There were literally hundreds, perhaps thousands of very convenient coincidences on 9/11, all having the effect of helping to facilitate the attacks. This is just one of them. There were 12 war games going on on 9/11 where a large portion of the air defense system for the Northeastern US was sent towards Alaska, rendering it impotent to defend the Northeastern US. 4 of these were deliberately rescheduled for 9/11/01.
Michael Ruppert wrote of the various training exercises conducted under the cover of "Vigilant Guardian" on that day, in his book "Crossing the Rubicon". The war games set the tone for deception that morning.
The spoofed radar with fake targets lasted until afternoon according to Ruppert. That contributed mightily to the confusion of the ATC system, as planned.
In your own words Bob, how exactly do you see something like a F-16 defending the US from 4 passenger planes that had had their transponders turned off and were fairly hard to pinpoint? Try not to evade the question now Bob. You've got three options: Do nothing. Shoot them down. Disable them and force crash/land. Option 2 causes the death of all souls on board and whatever they hit, option 3 could lead to 2.
Thanks for resurrecting the thread, I appreciate it. Unfortunately the video is conveniently lost but it was quite informative you're not.
And there we have it quite clearly. With a pathetic wave of his arms he ignores the substance of his claim. Bob makes this claim about how convenient it was to have "no defense"! When asked what they would have done anyway, he has no damn answer! The first plane would have hit no matter what. The second and third would have needed an order from Bush to shoot down an American airliner on American soil, to stop either one of them. How could he ever have given such an order? Resurrected thread shows how much bullshit this whole conspiracy is.
well, obviously these war games were put into action to keep the “good” fighter pilots in action so the “bad” fighter pilots could escort the 4 planes allegedly hijacked to their final destination so the passengers and crew could be eliminated so the drones could magically appear and hit three buildings and then of course the 4th was shot down just because… it all makes perfect sense now.
Do you believe that the official version of what happened on 9/11 is true and correct? I hope that we can discuss this without rancor because I fully believe that people can disagree with civility and respect. Thanks,
OK, I've never understood why Building 7 imploded so perfectly without being hit by anything. Any ideas?
So perfectly? Not hit by anything? There's plenty of reasons on the internet explaining various ways it could have come down - there's too much unknown about the internal stability to be totally accurate. A very large chunk of tower took out one of its corners: https://www.metabunk.org/mirror/www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm It was on fire for many hours and the firefighters all said the building was creaking and in a state of imminent collapse. If it was rigged for demolition before the fires, how could they possibly survive not being damaged or going off. If it was rigged after, what possible reason would they have to cover this up? Insurance-wise it was 100% gone. Survivability even after fires were put out looked to be decidedly suspect, so there would be nobody thinking anything amiss were they to bring it down as a precaution. Here's a question for you that I have never seen a satisfactory answer to: Why? I mean what reason could they have for taking it down? I've seen some claims about it housing classified material that they wanted disposing of, so let the fires burn it all, send in somebody with a flame thrower. Most certainly I wouldn't demolish it and scatter all that paper over Manhattan. Here's another extremely pertinent question: The claims are that it was rigged for demolition beforehand. Forgetting the very questionable survivability of the explosives and circuitry with widespread fires, what reason would they have given for its collapse had not the massive section of tower hit it and started all the fires? It makes no sense at all, they rigged it and hoped for the best?
I do not want to start an extended discussion 9/11 because, even today, too little is known to explain the events of that most unusual day. I've seen too many videos that have since disappeared, read accounts of firemen, engineers, architects and eyewitnesses that keep the Official Story from passing the "smell test". I also had Top Secret security clearance in the US Military and am rarely surprised at the lengths this government will go to in order to dupe an easily deceived American public. I don't know if you realized that this is not the first time that tall buildings in NYC have been hit by large airplanes . In July of 1945, a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State building but caused no structural damage. I know that they're different buildings and different aircraft but the fact that there was no structural damage seems very unusual. Briefly put, I don't know exactly what happened that day and who was actually involved but like about 1/2 of the American public, I do not believe the official narrative. Thanks, (1). 1945 Empire State Building B-25 crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1945_...y 28, 1945, a,twenty-four others were injured. EXCERPT "On July 28, 1945, a B-25 Mitchell bomber of the United States Army Air Forces crashed into the north side of the Empire State Building in New York City, while flying in thick fog. The accident killed fourteen people (three crewmen and eleven people in the building), and an estimated twenty-four others were injured. Damage caused by the crash estimated at US$1 million (equivalent to about $15 million in 2021), although the building's structural integrity was not compromised." CONTINUED
No problem - but those WTC7 observations should make you at least understand taking a conspiratorial viewpoint needs some tough questions answered satisfactorily. I have no problem with anyone's point of view. I know all about The Empire State crash btw. The plane was slower, less payload, less fuel and considerably smaller and lighter. I would estimate not even 1/10 of the kinetic energy of either of the two Boeings.
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7 This is a study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7) — a 47-story building that suffered a total collapse at 5:20 PM on September 11, 2001, following the horrible events of that morning. The objective of the study was threefold: (1) Examine the structural response of WTC 7 to fire loads that may have occurred on September 11, 2001; (2) Rule out scenarios that could not have caused the observed collapse; and (3) Identify types of failures and their locations that may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. The UAF research team utilized three approaches for examining the structural response of WTC 7 to the conditions that may have occurred on September 11, 2001. First, we simulated the local structural response to fire loading that may have occurred below Floor 13, where most of the fires in WTC 7 are reported to have occurred. Second, we supplemented our own simulation by examining the collapse initiation hypothesis developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Third, we simulated a number of scenarios within the overall structural system in order to determine what types of local failures and their locations may have caused the total collapse to occur as observed. The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building. https://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ 4.7 Summary and Conclusion It is our conclusion that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of all columns in the building and not a progressive collapse involving the sequential failure of columns throughout the building. Despite simulating a number of hypothetical scenarios, we were unable to identify any progressive sequence of failures that could have taken place on September 11, 2001, and caused a total collapse of the building, let alone the observed straight-down collapse with approximately 2.5 seconds of free fall and minimal differential movement of the exterior. Page 110 https://files.wtc7report.org/file/p...ollapse-of-World-Trade-Center-7-March2020.pdf EDIT: Please review the above, the result of a 4-year study by Dr. Leroy Hulsey and his team and also review the NIST report and the anonymous explanation from a self-described "debunking" site. And of course review all the videos to make a determination for yourself.
So it collapsed then Bob? Your reliance on Hulsey ignores the very significant and fundamental issues just above that you seem rather evasive about. I am most certainly not reinventing the wheel when this has been extensively trawled through already! Anyway - Hulsey: Here "Modeling complex events is hard. Here's a comparison between the NIST simulation of the collapse of WTC7 (left), the actual collapse (center) and a new simulation from Professor Hulsey and his students at the University of Alaska. Notice how NIST is far more accurate in the initial phases of the collapse. The penthouse on the left is the most obvious difference. With NIST (left) the penthouse folds inwards, the sides pivoting at their bases, this matches reality. With Hulsey (right) the East penthouse (on the left) performs a weird pivot, the base spreading outwards. Very different from reality. Then when the longer west penthouse collapses, NIST and reality both show it deforming as it collapses. Hulsey's model just slides into the building with zero deformation. Then when the exterior collapses the NIST model deforms far more than reality, but the Hulsey model hardly deforms at all. NIST also shows a huge amount of interior detail. Hulsey does not seem to show ANY damage, and only shows the top 2/3 of the building." Hulsey "critiqued" From Here: The study makes incorrect displacement comparisons. In both 2016 and 2017 Dr. Hulsey made much of a difference in the displacement at column 79 (5.5" west vs. 2" east). But he appears to be comparing the wrong values — global instead of local displacements. Reference. The study makes incorrect temperature related buckling comparisons. Dr. Hulsey claims (slide 82) his study shows col 79 did not buckle due to temperature. He lists this as a point of comparison with NIST. However NIST explicitly makes the exact same observation. Reference. The study does not model fire progression. Dr. Hulsey only used one static temperature distribution, where the actual fires moved around heating unevenly. The study mischaracterizes NIST's modelling of the exterior. Dr. Hulsey claims the exterior columns were fixed when they were not. Reference. The study mischaracterizes NIST connection modeling in the LS-DYNA model. Dr. Hulsey claims that volumes of the full-building LS-DYNA model did not have connections modeled, but his evidence for this is a misrepresentation of a different model, the ANSYS model. Reference. The study was not open. At the start of the study we were told "WTC 7 Evaluation is a completely open and transparent investigation into the cause of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. Every aspect of the scientific process will be posted here and on the university's website so that the public can follow its progress." The last such release was in 2015. Nothing has been released since then except videos of Dr. Hulsey giving versions of this slideshow. The study neglects unknowns. Impact damage from falling WTC1 debris, the actual fire spread and temperatures, the state of the insulation at every spot, and differences between drawings and constructions are all factors that are unknown, and make it impossible to make a determination of the exact cause of the collapse. Hulsey's "methodology" from Here and Here: "Hulsey pulled his temperatures from 6 pm in the NIST scenario, apparently not realizing that the area around column 79 had begun cooling around 5 pm in the NIST scenario because NIST, unlike Hulsey, actually did the work to build a realistic fire progression simulation. Not only is Hulsey's approach here insufficient to demonstrate that the NIST scenario didn't occur (because he never even tested that scenario and instead tested a much more limited scenario), it does not come anywhere close to demonstrating that the building would never collapse due to fire. There were large fires observes in over a dozen floors of WTC7 on 9-11, but Hulsey claims he could rule out fire bringing the building down by testing only a single, unrealistic scenario in a small portion of 2 floors in isolation. NIST, in contrast, ran a full fire simulation across 16 floors. There is no reason, logical or otherwise, to think that what Hulsey did disproves NIST's vastly more detailed and superior model, yet alone that it proves fire could not cause the collapse of the building in any reasonable scenario. Note, for example, that WAI concluded that the collapse was most likely to have originated on floors 10 and 11, floors Hulsey didn't even test one of his contrived, fake fire scenarios. In Hulsey's model, floors 10 and 11 were perfectly pristine, untouched by any fire damage. How do you know the fire conditions on those floors wouldn't affect the surrounding floors, including the floors two small areas of the two floors (12 and 13) on which Hulsey ran his limited tests? On 9/11, those floors were fully involved in fires. You're telling me you are sure that the number of floors on fire could make no difference whatsoever as to whether fires could cause the collapse of the building. I'm not convinced. And to reiterate, there were many other floors besides 10 and 11 that Hulsey ignored fires on and tested as perfectly pristine and, again, in any case, in the small area on floors 12 and 13 where he did test a heating scenario, he tested only a contrived uniform heating based on less than max-case figures that he incorrectly pulled from the wrong time in the NIST simulation; he never tested a traveling fire scenario with a progression model. In reality, however, we know that the fires traveled around the building, which is why NIST did build and test such a model. (And, in fact, in NIST's model, the area in question was cooling when it collapsed, with column 79 being pushed to the east by heating in the area in which the fire next moved to the west, so we know that the progression of the fires throughout the building could not have been more important to why the building the collapsed in NIST's model!) You're telling me that the order in which differential heating damaged the structure and ultimate temperature of the building components could make no difference whatsoever as to whether fires could cause the collapse of the building. I'm not convinced. I would suggest you actually read the NIST report very carefully and then read the Hulsey report very carefully and think about these issues. The contrast of the comprehensiveness and thoughtfulness of NIST's approach versus Hulsey's is staggering. You should at least browse the main thread on this topic as many of Hulsey's errors are discussed at great length there."
Common Sense rules! 911 was an inside job because the official narrative, every single detail, is impossible.
The good old bare-assertion "common sense" claim. Every single detail impossible - the irony is astounding - click here.
Thanks Bob, it would be helpful here for you to clarify a few things: What reason could they have for taking it down? What reason would they have given for its collapse had not the massive section of tower hit it and started all the fires? They got "lucky"?
I wouldn't quite say every single detail is impossible. The best way to deceive an ignorant populace is to lace in a little bit of truth to make the overall LIE sound plausible.
The reason for the entire operation was to open the Global War Of Terror, to vilify muslims and advance the notion of Greater Israel, to assault the US Constitution by way of Unpatriot Act, and other more subtle goals of Israel. The reason for taking down 7, besides the terror aspects, was to get rid of the Enron evidence kept there in various federal offices in the building, and to enhance the insurance claims of the lessee.
Yes, there are a few sundry details that are accurate, like it happened on 11 September and Dubya was POTUS, etc. Even the 911 Commission stated that there were 60+ details, incidents, what have you, for which "we found no proof". Until the Scamdemic came along, 911 was the biggest scam ever pulled off.
Please define "get rid" when you are talking about the "Enron evidence". You see, the building was on fire, raging for many hours. From any sensible perspective, let it burn works very effectively, as would getting somebody to chuck some inflammables over anything not burnt and set fire to it. Regarding insurance, that was an insurance write-off already before it collapsed, so that is a nonsense argument. What doesn't make sense: Dropping the building and scattering the Enron evidence all over Manhattan! Pre-rigging the building and hoping something gives them cause to hit the button (and scatter the documents to the winds!). Pre-rigging the building and hoping the same to give reason to "enhance" the insurance. Pre-rigging the building and hoping the fires don't take out all the demolition wiring and/or detonators/explosives. Post-rigging the building when it is completely justified - then denying it.
I try to clarify as much as I possibly can whenever I can and when a poster is genuinely confused or requires clarification. You don't fit into that description. You are asking questions that are irrelevant to what really happened on 9/11 in a scientific sense in order to try to distract, which is obviously your objective. Science can answer many questions and the primary question it answers in terms of the events of 9/11 is that the official 9/11 reports are a massive fraud. Who and how are questions for a criminal investigation, one that was never conducted. The answer to these questions don't change the reality of what happened on 9/11. The objective to the Special Grand Jury petition filed by the Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Inquiry was exactly for that purpose. The supporting evidence filed with the petition included the science and eyewitness testimony proving the official 9/11 narrative was false.
