The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread

Do you think the Illuminati is real?


  • Total voters
    241
You mean we haven't?
Where? When?


Edit:

There have only been a handful of threads ever created with 9/11 in the title. Most terminated activity by 2006 or before.

A lot of water flowed under the bridge since 2006.

The essential question is: "Do we really want to know and face the truth, no matter how ugly?"

Generally speaking, my answer to this question is an emphatic "NO!"
(It is much more important to seek comforts, safety and pleasures, especially when you're weak and vulnerable.)

Sometimes lies are preferable to the truth, and in this case and the current circumstances, I will cravenly agree. In over six decades, I have hundreds of roped mountain climbs in the Western hemisphere, thousands of racing laps at speed in cars and karts, and continue to train with swords and knives. I am not a physical coward. But, perhaps like you, I am a moral coward.
 
Last edited:
The essential question is: "Do we really want to know and face the truth, no matter how ugly?"

Generally speaking, my answer to this question is an emphatic "NO!"

I think that's probably unfortunate... because I think we knew the bulk of the answers on Day 1. The reason the attack appeared to be a co-ordinated set of plane hijackings by a well-funded terrorist organisation is because that's exactly what happened. The reason that the steel-framed towers were unable to sustain the seismic/thermic events visited upon them were because they simply couldn't. No detonations, no White House plane. It was what it was, however terrible or hard to conceive of.
 
I think that's probably unfortunate... because I think we knew the bulk of the answers on Day 1. The reason the attack appeared to be a co-ordinated set of plane hijackings by a well-funded terrorist organisation is because that's exactly what happened. The reason that the steel-framed towers were unable to sustain the seismic/thermic events visited upon them were because they simply couldn't. No detonations, no White House plane. It was what it was, however terrible or hard to conceive of.

A large and growing number of physicists, engineers, architects, pilots and retired military now seem to think that the twin towers and WTC 7 were brought down by detonations involving Thermite. I suggest you sit down and view the video I posted. That said, I will agree the event was justified in that it got rid of two asbestos infected buildings, with a sweet insurance settlement, the perfect justification for a perpetual war on Muslims and the perfect justification for the surveillance state we live in today. We do not need to revisit 9/11 or show a conspiracy, because to do so would cause more trouble than its worth for our fragile, stressed-out population. It's best for 9/11 to live on as a useful and necessary lie.
 
Last edited:
For that to work you would have had to have had Bush propose this plan to his officials and cabinet hoping they'll all agree to commit high treason, without any knowledge of this being leaked to anyone else in the White House, Congress, or the Pentagon, plant a gargantuan amount of explosives in the towers without anyone noticing, have the planes hit the buildings in exactly the same place you planted the explosives so that the explosions appear in the impact zone, which just so happen to be triggered seconds after the outer columns can be clearly seen bending inwards, and then find Muslim immigrants willing to take their own lives as pawns in the greatest false-flag operation in history to have their homes carpet-bombed for the next fifteen years.

So yeah, I'm not convinced Bush did it.
 
For that to work you would have had to have had Bush propose this plan to his officials and cabinet hoping they'll all agree to commit high treason, without any knowledge of this being leaked to anyone else in the White House, Congress, or the Pentagon, plant a gargantuan amount of explosives in the towers without anyone noticing, have the planes hit the buildings in exactly the same place you planted the explosives so that the explosions appear in the impact zone, which just so happen to be triggered seconds after the outer columns can be clearly seen bending inwards, and then find Muslim immigrants willing to take their own lives as pawns in the greatest false-flag operation in history to have their homes carpet-bombed for the next fifteen years.

So yeah, I'm not convinced Bush did it.
I agree the simpleton Bush was not the one who "did it". Newly elected, he lucked in to the best thing that ever happened to him.

If you review the video I posted, you'll see people did notice the explosives being placed.
Trucks in the night, for months. Locked and guarded elevator shafts for months. Dust on desks and window sills in the morning for months. And nobody in the US government need to have been involved, save the one who ordered the drill that stood down the air defenses in a simulation of the very attack that actually took place the day of the drill!

It was a lie. But a good lie. An exceptionally good, necessary and useful lie. I profoundly admire and respect it. I will not lift a finger to redress it. But it's a lie.
 
Last edited:
Okay, explain some of them.

I know nothing about it, but I've heard that one of the main claims of 9/11/01 is that the Pentagon was struck by an airplane, and not a missile. The thing was tracked by radar and numerous cameras for a long time before it hit, taking a highly complex and technical course and finally coming in low, straight and and level mere feet above the ground and striking the Pentagon exactly where it destroyed the office investigating of the missing Rumsfeld $billions. I've heard it said that professional pilots hotly deny this virtuoso feat of flying in a large airliner is possible even for a top gun pilot, let alone a beginner with only the most modest of training. Supposedly also alleged is that all of the photos and radar tracks are classified or otherwise unavailable for public review.

Once again, I'm not an expert on this particular "lie", but it might be a good one to examine. Finally, my opinion is that despite any and all lies, it is not justified to reinvestigate the case nor to prosecute any new conspirators wherever in the world they may be. 9/11 is the rock-solid foundation of our perpetual War on Terror (the nations of Islam), and it wouldn't do to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
 
Last edited:
The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

From the Guardian newspaper.

Do you disagree with this?
 
Oh for crying out loud, we're back to the half-baked stupidity of tedious Loose Change conspiracy that the most witnessed and filmed terrorist event in history was really missiles and explosives and not what everyone saw and what every piece of evidence confirms.

I thought we were done with this over a decade ago. No rational person should give any of this dog egg drivel even the merest passing suggestion of a consideration of a moment's thought and anyone who thinks 'jet fuel can't melt steel beams' without even a globule of irony should be removed from the gene pool for their own safety.
 
Oh for crying out loud, we're back to the half-baked stupidity of tedious Loose Change conspiracy that the most witnessed and filmed terrorist event in history was really missiles and explosives and not what everyone saw and what every piece of evidence confirms.

I thought we were done with this over a decade ago. No rational person should give any of this dog egg drivel even the merest passing suggestion of a consideration of a moment's thought and anyone who thinks 'jet fuel can't melt steel beams' without even a globule of irony should be removed from the gene pool for their own safety.
In the ten years since this subject has had any discussion here, 1,500 architects and engineers have raised critical questions about how the building went down.
 
In the ten years since this subject has had any discussion here, 1,500 architects and engineers have raised critical questions about how the building went down.

Good. That's their job.

None have come up with anything that throws any serious doubt on the premise that some fundamentalists hijacked some jets and flew them into some buildings with devastating consequences. And you can forget "how hard it is to fly a plane". It's very very easy to fly a plane. What's hard is taking off and landing. But they didn't do that bit.
 
Good. That's their job.

None have come up with anything that throws any serious doubt on the premise that some fundamentalists hijacked some jets and flew them into some buildings with devastating consequences. And you can forget "how hard it is to fly a plane". It's very very easy to fly a plane. What's hard is taking off and landing. But they didn't do that bit.

3,000 Americans died in 9/11, 6000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. $4.5 trillion was spent on wars that don't have an end in sight. Over a million Muslims were killed and millions more sent pouring into Europe. The Patriot Act and other laws and institution such as the TSA have caused Americans to lose their privacy and freedom or worse, all because of 9/11.

So if you don't mind, those concerned - but apparently not you - want in cool hindsight after 16 years to take another look. 9/11 deserves a rigorous and scientific reexamination. Exactly what is it that disturbs you to object so vociferously?
 
6000 in Iraq and Afghanistan. $4.5 trillion was spent on wars that don't have an end in sight. Over a million Muslims were killed and millions more sent pouring into Europe. The Patriot Act and other laws and institution such as the TSA have caused Americans to lose their privacy and freedom or worse, all because of 9/11.
None of which has anything to do with observed facts and recovered evidence that three groups of nutters put planes into buildings and a fourth group was thwarted by the passengers. It's just an appeal to emotion to justify some absolutely batplop crazy thinking for no real reason.
 
So if you don't mind, those concerned - but apparently not you - want in cool hindsight after 16 years to take another look. 9/11 deserves a rigorous and scientific reexamination.

I don't believe I have a lack of concern and I'm certain that such a lack is not "apparent".

Where I do see a lack of concern is when the site has a gift shop that sells "9-11" dog leads and ashtrays, when the families are refused the right to bury remains (instead they were put on display), when human remains from the tragedy are knowingly used to resurface roads, and so on. That's a lack of concern.

The greatest lack of concern comes when parts of society ignore all of that and continue to waste efforts on trying to prove some bizarre conspiracy. If Bush wanted to go to war against Bin Laden (and he likely did) there were other pretexts in clear sight that he could have used without the need to orchestrate a "9-11 hoax".
 
If Bush wanted to go to war against Bin Laden (and he likely did) there were other pretexts in clear sight that he could have used without the need to orchestrate a "9-11 hoax".

But 9/11 was orchestrated. It did happen. Bin Laden is dead but the war goes on and on and on. Millions are dead. Freedom is lost. Explanations are required.
 
But 9/11 was orchestrated. It did happen. Bin Laden is dead but the war goes on and on and on. Millions are dead. Freedom is lost. Explanations are required.

Finding conspiratorial explanations of a government plot behind 9/11 has absolutely zero to do with the consequences that you claim.

Millions were dead before, of course, and war went on before, as you know. Arguably freedom had long bolted too.

All grand statements but they don't tie the aftermath to the event in any way, let alone one that clearly implies conspiracy.
 
Hundreds, maybe thousands of architects and structural engineers think WTC 7 was pulled. People involved at the time even admitted it. If WTC 7 was pulled, then they all were.
 
People involved at the time even admitted it.

Go on then. You know what to do :)

If WTC 7 was pulled, then they all were.

Rubbish. It was clear even from the live pictures how badly WTC 7 was damaged, it was little surprise that it collapsed. The surprise was that it stayed up as long as it did after such a (literally) seismic event.
 
Go on then. You know what to do :)



Rubbish. It was clear even from the live pictures how badly WTC 7 was damaged, it was little surprise that it collapsed. The surprise was that it stayed up as long as it did after such a (literally) seismic event.
Meh, view the video I posted. Thousands of architects and structural engineers have been thinking about this long after you've made up your mind.

The JFK assassination, initially explained as a lone gunman, is now known to be a conspiracy. The Gulf of Tonkln incident is now seen as a conspiracy.

There are aspects of 9/11 that persist as conspiracy, and it only grows and doesn't go away. We have to accept that and deal with it.

Mind you, I don't want history rewritten. I don't want truth to always prevail. I think some great lies are justified, and 9/11 is one of them. I merely want it understood that it is, indeed, a lie.
 
Last edited:
Thousands of architects and structural engineers have been thinking about this long after you've made up your mind.

Really? Thousands?

I'm definitely going to need a source for this one (as well as the background of the "thousands" as any bozo on the internet can claim to be be a structural engineer who freelances as an architect).
 
But 9/11 was orchestrated. It did happen.

You seem awfully sure of this for someone who is supposedly advocating an open and honest reassessment of evidence.

There's a lot of evidence to support the status quo opinion of how it happened. There may be stuff that supports other hypotheses, and that can be worth discussing if it's suitably strong to seem that it might be a better explanation. But what you're throwing around are essentially doubts and maybes with no real backing behind them.

It's good to consider all options, but sometimes you have to be able to admit that perhaps the best explanation is one that doesn't line up with your personal beliefs. If you can't do that, I don't think you have any place in a rational discussion of anything.
 
Hundreds, maybe thousands of architects and structural engineers think WTC 7 was pulled.

Or maybe not. I came within a whisker of joining the AIA this morning - the criteria are very loose. You certainly don't need to be an architect or an engineer to become a base-level member. Are you calling all the people named in that video "architects and structural engineers" on the back of them having AIA after their names? A sample of 10 didn't find any of them being publicised in US practice anywhere and didn't even find them on AE911's list of "our members' degrees". Having AIA after my name seems quite easy to do.

AIA themselves as a professional body accept the NIST findings, incidentally, and strongly disassociate themselves from the AE911 views. Note that no architects turned up for the event in a rented room at AIA's HQ. None. Not one of the claimed 1,200... or, to put it in context, 0.07% of architects registered in the US, turned up. Even though it was during the AIA's actual, official conference.

I think you're getting sucked into ludicrous claims.
 
I have no problem with folks believing the conventional story of 9/11. We are too far down the path of genocide to turn back now, I reckon. Some lies are simply too useful and necessary to do without. However, we should be aware some people do believe we are living a lie.

http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/
New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories



One in Two Surveyed Have Doubts About Government’s Account of 9/11.

46% Suspect Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 after Viewing Video Footage of Collapse.

On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11.

The poll was sponsored by ReThink911, a global public awareness campaign launched on September 1. The campaign includes a 54-foot billboard in Times Square and a variety of transit and outdoor advertising in 11 other cities, all posing the question, “Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?



Among the poll’s findings:



    • 38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;
    • 46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;
    • After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:
      • 46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;
      • By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it.
30-Second Video Shown to 1,194 Survey Respondents:




“The poll shows quite clearly what we already knew. Most people who see Building 7’s collapse have trouble believing that fires brought it down,” said Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the campaign’s major sponsor. “It simply doesn’t look like a natural building collapse, and that’s because all the columns have been removed at once to allow it to come down symmetrically in free-fall. The evidence of controlled demolition is overwhelming. As more and more people learn about Building 7, public demand for a new investigation grows. People want the truth.”


From wikipedia:


Zogby International[edit]

The polls that have received the most widespread media attention are those conducted by Zogby International. The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organizations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org.

The first one was conducted in late August 2004 on 808 randomly selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the U.S. government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.

The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.[5] Some of the questions asked include the following:

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"
  • Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure
"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?"
  • Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure
"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"
  • Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure
The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11 was conducted in August 2007. It was a telephone interview with a target of 1,000 interviews with randomly selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 71 questions, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.[6]

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51 percent of Americans want the United States Congress to probe President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30 percent of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32 percent seek immediate impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.

In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67 percent) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the U.S. government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with folks believing the conventional story of 9/11. We are too far down the path of genocide to turn back now, I reckon. Some lies are simply too useful and necessary to do without. However, we should be aware some people do believe we are living a lie.

http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/
New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories



One in Two Surveyed Have Doubts About Government’s Account of 9/11.

46% Suspect Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 after Viewing Video Footage of Collapse.

On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11.

The poll was sponsored by ReThink911, a global public awareness campaign launched on September 1. The campaign includes a 54-foot billboard in Times Square and a variety of transit and outdoor advertising in 11 other cities, all posing the question, “Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?



Among the poll’s findings:



    • 38% of Americans have some doubts about the official account of 9/11, 10% do not believe it at all, and 12% are unsure about it;
    • 46%, nearly one in two, are not aware that a third tower collapsed on 9/11. Of those who are aware of Building 7’s collapse, only 19% know the building’s name;
    • After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:
      • 46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;
      • By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it.
30-Second Video Shown to 1,194 Survey Respondents:




“The poll shows quite clearly what we already knew. Most people who see Building 7’s collapse have trouble believing that fires brought it down,” said Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the campaign’s major sponsor. “It simply doesn’t look like a natural building collapse, and that’s because all the columns have been removed at once to allow it to come down symmetrically in free-fall. The evidence of controlled demolition is overwhelming. As more and more people learn about Building 7, public demand for a new investigation grows. People want the truth.”


From wikipedia:


Zogby International[edit]

The polls that have received the most widespread media attention are those conducted by Zogby International. The Zogby polls have been sponsored by organizations within the 9/11 Truth Movement including 911truth.org.

The first one was conducted in late August 2004 on 808 randomly selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the U.S. government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act."[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.

The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.[5] Some of the questions asked include the following:

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"
  • Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure
"World Trade Center Building 7 is the 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by any planes during the September 11th attacks, but still totally collapsed later the same day. This collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Are you aware of this skyscraper's collapse, and if so do you believe that the Commission should have also investigated it? Or do you believe that the Commission was right to only investigate the collapse of the buildings which were directly hit by airplanes?"
  • Responses: 43% Not Aware / 38% Aware - should have investigated it / 14% Aware - right not to investigate it / 5% Not Sure
"Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?"
  • Responses: 47% Attacks were thoroughly investigated / 45% Reinvestigate the attacks / 8% Not Sure
The third major Zogby poll regarding 9/11 was conducted in August 2007. It was a telephone interview with a target of 1,000 interviews with randomly selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 71 questions, with a 3.1 percent margin of error.[6]

The results of the 2007 August poll indicate that 51 percent of Americans want the United States Congress to probe President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney regarding the 9/11 attacks and over 30 percent of those polled seek immediate impeachment. While only 32 percent seek immediate impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney based on their personal knowledge, many citizens appear eager for clear exposure of the facts.

In addition, the poll also found that two-thirds (67 percent) of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.
Only 4.8 percent of the respondents agreed that members of the U.S. government "actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attack."

So your argument is based on opinion polls of what the general populace thinks? The people who may or may not be informed about the matter, and have almost certainly gotten all their information from sensationalist media? I mean, if they're actually being asked if they knew a third tower fell then perhaps they're not exactly authorities on the matter?

How about you provide some real, independent, objective information that we can discuss? The NIST completed a rigorous investigation of the 7WTC collapse. Ultimately they used computational models for confirmation of their hypothesis, which is something that you could do also if you cared to. Have you got anything stronger than rumour and conjecture, or are you just going to keep throwing out wacky theories that are so vague that nobody could even start to look into whether they might be true or not?

Like you say, you seem not to be interested in the truth but rather seeing how many things you can ignore to get to your own personal "truth".
 
Ultimately they used computational models for confirmation of their hypothesis
Take a look at the simulation and then watch the actual collapse and see if you can spot the difference.

Any hypothesis that suggests fire as the primary cause of a global symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration is worth as much as a 3$ bill, no matter what (undisclosed) parameters it uses in its computational model.
 
Take a look at the simulation and then watch the actual collapse and see if you can spot the difference.

Any hypothesis that suggests fire as the primary cause of a global symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration is worth as much as a 3$ bill, no matter what (undisclosed) parameters it uses in its computational model.
Good job that's not what the stated cause if the collapse was then.

Nor is a video a good indicator of the time elapsed for collapse (as you can see everything), for that you need the sesmic data, which the conspiracy sites seem to pretend doesn't exist.

You see despite the claim that it wasn't investigated, it was and the report is freely available and does contain a significant amount of the data and information used in the model.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/f...building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0
 
Last edited:
Take a look at the simulation and then watch the actual collapse and see if you can spot the difference.

Citations aren't guessing games, what are you saying the difference is?

TAny hypothesis that suggests fire as the primary cause of a global symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration is worth as much as a 3$ bill, no matter what (undisclosed) parameters it uses in its computational model.

Absolutely. Fortunately the NIST model doesn't suggest a "free fall", rather a (relatively) gradual structural decline followed by amassed "pancaking". They cover that quite well on p126 of their metallurgical analysis and in numerous other places. Which particular sections of the final reports are you taking the most issue with?

EDIT: Tree'd by @Scaff :)
 

Latest Posts

Back