Hypothesis: the events of 9/11 were a hoax scripted ahead of time and executed. On the day of, TV fakery, special effects and false information fed to key members of the media gave the impression to the public of a terrorist attack.
Cause: Reports of WTC1 “struck” by a passenger jet set the public up to pay attention to what followed. Images of WTC2 “struck” by a passenger jet created a sense of fear. Politicians and “talking heads” warnings of a terrorist attack intensified the fear. At this point, few doubted the official story told to them. The day goes on with more reports of planes crashing and people dying. The name Osama bin Laden emerges as the one behind the crime, etc.
Effect: Few want to hear proof that people have actually died. People are locked down emotionally. Soon anyone who openly asks questions is branded a troublemaker. Calls for unity go out to further stop questions at a time when proof was available.
Example of how the Hoax works: As for those in the Pentagon, the names presented are presumed to be those of real people who died in the “plane crash.” We get the number as 125 dead. But Wikipedia tells us that over 30,000 people work at the Pentagon! How hard would it be to make up identities for those who died when “they” composed such a tiny percentage of the whole?
Can you challenge this hypothesis?
Actually, I have more questions. Can we get anyone to model a few tings? Varying the entire simulation for speed, specific angle of impact, etc?
Just based on the evidence I’ve seen, I don’t believe the 9/11 official story, but it my be closer than the “truthers” are willing to believe.
For instance, how possible is it that the jet crashed, mostly intact, penetrating the outer stone – and THEN the fuel burned fast enough to cause a shockwave, from within? Explains stones blwon outwards just fine – but still, where’s the tail? Is the angle of inclination wrong? What if it was approaching at a 75-degree angle downwards? (Say, 180 is level, 90 is straight perpendicular to ground, 0 is starting; so, 75 degrees from ground is… 90-75, make 0 the nose, it’s easier, I’ve been coding all day… 15 degrees off perpendicular? Or 45? Are the wings stable @ parallel to ground, or is one higher than th other, as in a turn?
Things to question. We won’t know for ages, if ever – we can’t get inside footage, for instance, and weird things happen – sometimes defying normal science. For example, ever drop a glass and see it bounce? I have, on a tile floor! Caught it on the bounce, was afraid i’d have to go to the hospital and get stitches, but… Bounced up like 3″! No cracks. WTF? But, another of the same type, different day – Toast. (also empty, same floor, etc – can’t tell you about the sryctalline structure, or the humidity, say, so it’s not a test – but it’s an example. Like someone surviving skydiving, without a chute, and living to talk about it – story is, the guy bounced, got a few broken ribs, but survived – WALKED away.
Weird shit happens, so I’d like to see the simulations. But I DOUBT most have anything of value to them, for us. the towers, for instance, show evidence of thermite. That report is buried, as is the person who kept talking about it. Coincidence? Doubt it. But by itself, doesn’t mean the official story is bunk, either. 😛
Just, too many things that don’t add up. ESPECIALLY with the tower’s construction, had to have the burning fuel take out ALL the support beams on the inner AND outer edges, soften them all at about the same rate. Unlikely, given the nature of steel, even in a steel-core building: The I-bemas wont’ convey the heat fast enough for EVEN melting, so the central columns would have to fail first, allowing the center of the building to collapse first. Once it’s started, SURE, it can pancake as we saw – it’s a demolition technique, after all – but had a level or two been a LITTLE off? Should’ve had a sideways failure, not a simple collapse. Struture weakened on one side, missing supports, fuel splattered down inside core, that’ll be even heating, but the outside? Not so much. And from the images – the planes blew jet fuel out the other side of the building, then “the rest” had to heat all the structural elements? Uhhh…. Hmmm. Doesn’t match MY understanding, as an engineering student a long time ago. Let’s hear about what happened to the beams – were they torqued? Broken? Sheared? Oh, we can’t TELL… Yeah, that’s going to DIFFUSE the “truther” view – BRILLIANT. Of course, after the collapse, the heat from smoldering fires (incomplete combustion) would’ve slagged most evidence, but – it leaves a stench, if you will. Somone’s NOT telling the truth.
there were allot of historical firsts on that day, lol. seriously though there are an incredible amount of “circumstances” around 9-11 that I am confident if one did the math and figured out the statistical likelihood of even half of these things occurring….. lets just say you’d stand a better chance of winning the lottery at the same time as getting hit by an asteroid.
I should have answered your first question though. There have been various requests for the NIST computer models so that they can be independently verified and surprise they have not been forthcoming and probably never will be.
The Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth would be the best bet for requesting a simulation though.
http://www.ae911truth.org/