Sept. 11, 2001 - terrorists attack the twin towers of World Trade Center in New York city and the Pentagon; and attempt another attack in Washington.
This is why many of us are here on this forum.
I was getting firewood that day and heard it on the truck radio. Shocking.
Where were you?
I had just pulled into Wayward Steel fab yard. Didn't need ear plugs when I walked in the shop cause no body was doing any work.
Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.
Working from home. Listened to news a bit and went to grocery store and filled buggy with more meat, then picked up kids in school and back home.
Sad day. My preps were all in place. As a security consultant... I had just gone through Y2k preparations in high end businesse and gov projects so acutely aware of status. Plus I had lived through ice storm and no power beside my gen for thirteen days.
911 was a good wake up call and there have been many others, but people simply do not seem to care all that much
I was at work, coming back from a getting a coffee when some coworkers told me. We collectively spent the next few days trying to account for company employees ..3 were on planes that were hijacked, and were all killed, one along with his young son 🙁 - as well as supplying replacement routers to Manhattan. I was with Nortel at the time, and this made me reassess whether I really wanted my waking hours to help line pockets of greedy corrupt individuals, or do something different. So I went into public service with an eye to combatting terrorism. I had lived through the big tornado that hit Edmonton, as well as various emergencies abroad (my dad lived overseas in not-so-stable countries), but this was a wake-up call that things could go massively wrong closer to home..
HopeImReady
"The thing about smart mother f*ckers, is that they sometimes sound like crazy mother f*ckers to dumb mother f*ckers." -Abraham .”
Personally i wouldn't call it a terrorist attack. My point of view on what i have seen on it all is inside job. But won't point out why. Info all online. But i was in the middle of the bush working. Didn't find out till i was in cell range and then spent hrs trying to get a hold of my brother that work off and on in those building's.
I was in Iqaluit (Nunavut) having coffee before heading north. When the towers came down (as if subjected to a controlled explosion), I couldn't believe that this was caused by the air crash(s). It only left me with more questions (especially when the third building came down which wasn't subjected to a direct hit). I agree with termOshad, the destruction defied the laws of Physics. It doesn't pass the litmus test imo.
In any event, this was a tragedy. I knew that this event changed many people's perception. Regardless if the cause was internal conspiracy, or an act of terrorism, the result is the same. Disaster can happen anywhere and at any time. All we can do is prepare ourselves as best as we can; keeping in-mind that the outcome will likely present us with something different than what we now envision...
None you improvise, one (or more) is luxury.
I was finishing my pilot licence at the time, I was grounded for a little over a week before life could return to normal (ish).
I don't want to derail the post, but wonder how people think that someone - a group of people - would rig explosives to buildings, unnoticed and would carry on, without saying a word, as the world lost all sorts of civil liberties since.
FYI. I find this intaresting:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W3y3Qh8R1s#t=305.218298
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymf30rN4Mxo
None you improvise, one (or more) is luxury.
I don't want to derail the post, but wonder how people think that someone - a group of people - would rig explosives to buildings, unnoticed and would carry on, without saying a word, as the world lost all sorts of civil liberties since.
The New York Port Authority planned to use 5,000 tons of asbestos in the building of the twin towers. This was used for fireproofing. They finally decided on a product called Blade-Shield which was 20% asbestos. Before the buildings were completed they passed a regulation prohibiting the use of asbestos in new construction. Twenty years later the buildings were long past removing the asbestos from the structure.
Because of the danger of asbestos dust, the N.Y. building cods required any remodeling work be preceded by removing the asbestos. In 1991, the twin towers were out-of-date. The government filed suit against its insurers. The case, Port Authority of NY vs. Affiliated FM Insurance Co., sought between 500 million and 1 billion dollars for asbestos abatement. They lost the case. The towers needed refit. The other option was to tear them down, but this was rejected due to their size and the danger presented by the asbestos. They were in a real bind...
Enter Larry Silverstein who purchased the lease on the twin towers for 99 years in a deal worth over $3.2 billion. Previously, he had developed and constructed Building 7 on the WTC site (the building that fell down without being hit by an aircraft). Silverstein had taken out insurance policies specifically covering terrorist attacks. Seven weeks later, the twin towers were destroyed in a so called 'terrorist attack.'To date, Silverstein has received almost $5 billion from nine different insurance companies...
When you start to investigate all this, you cannot help but see the inconsistencies. Some include the fact that the towers fell at free-fall speed. This is a scientific impossibility if there was any resistance. This can only be attained in a building collapse initiated by controlled explosion. Secondly, metal was contorted and large beams melted. Temperatures of 2000 degrees F were recorded from the site that registered high for 8 weeks afterwards. Again this is only found with the use of high explosives. The list goes on and on...
Without question, it is worth some investigation. Check this out if you want to learn more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M
This is 5 hours long. I started watching it and became a believer and watched the whole thing. 🙂
None you improvise, one (or more) is luxury.
Wayne...I am always up for looking at a good argument, or another perspective but I just couldn't go past 20 minutes, I don't even know how I made it that long... All along I was saying.... but...wait... no that's wrong....jumping to conclusions,...and on it went. There may be a credible argument for what your saying, but I cant say I have seen it yet.
Any point can be argued, debaters are trained in arguing a point, then switching positions and just as vigorously arguing the opposite. Good debaters can convince you to agree with both points that they argue.
In hindsight of a event, and that is what this is, many extraneous points can be found and strung out to make a good tale. I make a practice, or try and make a practise of critically thinking about and questioning everything, most especially things that agree with any bias I may already hold, and I most certainly am predisposed to having a bias against the US government but even with that bias I cant agree with points in your vids. I wont go into it here, but I am not unfamiliar with steel...and steel beams....massive ones....I have a idea what heat, time and compression can do to them...and when I hear someone saying the only way they failed was by being blown up I know they don't have real world experience with steel and I don't care what letters they have after their name.
I am reminded of Richard Findmen when called to give his opinion on why the Challenger blew up (back in the eighties). He was called after testimony by engineer after engineer that the orings could not have been the problem in the cold weather. He didn't argue with those engineers...at the congressional hearing he just picked up one o ring and in front of everyone dipped it in a glass with Ice and water and then pulled it apart with his fingers.
Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.
Peppercorn,
For me the problem isn't complicated. Freefall is what it is. If you drop an object from 1,368 feet (417 m), the previous height of Tower 1; and at 1,362 feet (415.1 m), the previous height of Tower 2, it will take approximately 11 seconds for an object at this height to hit the ground anywhere on the planet (32 fps/ps). That's not opinion, but basic physics. No letters after your name are required, just an understanding of high school mathematics. If the object takes longer than this to fall, it is being slowed by a solid structure below it providing resistance.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a measurement standards laboratory, and a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce. In their report on 911, they note that the three buildings (tower 1, 2 and building 7) experienced a freefall state when they collapsed (there is lots of video, you can time it yourself),
Using common sense, what do you think caused the total support structure of two 110 story buildings to completely disappear? Magic, controlled demolitions, or is there another explanation?
To-date, 2,895 Architects and Engineers of the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have signed a petition for an independent investigation into this disaster. They find the explanations provided by the 911 Commission either improbable or scientifically impossible, Although I'm not an engineer, I'm of a mind that the laws of physics did apply on September 11th. Moreover, the tons of glass and concrete that were spontaneously disintegrated (clearly seen in the videos) could not occur without an external expenditure of energy (explosive). Concrete does not disintegrate because it falls (it waits to hit something solid first)...
None you improvise, one (or more) is luxury.
Ok, I'll play along as well. Assuming the cause of the destruction is indeed explosive related and someone pocketed $5bn in the process and - lets push this a bit further - the government managed to get it's agenda of fighting a couple of middle-eastern countries AND say people profited from the sale of military gear...
How can so many people be involved in the charade:
1) Acquiring a likely HUGE amount of explosive
2) Bringing in demolition experts to rig said explosive
3) Doing so in a very populated area without raising suspicions
4) Hijack 4 airliners
5) Find suicidal maniacs to fly said planes into targets
6) Ensure all explosives are in place and ready to detonate them at a convenient time while the planes are hitting the building or after a short period of time to ensure realism
Then, find a way to silence all those involved.
I suspect anyone approached by some sketchy person saying "I'll pay you bizilion dollars and move you on a private island in exchange for your explosives knowledge on a super-top secret mission" would also read that they may end up with cement shoes in the Hudson river... So unlikely people played along.
But anyway...
I've since finished my pilot training and other than having to remove my shoes at the airport, life goes on.
Peppercorn,
For me the problem isn't complicated. Freefall is what it is. If you drop an object from 1,368 feet (417 m), the previous height of Tower 1; and at 1,362 feet (415.1 m), the previous height of Tower 2, it will take approximately 11 seconds for an object at this height to hit the ground anywhere on the planet (32 fps/ps). That's not opinion, but basic physics. No letters after your name are required, just an understanding of high school mathematics. If the object takes longer than this to fall, it is being slowed by a solid structure below it providing resistance.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a measurement standards laboratory, and a non-regulatory agency of the United States Department of Commerce. In their report on 911, they note that the three buildings (tower 1, 2 and building 7) experienced a freefall state when they collapsed (there is lots of video, you can time it yourself),
Using common sense, what do you think caused the total support structure of two 110 story buildings to completely disappear? Magic, controlled demolitions, or is there another explanation?
For me the problem isn't complicated. Freefall is what it is. If you drop an object from 1,368 feet (417 m), the previous height of Tower 1; and at 1,362 feet (415.1 m), the previous height of Tower 2, it will take approximately 11 seconds for an object at this height to hit the ground anywhere on the planet (32 fps/ps). That's not opinion, but basic physics. No letters after your name are required, just an understanding of high school mathematics. If the object takes longer than this to fall, it is being slowed by a solid structure below it providing resistance.
I was with you until the last sentence....by a solid structure below it...Now I am glad you mentioned the NIST and used data from them, though I have no idea how you have reached different conclusions than they did....So just in case you missed their conclusions and how they came to them ..here is the links First a explanation of tower 7.... https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation . nothing ambiguous here, its pretty straight forward.
Now here is a synopsis of questions/answers asked about towers 1 and two. https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation , they explain freefall and why that's not relevant.
I can give you more links to their investigation but we are talking about over 10,000 detailed pages.
I like the idea that you are suspicious of the government, So am I, I am not trying to change that, more people should be so....but I value being accurate as well....
I can only think of this analogy....if I heard galloping hoves out side my window tonight, would I likely be correct if I assumed them to be gazelles, or am I more likely to be right if I think my neighbours horses got out again?
of course just the thought of the GB administration coordinating such a detailed massive in both men and material, accurate and well timed event goes beyond credibility for me.....Remember this was the "hanging chad" administration that couldn't run a election without error, where counting is the single skill required 😆
Now was there a conspiracy of actions and intent after this event ?, you bet, and multi pronged...but thats a separate issue...
Give a man a gun, and he can rob a bank. Give a man a bank, and he can rob the world.
Ok, I'll play along as well. Assuming the cause of the destruction is indeed explosive related and someone pocketed $5bn in the process and - lets push this a bit further - the government managed to get it's agenda of fighting a couple of middle-eastern countries AND say people profited from the sale of military gear...
How can so many people be involved in the charade:
1) Acquiring a likely HUGE amount of explosive
2) Bringing in demolition experts to rig said explosive
3) Doing so in a very populated area without raising suspicions
4) Hijack 4 airliners
5) Find suicidal maniacs to fly said planes into targets
6) Ensure all explosives are in place and ready to detonate them at a convenient time while the planes are hitting the building or after a short period of time to ensure realismThen, find a way to silence all those involved.
I suspect anyone approached by some sketchy person saying "I'll pay you bizilion dollars and move you on a private island in exchange for your explosives knowledge on a super-top secret mission" would also read that they may end up with cement shoes in the Hudson river... So unlikely people played along.
But anyway...
I've since finished my pilot training and other than having to remove my shoes at the airport, life goes on.
There's no doubt that this involved a large operation. At the time, renovations were underway. Specifically these were being done on several different floors and in the elevator shafts of the buildings. I'm confident that (specific to your first 3 points) any supplies could be moved around in these areas in the day time without notice. Workers did not need to use any public area (as is common in most large office buildings). Large projects and refitting was historically done to many areas of these buildings. Actions of this type were common place.
As to the hijacking of the aircraft, this would have been easier at that time than what it would be today. Many of the security measures used today were as a result of 911. Security was much more open and less restrictive then. Interestingly enough, the CIA had a project that involved switching out an airliner with a remotely flown aircraft. This was to be accomplished without notice of ATC. The 5 hour video I've listed shows more detail of this project.
The video also relates the flight path of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Several experienced airline pilots with 4000+ hours on type have started that with their skill set, they would be incapable of flying the same route that the alleged terrorist flew. We are to believe that this person (who had never been at the controls of a jet aircraft in his life) accomplished this. A few weeks prior a flight instructor who flew with him said he wasn't at the solo stage in a 150. Yet people swallow what is said without question.
None you improvise, one (or more) is luxury.
Peppercorn,
The 2000+ engineers and architects I mention disagree with the NIST conclusion. Despite Building 7 having a higher degree of protection from fire (substantially above code) NIST is suggesting that Building 7 is the first steel supported structure in the planet's history to collapse as a result of fire. They do not offer any credible information to substantiate the temperatures required. To use your analogy, if I heard the beating of wings outside my window tonight, would I likely be correct if I assumed them to my neighbours horses who got out again or birds?
Fire generates heat at temperatures that relate to the material being consumed. In a steel office building you have limited wood and cloth. These can exert a maximum temperature of 1600 degrees.
It takes temperatures over 2500 degrees F to soften / melt steel. These temperatures are not present in a building fire (unless chemicals/explosives are introduced to it). In this case, said chemicals/explosives would have to be applied evenly to cause a near perfect horizontal collapse and free fall of the building. Even if this was a chemical plant we were talking about and not an office building, it would likely collapse/melt in the areas of chemical location and not uniformly with areas where no chemicals existed...
Why would the building collapse anyway when fire was not present in the lower floors. These areas surly wouldn't collapse under fire, when there was no fire in these areas. Why would these otherwise sound structures not slow the collapse of upper floor? Why does the 3D depiction of the NST collapse not resemble what actually transpired on camera? To wit, one side of the building collapsing and then the other, where it can be clearly seen falling in almost perfect horizontal symmetry...
If you doubt what I'm saying, start a fire in your fireplace and try to melt the steel grate. A ridiculous notion isn't it?
None you improvise, one (or more) is luxury.