Things The NYT Doesn't Want To Talk About

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

I question if the WTC 1 and 2 towers were detonated per se.  They had an unusual construction, with load-bearing walls.  All the elevators were in the center.  So it was not impossible that the buildings pancaked due to the planes crashing into the center of each building. In addition, there were of course gas and electric lines that would have exploded as everything came apart.  

If the terrorists, or Bin Laden, understood the construction of these towers they would have realized they had an Achilles' heel.

 

 

Pamela,

      The "pancake" theory for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 has been thoroughly debunked.

      If you study the film of the collapses, it's obvious that the buildings were not brought down by a top-down gravitational "pile driver" effect.

      On the contrary, WTC1 and WTC2 both collapsed at near free fall acceleration-- indicating that something had eliminated (demolished) significant resistance to collapse-- all the way down, for over 100 floors!

       Burning jet fuel on some upper floors couldn't possibly have demolished all of those massive steel girders.  Nor would it have explosively pulverized 1.8 million tons of concrete.

       On the contrary, major fires in steel skyscrapers typically burn for hours and hours without melting steel girders or causing the buildings to collapse.   That's why the NYFD fire officials thought Rudy Giuliani was nuts when he told them shortly after the plane crashes that the towers were going to collapse. 

       As for WTC7, if you observe the film of the collapse, (below) the distance between the upper floors remains constant as the entire building suddenly collapses in a free fall.

       In other words, the building was not crushed by a "pile driver" effect of upper floors collapsing onto lower floors-- as the NIST Report claimed.

      

 

[Pamela Brown]

22 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Pamela,

      The "pancake" theory for the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2 has been thoroughly debunked.

      If you study the film of the collapses, it's obvious that the buildings were not brought down by a top-down gravitational "pile driver" effect.

      On the contrary, WTC1 and WTC2 both collapsed at near free fall acceleration-- indicating that something had eliminated (demolished) significant resistance to collapse-- all the way down, for over 100 floors!

       Burning jet fuel on some upper floors couldn't possibly have demolished all of those massive steel girders.  Nor would it have explosively pulverized 1.8 million tons of concrete.

       On the contrary, major fires in steel skyscrapers typically burn for hours and hours without melting steel girders or causing the buildings to collapse.   That's why the NYFD fire officials thought Rudy Giuliani was nuts when he told them shortly after the plane crashes that the towers were going to collapse. 

       As for WTC7, if you observe the film of the collapse, (below) the distance between the upper floors remains constant as the entire building suddenly collapses in a free fall.

       In other words, the building was not crushed by a "pile driver" effect of upper floors collapsing onto lower floors-- as the NIST Report claimed.

      

 

With all due respect, I disagree with your analysis of WTC1 and WTC2.  The architectural integrity of those buildings was violated because of the planes flying into them.  It's not a 'pile driver' effect.  It is that the load-bearing walls failed, and once they failed where the planes hit, then they began to fail below and above.

WTC7 had normal construction. I think your theory might work with that building.

[W. Niederhut]

50 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

With all due respect, I disagree with your analysis of WTC1 and WTC2.  The architectural integrity of those buildings was violated because of the planes flying into them.  It's not a 'pile driver' effect.  It is that the load-bearing walls failed, and once they failed where the planes hit, then they began to fail below and above.

WTC7 had normal construction. I think your theory might work with that building.

Pamela,

    Think about all of the massive steel columns in those buildings (WTC1 and WTC2) on all of the floors below the level of the upper floors where the planes crashed into the buildings.

    What changed in the way of the total gravitational force (weight) exerted on those lower level columns as a result of the crashes?  Very little.  Those Boeing fuselages are made of light weight aluminum.

    (Don't forget that those steel girders and struts were designed to hold all of the weight of the upper floors of the building-- as they had done for years.)  

     A plane crashing into an upper floor of the building would not have significantly altered the resistance of the lower level steel girders to gravitational collapse.

    Therefore, the official (NIST) government narrative was that "burning jet fuel" somehow weakened all of the steel beams-- presumably all 100+ floors of them.

    It's analogous to the Magic Bullet Theory of JFK's assassination-- a scientific absurdity.

    To begin with, how much burning jet fuel could have possibly seeped to floors far below the crash sites on the upper floors-- especially after a substantial amount of the fuel exploded upon impact?

    Secondly, even if there had been enough jet fuel to heat all 100+ floors of steel girders (an absurdity) jet fuel doesn't burn at a high enough temperature to liquefy steel-- which is what precisely what happened to WTC1 and WTC2 on 9/11.    Molten steel is clearly visible on the film of the demolitions, and was witnessed at Ground Zero-- which firemen described as looking,  "like a foundry." 

    I hate to agree with Donald Trump, but he was absolutely correct when he said on 9/11 that, based upon his knowledge of the construction of WTC1 and WTC2, the Twin Towers "could only have been destroyed by bombs."

    

   

Edited July 1, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[W. Niederhut]

50 minutes ago, Robert Wheeler said:

Architects & Engineers for Truth has provided the most convincing, scientifically sound analysis of the causes of the collapse of WTC #7.

It is pretty much impossible to not come away convinced that WTC #7 was the result of a controlled demolition.

If A&E for Truth is too thorough and validated to be dismissed, then everything else that occurred on 9/11 needs to be reconsidered.

It is too much to take in for a lot of people. It was for me until relatively recently.

  

Rob,

     The most astonishing thing to observe, IMO, is the way our mainstream U.S. media has systematically blacked out any coverage of the overwhelming scientific evidence debunking the bogus official (NIST) government narrative about the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11-- for the past 19 years!   Concurrently, there are multiple bogus, John McAdams type websites on the internet dedicated to propagating disinformation about what happened on 9/11, and mislabeling the scientists in the 9/11 Truth research community as kooky conspiracy theorists.

      The explosive demolition of WTC7 is a no brainer, but so are the explosive demolitions of WTC1 and WTC2, once people look at the data.*

      The NIST computer "simulation" of the the collapse of the Twin Towers is so ridiculous that the NIST refused to even publish the "data" used as parameters in their computer "simulation."  They also refused to mention the obvious explosions that pulverized all of the concrete, the cut steel girders, or the liquefied steel at Ground Zero.   In fact, they didn't even conduct a chemical analysis of the WTC debris!

     There are more than 3,000 highly reputable architects, engineers, and scientists involved with the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

     As far as I know, there was nothing comparable to A&E for 9/11 Truth in the JFKA research community that debunked the Warren Commission Report during the first 20 years following JFK's murder.

     Yet, the general public still knows almost nothing about the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth or the 9/11 scientific evidence.  If the public hears anything about the 9/11 research community in the M$M, it is typically the standard nonsense about paranoid "conspiracy theorists."

*

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

 

As explained by AE911TRUTH member Tony Szamboti, the pulverization itself is not evidence of controlled demolition. Once the columns have no support, the heavy objects colliding with eachother would have more energy than high explosives placed on every inch of the building. The question is what made those columns have no support in the first place.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Micah Mileto

[David Andrews]

On 6/30/2020 at 10:16 PM, Pamela Brown said:

With all due respect, I disagree with your analysis of WTC1 and WTC2.  The architectural integrity of those buildings was violated because of the planes flying into them.  It's not a 'pile driver' effect.  It is that the load-bearing walls failed, and once they failed where the planes hit, then they began to fail below and above.

WTC7 had normal construction. I think your theory might work with that building.

Again, for those with the sitzfleisch to watch the lengthy proceedings, the papers presented at the 2011 Toronto hearings on 9/11 demonstrate, among other things, how NIST fabricated the testing used to determine the pile-driver effect.  And those exterior load-bearing walls were designed to accommodate jet crashes.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-toronto-hearings-on-911-academics-examine-the-evidence-uncover-the-deception/5400338

There are various edits of the video records of the conference available.  Really, all 9/11 research ought to start here:

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by David Andrews

[Pamela Brown]

20 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

As explained by AE911TRUTH member Tony Szamboti, the pulverization itself is not evidence of controlled demolition. Once the columns have no support, the heavy objects colliding with eachother would have more energy than high explosives placed on every inch of the building. The question is what made those columns have no support in the first place.

That makes more sense to me. They were load-bearing walls, a different kind of construction. Their integrity was destroyed when the planes crashed into the buildings. Also, all of the elevators were in the center of the towers, making it impossible for those above the planes to escape.

[Pamela Brown]

David Andrews said:  And those exterior load-bearing walls were designed to accommodate jet crashes.

Yes and no. A small plane gone off-course, maybe; but obviously not a fully fueled commercial jet deliberately crashed at full throtle.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Pamela Brown

[David Andrews]

1 hour ago, Pamela Brown said:

David Andrews said:  And those exterior load-bearing walls were designed to accommodate jet crashes.

Yes and no. A small plane gone off-course, maybe; but obviously not a fully fueled commercial jet deliberately crashed at full throtle.

It was designed to withstand a 727 hit.  The corner hit on the south tower hit might be called fatal, but not the high frontal hit on the north tower.

[Cliff Varnell]

https://www.ae911truth.org/evidence/faqs/360-faq-2-were-the-twin-towers-designed-to-withstand-the-impact-of-the-airplanes

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

That makes more sense to me. They were load-bearing walls, a different kind of construction. Their integrity was destroyed when the planes crashed into the buildings. Also, all of the elevators were in the center of the towers, making it impossible for those above the planes to escape.

Pamela,

       Seriously, this government (NIST) narrative about the airplanes somehow "destroying the structural integrity" of all of the heavy steel I-beams around the perimeters of the entire lower 80+ floors of WTC1 and WTC2 towers is simply absurd. * They may as well have claimed that the 100+ floors of massive steel girders were demolished by magical pixie dust.

     In reality, those steel girders were systematically lysed by steel-melting, thermitic explosives that were hot enough to completely liquefy steel.   That rules out jet fuel.

      It also rules out gravitational force by pancaking of floors as the cause of the near free fall collapse to Ground Zero.   (Nor is step-wise pancaking of floors seen on the film.)

      As for the 1.8 million tons of pulverized concrete-- the tell-tale signs of explosive demolition (in addition to the apparent use of steel-melting thermite) are the visible (and audible) explosions and high-pressure pyroclastic flows.   Those were not mere clouds of concrete dust wafted about by the gravitational force of collapsing floors.   They were high-pressure, high-velocity explosions of pulverized concrete resembling the mushroom clouds in pyroclastic flows from volcanoes-- generated by extremely high temperatures.

    Rob Wheeler's observations are very interesting.  Those of us who live thousands of miles from the Big Apple probably don't realize how severely traumatized people in New York and New Jersey have been by 9/11-- to the extent that the subject is virtually unmentionable.

*
    

    

    

Edited July 3, 2020 by W. Niederhut

[David Andrews]

On 6/28/2020 at 9:23 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Why was this building detonated? I can see the evidence that it was, but have a hard time believing it was deliberate. I’ve read that the buildings had a fail safe detonation mechanism built in. Did anyone die in that building? Do readers believe that all three buildings were brought down by detonation? 

for me the smoking gun has always been the protection of the plot and plotters before and after the event. 

We can speculate multiple reasons.  Some of the reasons may be destruction of data in criminal investigations, actual or possible.  However, in these digital times where little information is ever irretrievably lost, data destruction can seem like a pipedream, or at least a dodge for moving data and hiding it.

However, one dependable reason is that destruction of WTC 7 was covered in the insurance plan crafted between Larry Silverstein and and the WTC Properties insurers and reinsurers (brought on to spread the risk), and so the WTC 7 collapse was made part of the Silverstein redevelopment deal for the site.  He had to get paid big-time to front for all that destruction and the years it would take to resolve, so it wouldn't fall on the Port Authority of NY.

***

And, Pamela, nobody has yet explained why the undamaged top of the south tower disintegrates in midair, on video, while it twists away and separates from the lower floors collapsing beneath it.  Quite a trick.

Edited July 3, 2020 by David Andrews

[Pamela Brown]

20 hours ago, David Andrews said:

It was designed to withstand a 727 hit.  The corner hit on the south tower hit might be called fatal, but not the high frontal hit on the north tower.

A deliberate hit? I think not. 

[Pamela Brown]

W. Neiderhut said: They may as well have claimed that the 100+ floors of massive steel girders were demolished by magical pixie dust.

There were girders in the center of the building, the rest of the weight was carried by the load-bearing walls. 

[Micah Mileto]

59 minutes ago, Pamela Brown said:

A deliberate hit? I think not. 

John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there

A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact, page 131

https://citizenfor911truth.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/debunking911debunkingwtcwithstand707impact2-1.pdf