Would like to hear them say what they think happened too.

However, on that 1 hour video those various signees and experts and commentators are taking a different approach, that is also permissible.

a) They are saying the received and conventional version does not fit the facts. Won't hold up.

b) They are saying its more important to determine how they came down that day -- 7 in particular is flaky -- and go from there.

Its worth mentioning that it says WTC-7 fell in 7 seconds, so it is really clocking and probably meets free-fall speed easily. How?

And most of those interviewees hardly come across as Alex Jones quacks. It remains for other engineers to evaluate.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

A 707 (basically, the same cabin cross section as a 737 but longer and with 4 jet engines) flying at landing approach speed (well under 200 mph) with not even close to the amount of jet fuel. Yeah, not the same, buddy.

85 tons of mostly aluminum in those jets. What do you suppose any molten metal is?

No, you want to believe the Rube Goldbergish, Bond villainesque, incredibly complicated and logically deficient theory that explosives were added to bring all 3 buildings down.

---

85 tons of aluminum you say? Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows.

The jet fuel is mostly burned up in the initial blast but then quickly becomes oxygen starved.

The molten metal was on the steel columns glowing red like lava (molten aluminum doesn't resemble that), it was not molten aluminum.

I choose to believe the designers of the WTC who compared a plane hitting them to a mosquito slamming into a massive 3D web of immense structure.

---

Have asked this to most of the conspiracy lunatics on this site and can never seem to get an answer - what, exactly, is your theory of what happened that day?

---

I think they start to think about it and then realize how insane it sounds.

"Okay, a bunch of government officials wanted a pretext to invade various countries in the Middle East. They decided to frame Muslims by recruiting Al Qaeda terrorists to hijack and fly planes into the World Trade Center. Then, they managed to surreptitiously wire buildings next to the Twin Towers with explosives so they could cause it to collapse too. Why? Because just killing thousands and bringing down the Twin Towers with hijacked passenger airliners wouldn't provide a significant justification for invading Iraq. They needed WTC 7 to come down. Sure it greatly increased the risk of of the operation, but it was the famous WTC 7 - the towering symbol of American excellence and capitalism - that would stir the patriotic souls of Americans to declare war on the Middle East. Oh wait, that doesn't make sense. I'll just ignore the question."

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

A 707 (basically, the same cabin cross section as a 737 but longer and with 4 jet engines) flying at landing approach speed (well under 200 mph) with not even close to the amount of jet fuel. Yeah, not the same, buddy.

85 tons of mostly aluminum in those jets. What do you suppose any molten metal is?

No, you want to believe the Rube Goldbergish, Bond villainesque, incredibly complicated and logically deficient theory that explosives were added to bring all 3 buildings down.

---

85 tons of aluminum you say? Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows.

The jet fuel is mostly burned up in the initial blast but then quickly becomes oxygen starved.

The molten metal was on the steel columns glowing red like lava (molten aluminum doesn't resemble that), it was not molten aluminum.

I choose to believe the designers of the WTC who compared a plane hitting them to a mosquito slamming into a massive 3D web of immense structure.

---

Have asked this to most of the conspiracy lunatics on this site and can never seem to get an answer - what, exactly, is your theory of what happened that day?

---

Yes, namecalling, so helpful. I'll be your lunatic.

911 was a crime. Unlike most crimes, the culprits, Osama bin Laden and the 19 hijackers, were tried and convicted the day of the crime, with no investigation. That seems odd. Osama bin Laden denied he did it, by the way.

In an investigation, one looks at evidence and comes to a conclusion of what happened, or what probably happened.

This is not applied by people that call "truthers" lunatics. Instead, those people, you included I assume, start with the answer - the twin towers were brought down by two airplanes, and, oh yeah, so was tower 7, even though no plane hit it - and then believe whatever theory supports that outcome.

That is not science, that is not the Scientific Method. That is you being told what happened basrd on theories of how it happened being manipulated and formulated to fit the proper outcome.

Every theory, even the official one, is conjecture based on no real examination of the hard evidemce, because all that evidence was immediately removed.

So to answer your question, I'm not sure what happened that day, but I'm curious. My curiosity led me to do research of the officail story from NIST. My trust in NIST quickly dissolved when I found out that they didn't test for explosive residue because theres was no evidence of explosions. That's a blatant lie. I have seen lots of video evidence of eIxplosions and witness reports of explosions on 911. NIST lied about that, how can I now trust anything they say when I know they are liars?

I believe NIST created their report to fit the narrative that 2 planes brought down 3 buildings. There's tons of evidence to support my belief, but most people are so emotionally tied to the official story that they are blinded to that evidence.

Evidence like Barry Jennings, who was trapped on the 8th floor of tower 7 by an explosion in tower 7 before any tower fell.

Nobody on this thread will refute this evidence. Most, save titan, will not even admit that it has any relevance at all because it challenges their core belief in the official story.

Let's ignore the physical reality of what happened (controlled demolition of WTC7) and use an emotional appeal as to SPECULATE why that building was brought down.

There are numerous ways to speculate as for the reason WTC7 was demolished - Maybe one of the planes was an intended target, it just never got to its destination. Maybe WTC7 was the base of operations for 9/11 itself, and they needed all evidence to be destroyed. Either could explain WHY it also needed to be brought down, but again, it's speculation. It's irrelevant to the physical impossibility that WTC7 was brought down in a manner that wasn't a controlled demolition

It's good to know that the government has fooled everyone into believing it's so incompetent that specialized missions like this could never take place. Pre-condition the populace by lumping in "crazy lunatic conspiracy theories" all together, thus allowing the brainwashed public to simply go along with a deceptive narrative that is a physical impossibility.

titan said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

I am not sure what the significance of that would be. I think you are seeing a portion that was not visible before some of the fall apart got further, and is in fact behind or previously occulted by what still standing, but you see as it begins to `go'.

---

Where does the 10 story spire go? Does it fall almost straight dpwn into a huge hole? There is no force above it pushing it down. What is the dust forming and growing around it as it falls?

---

In forensic analysis terms, our visual evidence is insufficient to be conclusive. Ther is no grounds for presuming a hole, or even that it continued to fall straight down. At last look its leaning left. I bet the uncropped version likely around may show that at least.

The dust forming "base surge" could be from the ongoing fall of the prior part of WTC-1 itself --- still falling debris (alot of it even in his video is photographed) can easily be generating that. If you are saying that base surge is a direct product of the remant falling only, would respectfully disagree. It has too many possible sources all out of sight at street level because of the vast scale of these structures..

---

Re-watching, the remnant itself behaves with a `stop' for a beat then starts to go back down. So something is being removed below it, then it resumes. It might be interesting to figure out if the remnant is at one of the three block joins (to coin a term for the building parts)

AggiEE said:

---

Let's ignore the physical reality of what happened (controlled demolition of WTC7) and use an emotional appeal as to SPECULATE why that building was brought down.

There are numerous ways to speculate as for the reason WTC7 was demolished - Maybe one of the planes was an intended target, it just never got to its destination. Maybe WTC7 was the base of operations for 9/11 itself, and they needed all evidence to be destroyed. Either could explain WHY it also needed to be brought down, but again, it's speculation. It's irrelevant to the physical impossibility that WTC7 was brought down in a manner that wasn't a controlled demolition

It's good to know that the government has fooled everyone into believing it's so incompetent that specialized missions like this could never take place. Pre-condition the populace by lumping in "crazy lunatic conspiracy theories" all together, thus allowing the brainwashed public to simply go along with a deceptive narrative.

---

It is important that your theory actually fits with known fact. When I theorize that Al Qaeda planned and executed the hijacking of four passenger planes with the intent to crash them into U.S. landmarks, I am offering a theory that is backed by known facts. Your theory is unmoored - literally and figuratively. You don't have a shred of evidence that a single person in the government helped plan 9-11 yet that becomes the crux of your theory. The fact you don't realize how silly you look is itself a testament to your inability to logically reason.

snowdog90 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

A 707 (basically, the same cabin cross section as a 737 but longer and with 4 jet engines) flying at landing approach speed (well under 200 mph) with not even close to the amount of jet fuel. Yeah, not the same, buddy.

85 tons of mostly aluminum in those jets. What do you suppose any molten metal is?

No, you want to believe the Rube Goldbergish, Bond villainesque, incredibly complicated and logically deficient theory that explosives were added to bring all 3 buildings down.

---

85 tons of aluminum you say? Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows.

The jet fuel is mostly burned up in the initial blast but then quickly becomes oxygen starved.

The molten metal was on the steel columns glowing red like lava (molten aluminum doesn't resemble that), it was not molten aluminum.

I choose to believe the designers of the WTC who compared a plane hitting them to a mosquito slamming into a massive 3D web of immense structure.

---

Have asked this to most of the conspiracy lunatics on this site and can never seem to get an answer - what, exactly, is your theory of what happened that day?

---

Yes, namecalling, so helpful. I'll be your lunatic.

911 was a crime. Unlike most crimes, the culprits, Osama bin Laden and the 19 hijackers, were tried and convicted the day of the crime, with no investigation. That seems odd. Osama bin Laden denied he did it, by the way.

In an investigation, one looks at evidence and comes to a conclusion of what happened, or what probably happened.

This is not applied by people that call "truthers" lunatics. Instead, those people, you included I assume, start with the answer - the twin towers were brought down by two airplanes, and, oh yeah, so was tower 7, even though no plane hit it - and then believe whatever theory supports that outcome.

That is not science, that is not the Scientific Method. That is you being told what happened basrd on theories of how it happened being manipulated and formulated to fit the proper outcome.

Every theory, even the official one, is conjecture based on no real examination of the hard evidemce, because all that evidence was immediately removed.

So to answer your question, I'm not sure what happened that day, but I'm curious. My curiosity led me to do research of the officail story from NIST. My trust in NIST quickly dissolved when I found out that they didn't test for explosive residue because theres was no evidence of explosions. That's a blatant lie. I have seen lots of video evidence of eIxplosions and witness reports of explosions on 911. NIST lied about that, how can I now trust anything they say when I know they are liars?

I believe NIST created their report to fit the narrative that 2 planes brought down 3 buildings. There's tons of evidence to support my belief, but most people are so emotionally tied to the official story that they are blinded to that evidence.

Evidence like Barry Jennings, who was trapped on the 8th floor of tower 7 by an explosion in tower 7 before any tower fell.

Nobody on this thread will refute this evidence. Most, save titan, will not even admit that it has any relevance at all because it challenges their core belief in the official story.

---

Again, what do you think happened? The problem with the allegedly enlightened, "just asking questions" nutjobs is that any alternate theory is so insanely unrealistic that it makes any of the questions they are asking completely pointless. Which is why they will never propose an alternate theory of what happened.

Do you think the government blew up the buildings? Do you think the hijackers were undercover cia agents? Aliens? At least offer something up.

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Let's ignore the physical reality of what happened (controlled demolition of WTC7) and use an emotional appeal as to SPECULATE why that building was brought down.

There are numerous ways to speculate as for the reason WTC7 was demolished - Maybe one of the planes was an intended target, it just never got to its destination. Maybe WTC7 was the base of operations for 9/11 itself, and they needed all evidence to be destroyed. Either could explain WHY it also needed to be brought down, but again, it's speculation. It's irrelevant to the physical impossibility that WTC7 was brought down in a manner that wasn't a controlled demolition

It's good to know that the government has fooled everyone into believing it's so incompetent that specialized missions like this could never take place. Pre-condition the populace by lumping in "crazy lunatic conspiracy theories" all together, thus allowing the brainwashed public to simply go along with a deceptive narrative.

---

It is important that your theory actually fits with known fact. When I theorize that Al Qaeda planned and executed the hijacking of four passenger planes with the intent to crash them into U.S. landmarks, I am offering a theory that is backed by known facts. Your theory is unmoored - literally and figuratively. You don't have a shred of evidence that a single person in the government helped plan 9-11 yet that becomes the crux of your theory. The fact you don't realize how silly you look is itself a testament to your inability to logically reason.

---

The evidence is the controlled demolition of WTC7. There is simply no other explanation.

Your evidence is....a passport of mohammed atta that supposedly magically survived the attack and landed on the street. That sounds like conspiracy theory lunacy.

AggiEE said:

---

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

Let's ignore the physical reality of what happened (controlled demolition of WTC7) and use an emotional appeal as to SPECULATE why that building was brought down.

There are numerous ways to speculate as for the reason WTC7 was demolished - Maybe one of the planes was an intended target, it just never got to its destination. Maybe WTC7 was the base of operations for 9/11 itself, and they needed all evidence to be destroyed. Either could explain WHY it also needed to be brought down, but again, it's speculation. It's irrelevant to the physical impossibility that WTC7 was brought down in a manner that wasn't a controlled demolition

It's good to know that the government has fooled everyone into believing it's so incompetent that specialized missions like this could never take place. Pre-condition the populace by lumping in "crazy lunatic conspiracy theories" all together, thus allowing the brainwashed public to simply go along with a deceptive narrative.

---

It is important that your theory actually fits with known fact. When I theorize that Al Qaeda planned and executed the hijacking of four passenger planes with the intent to crash them into U.S. landmarks, I am offering a theory that is backed by known facts. Your theory is unmoored - literally and figuratively. You don't have a shred of evidence that a single person in the government helped plan 9-11 yet that becomes the crux of your theory. The fact you don't realize how silly you look is itself a testament to your inability to logically reason.

---

The evidence is the controlled demolition of WTC7. There is simply no other explanation.

Your evidence is....a passport of mohammed atta that supposedly magically survived the attack and landed on the street. That sounds like conspiracy theory lunacy.

---

Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.

Yes need that alternate theory.

For an example to illustrate, I will say where are at so far and throw this out there.

As said a few pages back I think this may be like what Gerry Spence said about the OJ trial: "They framed a guilty man." The sheer absurdity of it tells the story but fits sort of what you saw. The contradictions.

I believe the hijackers launched 9/11 and brought down the Twin Towers.

I am now inclined to believe that for one reason or another, building 7 was ordered destroyed. You don't have to know why to first establish that the evidence best fits a demolition from what everyone is sayng and what the films show. If it means the building was built with a self-destruct always in place, it may mean even that. Ever since learning it was a HQ this is no longer so far fetched. In any case it doesn't matter. Its hard to deny that all the clues if this event had happened on any other day and in another city would have pointed to demolition.

The Pentagon hit has some strange aspects--it almost looks like aimed to take out Rumsfeld's section of the building. Remember him talking about climbing over ruined desks and such. But that's not here or there---just that course circling around always seemed strange. This depends though, on if the recall it was his area was true. It could be a random impact point resulting from descent.

Quote:

---

Osama bin Laden denied he did it, by the way.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

Quote:

---

On October 29, 2004, at 21:00 UTC, Al Jazeera broadcast excerpts allegedly from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States; in this video, he accepts responsibility for the September 11 attacks, condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks, and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. News analysts speculated that the release of the video was timed to influence the 2004 U.S. presidential election, which would take place four days later.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11

Quote:

---

As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.

[Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers _ called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism ...

We had agreed with [the September 11] overall commander, Mohammed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration take notice.

-Osama Bin Laden

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

Late to the party, did the 4 year U of A Fairbanks study of WTC 7 make into the discussion?

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Quote:

---

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.

---

After everything we've seen, it's really amazing that so many people still believe the US government is a force for good. Bless your hearts.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Osama bin Laden denied he did it, by the way.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

Quote:

---

On October 29, 2004, at 21:00 UTC, Al Jazeera broadcast excerpts allegedly from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States; in this video, he accepts responsibility for the September 11 attacks, condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks, and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. News analysts speculated that the release of the video was timed to influence the 2004 U.S. presidential election, which would take place four days later.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11

Quote:

---

As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.

[Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers _ called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism ...

We had agreed with [the September 11] overall commander, Mohammed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration take notice.

-Osama Bin Laden

---

---

Canyon,
There is even an earlier instance. Nearly as certain as can be that about a month later- Nov 8th 2001 (don't know if it was our date or local date there) Osama gave an interview to a guy who had made the trek on foot to his HQ (was he from Al-Jazeera? Don't recall) and even as early as that it was finally affirmed. Had been waiting for it since 9/11 a specific statement -- more because wanted to know why the date was chosen. That still remains unanswered as far as I know.

titan said:

---

titan said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

titan said:

---

I am not sure what the significance of that would be. I think you are seeing a portion that was not visible before some of the fall apart got further, and is in fact behind or previously occulted by what still standing, but you see as it begins to `go'.

---

Where does the 10 story spire go? Does it fall almost straight dpwn into a huge hole? There is no force above it pushing it down. What is the dust forming and growing around it as it falls?

---

In forensic analysis terms, our visual evidence is insufficient to be conclusive. Ther is no grounds for presuming a hole, or even that it continued to fall straight down. At last look its leaning left. I bet the uncropped version likely around may show that at least.

The dust forming "base surge" could be from the ongoing fall of the prior part of WTC-1 itself --- still falling debris (alot of it even in his video is photographed) can easily be generating that. If you are saying that base surge is a direct product of the remant falling only, would respectfully disagree. It has too many possible sources all out of sight at street level because of the vast scale of these structures..

---

Re-watching, the remnant itself behaves with a `stop' for a beat then starts to go back down. So something is being removed below it, then it resumes. It might be interesting to figure out if the remnant is at one of the three block joins (to coin a term for the building parts)

---

To me, what I see, is that that spire dissipates, turns into dust. Not possible, I know, but that's what I see. There are videos that better show this happening, I'll try to look for them.

Disclaimer: the woman that brought this phenomena or theory to light is the "crazy lunatic" Judy Wood. She was a professor of Mechanical Engineering in Virginia when she started researching 911. She has since been basically "canceled" because of her controversial beliefs and findings. I'm not inclined to necessarily believe what she does, but her evidence is fascinating and unique.

Again, thanks for your open-mindedness and your openness to at least entertain tese questions.

Do you have any conclusion on Barry Jennings and tower 7?

i'm no engineer, but i know that you can get a hell of a lot hotter fire in a brick oven or a steel smoker, than you can with a campfire on the ground with the same amount of fuel. All this arguing about the fire not being hot enough is BS.

Also, the "explosions" on the towers are the windows being blown out by the air pressure from the falling building. You don't demo a building from the top down, you do it from the bottom up.

I don't think that spine/spire "disappears" --the video ends. I think a longer version would show it subside to the left and down out of sight behind the rising base surge.

Quote:

---

Again, thanks for your open-mindedness and your openness to at least entertain tese questions.

Do you have any conclusion on Barry Jennings and tower 7?

---

It is what I do. I agree with the approach first see what the evidence says. Then figure out how it might have occurred or what is ruled out.

Yes, on Tower 7 -- maybe you hadn't seen the above yet: My conclusion is WTC-Builing No.7 was dropped deliberately, or at least caused to fall by some kind demolition is a conclusion that is at the moment actually the best answer regardless of the knots it introduces. Two things can be true, like the Gerry Spence quote.

Addendum: This is looking at Building 7 in the context of the evidence presented, including things like the fires having waned. A deeper dive might change this. Another way to look at it is to imagine in a different city and context, but keep a building collapsing adjacent to it to keep all identical. See what you would conclude.

I'm in awe this has gone to 14 pages.

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweight construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

willtackleforfood said:

---

Late to the party, did the 4 year U of A Fairbanks study of WTC 7 make into the discussion?

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Quote:

---

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.

---

After everything we've seen, it's really amazing that so many people still believe the US government is a force for good. Bless your hearts.

---

Thanks for posting this, hadn't seen it before. Very fascinating.

Here's some videos from the lead researchers

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Osama bin Laden denied he did it, by the way.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

Quote:

---

On October 29, 2004, at 21:00 UTC, Al Jazeera broadcast excerpts allegedly from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States; in this video, he accepts responsibility for the September 11 attacks, condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks, and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. News analysts speculated that the release of the video was timed to influence the 2004 U.S. presidential election, which would take place four days later.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11

Quote:

---

As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.

[Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers _ called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism ...

We had agreed with [the September 11] overall commander, Mohammed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration take notice.

-Osama Bin Laden

---

---

Here are several links that contend he denied involvement. Who to believe?

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/09/11/osama-bin-laden-consistently-denied-any-responsibility-for-9-11/

http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html



http://salem-news.com/articles/january072013/bin-laden-interview.php

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

New World Ag said:

---

A 707 (basically, the same cabin cross section as a 737 but longer and with 4 jet engines) flying at landing approach speed (well under 200 mph) with not even close to the amount of jet fuel. Yeah, not the same, buddy.

85 tons of mostly aluminum in those jets. What do you suppose any molten metal is?

No, you want to believe the Rube Goldbergish, Bond villainesque, incredibly complicated and logically deficient theory that explosives were added to bring all 3 buildings down.

---

85 tons of aluminum you say? Both towers were built out of steel frames, glass, and concrete slabs on steel truss joists. A single tower consists of 90,000,000 kg (100,000 tons) of steel, 160,000 cubic meters (212,500 cubic yards) of concrete and 21,800 windows.

The jet fuel is mostly burned up in the initial blast but then quickly becomes oxygen starved.

The molten metal was on the steel columns glowing red like lava (molten aluminum doesn't resemble that), it was not molten aluminum.

I choose to believe the designers of the WTC who compared a plane hitting them to a mosquito slamming into a massive 3D web of immense structure.

---

Have asked this to most of the conspiracy lunatics on this site and can never seem to get an answer - what, exactly, is your theory of what happened that day?

---

Yes, namecalling, so helpful. I'll be your lunatic.

911 was a crime. Unlike most crimes, the culprits, Osama bin Laden and the 19 hijackers, were tried and convicted the day of the crime, with no investigation. That seems odd. Osama bin Laden denied he did it, by the way.

In an investigation, one looks at evidence and comes to a conclusion of what happened, or what probably happened.

This is not applied by people that call "truthers" lunatics. Instead, those people, you included I assume, start with the answer - the twin towers were brought down by two airplanes, and, oh yeah, so was tower 7, even though no plane hit it - and then believe whatever theory supports that outcome.

That is not science, that is not the Scientific Method. That is you being told what happened basrd on theories of how it happened being manipulated and formulated to fit the proper outcome.

Every theory, even the official one, is conjecture based on no real examination of the hard evidemce, because all that evidence was immediately removed.

So to answer your question, I'm not sure what happened that day, but I'm curious. My curiosity led me to do research of the officail story from NIST. My trust in NIST quickly dissolved when I found out that they didn't test for explosive residue because theres was no evidence of explosions. That's a blatant lie. I have seen lots of video evidence of eIxplosions and witness reports of explosions on 911. NIST lied about that, how can I now trust anything they say when I know they are liars?

I believe NIST created their report to fit the narrative that 2 planes brought down 3 buildings. There's tons of evidence to support my belief, but most people are so emotionally tied to the official story that they are blinded to that evidence.

Evidence like Barry Jennings, who was trapped on the 8th floor of tower 7 by an explosion in tower 7 before any tower fell.

Nobody on this thread will refute this evidence. Most, save titan, will not even admit that it has any relevance at all because it challenges their core belief in the official story.

---

Again, what do you think happened? The problem with the allegedly enlightened, "just asking questions" nutjobs is that any alternate theory is so insanely unrealistic that it makes any of the questions they are asking completely pointless. Which is why they will never propose an alternate theory of what happened.

Do you think the government blew up the buildings? Do you think the hijackers were undercover cia agents? Aliens? At least offer something up.

---

Some guy just theorized that 9-11 was planned in WTC 7 so the planners wanted to make sure to destroy it. He wasn't kidding. This is why I love asking their specific "who, what, and why". The results are hilarious.

"Planner 1: Okay, the plan is complete but for one detail. We have planned this attack on the United States in a building next door to the very buildings we plan to destroy. Why you ask? It is convenient and the rent is reasonable. Stan's mom is staying in his basement so it wasn't available and my wife and I are having marriage problems so I didn't want to add any more stress. Besides, what better place to plan an attack on the World Trade Center than the building next door to the World Trade Center. But now we have to destroy all the evidence of our planning because I don't want to take all these maps off the wall or empty out those file cabinets. That's too much work. Instead, let's surreptitiously wire the building for demolition and then, after our successful attack on the Twin Towers, bring down this whole building.

Planner 2: Maybe we should have just planned this whole thing in a secure government building. Or, better yet, in the building we are going to destroy anyway.

Planner 1: You are trying to make this too simple. Occam's razor my friend. People will look for the simplest explanation of events to determine what happened on 9-11. We will confuse them by implementing a plan unbelievably stupid in its conception, pointlessly ornate, detailed, and excessive in its particulars, but flawless in its execution, with no concrete evidence left behind and tens of thousands keeping their roles a secret forever."

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

willtackleforfood said:

---

Late to the party, did the 4 year U of A Fairbanks study of WTC 7 make into the discussion?

A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Quote:

---

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.

---

After everything we've seen, it's really amazing that so many people still believe the US government is a force for good. Bless your hearts.

---

Interesting. That study you post adds a stronger dimension and just reinforces the conclusion above. It even pulls punches but basically says the NIST report cannot be right, and that the evidence of global simultaneous failure is massive. They even avoid stating what does create that. But its pretty clear.

When saw the NIST report put a particular column 79 and floor 12 as the main point, it didn't add up. We have even seen the resent experience of the Florida high-rise what a local failure will do---it will trigger incremental collapse that expands and magnifies. Even if it somehow brings it all down, it wont' freefall at once. At least that is where the preponderence of clues point.

snowdog90 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Quote:

---

Osama bin Laden denied he did it, by the way.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

Quote:

---

On October 29, 2004, at 21:00 UTC, Al Jazeera broadcast excerpts allegedly from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States; in this video, he accepts responsibility for the September 11 attacks, condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks, and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. News analysts speculated that the release of the video was timed to influence the 2004 U.S. presidential election, which would take place four days later.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/oct/30/alqaida.september11

Quote:

---

As I watched the destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me punish the unjust the same way [and] to destroy towers in America so it could taste some of what we are tasting and to stop killing our children and women.

We had no difficulty in dealing with Bush and his administration because they resemble the regimes in our countries, half of which are ruled by the military and the other half by the sons of kings ... They have a lot of pride, arrogance, greed and thievery.

[Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers _ called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism ...

We had agreed with [the September 11] overall commander, Mohammed Atta, may God rest his soul, to carry out all operations in 20 minutes before Bush and his administration take notice.

-Osama Bin Laden

---

---

Here are several links that contend he denied involvement. Who to believe?

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/09/11/osama-bin-laden-consistently-denied-any-responsibility-for-9-11/

http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html



http://salem-news.com/articles/january072013/bin-laden-interview.php

---

Well, there's the video that Bin Laden made himself accepting responsibility. So that seems important. But sure, believe a couple other random internet sources.

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

In case you missed the question:

Quote:

---

Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.

---

titan said:

---

I don't think that spine/spire "disappears" --the video ends. I think a longer version would show it subside to the left and down out of sight behind the rising base surge.

Quote:

---

Again, thanks for your open-mindedness and your openness to at least entertain tese questions.

Do you have any conclusion on Barry Jennings and tower 7?

---

It is what I do. I agree with the approach first see what the evidence says. Then figure out how it might have occurred or what is ruled out.

Yes, on Tower 7 -- maybe you hadn't seen the above yet: My conclusion is WTC-Builing No.7 was dropped deliberately, or at least caused to fall by some kind demolition is a conclusion that is at the moment actually the best answer regardless of the knots it introduces. Two things can be true, like the Gerry Spence quote.

Addendum: This is looking at Building 7 in the context of the evidence presented, including things like the fires having waned. A deeper dive might change this. Another way to look at it is to imagine in a different city and context, but keep a building collapsing adjacent to it to keep all identical. See what you would conclude.

---

Thanks. So you are now currently a truther, at least on tower 7. Welcome to the club!!

I'll try to find other video showing that spire. It's pretty interesting.

Quote:

---

Here are several links that contend he denied involvement. Who to believe?

---

Every intelligence service on earth, and his repeated statements after the initial heat of 9/11 died down

I am not a Truther. What you could say is that the video evdience and especially the report willtackleforfood posted with such precise comment rebuttals makes me a `a skeptic of the NIST report version regarding WTC-7'.

World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) University of Alaska Fairbanks (uaf.edu)

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

In case you missed the question:

Quote:

---

Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.

---

---

Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.

I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

In case you missed the question:

Quote:

---

Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.

---

---

Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.

I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.

---

Oh, now I see. Great theory.

BUSH: I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!

If an inside job to justify Mid East military action, why was it not exposed by the Obama admin once he had full control of the three letter agencies? What a way to knee cap his adversaries. He could have pinned that on either bush, Cheney, or the then Republican oriented military industrial complex.

titan said:

---

I am not a Truther. What you could say is that the video evdience and especially the report willtackleforfood posted with such precise comment rebuttals makes me a `a skeptic of the NIST report version regarding WTC-7'.

World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7) University of Alaska Fairbanks (uaf.edu)

---

I was joking about being a truther. No worries.

RWWilson said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

double aught said:

---

Uncontrolled fire that weakened the strength of steel brought that building down. As an engineer, this logic should not escape you.

---

As an engineer, you should know that buildings and structures are designed to be extremely conservative in their ability to withstand even extremely remote and rare occurrences.

Uncontrolled fires are something an engineer would design for. That alone may cause significant damage to the building, but it would not compromise the entire steel loadbearing structures unless of course you manage to completely compromise every single one of them through very high temperatures not seen with normal fires or explosions.

---

They don't design for uncontrolled fire. They design to meet fire codes (and usually nothing more, to save money). Those codes have become less strict over the decades with the advent of lightweights construction. Those codes account for sprinklers and fire departments. Neither were available that day.

The twin towers themselves are an example. Spray on foam insulation for steel beams is a type of fire protection. However it's inferior to steel that is encased in Sheetrock or concrete. So no, if they wanted to design for uncontrolled fire, they would've encased the steel instead of going with the cheaper, easier option.

Fire brought down all three of those towers.

---

Of course they design for uncontrolled fire. They are designed with fireproofing. They choose steel because it has such a great ability to withstand high temperatures that would be exhibited in an office type setting with office type causes.

However, they do not design the structure for things that would be unlikely to be encountered - direct explosives or thermitic materials that exceed the melting point of steel, things you would not expect to find in an office building.

If fire brought down the buildings, what caused the steel of EVERY SINGLE loadbearing structure, of which there are 100,000 tons in each of the twin towers, to ALL completely be compromised by oxygen starved jet fuel fires that wouldn't reach anywhere near the temps required to bend, let alone melt, steel?

---

In case you missed the question:

Quote:

---

Still waiting for your theory of what actually happened that day.

---

---

Everyone wants to know a theory on what happened under a shroud of secrecy, yet wants to ignore all the obvious physical evidence of what we know to be true because we were made to witness it in clear view.

I've already explained my theory. If we start from the idea that this was a controlled demolition, then it logically follows that it was an inside job. Planes were flown into the buildings, and then explosive nano thermite was used to bring them down under the appearance of a terrorist attack. This was used to catalyze massive government expansion and public/foreign sympathy for wars in the middle east. As for the many thousands of details, they are unknown. I cannot tell you who ordered and orchestrated this. I cannot tell you how it was logistically planned. Those are all details that would be uncovered if we had a truthful investigation and the American public had raised their pitchforks in arms against portions of a corrupt government.

---

Oh, now I see. Great theory.

BUSH: I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything!

---

I never said Bush or Rumsfeld were involved