if all conditions are met, a tumbling effect crunching to the foundation. These buildings are steel skeleton structures that were actually designed to withstand the impact of a plane (can’t remember exactly what class/size) and earthquakes, considering the Ramapo fault line isn’t that far away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chessie_yaker said:

Im only mentioning your comments because I just skimmed this page and noticed a couple things that you may have not thought about. I’m not going to pretend I’m an expert, but I do understand a fair amount by way of hearing engineers and demolitions experts talk about this just after the Towers fell. I was fascinated by it, but still wouldn’t question the original explanation because I was 20 and naive. 

 

3. Many skyscrapers have been taken down with controlled demolition. Around the world, in the US and in New York specifically. From what was explained to me, the only difference between a steel skeleton building at 30 stories and a steel skeleton building at 100 stories is the amount of rubble to clean up and the number of charges used. They were dropping more than 30 stories in the 60s, I’m sure timing devices and the deploying of wireless detonators has helped things come along a good bit. Why has no one seen any evidence in the other two buildings? There wasn’t much left besides a pile of rubble when it came down. And after the rescue efforts were called off it became a secured cleanup area. Do you think union guys on cranes and backhoes know what to look for? I’m gonna guess no. Why weren’t they detonated as soon as the planes hit? If you had an explanation to offer with the cause of the falling being the jet fuel that doesn’t free burn to the temperature to melt steel nor having enough fuel or oxygen to inject into the mixture to make it burn that hot... and this isn’t 1972 we are talking about. Demolition is done wirelessly and has been for some time now. There wasn’t one guy sitting in the basement with the switch box taking a hit for the team by riding it out. So your wires being melted theory doesn’t really apply. 

 

4. You’re comparing a steel skeleton to a concrete structure which is like apples to pineapples. A building is a building, but what it’s made of matters. You don’t use thermite in a concrete structure, you would use percussion charges to shatter the concrete so you are left with a pile of dust, chunks and tensioning cables. So, like you said, you get one layer to land on the next, which causes a concussion and breaking up of the lower and, if all conditions are met, a tumbling effect crunching to the foundation. These buildings are steel skeleton structures that were actually designed to withstand the impact of a plane (can’t remember exactly what class/size) and earthquakes, considering the Ramapo fault line isn’t that far away.

 Per Wikipedia; A simple structure like a chimney can be prepared for demolition in less than a day. Larger or more complex structures can take up to six months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives

 

Where were these crews with the jackhammers for 6 months in a building that was nearly 100% occupied. Thousands of people in those buildings and no one saw them.  Wireless detonation? You think that's fireproof? A wireless detonator only starts the reaction by igniting the first piece of det cord which then branches out to other legs with delays built in to time the explosions. Wireless receivers melt, det cord melts, charge delays melt. Waiting with a fire raging like it did would almost certainly result in an unsuccessful demo. Jet fuel doesn't free burn? Have you ever seen a plane crash? For years engineers have been trying to come up with a gelling agent to prevent  jet fuel from burning and they don't have it yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

On 7/15/2019 at 8:43 PM, Wraith said:

Nano thermite? You know, a chemical compound. Thermite is aluminum powder and rust. It will not detonate, only burn.

Nanothermite is a subject of research, but so far, nobody has made it outside a lab (and a high tech lab at that.) Per Wikipedia, there are a bunch of theoretically possible nanothermite compounds, but it's a research field only, not a product. 

Edited by BrianBM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 mins ago, epanzella said:

 Per Wikipedia; A simple structure like a chimney can be prepared for demolition in less than a day. Larger or more complex structures can take up to six months of preparation to remove internal walls and wrap columns with fabric and fencing before firing the explosives

 

Where were these crews with the jackhammers for 6 months in a building that was nearly 100% occupied. Thousands of people in those buildings and no one saw them.  Wireless detonation? You think that's fireproof? A wireless detonator only starts the reaction by igniting the first piece of det cord which then branches out to other legs with delays built in to time the explosions. Wireless receivers melt, det cord melts, charge delays melt. Waiting with a fire raging like it did would almost certainly result in an unsuccessful demo. Jet fuel doesn't free burn? Have you ever seen a plane crash? For years engineers have been trying to come up with a gelling agent to prevent  jet fuel from burning and they don't have it yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do me and yourself a favor and take a few breaths and reread what I wrote. I’m not attacking you in any way, I’m just showing you how what you’re assuming isn’t accurate nor is it feasible. 

 

So lets start with your wiki piece. It seems like you’re trying to find evidence to support your belief and that’s understandable, but you’re completely ignoring the possibility in its entirety and focusing on the more obvious things that wouldn’t make sense. So lets go back and work from macro to micro and see this story through. Don’t look at this as what happened, just disconnect the situation from this story and look at it as just that- a story. 

 

An event of a large skyscraper being taken down after a plane hits it has happened. We know the structure and the plane. The structure is a steel skeleton and the plane is this big with this much fuel in it.

 

Let’s look at initial impact. The plane went through the entire floor and the flames from the fuel free burning were seen through to the other side of the building. It’s still standing. 

 

What type of fuel was it? Jet-A or Jet A1 or unleaded kerosene (since it was September in NY and there was no logical need for Jet B) and it free burns at a temperature of 1890f. Ok, so what temperature does steel melt at? Just the plain stuff, not high temp or high strength alloys, just the good old carbon steel. 2600-2800f. So we have a large gap there. But maybe it weakened it to the point that it was able to stand until it fell? Just doesn’t seem logical. It would have twisted near the site of the fire if anywhere, started to lean because the heat was not evenly distributed and one side would naturally be weaker than the other and it would have slid and stayed in place because the tensile strength would keep it from snapping and falling. That would happen before carbon steel structural members, standing on end, would crumple like concrete crumbles. 

 

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.