In order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.

You only have to know two things.

One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/09/11/the-11th-anniversary-911-paul-craig-roberts/

so did Timothy McVeigh... i don't see your rant about him anywhere...

That is the silliest statement of this so-called debate.



You know absolutely nothing about this subject and have proven it repeatedly.

Now we have the much repeated cut and paste of P. C. Roberts. You don't use Farmer anymore, why is that? Oh, that's right, it was a crock of ****.

This explains why you don't get it. You see parking a truck loaded with fertilizer is allot less complicate than hijacking and flying jets into the twin towers and pentagon.

For one McVeigh could actually drive a truck and navigate it.
He did not have to escape detection from our sophisticated air defenses and said building did not collapse at or near free fall speed..........shall I continue or should I let someone else have all the fun?

The truther movement doesn't appear to acknowledge that McVeigh managed to pull off a similar coup.

yea, he only blew up a federal building with everything he bought here in the states... and a cop even let him go right after it happened...

Your ignorance is showing. What air defences? Do you even understand the free-fall speed claims? It doesn't appear that you know what this means and whether it is significant.

Truthers use a very racist idea in their rhetoric, that is, cavemen with box-cutters couldn't pull off such a thing.
Of course, that is just unrealistic. They pulled off the 1993 bombing, the Tanzanian and Kenyan Embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing among others. 9/11 is just a change of tactics and at the core, it was a very simple idea. The results even surprised the perpetrators.

Manager of Construction says WTC towers could withstand multiple impacts?
Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management:
"The building was designed to have a fully loaded [Boeing] 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3Gcv6_lw…


The plane, though slightly bigger than the Boeing 707, wasn't that much bigger.
If a plane hitting this thing is like "a pencil puncturing screen netting".........it should have withstood the impact easily.


Theory: "So maybe it wasn't the plane that caused collapse, but the jet fuel fire that followed."
Fact: No skyscraper has EVER collapsed from fire..........
and we've had some pretty nasty fires over the years, including the Windsor building in Madrid Spain which is much hotter and much bigger than the WTC.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110611080119AAz1qEe

Be gone apologists

almost laughable at what they think the government is... but depending on what time it is i think...seems like they are the best at what they do when it needs to be, like the "sophisticated air defenses" but yet unable to carry an investigation... they seemed to have it solved pretty quick, but that was just a cover up. muslims can't fly planes, but any 6 year old with a flight simulator can...buildings can't fall at "near free fall"... and why not? gravity is gravity, it doesn't really change very much...


i think the biggest difference between the OK bombing and 911 was there was a democrat in office then, so it couldn't have been a false flag event...

thats a bunch of crap if i ever heard it... designed to take multiple impacts ... almost laughable... i'm surprised you even believe that...

I'm not.

lol, either way, their wrong... 1 plane per building was all it took... and even got a third in the process... i guess Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management was completely wrong...

Well, De Martini would say that, wouldn't he? People let their biases cloud their judgement and a perusal of the footage clearly evinces the destructive force of the impacts. No demolition took place as it is a distortion of scientific reality and logic. No bombs in the lobby triggered the collapse as it initiated at the points of impact and the cores were still intact at ground level. There a no hijackers still alive, there are no fake passports, there was no demolition of WTC7 and a plane did strike the Pentagon which wasn't full of cash. All of the conspiracy theories do not stand up to scrutiny for very long and those who can see it are subject to accusations of being 'apologists', shills, 'sheeple' or whatever.

No, we are none of the above and the ego behind such accusations is risible. We can just see through the silliness inherent within these CT's. That doesn't make us some form of threat or enemy. We just don't believe these stories, and after all, that is all they are, just stories.

As non-believers in these wild truther tales, it is we, who are the true skeptics.

Just because you were fooled into believing that a single plane took down the towers does not mean that it did. Those towers were built to withstand that sort of attack or accident. Even if that were not true I doubt if a plane could have caused that much destruction and that collapse.

Structural engineers who designed the Twin Towers carried out studies in the mid-1960s to determine how the buildings would fare if hit by large jetliners. In all cases the studies concluded that the Towers would survive the impacts and fires caused by the jetliners.

Evidence of these studies includes interviews with and papers and press releases issued by engineers who designed and oversaw construction of the World Trade Center.

property Boeing 707-320 Boeing 767-200
fuel capacity 23,000 gallons 23,980 gallons
max takeoff weight 328,060 lbs 395,000 lbs
empty weight 137,562 lbs 179,080 lbs
wingspan 145.75 ft 156.08 ft
wing area 3010 ft^2 3050 ft^2
length 152.92 ft 159.17 ft
cruise speed 607 mph 530 mph


Given the differences in cruise speeds, a 707 in normal flight would actually have more kinetic energy than a 767, despite the slightly smaller size. Note the similar fuel capacities of both aircraft. The 767s used on September 11th were estimated to be carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel each at the time of impact, only about 40% of the capacity of a 707.

LINK
Statements by Engineers

Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions.

For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling

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. 3
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 9/11/01.

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.

The Richard Roth Telegram

On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details.


THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.



Frank Demartini's Statement

Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

LINK
Like All Skyscrapers, the Twin Towers Were Over-Engineered

One aspect of engineering that is not widely understood is that structures are over-engineered as a matter of standard practice. 7 Steel structures like bridges and buildings are typically designed to withstand five times anticipated static loads and 3 times anticipated dynamic loads. The anticipated loads are the largest ones expected during the life of the structure, like the worst hurricane or earthquake occurring while the floors are packed with standing-room-only crowds. Given that September 11th was not a windy day, and that there were not throngs of people in the upper floors, the critical load ratio was probably well over 10, meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns.

There is evidence that the Twin Towers were designed with an even greater measure of reserve strength than typical large buildings. According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8

Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."

Obviously they underestimated the effects of the fires. If this is meant to prove a CD it really doesn't do a good job. The 'post-mortem' analyses clearly show that the safety measures in place weren't adequate. The old 'She is unsinkable' argument.

Double Post

There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic. I have to be a skeptic of the official story because most of the evidence surrounding the crime is classified by the very people I suspect of being involved.

Therefore I am a skeptic of the official account of 9-11, particularly the 9-11 commission report, but also the NIST analysis which was reached via a computer generated program which in my opinion was designed specifically to invent a scenario (and facts not in evidence) whereby they might convince experts that it could have been possible to take down the twin towers with an airplane.

And they didn't bother to even look for evidence of explosives, nor did they document any real physical evidence. They began clearing away the evidence immediately, and classified everything else.

The powers that be are the primary suspects and these people are in charge of the investigations. They have no proof that the highjackers ever got on the planes.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions.