What do you think about 9/11 mystery?

[Spendulus]

 the 4-ton girders blown hundreds of feet from their positions in the towers

 free fall speed of the building falling. Both of these things REQUIRE explosives to happen under the laws of physics. You can't just call batshit & ninjas to wiggle out of this one, it is 100% math and science.

As far as your argument about the kinetic energy of a plane hitting the towers, it was designed to withstand a direct Boeing 707 impact, according to one of the WTC engineers. This is a mathematical breakdown of the differences in the kinetic energy showing it had a 10% margin of error between the designed for impact, and the actual impact.
...
Regarding the substances the plane was made out of, it DOES matter. If it did not matter, why is it that aluminum bullets are not popular? It would be much cheaper than copper. The density of the the projectile matters because it will behave differently when hitting an object of greater density than when it hits an object that is less dense than it is. As a result, a mostly aluminum framed plane would not cut thru the outer steel columns of the building, but simply deform the side of impact and spread out its kinetic energy as it was crushed and the plane ripped apart as a result of hitting a more dense object, the outer steel columns.
....

As for your claims of steel becoming "like putty when it is above 500-800 F", do you even bother checking these things or do you just repeat them out of pure  arrogance and faith that you are right? Look at any steel working or forging website and it will tell you that the working temperature of steel where it is soft enough to be worked is almost double the temperatures you claim.
....
In reference to your response about the flashes, you clearly did not view all of the videos, and are quickly moving to discredit them, because they discredit your earlier claims of no explosives like flashes being visible. additionally the metric is not how impressed you are, but that the flashes exist. The most clearly visible case of this is in building 7, where it is extremely obvious that explosive charges were used, as you can clearly see multiple flashes in repetition, along with windows blown out, and ejections from the pressure. There was also included several angles of flashes in the WTC buildings, but the most prominent was the shock waves and ejections from these charges. 1. 2. 3. Furthermore, as I explained earlier, highly visible explosive flashes could be avoided simply by placing thermite charges on the exterior supports, and using the cutter charges on the internal supports, obfuscating most of the flashes. Clearly not all of them were hidden though as the video evidence shows.
....
You try to make a point that the steel could just have been heated to bring the building down, but you are ignoring a very basic law of energy, induction. You are claiming that a massive highly conductive structure made from steel surrounded by heat sapping materials such as concrete was able to heat to sufficient softening or melting point in just 56 minutes in an uncontrolled kerosene fire?

So do these summarize your position on why the airplanes-into-buildings is insufficient to explain the events which occurred?

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

Is that accurate?  I omitted the "flashes" because these are not related to the question of the aircraft strike as cause.  They are more related to a search for evidence of explosives after one determines that explosives were necessary.

Oh, by the way.  Let's not consider WTC engineers as "authoritative."  Wouldn't they have a serious vested interest in it not being prove they had made big mistakes?  Lol....

[MisO69]

I dont think event like this could be manufactured just like that. Too much ppl would be involved and story would leak sooner or later. Everything is possible in this twisted world but this have close to zero chance.

Its more likely that US airspace was penetrated three times, more likely that steel framed building collapsed due to fire, more likely that cell phones worked at high altitude, more likely a plane that hit the pentagon vaporized, okay.. close to zero chance of any of that happening.

or perhaps a few generals and politicians knew, everyone else did what they always do, they do what they are told. How is that so hard to believe?

[Barbut]

What to think about that mystery? Someone created it and made big mess after in news, that now we cant see what is truth and what is not... Conspiracy theories grow on topics like this one, and all I see some people support one thing others other things.. and they fight against each other. And that is exactly what creator of this wish, people to fight and like that truth will never be reviled.  
Only real thing is that people died that day, innocent one..like in all wars innocent people die. People wake up!

[MisO69]

I think there is not "mystery" per se - all is in the plain sight.

Truth About 9/11 Would Take Down the US as a Global Empire: Dr. Kevin Barrett
http://www.globalresearch.ca/truth-about-911-would-take-down-the-us-as-a-global-empire-dr-kevin-barrett/

The truth about the September 11, 2001 terror attacks would not only destabilize the American political system but it would also take down the US as a global empire, an American scholar says.

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a founding member of the Scientific Panel for the Investigation of 9/11, made the remarks during an interview with Press TV on Tuesday, while commenting on the ongoing feud between Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush over the 9/11 attacks.

On Friday, Trump blamed George W. Bush for the September 11, 2001 attacks. On Sunday, Trump said that if he had been president in 2001, his immigration policy would have kept al-Qaeda terrorists from attacking the US.

In response, Bush said his brother, former President George W. Bush, is not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. “Look, my brother responded to a crisis, and he did it as you would hope a president would do.”

“He united the country,” Bush told CNN. “He organized our country, and he kept us safe. And there’s no denying that. The great majority of Americans believe that.”

...

Yes, it was all out in plain sight.  Tens of thousands of people in New York City watched the planes hit the World Trade Center.  It was in plain sight. 

And now crackpots want to claim they didn't see anything.

But it was in plain sight.

And nobody is denying it happened.

People are denying it was done by simple terrorist organization. It's like Kennedy assassination, people who are able to think more than 10 sec have some doubt with the "official" theory.

^^^^ This. Plus the fact that those planes alone were not nearly enough to bring down those towers, as well as the WTC 7 building. The origin of the planes is also questioned. Some eyewitnesses claimed that they were unlike any airliners that they had seen.

Bah.  Crazy talk.  The planes DID NOT "bring down the towers."  The weight of the towers above the impact point did that.  Again, I disproved several of these theories of thermite, nano-magical-thermite, steel does not melt, in a separate thread here.  Using high school physics and chemistry only.

And no, the origin of the planes is not questioned.  They were scheduled airliners on scheduled flights.  Don't make me laugh.  Video showing standard Boeing jets slamming into towers, and you want to claim they look "unlike any airliners they have ever seen?"

Get real.

Then where were the core columns? If the buildings went down because if structural failure then why didn't the core columns stay erect or at worse droop over? Instead they ended up on the ground with the rest of the building, cut into small pieces. Only thermite can do that.

Why did Building 7 get demolished? Anyone watching that footage will tell you it looks exactly like a building going down due to demolishing charges placed inside it. And I don't care what they said I want to hear your thoughts on building 7.

[Spendulus]

I dont think event like this could be manufactured just like that. Too much ppl would be involved and story would leak sooner or later. Everything is possible in this twisted world but this have close to zero chance.

Its more likely that US airspace was penetrated three times, more likely that steel framed building collapsed due to fire, more likely that cell phones worked at high altitude, more likely a plane that hit the pentagon vaporized, okay.. close to zero chance of any of that happening.

or perhaps a few generals and politicians knew, everyone else did what they always do, they do what they are told. How is that so hard to believe?

There's not much left of a plane that's been engulfed in a fire.  And yes, steel frame buildings collapse due to fire.  Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

[Spendulus]

Then where were the core columns? If the buildings went down because if structural failure then why didn't the core columns stay erect or at worse droop over? Instead they ended up on the ground with the rest of the building, cut into small pieces. Only thermite can do that.

Why is your assumption that structural failure would not include the core columns?  I don't get it.

And from this somehow it follows that "Only thermite can do that?"  LOL...that makes no sense.


Here is the explanation of Wikipedia. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Mechanics_of_Twin_Towers.27_collapse

Collapse initiation

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[54]

Why did Building 7 get demolished? Anyone watching that footage will tell you it looks exactly like a building going down due to demolishing charges placed inside it. And I don't care what they said I want to hear your thoughts on building 7.

Go look at the Wikipedia entry on Building 7.  It had interior floors removed and several very strange foundation issues.  Then comment.

[BADecker]

Then where were the core columns? If the buildings went down because if structural failure then why didn't the core columns stay erect or at worse droop over? Instead they ended up on the ground with the rest of the building, cut into small pieces. Only thermite can do that.

Why is your assumption that structural failure would not include the core columns?  I don't get it.

And from this somehow it follows that "Only thermite can do that?"  LOL...that makes no sense.


Here is the explanation of Wikipedia. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Mechanics_of_Twin_Towers.27_collapse

Collapse initiation

After the planes struck the buildings, but before the buildings collapsed, the cores of both towers consisted of three distinct sections. Above and below the impact floors, the cores consisted of what were essentially two rigid boxes; the steel in these sections was undamaged and had undergone no significant heating. The section between them, however, had sustained significant damage and, though they were not hot enough to melt it, the fires were weakening the structural steel. As a result, the core columns were slowly being crushed, sustaining plastic and creep deformation from the weight of floors above. As the top section tried to move downward, however, the hat truss redistributed the load to the perimeter columns. Meanwhile, the perimeter columns and floors were also being weakened by the heat of the fires, and as the floors began to sag they pulled the exterior walls inwards. In the case of 2 WTC, this caused the eastern face to buckle, transferring its loads back to the failing core through the hat truss and initiating the collapse. In the case of 1 WTC, the south wall later buckled in the same way, and with similar consequences.[54]

Why did Building 7 get demolished? Anyone watching that footage will tell you it looks exactly like a building going down due to demolishing charges placed inside it. And I don't care what they said I want to hear your thoughts on building 7.

Go look at the Wikipedia entry on Building 7.  It had interior floors removed and several very strange foundation issues.  Then comment.

Everybody knows that Wikipedia is just hearsay. Anybody can get in to be an author in Wikipedia if he wants. Wikipedia BS is just BS, same as all the other official story BS.

[Spendulus]

Everybody knows that Wikipedia is just hearsay. Anybody can get in to be an author in Wikipedia if he wants. Wikipedia BS is just BS, same as all the other official story BS.

 Try to actually refute the argument, if you can.  This process is called "Understanding."

[BADecker]

Everybody knows that Wikipedia is just hearsay. Anybody can get in to be an author in Wikipedia if he wants. Wikipedia BS is just BS, same as all the other official story BS.

 Try to actually refute the argument, if you can.  This process is called "Understanding."

There is nothing to try. Whatever argument you are talking about, has been refuted over and over already.

[Taki]

Waohh Already 15 years! I feel like it was just yesterday! Can't forget those shock that I felt and may others. Every year appear more and more details abouut 9/11. But the true story is still secreted. Don't know then the government will open the truth to us.

[MisO69]

Here is a photo from ground zero a day or two after the buildings came down.



Notice the core column top center of the picture. It has been cut with a thermite cutting charge. Notice how the steel melted and rand down the column. If an arc welder had cut this steel beam there would be no melted steel stuck to the side of the column.

See this pic below of a core column that has been cut by a welder.



So my point is that the core columns would still be standing or flopped over. Not cut into nifty little pieces that all fit onto dump trucks.

Even with the Wikipedia entry you pointed out. The columns below and above where not heated only the floors where the plan crashed. So if it was structural failure then why don't we see core columns, about 80 floors of them, laying on the ground around the collapse site? Instead we just see a pile of rubble and some core columns cut. Very strange indeed.

[Spendulus]

Here is a photo from ground zero a day or two after the buildings came down.



Notice the core column top center of the picture. It has been cut with a thermite cutting charge. Notice how the steel melted and rand down the column. If an arc welder had cut this steel beam there would be no melted steel stuck to the side of the column.

Where exactly do you think the MELTED STEEL WOULD BE???

That's EXACTLY what it would look like cut with a cutting torch, most likely because, duh, it was cut with a cutting torch.

....

So my point is that the core columns would still be standing or flopped over. Not cut into nifty little pieces that all fit onto dump trucks.

Even with the Wikipedia entry you pointed out. The columns below and above where not heated only the floors where the plan crashed. So if it was structural failure then why don't we see core columns, about 80 floors of them, laying on the ground around the collapse site? Instead we just see a pile of rubble and some core columns cut. Very strange indeed.

Because they were pulverized in the thousand foot fall?  Again, duh.  Not strange.

Question.  Very simple.  Do you really think that if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, that it will still be a piece of concrete?  Or will it be rubble, dust, etc.  And why?

[BADecker]

....

So my point is that the core columns would still be standing or flopped over. Not cut into nifty little pieces that all fit onto dump trucks.

Even with the Wikipedia entry you pointed out. The columns below and above where not heated only the floors where the plan crashed. So if it was structural failure then why don't we see core columns, about 80 floors of them, laying on the ground around the collapse site? Instead we just see a pile of rubble and some core columns cut. Very strange indeed.

Because they were pulverized in the thousand foot fall?  Again, duh.  Not strange.

Question.  Very simple.  Do you really think that if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, that it will still be a piece of concrete?  Or will it be rubble, dust, etc.  And why?

Are there any pictures of the columns as they were before they were cut with a torch? We'd like to see what they looked like. Would they look very similar to the way they would look if cut with a torch? Nobody seems to have pictures of anything but torch-like cut pieces. Seems to me the thermite took care of most of the cutting.

Not saying that the clean-up crew didn't do some cutting. Just asking for pictures of anything other than "cut" pieces. If they had not been cut by thermite, there would be all kinds of twisted, jagged pieces, wouldn't there. No pictures?

In addition, if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, it would generally remain a piece of concrete all the way down until it hit the ground or pavement. Some of the videos show the concrete disintegrating in mid air. What's up with that?



EDIT: When an airliner crashes, the FAA spends months or years putting all the pieces together to see exactly what happened. The Towers remains were carted of with no known examination... certainly not the months or years that would have been done if an airliner simply crashed. Yet 9/11 involved 4 airliners.

Anybody who says there isn't a cover-up is either very naive, or a propagandizer on the government payroll.

[boyptc]

I'm still thinking about the photo that I have seen for a long time ago. After the smoke, that came from this event.

Do you guys believe this devil's face?

[Spendulus]

....

So my point is that the core columns would still be standing or flopped over. Not cut into nifty little pieces that all fit onto dump trucks.

Even with the Wikipedia entry you pointed out. The columns below and above where not heated only the floors where the plan crashed. So if it was structural failure then why don't we see core columns, about 80 floors of them, laying on the ground around the collapse site? Instead we just see a pile of rubble and some core columns cut. Very strange indeed.

Because they were pulverized in the thousand foot fall?  Again, duh.  Not strange.

Question.  Very simple.  Do you really think that if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, that it will still be a piece of concrete?  Or will it be rubble, dust, etc.  And why?

Are there any pictures of the columns as they were before they were cut with a torch? We'd like to see what they looked like. Would they look very similar to the way they would look if cut with a torch? Nobody seems to have pictures of anything but torch-like cut pieces. Seems to me the thermite took care of most of the cutting.

Not saying that the clean-up crew didn't do some cutting. Just asking for pictures of anything other than "cut" pieces. If they had not been cut by thermite, there would be all kinds of twisted, jagged pieces, wouldn't there. No pictures?

In addition, if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, it would generally remain a piece of concrete all the way down until it hit the ground or pavement. Some of the videos show the concrete disintegrating in mid air. What's up with that?



EDIT: When an airliner crashes, the FAA spends months or years putting all the pieces together to see exactly what happened. The Towers remains were carted of with no known examination... certainly not the months or years that would have been done if an airliner simply crashed. Yet 9/11 involved 4 airliners.

Anybody who says there isn't a cover-up is either very naive, or a propagandizer on the government payroll.

Are there any pictures of the columns as they were before they were cut with a torch? We'd like to see what they looked like. Would they look very similar to the way they would look if cut with a torch? Nobody seems to have pictures of anything but torch-like cut pieces. Seems to me the thermite took care of most of the cutting.

I'm not a guy whose hobby is collecting 911 pictures, but I am certain you can find those.  What I would suggest, though is that instead of clinging to the 911 conspiracy theorist's "thermite" conclusion, just take a look at various stuff on youtube of cutting torch work and thermite work.  For certain I can tell you this, there is NOTHING about the appearance of that column's cut or the slag that says "I was cut with thermite."  Nothing.  And I've cut quite a bit of metal.

Not saying that the clean-up crew didn't do some cutting. Just asking for pictures of anything other than "cut" pieces. If they had not been cut by thermite, there would be all kinds of twisted, jagged pieces, wouldn't there. No pictures?

See above.  You are asking about the appearance of the metal if it had been subject just to gravitational collapse.   Yes they would be "twisted jagged pieces."  The reason is that this is A36 steel and it's not going to snap, it's going to bend.  Bend and bend and bend and then snap.

In addition, if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, it would generally remain a piece of concrete all the way down until it hit the ground or pavement. Some of the videos show the concrete disintegrating in mid air. What's up with that?


Suppose a group of icicles fell from the ridge of a high building.  They fall as a group toward the ground.  Wouldn't you expect them to hit each other, and at the point of hitting the ground, be a bunch of fragments?
Like ice, concrete is strong in compression, but very weak in tension.  That's why it is usually reinforced with rebar.  But in any event like this the strength should be expected to be compromised.

EDIT: When an airliner crashes, the FAA spends months or years putting all the pieces together to see exactly what happened. The Towers remains were carted of with no known examination... certainly not the months or years that would have been done if an airliner simply crashed. Yet 9/11 involved 4 airliners.

The NTSB said that all material was in the hands of the FBI, so they could not issue reports.  I assume it was / is classified?  And no, the NTSB does not study ALL aircraft incidents.  For example, it studies NONE of the US aircraft lost or damaged in combat.  In my opinion, I guess it's my feeling really, the 911 events were acts of war.  Regardless, if the FBI wouldn't give you the parts, you are not going to be able to produce a report.

[BADecker]

....

So my point is that the core columns would still be standing or flopped over. Not cut into nifty little pieces that all fit onto dump trucks.

Even with the Wikipedia entry you pointed out. The columns below and above where not heated only the floors where the plan crashed. So if it was structural failure then why don't we see core columns, about 80 floors of them, laying on the ground around the collapse site? Instead we just see a pile of rubble and some core columns cut. Very strange indeed.

Because they were pulverized in the thousand foot fall?  Again, duh.  Not strange.

Question.  Very simple.  Do you really think that if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, that it will still be a piece of concrete?  Or will it be rubble, dust, etc.  And why?

Are there any pictures of the columns as they were before they were cut with a torch? We'd like to see what they looked like. Would they look very similar to the way they would look if cut with a torch? Nobody seems to have pictures of anything but torch-like cut pieces. Seems to me the thermite took care of most of the cutting.

Not saying that the clean-up crew didn't do some cutting. Just asking for pictures of anything other than "cut" pieces. If they had not been cut by thermite, there would be all kinds of twisted, jagged pieces, wouldn't there. No pictures?

In addition, if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, it would generally remain a piece of concrete all the way down until it hit the ground or pavement. Some of the videos show the concrete disintegrating in mid air. What's up with that?



EDIT: When an airliner crashes, the FAA spends months or years putting all the pieces together to see exactly what happened. The Towers remains were carted of with no known examination... certainly not the months or years that would have been done if an airliner simply crashed. Yet 9/11 involved 4 airliners.

Anybody who says there isn't a cover-up is either very naive, or a propagandizer on the government payroll.

Are there any pictures of the columns as they were before they were cut with a torch? We'd like to see what they looked like. Would they look very similar to the way they would look if cut with a torch? Nobody seems to have pictures of anything but torch-like cut pieces. Seems to me the thermite took care of most of the cutting.

I'm not a guy whose hobby is collecting 911 pictures, but I am certain you can find those.  What I would suggest, though is that instead of clinging to the 911 conspiracy theorist's "thermite" conclusion, just take a look at various stuff on youtube of cutting torch work and thermite work.  For certain I can tell you this, there is NOTHING about the appearance of that column's cut or the slag that says "I was cut with thermite."  Nothing.  And I've cut quite a bit of metal.

That's a pretty straight cut in the picture. However, with simple Net searches, I can find few pictures of the girders and beams. Those few tell us two things: 1) many of the girders and beams are twisted; 2) there are so few easy-to-find pictures that one wonders why if not a cover-up.

Not saying that the clean-up crew didn't do some cutting. Just asking for pictures of anything other than "cut" pieces. If they had not been cut by thermite, there would be all kinds of twisted, jagged pieces, wouldn't there. No pictures?

See above.  You are asking about the appearance of the metal if it had been subject just to gravitational collapse.   Yes they would be "twisted jagged pieces."  The reason is that this is A36 steel and it's not going to snap, it's going to bend.  Bend and bend and bend and then snap.

In addition, if you take a piece of concrete, and drop it 1000 feet, it would generally remain a piece of concrete all the way down until it hit the ground or pavement. Some of the videos show the concrete disintegrating in mid air. What's up with that?


Suppose a group of icicles fell from the ridge of a high building.  They fall as a group toward the ground.  Wouldn't you expect them to hit each other, and at the point of hitting the ground, be a bunch of fragments?
Like ice, concrete is strong in compression, but very weak in tension.  That's why it is usually reinforced with rebar.  But in any event like this the strength should be expected to be compromised.

What? Too bad ice melts so readily. Otherwise we could use it rather than concrete, right? Just think of it. Rebar in ice to give it structural strength.

Like concrete chunks are going to disintegrate each other in 11 to 14 seconds of free fall. If you look at the videos, most of the disintegrating pieces are not grinding around at each other for 11 to 14 seconds.

EDIT: When an airliner crashes, the FAA spends months or years putting all the pieces together to see exactly what happened. The Towers remains were carted of with no known examination... certainly not the months or years that would have been done if an airliner simply crashed. Yet 9/11 involved 4 airliners.

The NTSB said that all material was in the hands of the FBI, so they could not issue reports.  I assume it was / is classified?  And no, the NTSB does not study ALL aircraft incidents.  For example, it studies NONE of the US aircraft lost or damaged in combat.  In my opinion, I guess it's my feeling really, the 911 events were acts of war.  Regardless, if the FBI wouldn't give you the parts, you are not going to be able to produce a report.

Now I could almost think that you are just playing around, attempting to be a contrarian for the sake of being contrary.

So, the FBI won't let us know what really happened? It should take years of examination of the parts to figure all the details. Very suspicious. Yet no word of such an ongoing investigation.

You are so good, hiding the fact of investigating possibly the biggest tragedy in recent American history because, "the NTSB does not study ALL aircraft incidents."

The point is, there is a lot of cover-up by government. The official "facts" do not match what happened. And there are a lot of other ideas that fit what happened way better than the official facts.

[Betwrong]

IMO if US gov has anything to do with 9/11 we'd already know this for sure. I mean guys like Snowden would let us know. Although I don't see US gov as perfect and flawless I don't think they would kill so much of their own people intentionally.

[BADecker]

IMO if US gov has anything to do with 9/11 we'd already know this for sure. I mean guys like Snowden would let us know. Although I don't see US gov as perfect and flawless I don't think they would kill so much of their own people intentionally.

The right hand of the Military doesn't know what the left hand is doing. Government is worse. There were a few people in government using their governmental authority to cover what a few of private people were doing. The inside job idea doesn't mean that all (or even most) of government knew what was going on.

[BADecker]

9/11: Intercepted

War Games, Simulated radar tracks, aircraft exceeding their max operating limits by more than 130-150 knots, inaccurate aircraft position reports, false aircraft target reports, aircraft converging - flying virtually in formation with - and then diverging from reported 9/11 aircraft, fighters launched in the wrong direction, aircraft seemingly still airborne after the alleged attack, poor communications, phones not working...

Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. They're are committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001.

Their main focus concentrates on the four flights, maneuvers performed and the reported pilots. They do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, they are focused on determining the truth of that fateful day based on solid data and facts - since 9/11/2001 is the catalyst for many of the events shaping our world today - and the United States Government doesn't seem to be very forthcoming with answers or facts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WSDxErgBE


Read more at http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/911-intercepted/.

[TECSHARE]

Try to actually refute the argument, if you can.  This process is called "Understanding."

Maybe you should follow your own advice instead of attempting to redirect the conversation away from physical evidence you can not dispute.

So do these summarize your position on why the airplanes-into-buildings is insufficient to explain the events which occurred?

1.  The planes could not impart sufficient kinetic energy to damage the structures.

2.  Fire fueled by the fuel in the planes and other material in the towers could not have softened the steel structures enough to cause structural failure.

3.  The impact of the planes and/or the stresses of the collapse could not propel 4 ton sections of steel beams hundreds of feet.

4.  The "free fall" speed of the buildings falling somehow cannot coexist with a building collapse due to gravity after structural failure from planes hitting buildings.

Is that accurate?  I omitted the "flashes" because these are not related to the question of the aircraft strike as cause.  They are more related to a search for evidence of explosives after one determines that explosives were necessary.

Oh, by the way.  Let's not consider WTC engineers as "authoritative."  Wouldn't they have a serious vested interest in it not being prove they had made big mistakes?  Lol....

1. As I previously explained, the towers were designed to withstand impacts from Boeing 707 passenger airliners traveling at 600mph.

A) NYC WTC 'designed to withstand multiple airliner impacts' Frank De Martini construction boss

B) Twin Towers Engineered To Withstand Jet Collision

C) Towers built to withstand jet impact

D) The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707 - DC 8 ) travelling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such a collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

E) Sullivan consults, one of the trade center's original structural engineers, Les Robertson, on whether the towers would collapse because of a bomb or a collision with a slow-moving airplane. He is told there is little likelihood of a collapse no matter how the building was attacked.


2. Again, as previously mentioned, in order to sufficiently weaken the steel support structure of the WTC for a collapse, temperatures in excess of 2000 F would be required for several hours, well above the 56 minutes between the impact and the collapse of the first tower. The events of that day, 3 high rise steel framed buildings ALL completely "collapsing from fire" was unprecedented, and statistically improbable.

A) We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours.

B) Lead WTC Structural Engineer John Skilling: “We looked at every possible thing we could think of that could happen to the buildings, even to the extent of an airplane hitting the side… Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

C) Based on four standard fire resistance tests that were conducted under a range of insulation and test conditions, NIST found the fire rating of the floor system to vary between 3/4hour and 2hours; in all cases, the floors continued to support the full design load without collapse for over 2 hours.

D) National Fire Protection Association publications show that there are about 110 high rise fires in buildings over 13 stories each year.  In the last 550 of those fires not one collapsed.  

3. So your argument is the plane impact made multiple 4-ton girders fly in several directions at once, some of which were not even in the direction of the plane's momentum? Of all of the hundreds of videos of the impacts, do you see even one that shows anything like a girder flying out of the impact hole?

The 4-ton girders landined hundreds of feet from their placement in the towers requiring the ejecting force of explosions for this distance of lateral movement. This is not up for debate, this is a matter of the laws of physics. They could not have been thrown this distance from the towers from a collapse. This information comes directly from the FEMA reports.

4. Buildings CAN NOT collapse at free fall speeds. The ONLY way under the laws of physics a building can fall at free fall speed is if there is NO RESISTANCE. A collapse as described by the official narrative would include resisting force as the floors impacted the lower levels beneath it creating deceleration. Again, this is not up for debate, it is a law of physics. The only possible way for the buildings to fall at those speeds would be if the supports were BLOWN OUT before the material above it impacted it.

As far as your argument about the engineer, you are seriously claiming that you think people would blame him for this as if it was some kind of engineering failure? That is beyond asinine. If the people who designed the fucking building are not authoritative enough for you, who is? Convenient you bring in this little side narrative to discredit the statement, that's why I included statements from other experts above. Perhaps they are all lying to protect themselves? Also, if it was such a engineering failure, why have none of the building codes been modified to correct for them? Hmmm....

See above.  You are asking about the appearance of the metal if it had been subject just to gravitational collapse.   Yes they would be "twisted jagged pieces."  The reason is that this is A36 steel and it's not going to snap, it's going to bend.  Bend and bend and bend and then snap.

Actually, those beams need to be heated to high temperatures to bend like the ones pulled from the rubble, much higher than jet fuel or a fire burning for less than an hour could produce.

So far I have provided pages and pages of reputable sources. All you seem to be able to do is provide opinion and conjecture.