Agnostic.com

14 0

Do you agree with the findings of the 9/11 commission?

gregoryL 5 Nov 5

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

An article years ago...
The commission spent 7 million investigating 9/11.
They spent 20 million investigating Clinton getting his nob slobbered.

9/10/2001 Rumsfeld announces 2.3 trillion missing from DOD
9/11/2001 Amazingly that exact part of the pentagon was eliminated. Server data unrecoverable.

Things that make you go hmmm...

0

Yes, that government individuals allowed it to transpire. Yet, that two planes took down three buildings. I have also read and watched talks given by "engineers" on those events.

0

To answer the question directly: Yes, I agree with the findings for the most part.

One thing about this 9/11 conspiracy theory nonsense that stands out is how easy it is for the average person to conclude that the towers couldn't have collapsed without some sort of help. To this I say, it would be a good idea for all of them to go back to school and learn a little something about physics and engineering. Please, drop it already.

Ok, walk me through the physics of a collision between an aluminum aircraft and a steel and concrete structure.

@gregoryL And fire spread theory. Modern demolitions. Architecture.

0

Yes - I do.

3

I would like to know why the patriot act is still in force? That piece of legislation that was drafted, analysed and approved in weeks. The one that allows a president to send the military into sovereign countries without any checks or balances eg bypass congress.
Iraq was a war crime; bypassed the UN, concocted "evidence" of WMD and absolutely no evidence they supported terrorism, the opposite in fact. I've always thought it was Jnr attempting to correct daddy's fuckup. Cheney made millions through Haliburton on that one.

Yes, I would like to hear the answer to that question too.

3

Shit, no. Their own research contradicts the conclusion they supposedly come to. Whitewash isn't even the name for it. That commission was a 24 hour bleach cycle. Two of the members of the committee later recanted.

Finally, someone with their head out of the sand.

The only "recant" I recall was a Farmer and Kean saying that NORAD hadn't told the truth to the commission. Farmer's book The Ground Truth goes into this, but is more a document of ass-covering and bureaucratic bungling on the that day. Folks like to say they were in charge, knew what they were doing, but that wasn't the case. I haven't heard of any recantation of the basic facts - four airliners were flown the towers, the pentagon, and a field - just the actions by the government on the day.

Would be curious for the names and the recantations you have in mind. And what you think the truth is.

@RPardoe Being a freethinker, you might find the following independent analysis interesting.
[ine.uaf.edu]

@gregoryL Thank you - I look forward to their final report (as yet unissued) with their results. Their preliminary finding is that fire wasn't the cause of the collapse, but they have yet to identify a cause. Their Sep 17 updates mentions several items still being looked at. Their March 18 update indicates they are still trying to identify a likely cause.

Unless I am missing some code words, I don't see any mention/reference to a controlled demolition rather a better identification and forces that brought down WTC7 given the preconditions (the damage and collapse of WTC1/2).

1

I don't care. It really doesn't affect my life in any way.

1

I majored in extractive metallurgical engineering... I over-reached and tried to dual major in electronics. I ran out of Money and fell out. My sad pathetic understanding of metallurgy makes me want to punch people in the face. If you want a 30 second idiot explanation of what happens to metal when it is heated WELL below melting temperature for extended amounts of time (sometimes know as "normalizing" )... The fact said structures held up as long as they did is a testament to the design. If you don't agree: I have ocean-front property in Arizona for sale... Cash up front. Fucking idiots are a dime a dozen... I have a third of the population of the USA for sale. Again... Cash up front.

There are many documented cases of steel-structure buildings burning for much longer than any of the buildings on 9/11 that never collapsed. You realize that a steel structure building had never collapsed due to fire in the entire history of steel structure buildings until 9/11, and on that day 3 steel structure buildings collapsed. Being a freethinker you may be interested in checking out [ine.uaf.edu]

Serious question. Why didn't the Grenfell tower collapse then?

@powder as a blacksmith I can say for certain that the temperatures reached during the incident are not high enough to melt steel. The entire building would have been engulfed in flames before any of the steel beams would have even begun to melt. Steel melts between 2500° and 2750° Fahrenheit, jet fuel burns at a consistent 800° Fahrenheit. My forge reaches temps of around 2000° Fahrenheit and I can assure you the steel is just as solid as at room temperature, just slightly more pliable under extreme pressures in the thousands of tons per square inch range.

@JustKip I just said as much. Nobody cares. People want to suck on bullshit sometimes. Heat metal at low temperatures long enough: all strength is lost. Ask an idiot... Clearly it had to be thermite and explosives.

@JustKip grenfell tower?

@stinklizard You are correct low temperatures(comparatively for steel) weaken and not destroy it. However the sheer mathematical impossibility that the fire would burn evenly across the entire level of the floor to make the upper floors collapse straight down, is insane. The fire originated from one side, that side should be more damaged and its steel softened before the opposite. The upper part of the building should have toppled over like a tree being cut down. One would be very hard pressed to try and use physics to explain the structure collapsing straight down and collapsing the unweakened steel of the entire rest of the building to the basement sub levels. This from buildings that were specifically engineered to resist the exact type of impact they received. Modern demolition basically proves it can't happen. They intentfully have to blow the lower levels too. Otherwise part of the building will remain.

@Veteran229 I guess you don't understand the sheer amount of mass which broke free, but you probably don't care. When a few thousand tons hit a floor support system with mass TIMES acceleration; design, construction, hopes, and dreams will do little to stop reality and physics. When a volume of space compresses quickly with thousands of tons: glass will explode from the pressure... Sounding like an explosion. I've found most people who have made up their mind about this don't want to listen to something as pesky as facts. It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, it doesn't have to be deeper than how it appears. Not everything is a complex plot, the government isn't out to get you. But keep thinking whatever you want.

0

What parts? A false flag, perpetrated by the government? No. I don't believe that (too many people needed to keep quiet). Hiding who the money men were (Saudis) and allowing 200 plus to leave with no questions (Saudis again)? Yes.

0

What if this had been during a sporting event a stadium or arena filled with 50,000 people which could have been one of the targets. Would it have gained so much sympathy from the world. We're the extremist trying to get the world mad or were they trying to embarrass America for getting other countries nationals killed on our soil?

2

I am a big skeptic, like many here, and require evidence of any extraordinary claim. Thus far science has repeatedly agreed with the findings of the commission, and shaken its head in sheer awe of the buffoonery of the conspiracy theorists. As far as the blame is concerned, yes, I also agree with that. Saudi Arabia gets a free pass because they have their tendrils so far up Congress' collective colons that nothing will ever touch them regarding it.

Hordo Level 6 Nov 5, 2018

How many steel structures "collapsed" on 9/11?

3

Yes. Didn’t they find that it was a conspiracy by Obama and the Chinese Triad and that the actual cause was free masons crashing trains into the buildings while spraying chem trails?

I heard they planned it all in the basement of that pizza place too.

@Remi -- the one where Hillary was trafficking the children?

@evidentialist my comment was sarcasm and I hope yours is too... especially since that basement doesn't exist

@Remi -- Obviously. 😛

@evidentialist ok good, you scared me for a minute ?

4

I spent ten months working at the recovery first for FEMA and then later the city of New York. No evidence of anything other than planes flown by religious fanatics. Had a bunch of religious nut cases, I do feel that Bush and company made use of the event for their own benefit!

BillF Level 7 Nov 5, 2018

What do you think of the following independent analysis...

[ine.uaf.edu]

@gregoryL Having had a relative in Building 7 that got out, perhaps, 5 minutes before it pancaked, I was very eager to review said data you provided. I am so glad you linked this hilarious data presentation. Who doesn't enjoy it when at least 11 logical fallacies (just off the top of my head) are presented this early in the morning? It's better than coffee! LOL!

@Hordo Please do enlighten me...11 logical fallacies... I am all ears.

2

Yes....the key sentence to me is right up front:

We believe the 9/11 attacks revealed four kinds of failures: in imagination,
policy, capabilities, and management.

Write Comment
You candd include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:216694
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.