Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 11, 2021

Some Thoughts On 9/11

Twenty years ago I was chief technology officer for a major news website. It was after lunch and I was testing new productivity tools for the news room. Someone came into my office and said that a plane had hit the WTC in New York City. I walked into the news room where several TV screens were filled with pictures of a smoking tower. 

The news folks were busy writing their first takes. Some of it was speculation. I mentioned that this was not the first plane to hit a skyscraper in NYC and called it an accident. That made it into one of the first take stories.

Still - even as an accident it was spectacular news and the page views per minute on the website went towards our capacity limits. Then the second plane hit and it was immediately clear to everyone that these were no accidents. The web traffic went through the roof.

We had had ample capacity to cover news peaks but this was way too much traffic for our normal site to handle. I told the server administrator to take down all side processes on the web-server machines we were using. We then started to minimize the content of the site. Everything that was generated dynamically was switched off. We minimized the numbers of pictures. We stopped all advertisement delivery. Other major news sites I tested were already dead - overwhelmed from the enormous amount of traffic. We were still up - but even loading the much cleaned up front page took more than 30 seconds.

I phoned up a number of IT guys I knew who administered public web sites for other purposes. I asked them to mirror our site through a side channel we had opened for that purpose. We then fiddled with the domain name servers to reroute a part of our traffic to those mirror sites. With those finally up and running we barely made it through the evening traffic peak without crashing everything. 

The traffic stayed above our nominal capacity for over a week. I stopped my news room productivity project and set down to design a new content delivery system which allowed for a dynamic addition of capacity. The design was quite expensive but three month later we implemented it.

9/11 touched a bit on my job but I was lucky to avoid its other deadly consequences.

Before working for that news site I had long worked with Americans on a daily basis. I had been to the U.S. over a dozen times during the previous years. It was immediately clear to me that its people would want revenge. They would not care much against whom it would be waged. That private prediction turned out to be right.

Little has changed since. The catharsis that 9/11 should have brought never happened. Most people still don't care about the wars of terror and who gets killed in them. I blame the media for that.

Today the New York Times and the Washington Post both report on the recent 'righteous' drone strike in Kabul:

Times Investigation: In U.S. Drone Strike, Evidence Suggests No ISIS Bomb
U.S. officials said a Reaper drone followed a car for hours and then fired based on evidence it was carrying explosives. But in-depth video analysis and interviews at the site cast doubt on that account.
.
Examining a ‘righteous’ strike
Expert analysis of deadly U.S. drone strike’s aftermath in Kabul suggests no evidence of explosives in targeted vehicle

Ten innocent persons, including 7 children, were killed in that strike.

I applaud those reports. But there have been some 15,000 other drone strike since 2007. Most of those have hit innocent people but there was little reporting about them.

Three days before the drone strike happened a much bigger massacre took place.

A suicide bomber hit at the gate of Kabul airport. The bomb killed several dozen people including U.S. soldiers. But what happened immediately after the bomb went off made the incident much deadlier. Those who guarded the airport opened fire on the large crowd that had hoped to be let in to catch a flight to somewhere. In total more than 170 people died, some of them were British citizens, others were Taliban guards, most were Afghan civilians.

Local Afghan news, a BBC report on Twitter, Russian public TV (at about 3 min, German translation), China's major news agency and other reporters all spoke to eye witnesses who all confirmed the story: "Most of those dead were killed by bullets."

But 'western' media have buried that story. The sole mention of it I could find is deep down in a long NYT report about the evacuations from Kabul:

For the first time, Pentagon officials publicly acknowledged the possibility that some people killed outside the airport on Thursday might have been shot by American service members after the suicide bombing.

Investigators are looking into whether the gunfire came from Americans at the gate, or from the Islamic State.

'Officials publicly acknowledged the possibility ...'  Do they call THAT 'reporting'?

There were quite obviously no ISIS shooters at the gate.

Why ain't U.S. media all over a story during which the U.S. side killed more than 100 innocent people? Is it hyping the drone attack, which killed 10, to cover for the more embarrassing act during which troops under U.S. control massacred many more than that? Because those troops were the CIA's Afghan death squads who may soon be your neighbors?

Before 9/11 U.S. intelligence knew of Al-Qaeda sleeper cells and of plans for new attacks. Then came 9/11. I am by now one of those who thinks that they let it happen on purpose. That is because all the wars that followed had long been prepared for.

Following 9/11 the U.S. wars of terror displaced 37 million people and killed at least a million foreigners. The U.S. wars of terror are still going on today in Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya and elsewhere.

Shouldn't 20 years be long enough to end those wars? To find some closure? To suppress the urge for revenge? To change the rather aggressive general U.S. mentality?

Unfortunately the answer to all those questions seems to be "No".

Posted by b on September 11, 2021 at 17:52 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

https://t.me/MIB_MessageInABottle/61

Posted by: W.W. | Sep 13 2021 21:42 utc | 301

A video showing the first plane strike https://youtu.be/miA8Td4oNcY?t=68 Different from the first in that the main fireball looks be coming back out from the entry point rather than the opposite side of the building.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 13 2021 22:19 utc | 302

Paul, Sep 13 2021 2:38 utc @ 269 wrote:

I noticed at an oil refinery shut down [regular maintenance], the protective concrete around the steel coulombs supporting the catalytic cracker plant were regularly jackhammered off to expose the steel beams for inspection for corrosion. The concrete was later replaced. Mere asbestos would not do the job in the event of a fire.
_________________________________________________________________
First of all, yes concrete has traditional been the material used to protect the steel from fire, while at the same time adding to the structural integrity. The Twin towers were cutting edge technology. They used exposed steel structures which meant that steel had to be protected from fire in some other way.

Oil refineries are an interesting case in that most of the major oil refineries built in the US were built more than 50 years ago. This is because while the American public was being mesmerized with Watergate and the downfall of Nixon the the petroleum and automobile industries were busy writing the Clean Air Act to work in their favor. The auto industry screwed themselves with the regulations that they thought would benefit the US corporations over their foreign competitors, but the oil companies managed to successfully turn the Clean Air Act into law that entrenched their monopolistic power. The result was that no major oil refineries have been built since the 1970's. This increased the profitability of the existing oil refineries enormously while at the same time it means that that oil companies have to go to extreme measures to preserve their existing infrastructure. Its a lot cheaper for an oil company to rebuild an existing refinery than it is to build one from scratch (because of the environmental laws they wrote). Maintaining existing capital versus constructing new capital is not the way American capitalism usually works but in this case it has been enormously profitable for the oil industry because it has eliminated competition.

Posted by: jinn | Sep 13 2021 22:53 utc | 303

@Peter AU1 165

You weren't in WTC on the day. The firemen of FDNYC were. Have you not seen that famous video of some of them discussing what they saw? "Molten steel", says one of them, repeating it for emphasis. And there is that other famous video of molten steel pouring from a high corner of one of the towers, before it fell - presumably caused by one of the incendiary charges installed by the CD loaders having been accidentally ignited before it was due - ?

You've been so full of - often barely comprehensible, basic-physics free - bs in this thread, Peter, that I could almost wonder whether you're one of the paid disinformation shills protecting the real perps' arses, still, after all this time. Or, more likely I suppose, a man defending a pet theory of no great merit, that simply won't stand up. But it's your darling baby and you're going to protect it all costs. I don't know. But whatever your motive is, it's surely buried you in bs.

Posted by: Rhisiart Gwilym | Sep 14 2021 9:18 utc | 304

OT
W.W. | Sep 13 2021 21:42 utc | 301

I checked out some of the other messages at MIB and I read this

https://t.me/s/MIB_MessageInABottle

What Is the Internet of Bodies?

The RAND Corporation Oct 29, 2020 - official statement:

Internet-connected "smart" devices are increasingly available in the marketplace, promising consumers and businesses improved convenience and efficiency. Within this broader Internet of Things (IoT) lies a growing industry of devices that monitor the human body and transmit the data collected via the internet. This development, which some have called the Internet of Bodies (IoB), includes an expanding array of devices that combine software, hardware, and communication capabilities to track personal health data, provide vital medical treatment, or enhance bodily comfort, function, health, or well-being. However, these devices also complicate a field already fraught with legal, regulatory, and ethical risks.

In this video, RAND mathematician Mary Lee examines this emerging collection of human body–centric and internet-connected technologies

Here's my choice for the promotional music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9lK4UEWF70

Posted by: tucenz | Sep 14 2021 10:58 utc | 305

Posted by: tucenz | Sep 14 2021 10:58 utc | 305

Great post punk music, How about Australia's radio Birdman? A great act live in Sydney in the day.

https://soundaboard.blogspot.com/2011/10/radio-birdman-live-in-sidney-1976.html

But now we digress. However, we need pleasant distractions to retain our sanity and focus.

Posted by: Paul | Sep 14 2021 11:25 utc | 306

posted by Tucenz@ 305

Sorry about the bad link to Radio Birdman. It's a case of 'you really had to be there to appreciate it'.

High energy on steroids.

Unfortunately, their favourite venue pub went gay and they got rid of the old crowd.and Radio Birdman performed elsewhere after that.

Here is a better link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W4x5qHG9sQ

Posted by: Paul | Sep 14 2021 11:57 utc | 307

Posted by: tucenz | Sep 14 2021 10:58 utc | 305

Ha,the fall! Great idea for the soundtrack. I liked Mark E Smith more for his attitude than his music if I'm honest.

He was contemptuous of the whole world, probably due to his own insecurities and selfloathing. "Australians in Europe" for example is Smith being relatively melodic, catchy and at his contemptuous best.

One thing I liked about him is that he only ever compromised once regarding his music, and that was for love. During the Curious Orange phase his wife at the time, Brix, managed to convince him to actually produce music with a commercial market in mind. He swore he'd never do it again, but it was possibly his best album, music-wise anyway, certainly the most accessible.

Saw them play several times but the one that sticks out most in my mind was The Fall playing the Reading festival (91 or 92 I think).

Smith held a book in his hand, verbally insulted the crowd for a while, while the band played, then sat down on the stage with his back to the crowd pretending to be absorbed in the book while mumbling out lyrics for the rest of the less than 60 mins he was on stage.

Awful and brilliant at the same time. Half the crowd loved it, half hated it. VERY Mark E Smith.

Arrogant as hell, but talented too.

There's a wonderful NME interview with Smith, Nick Cave and Shane McGowan from back in the very late 80's.

By the end of the interview Smith and McGowan have teamed up and are slagging Cave off at every opportunity. Cave handles it well.

https://thequietus.com/articles/09277-mark-e-smith-nick-cave-shane-macgowan-nme-interview

Posted by: W.W. | Sep 14 2021 11:58 utc | 308

James | Sep 11 2021 18:14 utc | 3

I concur completely. It is as clear as daylight that while Saudi Arabia and Israel were involved in the day's events, the coordination and planning was an internal USG effort. The Patriot act was already written, the stand-down of the air defenses was in place, the inconvenient documents were already in the Pentagon and building 7, which latter, like the other buildings, had been prepared for demolition, Cheyney was away from his desk, Bush was reading to school kids, Osama Bin-Laden's family was on its way home, courtesy of the USG and so on. Just to rub it home, the Dancing Israelis and the Israeli natinals who were arrested while preparing to blow up bridges in NY, were quietly shipped home without ever being charged.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Sep 14 2021 13:06 utc | 309

Oh yes! And the Press, the MSM, were all prepared to cover it all up.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Sep 14 2021 13:08 utc | 310

karlof1 | Sep 11 2021 19:37 utc | 34

Perhaps Gordog can inform the bar about remote fly-by-wire capability 20 years ago.

I had a friend who told me that he had been a tea-boy on nuclear-capable bombers, that during the Cold War, took off and flew towards the USSR until they met Soviet air defences, when they turned round and flew home again. He said that these planes took off and landed under the pilot's control, but apart from that flew under remote control, with the controls inside the plane being dead for most of the journey.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Sep 14 2021 13:39 utc | 311

Lurk | Sep 11 2021 20:41 utc | 52

"And it's true me lads
True me lads, I've never been known to lie!
And if you go down to Derby,
They'll tell you same as I!"

I ask you! Citing Wikipedia as a reliable source? Why not the NYT?

Posted by: foolisholdman | Sep 14 2021 13:56 utc | 312

Posted by foolisholdman @ 311

from one foolish old man to another: The games people play,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gVcQLO5Vxxx

It could be our downfall.too many games, Not enough reality. Where is the reality tab?

Posted by: Paul | Sep 14 2021 14:02 utc | 313

@Peter AU1 165
...
You've been so full of - often barely comprehensible, basic-physics free - bs in this thread, Peter, that I could almost wonder whether you're one of the paid disinformation shills...
...
Posted by: Rhisiart Gwilym | Sep 14 2021 9:18 utc | 304

Wow! Personal insults, Edu-phobia + Projection?
That's quite an 'achievement'.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 14 2021 14:34 utc | 314

@Paul | Sep 14 2021 14:02 utc | 313

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gVcQLO5Vxxx

That one must have been good. Already "unavailable".

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 14 2021 14:52 utc | 315

Posted by: Paul | Sep 14 2021 14:02 utc | 313

“It could be our downfall.too many games, Not enough reality “.

Illustrations of the efficacy of Mr. Rove's observation:

“We are an Empire
We create our own reality
To which others react.
When other are reacting
We create another reality
To which others react.

Through assigning significances to details and spectacles thereby aiding ignorance and obfuscation.

One of the purposes of blogs – an ideological variant of practices of divide and rule.

To practitioners the significances of “9/11” is what was facilitated and followed which the opponents seek to obscure by memorialisation, whilst the spectators chase their own tales pondering who did it and how was it done.

Such facilitates your falling down further daily.

Ring a ring of roses
A pocket full of posies
Atishoo, atishoo
We all fall down

(1881 version)

Posted by: MagdaTam | Sep 14 2021 14:59 utc | 316

"I had a friend who told me that he had been a tea-boy on nuclear-capable bombers, that during the Cold War, took off and flew towards the USSR until they met Soviet air defences, when they turned round and flew home again. He said that these planes took off and landed under the pilot's control, but apart from that flew under remote control, with the controls inside the plane being dead for most of the journey.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Sep 14 2021 13:39 utc | 311

########


https://www.flightglobal.com/analysis/analysis-how-a320-changed-the-world-for-commercial-pilots/122976.article


As the world’s first digital fly-by-wire (FBW) airliner, Airbus Industrie’s A320 was positioned to bring commercial flying and flight management into the 21st century when it was rolled out in 1987.

Boeing introduced FBW seven years after the A320’s service entry in its hugely successful 777 widebody, but the company’s direct narrowbody competitor for the A320, the perennially successful 737 series, is still selling well despite having conventional mechanical controls. The 737’s flight deck is just as highly automated as the A320’s in terms of its autopilot/autothrust and flight management system capabilities, but it does not have active flight envelope protection, just warnings and a stickshaker.


-------

United Airlines Flight 175 - Boeing 767-200
built and delivered to United Airlines in February 1983

American Airlines Flight 11 - Boeing 767-223ER - delivered to American Airlines in April 1987

--------

However, fully capable fly-by-wire analog systems have been available for commercial aircraft since the days of the Concorde.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire#Analog_systems

All "fly-by-wire" flight control systems eliminate the complexity, the fragility and the weight of the mechanical circuit of the hydromechanical or electromechanical flight control systems — each being replaced with electronic circuits. The control mechanisms in the cockpit now operate signal transducers, which in turn generate the appropriate electronic commands. These are next processed by an electronic controller—either an analog one, or (more modernly) a digital one. Aircraft and spacecraft autopilots are now part of the electronic controller.[citation needed]

The hydraulic circuits are similar except that mechanical servo valves are replaced with electrically controlled servo valves, operated by the electronic controller. This is the simplest and earliest configuration of an analog fly-by-wire flight control system. In this configuration, the flight control systems must simulate "feel". The electronic controller controls electrical feel devices that provide the appropriate "feel" forces on the manual controls. This was used in Concorde, the first production fly-by-wire airliner.

Posted by: W.W. | Sep 14 2021 15:07 utc | 317

@hoarsewhisper @141 @289
You conclude, in response to the analysis provided by Gordog on this thread - "Unmitigated claptrap. All of it." Yet when prompted to provide a basis for your conclusion, you state it is not up to others to assign you homework. Of course, you are absolutely right. But we did succeed in establishing the level of your intellectual curiosity.
Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 13 2021 20:21 utc | 297

I'm still waiting for Gordog to notice and respond to my quibble @ 133 with the incorrect Stick and Tube assertion he made at 121 and repeated at 136.

It's hard not to conclude that some people are so busy dreaming up tosh to plonk into a thread that they haven't time to read all the comments.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 14 2021 15:10 utc | 318

Norwegian @ 313

That one must have been good. Already "unavailable".

Well, this one's still available, and since you're one of the few around here(or anywhere else) from whom I'd expect some meaningful feedback...?

It's about 2 and a half hours though.

Posted by: john | Sep 14 2021 16:22 utc | 319

Why weren't all 4 planes used against WTC?

As I mentioned @Sep13 14:58 #285 (also don't miss @Sep13 17:21 #287), for the PNAC conspirators the 9-11 attack HAD TO BE successful. And, "success" included that the attack was devastating. Just slamming a couple of planes into the towers (and causing fires that would be put out) is not enough. One reason that it's not enough is that without the fall of the towers people would look more closely at the other two planes. The stigma of questioning the narrative would be far less with less destruction and loss of life.

We only have evidence of 2 planes, not 4. And WTC7 fell without being hit by planes or going on fire.

Additionally, only prior preparation of the building and the planes could guarantee that the planes would hit directly and that the towers would fall.

Anyone that is knowledgeable understands that the only institution that could make the necessary preparations was Mossad - with CIA's blessing. The CIA can not legal operate on US soil but could provide the necessary support for Mossad. CIA could trust Mossad they work closely together and Israel stood to reap many benefits.

Furthermore, we don't really know much about the "terrorists". If the plane was remotely controlled, then they could've just been dupes. As someone pointed out upthread, a passport of one the terrorists was recovered while black boxes were not.

AFAIK, the only evidence we have of the terrorist's murderous intentions is the story of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. That story is very convenient for the narrative, but where's the wreckage?

How far does the rabbit hole go?

The 'new Pearl Harbor' had to include an attack on the US military so that there was not doubt (no debate) that it was an act of war.

But the attack on the Pentagon did more than that. It conveniently eliminated an audit that was embarrassing to military brass as well as MIC. That might look suspicious if the only other attack on 9-11 eliminated a Pentagon audit. So you need a FOURTH plane. What kind of story can be spun with the fourth plane? There's no reason for more destruction. But a heroic battle to regain the plane would draw a lot of attention AND burnish the American fighting spirit (for the wars to come).

If al Queda had really wanted to bring down the towers (as we are told they did!) then wouldn't they have sent ALL FOUR planes to WTC?

Two planes per building makes much more sense. After all, these were amateur pilots. And attacking the US military is both unnecessary and counterproductive. It only guarantees a military response.

Could it be that only one plane per WTC building was needed because whoever arranged for the attack KNEW WITH CERTAINTY that each of those planes would not only hit the building but make directly hits AND that they KNEW WITH CERTAINTY that the towers would fall (if not from those hits, then from prior preparation of the buildings).

Then the other two "planes" were merely to support the narrative (and rid the Pentagon of the audit). They didn't even have to exist if the towers fell because everyone would focus on the horror in NYC. And with remote flying capabilities, the terrorists themselves could just be dupes.

Lastly, the sum total of events that followed the 9-11 attacks argue for some sort of conspiracy that went beyond LIHOP:

  • WTC7 falls at free-fall speed

    suggests a pre-planned demolition - which had benefits for some powerful people;

  • a hasty removal of evidence that is so urgent that it puts the health of hundreds of workers at risk (many of whom developed severe illness in the years after)

    suggests an effort to cleanse the crime scene;

  • a flawed investigation

    suggestive of a cover-up;

  • the use of righteous anger as a 'blank check' for wars and human rights abuses that went well beyond what was warranted if it had been an al Queda attack

    this is very much in-line with the PNAC agenda;

  • the hypocritical use of Jihadis to further the "remaking" of the middle east - especially the Obama Administration's "wilful decision" to allow the rise of ISIS

    the deviousness required to employ Muslim extremists after 9-11 is remarkable - and argues for a re-evaluation of 9-11 given that USA was using Muslim extremists as far back as the 1980's when they supported the Mujaheddin (the pre-cursor to al Queda).


<> <> <> <>

Video and reporting of the Shanksville "crash site":

  • FBI: The Investigation of United Flight 93

    FBI agents saw no plane wreckage. Pictures of the site (in a remote location near a quarry) show no wreckage. Just a whole in the ground that could've been caused by an explosives (like what might be used at a quarry?).

  • CBS: Earliest video of Flight 93 crash on 9/11

    No witnesses saw or heard a plane diving into the ground? Was there no one for miles around? Maybe, but should we ignore how convenient the crash site is if someone had wanted to stage a plane crash?

  • PBS: Remembering the 40 Heros Aboard Flight 93

    No pictures of wreckage or eyewitness to the disaster is show in this 'remembrance' and the main concern of the person interviewed (who is supposed to have lost family in the flight) is to "tell the story" of flight 93.


!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 14 2021 17:34 utc | 320

@john | Sep 14 2021 16:22 utc | 319

Well, this one's still available, and since you're one of the few around here(or anywhere else) from whom I'd expect some meaningful feedback...?

Fact, logic and reason is dangerous stuff, you know. Such things may reveal some truth, and people will call you crazy.

Free energy doesn't need to be used for evil purposes.

We may have some concrete examples around the world of just that, but it happened before our time.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 14 2021 17:52 utc | 321

@john | Sep 14 2021 16:22 utc | 319

Well, this one's still available, and since you're one of the few around here(or anywhere else) from whom I'd expect some meaningful feedback...?

Fact, logic and reason is dangerous stuff, you know. Such things may reveal some truth, and people will call you crazy.

Free energy doesn't need to be used for evil purposes.

We may have some concrete examples around the world of just that, but it happened before our time.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 14 2021 17:52 utc | 322

Gordog | Sep 11 2021 23:36 utc | 87

Not only that, but the hole left in the Pentagon, was tiny compared to the size of the alleged airliner and the wheels, engines and all the passengers disappeared without trace! Some time after the crash, some bit of old airplane were strewn around on the Pentagon@s lawn, but when the First responders arrived there was not a mark on the lawn nor any plane-bits lying around. There is one blurry video that purports to show what looks like a missile flying in at the relevant time, but all the other cameras which might have captured the moment were "being serviced" that day.

The plane that crashed in the field in Pennsylvania, was apparently completely swallowed up by the Earth and no effort was ever made to recover the black box or the bodies of the passengers. Again, as in the case of the Pentagon, the hole left in the field was very small for such a large aircraft and there were no bits of wings or engines to be seen around it.

Posted by: foolisholdman | Sep 14 2021 18:27 utc | 323

Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 12 2021 0:09 utc | 94


To my mind the damage caused to an airliner when it hits a goose, makes the story of the airliners slicing through concrete and steel like a hot knife through butter, an obvious, a patent fraud. Yes, I have seen the films of it happening and I have even seen the 'plane coming briefly out the other side,(!) but I still don't believe it any more than I believe everything I see in the Internet or on TV.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Airliner+hits+goose&t=hy&va=g&iax=images&ia=images

Posted by: foolisholdman | Sep 14 2021 18:46 utc | 324

foolisholdman

The columns are made op of prefab panels three columns wide. The are joined by but joints with several bolts, I forget the number but not many. It is quite easy to in various photos that complete panels are missing, the few bolts at the butt joins sheering like wt noodles. In some video of the second planes strike one engine can be seen sailing out in a big arc, photos of that and where it landed can be seen. From the many videos available, it is clear collapse initiated at the levels the planes struck. It is an impossibility to pre-place explosive or cutting charges at those levels and the levels of the subsequent fires and ensure they will function correctly. It is only the initiation of collapse I am interested in as once that has occurred, what followed was inevitable due to the nature of the design.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 14 2021 19:22 utc | 325

@Hoarsewhisper@318

I think we should both try harder to be civil.

Regarding the "stick and tube" issue, Gordog is more than capable of defending himself. That being said, he has put an immense amount of effort into this thread, providing technical analyses intended so that the layman can understand the issues. This doesn't mean that he is always correct, or that sometimes the explanations don't have room for improvement. But he deserves respect and gratitude. I'm not sure "claptrap" and "tosh" cut it.

In your @289 post, you state "Instead of assigning tasks to people with whom you disagree, do your own looking up and sleuthing and submit your conclusions to scrutiny by the participants." Here, I like your attitude, and I would like your detailed scrutiny and comments related to the "tilting slightly" videos that @PeterAUS1 has kindly provided in @290, @292 and @302. I (and others) have postulated that fire is not a credible mechanism. Gordog has provided probably the best related analysis on this thread. What mechanism(s) can cause the massive WTC 1/2 cores to fracture in the manner observed? Looking forward to your detailed scrutiny and response.

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 14 2021 20:27 utc | 326

This is a short piece on the basic design of the structures. Both towers and WTC7 were of this design.
This I believe is correct and must be considered when trying to compare thgem to Other buildings. For the towers themselves, they cannot be compared to simple high rise fires due to the damage from aircraft strikes.

"At the time of design and construction, the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were innovative in many ways, and resulted in a tremendous increase of open-plan commercial office space in downtown Manhattan."
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=910105 (PDF)

I have found that many who believe various theories have not actually read the reports to compare various theories to the relevant sections in the NIST report. I generally leave WCT7 open as to how it collapsed but the issue of placing demolition charges in the building having them with stand a building fire then function correctly makes the chance of that virtually nil. There is also the subject of motive. I more than suspect people in high places ensured the planes would fly into the buildings, which is more than enough pearl harbor to take simpleton American into a war of terror on the world.
As to destroying evidence of other crime, there are much more certain and efficient means of doing that, that could also be done under the cover of 'terrorists'.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 14 2021 20:53 utc | 327

On WTC7 and records of crime or records of investigations being destroyed. Unless those records were kept in a fire proof safe, they would have been destroyed in the fire, no matter if those records were on paper or electronic. If they were in a fireproof safe then that safe may well survive a building collapse. Either way the safe would have to be recovered to ensure destruction of the contents.

Of the many theories I have looked at regarding 9/11, most differ little from the Putin running around with bottles of novichok stories put out by our official propaganda media.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 14 2021 21:05 utc | 328

Another problem with the narrative is the subject of this discussion:

Why did the Flight 93 Hijackers Wait So Long to Start the Hijack?

Officially, the flight was over 40 minutes late taking off, scheduled departure time about 8am, it finally took off from Newark at 8:42am. Yet the hijacking didn't begin until 9:28am. (from the 9/11 C.R.)

Why on earth did the hijackers wait 46 minutes to start the hijacking if they were already running very late?

[Note: the timing of the hijacking was later revised to earlier but AFAIK the flight path remains: the plane flew quite a distance to the West before turning toward D.C.]

. . .

What happened to the tail???? No way it went compeltely into the hole. And tails don't normally disintegrate upon crashing.

. . .

What I want to know is if flight 93 was REALLY delayed at newark by air traffic or whether the delay was part of the plan.


I surmise that he is suggesting the possibility that, if 9-11 was a false-flag, flight 93 may have been planned to be either shot down or driven into the ground. I've suggested in an earlier comment that flight 93 was needed to protect the official narrative.

What strikes me is that we can easily imagine a scenario whereby the "terrorists" were mere dupes and only TWO planes were needed: a missile was sufficient for the Pentagon and a missile plus bomb (of prearranged debris) was sufficient in rural Pennsylvania.

767's are expensive and crashing into the White House or Capital Build would add even more (unnecessary) expense. Say what you will about the craven, power-elite asshats that run things - they do not like to waste money.

The last message on that old thread:

Because ... there were no hijackers!

LOL.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 14 2021 23:07 utc | 329

Peter AU1 @Sep14 21:05 #328:

On WTC7 and records of crime or records of investigations being destroyed. Unless those records were kept in a fire proof safe, they would have been destroyed in the fire ...

1) Fire-proof safes? We don't know that that they weren't.

2) Fires in the building? WTC2 (the 'North Tower' closest to WTC7) fell into its own footprint. Virtually of what was on fire in WTC2 would've done the same. So it's strange that a multitude of fires would start in WTC7.

3) Fire intensity? If hot debris started fires, it would just be an 'office fire'. Many engineers have said that would not bring down a modern building and a formal study was done that concluded that WTC7 did not fall due to fire. 18 months after the final report from this study, NIST has yet to make any formal response to the issues raised.

4) Low water pressure? Firefighters could've used fire extinguishers on small fires in the building. Many fire extinguishers would've been available throughout the building. Are we supposed to believe that they weren't or that firefighters wouldn't use them because they prefer water? Firefighters would've known that WTC7 was NYC's emergency management site (which emergency personnel abandoned on that day because of it's proximity to the disaster happening at WTC7). If only for that reason, the firefighters would've had great incentive to do what they could to save WTC7 from fire.

=
Of the many theories I have looked at regarding 9/11, most differ little from the Putin running around with bottles of novichok stories ...

1) 9-11 is nothing like the Novichok bullshit. For one thing, most theories about the realization of PNAC's hope for a "new Pearl Harbor" recognize that the perpetrators controlled the investigation (the same was true for the Kennedy assassination).

Putin loyalists were clearly NOT in charge of the Novichok investigations. Nor do I recall Putin's issuing a position paper calling for a violent event that might change how people thought about the world.

Until now your comments have attempted to debunk the opinion of several engineers that an office fire (which is what it was after the fuel was consumed) could not bring down the WTC1 and WTC2. Now you are throwing shade on all theories about 9-11!

2) You should recognize (as many here do) that many of the wackiest theories may be cooked up to discredit ALL questions about 9-11.

3) A number of FACTS that are not disputed provide good cause for deep suspicion (though they don't prove' anything). I've outlined many of them in several comments and other have added more. Just a few examples:

  • PNAC (whose membership included several of the highest-ranking people in the Bush Administration) called for a 'new Pearl Harbor' - and got it in the form of 9-11 a year later;
  • The Israeli's tracked the terrorists in USA for months before 9-11, then Israeli's (linked to Mossad) celebrated virtually the moment that the buildings were attacked;
  • Saudi's were allowed to leave the country soon after the attack and the 9-11 site was quickly cleared of debris - despite the toxic environment (clearly, the establishment didn't want a proper investigation - they wanted to get on with their plans for ME conquest);
  • And the years after 9-11 have demonstrated culpability: US government has blocked information - like what was just revealled: the Saudi government was in daily contact with some of the terrorists prior to the 9-11 attack; ISIS was allowed to rise; USA supported King Salman's coup: making his son MbS Crown Prince (Salman was involved in al Queda funding).

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 15 2021 0:51 utc | 330

"fell into its own footprint."

"Until now your comments have attempted to debunk the opinion of several engineers that an office fire (which is what it was after the fuel was consumed) could not bring down the WTC1 and WTC2. Now you are throwing shade on all theories about 9-11!"

b'stated position is somewhat less than mine. I believe that that the planning was at the very top level in the US.

Slogans like fell into its own footprint and steel framed towers don't fall. As for 'engineers' around 9/11 issues jeez, I would also have to call my dick a qualified engineer.
I looked at many theories computer simulations ect put up by people that professed qualifications, but always their were gaps, parts missing. Gordog with heat transfer theory and computer modeling - an exacting science, and much can be designed and built that will be very close to expectations, but that al;so requires many precise inputs which are not available. There is no readings from sensors to gain that input data from.
My memory of that area of the NIST investigation was that they used data from fire departments that had records and understood fires with the average fuel that would be available in that type of fire and what temperatures steel components could expect to see. Real world ballpark figures vs input data that can be adjusted to achieve desired result. This sort of thing I have seen often in the real world, the world about me. Be it my mate being screwed out of tens of thousands of dollar because of a broken plastic fuel indicator float, those people that died around me while I was flying due to the ex-spurts with qualifications, or the doctors for who if something cannot be measured in currently known test does not exist.
The various science disciplines I have a huge amount of respect for but for some of those with qualifications, it blinds them to the world where precise data inputs cannot be found.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 15 2021 1:45 utc | 331

John @319

That's the one. She nails it using scientific data, lots of it. I have her book on the subject, much of the data is on her website if you haven't reviewed it already, I highly recommend taking a look.

Posted by: ReconFire | Sep 15 2021 1:53 utc | 332

Thanks to Gordog for so patiently explaining physics and piloting basics that make the official story of 9-11 impossible.
As Sherlock Holmes said, When you eliminate the impossible, what is left, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
It was frustrating for me to read the responses of people ignorant of the principles he so patiently explained, who preferred to invent their own theories, (not even connected to the Official Story, just completely invented out of their own imaginations), or to insist that the impossible must have happened because they are quite sure that the criminals involved couldn't keep secrets.
There has never been a time, they insist, that criminals weren't driven to confess their crimes to the media, which surely would publicize the confessions. Occam's Razor, you see.
Anyway, if I was frustrated I can only imagine how Gordog must feel. Thank you for remaining calm.
Also thanks to Retired Mecheng and Norwegian and the others who posted regarding their specialized knowledge, which helps those of us who are not expert pilots or engineers understand how completely ridiculous the Official Story is.

Posted by: wagelaborer | Sep 15 2021 1:55 utc | 333

Posted by: foolisholdman | Sep 14 2021 18:46 utc | 324
(hot knife through butter)

The foundation of a jetliner wing is a very strong and heavy beam-like structure which provides some guts for the bolts which attach the fuselage, engines and landing-gear to the wing. Pics of the impact site on each tower show that this part of each plane, plus some of the wing beyond, breached the columns with ease. The wing tips damaged the column cladding at each end of the breach but debris from the wing tips was able to enter via the windows.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 15 2021 1:57 utc | 334

Jackrabbit

Shit happens in life, and I think on 9/11 shit happened beyond even the wildest dreams of the planners.

A video of shit happening in real life. This particular video begins by saying this particular shit happened while undergoing load testing, but it is worth noting it happened while the crane was not holding or lifting a load.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXDgUX1HFXo

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 15 2021 2:17 utc | 335

@PeterAU1 @Hoarsewhisperer

I am not sure if this has been posted yet, but the link below is to a photograph of one of the WTC towers during construction. The elevator core is shown clearly. Let me know if the link doesn't work properly.

Portions of planes penetrated the complete building (engines, wheel assemblies, passports :), etc), but the fuselages (being hollow aluminum tubes) would have been largely shredded at impact with the perimeter columns. To my knowledge, not even NIST is claiming that the cores were damaged by plane impact to where complete fracture of the core was possible. This is consistent with the core fracture occurring long after plane impact, and simultaneous with the "slight tilt" - followed by top section disintegration and large scale top-down collapse.

WTC Elevator Core During Construction

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 15 2021 2:24 utc | 336

retiredmecheng 336

Do you have anything more on that photo? The structure and what led to the initial failure in the towers is for whatever reason of interest to me. (the interest is perhaps something akin to the curiosity killed the cat type thing)

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 15 2021 2:36 utc | 337

@PeterAU1 @337

I don't have anything more specific to that photo, but the NIST report talks generally about their theory of "collapse initiation", but is pretty much absent when it comes to description and analysis of the subsequent collapse. Of course ae911truth is full of good technically reviewed stuff, but I am probably not allowed to mention it here.

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 15 2021 2:46 utc | 338

retiredmecheng 338

I initially went through everything at the truth site. It was only some time after thinking on these various issues that I went and looked at the official investigation. With corrupt governments the rule, media pumping official propaganda, it is sometimes too easy to through babies out with the bathwater. At the moment I tend to think that the subsequent building collapses went behind the wildest dreams of the planners. Also that karlof1 one went a little close to the abyss in one or more aspects of what he was looking into.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 15 2021 3:05 utc | 339

Amateur pilots got it just right - twice?

Each of the planes that hit the World Trade Center buildings did so in much the same way:

  • horizontal angle of incidence was such that they moved toward an adjacent side, not the opposite side
  • wings were not level but tilted at what looks like about 30 degrees.

Perhaps these characteristics of entry caused enough damage to result in building collapse? Destroying adjacent sides caused greater structural weakness, and angling may have spread the shock to multiple floor slabs and/or reduced the possibility that a level impact would be mostly absorbed by a single horizontal floor slab and thus not be available to take out supporting beams on the adjacent side of the building.

Not only does a pilot have to fly exactly right, but he has to know exactly how to to strike the buildings for best effect. It seems to me that this would require computer modeling. Whether the attack was the brainchild of CIA-Mossad, al Queda, or alien invaders from a distant galaxy, they would know that they have only one chance to get it right.

Absent such modeling as well as high confidence in pilot performance, wouldn't ALL FOUR PLANES have been sent to the World Trade Center (two per tower)?

<> <> <> <> <>

Recovering evidence of automated flying systems in the wreckage would've been a high priority if such system were used - especially the black boxes (which the government says were never found). That might explain the urgency of clearing the site. As wikipedia notes:

Indeed, when NIST published its final report, it noted "the scarcity of physical evidence" that it had had at its disposal to investigate the collapses. Only a fraction of a percent of the buildings remained for analysis after the cleanup was completed

This Counter Punch report (at a time that they enjoyed a good rep) says that the black boxes WERE recovered:
9/11: Missing Black Boxes in World Trade Center Attacks Found by Firefighters, Analyzed by NTSB, Concealed by FBI

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 15 2021 3:26 utc | 340

Unknowns and unknown unknowns Magna tam (my memory for spelling is not good) could no doubt have a field day with this one.
Up until not long ago, everything built to last was built like the proverbial brick shithouse. All those old roman and even earlier structures still standing today. Great cathedrals built in medieval time still in use. Ancient mosques.
Early iron bridges where built the same and most are still in use today. Through that period various structures have at times failed due to unknowns.
Moving into the scientific era when things can be engineered to be light weight strong, and cheaper to build with a known life time. All aspects of various forces and various events are believed to be known. This is the area in which unknown unknowns occur. In peasant language known simply as shit happens. So many failures in the last century give or take have occurred due to this - the belief that all was known on various aspects of the particular construction.

The collapsed buildings at WTC I think very much fit into this category. They were of a new, very lightweight design. On top of that is the distrust of corrupt leadership that adds the unknown unknowns of engineering to shit a corrupt leadership dumps on us.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 15 2021 3:31 utc | 341

Jackrabbit 340

I have often thought about auto pilot/Honeywell/remote control for those planes. Also about the flying I did which was very much outside the 'book'. Motive for the events is easily seen in the resulting 20 year war of terror. The fine points of the actual event are more difficult. I guess perhaps like b, I go against the grain, against popular opinion when it comes to the finer points of the event ... What is and what isn't.. in a time of smoke and mirrors..

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 15 2021 4:01 utc | 342

...
Officially, the flight was over 40 minutes late taking off, scheduled departure time about 8am, it finally took off from Newark at 8:42am. Yet the hijacking didn't begin until 9:28am. (from the 9/11 C.R.)
...
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 14 2021 23:07 utc | 329

The simplest explanation for the delay is that if the WTC planes hadn't reach their targets then it meant they'd been NORADed and the mission was to be aborted because NORAD was one jump ahead of the plot. So they'd sit tight until the plane reached its scheduled destination and wander off, with the other passengers, as fellow-innocents.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Sep 15 2021 4:24 utc | 343

@PeterAU1 and others

As I explained @Sep15 3:26 #340 I now think it more likely that "fly-by-wire"/automation systems were the key to collapsing the WTC1 and WTC2.

Heat of an "office fire" may not be sufficient to take down a steel tower but when that tower has been sufficiently weakened via the right structural damage, then I think adding that the amount of heat required to cause a collapse would be greatly reduced.

Thus, both sides of the debate in this thread have been correct because HEAT ALONE didn't bring down the towers.

The fact that only one plane was used per building (the other two being sent to D.C - if indeed they were planes and not missiles or drones) and the identical manner of each strike to WTC buildings, strongly suggests that the attack was computer modeled and had some sort of automated flight and/or targeting system.

W.W. @Sep14 15:07 #317 provides good info about fly-by-wire. Both planes that flew into WTC were 767's that had fbw while both of the other planes were 757's. The attack on the Pentagon may have been a missile because the plane wasn't a 767. We may never know if it was missile or also automated.

But why would al Queda attack the Pentagon? Did they seek a full-scale war? Were they read for such a thing? Apparently not because within two years they virtually decimated by USA occupation of Afghanistan and CIA's rendition and torture operations.

The plane that went down in Pennsylvania could have been a missile or drone and may have been intended to be shot down or downed (judging by the delay in take-off and delay in taking over the plane). That plane, like the one at the Pentagon, conveniently vaporized. A little too-convenient, I think. And I think that no additional attack was needed on that day (from the perspective of CIA-Mossad, if they were indeed running the show). The country was already horrified. A military target was already attacked (the Pentagon). There was no need to destroy something else. However, it was necessary to have a fourth plane so as to reduce suspicions about the Pentagon attack. To further the narrative and reduce suspicion about the Pentagon attack didn't actually require much: an explosion, appropriate rubble,

<> <> <> <>

Once again, I will reiterate my belief that PNAC was not an academic exercise and the 'new Pearl Harbor' that they called for was not whimsy. PNAC was composed of people that had the power and contacts necessary to turn their vision into reality. Events after 9-11 have borne this out.

I'm not sure that anyone can look at the combination of

  • PNAC;
  • flybywire capable plane + only ONE plane per tower;
  • Israeli operatives tracking the terrorists and celebrating the 9/11 attack
  • Non-sensical attack on Pentagon (but exactly what PNAC hoped for);
  • free-fall of WTC7
  • regular use of Islamic extremism (even after 9/11);
  • CIA support for King Salman's coup;

as well as other available facts and not conclude that CIA and Mossad, likely with some help from Salman (whose funding of extremists like al Queda allowed him some degree of access to ObL) were essentially co-conspirators, if not active participants in the attacks.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 15 2021 4:24 utc | 344

@Jackrabbit | Sep 15 2021 4:24 utc | 344

Thus, both sides of the debate in this thread have been correct because HEAT ALONE didn't bring down the towers.

The fact that only one plane was used per building (the other two being sent to D.C - if indeed they were planes and not missiles or drones) and the identical manner of each strike to WTC buildings, strongly suggests that the attack was computer modeled and had some sort of automated flight and/or targeting system.


Two sides debating how the planes demolished the buildings is exactly the kind of distraction the perpetrators want.

The planes had nothing to do with the steel buildings disintegrating into clouds of dust.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 15 2021 5:29 utc | 345

Two sides debating how the planes demolished the buildings is exactly the kind of distraction the perpetrators want.
Two sides fighting over to what extent 'they knew and facilitated' is exactly the kind of divisive distraction you should try to avoid. In either case the imperial aggression that follows it is the same.

Posted by: Tuyzentfloot | Sep 15 2021 7:27 utc | 346

ReconFire @ 332

That's the one

Yeah, as far as I know it's the ONLY one. The only comprehensive forensic investigation of the crime scene. 500 pages of empirical evidence almost universally ignored.

Instead, for twenty years and counting we get the same old dreck that we see in this thread. All our savvy pundits can offer is conjecture about remote control airplanes and dancing shlomos, etc. Even though nobody knows WHAT happened(an explanation of the physics signature on the ground), ego demands nonetheless that we absurdly try to suss out the how, who, and why of it.

It's almost funny, but if one doesn't know WHAT happened on that September morning, one can't really accuse them of lying to us, can one?

Posted by: john | Sep 15 2021 9:23 utc | 347

RE: Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 15 2021 3:31 utc | 341

“Unknowns and unknown unknowns Magna tam (my memory for spelling is not good) could no doubt have a field day with this one. “

The ones continuing to have a field day in a limited evaluation horizon are the self-designated “elites” of the coercive social relations self-designated as “The United States of America”, facilitated in decreasing part by external pillage in various forms.

These sources of facilitation are increasingly becoming of restricted access to “The United States of America”, hence the self-designated “elites” are attempting “to hedge” against such outcomes facilitating their transcendence by parallel hopes designated as “strategies”, primarily through “The great re-set” externally, and increasing control over and immiseration of “their populations”, in hope of maintaining the prime services of “their populations” as food sources and human shields of “the elites” - a practice of sitting on a branch whilst simultaneously sawing the branch.

Internally this is achieved with the complicity of “their populations'” delusions of their own significances including but not limited to agency

and perceptual frameworks including

“Through assigning significances to details and spectacles thereby aiding ignorance and obfuscation”.

There by facilitating:

“One of the purposes of blogs – an ideological variant of practices of divide and rule.”
through limiting facility and focus increasing resort to “echo chambers” to limit emotions of alienation, whilst increasing “unknowns and unknown unknowns” there by facilitating alienation – sometimes described as:

“Ring a ring of roses
A pocket full of posies
Atishoo, atishoo
We all fall down “

excepting those without schadenfreude not dancing in the ring.

Posted by: MagdaTam | Sep 15 2021 9:42 utc | 348

@john | Sep 15 2021 9:23 utc | 347

Instead, for twenty years and counting we get the same old dreck that we see in this thread. All our savvy pundits can offer is conjecture about remote control airplanes and dancing shlomos, etc. Even though nobody knows WHAT happened(an explanation of the physics signature on the ground), ego demands nonetheless that we absurdly try to suss out the how, who, and why of it.

Agreed.

P.S: I have the book.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 15 2021 13:08 utc | 349

Norwegian @ 349

I have the book

I figured.

Posted by: john | Sep 15 2021 13:19 utc | 350

@PeterAU1 @Jackrabbit

Thanks for your comments.

I think we often forget how powerful the effect of visual observation is, when trying to determine the root cause of the WTC1/2 collapses. The internet is full of high definition photos, high resolution video (including closeups and slow motion) - all from literally dozens of angles. The "tilting slightly" moment (fracture of the massive elevator core), followed by top section disintegration, followed by top-down collapse through several dozen "undamaged" floors - all occurring at near-free fall velocity. And of course, all occurring long after plane impact and initial fireball. In my opinion, the vast majority of the "proof" that fire did not cause the collapse is staring us in the face, and it doesn't take a retired engineer to see it.

There seems to be less reluctance among posters here to consider the possibility of explosives in the collapse of WTC7. Well just a thought to throw out there - what if the same perpetrators who planted the explosives in WTC7 also planted explosives in WTC1/2?

Also, I like the way this thread has kept largely focused on the possible collapse mechanisms for WTC1/2, but it should be mentioned that there is a huge amount of other supporting evidence that explosives were used, but that discussion can be deferred for another day.

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 15 2021 14:23 utc | 351

retiredmecheng @Sep15 14:23 #351

Over the years, I've considered the possibility of explosives. Explosives or thermite are logical possibilities and have been examined in some detail. But they never seem to be a satisfactory explanation for WTC1 and WTC2 even in light of the free-fall of WTC7.

The urgent removal of debris indicates that something had to be hidden. But that something isn't necessarily chemical residues and cut steel. It could be black boxes, homing beacons, scribblings or voice recordings of passengers or terrorists on the plane (making note of automated flight), etc.

I'd like your opinion on my angle of attack theory and associated speculations:

Why did both planes strike in the same way - including tilting wings at just about the same angle? Has anyone done post-attack computer simulations to determine if that angle was the optimum angle? If so, that would confirm that the attacks had been computer simulated. Something that al Queda in Afghanistan would probably not be capable of.

How could they KNOW that only one plane per tower would be needed for amateur pilots to hit and hit just right? In the 1993 attack on the towers, the towers didn't fall because bomb placement was off by a short distance. On 9/11 you have amateurs flying a plane that needed to make a precise hit and (apparently) tilt the wings to a certain degree before impact. Once near the towers, automated systems (that the terrorists were unaware of!) could take over guarantying a correct strike.

If you have the capacity and willingness to hijack 4 planes, why not send them all to WTC? Or strike other high-value economic targets (Sears Tower? Canary Warf?). Instead, they attacked the Pentagon? Knocking down the towers was enough to get the World's attention, why turn that crime into an act of war that would ensure a massive response? The Pentagon attack, however, was very much in tune with PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor" agenda. There would be no debate about how to respond: USA would unleash the full force of their military against al Queda and other targets in the Middle East.

Going further (much more speculative):

- Once computer-modeled, the new means of collapsing WTC might've been suggested to ObL via Salman (his funding of Muslim extremists gave him access). The only 'evidence' that I have for this is admittedly rather thin: USA/CIA's apparent support for what I call the 'coup' by King Salman - making MbS Crown Prince.

- Since CIA-Mossad knew the WTC attacks were coming, they could piggy-back on those attacks for their own purposes: a third plane or missile to attack on the Pentagon, a fourth plane or missile to avoid questions about the Pentagon attack and provide a heroic story that both distracts and uplifts. To ensure that everything went according to plane, the terrorists were tracked (by Mossad).

NEW: IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE that al Queda intended to send ALL FOUR planes to WTC but CIA/Mossad used automated systems to 'hijack' two of them, sending one of them into the Pentagon. And the destination of the other? It appears to have been D.C. but was ultimately unnecessary because all three other planes had hit the most important targets. Also: If the terrorists had really been in control wouldn't they try to hit a city or town instead of diving into ground in the middle of nowhere?

Note: over the years others have speculated about automated control of the planes on 9/11 but I haven't seen a discussion of the precise hit needed to collapse the building (angle-of-attack and wing tilting). Anyone contemplating such an attack would've computer-modeled it to determine the optimal parameters and the likelihood of causing a collapse.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 15 2021 16:18 utc | 352

retiredmecheng

I remember seeing some photos of the site, from soon after the collapse and before any removal of debris. I have allso seen photos of freestanding columns being cut down very soon after, I guess because of the danger of them coming down while the search for bodies was still underway. This photo I think does show the stubs of the columns in one of the towers.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/912/cpsprodpb/FAF5/production/_97754246_0745e5fb-e79d-41f8-a34e-039ffbface08.jpg

This is a couple of relevant descriptions of the core columns from the short NIST pdf that I linked above
"The second structural subsystem was a central service area, or core (Figure 3), measuring
approximately 41 m by 26.5 m (135 ft by 87 ft), that extended virtually the full height of the
building. The long axis of the core in WTC 1 was oriented in the east-west direction, while the
long axis of the core in WTC 2 was oriented in the north-south direction. The 47 columns in this
rectangular space were fabricated using primarily 248 MPa (36 ksi) and 290 MPa (42 ksi) steels
and decreased in size at the higher stories. The four massive corner columns bore nearly one-fifth
of the total gravity load on the core columns. The core columns were interconnected by a grid of
conventional steel beams to support the core floors."

"Multiple approaches were used to insulate structural elements in the core. Those core
columns located in rentable and public spaces, closets, and mechanical shafts were enclosed in
boxes of gypsum wallboard. The amount of the gypsum enclosure in contact with the column
varied depending on the location of the column within the core. SFRM was applied on those
faces that were not protected by a gypsum enclosure. The thicknesses specified in the
construction documents were 35 mm (1.375 in.) for the heavier columns and 60 mm (2.375 in.)
for the lighter columns [13]. Columns located at the elevator shafts were protected using the
same SFRM thicknesses."

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 15 2021 17:10 utc | 353

@Jackrabbit | Sep 15 2021 16:18 utc | 352

How could they KNOW that only one plane per tower would be needed for amateur pilots to hit and hit just right?
Because planes plane didn't cause the towers to disintegrate, one plane was enough to keep the distraction going for 20 years.

- Once computer-modeled, the new means of collapsing WTC might've been suggested to ObL
In structural Engineering, computer modelling means Finite Element analysis like The University of Alaska at Fairbanks did for WTC7 https://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7 :
"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"

WTC1&2 also fell symmetrically into their own footprint, requiring the same near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building, from bottom to top.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 15 2021 17:12 utc | 354

A much higher definition photo here which I meat to include in my last post
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/September_17_2001_Ground_Zero_02.jpg

Looking at the debris from above, many of the wall column panels peeled off to the outside of the building while the floors pancaked down. There are also many very large beams scattered over the top of the debris. I think these are the central column sections that came down last once the building around the stripped off. In several of the videos I linked earlier, although difficult to see in the dust, the central columns can be seen breaking off at a height about level with the surrounding buildings when the floors have already pancaked to ground level.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 15 2021 17:25 utc | 355

Norwegian @Sep15 17:12 #354

To me, what matters is that there was an active effort by CIA-Mossad to ensure that PNAC's "new Pearl Harbor" came to fruition. EITHER of explosives or an precisely executed crash into the building shows active participation.

I happen to think the precise crash is more compelling but both were technically feasible at the time. WTC7 does seem to have been a demolition so it's natural to think that WTC1 and WTC2 might be the same.

With that said, I think some theories about 9-11, like nukes and 'directed energy weapons', are just wacky and meant to discredit anyone that doesn't accept the establishment narrative.

I'm not an engineer and I'm not obsessed with finding the truth of 9-11 because I believe that that 'truth' is already evident: USA government was hijacked and multiple wars were conducted to conquer the middle east. Those wars are covered up with propaganda and psyops (like White Helmets and 'moderate rebels').

As long as people accept establishment lies, allow themselves to be divided, and pretend that Western governments are democracies that are accountable to the people, no amount of truth-telling is going to matter.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 15 2021 17:54 utc | 356

John @347 & Norwegian @349

Agree with you both.

"In a time of universal deceit-telling the truth is a revolutionary act" (attributed to George Orwell, but there's debate on that)

Dr. Judy Wood has certainly paid a heavy price for her "truth telling" about that fateful day, but refuses to back down from the threats she receives about the data she has collected and compiled, and where it points to, a true hero imho.

Posted by: ReconFire | Sep 15 2021 21:34 utc | 357

@jackrabbitt
Thanks for your questions. I am without computer for a few days (phone only), so I might take a few days to reply.

@Norwegian
I agree pretty much with all your arguments that disprove the official narrative. However, if you are suggesting mini-nukes or directed energy weapons, then I disagree strongly. There is a complete absence of supporting evidence, and I am not sure I have the energy to get into that debate further...

Posted by: retiredmecheg | Sep 15 2021 22:29 utc | 358

Relevant PDF for basic specifications of the core columns. Welded rectangular box section up to 7th floor, rolled I beams from 7th floor up apparently. Core column cross section becoming smaller as they went up. Core columns encased in gypsum board fire/heat proofing.
I think it was in the PDF I linked earlier, outer columns retained the same cross section but became lighter walled as they went up. At the apparently 6mm wall thickness. The first plane strike on WTC1 was close to the top so wall and core columns would have been quite light. 2nd plane strike on WTC2 a little lower.
https://tsapps.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101332

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 16 2021 0:24 utc | 359

@retiredmecheg | Sep 15 2021 22:29 utc | 358

I agree pretty much with all your arguments that disprove the official narrative.
Based on available facts, It would be very difficult to take a different position. The scientific approach is to look at the facts and compare them with the presented hypothesis (="narrative") and see if they agree. They do not agree.

However, if you are suggesting mini-nukes or directed energy weapons, then I disagree strongly. There is a complete absence of supporting evidence, and I am not sure I have the energy to get into that debate further...
Everyone is free to have an opinion and I respect yours, even if you are not prepare to defend it. However the statement "complete absence of supporting evidence" is an absolute statement without supporting logic or evidence. Clearly there is evidence of something extremely energetic, including for example melted granite bedrock under the buildings . If you think this is caused by burning jet fuel (kerosene), I have to strongly disagree. The challenge is to explain these things, not dismiss evidence because the implications are frightening. I don't know the complete story of what happened, but I do not dismiss the evidence out of hand.

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 16 2021 12:36 utc | 360

@Norwegian

Sorry, but I have no experience or expertise wrspt directed energy weapons, or mini-nukes.

I don't know the exact details of what happened that day either, but there is significant evidence that explosives and incendiary were used.

And I do know that the claims of Judy Wood have been scrutinized closely by the folks over ae911truth.

I have no problem with people being creative when trying to explain the details of what happened that day. But for serious consideration, serious scrutiny is required. Why don't you send your theories to ae911truth for review?

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 16 2021 14:00 utc | 361

Peter AU1 @Sep16 0:24 #359

That's very interesting info.

I looked at a computer simulation of the attacks yesterday on youtube. The simulation of the first plane seemed to be a straight-on, straight-thru line of attack.

But the video of the first plane hitting the towers (the only one video there is, afaik) shows flames bursting out from the side. That's why I had assumed that the attack was angled like the second plane.

So I thought I would be writing a comment today questioned by theory of flight automation.

But the information that you've uncovered suggests that on higher floors a straight-on, straight-thru attack might make sense on the higher floors!

My theory is that where a plane strikes the building side and the angle of that strike wrt the horizontal plane is crucial to collapsing the building and now it appears the optimal angle may vary by height.

That actually helps because it adds another dimension to a confirming of flight automation by computer model.

Also note: neither plane hit level, they each had banked/tilted wings.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 16 2021 14:02 utc | 362

@Nowegian

I'm very surprised at your endorsement of 'directed energy' as a theory for WTC collapse.

You strike me as smart and knowledgeable. What am I missing?

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 16 2021 14:05 utc | 363

@retiredmecheng | Sep 16 2021 14:00 utc | 361

I have no problem with people being creative when trying to explain the details of what happened that day. But for serious consideration, serious scrutiny is required. Why don't you send your theories to ae911truth for review?

Which theories? I'm pointing to observations that need explanations. I am capable of asking questions and people should help provide answers, or ask more questions for that matter. Why should I defer to some authority?

Posted by: Norwegian | Sep 16 2021 15:17 utc | 364

@Norwegian @jackrabbit

directed energy weapons review

This link refers to a summary that claims to refute directed energy weapons. It also list several detailed papers that provide details. I haven't read the papers yet.

I do hope my link works, as doing this from my phone is a tad risky...

Also sorry about the typos and autocorrect errors on the last few posts.

Posted by: retiredmecheng | Sep 16 2021 15:26 utc | 365

I don't think it matters that much whether there were airplanes or not, chemical or nuclear explosions: the main thing is to know who did it. Then we will know why, and how, and how to avoid future attacks.
Oh, yes, LIHOP ! But : allowed what to happen ?
What control and oversight, how much cynical indifference, on the part of those who « Let It Happen On Purpose » ?
If we agree on a « purpose », then what did this purpose include in the destruction to come, and what benefit was expected from random destruction ?
Was the Shanksville failure part of bin Laden's plan, or does it reveal some protective intervention, even if only at the margin?
How many WTC buildings were supposed to fall, through independent and very cruel terrorism?
What part of the Pentagon was this very bad pilot supposed to hit? Why the Pentagon and not the CIA ?
Etc.
The resulting destruction (the 19 were very lucky indeed!) was nothing like Pearl Harbour since it was based on amateurs. A LIHOP scheme in 1942 relied on the professionalism of the Japanese: they could not miss all the ships, nor destroy any other too valuable element in the vicinity.
Not so in New-York and Washington ! The 2001 attackers could only miss the thing if they had no professional help, AND professional control of their position at all times, both planned and conducted to avoid both unwanted damage and no damage.
If there was any prior knowledge of the exploit, then some men, or a few hundred members of the various (American?) secret services, would have worked on it like crazy, in order to limit or improve its effectiveness. Thus... MIHOP ?

Posted by: chb | Sep 16 2021 16:54 utc | 366

Saudi Arabia's Role in 9/11 and Why the U.S. Government has Kept it Hidden

"You will be revolted and horrified to learn what promient members of our Government, including past Presidents, have done. You will be equally amazed and thrilled with the courage and determination of a few private citizens and FBI agents who have beaten the Government and defeated the largest lobby efforts in world history."

Presenter: Mr. Kreindler is the co-chair of the Plaintiff’s Committee in the 9/11 Litigation on behalf of the 9/11 families to hold Saudi Arabia accountable for its role in the 9/11 attacks. The lawsuit alleges that members of the government of Saudi Arabia provided critical financial and logistical support to the 9/11 hijackers prior to September 11, 2001. This is the first case to proceed under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, passed by Congress in 2016.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 16 2021 18:23 utc | 367

For those who don't have the time to listed to the discussion that I linked to @Sep16 18:23 #367, I can tell you that this lawyer for the 9-11 families:

  • keeps the focus entirely on the Saudis (not surprisingly), and
  • names President GW Bush and Robert Mueller as people that have covered for the Saudis

His desire to advance the case for his clients means that he may be pulling some punches as he:

  • doesn't speculate on CIA or Israeli involvement (pissing them off would likely be counterproductive to his client's case) and doesn't mention PNAC;
  • provides a favorable spin for Bush and Mueller's covering up:

    • Bush was essentially taken in/hoodwinked because of his family's connection to the Saudi's (especially 'Bandar Bush';
    • Muller inherited the 'problem' (of an embarrassing truth) and chose not to rock the boat (for the good of the country).

Yet, at one point, he suggests the possibility of CIA involvement:
There are many cases where the Government has invoked state secrets .. every one of those cases involves CIA activities in another country, intelligence [gathering] in another country .. there has never been a case [until now] of domestic murder where national security and state secrets were involved.

It appears that he believes (or can't say otherwise) that national security has been involved/invoked only to cover for the Saudi's - not to cover for CIA or Mossad. I doubt that anyone in USA/Western establishment will ever publicly discuss the possibility of such involvement.

He also tells us that CIA knew some of the 9-11 terrorists and tracked them to Southern California in 2000. We know, from reporting/admissions, that Mossad had also tracked terrorists in USA prior to 9-11 with a fairly large operation culminating in a warning to the US government two weeks prior to 9-11.

!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Sep 17 2021 2:02 utc | 368

Jackrabbit 368

That is the section I believe needs concentrating on by Americans. When I looked through a lot of the stuff surrounding 9/11, I got the distinct impression there were many red herrings/bellingcat types set up to catch those who for whatever reason doubted official lines and move their eyes away from the criminal investigation.

Posted by: Peter AU1 | Sep 17 2021 2:16 utc | 369

« previous page

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Working...