I agree that the government profiting does not prove causation. But our government lies and distorts and manipulates so much that it's very difficult to accept what they say as truth at all

The fact that the government profited in power and money from 9/11 doesn't mean they caused it. They might simply have taken advantage of it -- just like they try to take advantage of every bad thing that happens to increase their power.

Occam's razor. It doesn't take a massive complex governmental conspiracy to explain 9/11 It wasn't even the first attack on the towers.

Remember Eric Snowden. He knew he would be destroyed and he revealed the NSA conspiracy anyway.

Actually it wasn't the plane impact that caused the towers to fall. They both withstood the impact. They fell much later (hour?) when the fires caused by the jet fuel weakened the steel beams sufficiently to cause them to fail. Then the towers fell straight down.

Perhaps so. But at this point we will never know. What we know is that our government profited immensely in terms of power and money from 911. We have less freedom and money and I really doubt we are safer

You're assuming a loony-toons type scenario where the coyote leaves a coyote shaped hole in the canyon floor. It doesn't work like that, especially since they had literally just finished renovating that section of the Pentagon to be sturdier against things like bombs.

I would expect that given the strength of the wing when hit like that would shear it off from the plane fuselage as opposed to extruding it through a circular hole about the size of the fuselage it was attached to.

After all, the fuselage did create the hole when it slammed into the cement structure. But the wings which support the fuselage in flight didnt make any larger hole, even with large and heavy engines attached?

They should have sheared off, based on what evidence? This is not rhetorical, but what do you think happens when you take a light weight aluminum structure and slam it in to a reinforced concrete wall at 500+ MPH?

Those sky scrapers are designed as a 2 part system:

1.) The core.

2.) The exterior steel.

And the exterior steel took a thrashing both from the collision, and the fire.

Hello MichaelAarethun,
Exactly. It doesn't fit. Sorry if I was not clear.
Respectfully,
O.A.

As there will always be war, there will always be those who act upon emotion rather than reason. I was among those in the days, weeks and months following 9/11. The perpetrators of the crimes against this country and it's people rely on that fact. (Hint: "Game Theory" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_th...
There are, thankfully, those willing to spend the time following their instincts to investigate the inconsistencies of the official narrative. Among those are a group of professional pilots who have logged thousands of hours in the very type of aircraft that were used in the "attacks" of 9/11. Using FAA approved full-motion flight simulators in which they routinely conduct training for certification and proficiency, none of them, despite their massive experience and expertise, were able to fly Boeing 757 simulators into the Twin Towers. It's easy enough to find the accounts online, you can research that yourself. .
What I would like to share, however, are the views concerning questions that the professional architects and engineers who have joined the 9/11 Truth movement choose not to get into: Who did it and why?
This is a link to a short interview with Christopher Bollyn. I think you'll find in interesting and enlightening:
https://youtu.be/_0p0OIHZ-RI

Interesting as well are two books by Rebekah Roth, who spent nearly thirty years in an airline career working as both a flight attendant and an international purser. She was trained as an emergency medical technician and served as a volunteer firefighter. Her books are titled Methodical Illusion and Methodical Deception. In these books you'll learn about the lies told to us by our media about those events; among those being the lies about the inflight calls that were allegedly made from the airliners while in flight. You can find plenty of videos of Rebeka Roth on YouTube if you prefer videos to books.

Most of you will not invest the time to watch this 5 hour video. Those of you who will will be rewarded with the accounts of level-headed professional scientists, architects and engineers who take apart the lies found in the official narrative and that which was penned by Michael Chertoff's cousin in Popular Mechanics.

https://youtu.be/8DOnAn_PX6M

Still with me? Check out Barbara Honegger:

https://youtu.be/4fvJ8nFa5Qk

And last but not least is an outstanding Italian documentary: Zero

https://youtu.be/QU961SGps8g

I did bother to look. there was no mention of the engines and the hole was round, not wing shaped. And where were the wings? they should have been sheared off and lying on the outside of the building not somehow extruded into the round hole in the building. It just didnt look like what the government said, so as a result I dont believe them.

As to the building, the forces bringing the building down were huge, and it just doesnt seem reasonable that they would be applied straight down. The plane hit on one side also, giving unbalanced forces to start with. Just seemed odd to me since buildings always tilt a little, and when they do, they go over.

Utter nonsense atkins.

1.) Can't speak to that practice, but the hijackers picked routes that either took them near New York anyway, or had a lot of fuel. They also went "dark", with no communications, when hijackers to that point at least made some token communications.

2.) True, but that's because there's not much to burn in steel buildings. Introduce several hundred gallons of jet fuel, and then things are very, very different.

3.) When the entire top quarter of the world trade towers starts falling, it has an energy that far, far, far exceeds the "Material Crush Strength" of concrete and steel. I.E. Each and every floor won't stop the ludicrously high (and rising as it drops more) momentum as it falls and pancake down floor by floor.

4.) Several hundred thousand tons of flaming rubble landed on Building 7. I looked in the dictionary, and that definitely is in the definition for "anything."

5.) Which is better when leading a class filled with little kids? Calmly acting like nothing is happening? Or jumping up and down yelling, "HOLY SHIT, WE'RE ALL GOING TO FREAKING DIE!"?

6.) Look at an ATC map of all the planes in the sky and moving, and you'll get an understanding of the scale and why it was easy to lose a plane.

Almost. Steel begins to lose (non-negligible) strength around 600 degrees Fahr. By 800, it could lose as much as half. By ~1400 degrees, steel becomes malleable, i.e. as soft as a stick of chewing gum.

But when the planes hit the towers, they cut a large number of the Structural Steel members. So you basically have a snowballing engineering problem:

1.) The impact of the planes knocked off any fireproofing used to protect the steel and concrete.

2.) The Steel strength was about 50% after a few minutes due to the heat generated.

3.) There was 25% fewer steel columns from when the planes hit them.

4.) The most generous safety factors of 100% extra strength suddenly evaporate when you take #'s 1, 2, and 3 into account.

Where to start, where to start...

The building fell straight down because of the design. It had a strong concrete core, and steel support around the outside. Why would it tip when all the forces were vertical?


The 757, despite being large, is a very light weight object. What do you think happens when you take something very light and smash it into a building that literally had just been reinforced to protect from explosions? And the engines were found inside. The pictures are there to see, if you bother to look.

I read somewhere that there was evidence of thermite found. Thermite, in paint, add a jet with fuel, no need for explosives, and yes that building will pancake flat. if it was just heat/fire alone, the building would have tilted. The questions still remain about the duration of the fire and level of heat required to get the steel up to an unstable point, and I only bring that up due to other fires of steel buildings that didn't result in a collapse. To me though, the how they collapsed is less important as the events as a whole. Problem, reaction, solution....

I disagree that the target selection was amateurish. This was an attack against our economy and power. Also tall towers like that are easier to hit with an aircraft than a building close to the ground...like the pentagon was. If they had hit a federal building full of politicians they would have provided a service to us. The government is a parasite feeding on the body politic and actually weakening the country. The twin towers was full of people that contributed to american wealth and therefore power. The pentagon was full of people that also project power and I might add are actually authorized by the constitution.

very fine, sir, and Thank You! . there is a world of stuff
which people would know if they watched mister wizard
or whoever still does science things like that. . and this guy
is wonderful -- how did you find him? -- j
.

Sure. But not enough of it lost strength from a not even straight on hit ventilating to the outside to weaken that much of the core imho. And then for the rest of the building to offer almost known resistance to the fall is beyond belief.