9/11 Theories: “Fell Into Its Own Footprint”

The twin towers did not fall into their own footprints and neither did WTC7. This is not a matter of opinion, but a stone-cold fact…and I like facts.

So what exactly does it mean for a building to fall into its own footprint? Well it’s a demolition term which describes creating an implosion to destroy a building so it does not damage other buildings surrounding it. Many truthers are fond of calling the destruction of the two towers implosions and claiming that the two buildings fell into their own footprint. Yet, in the same breath they will claim that it is impossible for much of the debris to be ejected out from the collapse without the aid of explosives. So which is it? An implosion or an explosion? Apparently it’s both, and when a person holds an irrational belief, accepting two contrary ideas is incredibly easy.

The following video shows just how much damage WTC1 and 2 did to surrounding buildings, including WTC7. It also has a good explanation (though slightly outdated, as its creator indicates) of WTC7’s collapse along with some spooky music.

The video does a good job of explaining WTC7’s collapse even though it is harder to explain and certainly misleading. We’ll address the controlled demolition theory more fully another time, for now let’s see if WTC7 fell straight down, onto its own footprint. Here is Richard Gage, a proponent of controlled demolition, with his take on its collapse:

Gage’s presentation certainly seems convincing. However, like many truther claims, they are misleading whether they are deliberate or not. The following video demolishes the myths of the collapses of the towers:

The video points that WTC7 did not fall into its own footprint because it damaged the Verizon building and 30 W Broadway. Also, if there were any explosions planted in WTC7, they were conspicuously quiet compared with other demolitions. Gage’s unwillingness to even address this issue is telling. Either he is ignorant of the damage that WTC7 did to surrounding buildings or he is willingly withholding that information during his presentations. Whatever the case it doesn’t help Gage’s credibility or the 9/11 truth movement.

Since many truthers have difficulty discerning the truth, I’ll do it for them. The truth is the twin towers and WTC7 did not fall into their own footprints and the sooner truthers realize this, the sooner a rational discussion can take place.

Advertisements

About curiousplumber88

Hello, I'm burgeoning writer, which means, in short, I'm an amateur hoping to make a living as an author. I am currently writing a novel(s) and hope to use this blog as a format to communicate with an audience and also to help, inspire, or just plain write. Everything you see on the site is in its first draft status, so it is all temporary and will undergo edits in the future. This is more a domain for me to share my writing and actually get some crucial feedback on my work. For those of you who to choose to read it, I sincerely hope you enjoy it.
This entry was posted in 9/11 and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to 9/11 Theories: “Fell Into Its Own Footprint”

  1. limey says:

    See also ‘free fall speed’ its a phrase that’s banded about a lot but is never followed with either an explanation of what that means or why a building that falls down because its supports have failed will be any different.

  2. Craig McKee says:

    You talk a lot about facts and logic but you seem to have no grasp of either. Of course the surrounding buildings were damaged by falling debris, and those who say the towers fell into their own footprint are misstating the case. But they didn’t exactly fall over sideways, did they? Despite 47 very thick steel girders in the core and another 236 around the perimeter of the buildings, they fell at NEAR free fall speed. That is, the building fell almost as fast as it would have if there hadn`t been any resistance below. You believe this was caused by fire? Let’s see that wonderful logic explain how that would happen…(http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com)

    • Well I’d like to mention that most of the steel core remained in tact while the building collapsed. It remained standing initially after the collapse as well, you can see it in videos. This could explain why the buildings fell fairly fast.

    • limey says:

      Craig,

      Are you saying that because the buildings fell down and not over that is proof of conspiracy? I don’t get the logic there. What possible reason could there be for the buildings to fall over from the damage that they sustained?

      As far as I can tell, the way they collapsed is very much consistent with the damage that they sustained.

  3. Craig McKee says:

    As to the first point above, it is clearly false the MOST of the steel core remained intact. As I said, there were 47 girders that ran up the centre of the building, and all of these were welded to each other. It is true that videos show some core columns staying up briefly after the building has fallen. But they very soon fall, too, and they fall straight down. What is it that severed these columns? The “pancake” theory is nonsense given the design of these buildings. Anyway, this theory asks us to believe that each floor gave way due to the weight above it in a chain reaction. If this had been true, the buildings would not have fallen at almost the speed you would see with absolutely no resistance. And there are photos that show the top of the first tower tilted noticeably as the collapse begins. If it isn’t falling straight, what’s applying weight to the floors below?
    As to the comment from Limey, please read what I wrote again. I never said what you suggested.

  4. limey says:

    Craig,

    I wasn’t sure what you meant by ‘But they didn’t exactly fall over sideways, did they?’ hence I asked the question I did. I’m still not sure what you mean by it.

    Re pancaking, I disagree with you. Pancaking does explain what happened, the weight of the many floors above crashing down will cause each floor below to fail in sequence as its hit, which is precisely what is seen in the videos of the building collapses. The squibs that are shown in the videos that are claimed to be explosives is the air between the floors being forced out the windows as the building above comes down. The weight will be such that each floor will fail instantly because there is simply no chance it could hold that weight, with the falling momentum it has. Hence the buildings fell ‘at almost the speed you would see with absolutely no resistance’.

    With regards to the tower which was hit nearer the top, where you can see in the videos that the top falls sideways slightly. While the top certainly did fall sideways and some of that material went right over the side (onto the top of building 7, causing massive structural damage and rupturing the fuel tanks which caught on fire) not all of that volume went over the side, there was enough left on top to start a pancake effect there too.

    • looncraz says:

      Pancaking alone doesn’t explain jack. The falling floors’ energy would have been absorbed and deflected, reducing energy and momentum within 10-20 floors.

      The problem was the UPWARD and TWISTING forces on the support columns. These forces put immense strain on the columns in a way they were never expected to endure.

      The outer facade of the building was also structural support, so piercing the facade weakened the structure. The plane impacts also did direct damage to the core columns. Due to the nature of steel, the impact energy was spread out over a large area, damaging and weakening the columns for many floors above and below.

      The impact side of the columns were weakened, while the other wise remained strong and were now expected to support the remaining weight – along with the remaining facade support. The facade was made of aluminum, which will eventually cleave under strain and vibration. A gust of wind routinely makes the buildings sway – and was the likely trigger. Thee outer facade gave way, and the upper floors fell towards the weakened side, pulling up on the stronger columns, breaking support joints for many floors below. The upper floors twisted as they fell into the path of least resistance. The floors below, with their weakened supports, fell under their own weight as well as the weight of the floors above.

      You now had an off-center mass twisting and pulling on the central columns even before the largest mass hit, weakening the floors at every junction where they had a weakness.

      Calling it a ‘pancake effect’ is inaccurate and incomplete. The more intelligent people who desire a more thorough explanation have never been given one and so become ‘conspiracy theorists’ since everyone just tried to shut them up from day one. Never mind that the questions simply started as: “That looked exactly like a demolition… how did that happen?” The response is rarely constructive.

      I’ve studied the evidence at length, and there are still many incongruities, but relying on the same old explanations obviously isn’t working. More was going on than meets the eye – and almost certainly all of it is as simple as the difference between pancaking theory and the pull & twist theory.

  5. Craig McKee says:

    I just meant that the buildings fell straight down through the path of most resistance. This means the column failure would have to be relatively uniform. In other words, the failure would have to happen to all the core columns at the same time. This simply would not happen.
    The pancake theory is crap. It does not explain the absolute pulverization of the concrete, and it does not explain how the steel columns all ended up in neat pieces in pile. The pancake theory would have left the core columns standing.
    The squibs are not an essential part of the demolition theory, but it is interesting that high-speed ejections of air and material occurred as far as 20 or 30 floors below where the collapse had reached. Air was pushed out way below but not immediately below?
    As to the material falling on to the top of Building 7, you’re kidding, right? I have NEVER heard anyone suggest this, and with good reason. There is no evidence that the top of Building 7 was seriously damaged. Calling the structural damage to this building “massive” is pure fantasy. Even the official story doesn’t contend this. And where do you get evidence that fuel tanks caught fire? And why would this bring the building down when fire has never brought down steel-framed structures before.
    This explanation completely lacks credibility.

  6. limey says:

    Craig,

    Yes, you are right, the top of building 7 didn’t receive much damage, I relied on my memory rather than checking the facts. Building 7 was hit by significant amounts of falling debris, very little of which was on top, it was the side facing the towers that took the hit and the damage.

    This page makes a pretty good job of describing the damage and showing the location of the fuel tanks which allowed a fire to burn for hours. There is no point in me repeating it all, you may as well read it as that’s what I would likely use as a source of any reply I give.

    Please do not use the argument ‘fire has never brought down steel-framed structures before’ it is false, I don’t know where that myth comes from but I see it bounded about a lot by people who don’t accept the official story of 9/11, see this link http://www.fpemag.com/archives/article.asp?issue_id=27&i=153 for examples of steel framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire.

    The NIST report on the collapse of building & is here: http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf no it does not use the word ‘massive’ to describe the damage, at least as far as I could tell. To be honest that’s not likely to be a word they would use, they’d more likely use the word significant, as that is a more appropriate word for that type of document and it is a word that is used in several places throughout to describe the structural damage to the building. Why the fuss about semantics? The document also describes the fuel system in the building, that it was damaged by the falling debris, the extent of the initial fires and approximations on the amount of fuel burnt on 9/11.

    Pancaking: We are going to fundamentally disagree again here, pancaking most certainly does explain pulverising concrete and uniform collapse. The reason being that once the pancake collapse starts the momentum of the weight above is simply too great for the floors underneath and all that stuff falls straight down, destroying everything between it and the ground, almost as if it wasn’t there. Concrete is a brittle substance and will simply crumble in those circumstances. Some people have been known to liken the effect to having a pile driver ramming something into the ground, such is the force.

    http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

    • Craig McKee says:

      Limey,
      I read the linked article about examples of fires collapsing steel-framed buildings. Did I miss something? The article studies a number of collapses, and it found six examples of steel buildings. Four of these were in the WTC. So that leaves two. They don’t say what those were but going by the photos they include, they have a different definition of collapse than I do. This sentence about the WTC on 9/11 is noteworthy: “As significant as these events were, they were also clearly not representative of the normal accidental impact of fire on building structures.
      They talk mostly about “multi-story” buildings, not steel buildings. Are there examples of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed right to the ground in a matter of seconds? Please point me to these examples.
      Why the fuss about semantics? Using the word massive when the damage is NOT massive is not semantics, it’s just wrong.
      You make so many statements as if they’re facts, without having to back them up. Example: “…once the pancake collapse starts the momentum of the weight above is simply too great for the floors underneath and all that stuff falls straight down, destroying everything between it and the ground, almost as if it wasn’t there.”
      Please point me to an article that gives examples of this. In fact, give me ONE example of a steel-framed building that collapsed straight down at near free fall speed because of fire.
      Oh yeah, your article makes the assumption that the WTC event “destroyed their fire protection systems.” How do they know this?

  7. limey says:

    Craig,

    Look up significant and massive in the dictionary, their definitions use similar terms, if you still disagree with my use of massive, fine, I’ll switch to using significant as that’s the word used by the report into the damage taken by WTC7 during the collapse of one of the towers.

    You stated no steel frames building had collapsed by fire, I show you its wrong, and now you want to tighten the definition to exclude some of those buildings. The words goalposts and moving come to mind. If you really want to get picky about the definition of steel framed building failing due to fire, how about excluding WTC1 and WTC2 based on the fact they were each hit by a passenger liner and WTC7 based on the fact it suffered significant frontal and structural damage prior to the fire starting.

    The reason the pancake collapse of the towers was so effective is due to the weight of the building above the failed steel beams. Its basic physics. If there had only been a couple of floors above the damage, its more likely the buildings would not have failed. Notice how the building that was hit lower down collapsed sooner, that’s because the damaged support columns were holding up more weight and so failed sooner.

    The reason they know the fire protection was blown off is because they found evidence of that on some of the steel recovered after the collapse.

  8. Craig McKee says:

    I’M SAYING THE DAMAGE WAS NEITHER MASSIVE NOR SIGNIFICANT! Holy cow.
    Once again, here’s my quote: “Are there examples of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed right to the ground in a matter of seconds? Please point me to these examples.”
    You seem unable to do this and, as usual, you distract by misrepresenting what I said. Try answering the above question.
    I wouldn’t try to give lessons in “basic physics” if I were you. You haven’t got a clue. Photos clearly show the top of the south tower leaning at more than 20 degrees after the beginning of the collapse. What’s applying the weight to collapse the building??? If you don’t believe me, Google south tower collapse images and it’s the first one.
    And you have no proof of what allegedly blew the fire protection off. I’m sure explosions couldn’t have done that….
    The truth is you don’t have proof of ANYTHING. NOT ONE THING. Your mindless parroting of the official conspiracy theory offers no useful insight into what happened.

  9. limey says:

    Craig,

    Please lets be more polite, I am sure curiousplumber does not want bickering, argument and insult all over his blog. For the sake of brevity I’ll answer just one point.

    Re that photo showing the top of the south tower leaning over. Its weight is still placed on the failing building underneath. The lean does not change that aspect, nothing else is suporting it, therefore the only place that weight can be applied to is what is trying to hold it up, which is the building underneath. If it had toppled over and fallen off, that might have stopped the collapse. However it didn’t, so the weight continued to be placed on the failing building below, driving it downwards.

  10. Craig McKee says:

    Yes, I’ll try to be more polite. It’s frustration. I don’t agree with your physics in this area either. If the tower is teetering to one side, then there has to be a gap between most of the top and what’s below. The tower didn’t collapse because of weight along one edge. If the collapse started because of structural failure on one side, or more on one side, it would have continued. The momentum would not have brought the top of the tower back in line without something else acting on the core columns. As it was, the building should not have gone straight down, and certainly not that fast.

  11. limey says:

    Hi Craig,

    To try and get a grip on what happened to the South Tower I have watched this video which shows the South Tower collapse from many angles. I didn’t listen to any of the audio so I have no idea what it is.

    I have the following observations, in the order in which they happened.
    1) When the collapse started the tip tilted along one edge of the building very noticably. At one point it looked like it was about to go all the way over.
    2) As the collapse continued the tilted top moved backwards into the building. Its an odd action which I don’t understand. I would like to read what an expert makes of that.
    3) The next thing I noticed is the outer shell bursting outwards. What this tells me is that there is immense pressure behind pushing it out.
    4) the gap between crumbling edge and the top of the top section appears to get smaller as the collapse gains momentum. I think its because the bottom of the top section is breaking up as it contacts with the rest of the building.
    5) Now comes a huge dust cloud which obliterates pretty much every view of the building, making further observation difficult.
    6) In a couple of the shots, there is a remnent of outer shell left standing after the rest of the building has past it by, then it falls over. I think this is on the opposite side to the edge where the top tilted over. This implies that the tilted top didn’t push down equally across the floor area.
    7) The dust cloud in 5 and bursting shell in 3 seem greater on the tilted side and less on the mentioned in 6. This would back up my unequal pressure suggestion in 6.
    8) Through the dust cloud there is at least one shot where a section of outer shell is thrown clear of the cloud. So despite the cloud obscuring the view, it is clear that immense force is still pushing sections of the outer shell outwards.
    9) by golly thats a fast collapse, and it does appear to accelerate as it progresses

    Can all of this rule out explosives? I would say so. The wierdest part for me is the odd action mentioned in 2. However, once that tilted top section falls back into the building I am utterly satisfied that the rest of the collapse is pure physics and requires no further help. The speed of the collapse reinforces for me the previous assertion that the weight of the top drove the rest of the building down almost as if it wasn’t there.

    * I tried to be brief, honest.

    • Nick Gray says:

      Just comparing what I see in the first video of this post and the 3rd video there were somethings I didnt get.

      WTC7 was damaged by WTC1&2 collapse. Like many other buildings. Comparing that to the first picture where the building was half gone. Yet it didnt collapse. Why did only WTC building collapse? Coincidence?

      In the third vid showing a very showy demolition. I am assuming that is in Las Vegas. They usually make quite a spectacle with that sort of thing. They wanted to compare the noise of both building yet the WTC sound was muted and the filming started after the building had already collapsed. If it had shown the moment before collapse to complete collapse I am sure you can hear the explosions as many eye witness accounts have said so and you can hear it on some videos on YouTube where the sound is not replaced with static.

      But why not just launch another investigation? Govt is not paying for it so why does it matter?

  12. elOnce says:

    Dear Mr. Limey,

    You point out 9 valid items that were anomalous in the demolition of one of the WTC towers. And then you come up with the following conclusion:

    “Can all of this rule out explosives? I would say so. … I am utterly satisfied that the rest of the collapse is pure physics and requires no further help.”

    Your comments about the tilted section falling back demonstrates an error in your understanding of about Newtonian physics. One of Newton’s laws says that once an object is in motion, it will stay in motion until some outside force acts upon it. Those upper floors tilting due to asymmetric failing support underneath and gaining angular momentum is believable. According to Newton’s laws, they should have continued to tip over and as a multi-story mass fallen outside the path of greatest resistance and creamed neighboring buildings.

    You imply that the top section stops its angular momentum and falls back into line to continue the destruction through the path of greatest resistance. Where did the energy come from to stop that momentum and achieve this?

    You talk about “immense pressure behind [the outer shell bursting outwards]”, yet can’t seem to rectify that if strictly Newtonian physics were at play, the energy needed for this observation combined with the energy used to arrest the angular momentum means that the collapse could not proceed at near gravitational acceleration.

    Moreover, it is known that the structure at any arbitrary height h will be stronger than the structure at any height greater than h. For the sake of discussion, if height h had n floors above it and given more Newton laws about equal and opposite forces, those top n floors could destroy themselves into n floors below height h. Not only should the collapse have stopped at 2n floors (if not before), but also the destruction of each floor should have slow the collapse of 2n floors as something that even lay-people, the 9/11 Commission, or NIST could not use the phrase “at free-fall speed” to describe.

    Additionally, when energy is consumed in pulverizing the mass of 2n floors and those crumbles of mass fall (or are ejected) outside the tower’s structure, that mass is no longer available to be used as a cohesive unit to destroy even more of the remaining tower.

    All bets are off if additional energy sources are added.

    When I observe the tilting upper n floors, I see its angular momentum being arrested due to the mass being turned to dust. The additional energy source that got (as you observed) “the outer shell bursting outwards” had spherical force lines that also acted on pulverizing the n floors above height h while it pulverized n floors below height h. The latter has been described as a collapse wave that was faster than gravitational acceleration.

    I contend that the additional energy source were several milli-nukes per tower, each designed with limited yield and targeted characteristics. Such low-yield devices (below 1-kton) are technically harder to design and implement, and are more likely to fizzle. Moreover, when used in sequence with other nukes, nuke fracticide can occur which leaves tell-tale unspent nuclear fuel fizzling around.

    Limey, your statement that “the rest of the collapse is pure physics” is really only true if nuclear physics is included in your definition of pure physics.

    Newtonian gravitational physics (which seems to be your premise) cannot explain the foundry-level hot fires that burned under the rubble for weeks; it cannot explain the disappearance / vaporization of building content and mass; it cannot the unique and anomalous damage to vehicles that were not in the path of falling and burning debris. Milli-nukes can. Look up what an electrical magnetic pulse (EMP) could do when it slipped out through the window slits of the towers.

    In fact, milli-nukes can explain not only the initial cover-up with the help of the media, but also why new conspirators (e.g., cheer-leaders) in leadership and media joined the OGCT after the fact to keep the cover-up in place. Public revelation of 9/11 being a nuclear event could, would, and should inspire some Thomas Jefferson rebellion towards the goal of establishing our govt anew. So it really does boil down to national security: as in, job security for those in leadership and its agencies.

    Proof of my contention.

    If Dr. Judy Woods website is good for nothing else (and few DEW conclusions), it has plenty of pictures of damage of vehicles to prove EMP.

    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted
    http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/moretoastedcars.html

    A reported 1400 vehicles were damaged on 9/11. These vehicles had peculiar patterns of damage and some were as far away as FDR Drive (about 7 blocks from the WTC, along the East River). Vehicles had missing door handles for example, windows blown out, window frames deformed, melted engine blocks, steel-belted tires with only the steel belts left, and vehicle front ends destroyed with little or no effect on the back end of the vehicles.

    In particular on the first link, look at the sequence starting with Figure toast2a to toast4. It shows a parking lot at some distance from the collapsing towers and the cloud of dust rolling in. Then it shows fires starting to burn in various vehicles, but not all vehicles and not paper or other non-metallic debris.

    By all means, give Dr. Judy Wood’s website a through exploring to observe the many pictures she amasses. Ignore her conclusions and the titles of pages of where the pictures are found; look for the nuggets of truth that are the pictorial evidence.

    Limey wrote: “The speed of the collapse reinforces for me the previous assertion that the weight of the top drove the rest of the building down almost as if it wasn’t there.”

    Here’s where I amend your statement.

    “The speed of the collapse was due to the weight of the top driving down, because the rest of the building (in terms of internal structure) in fact wasn’t there and was timed to be taken out mere milliseconds before the top drove through its space.”

    • limey says:

      elOnce,

      I pointed out 9 items that I, as a layman, considered important clues during a single viewing of the posted video, anomalous they most certainly are not.

      if you are goint to assertain that the top of the building should have gone over the side, then you need to explain why it didn’t. The simplest explanation is that the center of gravity of the top section did not move to a point where the only place to go was over the side. When the edge of the tower failed and started the initial tilt, did the columns on the opposite side also fail or was the top section still attached at that point? Effectively resisting the tile. What was the shape of the top section? This is important as it tells us where the center of gravity is. The fall back starts as the pancaking becomes obvious. This shows that the section of the buiding that the weight of the top part was resting on changed the dynamic of that tilt. There are too many variables in the dynamics of what happened there to be able to confidently say the top should have gone over.

      The fact that it didn’t go over proves that you are wrong.

      A building with lots of combusables in it and lots of flameable fuel in it will start fires when it collapses. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

      Between you and Craig we now have regular dynamite, thermite, nano thermite, milli nukes and EMP devices, all installed into the buidings, invisibly, to destroy the buildings to make it look as though they fell due to an aircraft impact.

      Wow!

  13. Craig McKee says:

    I find elOnce’s thesis very interesting and worth pursuing. It seems that some people – even those who believe 9/11 was an inside job – feel we should censor some subjects because they will bring disrepute upon the movement. I do not agree with this. I believe all avenues should be followed to get at the truth.
    I also agree with him that the top of the building – whether it tipped back or not – could not have driven the building down with equal pressure on all sides. tnd it would have had to to get the collapse we got.
    Also, we don’t know what happened to the top of the building because the dust cloud got so big with a second or two. It seems to have disintegrated before reaching the ground. Couldn’t explosives account for this? With the top of the building essentially intact at the outset of the collapse, shouldn’t most of it have been sitting on top of the rubble after the collapse?
    And in your last paragraph you use a really unfair tactic. You add together comments made by two different people and then attack that as if we constructed a scenario together that include all the explosives you listed. A bit of a cheap shot.

    • limey says:

      Craig,

      Your suggestion that equal pressure to the top is required in order to drive down the building, may sound intuitive and logical. I respectufuuly suggest that you take that claim to a structural engineer and ask for some input on that. I don’t think equal pressure is required at all. Its clear from the video I linked to in a post up there ^^^ that one edge failed first, hence the start of the tip. That’s not equal pressure.

      What exactly happened after that we may never know, but skilled people with knowledge of the design of the building will probably be able to speculate quite well. I imagine that once a number of the supports had failed and the collapse started, the remaining supports simply followed suit due to being pulled down by their attached neighbours.

      If the equal pressure suggestion was true, then the debris would have been more equally spread about with the tower at the center of the debris field. That is not the case, the debris went more to one side than the other.

      No the top section would not have been left standing on the debris pile. It would have broken up during the collapse as well. See my point 4 up there ^^^^

      Re my last paragraph. I would say its an entirely fair comment if both you and elOnce claim to be right in your suggestions. If one (or both) of you is wrong, then yes its a cheap shot and I’ll admit it and gladly apologise.

  14. Craig McKee says:

    I’d be happy to get an expert opinion on the point of the tipping top of the building. As for the debris, this was supposed to look like a collapse not a demolition. So where the debris fell isn’t critical; what’s critical is that it more or less went straight down through the path of most resistance.
    Re: that last paragraph again. Whether one of us is wrong isn’t the point. You added our beliefs together as if we had reached an agreement between us. We’re two separate people, so you can’t lump us together. I think elOnce’s comments are intelligent and worth looking at more closely. That’s all.

    • limey says:

      Craig,

      Re ‘path of most resistance’: You really need to think more about what you are saying there. The fall will only go the way gravity lets it. using the phrase ‘most resistance’ is utterly meaningless if there is no other possible way the collapse could have happened.

      Two separate people, yes, but both making claims about how the buildings collapsed. If you are both to be taken seriously, then both of your suggestions have to tally. While you think elOnce’s comments are intelligent and worthy of looking that, then his suggestions must remain in the equation, ditto your own. If the combination of the two does not fit the observed evidence and known facts then at least one of them has to be discarded as bunkum.

      Make your choice Craig, are they both valid or should one or both be discarded as fantasy?

  15. Craig McKee says:

    I really don’t understand your thinking process. Just because gravity pushes something down doesn’t mean it will fall straight down. If you balance a ski pole on the ground, gravity won’t make it collapse into itself, it will tip to one side. It will take the path of “least” resistance. When buildings are demolished, they fall straight down so they don’t damage nearby buildings. The explosives remove the resistance below, and so it again takes the path of least resistance. But the chances this would happen without explosives? If you think a massive steel core will just disintegrate under these conditions… let’s just say you

    Regarding this comment: “If you are both to be taken seriously, then both of your suggestions have to tally.” You can’t be serious about this. We’re two people and we have two views of what happened. Why do they have to tally? Maybe he’s right and I’m wrong. Maybe I’m right and he’s wrong. But we both agree that the event was an inside job. We just have different perspectives about the details. I have an open mind, so I’m willing to look at what he has to say. That doesn’t mean I’m dropping my own view.
    You don’t discard points of view just because there is more than one of them. You investigate. You test both theories. I’ve tested yours and it fails every test.

  16. limey says:

    last para first. Yes I am serious, that’s how scientific evidence works. Let me repeat. for you both to be right, both your suggestions have to be combined. There is no maybe about it, one of you is definitely wrong. I think you fully understand what I am saying, but are choosing to argue for the sake of it.

    Right I am going to very simplistic on this. The collapse happens because one floor falls onto another when the supporting trusses fail. The floor is horizontal to the ground and there is only one direction its going when the supports fail. Straight down. The trusses supporting the next floor then fail due to the extra load they are now carrying. This floor is also horizontal to the ground and when its supports fail it also falls straight down onto the floor below it. Then the next floor fails, and the next and you get the bang, bang, bang and a pancake collapse as witnessed by millions. You really do not need to invoke anything special in order to describe that.

    The outside shell of the building contains vertical elements, in a few places these can be seem falling away from the building. Which is understandable because they are now no longer supported by anything and will conform to your ski pole analogy.

    You’ve not applied any serious scientific methodology to this at all Craig, because if you had, you would have been able to produce decent descriptions of why I am wrong. You have stated the official description is wrong on more than one occasion, like its a mantra, but you have not produced any description of why that could possibly be true.

  17. Craig McKee says:

    My final word on this: I never said we were both right. I simply said that our opinions shouldn’t be combined. I am saying there were explosives in the building. I’m not saying I know what kind. Traces of thermite have been found in the dust. I don’t know if that means thermite was used to bring the building down. I just know that jet fuel didn’t burn under the rubble for three months. elOnce favors the nuke explanation. I’ve just become aware of this possibility, and I’m willing to look at the evidence. That’s how you discover things – by having an open mind. We agree that some type of explosive device was placed in the buildings to bring them down. What method was used is secondary to me.
    Your method of debating is impossible to respond to. You say I haven’t produced any proof that demolition was involved, just a theory. You haven’t produced any proof that fire could bring the building down. Try applying the same standard to your own arguments that you apply to mine.

  18. limey says:

    You’re right jet fuel didn’t burn under ground for 3 months, I doubt there was enough of it to burn that long. The consumables in the buildings are what burnt underground for 3 months.

    Fire brought the buildings down by heating the steel to its point of failure. Some critical steel components had their fire proofing blown off or seriously damaged during the initial impacts. This was ultimately the fatal blow to each building.

    Once the steel had reached the temperature that causes it to fail, it failed, bringing down the buildings in the way described. Steel does not need to be molten in order to fail, it only needs to be very hot.

    The reason steel has fire proofing in the first place is because an office fire is capable of heating it to the point of failure. Otherwise what would be the point of putting fire proofing on the steel in buildings?

    Its a simple explanation Craig, which is detailed much more thoroughly in the official report so there is no point in me repeating its content.

    You can object to the facts all you want, but it won’t change the truth. The truth is, the simplest explanation is the one that fits.

    All the conspiracy theories do is add extra layers of complexity, which only serves to increase confusion.

  19. Craig McKee says:

    Sorry, but the idea that carpets and desks burned hot enough to melt steel is preposterous. You might as well admit you have no explanation for this “anomaly.”
    Office fires have never caused steel-framed buildings to completely collapse before. Why not? There have been much bigger fires in buildings less solidly built.
    And a key point you overlook. All the steel column were welded together so the heat would have been spread across the whole network of columns. It would not accumulate in one spot.
    The only thing that makes your theory the simplest is that it’s the one already believed by the media. If you had to defend your theory from scratch, it would no longer be the simplest.

  20. elonce says:

    Dear Mr. Limey,

    My apologies for not replying sooner. I had set up some new email filters and wasn’t yet in the habit of checking them.

    Either your rhetoric exceeds your understanding of physics, or your case is so weak that you have to resort to truly lame tactics, like combining Mr. McKee and me. All of your postings contain errors. And they aren’t just simple ones. They are gigantic ones that take on the aura of religious (or football) fanaticism that I will clearly never change your mind on. So I will keep this brief. You wrote:

    The consumables in the buildings are what burnt underground for 3 months. Fire brought the buildings down by heating the steel to its point of failure. Some critical steel components had their fire proofing blown off or seriously damaged during the initial impacts. This was ultimately the fatal blow to each building.

    The consumables in the building even in the best conditions (like having oxygen forced in and not being smothered underground) do not have the capacity to burn for underground for 3 months. They also do not have the capacity to heat steel to its point of failure under ideal conditions, let alone in the relatively short period of time they burned before the buildings were imploded.

    if you are goint to assertain that the top of the building should have gone over the side, then you need to explain why it didn’t. … The fact that it didn’t go over proves that you are wrong.

    I did explain. You just don’t want to understand on purpose. The fact that the building didn’t topple over the side doesn’t prove me wrong; it proves you wrong who contented it “pure physics” that explained it, whereby I assume you meant Newtonian physics. My point was that energy was added which pulverized the top part of the tower and arrested any angular momentum it had generated.

    Between you and Craig we now have regular dynamite, thermite, nano thermite, milli nukes and EMP devices, all installed into the buidings, invisibly, to destroy the buildings to make it look as though they fell due to an aircraft impact.

    Now if you had faithfully followed the discussion, you would know that there was no such EMP device given in my discussion. EMP, pulverization of building structure & content, vaporization of humans, and underground foundry-hot fires were all the results of milli-nukes. Thermite and nano-thermite are thrown around interchangeable, but you should take them to be the same thing and do not have to be mutual exclusive with any other mechanism.

    As for dynamite, it probably was not used but could have been used and would have made more sense than anything you’ve written. Did they test for dynamite? Plutonium? Or any other accelerants? No. They were so convinced — like is was an order from their general above — that planes did it, NIST concluded this and worked backwards with juked simulations until they overdrove its parameters enough to get it.

  21. limey says:

    Craig,

    There was no molten steel in the rubble pile. All the photos of recovered steel show intact steel that still maintains its shape. Therefore it could not have become molten.

    Some very hot steel, yes, molten, absolutely not.

    Can you show me an office fire in a steel framed building where the fire is directly heating bare steel which has had its fire proofing removed?

    Re heat dissipation; yes, some heat will radiate away from the primary heat source but by no means enough to stop the directly heated section from getting significantly hotter than its surroundings. Steel beams as used in construction simply do not have the conductive capability that you are suggesting.

    You could even try this yourself. Get a steel bar and stick one end in a fire until its red hot. You’ll notice that the end sticking out of the fire will not be the same temperature.

  22. limey says:

    elonce,

    There is no need to apologise to me, this is not my blog. I just happen to agree with the curiousplumber that the conspiracy theories surrounding the WTC collapse are utter bunkum.

    Its funny you should accuse me of fanaticism, because that’s exactly how I view the conspiracy touts. I prefer to suggest that I am using logic and reason to explain why the towers fell the way they did.

    In your first post you said “Look up what an electrical magnetic pulse (EMP) could do when it slipped out through the window slits of the towers”, now you deny any suggestion of an EMP device. Your assertations are confusing, you are going to have to be more specific about what you claim brought down those buildings.

    You cliam dynamite was probably not used, many people, including Craig, say it was. If you expect your suggestion of a conspiracy to be taken seriously, it would be very helpful if you could agree with the other conspiracy proponents.

    There blatant fact is, there was no evidence of any other form of destructive device recovered from the scene. The alleged thermite deposits that have been found have been recovered from steel that was first cut using a cutting tourch and then welded into second location before the sample was taken. This utterly screams ‘contamination’ to anyone who stops long enough to think rationally.

    • elonce says:

      I tire of your childish games of purposely misunderstanding my words.

      FTR. A single milli-nuclear device has a blast wave, heat, and an electrical magnetic pulse (EMP) as its means of destruction, along with radiation. When designing the device and considering location of detonation, these different yields can be dialed in to a degree. Detonation at the core of a building within a steel mesh outer shell assists in reigning in adverse effects and burying the radiation sources. Bottom-line: I did not say “separate EMP device”; I said a milli-nuclear device with EMP as an expected side-effect.

      The respectful difference of opinion that two 9/11 Truthers have over fine details is one testament to our sincerity. Your sincerity is tested in how you misquote my words, in how you mis-use (or misunderstand) physics, and in how you are essentially walking lock-step with the opinions of the OGCT. No doubt can enter your mind.

      To the topic of dynamite. Coincidentally, they didn’t test for this in the spectacular nano-particle debris. Of course, they didn’t test for plutonium either, so sure were they in the Allah of those hijackers in having the power to hijack planes without interception, fly them into their targets, and cause a gravitational demolition that bends many of Allah’s own laws of physics that he presented to Newton in a dream.

      I suggest you take a gander at the recently released NIST videos of a couple guys wearing fireman jackets and helmuts walking around carrying running video recording equipment at midnight. Tell me that the totality of the destruction isn’t somewhat awe inspiring and well above the energy that a gravitational collapse could muster.

      • limey says:

        Not childish games. It was a genuine understanding of your post they you intended EMP as a separate device.

        So two truthers and two different accounts of what happened, if you are both sincere then (at least) one of you must be sincerely wrong.

        How many millinukes were there per building? and were both buildings wired up the same way? Please describe the process of the detonation and how that matches the visible collapse of the towers.

  23. Craig McKee says:

    Your assertion, which you have made several times now, is that two people who don’t agree with YOUR conspiracy theory must agree on every single point of what did happen. If they have any minor points of disagreement, then one of them has to be deemed WRONG. There are obviously thousands of elements to this event whether you believe the government conspiracy theory or another. What’s important is to look at all of them scientifically and to see where common ground can be found.
    elOnce and I agree that explosive devices had to be employed to bring the towers down. I am willing to look at his milli-nukes opinion and to learn more about it. I’m also open to the idea that thermite was used. But the important thing is that the official story is totally bogus.
    By the way, I don’t believe I ever used the word “dynamite.” Correct me if I’m wrong.

    • limey says:

      Not the word dynamite, but please explain what else you might have been thinking of by the word explosives, and why I should have considered anything other than dynamite as your intended meaning.

      Craig McKee says:
      November 1, 2010 at 5:05 pm
      Limey,
      I never said thermite ALONE was used to bring down the building. You’re right that it does not explode, but it is used to cut through metal. And combined with explosives it could be very helpful in bringing the buildings down.

      • Craig McKee says:

        I meant what I wrote. I admit I’m not an expert on the various types of explosives that could have been used. I’m using a general term, because that’s the important point. My point is made regardless of which type of explosive was used.

  24. elonce says:

    Dear Mr. Limey,

    If the facts, evidence, and proof that underlie my supposition are proven wrong, I will own up to my mistake and apologize for having mislead you. To date, however, I have not been convinced that milli-nukes weren’t employed. As part of what I perceive to be your childish games, no where have I stated that any particular method of demolition was mutually exclusive to any other.

    To reiterate, EMP was not a separate device but was a separate effect among several (including blast wave and heat) from a nuclear device.

    A significant majority of the 9/11 Truth Movement has latched on and stopped at the deployment of nano-thermite, because it was found in the dust. This is not a run-of-the-mill off-the-shelf demolition mechanism and narrows the list of suspect agencies significantly to include govt factions. Once you start talking govt (US and/or Israel), you have to factor in statements like Donald Rumsfeld’s on Sept 10, 2001 (the day before) when he admitted that the Pentagon could not account for trillions of dollars in its budget. When you start talking pockets that deep that are combined with a desire to take out the WTC complex, then there are few limits to the redundancy and overkill employed to “make it happen.”

    Milli-nukes per tower? Four to six is my wild-ass guess (based on reading I’ve done). The first issue with these types of nukes is that low-yield designs produces higher probability of fizzle, or not reaching its full explosive potential. The second issue when using nukes in conjunction with one another in sequence is that one going off can kill (or fracticide) another in the building, causing it to not reach its full potential and causing unspent nuclear fuel to be left-over in (and under) the rubble pile to fizzle and burn at foundry-level temperatures for very long periods of time. 9/11 being a highly redundant event, they had not only multiple and redundant nukes, but also nano-thermite to help with the dismantling of the “wheat chex” outer mesh, and maybe even standard military grade explosives for putting the outline of the cartoon road-runner, err… 757, onto the side of the building at the right time.

    Describe the nuclear demolition process? Assume a nuke with a spherical radius of destruction to be the lesser of 1/2 the building’s width or less than 20 floors (+/- a few floors). The top-most spherical nuke is +/- 1 floor from the “impact” floor. It goes off and starts the top set of floors tilting. But as the spherical blast wave makes it through those tilting upper floors (at the same time it makes it through floors below it), it pulverizes the inner floors and content and arrests the angular momentum of the tilting solid mass, which is no longer solid. Debris is ejected at high velocities horizontally.

    The second and third nuke are timed to go off such that the upward force lines of its spherical blast waves meets with the falling pulverized content. Therefore, the top-most portion of the demolition appears to fall at gravitational acceleration. However, the downward force lines of the spherical blast gave the impression of a demolition wave that was faster than gravity.

    The final nuke in the basement was a clean up nuke, as you see it turning the steel spire of leftover center column into dust before our eyes and obliviating a whole bunch of evidence and content in the pile.

    I suspect that the milli-nukes were designed to have their yield more or less confined within the outer mesh structure for two reasons. One, is that if it were too powerful, it’d be a dead giveaway. (I think they were indeed a bit too powerful but not by much; they had control of the media just in case.) Two, is that they needed to contain as much of the EMP as possible. Therefore, nano-thermite may have been employed to be detonated and chunk out the outer mesh “wheat chex” steel after the closet spherical nuclear blast wave did its vaporization of floors, content, and people. The wiring of the mesh with nano-thermite may have been part of the fail-safe redundancy in the face of fizzled nukes.

    Reports of the basement bombs that went off at the time of the impact may have been nuclear, based on the reported damage and injuries.

    A different but related topic are what happened at WTC-7. It had explosions before either tower fell. Its lobby was destroyed. When Barry Jennings was finally led by firefighters out of the building, he was stepping over (radiated) bodies. Those nukes, however, probably caused other nukes in WTC-7 to fail. The fire department personnel were “pulled”, because they obviously could not be witness either to the existing nuclear damage nor to the crews in hazmat attire installing new nukes. WTC-7 had 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration over the span of 100 ft. Gravitational acceleration means that no, zero, nada internal support was present to resist the falling mass. How does a rock solid, modern skyscraper transition suddenly from SOME support (even if weakened) to ZERO support? Nukes can do that.

    You should take a look at the pictures of WTC-5 and WTC-6 from the air. What do you make of those nice cylindrical and spherical holes that obviously were not caused by falling debris and were most likely done from pre-planted explosives (whether or not nukes)? The bigger picture is not just that 2 towers fell, but that the whole WTC complex was the target with the towers’ collapses the smoke/dust screen for blasting those other buildings to smithereens.

    Unfortunately, your assertive statements regarding there being no molten steel were not in line with testimonies and evidence. Look up the piece of metal they called the “meteor”. Look up the Swiss cheese steel. Look up the satellite images that map the hot spots of the WTC and their relative temperatures, and recognize that these are surface temperatures and what seeped through the rubble and aren’t at the source under the rubble.

    • Thanks for all the comments btw guys. I didn’t realize my blog could start so much discussion. The main contentions I have against nukes or any other explosive device is the fact that no explosions are heard when or before the towers collapse. Silent nukes…never heard of that. Also, the fact that the govt. was willing to perform an experimental/risky demolition doesn’t bode well if they wanted to keep their plan a secret. Of course you also have the problem of the planes hitting the explosive charges themselves upon impact. We also know that the collapse initiated at the point of impact. Finally, the fact that the south tower fell first even though it was hit second supports the gravitational collapse because more floors were being supported by the damaged area. Besides all this, if they wanted to destroy the towers so badly, why not just blow them up and blame them on the terrorist of their choice? That way the hassle of hijacking the airplanes would disappear making the conspiracy much more easy to conceal.

      • elOnce says:

        Dear Mr. C. Plumber,

        Your contention that no explosions were heard when or before the towers collapsed is wrong.

        Pick any given video or audio recording of 9/11 and you may or may not hear explosions. If September Clues does nothing, it proves that manipulation of media happened. (Go to YouTube, search on “September Clues”, and watch 1-9 & A-H. For kicks and giggle, watch the videos who lamely try to debunk a thing or two but none — individually or collectively — debunk much.)

        Your question about just blowing up the towers is framed wrong, because the goal was the destruction of the entire WTC complex. To just blow up buildings without some sort of ruse raises all sorts of questions, like security and access. WTC-7 hosted the SEC, FBI, and CIA among others. The destruction of the towers was meant to cover over the destruction of the other buildings. The supposed plane impacts was meant to cover over the source of the destruction.

        You are making all sorts of assumptions about the planes that really aren’t holding up under scrutiny. At best, eye witnesses reporting seeing a small military plane or a cruise missile. Proponents of the commercial plane theory have not proven who really got on the planes, let alone that they could wander off course without transponders or pilot contact for so long, except that four simultaneous military exercises under Cheney’s command were happening on 9/11 that practice this very scenario.

        To further the doubt that what we saw on the telly was commercial aircraft, the video forgeries all lack crash physics. We observed no deformation or deceleration upon impact with the tower. The tail entered the building at the same speed it was traveling through thin-air, which would not have been possible if the rest of the airplane to which it was attached hit some resistance. Moreover, are we to believe that light aluminum wings can act like knifes to neatly cut their outline into the steel mesh of the tower?

        Whether cruise missiles, military planes, or commercial planes, all could be controlled precisely via remote to avoid planted explosives.

        The ruse of commercial aircraft was needed to distract from the true cause of the demolition; the towers’ demolition was needed to distract from the cause of the demolitions to other buildings. The belated destruction of WTC-7 and the cylindrical and spherical holes in WTC-5 and WTC-6 are blatant red flags as to the true aims of the operation beyond what 19 patsy hijackers could accomplish, if they even existed. (Okay, the six or so who are still alive represent a simple case of identify theft, but one the govt has never corrected nor have they provided the names actually on the flight manifests.)

        The rabbit holes go deep, but that doesn’t make them wrong.

  25. limey says:

    elonce,

    References for evidence of thermite in the dust please. All I can find is traces allegedly found on columns. Columns which had been cut with a cutting tourch after the collapse, during the recovery.

    From your description of the milli nuke detonations I would expect to see evidence from the blast shock exiting the buiding at each detonation. If there were four per building we would see and be able to count those ecxplosions. Instead all that is seen is the air blasts from the windows as the floors compact down, one air blast per floor. If a milli nuke had removed those floors then there would be no air blast from the pancaking floors. Instead there would be a single pressure wave taking out the windows of multiple floors.

    The observation of the collapse simply does not match with the expected result from your assertation of milli nukes. I’d love to have that appology now, but I’m not so naieve as to expect you to accept that reasoning, no matter how true it is.

    WTC5 and WTC6, the holes are round is, but certainly not ‘nice cylindrical’. You may also want to draw your attention to the building debris that surrounds WTC5 and WTC6, debris that is also visible on the roofs and inside the holes. Much more likely that they were hit from above by a large quantity of debris from one of the towers and that debris broke through the roof and the floors below.

    This comment has me utterly flummuxed “outer mesh, and maybe even standard military grade explosives for putting the outline of the cartoon road-runner, err… 757, onto the side of the building at the right time.”.

    I am not sure what you are implying but it reads to me like you are saying that the planes that hit the buildings didn’t make the hole, explosives did. So not only did the explostions have to match the moment of the plane hitting, but the shape too. The plane also had to hit exactly the right spot and no one in the building would see the explosives planted.

    Who flew the planes and what about the passengers?

    • elOnce says:

      Dear Mr. Limey,

      You wrote: “References for evidence of thermite in the dust please. All I can find is traces allegedly found on columns.”

      Evidently, you have never used Google. I suggest you type “thermite” into its search field and see what you find. Maybe add “Dr. Steven Jones” to make it more specific. Had you done any sincere 9/11 research on this subject, you’d get reams of links on this limited hangout.

      Your discussion of the cylindrical and spherical holes in WTC-5 and WTC-6 runs par for the course of your very weak arguments. Both of those buildings did indeed have debris from the towers’ collapse on them scatter, but nothing that could make such a perfect hole that has in most cases the appearance of going through many floors to the basement. And the debris observed within the hole isn’t from the building itself as expected (because it was blown away), but a few remnants off of the towers like what is on the roofs — insufficient to make any sort of penetrating hole, let alone a cylindrical/spherical one.

      Your questions about who flew the planes and what about the passengers are a distraction. Proponents of commercial planes can’t even prove who got on the planes, under what aliases they flew, if the planes even took off, if they even flew the course attributed to them, etc. After all, they had their transponders off and for certain stretches were even not on radar (meaning they either landed or the military games did a trick and deleted the blips.)

      Go to YouTube, search on September Clues, and view 1-9 & A-H. Then you’ll understand the comment about “the outline of the cartoon road-runner, err… 757, on the side of the building.”

      Whatever hit the towers (which I believe to be either cruise missiles or small military planes guided remotely) were deleted from the video. Then the CGI images of commercial aircraft were put into the videos. Remember, there was only 1 live shot and it had the benefit of 17 second delay. All other footage had more time to be tweaked before airing later in the day and throughout the week. This explains why the commercial aircraft we see on the telly all flew different flight paths (swooping down, dead level, swooping up); this explains why there was no crash physics of the plane deforming and decelerating upon contact with the tower. When you look for it, the evidence of video fakery (and media complicity in airing it) becomes rather glaring, like the many examples of utterly unbelievable zoom and focus at just the right time that, unfortunately, when played backward (zoom out) do not depict the plane (or any plane) where it should.

      I could be wrong on the number of milli-nukes it took to take out the tower. What I am not wrong about is that the pulverization of building content is a massive energy sink that a gravitational collapse cannot account for. Likewise, the vaporization of content (missing floors, missing desks, missing office partitions, missing file cabinets, missing computers/phones, etc.) is something that nukes can explain, but other mechanisms? No so much. The two glaring pieces of nuclear evidence are the under-rubble fires burning foundry-hot for months and the destruction to vehicles out of the path of falling debris but in line-of-sight for an EMP slipping through window slits of a milli-nuke. Having control of the media beforehand would be standard military procedure in handling the message and any mix-up in the operation not going as planned.

  26. limey says:

    elonce,

    Wow, just wow. You really are deluded.

    I did use google and the thermite evidence that Mr Jones claims to have found comes from steel which has been cut during the recovery by a cutting tourch, please find me evidence of thermite from dust. If you can’t stop making the claim. Its not up to me to find your evidence for you. Find the evidence or shut up about it.

    As to the planes, not being planes. Please can I have some of what you are taking because those drugs really do give the break from reality that I could do with now.

    • elonce says:

      Dear Mr. Limey,

      Me? Deluded? You might have margin to call me a duped useful idiot for the two radical topics of 9/11 nukes and video fakery that I champion and and that detract from the limited hangouts of the mainstream 9/11 truth movement, like nano-thermite. Radical might be beyond the norm, but that does not make it wrong.

      You, on the other hand, continually make assertive statements that are flat out wrong. Nearly every you write about physics falls into this category. And most assuredly, the statements about where Dr. Jones claims to have found the thermite evidence is another. It was in the dust, with one particular sample coming from a woman’s apartment.

      Let me ask you this. Have you ever seen Superman fly? Or how about Spiderman swing from a web? Or how about vehicles that transform into robots with weapons? Or a light saber deflecting blasts from a laser weapon? Or maybe Neo slowing down bullets that he can then dodge? Ever seen a Jerry Bruckheimer (sp) film?

      For all of the realistic wonders that you have seen in the movie theatres or on the telly, what clue did you have that it might not be real? Aside from the environment where you observed it, might another powerful clue be the spectacular perfectly timed coincidences of the big screen event that propelled the story and its characters along that would be hard to rectify with the chaos and randomness of real nature? My premise is that 9/11 was no different if you restrict yourself to the story propelled by “history’s actors” through a complicit media to the boob-tube in your living room to this very day.

      Karl Rove:

      “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

      I’ve given you support for my position, which you obviously haven’t looked into, because your posting came a short 16 minutes after mine and September Clues runs about an hour and 49 minutes (or more), if memory serves me. Thus, rather than hitting on specific points where my contention might be in error, your entire response boils down to “I am deluded” and “I am on drugs.”

      You prove me wrong, I’ll admit to my having been duped and I’ll share in my stash. But you haven’t, not even on the most basic aspects of Newtonian physics regarding (a) a light plane crashing into a steel structure or (b) a weakened floor of a tower causing its upper floors to fall.

      Maybe my sources have duped me, and I’m the useful idiot for promoting it.

      Or maybe you in fact are the duped useful idiot for your lock-step support of all aspects — even the glaring incredible anomalies — of the OGCT.

      Through history’s actors of both Bush administrations, the US and the world have been subjected to a lot of shit. Take the dot of 9/11 out of the collection of points that make up the dubious policies of the Bush II Administration, and you’re still left connecting a criminal line that includes illegal Iraqi wars, war crimes, rendition, torture, housing bubbles, bank bailouts, rigged elections, stacked courts, etc. When you include the dot that is PNAC and their agenda prior to assuming influential positions in the Bush Administration, and by golly those outcomes as well as 9/11 itself has some appearance of being premeditated. And only a true duped useful idiot such as yourself would not being seeing it.

  27. Craig McKee says:

    Now who’s not being polite? If you want info about thermite in the dust of the towers, watch films like Improbable Collapse and Loose Change. Or Google “Dr. Steven Jones” and “Jeanette McKinley”. She was the person who collected dust from her apartment across from the WTC. The information is easy to find if you’re actually looking.
    Instead of ridiculing something you obviously know nothing about, why don’t you watch September Clues and then comment. I know ridicule is a great weapon of people with your opinions, but it’s also good to occasionally inform yourself.

  28. limey says:

    You’re right Craig, it was impolite, and I restrained myself from being downright rude.

    For me, there comes a point when something is simply so far wrong that it kills any credibility the originator may have had. At that point I will simply cease to take them seriously.

    That point came in elonce’s last post.

    The milli nukes idea is bad enough, but to deny that fact of the planes that the world witnessed crashing live into those towers! I simply can not take seriously anyone who believes that nonsense. It demonstrates an utter inability to accept logical reason and a wilful determination to believe whatever nonsense that supports their delusion.

    Having a reasoned discussion that sort of person is utterly pointless and a waste of time. I have better things to do in my life than refute the rambling challenges of a moron.

    This isn’t my blog and I want to respect the owner by not filling this post with mindless insult, but the respect of the people who died on those planes is a serious thing, to deny they died is a serious lack of critical judgement. I for one will not engage with anyone who holds the view that those were not real planes filled with real people.

    That’s my line and elonce crossed it, there are not enough words in the dictionary to describe how disgusting I find that view. Its contemptible and I absolutely will not entertain discussion with anyone who believes that. It is intellectually dishonest to give credence to that view by engaging in discussion so I’d rather cut to the chase and call out the nonsense, for that’s exactly what it is.

  29. Craig McKee says:

    I wish I shared your trust in what your government tells you. We’re obviously all entitled to our opinions but I choose not to eliminate possible scenarios – however far-fetched – based on emotion. If the facts don’t support tampering with the video evidence then that point of view will remain marginalized and probably disappear. But I was troubled enough when I watched the film he’s talking about that I could not reject it out of hand. I look at the facts, then I decide whether something is frivolous or not.
    As for respecting the victims, I feel this is always a red herring. To determine what you’re willing to consider based on respect for the victims has never made any sense to me. The way to respect the victims is to find the truth.
    P.S. The order in which the above comments appeared made it look like I was accusing elOnce of being impolite, which you correctly figured out was not the case.

    • limey says:

      Hi Craig,

      I wouldn’t say it was trust in what the government tells me, its trust in what the science says and I absolutely accept that the science does not match planted explosives and fake planes. While I enjoy an intellectual challenge, there comes a point when arguing further serves no good purpose, and that point was reached for me yesterday. As a certain phrase goes “Never Argue With A Fool – They Will Drag You Down To Their Level”. That’s how I view elonce and his plane suggestion.

      Yes, red herring maybe, especially as entertained discussion with you about a lack of pentagon plane. The difference was both in the way you were respectful, in a way that elonce wasn’t, and also that I will acknowledge that the doubt of the pentagon plane is more understandable, even if its no less true.

      To finish, if I may take a detour, I’d like to ask you a different question; are there any other conspiracy theories that you subscribe to? Moon landing hoax and JFK murder being the obvious one, but there is also the Diana accident and the Martin Luther King murder too, probably others we sat down and made a list. No need to go into details, just a yes / no on which ones will suffice so as not to take this posting way off on a tangent.

  30. elonce says:

    Apologies for the poorly formated HTML. Here it is again.

    Dear Mr. Limey,

    You wrote:

    The milli nukes idea is bad enough, but to deny that fact of the planes that the world witnessed crashing live into those towers! … the respect of the people who died on those planes is a serious thing, to deny they died is a serious lack of critical judgement. I for one will not engage with anyone who holds the view that those were not real planes filled with real people.

    And where exactly was the world when they witnessed planes (plural) crashing live into the towers? They certainly weren’t in NYC. In fact, the vast majority were not only probably at home in their own living rooms watching the idiot box but also they were not watching anything live. Only one shot of a plane was almost live, delayed by 17 seconds. Other than that, there were no live shots of one or two planes crashing into the towers … except for one exception. That exception is the live raw feed from the operation that was sent to the television outside of a Floridian classroom which President Bush admitted to seeing before going in to read about pet goats.

    Your deflection into respect for the victims is classic disinformation. Were you to view the actual footage and commentary from 9/11 as it was unfolding, you’d come across some where the news anchor was talking with some expert on terrorism who had been deftly planting the seeds of Osama bin Laden. When the news anchor tried to mention that the destruction had some appearance of a controlled demolition, the terrorism expert deflected it by reciting what became the official story ([paraphrased]“I think the plane impacts in combination with the jet fuel fires weakened the steel and caused the building to fail…”) and then, like you, quickly changes the subject into something emotional (“I think the terrible loss of life today…”) in order to end the tangent that speculates on how the towers fell.

    You want to respect a murdered person? You find out how they were murdered and who did it. And you take all statements that might come from the perpetrator himself (or his agents) with a grain of salt.

    On this next point, I could be wrong. However, as far as I know, when it comes to 9/11 victim’s families who disagree with the shoddy 9/11 investigation and its conclusions, it does not include any families of victims from planes. As far as I heard, all families of victims from the planes took the settlements from the govt and airlines, and consequently are mumm and aren’t participating in any legal actions.

    I do know that all four flights most unusually had 1/3 the passengers they’d normally have. A couple of the flights weren’t even regularly scheduled for that day, making for another unusual situation. No Arab names appear on the flight manifest, and no correlation has been made between fake names appearing on the manifest and the supposed hijackers. I’ve traveled on airlines since the mid 1980′s, and I cannot recall a time when (a) I was not asked for ID or (b) I was not video taped. How did the hijackers get their fake IDs? How come videos of all 19 going through security and getting on the planes isn’t available? The fact that 6 of the named hijackers are alive really isn’t so distressing in the light of identity theft; what is distressing is the govt never acknowledging that identify theft may have occurred and that they may have got the true names of the hijackers wrong.

    Ergo, simPeople and simPassengers is a very real possibility that you try to deflect with your silly respect for people who died on the planes, a premise you cannot prove.

    Nope, the only thing you prove in the entirety of your postings here is a willful, purposeful ignorance that is devoid of supporting material and an ability to objectively consider contrary evidence.

    You write: “I absolutely will not entertain discussion with anyone who believes that.”

    You already have, and you’ve been losing.

    But if the above is truly your belief, then don’t post anything in response to me. Let me have the last word right now (for which I will be grateful, because I tire of your nonsense.) Bet you can’t do it. Bet you won’t do it. And when I win this bet, it will in effect point out yet another avenue of your dishonesty and insincerity that aligns with your understanding of physics and television special effects.

    • To Mr. Limey, do you have a blog by any chance? I appreciate your willingness to combat irrational thinking and agree with you on most points.

      To elonce,
      I utterly disagree with you on almost every point, but thanks for leaving comments. In the future make sure you keep your comments a little briefer so it’s not too much to absorb. The one thing I do agree with you is that finding out the truth to what happened to the victims is most important and in your own way you are respecting the victims by trying to find answers. However, your efforts are undermined by your delusions. I’ll just take one example from your previous post.

      You said, “I do know that all four flights most unusually had 1/3 the passengers they’d normally have.” You obviously don’t know because this is wrong. Follow this link: http://911myths.com/html/passenger_numbers.html

      Two planes were below average in capacity, one was right on average and one was above average. Nothing too suspicious in these numbers. Even so, the fact that the below average load factors proves your theory only further proves how inconsistent your theory is. I thought the goal was to kill Americans? How can a low number of passengers account for this?

      Regarding my earlier post about explosions – As far as the sounds of explosions go, there were certainly were sounds of explosions, however those were likely from other sources, not bombs. With the sheer amount of debris and fires, we would expect sounds of explosions. Anything from debris falling, pipes bursting, elevators crashing, electrical wiring, etc. could easily account for numerous explosive sounds. Watch demolition videos…explosions from bombs are nearly impossible to hide. And if they were nukes, you can clearly forget any notion of masking the sound.

      • elonce says:

        Dear Mr. Plumber,

        I don’t have exact data memorized, nor does my data have to be 100% accurate for my overarching premise to hold. With your posting, I stand somewhat corrected on the actual numbers of passengers in the four planes. Why only somewhat?

        One would think that if you had a link to a site with correct numbers, you could (a) at least quote it accurately and (b) recognize that my statement of flights being at 1/3 capacity wasn’t far from the truth. I was wrong about 1 flight, but correct about 3.

        This is the passage that you misquoted:

        … one plane with more passengers then expected, one with an average figure, one below but within an expected range, and one exceptionally low (in Flight 93)

        The weasel word is “expected” based on historic trends. I was talking about capacity. Why didn’t you quote the passage this passage?

        load factors of 51.3% (Flight 11), 31.3% (Flight 175), 29.3% (Flight 77″) and 16.5% (Flight 93)

        If you average these numbers together, don’t you get a number for all four that is under 1/3?

        You wrote:

        I thought the goal was to kill Americans? How can a low number of passengers account for this?

        Your thinking is narrow. The goal was not to kill Americans.

        One of the goals was to motivate the American public into knee-jerk / emotionally supporting the administration’s agenda (which was the PNAC agenda) regarding the Middle East and military engagement, etc. The planes didn’t need to be full of people. In fact, the planes didn’t even need to be real if they had other means of faking us out. They just needed the public to believe the event was exactly what the govt said it was were in order to achieve their shock-and-awe, lock-stepping patriotic, fawning support of the public and its leaders.

        Although one of the goals was to shock-and-awe us, they could have achieved this with just plane crashes and without the destruction of the towers. Nope, they needed the WTC complex gone for other reasons.

        Have you ever heard a very low-yield milli-nuke detonated inside of a building that was surrounded by screaming sirens and yammering people? Truthfully, I’m not sure I have either, because we have ample evidence that the media we saw and heard was tampered with. So your audio argument about explosions or supposedly a lack thereof should be set to the side as neither proving or disproving anything.

        A conclusion regarding milli-nukes can be made on the evidence that you and Mr. Limey consistently ignore: the thorough pulverization of content, the foundry-level under-rubble fires, the (EMP) damage to vehicles, the ailments of first responders, the labeling of “Ground Zero” as such, the security of the area….

        Here’s a great link for you:
        http://wtcdemolition.blogspot.com/2009/07/35-reasons-for-many-small-fission-nukes.html

      • Your point is noted and I apologize if I seem to have taken it out of context. I got so excited when I saw that part of your claim was wrong that I didn’t select the correct section from that link. I think the problem I have with you saying that the planes were filled to 1/3rd capacity is because it makes it appear that the planes are almost always at 100% capacity. The fact is that two of the flights were below their averages. The average number is 32.1% in case you’re interested, so yes you are correct that it was around 1/3rd the total capacity, but this is not overly suspicious because the averages of the those flights is nowhere near 100% anyway.

        You said, “The planes didn’t need to be full of people. In fact, the planes didn’t even need to be real if they had other means of faking us out. They just needed the public to believe the event was exactly what the govt said it was were in order to achieve their shock-and-awe, lock-stepping patriotic, fawning support of the public and its leaders.” Indeed, maybe the goal was not to kill people, but answer me this – if the planes did not need to be full of people and the planes did not even need to be real, then why have planes at all? There is simply no need for them period. Plant bombs, blame terrorists, go to war, shock-and-awe successful.

        To your point on the other post about how I must be one of those guys who can’t believe the govt. would such a thing as kill so many innocent people to establish their agenda. I do believe the govt. is willing to do such a thing because they send people to war and certainly advocate/permit many atrocities today. To simply assume I am of that ‘ilk’ is lame.

      • limey says:

        Hi cp,

        Yes I have a blog, http://vteclimey.wordpress.com/.

        I apologise for the insults to a specific poster on your blog. I hope you understand the reason why I reacted like I did and that I have a limit to what I will entertain as reasonable discussion.

  31. elOnce says:

    Dear Mr. Plumber,

    You wrote:

    In the future make sure you keep your comments a little briefer so it’s not too much to absorb.

    Due to your request to make my postings shorter (and other personal time constraints), I could not address this statement in my last postings.

    Only the most influential event of the last 47 years, and you say too much to absorb?! LOL. I take it, it is easier for you to debunk if it is in smaller sound bites? Of course, if pieces have to be assembled from various postings, it makes it harder to see the big picture. You can dwell on tiny details and load factors versus load percentages.

    You wrote:

    I utterly disagree with you on almost every point

    Why is that? And is that a disagreement which is based on fact or based on emotion? I’ve encountered the ilk of you and Mr. Limey elsewhere, and it is all about American leadership wouldn’t do that to American citizens, … and certainly not with nukes. I just can’t… No, I just won’t believe that regardless of what the truth actually is or what most suspect it to be.

    Contrary to your blog’s title and contrary to your fawning support of Mr. Limey in combat irrational thinking, neither of you has proven this to be the case with your discussion partners. And in fact, Mr. Limey has been factually wrong on many things, including his understanding of Newtonian physics. We don’t need to go into the area of nuclear physics to put him in over his head. So be wary of saying you agree with [Mr. Limey] on most points, unless of course that is your gut and emotions talking rather than your capacity for rational thought.

    I thank you for the opportunities you and Mr. Limey have afforded me in presenting my radical views. 9/11 Right is radical

    http://maxwellbridges.blogspot.com/2001/09/right-is-radical.html

  32. elOnce says:

    Mr. Plumber wrote:

    Indeed, maybe the goal was not to kill people, but answer me this – if the planes did not need to be full of people and the planes did not even need to be real, then why have planes at all? There is simply no need for them period. Plant bombs, blame terrorists, go to war, shock-and-awe successful.

    I’ll repeat the salient point in other words. Each of the buildings had some form of security. I don’t know for sure, but I’d bet money that the security in WTC-7 was even more rigorous, because among its tenants were the SEC, the FBI, the CIA, and a Emergency Command Post.

    So, if they did away with the planes and just planted bombs, this opens many uncomfortable cans of worms. How did they get passed security regularly and repeatedly over a prolonged period in all of the buildings (WTC-1, 2, 5, 6, 7 …) to wire them for demolition? What explosive devices did they use to implode the buildings and who could believable acquire them in sufficient quantities? Answers to these two questions alone make it difficult to shift the blame to foreign terrorists, and certainly not the patsies that Able Danger and the FBI had tabs on … until their superiors acting on orders put the investigations on the shelf and told them to back off.

    Plane crashes (or the public’s belief thereof) achieves two goals. The first was already mentioned in the this could have been you in this commercial aircraft shock-and-awe to get the public willing not just to go to war against the hijacker’s master mind in Afghanistan but also to accept increased un-Constitutional security measures in their daily lives. The second was to be able to plausibly stop the public from digging deeper. Idiot, plane impacts together with jet fuel fires weakened steel which initiated the collapses whose destruction took out neighboring buildings, like the WTC-7 which housed the SEC who was investigating many questionable practices of long-standing Bush family supporters, like Enron.

    It should be noted that the only newly moved-in occupants of the renovated Pentagon wing was the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) who was investigating Bush I for bond transactions from the 1990’s that were coming due on 9/11/2001 and would have exposed Bush I’s use of illegal manipulation of the international markets to bankrupt the Soviet Union using illegal gold acquired from the Nazi’s (the Black Eagle Fund) and from the Japanese (that Marco’s discovered/guarded in the Phillipines) that rightfully should have been given back to the heirs it was stolen from in WWII.

    The destruction of the SEC and the WTC complex inspired Wall Street in the days immediately after 9/11 to loosen temporarily certain transaction restrictions and oversight supposedly to normalize it after this attack but which allowed the clearing/laundering of billions of dollars from these black off-the-books funds. The questionable PUT options of the airlines involved with 9/11 is another smoking gun that those of influence and power had foreknowledge and were expecting financial gain.

    It should be noted that this injection of capital into the system helped contribute to the housing bubble, because it gave the federal banks reserves that needed to be put into circulation, which they did by loosening mortgage loan requirements to be able to lend to those who probably shouldn’t have been able to borrow or at least shouldn’t have been conned into short-sighted adjustable rate mortgages that later contributed to their foreclosure.

    The Bush Administration, with a 9/11 event, was all about transferring wealth and improving the coffers of those who loyally supported Bush I & II: the oil industry, the military-industrial complex, the intelligence agencies, and the banks. Tax cuts for the wealthy was just the tip of the iceberg. The war profiteering in Afghanistan and Iraq — being so far, far away — are things that most Americans don’t want to consider, because they had their own worries closer to home regarding whether they could keep their jobs and keep their homes. Foreclosures and companies going out of business was a hay-day for those with means, because real brick-and-mortar establishments — not just paper stocks of dubious value — could be bought up. And when the music stopped and it looked like the bankers would be without chairs, they were given (unwarranted and unnecessary in my eyes) bailouts to reward them for their crash manipulation of the system.

    Was Bush’s biggest regret illegally invading Iraq who was proven not to have WMD? No. His biggest regret was not being able to privatize social security and effectively putting that at the whims of Wall Street. Had that happened, we Americans would have seen its value go the way of our 401(k) retirement plans, namely cut in half (my case) or worse.

    When you look at this bigger picture, at who really benefited and profited off of 9/11, and at the obscene amounts of gain (at the expense of the little people in America, Afghanistan, and Iraq), what are a few 9/11 nukes to get it all rolling when you have control of the investigative agencies and the media to keep steering the public eye into other distractions.

    Karl Rove:

    “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

    • What happened to keeping it brief? The point of keeping posts brief is so the discussion does not get inundated with an excess of ideas.

      So the govt. couldn’t plant a lot of explosives because the tenants are govt. agencies like the CIA and FBI…makes sense. I thought propaganda was a strong-suit of the govt? Blaming terrorists for a bomb threat would be right under the governments strong-suit (by bomb threat I also mean they could have simply placed bombs in briefcases, attached bombs to their own bodies, etc.). This would be much easier than faking hijackings.

      • elOnce says:

        Mr Plumber wrote:

        The point of keeping posts brief is so the discussion does not get inundated with an excess of ideas.

        You make is sound like an excess of ideas in this day and age of sound-bite info-tainment, Comedy Central as a main new source, and Twitter is a bad thing.

        Mr Plumber wrote:

        So the govt. couldn’t plant a lot of explosives because the tenants are govt. agencies like the CIA and FBI…makes sense.

        I can see where this could certainly come into play in WTC-7, whereby planting several nukes is logistically easier than installing the equivalent masses of conventional or exotic chemical/nano-thermic explosives right under the noses of experts in the demolition field.

        The discussion was about why bother with planes and why not just blow up the buildings and blame it on terrorists? You write:

        I thought propaganda was a strong-suit of the govt? Blaming terrorists for a bomb threat would be right under the governments strong-suit (by bomb threat I also mean they could have simply placed bombs in briefcases, attached bombs to their own bodies, etc.). This would be much easier than faking hijackings.

        You are purposely missing the point. For what they needed to achieve, no mere bomb threat is going to cut it. It has to be done. And in order for the meme of suicide foreign terrorists pulling it off with strap-on milli-nukes to work as propaganda, the public would need to willingly believe that these foreigners somehow managed to forge credentials to let them enter a facility that ought to have more rigorous security. Ooops. I forgot two things. 1) Occam Razor shouldn’t have us considering the ease with which US counter intelligence experts from the conspiracy could pull this off in their own damn office as compared to accented muslim extremist terrorists with faked credentials. 2)The security company in question should also not have family sibling ties between a member of its board of directors and the President of the United States, which in point of fact it did.

        How difficult are faked hijacking? First of all, you immediately eliminate flight delays, overtaking the pilots of several planes, flying them un-intercepted to the intended targets, and aiming them properly to do sufficient damage to make their later destruction almost cause-and-effect believable.

        Second, it doesn’t matter what you actually use as long as its profile looks like a plane, such as a small military plane or cruise missiles with wings.

        Third, you’ll have military control of the media by having them share the same feed. You and those filming will know both target and ETA so that cameras are at the ready and in cases zoomed and focused. Prior to the millisecond of the event, the CGI experts will have acquired digital images of the towers and practiced insertion of the pixels representing a commercial plane and its flight path. To get around the issue of crash physics being too hard to model, puffs of dust/smoke can be painted on the plane entering the side. Only the first shot of the second plane needs to be almost live, and it is the shot from the hovering drone several miles away, because the computers in its camera need to synch up with the computers where the CGI plane insertion is practiced. The clock starts when the aircraft or missile impacts/explodes, an event that it probably broadcasts so is known very quickly by various computers in the operation. The algorithm knows how many frames are between the final zoom of the hovering camera and when the explosion is triggered; it grabs that number of frames from the tail end of the practicing of the CGI plane; it re-places the original digital stream with this forged one. The 17 second feed delay is consumed mostly with a human operator verifying the work of the computer.

        As September Clues proves, media footage exists that shows major media competitors using/sharing identical live feeds and in cases identical commentary. Moreover, it also shows how the hovering platform shifted its center line focus slightly and ended up causing a visible glitch in the altered video. Thus, on subsequent re-broadcasts, an unusually tall bottom banner is placed in to help cover it over.

        Fourth, the anchors in the studio see the doctored footage. Let them start yammering and repeating the money shot. Repeat the money shot. Repeat the money shot. Before the end of the day, this alone can cause even some eye witnesses to doubt what they saw and change their beliefs and recollections.

        Fifth, have “reliable” witnesses and govt experts lined up who start the spin to get the story headed where they want it. Osama bin Ladens’ hand-picked muslim extremist hijack four planes and fly them like missiles into the towers, which suffer greatly from the force of impact and jet fuel fires to the extend that steel is weakened and they collapse on themselves and destroy neighboring buildings. Such a tragic loss of life, particularly of our brave police and fireman who were undoubted still in the burning towers trying to rescue people. These were the real heroes of today, and we are deeply saddened by their tragic loss in this most heinous terrorist crime.

        Sixth, four simultaneous military exercises under the command of the Vice President were in operation, some of which included the insertion and/or deletion of radar blips. Thus, the interception of real planes or discovery of no planes: not an issue.

        BTW, the question of whether or not real commercial planes took off is separate from what hit the towers and the video fakery to get us to believe something. There are many separate question about whether or not the planes were even hijacked, or what happened to them if they did exist, did take off, but didn’t fly into the towers?

        The above fakery has less risk and a higher degree of success than real planes, particularly if you give any credence to what the builders of the towers said that they designed the towers to withstand.

        Doesn’t just reading about it in my sound-bites above make you feel duped?

  33. Pingback: Maybe Sometimes its Good to be a Dick « A limey's ramblings

  34. Craig McKee says:

    I won’t add anything to what elOnce has said but I will say that is a very thorough and intelligent analysis of what has happened. They’re counting on us not asking the right questions, and even when we do, the media won’t report it. As well, his explanation of why planes had to be used is exactly right, I believe. And so far it has worked. But the 9/11 Truth movement will never go away. It is inevitable that the truth will come out. I just hope it’s sooner rather than later.

  35. Craig McKee says:

    How come the order of the comments isn’t chronological as it was before? My last comment didn’t come after elOnce’s last comment, it came before. But the wording (“I won’t add anything to what elOnce has said but I will say that is a very thorough and intelligent analysis of what has happened.”) sounds like I’m reacting to his most recent comment. Same thing happened the other day when I wrote that Limey wasn’t being polite. It looked like I was accusing elOnce of being impolite.
    I will say that his most recent look at the video evidence definitely merits further investigation. I’ve seen September Clues and it is very persuasive. I can say with certainty that at least some of the footage we saw on TV had been tampered with. And there were times when all the major networks seemed to be broadcasting the exact same shot. Why? They never admitted they were sharing a single feed.
    I know this angle sounds far out to people who have not considered it before. But at least see the film, or check out their web site. (http://septemberclues.info)

    • elonce says:

      To the Mr. Rational blog readers, I apologize for having flumuxed some closing HTML tags resulting in mis-attributing what came from Mr. Plumber and myself.

      Mr Plumber wrote:

      So the govt. couldn’t plant a lot of explosives because the tenants are govt. agencies like the CIA and FBI…makes sense.

      The rest came from me except for another marked passage from Mr. Plumber.

      To Mr. McKee, there are generally two places to leave a reply: immediately after a posting which nests it, or at the bottom which creates a new top-level posting. However, this blog (and many) support limited numbers of nesting. In the case of my last posting, it does not support a nested comment to it. Your choices are to reply to something at a higher level in the comment nest making it parallel to mine (or higher) or to put a posting at the bottom.

      Nesting takes precedence over top-level comments. If you are paying attention to the tiny reply link, whether or not exists, and if you should post to a higher level, your new comments be at the end and come out of sequence.

  36. elonce says:

    Mr. Limey wrote on November 16, 2010 at 4:18 pm:

    “I absolutely will not entertain discussion with anyone who believes [milli-nukes, CGI planes, 9/11 being an inside job].”

    I responded on November 16, 2010 at 4:58 pm:

    “But if the above is truly your belief, then don’t post anything in response to me. Let me have the last word right now (for which I will be grateful, because I tire of your nonsense.) Bet you can’t do it. Bet you won’t do it. And when I win this bet, it will in effect point out yet another avenue of your dishonesty and insincerity that aligns with your understanding of physics and television special effects.”

    Sometime on November 18, 2010 between about 1:32 pm and 3:07 pm and under a posting of mine, a pingback of a form I have not seen before was inserted into the blog with the linked title:

    Maybe Sometimes its Good to be a Dick « A limey’s ramblings
    http://vteclimey.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/maybe-sometimes-its-good-to-be-a-dick/

    Mr. Limey gets credit for technically not posting here, because it was probably Professor Plumber (in the kitchen with a computer) who created the pingback. So I won’t be lording it over Mr. Limey about winning any bets.

    However, I was correct in believing that Mr. Limey could not resist writing a response. What’s more, how does the title of his response (and the full-blown blog entry itself) reflect upon his honesty and sincerity? Does it even cover physics and television special effects that he had been fumbling here? Nope.

    Mr. Limey puts a base, ad hominem, attack right in his linked title, so that there will be no mistake about the below-the-belt direction his posting will take.

    So boys and girls. Let this be flagged as yet another example of a common disinformation tactic. When you don’t have the facts or understanding to support your case, attack the messenger (and not the message) as personally as possible and draw the opponent into an unproductive flame war. Mr. Limey gets extra points for taking the discussion over to his blog to gain some home court advantage.

  37. elOnce says:

    Mr. Plumber asked:

    “Do you think your theory might be wrong?”

    Theory, as in singular? My sound-bites here have presented many theories that individually or collectively could be wrong. Were you referring to a specific theory? Milli-nukes? CGI planes? Laundrying of billions of dollars and covering for the misdeeds of Bush I while launching the apparatus for the PNAC objectives of Bush II?

    I think it is fair to say that Mr. Limey categorizes me as a religiously fanatical about 9/11 Truth, whereby no amount of presentation of contrary information will convince me otherwise. I own up to being religiously fanatical about 9/11 Truth, but the Truth isn’t hinged on any singular theory or wild-ass speculation spouted by me here regarding details of how the demolitions were done or the complete spectrum of perpetrator motives and goals.

    It is the preponderance of evidence and their nature, many of it rooted in God’s laws of mathematics and physics (correctly applied), that bring me to my opinions of the day. Opinions can’t be proven wrong, even in a court of law. However, the underlying facts of my opinions can be proven wrong. Should this be done with regards to what I believe about 9/11 Truth, then I will change my opinions and come to think my theories might be wrong.

    In this matter of 9/11 Truth, that day will never come. So many secretive and conspiratorial activities on top of the anomalous yet highly coincidental factors all too conveniently line up with other trend lines concerning not just the Bush 43 presidency. They don’t need to prove me wrong on all of these points. They just have to raise sufficient doubt, sow seeds of misdirection, and run out the clock on our attention while at the same time continuing to create new (negative) realities for us to wonder about and suffer through.

    Which is what propels me. Many negative realities in store for our future can be derailed if the public becomes aware on 9/11 and prosecutes its true actors and enablers, many still in govt leadership & its agencies.

  38. It’s good to hear that you are willing to change your mind should the evidence refute your claims. This means you are still open to change and therefore I don’t believe you are closed minded (unlike religious fundamentalists). Of course you can still be religiously fanatical about something, which of course you say you are, and still be open to contradictory evidence.

    I was simply referring to the general theory of a cover-up/false flag operation. To be more specific, I’d like to get a better understanding on milli-nukes. Do you know the mathematics behind them and what kind of damage they can do to structures? I’m no math whiz, but I can make a fair assumption that using milli-nukes would decimate the buildings and not cause a steady collapse. By decimate, I mean blow up and not fall down (as the buildings did). And as I said before, a silent nuke would be a pretty impressive explosive.

    Also, if nukes were used, why didn’t they go off when the planes hit? And why did the core remain partially intact when the supposed nukes went off? Even govt. officials and the like would know that to bring the building down via demolition, taking out the core columns would certainly help. Given the fact that some of the core columns remained standing after the collapse it seems more likely to me that the destruction of the towers was not well thought out.

    I guess the crux of my problem in believing the 9/11 truth movement is that incompetence is exactly what you wouldn’t want to do keep something secret. Tying up loose ends is necessary in order to conceal things. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to me how all these supposed mistakes are proof a cover-up because in reality, if there was a cover-up we would find almost no mistakes. But instead, what many 9/11 truthers claim is they find a plethora of mistakes and that this further establishes the credence of a false-flag operation. Backwards logic at its finest!

    • elOnce says:

      Mr. C. Plumber wrote:

      I was simply referring to the general theory of a cover-up/false flag operation. To be more specific, I’d like to get a better understanding on milli-nukes. Do you know the mathematics behind them and what kind of damage they can do to structures? I’m no math whiz, but I can make a fair assumption that using milli-nukes would decimate the buildings and not cause a steady collapse. By decimate, I mean blow up and not fall down (as the buildings did). And as I said before, a silent nuke would be a pretty impressive explosive.

      I appreciate your efforts to broaden your outlook concerning the possibility of a cover-up & false-flag operation.

      As the name milli-nukes suggests, however, you need to make your thinking smaller on this nuclear matter: milli- or 1/1000th. Think multiple nuke granades; but although small enough you could throw it, you probably would not be able to throw it beyond its radius of heat, blast, EMP and radiation. Moreover, you’d construct it and its launching pad in a manner to direct the energy up & down, as opposed to out horizontally. Plus, its placement in the building would assure that content (in decimated form or otherwise) would fall down and eventually land on and cover over unspent but fizzling nuclear material.

      The above explains that the limited-by-design explosive yield of a single milli-nuke tries to reign in the decimation, so it does not blow up (too much) and instead only falls down. Given that the initial explosion and fire created a large smoke plume, I cannot be all so certain from my viewings of the collapses that the buildings didn’t indeed blow up somewhat albeit with the smoke plume masking part of it and with gravity and content from the upper floors acting to reduce the upward visible aspects.

      I’ve heard evidence of explosions. I’ve heard evidence without explosions. Some of it was due to the nature of the recording equipment; some was due to tampering with the media before broadcast.

      Mr. C. Plumber wrote:

      Also, if nukes were used, why didn’t they go off when the planes hit? And why did the core remain partially intact when the supposed nukes went off?

      When you ask me why the nukes didn’t go off when the planes hit, you have me speculate. My speculation is easy to debunk, because I don’t know everything. But to get you to think outside the box, I’ll entertain you with some wild-ass speculation.

      Is the implication in your question that the plane crashes and fires should have set off the nukes? Computer precision guided the flying objects to hit on predetermined floors. Because they’d know that fire travels up, the milli-nukes were probably placed on floors below that point.

      Or maybe your question is asking why the plan didn’t call for the nukes to set off upon the impacts with the towers. If this would have happened within the first 10 minutes, its believability might have shut down a 9/11 Truth Movement. We can only speculate, with mine being that the conspirators wanted to limit the casualty list by allowing people to exit. Those attributed to the upper floors and the commercial planes would suffice.

      Mr. C. Plumber wrote:

      Even govt. officials and the like would know that to bring the building down via demolition, taking out the core columns would certainly help. Given the fact that some of the core columns remained standing after the collapse it seems more likely to me that the destruction of the towers was not well thought out.

      Although I have admittedly speculated about spherical blast ways in previous postings, I could be wrong, which is what this piece of evidence you bring up might point out. Maybe the nukes were focused into a narrow blast cone angle up & down. In the chaotic destructive environment, the margin of error could mis-aim or even knock out subsequent nukes responsible for a certain section of the core, which ends up being that remaining spire. But if you don’t want to see nukes, don’t watch that remaining spire suddenly turning to dust as if a clean-up nuke were taking it out.

      I think your statement the destruction of the towers was not well thought out is not supported by the evidence. If anything, it was over-thought and quite literally overkill, right on down to FEMA being set up on the docks the day before and four simultaneous military exercises on that day. They had control of the media, and they inserted their OGCT before the towers fell, and certainly before the dust settled.

      Mr. C. Plumber wrote:

      I guess the crux of my problem in believing the 9/11 truth movement is that incompetence is exactly what you wouldn’t want to do keep something secret. Tying up loose ends is necessary in order to conceal things. Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to me how all these supposed mistakes are proof a cover-up because in reality, if there was a cover-up we would find almost no mistakes. But instead, what many 9/11 truthers claim is they find a plethora of mistakes and that this further establishes the credence of a false-flag operation. Backwards logic at its finest!

      I’m sorry that I view your paragraph above as twisted logic. Rumsfeld said himself: You got your known knowns, you got your known unknowns, and you got your unknown unknowns. The exact details of the destruction process is certainly an unknown unknown, although the fact that the destruction would be pretty damn complete is a known known. Mistakes are known unknowns.

      Many factors including the dancing Israeli art students hint strongly about outsourcing and even off-shoring of many of the operational details in the preparation. This ties up a major loose end, because it can’t easily be pinned to loose-lipped and patriotic American agents. Incompetence is not something you could count on. In fact, all of the various agencies (not outsourced) acted very competently and predictably on 9/11 with one exception, their leadership levels. They took advantage of that predictability to slow decisions and distract until the attacks had been fulfilled. The fact that dancing Israeli art students were caught was a mistake; the fact that they were flown home with minimal interrogations was a mistake.

      I don’t know how you could conclude if there was a cover-up, we would find almost no mistakes. A cover-up doesn’t have to hide mistakes; it just has to protect those who are responsible or could get blamed. Mistakes were found, but as per the cover-up, no one was blamed. In fact, they were promoted and given medals or flown home to Israel.

      • Well first off I’m not even sure what milli-nukes are and if they even exist. But let’s entertain the fact that they do exist. You claim that it’s easy to debunk your speculations, yet here you are speculating on how the nukes were used to destroy the towers. Feel free to disbelieve the fire/gravity driven collapse, but I hope you have more evidence to believe in nukes because otherwise you’re just believing in speculations.

        On to sounds of explosions…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
        This video shows that even standard demo charges make lots of noise. It’s incredibly difficult to believe that nukes made less noise than this. And of course the flashes themselves are conspicuously missing from the collapses of the world trade centers. I’d like to hear your evidence for sound tampering of sound equipment. That is a bold claim sir and as we all know, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’

        It could be that the planes hit at a precise point to avoid hitting the charges, however most people know that nukes are unstable and any tampering, explosion, or movement could set them off. Also, with the elevators crashing down and debris falling from the floors above, there is a chance of setting off the nukes early, thus potentially ruining the plan and perhaps, as you mention, inadvertently unveiling the conspiracy.

        Also, if the govt. wanted to limit the number of casualties, why was the south tower hit lower than the north tower thus trapping more people in the floors above? Didn’t many people tell the employees to remain in the building? Furthermore, the South Tower collapsed first meaning more people could not escape.

        Elonce said, “Maybe the nukes were focused into a narrow blast cone angle up & down. In the chaotic destructive environment, the margin of error could mis-aim or even knock out subsequent nukes responsible for a certain section of the core, which ends up being that remaining spire.” This is certainly possible, but highly improbable in my eyes given the fact that the airplanes (or whatever they were) were driven precisely into the certain locations to avoid hitting explosives. So, I’m supposed to believe that the planes were precisely guided to a certain spot in the towers, but the govt. could not precisely plant the location of nukes? It seems like a large inconsistency in my eyes.

        I realize this is mostly speculation, but I’m trying to get you to see the flaws in your thinking. Once you realize there are many inconsistencies, then you may abandon your theory in favor of another one. Of course you can disagree with me and that’s fine, because I’m sure there are plenty of errors in logic that I am guilty of.

  39. elOnce says:

    Dear Mr. Plumber,

    This thread isn’t that long. Scroll up and you will find that Mr. McKee posted the link to September Clues. This goes into sufficient detail regarding the video manipulation that we were subjected to. Scroll a little further still, you’ll find the links I provided regarding milli-nukes and a nuclear 9/11. Explore the website and the blog, and you might find answers.

    You indicated that you weren’t even sure that milli-nukes existed. This you can take as point of fact, or your not-yet-started research (like beginning with those links) will take you there.

    If you are disposed to give me grieve after asking for speculation, receiving it as such, and then trashing for being nothing else regarding fine details but plausible scenarios to explain only what was observed outside the building, your OGCT will fair even worse. Box cutters? Cell phones? Passenger lists? Crashes without bodies, seats, luggage, or even airplane parts (Pennsylvania)? Buildings pulverizing themselves through the path of greatest resistance? Under ground fires burning for months? Unscientific and insufficient explanations for WTC-1, 2, & 7, and practically zippo on WTC-5 and WTC-6 with cylindrical and circular holes?

    Worse than sorry ass speculation is what the govt has fed us, and the intractable position you defend here. The OGCT is less coherent and less consistent than any of the wild-ass speculation (you asked for) here.

    You wrote:

    I’d like to hear your evidence for sound tampering of sound equipment. That is a bold claim sir and as we all know, ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.’

    You were given the links. Time for you to do your homework. Worse than trying to convince you to cheer for Manchester instead of Dublin will be any effort on my part — any words I write here — to get you to switch theories. I won’t succeed. You have to discover it yourself.

    Final point. Sure it is fun to try to find the flaws in my thinking, in my wild-ass speculation, which I indulged you in just to get you thinking outside the box. But you will be a fool if you don’t recognize and acknowledge the aspects that have fewer flaws and inconsistencies as the OGCT.

    It isn’t that you don’t have the skills to convince me of the correctness of the OGCT. You don’t have the facts, evidence, or even science.

    • elOnce says:

      If you haven’t already, you need to view these photographs from 9/11 FEMA Photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld.




      Remember that this is not footage that was initially available.

      When I, and I’m sure much of the world, see the vastness and completeness and thoroughness of the destruction, “nukes” has to come to mind. Look at how far those heavy box columns as complete sections were thrown and how deeply they were embedded in neighboring buildings.

      You had asked why the towers weren’t exploded when the planes (or whatever) hit. There were explosions in the basement. Plan A may have been for explosions up top to happen. Those milli-nukes I’ve been talking about are indeed flaky. Who knows what Plan B, C, and D were in the event of certain failures.

      When I look at the destruction, I speculate that the box columns were meant to contain the nuclear pulverization and vaporization of the internal content until they were separated by conventional (and unconventional) means and folded onto the pile. It is why little of the inside material is recognizable as anything at all.

      Gravitational collapses have never, ever exhibited the speed and energy as what these suppressed images clearly exhibit.

      Pay particular attention to the pictures where they are standing inside the holes that are WTC-6.

  40. Pingback: Why is the official story of 911 not in the conspiracy theory section? - Page 11 - Political Forum

  41. Pingback: Another Great Documentary...'Improbable Collapse: The Demolition Of Our Republic' - Page 4 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  42. Pingback: 9/11 was an inside job - Page 78 - Grasscity.com Forums

  43. Pingback: 9/11 Conspiracy Solved?: Names, Connections, Details Exposed... - Page 8 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  44. Ken says:

    You conspiracy nuts need to talk to an architect ALL BUILDINGS higher than 5 stories built after 1952 are designed to collapse in upon themselves in the case of structural failure, I’m pretty sure that taller buildings would be earlier than that!

  45. Hi there everyone, it’s my first visit at this web
    site, and piece of writing is in fact fruitful in support of me,
    keep up posting these articles.

  46. Raphael Bruckner says:

    Mr. Rational You are an idiot and full of crap

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s