When Trump made those statements no one batted an eye. If he were to say them today the media would simply call him a terrorist apologist and a conspiracy theorist. Trump Derangement Syndrome was a PsyOp to combat the growing truth movement. It literally hypnotized people into believing anything they were told.
I don't necessarily believe the official 9/11 story, but the planted bombs theory doesn't make sense to me. If bombs were planted to topple the towers after being hit by planes, what then was the purpose of the planes? All they had to do was blow up the towers without ramming them with 747s and then have some group take credit for planting explosives and it would've accomplished exactly the same thing.
In fact, if the whole disaster was just a pretext to start a campaign of wars, then why do you even need to destroy the buildings in the first place? If planes can't topple buildings, then hitting the towers with them would've been sufficient for drumming up the necessary patriotism to invade Afghanistan.
Shock and Awe. 9/11 wasn’t just terrorism, it was a production intended to horrify the planet in real time.
The planes were a key element in the story, whether or not they were virtual (it’s a huge debate on which I remain agnostic.) The hijacking was necessary: adding [supposed]faces to the perpetrators.
The “producers” of 9/11 needed the world to witness IN THE MOMENT humans plunging to their death.
The global trauma-shock enabled the immediate programming of a “sacred” story. Anyone questioning the Story was attacked as a heretic.
Plus get the Patriot Act passed. I watched the hours of that day till I fell asleep late at night with the TV on. Till they took it off the TV.
I was already a Crime Activist and a CCW permit holder, had my mandatory training, and background check. Then had to do it again with the Patriot Act.
The bombs were in the luggage storage of the planes. Jet Fuel burns hot, furniture is added chemicals and fire material. These were luxury offices. Tons of electronics too.
There was 'chatter' just like when Pearl was bombed, no one put 2+2=4 together. Political cronies are the hired help. That hasn't changed. If you have not read the Disaster FJB made on his Korea-Nam trip, you need to. Mrs. Word Salad and the NYC Sanctuary City Mayor are doing the stateside 'honors'. Surrounded by all anti-gun, climate change idiots.
I could think of 100s of ways to horrify the population with terrorism that would be exponentially easier to carry out than planting explosives in a building and then coordinating planes to hit them at the precise moment.
Probably would be pretty easy to do a Bataclan-type attack every month on the general population throughout the states. I would bet it would have a greater emotional impact too, as no one would feel truly safe anywhere. People would be begging for war.
At the end of the day, I don't hold the people in charge in very high regard, both morally and intellectually. They're evil, for sure, but they're also not playing 4-D chess.
There is more to it than that. The buildings were a huge liability, because they were full of asbestos that had to be removed, very difficult and expensive. There was a lot of money made on stock options before the event, foreknowledge. WTC7 had a cache of documents detailing major $trillions in fraud of the defense department. You are dealing with Psychopaths, I believe they did the Las Vegas massacre in order to punish Trump voters, real sick, demented ghouls, as Neil Oliver calls them.
On the other side of the coin, any Terrorists capable of planning such an intricate operation, would have the sense to realize their probability of success would be close to zero. That complex an operation would be open to failure 10 thousand different ways. It would be far easier for terrorists to launch a dozen different separate attacks, simple truck bombs, in a shopping mall, stadium or chemical plant. Or crash a sodium cyanide truck with a hydrochloride acid truck, mega deaths would result in a populated area.
This is not Mission Impossible on TV, most people couldn't stick-up a Seven11 successfully, they would screw up and get busted. That's the real world. And these terrorists couldn't even blow up their own underwear and locked themselves out of their own truck bomb. Just look at their Visa applications, the avg ten year old American, is more intelligent.
The planted bombs make perfect sense if you knew you were going to paint the planes in later.
But you raise an interesting point.
Bombs alone are one thing, but rare the average Joe would ever come face to face with one.
Maybe terrorizing the travelling Public, imprinting the idea that any of the 5,000 passenger flights that take off daily in the U.S could be hijacked at any given moment was another far more possible scenario?
(They DO love traumatizing the populace. That much we know).
When "all the footage" consists of one set of images used by all the media outlets, it isn't that big a task. Of course, nothing will convince someone who fervently believes official storylines no matter how absurd.
I would say there is always an occult angle to these operations, human sacrifices are necessary but perhaps the hi tech ritual also requires a certain method of destruction of fundamental geometries (towers, cube, pentagon etc.) because of harmonics.
If you look at some of the aftermath videos panning the wreckage of the twin towers, you can see images of some of those massive I-beams still standing. If you look at the tops of those beams you can see that the massive steel has been cut through at an angle of about 45 degrees. When I first saw this,, I thought I was looking at part of the clean-up efforts of the wreckage. That is, I thought maybe people had been up there, maybe suspended from a crane with huge oxy-acetylene torches, making those cuts to help drop those steel columns. Those angle cuts were clearly deliberately made. The question is, were they made after “the event” as part of the clean-up or DURING the event, by a material called thermite that can be attached to a thick piece of steel and ignited. It creates an extremely hot reaction that will melt away thick steel that it is attached to. I have heard of blacksmiths playing with it to melt engine blocks for fun. You could stick it onto a massive I-beam and melt a nice 45 degree cut through it so that the building above would skid straight down on itself in a controlled demolition, with gravity doing most of the work. That might partially explain what happened on 9-11, Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth has studied the matter. I never saw anyone investigate and address the issue of those 45 degree angles on those cut support columns though. I thought it was shockingly sloppy to just show them in the public record images of the aftermath though, because is is a very obvious clue to leave visibly hanging out.
Yes that is a standard demolition technique. They clearly used mostly thermite based demolition charges to reduce the noise signature but explosive cutting charges were likely used and the giant beams in the basement. Those explosions registered on seismometers just before the planes even hit the buildings and just before the buildings collapsed.
No, they weren't planted bombs. It would be very difficult to know exactly where the drones hit the buildings. And they were drones, not planes. The simple and obvious thing would be to have shaped charges in the fuselage and wings of the drones so they would cut through the steel beams. That's run-of-the-mill military tech. They can cut through 20in of tank armor. Were it not for the military ordnance the planes would have just splattered up against the sides of the buildings in a big fireball as the fuel ignited.
"....First off, all serious researchers aside from Morgan Reynolds (a former Bush economist) agree that planes actually hit the towers, however the planes that hit the towers had no windows and extra equipment attached (PODs) and are believed to be remote control drone aircraft. In fact, a similar plan was devised in 1962 by Robert McNamara called OPERATION NORTHWOODS which detailed flying an aircraft filled with FBI agents (allegedly college students on vacation) in flight the plane would switch transponder signals with a drone aircraft which would then be shot down over Cuba. The FBI agents on the plane would then land safely and resume new covert identities. There is evidence that a similar plot was hatched on 9/11:
Thomas Deatherage, Former Airline Captain B- 747-400 and B- 737-300: "After viewing many posted videos on "Youtube" I can tell you without hesitation that clearly aircraft # 2 B-767 - was radio controlled into the building Tower 2. The "pod" mounted on the bottom of the aircraft, is manufactured by "Martin Marietta" Corporation in Los Angeles. The pod has been used extensively by the USAF for outfitting drone aircraft for over 22 years, and you can clearly see it in (4) of the amateur videos- just before impact, with tower # 2. Also, I would like to find an insider A and P mechanic at both United and America to cross reference the A/C serial number of flight 77 and 93. I guarantee that they change the N issued tail number. However, one could trace and find this original A/C, from an insider employee, at these companies- leading to the smoking gun these aircraft were not destroyed."
MARTIN MARIETTA LANTIRN NAVIGATION AND TARGETING SYSTEM: The system consists of two externally-mounted pods carried on some fighter aircraft. LANTIRN was first employed during the Persian Gulf War.
Development of LANTIRN began in 1980, and the first production pod was delivered in 1987. The AAQ-13 navigation pod contains a Forward Looking InfraRed sensor (FLIR) and a Terrain Following Radar (TFR). FLIR imagery provides the pilot a view of terrain ahead of the aircraft at night. The TFR allows "hands-off" flight as low as 100 feet above the ground while avoiding obstacles in the aircraft's path. The AAQ-14 targeting pod has a FLIR and a laser designator/ranger to "illuminate" or mark the target for laser-guided bomb deliveries. The USAF ordered LANTIRN pods for F-15E and selected F-16C/D fighters. ..."
And, of course Flight 93 was meant to hit WTC7, which was also pre-wired for implosion. But the remote control malfunctioned and the drone went astray and had to be shot down, spreading debris over a wide area. Likely one small piece landed in Shanksville, and so they claimed the whole plane buried itself into a little hole in the ground. An absurd claim, utter nonsense, a physical impossibility. There are these things called the Laws of Physics.
Good points, Smith. What was equally absurd was the "Let's Roll" fairy tale. Media themes are usually very stupid, because the people who invent them are stupid. The entire spectrum of 911 media themes are so stupid that it amazes me that anyone believes any of it.
There were no 747's involved. Your grasp of facts diminishes any validity you might have. Crashing planes was spectacular and incited the mass hysteria against.. wait for it.. Al Qeuda. There was a tangible evil- 15 (out of 19) Saudi hijackers.
Okay 767s. Does it really matter? Big passenger jetliners. And I'm not really arguing about facts as much as I'm arguing about how the explosive theory is nonsensical on its face. Your response has not made it less so, either. You didn't even address what I said.
Yes, the crashing planes into the towers is spectacular. But the towers coming down completely overshadows that. If the idea was to destroy the towers, then you don't need to crash planes into it and pretend it was the planes that did it. Just blow it up with explosives (since they presumably went through all the trouble of planting them) and then just blame it on whoever the hell you want to. These are master manipulators after all -- right? -- so they can fabricate evidence and plant guilt wherever they want.
And like I said, you didn't even need to bring down the towers if all you were going to do is leverage the disaster for a war campaign. Ramming the jets into towers would've been completely sufficient for justifying a war and most Americans would've been happy to invade Afghanistan for that.
It would be infeasible for Terrorists to wire up 3 buildings with demolition charges to take them down. You are trying too hard to analyze the minds & motives of Psychopaths. The fundamental question is: What is the forensic evidence for the means, manner and cause of the event? That is the start of the investigation. The evidence determines that the 3 buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. The planes were drones and did not destroy the two buildings. The pentagon was a missile attack. Flight 93 did not crash in a hole in the ground. At that point determining motives is a criminal investigation undertaken with the power of subpoena.
In my podcast I talk about “what if 9/11 was a false flag?” And if it was, what would we, as Americans do, if really knew our country was waging war against us?
Would we be even able to recognize it? I use this analogy: “thousands of people heard bombs go off, Billions “saw” the planes hit on the Television -- who are you going to believe”
I guess I'll go ahead with believing my lying eyes. Since you put scare quotes around "saw" I'm assuming the whole "seeing" thing on television was a carefully constructed fake, like the moon landings and the whole "the earth is round" thing. I guess if I was on the ground in New York City that day, and "saw" the planes hit, that wouldn't count, because Franklin says it was probably just the CIA/FBI/Franklin's Secret Cabal trying to wipe us (and themselves along with it) out. This is kind of fun, actually. Maybe we could cover the Illuminati next, since wasn't one of their "secret" headquarters in New York?
Towers had to come down due to structural design due to aluminum and steel causing galvanizic corrosion. Asbestos made it a huge problem. They blew it up and gave the MIC a reason to run amok for twenty years in the mideast.
Stole the gold in the basement. Brady bonds did not have to be repaid.
Yes mountains of evidence.. when the towers were built NYers nick named them Nelson & David for Rockefeller bros who were main force behind the project & profits.. long before 9-11 they were dubbed the biggest White Elephants in NYC real estate because the asbestos remediation plan was beyond any recoverable cost.
"The short answer to this question is, yes, there was asbestos used in the construction of the World Trade Center.
The New York Port authority had planned originally to use 5,000 tons of fireproofing that contained asbestos on the first 40 floors of the buildings. From floors 41 onward, no asbestos was going to be used. An article, which appeared in the New York Times on September 18, 2001, seven days after the attack, said:
"Anticipating a ban (on the use of asbestos in construction in NY), the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor on the north tower, the first one to go up..." According to a spokesperson for the Port Authority, "more than half of the original asbestos-containing material was later replaced."
A fact sheet, which was produced by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health states:
"Asbestos was a major material used in the construction of the World Trade Center. That asbestos is a constituent of the dust and debris." An advisor was given to the emergency workers at ground zero that stated they should wear protective clothing and change out of work clothes before going home. It also stated that work clothes should be bagged at work and washed separately from other laundry to prevent asbestos contamination.
There was also some controversy that the lack of asbestos used in the World Trade Center contributed to the fast collapse of the buildings. It was stated, in a New York Times article, that non-asbestos fire proofing used to construct the World Trade Center would have been less effective than products that contained asbestos, which ultimately shortened the time that the people trapped in the World Trade Center during the crisis had to escape. For more information about the issues of cleanup in the aftermath of the attacks, please see The World Trade Center - Cleanup."
Sep 10, 2018 · More than 16,000 Ground Zero responders who got sick have been deemed eligible for monetary awards. ABC News Relatively few federal law enforcement officers have sought help, a Justice Department official told ABC News, despite having worked at the attack site that one retired agent called a “cesspool of cancer.”
But the EPA declared that the dust was fine, don't worry about it. They also were pretty much mute about the giant toxic cloud deliberately & maliciously released from the East Palestine derailment.
EPA administrator was Gov of NJ Cathie Todd Whitman, who was threatened with death if she did not state the air was safe.... Coverup was underway...Inside Job...
Another source - The air itself was also thick – some rescue workers compared it to “soup.” Some experts have estimated that the attacks released a “toxic soup” of over 2,500 different potentially hazardous materials, particles, and fibers into the environment. These include mercury, dioxins, pulverized concrete, lead, and PCB’s, to name only a few. In addition, it is estimated that the World Trade Center contained approximately 400 tons of asbestos fiber at the time of the attacks – much, if not all of which, was also released into the ambient air with the smoke plume, collapsing towers, and subsequent fires. In 1971, WTC 1’s steel structure was sprayed up to the 40th floor with ½ inch of asbestos coating. Initially, the Port Authority planned to use over 5,000 tons of asbestos in the construction of the World Trade Center. Because of anticipated bans on asbestos spray, however, the workers were asked to switch to a non-asbestos spray. As a result, a non-asbestos substitute was used on the remainder of the North Tower and the entirety of the South Tower. The Port Authority has suggested that some, though not all, of the asbestos coating that was initially applied had been removed prior to 9/11. It has also been suggested that the elevator shafts – approximately 100 in each tower – also contained asbestos.
The thing that "dinged" my head the most was Trump said Larry Silverstein? JUST BOUGHT the World Trade Center a few days prior! Insured the crap out of it too! Hmmmmm
Back then, we weren't all hooked up to the internet. At work, we had a dial-up connection. We were able to see just one still picture showing the plane going in. The only really current information we had came over the radio, so I only had verbal descriptions. If nothing else, this speaks to how far our technology has come in that much time.
At one point, the woman on the radio said in horror that the first building had "fallen down". I thought that was absurd. The building would not just fall over, even if it was on fire. Perhaps she could have described it better and then I would have understood it better. At any rate, when I got home and saw the videos on television, I immediately got it. I studied engineering in college, including structural engineering. The videos made perfect sense to me. When the planes hit, there was of course instant fire. Steel becomes increasingly weaker, as it gets hotter. Think in terms of a blacksmith heating the steel cherry red in order to form it. That's what happened to the steel in the towers. But also think about a hammer. Laying a hammer on top of a nail will not drive the nail, but "hammering" it down will. The momentum is a key point. So, the steel in the floors that were hit heated up until they were no longer able to hold the floors above. In rapid succession, the upper part of the building(s) collapsed, and as each hit the critical floor, it was like a hammer hitting. One floor after another hit with a thud, and like a hammer, collapsed the next floor.
Keep in mind that they use progressively less steel in the upper floors, since they carry less weight. The upper floors, collapsed initially, one at a time, like repeated hammer blows. It could have ended with only the collapse of the upper floors. But there was enough hammer-like momentum that it was enough to start the collapse going down into the lower floors. Watch the videos carefully, and you can see what I'm saying. The floors collapse rapidly, but still one at a time. Hammer blow after hammer blow. First the upper floors, come down one at a time at the point of the original plane impact, and then the lower floors, floor by floor.
The moment I saw the videos on TV, I got it. The burning jet fuel would cause this. Bombs would not.
"The momentum is a key point. So, the steel in the floors that were hit heated up until they were no longer able to hold the floors above. In rapid succession, the upper part of the building(s) collapsed, and as each hit the critical floor, it was like a hammer hitting. One floor after another hit with a thud, and like a hammer, collapsed the next floor."
Almost verbatim the ridiculous Scientific American piece that claimed small office fires led to WTC7 free fall collapse with not one shred of physics to back it up & designed to fill the Grand Canyon size hole in official 9-11 Report that omitted WTC entirely. Get some facts.
Now I understand why, when I cut down a conifer tree, it falls straight down into its footprint, leaving only a pile of sawdust. It’s the hammerblows of the wood cells of the tree above colliding with the wood cells in the stump. It never falls sideways towards the point where I first weakened the tree…funny that. It must have something to do with the sharpness of my chainsaw. Somehow, maybe the engineering minds at Stihl have figured out how to temporarily “shock gravity” and prevent it from acting until all support for the weight of the tree above has been removed, so the cell-to-cell hammering can begin straight down.
That's the reality of the nutty pancake theory. Also if you look at the towers after impact with the drones they had a very asymmetrical damage. A big gash on one side of the building. In any kind of structural failure, the weakest point-of-failure is from a bending force. In your example it is far, far easier to bend & break a tree than to compress it into pile at its base. So if indeed the plane impacts were the cause of building failure, it is certain that the top of the buildings would have tipped over and fallen over the side of the building.
Exactly. The interior floors can go ahead and “pancake” but the huge steel exterior column structure cannot, unless it is changed to powder by some kind of DEW or other tech that has not been shown to the average rube on the street. This is obvious to anyone who has ever hammered a nail. It doesn’t turn to powder when you hit it.
I’m always slightly bemused by these debates on how. I’m more interested in why and who. If you look at the provisions of the patriot act, which was passed in 30 days after the attack, you’ll know why. And once you know why, the various who(s) become pretty obvious. It’s not much of a secret.
And yet, as I said, I was aware of this as soon as I saw the video.
I never automatically take things at face value. If you want to examine other scenarios, fine. But nothing in my engineering mind has led me to think it was anything other than what we all saw.
But the steel on the lower floors was not on fire and therefore not weakened. The buildings, if they were going to fall down should have fallen sideways and not pancaked as if detonation charges had been placed on each floor. I was home that morning, I was in college and that morning I had no class. That morning is frozen in time in my mind. I saw the second plane hit live on the television. Why did the second hit tower fall before the first one? The time to failure in a structure should be similar, but it wasn’t.
Our Republic ended because of that event. I don’t buy that a handful of terrorists pulled that off on their own. Governments were involved- if not our own, someone’s. Many don’t yet see it, but in a few hundred years it will be well known that that day marks the beginning of the end for this civilization, and the Patriot Act sealed the deal.
There are many points at which we can say our Republic ended (personally I think it was when we allowed the CIA/oligarchs to assassinate JFK in broad daylight and didn't do a thing)...BUT you are completely correct...
dour Republic ENDED because of that event and the anthrax attack the day after to get the last two holdouts of the Patriot act to get in line.
Done, Finito.
I think Covid was just a mopping up operation....and they had a quota from the globalists....and we didn't fulfill our quota. What do you think is next?
I don’t have a crystal ball, but if history is any guide, mass murder, starvation, and slavery always come next. Most are going to be completely blindsided by the whole thing.
T. Paine, you might not have a crystal ball, but you have more common sense than most people. Why is there no common sense in people anymore? Never mind, I live in a blue state. Nuff said.
I swear, they flock together and ruin the states they roost in.
Thanks for the great engineering explanation about the jet fuel heating things cherry red and causing the collapse. Maybe that explains why, since 9-11-2001, I have never been able to barbecue a steak without my barbecue turning cherry red and collapsing into its own footprint. The moment I read your explanation, I got it. Thank you!
I saw a thing about fires in skyscrapers, mostly in other countries (see also cutting corners construction techniques), and there have been some very bad ones that burned hot and basically destroyed the entire structure- however, despite 3rd world construction techniques, not a single one of them collapsed let alone pancaked on itself. Interesting isn’t it?
Don’t believe you’re lying eyes guys. Suspend your disbelief and trust the authorities- they are never wrong.
In which of your examples was the building hit by a plane loaded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel? Which of the buildings had forty stories worth of building weight on top of them?
Focus on WTC7. Not hit by any plane. Obviously, Fight 93, actually a drone, was meant to hit WTC7, but has guidance failure and had to be shot down. Since this MUST have been explosive or thermite demolition, what makes you think WTC1 & WTC2 weren't also?:
The 2019 University of Alaska analysis of WTC7 collapse, led by one of the top structural engineers in America, Professor Leroy Hulsey, concludes that it could only have failed the way it did if all 49 giant steel columns were simultaneously severed. Try explaining how that happened with office fires.
"WTC 7 Not Destroyed by Fire, Concludes Final University of Alaska Fairbanks Report"
This was no "office fire". This was thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning at immense temperatures. All columns would have been heated approximately equally, and therefore collapse at approximately the same moment. Also, there's the domino effect; when one column fails, it's load is transferred to the nearest other columns, which are already on the verge of collapse. Once the load is transferred to those columns, THEY collapse. And so on.
Rosie O'Donell famously misspoke, "Everybody knows steel don't burn." Well, in fact, it does. But that's not the point here. The steel only had to get hot enough to lose enough strength, and the collapse is inevitable. There were investigations and lawsuits concerning the fire insulation that was sprayed onto the columns as part of the construction. It is there specifically to keep the steel from getting too hot in a fire. But no one anticipated the planes slamming thru and scraping the insulation off. It probably would have made no difference anyway. No one had ever anticipated the extent of destruction and fire.
I was referring to WTC7, which was not hit by a plane. And NIST itself claimed that office fires caused some convoluted series of events that brought down the building with ~2 secs of it a freefall acceleration.
NY Reporter: "Incredibly Loud Explosion" - before WTC7 Collapse:
And referring to WTC1 & WTC2 the fireball did not heat the columns anything remotely close to equally. Have you even watched the collisions on video? Not even close to symmetrical. A giant fireball on one side of the building together with a big gash. Nothing on the opposite side. By far-and-away asymmetrical damage like that would lead to the top part tipping over, hot steel will bend long before it breaks or crushes. In fact you can see the top bending over some on WTC2.
Sorry but there was no jet fuel in WTC 7 and any jet fuel from the hits on 1 & 2 burned on impact. And I agree with SmithFS. The hit was asymmetrical. The result was unexpected, we couldn’t believe what happened because it was so unthinkable that the buildings would collapse the way they did. I saw it live on television- we all were like wth how did they fall like that? We expected the floors above the impact site might fall sideways- but they didn’t. There have been fires in other tall skyscrapers, some very bad ones, and none of them pancaked. And all the evidence was destroyed fast despite many people complaining at the time. Why? Only God and the perps know the truth.
"Burned on impact". Why look for some conspiracy when you can see the planes hit and the immediate fireball of flame form the jet fuel? Yes, the flame external to the buildings burned off quickly, and is irrelevant anyway, since it had no effect on the structures. Not so, on the interior.
We’re talking about a building that was NOT hit with a plane and NOT full of jet fuel and collapsed anyway. Try to keep up here. I guess you probably weren’t even a gleam in your daddy’s eye on 9/11/2001.
Conspiracy theory eh? I don’t know for sure what happened exactly, but I know one thing for 100% sure, and that is that for some pesky reason it turns out that all those conspiracy “nuts” turn out to be proven right in time. What was that about the CIA offing JFK? Just a bunch of loonies, right? Right??!
So far the “conspiracy theorists” are batting a thousand, the “experts” are striking out, and the sycophants continue to commit the classic fallacy of appeal to authority.
According to the people on the ground, WTC 7 was struck when the buildings came down, leaving a gash on one side. It burned for hours and it also had propane tanks in the building ( they were always there ). And I find it hard to believe that the towers coming down were not the equivalent of an earthquake. And for everyone saying a steel building doesn't fall down after a fire, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38675628.
What gash, watch the videos. A "gash on the side" would do zip. It didn't have propane tanks, it had some diesel for a backup generator in the basement and NIST themselves admitted it had nothing to do with its collapse. And the Tehran building didn't collapse at free fall into its footprint. It was a partial sliding collapse of a substandard pinned concrete floor building, totally different from any of the WTC buildings. And they do know how to measure earthquakes you know, it was no earthquake.
Trump claims to know Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC-7 that collapsed due to controlled demolition planned weeks in advance. Trump also thinks bombs went off as the planes hit the towers. Today there is no excuse possible for Trump not to know 9/11 was a false flag and the Towers were demolished by planned explosive demolition, yet his supporters are eager to vote him back into the presidency after he orchestrated the most dangerous vaccine in American history at WARP SPEED. And he kept promoting the death shot even after Prof. Francis Boyle reported it met the definition of a biological weapon.
My other most favorite 9-11 source was written in the days & weeks following the events that follows the money & trades noting key individuals who made out like bandits..
Three part series by Tom Flocco at Michael Ruppert's From the Wilderness an amazing research trove for many dark ops nobody will find by accident.
Trump was correct there are live interviews w lots of FDNY-NYPD etc w explosive sounds on camera & talking about explosions in stairwells that collapsed while buildings were still standing.. my favorite source for vetted research is original Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth who have easily searchable site & sources to beat the band. oops forgot explosive evidence!!
The whole World Trade Center complex was built to withstand aircraft impact & force was calculated so steel beams wrapped the exterior. Trump's choice of improper terms to describe aircraft decent as "going downhill" is silly & irrelevant point to latch on to.
NO, the building was never built to withstand a 757 going full speed, fully loaded with fuel. Look it up. How you all think it was a missile is beyond me.
"NO, the building was never built to withstand a 757 going full speed, fully loaded with fuel. Look it up."
It gives me a big time cramp when folks say "look it up" instead of providing evidence to support their claims & expect me to waste my time vetting random user ideas. yawn!
"How you all think it was a missile is beyond me."
Not even going to venture a guess what orifice the missile theory was pulled from there's certainly no suggestion of that from me as an informed researcher.. try reading it helps!
"Both technical calculations and testimony from World Trade Center structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.
Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net
Fair enough, pardon me for my sillyness, hehe ! , was there a plausible reason estimated as to why airliners would void the design.
"I just think that it was a plane with more than just fuel. I think obviously they were very big planes, they were going very rapidly because I was also watching where the plane seemed to be not only going fast, it seemed to be coming down into the building. So it was getting the speed from going downhill, so to speak"
How about.......directly after the incident, a man with some knowledge real estate, is quoted making a statement of conjecture, the statement is confusing and contradictory when describing a perceived view of the speed and orientation of aircraft in space.
Regardless, nine one one was a national tragedy though
No Trump is delicately describing what he knows to be true, to avoid getting into too much trouble, and that is there was NO F'IN WAY those were 767s that smashed through into those towers. They were clearly drones, fitting with military ordnance, shaped charges to cut through the steel.
If the planes were actually drones, what about the passengers? Are you saying the dead passengers are a hoax? Or they were aboard the drones? Or they were high jacked to a secret island? Was the whole vision of dead people just a clever act of illusion?
No the planes flew to Westover Air Base, which was evacuated that day, everyone sent home or told not to come in and a witness testified to seeing a United 757 flying very low over the town to the Air Base that morning. And the planes with passengers were moved into hangars which is where the otherwise impossible phone calls were made from. What happened to them after that, we don't know, but I suspect they were gassed & murdered.
And what dead passengers are you talking about? We haven't seen any dead passengers, they don't even have video of the hijackers in any airport or boarding any planes. They have lots of cameras in those terminals.
There was a few articles on this that were banned on fb/twitter…….
It’s been speculated that Israel was in cahoots with Saudi Arabia to stage an event to lure America into helping take on their enemies such as Iran, Iraq, etc. They wanted America in the Middle East to police the area for them.
Articles also had speculation and evidence that ISIS was an Israeli/CIA operation as well. Again it kept America in the Middle East fighting their enemies. A major point that seems obvious after the fact was why didn’t evil ISIS attack Israel? Because they were handled by an Israeli agent is the answer.
Why would American decision makers go along with the charade? Money! Money for corporations and another reason to keep the price of oil high.
So anyways. Just another idea of the background of events.
No, there is only one group capable of pulling a stunt like this. And that is the World Bankster Club. This was more geopolitical manipulation on their part. Remember the phrase: "All Wars are Banker Wars".
General Wesley Clark on Seven Countries in 5 yrs incl Syria & Iraq instigated by the 9/11 False Flag Event:
General Wesley Clark:
_"...Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail." ..."_
_"...So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." ..."_
You realize Wesley Clark was fired for sharing top secret information to his mistress? He's not the most reliable source. And as I 've said elsewhere, war scenarios are what the military does They did not act on it (outside o Afghanistan and Iraq ).
You are confusing General Wesley Clark with General Petraeus. Pretty sloppy of you. And it ain't a "war scenario" it is a plan for war, a plan which was enacted, except for Iran, they chickened out because they failed so bad in Iraq.
Trump couldn't do much with the Deep State Asset, scumbag Mitch McConnell, threatening to vote for his impeachment if he stepped out of line, including his desire to pardon Assange & Snowden.
They matter, just if you want to clean house you need to replace not just the top guy. Mitch McConnell should have been primaried 20yrs ago, he is as crooked as $3 bill.
When Trump made those statements no one batted an eye. If he were to say them today the media would simply call him a terrorist apologist and a conspiracy theorist. Trump Derangement Syndrome was a PsyOp to combat the growing truth movement. It literally hypnotized people into believing anything they were told.
The Donald ... 🧐... questioning 9/11 .... and not realizing there are no “warp speed” drugs , antidotes , jabs ... 😱🤬🤯
I don't necessarily believe the official 9/11 story, but the planted bombs theory doesn't make sense to me. If bombs were planted to topple the towers after being hit by planes, what then was the purpose of the planes? All they had to do was blow up the towers without ramming them with 747s and then have some group take credit for planting explosives and it would've accomplished exactly the same thing.
In fact, if the whole disaster was just a pretext to start a campaign of wars, then why do you even need to destroy the buildings in the first place? If planes can't topple buildings, then hitting the towers with them would've been sufficient for drumming up the necessary patriotism to invade Afghanistan.
Shock and Awe. 9/11 wasn’t just terrorism, it was a production intended to horrify the planet in real time.
The planes were a key element in the story, whether or not they were virtual (it’s a huge debate on which I remain agnostic.) The hijacking was necessary: adding [supposed]faces to the perpetrators.
The “producers” of 9/11 needed the world to witness IN THE MOMENT humans plunging to their death.
The global trauma-shock enabled the immediate programming of a “sacred” story. Anyone questioning the Story was attacked as a heretic.
Plus get the Patriot Act passed. I watched the hours of that day till I fell asleep late at night with the TV on. Till they took it off the TV.
I was already a Crime Activist and a CCW permit holder, had my mandatory training, and background check. Then had to do it again with the Patriot Act.
The bombs were in the luggage storage of the planes. Jet Fuel burns hot, furniture is added chemicals and fire material. These were luxury offices. Tons of electronics too.
There was 'chatter' just like when Pearl was bombed, no one put 2+2=4 together. Political cronies are the hired help. That hasn't changed. If you have not read the Disaster FJB made on his Korea-Nam trip, you need to. Mrs. Word Salad and the NYC Sanctuary City Mayor are doing the stateside 'honors'. Surrounded by all anti-gun, climate change idiots.
I could think of 100s of ways to horrify the population with terrorism that would be exponentially easier to carry out than planting explosives in a building and then coordinating planes to hit them at the precise moment.
Probably would be pretty easy to do a Bataclan-type attack every month on the general population throughout the states. I would bet it would have a greater emotional impact too, as no one would feel truly safe anywhere. People would be begging for war.
At the end of the day, I don't hold the people in charge in very high regard, both morally and intellectually. They're evil, for sure, but they're also not playing 4-D chess.
There is more to it than that. The buildings were a huge liability, because they were full of asbestos that had to be removed, very difficult and expensive. There was a lot of money made on stock options before the event, foreknowledge. WTC7 had a cache of documents detailing major $trillions in fraud of the defense department. You are dealing with Psychopaths, I believe they did the Las Vegas massacre in order to punish Trump voters, real sick, demented ghouls, as Neil Oliver calls them.
On the other side of the coin, any Terrorists capable of planning such an intricate operation, would have the sense to realize their probability of success would be close to zero. That complex an operation would be open to failure 10 thousand different ways. It would be far easier for terrorists to launch a dozen different separate attacks, simple truck bombs, in a shopping mall, stadium or chemical plant. Or crash a sodium cyanide truck with a hydrochloride acid truck, mega deaths would result in a populated area.
This is not Mission Impossible on TV, most people couldn't stick-up a Seven11 successfully, they would screw up and get busted. That's the real world. And these terrorists couldn't even blow up their own underwear and locked themselves out of their own truck bomb. Just look at their Visa applications, the avg ten year old American, is more intelligent.
There was a massive change in air travel after that day. It went from being a fairly pleasant experience to being herded around like cattle.
💯
The planted bombs make perfect sense if you knew you were going to paint the planes in later.
But you raise an interesting point.
Bombs alone are one thing, but rare the average Joe would ever come face to face with one.
Maybe terrorizing the travelling Public, imprinting the idea that any of the 5,000 passenger flights that take off daily in the U.S could be hijacked at any given moment was another far more possible scenario?
(They DO love traumatizing the populace. That much we know).
"Paint the planes in later" -- yeah, no. You lost me.
Turn of phrase to indicate the footage was clearly doctored. Simple really.
*All* the footage was doctored? So even eyewitness accounts on the ground are meaningless? What is this, Secret Cabal Story Hour?
When "all the footage" consists of one set of images used by all the media outlets, it isn't that big a task. Of course, nothing will convince someone who fervently believes official storylines no matter how absurd.
I would say there is always an occult angle to these operations, human sacrifices are necessary but perhaps the hi tech ritual also requires a certain method of destruction of fundamental geometries (towers, cube, pentagon etc.) because of harmonics.
BS
If you look at some of the aftermath videos panning the wreckage of the twin towers, you can see images of some of those massive I-beams still standing. If you look at the tops of those beams you can see that the massive steel has been cut through at an angle of about 45 degrees. When I first saw this,, I thought I was looking at part of the clean-up efforts of the wreckage. That is, I thought maybe people had been up there, maybe suspended from a crane with huge oxy-acetylene torches, making those cuts to help drop those steel columns. Those angle cuts were clearly deliberately made. The question is, were they made after “the event” as part of the clean-up or DURING the event, by a material called thermite that can be attached to a thick piece of steel and ignited. It creates an extremely hot reaction that will melt away thick steel that it is attached to. I have heard of blacksmiths playing with it to melt engine blocks for fun. You could stick it onto a massive I-beam and melt a nice 45 degree cut through it so that the building above would skid straight down on itself in a controlled demolition, with gravity doing most of the work. That might partially explain what happened on 9-11, Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth has studied the matter. I never saw anyone investigate and address the issue of those 45 degree angles on those cut support columns though. I thought it was shockingly sloppy to just show them in the public record images of the aftermath though, because is is a very obvious clue to leave visibly hanging out.
Watch some of Dr Judy Woods' presentations, eg
https://youtu.be/AQhO4PlwapE
There was some sort of controlled explosion, maybe a DEW (microwave variety).
It couldn't have been the planes, even planes with bombs in them.
Yes that is a standard demolition technique. They clearly used mostly thermite based demolition charges to reduce the noise signature but explosive cutting charges were likely used and the giant beams in the basement. Those explosions registered on seismometers just before the planes even hit the buildings and just before the buildings collapsed.
Again, my question remains unanswered.
No, they weren't planted bombs. It would be very difficult to know exactly where the drones hit the buildings. And they were drones, not planes. The simple and obvious thing would be to have shaped charges in the fuselage and wings of the drones so they would cut through the steel beams. That's run-of-the-mill military tech. They can cut through 20in of tank armor. Were it not for the military ordnance the planes would have just splattered up against the sides of the buildings in a big fireball as the fuel ignited.
For reference:
9/11 PODs and Remote Control Plane Theory:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMayTWzOGY0
9/11 PODs and Remote Control Plane Theory - video Dailymotion WTC2 video, Flight 175, Boeing 767-222/ER:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2p7wmu
Gallery | 9/11 Anomalies Plane Boeing 767 crash into WTC2 pictures, remote control pod
https://911anomalies.wordpress.com/gallery/
"....First off, all serious researchers aside from Morgan Reynolds (a former Bush economist) agree that planes actually hit the towers, however the planes that hit the towers had no windows and extra equipment attached (PODs) and are believed to be remote control drone aircraft. In fact, a similar plan was devised in 1962 by Robert McNamara called OPERATION NORTHWOODS which detailed flying an aircraft filled with FBI agents (allegedly college students on vacation) in flight the plane would switch transponder signals with a drone aircraft which would then be shot down over Cuba. The FBI agents on the plane would then land safely and resume new covert identities. There is evidence that a similar plot was hatched on 9/11:
Thomas Deatherage, Former Airline Captain B- 747-400 and B- 737-300: "After viewing many posted videos on "Youtube" I can tell you without hesitation that clearly aircraft # 2 B-767 - was radio controlled into the building Tower 2. The "pod" mounted on the bottom of the aircraft, is manufactured by "Martin Marietta" Corporation in Los Angeles. The pod has been used extensively by the USAF for outfitting drone aircraft for over 22 years, and you can clearly see it in (4) of the amateur videos- just before impact, with tower # 2. Also, I would like to find an insider A and P mechanic at both United and America to cross reference the A/C serial number of flight 77 and 93. I guarantee that they change the N issued tail number. However, one could trace and find this original A/C, from an insider employee, at these companies- leading to the smoking gun these aircraft were not destroyed."
MARTIN MARIETTA LANTIRN NAVIGATION AND TARGETING SYSTEM: The system consists of two externally-mounted pods carried on some fighter aircraft. LANTIRN was first employed during the Persian Gulf War.
Development of LANTIRN began in 1980, and the first production pod was delivered in 1987. The AAQ-13 navigation pod contains a Forward Looking InfraRed sensor (FLIR) and a Terrain Following Radar (TFR). FLIR imagery provides the pilot a view of terrain ahead of the aircraft at night. The TFR allows "hands-off" flight as low as 100 feet above the ground while avoiding obstacles in the aircraft's path. The AAQ-14 targeting pod has a FLIR and a laser designator/ranger to "illuminate" or mark the target for laser-guided bomb deliveries. The USAF ordered LANTIRN pods for F-15E and selected F-16C/D fighters. ..."
And, of course Flight 93 was meant to hit WTC7, which was also pre-wired for implosion. But the remote control malfunctioned and the drone went astray and had to be shot down, spreading debris over a wide area. Likely one small piece landed in Shanksville, and so they claimed the whole plane buried itself into a little hole in the ground. An absurd claim, utter nonsense, a physical impossibility. There are these things called the Laws of Physics.
Good points, Smith. What was equally absurd was the "Let's Roll" fairy tale. Media themes are usually very stupid, because the people who invent them are stupid. The entire spectrum of 911 media themes are so stupid that it amazes me that anyone believes any of it.
There were no 747's involved. Your grasp of facts diminishes any validity you might have. Crashing planes was spectacular and incited the mass hysteria against.. wait for it.. Al Qeuda. There was a tangible evil- 15 (out of 19) Saudi hijackers.
Okay 767s. Does it really matter? Big passenger jetliners. And I'm not really arguing about facts as much as I'm arguing about how the explosive theory is nonsensical on its face. Your response has not made it less so, either. You didn't even address what I said.
Yes, the crashing planes into the towers is spectacular. But the towers coming down completely overshadows that. If the idea was to destroy the towers, then you don't need to crash planes into it and pretend it was the planes that did it. Just blow it up with explosives (since they presumably went through all the trouble of planting them) and then just blame it on whoever the hell you want to. These are master manipulators after all -- right? -- so they can fabricate evidence and plant guilt wherever they want.
And like I said, you didn't even need to bring down the towers if all you were going to do is leverage the disaster for a war campaign. Ramming the jets into towers would've been completely sufficient for justifying a war and most Americans would've been happy to invade Afghanistan for that.
It would be infeasible for Terrorists to wire up 3 buildings with demolition charges to take them down. You are trying too hard to analyze the minds & motives of Psychopaths. The fundamental question is: What is the forensic evidence for the means, manner and cause of the event? That is the start of the investigation. The evidence determines that the 3 buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition. The planes were drones and did not destroy the two buildings. The pentagon was a missile attack. Flight 93 did not crash in a hole in the ground. At that point determining motives is a criminal investigation undertaken with the power of subpoena.
In my podcast I talk about “what if 9/11 was a false flag?” And if it was, what would we, as Americans do, if really knew our country was waging war against us?
Would we be even able to recognize it? I use this analogy: “thousands of people heard bombs go off, Billions “saw” the planes hit on the Television -- who are you going to believe”
https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/september-11th-and-menticide#details
I guess I'll go ahead with believing my lying eyes. Since you put scare quotes around "saw" I'm assuming the whole "seeing" thing on television was a carefully constructed fake, like the moon landings and the whole "the earth is round" thing. I guess if I was on the ground in New York City that day, and "saw" the planes hit, that wouldn't count, because Franklin says it was probably just the CIA/FBI/Franklin's Secret Cabal trying to wipe us (and themselves along with it) out. This is kind of fun, actually. Maybe we could cover the Illuminati next, since wasn't one of their "secret" headquarters in New York?
Towers had to come down due to structural design due to aluminum and steel causing galvanizic corrosion. Asbestos made it a huge problem. They blew it up and gave the MIC a reason to run amok for twenty years in the mideast.
Stole the gold in the basement. Brady bonds did not have to be repaid.
Multiple parties benefited...
Was the city engulfed in asbestos dust when it collapsed?
Yes, asbestos dust everywhere. People are still dying from it...
Do you have evidence of that?
Yes mountains of evidence.. when the towers were built NYers nick named them Nelson & David for Rockefeller bros who were main force behind the project & profits.. long before 9-11 they were dubbed the biggest White Elephants in NYC real estate because the asbestos remediation plan was beyond any recoverable cost.
"The short answer to this question is, yes, there was asbestos used in the construction of the World Trade Center.
The New York Port authority had planned originally to use 5,000 tons of fireproofing that contained asbestos on the first 40 floors of the buildings. From floors 41 onward, no asbestos was going to be used. An article, which appeared in the New York Times on September 18, 2001, seven days after the attack, said:
"Anticipating a ban (on the use of asbestos in construction in NY), the builders stopped using the materials by the time they reached the 40th floor on the north tower, the first one to go up..." According to a spokesperson for the Port Authority, "more than half of the original asbestos-containing material was later replaced."
A fact sheet, which was produced by the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health states:
"Asbestos was a major material used in the construction of the World Trade Center. That asbestos is a constituent of the dust and debris." An advisor was given to the emergency workers at ground zero that stated they should wear protective clothing and change out of work clothes before going home. It also stated that work clothes should be bagged at work and washed separately from other laundry to prevent asbestos contamination.
There was also some controversy that the lack of asbestos used in the World Trade Center contributed to the fast collapse of the buildings. It was stated, in a New York Times article, that non-asbestos fire proofing used to construct the World Trade Center would have been less effective than products that contained asbestos, which ultimately shortened the time that the people trapped in the World Trade Center during the crisis had to escape. For more information about the issues of cleanup in the aftermath of the attacks, please see The World Trade Center - Cleanup."
https://web.archive.org/web/20080517005928/http://www.asbestos.com/world-trade-center/asbestos.php
No I meant evidence of people still dying from it.
Sep 10, 2018 · More than 16,000 Ground Zero responders who got sick have been deemed eligible for monetary awards. ABC News Relatively few federal law enforcement officers have sought help, a Justice Department official told ABC News, despite having worked at the attack site that one retired agent called a “cesspool of cancer.”
https://abcnews.go.com/US/911-toll-growsl-16000-ground-responders-sick-found/story?id=57669657
1 hour ago · Gov. Kathy Hochul marked 22 years since the Sept. 11 attacks by signing legislation that requires employers to notify New Yorkers who worked near Ground Zero to apply for the 9/11 Victims Fund. https://www.wshu.org/sound-bites/2023-09-12/sound-bites-ground-zero-employers-must-notify-workers-of-9-11-benefits
But the EPA declared that the dust was fine, don't worry about it. They also were pretty much mute about the giant toxic cloud deliberately & maliciously released from the East Palestine derailment.
EPA administrator was Gov of NJ Cathie Todd Whitman, who was threatened with death if she did not state the air was safe.... Coverup was underway...Inside Job...
Another source - The air itself was also thick – some rescue workers compared it to “soup.” Some experts have estimated that the attacks released a “toxic soup” of over 2,500 different potentially hazardous materials, particles, and fibers into the environment. These include mercury, dioxins, pulverized concrete, lead, and PCB’s, to name only a few. In addition, it is estimated that the World Trade Center contained approximately 400 tons of asbestos fiber at the time of the attacks – much, if not all of which, was also released into the ambient air with the smoke plume, collapsing towers, and subsequent fires. In 1971, WTC 1’s steel structure was sprayed up to the 40th floor with ½ inch of asbestos coating. Initially, the Port Authority planned to use over 5,000 tons of asbestos in the construction of the World Trade Center. Because of anticipated bans on asbestos spray, however, the workers were asked to switch to a non-asbestos spray. As a result, a non-asbestos substitute was used on the remainder of the North Tower and the entirety of the South Tower. The Port Authority has suggested that some, though not all, of the asbestos coating that was initially applied had been removed prior to 9/11. It has also been suggested that the elevator shafts – approximately 100 in each tower – also contained asbestos.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200104033455/https://www.mesothelioma.com/states/new-york/world-trade-center/
Gelatin and the B Team were up there for months, wiring those floors to explode.
Someone was.
The thing that "dinged" my head the most was Trump said Larry Silverstein? JUST BOUGHT the World Trade Center a few days prior! Insured the crap out of it too! Hmmmmm
Back then, we weren't all hooked up to the internet. At work, we had a dial-up connection. We were able to see just one still picture showing the plane going in. The only really current information we had came over the radio, so I only had verbal descriptions. If nothing else, this speaks to how far our technology has come in that much time.
At one point, the woman on the radio said in horror that the first building had "fallen down". I thought that was absurd. The building would not just fall over, even if it was on fire. Perhaps she could have described it better and then I would have understood it better. At any rate, when I got home and saw the videos on television, I immediately got it. I studied engineering in college, including structural engineering. The videos made perfect sense to me. When the planes hit, there was of course instant fire. Steel becomes increasingly weaker, as it gets hotter. Think in terms of a blacksmith heating the steel cherry red in order to form it. That's what happened to the steel in the towers. But also think about a hammer. Laying a hammer on top of a nail will not drive the nail, but "hammering" it down will. The momentum is a key point. So, the steel in the floors that were hit heated up until they were no longer able to hold the floors above. In rapid succession, the upper part of the building(s) collapsed, and as each hit the critical floor, it was like a hammer hitting. One floor after another hit with a thud, and like a hammer, collapsed the next floor.
Keep in mind that they use progressively less steel in the upper floors, since they carry less weight. The upper floors, collapsed initially, one at a time, like repeated hammer blows. It could have ended with only the collapse of the upper floors. But there was enough hammer-like momentum that it was enough to start the collapse going down into the lower floors. Watch the videos carefully, and you can see what I'm saying. The floors collapse rapidly, but still one at a time. Hammer blow after hammer blow. First the upper floors, come down one at a time at the point of the original plane impact, and then the lower floors, floor by floor.
The moment I saw the videos on TV, I got it. The burning jet fuel would cause this. Bombs would not.
"The momentum is a key point. So, the steel in the floors that were hit heated up until they were no longer able to hold the floors above. In rapid succession, the upper part of the building(s) collapsed, and as each hit the critical floor, it was like a hammer hitting. One floor after another hit with a thud, and like a hammer, collapsed the next floor."
Almost verbatim the ridiculous Scientific American piece that claimed small office fires led to WTC7 free fall collapse with not one shred of physics to back it up & designed to fill the Grand Canyon size hole in official 9-11 Report that omitted WTC entirely. Get some facts.
https://web.archive.org/web/20050111222026/http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html
Now I understand why, when I cut down a conifer tree, it falls straight down into its footprint, leaving only a pile of sawdust. It’s the hammerblows of the wood cells of the tree above colliding with the wood cells in the stump. It never falls sideways towards the point where I first weakened the tree…funny that. It must have something to do with the sharpness of my chainsaw. Somehow, maybe the engineering minds at Stihl have figured out how to temporarily “shock gravity” and prevent it from acting until all support for the weight of the tree above has been removed, so the cell-to-cell hammering can begin straight down.
That's the reality of the nutty pancake theory. Also if you look at the towers after impact with the drones they had a very asymmetrical damage. A big gash on one side of the building. In any kind of structural failure, the weakest point-of-failure is from a bending force. In your example it is far, far easier to bend & break a tree than to compress it into pile at its base. So if indeed the plane impacts were the cause of building failure, it is certain that the top of the buildings would have tipped over and fallen over the side of the building.
Exactly. The interior floors can go ahead and “pancake” but the huge steel exterior column structure cannot, unless it is changed to powder by some kind of DEW or other tech that has not been shown to the average rube on the street. This is obvious to anyone who has ever hammered a nail. It doesn’t turn to powder when you hit it.
I’m always slightly bemused by these debates on how. I’m more interested in why and who. If you look at the provisions of the patriot act, which was passed in 30 days after the attack, you’ll know why. And once you know why, the various who(s) become pretty obvious. It’s not much of a secret.
And yet, as I said, I was aware of this as soon as I saw the video.
I never automatically take things at face value. If you want to examine other scenarios, fine. But nothing in my engineering mind has led me to think it was anything other than what we all saw.
But the steel on the lower floors was not on fire and therefore not weakened. The buildings, if they were going to fall down should have fallen sideways and not pancaked as if detonation charges had been placed on each floor. I was home that morning, I was in college and that morning I had no class. That morning is frozen in time in my mind. I saw the second plane hit live on the television. Why did the second hit tower fall before the first one? The time to failure in a structure should be similar, but it wasn’t.
Our Republic ended because of that event. I don’t buy that a handful of terrorists pulled that off on their own. Governments were involved- if not our own, someone’s. Many don’t yet see it, but in a few hundred years it will be well known that that day marks the beginning of the end for this civilization, and the Patriot Act sealed the deal.
There are many points at which we can say our Republic ended (personally I think it was when we allowed the CIA/oligarchs to assassinate JFK in broad daylight and didn't do a thing)...BUT you are completely correct...
dour Republic ENDED because of that event and the anthrax attack the day after to get the last two holdouts of the Patriot act to get in line.
Done, Finito.
I think Covid was just a mopping up operation....and they had a quota from the globalists....and we didn't fulfill our quota. What do you think is next?
I don’t have a crystal ball, but if history is any guide, mass murder, starvation, and slavery always come next. Most are going to be completely blindsided by the whole thing.
T. Paine, you might not have a crystal ball, but you have more common sense than most people. Why is there no common sense in people anymore? Never mind, I live in a blue state. Nuff said.
I swear, they flock together and ruin the states they roost in.
Thanks for the great engineering explanation about the jet fuel heating things cherry red and causing the collapse. Maybe that explains why, since 9-11-2001, I have never been able to barbecue a steak without my barbecue turning cherry red and collapsing into its own footprint. The moment I read your explanation, I got it. Thank you!
😂😅
I saw a thing about fires in skyscrapers, mostly in other countries (see also cutting corners construction techniques), and there have been some very bad ones that burned hot and basically destroyed the entire structure- however, despite 3rd world construction techniques, not a single one of them collapsed let alone pancaked on itself. Interesting isn’t it?
Don’t believe you’re lying eyes guys. Suspend your disbelief and trust the authorities- they are never wrong.
In which of your examples was the building hit by a plane loaded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel? Which of the buildings had forty stories worth of building weight on top of them?
WTC 7 had no airplane hit it, no jet fuel, and yet it collapsed same as 1 and 2. Why?
How many tons of weight were on top of your barbecue?
Focus on WTC7. Not hit by any plane. Obviously, Fight 93, actually a drone, was meant to hit WTC7, but has guidance failure and had to be shot down. Since this MUST have been explosive or thermite demolition, what makes you think WTC1 & WTC2 weren't also?:
The 2019 University of Alaska analysis of WTC7 collapse, led by one of the top structural engineers in America, Professor Leroy Hulsey, concludes that it could only have failed the way it did if all 49 giant steel columns were simultaneously severed. Try explaining how that happened with office fires.
"WTC 7 Not Destroyed by Fire, Concludes Final University of Alaska Fairbanks Report"
ae911truth.org/news/656-wtc-7-not-destroyed-by-fire-concludes-final-university-of-alaska-fairbanks-report
University Study Finds Fire Did Not Cause Building 7’s Collapse on 9/11:
ae911truth.org/wtc7
This was no "office fire". This was thousands of gallons of jet fuel burning at immense temperatures. All columns would have been heated approximately equally, and therefore collapse at approximately the same moment. Also, there's the domino effect; when one column fails, it's load is transferred to the nearest other columns, which are already on the verge of collapse. Once the load is transferred to those columns, THEY collapse. And so on.
Rosie O'Donell famously misspoke, "Everybody knows steel don't burn." Well, in fact, it does. But that's not the point here. The steel only had to get hot enough to lose enough strength, and the collapse is inevitable. There were investigations and lawsuits concerning the fire insulation that was sprayed onto the columns as part of the construction. It is there specifically to keep the steel from getting too hot in a fire. But no one anticipated the planes slamming thru and scraping the insulation off. It probably would have made no difference anyway. No one had ever anticipated the extent of destruction and fire.
I was referring to WTC7, which was not hit by a plane. And NIST itself claimed that office fires caused some convoluted series of events that brought down the building with ~2 secs of it a freefall acceleration.
NY Reporter: "Incredibly Loud Explosion" - before WTC7 Collapse:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGuaQ4uJat8
And referring to WTC1 & WTC2 the fireball did not heat the columns anything remotely close to equally. Have you even watched the collisions on video? Not even close to symmetrical. A giant fireball on one side of the building together with a big gash. Nothing on the opposite side. By far-and-away asymmetrical damage like that would lead to the top part tipping over, hot steel will bend long before it breaks or crushes. In fact you can see the top bending over some on WTC2.
Sorry but there was no jet fuel in WTC 7 and any jet fuel from the hits on 1 & 2 burned on impact. And I agree with SmithFS. The hit was asymmetrical. The result was unexpected, we couldn’t believe what happened because it was so unthinkable that the buildings would collapse the way they did. I saw it live on television- we all were like wth how did they fall like that? We expected the floors above the impact site might fall sideways- but they didn’t. There have been fires in other tall skyscrapers, some very bad ones, and none of them pancaked. And all the evidence was destroyed fast despite many people complaining at the time. Why? Only God and the perps know the truth.
"Burned on impact". Why look for some conspiracy when you can see the planes hit and the immediate fireball of flame form the jet fuel? Yes, the flame external to the buildings burned off quickly, and is irrelevant anyway, since it had no effect on the structures. Not so, on the interior.
We’re talking about a building that was NOT hit with a plane and NOT full of jet fuel and collapsed anyway. Try to keep up here. I guess you probably weren’t even a gleam in your daddy’s eye on 9/11/2001.
Conspiracy theory eh? I don’t know for sure what happened exactly, but I know one thing for 100% sure, and that is that for some pesky reason it turns out that all those conspiracy “nuts” turn out to be proven right in time. What was that about the CIA offing JFK? Just a bunch of loonies, right? Right??!
So far the “conspiracy theorists” are batting a thousand, the “experts” are striking out, and the sycophants continue to commit the classic fallacy of appeal to authority.
According to the people on the ground, WTC 7 was struck when the buildings came down, leaving a gash on one side. It burned for hours and it also had propane tanks in the building ( they were always there ). And I find it hard to believe that the towers coming down were not the equivalent of an earthquake. And for everyone saying a steel building doesn't fall down after a fire, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38675628.
What gash, watch the videos. A "gash on the side" would do zip. It didn't have propane tanks, it had some diesel for a backup generator in the basement and NIST themselves admitted it had nothing to do with its collapse. And the Tehran building didn't collapse at free fall into its footprint. It was a partial sliding collapse of a substandard pinned concrete floor building, totally different from any of the WTC buildings. And they do know how to measure earthquakes you know, it was no earthquake.
Trump claims to know Larry Silverstein, owner of WTC-7 that collapsed due to controlled demolition planned weeks in advance. Trump also thinks bombs went off as the planes hit the towers. Today there is no excuse possible for Trump not to know 9/11 was a false flag and the Towers were demolished by planned explosive demolition, yet his supporters are eager to vote him back into the presidency after he orchestrated the most dangerous vaccine in American history at WARP SPEED. And he kept promoting the death shot even after Prof. Francis Boyle reported it met the definition of a biological weapon.
My other most favorite 9-11 source was written in the days & weeks following the events that follows the money & trades noting key individuals who made out like bandits..
Three part series by Tom Flocco at Michael Ruppert's From the Wilderness an amazing research trove for many dark ops nobody will find by accident.
PROFITS OF DEATH -- INSIDER TRADING AND 9-11
https://web.archive.org/web/20020611032505/http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html
Part II -- Trading with the Enemy
https://web.archive.org/web/20171226102322/https://www.fromthewilderness.net/free/ww3/12_11_01_death_profits_pt2.html
ALL ROADS LEAD TO DEUSTCHEBANK AND HARKEN ENERGY, W's OWN 1991 INSIDER TRADING SCAM - THE MOTHER OF ALL ENRONS
https://web.archive.org/web/20171226102336/https://www.fromthewilderness.net/free/ww3/01_09_02_death_profits_pt3.html
Trump was correct there are live interviews w lots of FDNY-NYPD etc w explosive sounds on camera & talking about explosions in stairwells that collapsed while buildings were still standing.. my favorite source for vetted research is original Architects & Engineers for 9-11 Truth who have easily searchable site & sources to beat the band. oops forgot explosive evidence!!
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/eyewitness-accounts-of-explosions
https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/evidence-overview
How difficult would it be to calculate the force of the plane hitting and what affect that would have on a given infrastructure.
Trump is talking jibberish there , 'going downhill' lol
The whole World Trade Center complex was built to withstand aircraft impact & force was calculated so steel beams wrapped the exterior. Trump's choice of improper terms to describe aircraft decent as "going downhill" is silly & irrelevant point to latch on to.
NO, the building was never built to withstand a 757 going full speed, fully loaded with fuel. Look it up. How you all think it was a missile is beyond me.
"NO, the building was never built to withstand a 757 going full speed, fully loaded with fuel. Look it up."
It gives me a big time cramp when folks say "look it up" instead of providing evidence to support their claims & expect me to waste my time vetting random user ideas. yawn!
"How you all think it was a missile is beyond me."
Not even going to venture a guess what orifice the missile theory was pulled from there's certainly no suggestion of that from me as an informed researcher.. try reading it helps!
"Both technical calculations and testimony from World Trade Center structural engineers confirm that the Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact from the passenger jets that hit them on 9/11.
Airplane impact tests conducted by WTC structural engineers during the design of the Twin Towers used the Boeing 707, which was one of the largest passenger jets in the world at the time. The results of the test, carried out early in 1964, calculated that the towers would handle the impact of a 707 traveling at 600 mph without collapsing."https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes
Even though the two Boeing 767 aircraft that were said to be used in the 9/11 attacks were slightly larger than the 707, technical comparisons show that the 707 has more destructive force at cruising speed. The following analysis was compiled by 911research.net
Fair enough, pardon me for my sillyness, hehe ! , was there a plausible reason estimated as to why airliners would void the design.
"I just think that it was a plane with more than just fuel. I think obviously they were very big planes, they were going very rapidly because I was also watching where the plane seemed to be not only going fast, it seemed to be coming down into the building. So it was getting the speed from going downhill, so to speak"
How about.......directly after the incident, a man with some knowledge real estate, is quoted making a statement of conjecture, the statement is confusing and contradictory when describing a perceived view of the speed and orientation of aircraft in space.
Regardless, nine one one was a national tragedy though
No Trump is delicately describing what he knows to be true, to avoid getting into too much trouble, and that is there was NO F'IN WAY those were 767s that smashed through into those towers. They were clearly drones, fitting with military ordnance, shaped charges to cut through the steel.
If the planes were actually drones, what about the passengers? Are you saying the dead passengers are a hoax? Or they were aboard the drones? Or they were high jacked to a secret island? Was the whole vision of dead people just a clever act of illusion?
No the planes flew to Westover Air Base, which was evacuated that day, everyone sent home or told not to come in and a witness testified to seeing a United 757 flying very low over the town to the Air Base that morning. And the planes with passengers were moved into hangars which is where the otherwise impossible phone calls were made from. What happened to them after that, we don't know, but I suspect they were gassed & murdered.
And what dead passengers are you talking about? We haven't seen any dead passengers, they don't even have video of the hijackers in any airport or boarding any planes. They have lots of cameras in those terminals.
One more very most favorite is Boatlift the real heroes we never see & best 11 min story ever!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDOrzF7B2Kg
There was a few articles on this that were banned on fb/twitter…….
It’s been speculated that Israel was in cahoots with Saudi Arabia to stage an event to lure America into helping take on their enemies such as Iran, Iraq, etc. They wanted America in the Middle East to police the area for them.
Articles also had speculation and evidence that ISIS was an Israeli/CIA operation as well. Again it kept America in the Middle East fighting their enemies. A major point that seems obvious after the fact was why didn’t evil ISIS attack Israel? Because they were handled by an Israeli agent is the answer.
Why would American decision makers go along with the charade? Money! Money for corporations and another reason to keep the price of oil high.
So anyways. Just another idea of the background of events.
No, there is only one group capable of pulling a stunt like this. And that is the World Bankster Club. This was more geopolitical manipulation on their part. Remember the phrase: "All Wars are Banker Wars".
General Wesley Clark on Seven Countries in 5 yrs incl Syria & Iraq instigated by the 9/11 False Flag Event:
General Wesley Clark:
_"...Because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail." ..."_
_"...So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" -- meaning the Secretary of Defense's office -- "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." ..."_
youtube.com/watch?v=FNt7s_Wed_4
You realize Wesley Clark was fired for sharing top secret information to his mistress? He's not the most reliable source. And as I 've said elsewhere, war scenarios are what the military does They did not act on it (outside o Afghanistan and Iraq ).
You are confusing General Wesley Clark with General Petraeus. Pretty sloppy of you. And it ain't a "war scenario" it is a plan for war, a plan which was enacted, except for Iran, they chickened out because they failed so bad in Iraq.
He doesn't mean that something fishy happened.
But those were very smart comments.
Trump also promised to declassify everything. He also thought boosters were a gimmick until he went on the road to sell them with Bill O'reilly.
Trump couldn't do much with the Deep State Asset, scumbag Mitch McConnell, threatening to vote for his impeachment if he stepped out of line, including his desire to pardon Assange & Snowden.
If you're right, elections don't matter.
They matter, just if you want to clean house you need to replace not just the top guy. Mitch McConnell should have been primaried 20yrs ago, he is as crooked as $3 bill.
Even if voting was honest, parties rig the primaries. The problem is with parties.