67,000 people believe something's wrong with what we were told about 9/11

There isn't any "truther manifesto"
its simply a matter of how things are defined
I look at the destruction of WTC1, 2 & 7 and
see Controlled Demolition, and you do not ....
ok, we do not agree,
now what?

 

Honestly, it's not about what happened on 9/11 that holds the most weight "storywise". History of an event has a beginning, a middle & an ending.

#1 = Pre-9/11
#2 = 9/11
#3 = Post-9/11

As of today, in #3, we still do not have a full-accounting of #1. #2 is odd, but the majority of us witnessed it on live television or for the countless who witnessed it from looking around outside. #3 is unfinished. #1 needs more scrutiny.

 

The #1 item with the explanation of how
Arab fanatics trained to fly airplanes .....
is total propaganda! There were NO
airliners hijacked on 9/11/2001.
The MSM LIES!

 

But the falling upper section could not remain intact while it did the damage. It would receive as good as it gave. Newton's 3rd Law. But damage to both sections would require energy and the only source of energy was the kinetic energy of the falling mass. Therefore it would slow down in addition to being affected by the Conservation of Momentum.

So with 15 levels of the north tower falling on 90 intact levels including horizontal beams impacting each other in the core it is only a question of how many levels the falling 15 could destroy. Even a 3 to 1 ratio would leave 45 levels intact for the lower structure.

So where is the experiment demonstrating that the falling top could destroy everything below?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caATBZEKL4c

So let's see you build a physical model with mass distributed through the entire structure that can support its own weight but still completely collapse due to the fall of its top 15% instead of just TALK. Anybody can claim anything.

psik

 

UNLESS acted upon by an outside force.

Again,gravity

 

and the expression of that outside force actually doing something would be for the falling mass to experience a jolt, but none is to be found, WHY?

 

What are you talking about?

 

I agree.

The problem is that the MASS was still there even though it was sheared apart. It didn't just disappear. That mass of debris was also CONSTANTLY being acted upon by gravity.

Why? Why would the upper section show a visible slowdown if, at the point of impact, the upper section was shearing along with the lower section? If the connections and components at the point of impact for both the upper and lower section were being torn apart, what was going to cause resistance? Enough to slow the upper sections descent enough to be visibly seen?

I have posted a video of a jet slamming into a concrete wall. When the jet's nose first impacts that wall, why do we not see the tail end slow down?

No.

The upper 15 levels did NOT fall upon the lower 90 because the 90th floor was be the ONLY structural assembly in that structure to be used in ANY calculation or model to see if it indeed would resist shearing apart. As has been explained to you and others many times before, the stress load crated by an impact will travel outward from the point of impact along load paths. If at any point the stress load overcomes any component or connection, it will fail. So when any part of the upper section impacted, say for example, the 4" thick concrete floor, the load will try and pass through the floor, followed by the floor trusses, the through the column truss connections, to the columns, to the grillages, to the bedrock.

So the question you have to figure out and understand is what was the load of the descending upper section compared to the load the first floor impacted could resist.

Really? Did you take into account that the first floor that was impacted by the descending upper section now added its weight to the debris and is now descending? Have you figured out what the load is for the descending upper section and what the first floor impacted could handle? IS it in fact 3 to 1 or are you just guessing?

Yet again, your models are terrible. I have a couple of quesitons for you regarding this one in particular.

1. You have been posting that nobody has come up with an accurate description/accounting of what structural components the towers consisted of. So how in the world do you expect people to watch your video and think that you made an accurate representation of the towers and that what you show is reliable? How can your model be to scale when you have said that nobody has given an accurate account of what the towers consisted of structurally? This is your first major mistake.

2. How in the world is that model in your video even CLOSELY represent how the towers were constructed? Is that dowel in the center supposed to represent the core?

3. How were the connections of the "floors" to the core columns represented in your video? Where they accuracy scaled?

4. Where are the perimeter columns and their floor truss connections?

5. You use round "washers" to represent the floors? Was the weight of the "washers" scaled correctly to the size and weight of the floors?

These are just a few things that are wrong in your video model. In both your videos I have seen, you haven;t even come close to representing the models accurately, thus your results are bogus.

I suppose, according to you and your understanding of models, if anyone wanted to see what would happen in a collision between two Corvettes, all one would have to do is buy to Hot Wheels Corvettes and smash them together right? That would surely give us accurate results correct? Also, if your understanding of Conservation of momentum can be applied to everything, why do we get different results from and actual impact between two real Corvette's and the impact between two Hot Wheels Corvette's?

In the video below, please explain how the SMALLER upper section completely destroyed the LARGER lower section. They only removed a few floors in between so the upper section could impact the lower section? Also, the lower section was, just moments before, supported that upper section with no problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCjEi4z2KZA

Please explain how there was enough energy from the smaller, descending upper section for it to not only destroy itself, but destroy the lower section. Using gravity only.

 

Then you should not have a problem making a model demonstrating what you claim. Most people cannot escape gravity.

psik

 

Why do we not see a jolt/slowing from the jet when it impacts the concrete wall? The wall was solid AND it didn't give compared to the lower section of the tower. The jet was comprised of many components.

Please explain why we see no jolt like you expect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

 

Why would I need a 'model' to state the obvious?

 

Was the model in your video accurate? Was it to scale? Or did you have a problem accurately recreating a scaled model for your video?

 

Just to make my point that your model is completely inaccurate and your results or bogus based on your quote below:

 

...dude. This late in the game and you are still clinging to that?

 

what you failed to grasp is that he just proved his point despite the mathematical requirement.

 

"we hold these truths to be self evident"

Our founding Fathers recognized the factor of
"common sense" in that some things do not need
many pages of explanation, they simply are.

The collapse events of WTC1,2 & 7
were unnatural acts requiring the addition of energy
from some source that was not the potential energy
of the mass of the building.

 

So prove it.

 

"still clinging to that"

Can you produce evidence that proves beyond a shadow
of a doubt that the physical evidence proves there were
airliners crashed into the towers & Pentagon & Shanksville?

To ask a question here:
given this 67000 signatures on a petition,
is this question on the ballot or not? does anyone know.
will it be for certain voted on in November? or?
enquiring minds & all that good stuff.

and indeed if it is on the ballot, I want to then go on the
hunt for what the propaganda war will most certainly ensue
in the run-up to the election. anybody have any data on this?

 

If there were no hijacked planes, then what happened to the passengers?

 

Since the ONLY info we have on the passengers is from the
mainstream media, and its a given that the MSM = Propaganda Machine,
therefore its sort of a moot point.

 

So the victim's family members are grieving over nothing? But since you don't think there were victims that means the shell shocked family members are not legitimate I.e. paid actors. I'll tell you straight up: that's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing crazy, man. Like, seriously messed up in the head if you truly believe that. And no, this is no ploy. I'm just a normal dude. If you have beliefs like that then I sincerely suggest you find the nearest community mental health place & sit down and discuss these things with a licensed professional.

 

So you think its truly messed up in the head
to actually get it, that is understand that the MSM
has been feeding everybody a steady diet of propaganda,
the whole 9/11/2001 fiasco was a made for TV DRAMA!

 

on the subject of extremes
note that several posters on this forum have repeatedly stated
that ( at least as they see it .... ) there isn't ANY evidence at all
to support the 9/11 inside job theory.

This sort of totally exclusive thinking is
not unique to any one side of the argument.

 

I was personally acquainted with one of the passengers. She was not 'MSM propaganda'.

 

You fail to convince me of anything, because you say that you were personally acquainted with one of the passengers, really doesn't prove anything, the fact is that even if it were the case, there are infinite possibilities of what could have happened, given the physical evidence, the official story is still totally bogus.