9/11 15 years later

[WillBrink]

There's an interesting editorial in a physics pub written by people with the creds (Mechanical engineers, in Architects & Engineers, etc) to discuss the topic, vs the usual stuff from conspiracy plebs. It's a worthy read that brings up important Qs worth re examining, though I personally do not think those buildings fell from any separate mechanisms from what we already know of. At the same time, if there's legit Qs left and evidence that does not support the early conclusions from people with the creds to do it and passed muster in such a publication, then it's worth noting and considering. Should it be re opened?

End of the day, I think the simplest answer to it it the correct answer: Yes, no modern skyscraper has ever fallen due to fire, but none has ever been hit by a plane full of fuel. Yes, the buildings were designed to withstand it, but plenty of designs don't stand up to real world physics when tested, and these buildings did not. Some designs work in the real world, some don't, and once in a while, you get a perfect storm where a design is tested in such a way it exposes specific design flaws, and people die. Much is learned from it however, and life drives on. The shear logistics of placing controlled explosives in both those buildings, and then timing that to the planes crashing, etc etc is just not realistic in my view, even if it was not all done in total secret.


The conclusion:

"It bears repeating that fires have never caused the total
collapse of a steel-framed high-rise before or since 9/11.
Did we witness an unprecedented event three separate
times on September 11, 2001? The NIST reports, which
attempted to support that unlikely conclusion, fail to per
suade a growing number of architects, engineers, and
scientists. Instead, the evidence points overwhelmingly
to the conclusion that all three buildings were destroyed
by controlled demolition. Given the far-reaching implications,
it is morally imperative that this hypothesis be
the subject of a truly scientific and impartial investigation
by responsible authorities."

Full paper:


https://www.europhysicsnews.org/arti...2016474p21.pdf

[Doc Safari]

The truth will never be known for sure. That's how they want it. What amazes me is that the attack was funded, planned, and carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians probably with help from the Saudi government.

So we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan.

[RetroRevolver77]

The truth will never be known for sure. That's how they want it. What amazes me is that the attack was funded, planned, and carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians probably with help from the Saudi government.

So we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan.

The real question is how much did our government know because it seems that once that information came out that it involved the Saudi's- we should have been at war against them.

[VARIABLE9]

Maybe buildings 1 and 2, but I’m sorry building 6 seems a stretch.

[soulezoo]

I recall speaking with 3 engineers at my work the day it happened. None expressed doubts that it could happen the way we saw it and explained to me why it did. My wife, also an engineer, sees no conspiracy and doesn't question the aircraft causing the damage.
Full disclosure, none of the engineers designed or built skyscrapers. They were well versed in the science of them however.

[WillBrink]

The truth will never be known for sure. That's how they want it. What amazes me is that the attack was funded, planned, and carried out mostly by Saudi Arabians probably with help from the Saudi government.

So we attacked Iraq and Afghanistan.

A fleet of cruise missiles should have struck key Saudi locations within days of that event. We just sent such a fleet over far less. Instead, we flew his family out of the US from Boston area on US gov planes. I do not believe for a second OBL family was not aware of his location after the event. They all should have been held and questioned for as long as we deemed reasonable and told the Saudi's to go f themselves when they complained.

The real question is how much did our government know because it seems that once that information came out that it involved the Saudi's- we should have been at war against them.

Was not even the mention of the possibility of Saudi government involvement not kept from public view from the report for many years?

Maybe buildings 1 and 2, but I’m sorry building 6 seems a stretch.

Indeed, but a stretch to what I don't know. If done by charges placed, and you want to convince a country it was via the planes, would you blow up a building not hit by planes? No as all that does if aware people it may not be the planes. I personally do not think there's a chance in hell an op that large and detailed that required that many people and moving parts, could be kept under wraps.

I recall speaking with 3 engineers at my work the day it happened. None expressed doubts that it could happen the way we saw it and explained to me why it did. My wife, also an engineer, sees no conspiracy and doesn't question the aircraft causing the damage.
Full disclosure, none of the engineers designed or built skyscrapers. They were well versed in the science of them however.

Good intel.

[AKDoug]

I am not an engineer, but I am a self educated expert in logistics. Taking the known amount of explosive material required to bring down the buildings, the man power required to place that material, the know how and expertise to place it in the correct place, and the time period required to do so; I cannot make myself believe that it was a controlled demolition. Now couple that with the inability of large groups of people to keep secrets and I have an even greater doubt that it was a demolition job.

You put wind to a fuel and amazing things start to happen.

[Honu]

having talked to a lot of engineer folks and even some folks that were in the building that day and worked there also one who lost pretty much all his friends on the one floor that got direct hit

nothing was out of place that day and as some who take down buildings have said no way was it taken down with munitions
one the combination of fuel and plane no way to control the detonation timings
also told you ever see what goes into taking down a building the amount of wires that would be all over the building and also the massive amount of prep in drilling cutting foundations and supports for a clean down
there is no way you could ever do that in a building occupied and the amount of time it takes and man power everyone would have noticed etc..
I was on Maui then working on boats and would talk to a ton of tourists daily and for a long while that subject always came up


but I do believe its such a silly thing to think it was done with munitions
also the whole built to withstand a hit ? well they did take it and by bigger planes then were even around then
it was not designed for that amount of fuel and the fuel leaking to the center core

or one of the architects that was on the design team

SWIRSKY: I imagine, when I saw the pictures of the implosion of the building, it looks like the fuel must have leaked right to the core of the building, and from there it was the massive explosion that caused the building to collapse. So it was something completely unforeseen, so far as the design criteria was (concerned).

but I do think our gov knew it was going to happen
just like the boston bombers
just like pearl harbor
and other events

[NWPilgrim]

Agreed. Fire alone may not be enough but half if a couple of floors and their supports wiped out and likely severe damage to the core would certainly start some collapse. Then it snowballs. And it was not just building material fire, it was thousands of pounds of jet fuel. Much hotter than normal fire.

If anything the conspiracy theory may have been started to divert attention from the resl conspiracy already mentioned about foreknowledge, and protection of Saudis.

[Moose-Knuckle]

No plane debirs/parts were found at the Pentagon....