ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums Chat | 0 Users Online   
   
                 04/23/2014 01:59 PM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Science
Scientists Created Laser That Could Control the Weather
Global Warming Not Due to Natural Factors, Expert Says
more News
out of this Channel...
  ShortNews User Poll
Do you think marriages between same-sex couples should be legally recognized?
  Latest Events
04/22/2014 06:05 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter Dead at 76'
04/22/2014 06:04 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Bomb Threat on Delta Flight'
04/22/2014 06:04 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Lindsay Lohan Reveals She Had Miscarriage'
04/22/2014 06:04 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Man Who Shot Wife While She Was on the Phone With 911 Ate Pot-Infused Candy'
04/22/2014 06:03 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'White House Responds to Justin Bieber Deportation Petition'
04/22/2014 06:02 PM
edie receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Scientists Created Laser That Could Control the Weather'
04/22/2014 06:02 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'New Jersey Man Steals Woman´s Dog and TV on First Date'
04/22/2014 06:01 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Criminal Arrested After Asking Police If He Should Be Arrested'
04/22/2014 06:00 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Girl Captures Black Ring UFO on iPhone'
04/22/2014 06:00 PM
coronado receives 20 Points for very good Assessment of 'Bust of Romania´s Former First Lady "Too Sexy"'
  9.567 Visits   9 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
04/06/2009 05:05 PM ID: 78067 Permalink   

World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

 

A group of scientists have published their results into a peer reviewed journal, Open Chemical Physics Journal, stating that within the debris of the WTC, they have found evidence of a "highly engineered explosive".

The paper's abstract read, “We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center.”

Their analysis claims to show "active thermitic material" known as "nanostructured super-thermite." Thermite is used in demolition, hand grenades, welding, and fireworks. It is known for creating a chemical reaction that creates very high temperatures.

 
  Source: rawstory.com  
    WebReporter: slavefortheman Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  193 Comments
  
  How much evidence must be accumulated  
 
to prove that there were explosives in those buildings! We have taped evidence suggesting explosions within the buildings, both by fire dept and police radios. We have eye witnesses that said explosions had gone off even before the planes had hit the building. We have photographic evidence of both demolition squibs coming off all 3 buildings. Also photographic evidence of melted steal being discolored by thermite. Video evidence showing liquid metal pouring out of one of the buildings before collapse.

Now chemical evidence confirming the use of thermite.

What is it going to take!
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 05:17 PM     
  Ok.. here we go ....  
 
1. None of the four supposed "airplanes" were intercepted by the US Military, despite the fact that they first learned of a hijacking at 8:25 and despite the fact that scrambles take a matter of minutes. Do you get the picture?

2. The flight manifests released by United Airlines and American Airlines contained no Arab names at all. The autopsy list for Flight 77 contained no Arab names and the checkpoint supervisors did not recall seeing any hijackers. Do you get the picture?

3. Out of all the bags on Flight 11, only one did not make it on the plane. It just happened to be the one belonging to the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, despite the fact that his bags were given special attention as he was selected for the CAPPS program. Conveniently, the authorities were able to find key evidence of Arab involvement inside that bag, including Atta's will, which he, for some reason, decided was one of the things to bring on his suicide plane. Do you get the picture?

4. The hijackers were supposed to be deeply Islamic radicals, but they were spotted at strip bars and adult movie stores in the days before the attacks. One of the hijackers slept with a high-priced prostitute, and four others were reported to have looked for prostitutes in Boston on the night of September 10th. Do you get the picture?

5. Hani Hanjour was described by his instructors as a horrendous pilot, but we are told that he executed a perfect 330° degree turn before flying inches above the grass at 530 mph to slam his Boeing smack in the middle of a low-altitude target, convincing air traffic controllers that he was a fighter pilot. Do you get the picture?

6. One of the FBI's key pieces of evidence against "Al Qaeda" is a passport belonging to Satam al-Suqami (Alleged hijacker on "United 175"). According to the FBI, this passport flew out of Suqami's pocket and threw the explosion, while soaked in jet fuel (Making it flammable). They tell us that the passport then hit the ground hundreds of feet below, unscathed, and was picked up by an unidentified man 'minutes after' the crash. Do you get the picture?

7. The 911 Commission tells us that none of the black boxes from "United 175" or "American 11" were found. However, two Ground Zero responders said that they found 3/4 of the black boxes, and were told by the FBI to keep quiet about it. Do you get the picture?

8) The Twin Towers (200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 yards of concrete, and 60,000 tons of cooling equipment) were turned to dust and small pieces in 8 and 10 seconds. The core was completely 'dustified'. 80% of the steel was removed from the site. Loud explosions were reported immediately prior to their collapse. Steel beams were ejected hundreds of feet outwards and windows 400ft away were blown out by some kind of blast wave. Do you get the picture?

9) Building 7, a 47-story steel skyscraper across the street, imploded and then completely collapsed in free-fall speed, with loud 'thunder clap' explosions occurring just before it's collapse and with the concrete being pulverized into fine dust. It fell almost entirely into it's own footprint and collapsed in exactly the manner in which buildings are professionally demolished. Emergency workers were told that it was going to be 'brought down' and eyewitnesses saw a man with a radio say "3..2..1.. Run for your lives!" just before the collapse. Do you get the picture?

10) The Pentagon is one of the most monitored buildings in the world. If it was hit, we should not only see videos showing an airplane, but videos showing an airplane from a number of different angles. However, we have seen no videos clearly showing an airplane. There is no damage above the 'impact hole' from where the 44ft tail section should have hit the building and there are no distinctive marks from where the engines should have hit. We are told that it's wings somehow clipped five light poles without breaking into pieces and that it somehow flew over the lawn at 530mph without even disturbing the grass. We are also told that the fiberglass nosecone managed to pierce through the hardened outer wall and continue on to the C ring, which was 3 rings down from the 'impact hole'. No 757 wreckage was visible in the photographs. Do you get the picture?

11) You can't make cell phone calls over Pennsylvania, ruling out the "United 93" phone-calls story, and research by a Canadian computer programmer named Kee Dewdney has shown that cell phone calls cannot be made from airplanes at an altitude of over 7000 feet. We are told that many of the passenger phone calls were made by cell phones. For example, we are told that Tom Burnett made his phone call at an altitude above 30,000 feet. This is, of course, impossible. Do you get the picture?

12) It is clear that there is no airplane in the Shanksville crater. The grass growing up against the crater is unburnt and there is absolutely no pieces of large wreckage and nothing identifiable. Do you get the picture?

1
 
  by: M4CRO_   04/06/2009 05:22 PM     
  continued....  
 
13) Almost every "Airplane Video" shown on the TV news has a different flight path. Do you get the picture?

14) The US Military was running "training exercises" that simulated plane crashes, hijackings, and terrorist attacks at the same time the actual attacks were happening. Pre-9/11 military reports state that drills can be used as 'cover' for the preparation of real-live operations. Do you get the picture?

... Wakey Wakey People!!!
 
  by: M4CRO_   04/06/2009 05:23 PM     
  Nah  
 
The government would never kill its own people in a plan to slowly take over full control of the nation.

crazy conspiracy theory wackos
 
  by: teh_epic     04/06/2009 05:34 PM     
  @macro  
 
and what do you suggest, then, for the reason these proposed conspiracies exist?
 
  by: m.i.a.elite     04/06/2009 05:35 PM     
  the thermite...  
 
it was either set in the building or as a result from the office equipment
 
  by: jukebox   04/06/2009 05:46 PM     
  Wow  
 
Some of you idiots still believe this?

Southpark said it best when they asked who really pulled off 9/11.

"A bunch of pissed off muslims"

Yes, it is true. Did you see in source where it says 'Thermite is used in demolition, hand grenades, welding and fireworks'

WELDING

A building with 110 floors wouldn't have any of that, would it?

With a chemical that's so widely used for so many different applications, it is impossible to use this one occurrence as proof of ANYTHING.

Conspiracy closed.
-np-
 
  by: NicPre     04/06/2009 06:13 PM     
  does this article come  
 
with a free tinfoil hat?
 
  by: gryphon50a   04/06/2009 06:18 PM     
  Where are the debunkers???  
 
I would like them to try to debunk this one!

Due to the nature of these results. IE: publishing their data into peer reviewed journals. The skeptics will have a hard time disproving this unless they can do so scientifically and document their results for other scientists to try to replicate.

Their debunking evidence will be worthless unless they can publish reviewable and duplicatable evidence to the contrary. Anything obtained without such rigorous scientific testing will merely be hearsay.

If one adheres to the ideals of the scientific method, this basically places the idea of controlled demolition on the table as a valid theory for the destruction of the WTC 1,2 and 7.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 06:23 PM     
  @NicPre  
 
Read the article...

Jeeze I hate it when people refuse to use their brains...

The article clearly states this was not just regular thermite but rather super-thermite which is a very high grade material that is very difficult to obtain.

Here is a quote from the source:

"According to the Navy's Small Business Innovation Research, super-thermite "is restricted under the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR), which controls the export and import of defense-related material and services.""

Standard thermite is used for welding but mainly for railroad tie welding. It would not have been used in the construction of this building.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 06:30 PM     
  Here we go again...  
 
Ok, here we go again, so let's work through this...

@M4CRO_

------------------------------------------
"1. None of the four supposed "airplanes" were intercepted by the US Military, despite the fact that they first learned of a hijacking at 8:25 and despite the fact that scrambles take a matter of minutes. Do you get the picture?"
------------------------------------------

Not true. Air traffic control was in chaos at first because they didn't know what they were dealing with. It is not... and was NEVER... the policy of the U.S. Government, or any legitimate and competent government, to immediately intercept and destroy potentially hijacked aircraft, particularly domestic & commercial aircraft, such a policy would have been seen as completely insane before 9/11.

If you actually bothered to go through the evidence from the airwaves (which is ALL recorded), you would know that air traffic control didn;'t have a clue what was happening, they were looking for hijacked aircraft on screens that were full of aircraft, and the communication from the hijackers didn't exactly get their plan across.

You even hear them asking "should we get somebody to maybe scramble some aircraft?" and a guy replying "im not sure" and sighing... why wouldn't he, he was being asked whether or not a commercial, domestic aircraft with innocent passengers should be put at risk of being shot down. Would you want to make that call in a situation where you have no clue what is actually happening?

The main point.. and I'll emphaise it... 9/11 occured at a PEACE TIME mindset in America. The Soviet Union was gone for over a decade. America's air defense was setup to detect aircraft coming in from overseas, or other purposes such as drug smuggling operations that use aircraft. They were NEVER set up to defend against American Airlines or United Airlines jets.

------------------------------------------
"2. The flight manifests released by United Airlines and American Airlines contained no Arab names at all. The autopsy list for Flight 77 contained no Arab names and the checkpoint supervisors did not recall seeing any hijackers. Do you get the picture?"
------------------------------------------

I've seen the manifest list claims many times before. Again, this isn't true. It came from David Ray Griffin, who is a big name among the "movement". On the article he mentioned it on, he uses CNN as a source. The only problem is, the CNN page he links to lists the names of "victims", of those confirmed dead or believed to be dead. It was compiled from multiple press sources - it is NOT a manifest gotten from any airline. Indeed CNN even mentions on its memorial site that the hijackers names are NOT INCLUDED. This is unbelievable deception from Griffin.

Just to add the point to that the Boston Globe DID obtain an official manifest, but it was ignored by the truth movement because the hijackers were on it, as they were in the commission records and the Moussaoui trial exhibits.

Oh and btw, the autopsy list you were talking about, it comes from an article written by Thomas Olmsted. It was adopted for a while by the truth movement as evidence that there were no Arabs on the plane but that's actually NOT what it shows at all. The article only covers (by its own admission) the remains of 58 victims of Flight 77 SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), it does not include remains that went unidentified at the time, and remains that were never found. An example is 2 year old Dana Falkenberg - her remains were never found as her size meant there probably wasn't enough of her left to separate from other debris and identify... does that mean she wasn't on the plane?

------------------------------------------
"3. Out of all the bags on Flight 11, only one did not make it on the plane. It just happened to be the one belonging to the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, despite the fact that his bags were given special attention as he was selected for the CAPPS program. Conveniently, the authorities were able to find key evidence of Arab involvement inside that bag, including Atta's will, which he, for some reason, decided was one of the things to bring on his suicide plane. Do you get the picture?"
------------------------------------------

I must look into the luggage claim as I don't think I've heard that one. What I do know of though is Muhammad Atta's letter was found in a car left at Dulles Airport by Nawaf al-Hazmi, and a partial copy of it buried among the wreckage of Flight 93.

There were objections raised to that too, as people thought it didn't "sound like a Muslim", which is kind of ridiculous.

------------------------------------------
"4. The hijackers were supposed to be deeply Islamic radicals, but they were spotted at strip bars and adult movie stores in the days before the attacks. One of the hijackers slept with a high-priced prostitute, and four others were reported to have
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 06:32 PM     
  its strange  
 
that people dont accept that the goverment could have had something to do with it. I'm not saying they did but it could be true ....
 
  by: tung   04/06/2009 06:37 PM     
  n/t  
 
Are we still beating this dead horse? Get a life people and put on you tinfoil hats.
 
  by: Lurker     04/06/2009 06:45 PM     
  Here we go again... (2)  
 
------------------------------------------
"4. The hijackers were supposed to be deeply Islamic radicals, but they were spotted at strip bars and adult movie stores in the days before the attacks. One of the hijackers slept with a high-priced prostitute, and four others were reported to have looked for prostitutes in Boston on the night of September 10th. Do you get the picture?"
------------------------------------------

You would be surprised the level these guys went to to blend into American society. What you are not being told is that uncharacteristic behavior is permitted for these "martyrs" if it is required to remain undetected, and it is encouraged to avoid suspicion. I think people have this kind of stereotype image of what these guys should have looked and acted like, but when you look into it, even American people who knew them said of some of them comments like "He was such a nice guy, you would want a guy like him to marry your daughter" etc.

------------------------------------------
5. Hani Hanjour was described by his instructors as a horrendous pilot, but we are told that he executed a perfect 330° degree turn before flying inches above the grass at 530 mph to slam his Boeing smack in the middle of a low-altitude target, convincing air traffic controllers that he was a fighter pilot. Do you get the picture?
------------------------------------------

More deception, this time from quote mining. I know this is one particular thing Loose Change was grilled for. The instructor, for example, said that Hani Hanjour was a terrible pilot, yes, and there is video footage of that among the truth movement. However, in the UNEDITED footage, they cut out the part where he said something along the lines of, "but of course if he had gotten control of the aircraft while it was already in the air, I have no doubt in my mind he could have flown it into the Pentagon". Conveniently cut...

As for the comments form air-traffic control, you only ever see the comment of them saying it seemed like a military jet from the maneuvers it was making, but they cut out the part where they made it clear that it is possible to do that with a passenger jet, just not safe! The flight path that he took shows pretty convincingly that he wasn't a very good pilot at all, he almost missed the Pentagon, he took a REALLY sharp turn to hit it that put the plane in extreme distress before it ever even hit the building.

His instructor by the way was talking about his overall piloting, which includes taking off and landing, which he obviously had no need to know about.

------------------------------------------
"6. One of the FBI's key pieces of evidence against "Al Qaeda" is a passport belonging to Satam al-Suqami (Alleged hijacker on "United 175"). According to the FBI, this passport flew out of Suqami's pocket and threw the explosion, while soaked in jet fuel (Making it flammable). They tell us that the passport then hit the ground hundreds of feet below, unscathed, and was picked up by an unidentified man 'minutes after' the crash. Do you get the picture?"
------------------------------------------

The streets of New York were FULL of falling debris from the plane. A lot of personal belongings and commonplace items from the aircraft were found, including jewelry that was later claimed by a victims family, pillows from the jet etc. NYPD had areas of the street literally cordoned off to stop people from ruining evidence... even on video documtaries of it, like the Naudet Brothers documentary, you can see police getting really annoyed with people walking over it, telling them "stop kicking stuff, this is evidence and you are kicking it around, what's the matter with you? just leave the area."

The passport was just one piece of evidence in a mountain that was collected from New York streets.

------------------------------------------
"7. The 911 Commission tells us that none of the black boxes from "United 175" or "American 11" were found. However, two Ground Zero responders said that they found 3/4 of the black boxes, and were told by the FBI to keep quiet about it. Do you get the picture?"
------------------------------------------

The Flight 93 flight data recorders were recovered. The Flight 77 black boxes were also removed from the Pentagon, but one of them (the cockpit voice recorder) was too badly damaged to be used. The only boxes not to be recovered were from the World Trade Centre impacts.

Now I know you will hear from the movement that these boxes are indestructable etc. That's not the case. They usually survive impacts because in almopst ALL plane crashes, the pilot attempts to soften the blow of the crash as much as possible, and to reduce the speed of the plane if at all possible in order to potentially save lives. At the world trade center, they were flown directly into the building at full speed, and then the subsequent fire and collapse were still to happen. Even just locating a
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 06:51 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Whoa whoa whoa. Let's play fair, I read the ENTIRE article before I posted my reply. I do 9 out of 10 times when I think there is a chance I could be drug into a debate. Luckily you made the first move towards attempting to attack someone on this thread.

Second of all, this thermite idea has a lot of issues. Regardless of whether it was used "mostly" for railroad ties, the word "mostly" in itself puts a hole in the bucket. How could they possibly know what was used for this building?

And why now, in 2009 - 8 years after the fact, are they now showing us the "Smoking Gun"

Your title should read "World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Material Used in Explosives"

The way you put it is biased, since this does not FACTUALLY 100% prove that Explosives were present in the debris.

@tung
I have never ruled out the possibility that the Government, especially under Mr Idiot Bush could have done something like this, but like conspiracy theorists I listen to 3rd party independent sources. Unlike Conspiracy Theorists I accept their facts, and don't ignore what doesn't fit my idea.

-np-
 
  by: NicPre     04/06/2009 06:55 PM     
  At long last...  
 
Now let the truth come out!

"Now chemical evidence confirming the use of thermite.

What is it going to take!"

An honest investigation!

People should get together and ask Obama to insist the truth is known, if we here in another country feel inside us something is wrong; then surely you guys there in America know it for sure.


http://www.youtube.com/...
It will run for around 10 minutes.
 
  by: captainJane     04/06/2009 06:59 PM     
  @NicPre  
 
You beat me to the punch but I was going to apologize. I kind of snapped earlier. Doing a project with a deadline of tomorrow so...

So sorry to be snippy.

The answer to the question as to why 8 years later. Well that is a good question. But it does take time to gather the people, money and tools to conduct an experiment like this.

This experiment should have been conducted from the very beginning but as I hope you know, the investigations from the government have been very short sighted and in most cases, stonewalled to death and not to mention extremely politicaly biased.

Kangaroo courts is the best phrase that comes to mind.

I did say Evidence of Explosives. The reason there is highly credible evidence towards this is because of the fact that it is high grade thermite used primarily for explosives.

Just look up Super-Thermite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...


Its primary use is explosives and pyrotechnics.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 07:05 PM     
  @nicepre  
 
Here is a good quote on its use on wiki:

"MICs or Super-thermites, are generally developed for military use, propellants, explosives, and pyrotechnics."
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 07:07 PM     
  @captainJane  
 
I posted this nearly 2 years ago, maybe 3.

And Jane a lot of us do realize there is something wrong with 9/11. It's the people who won't just let the issue go, who consistently make up stories and edit out pieces inconvenient to them because they just CAN'T accept that such a small amount of determined people could pull off something so large. They need a large cause for a large event. The evidence isn't there to support it, and will never be there to support it.

-np-
 
  by: NicPre     04/06/2009 07:10 PM     
  Here we go again... (3)  
 
------------------------------------------
"7. The 911 Commission tells us that none of the black boxes from "United 175" or "American 11" were found. However, two Ground Zero responders said that they found 3/4 of the black boxes, and were told by the FBI to keep quiet about it. Do you get the picture?"
------------------------------------------

The Flight 93 flight data recorders were recovered. The Flight 77 black boxes were also removed from the Pentagon, but one of them (the cockpit voice recorder) was too badly damaged to be used. The only boxes not to be recovered were from the World Trade Centre impacts.

Now I know you will hear from the movement that these boxes are indestructable etc. That's not the case. They usually survive impacts because in almopst ALL plane crashes, the pilot attempts to soften the blow of the crash as much as possible, and to reduce the speed of the plane if at all possible in order to potentially save lives. At the world trade center, they were flown directly into the building at full speed, and then the subsequent fire and collapse were still to happen. Even just locating a black box from that massive pile of debris is unthinkable.

As for the claims that boxes were found, they seem to have sourced from a claim that 3 or 4 items were located by the FBI. The only problem is, if my memory serves me correctly, the time this was supposed to have happened was within weeks after the attacks, when there was still a mountain of debris, and there were conveniently federal agents there at the time who managed to find them (they were there for them according to this rumor) without any major reported digging. People were still mostly moving dust by the bucket by this point.

There is also one video that is used of Dan Rathar claiming on the news that one of the black boxes was recovered. Conveniently, it doesn't include the correction he made at the end of the show, saying he'd made a mistake.

------------------------------------------
"8) The Twin Towers (200,000 tons of steel, 425,000 yards of concrete, and 60,000 tons of cooling equipment) were turned to dust and small pieces in 8 and 10 seconds. The core was completely 'dustified'. 80% of the steel was removed from the site. Loud explosions were reported immediately prior to their collapse. Steel beams were ejected hundreds of feet outwards and windows 400ft away were blown out by some kind of blast wave. Do you get the picture?"
------------------------------------------

Almost all of that is entirely bulls**t. Firstly, the South Tower fell in just under 16 seconds. The North Tower took 22 seconds to fall, the difference in time is based on the fact that the south tower was stuck lower (fell earlier too because it was stuck more to the side of the tower). There is video footage showing the core of WTC-2 (south) was still intact briefly after the collapse, which on its own rules out demolition. Loud explosions were not recorded, or seen on any footage before the collapse. However, there were many explosions on street level before the collapse of the north tower especially, which was due to burning vehicles. Remember, people reported EXPLOSIONS... that's the main difference between it. The fire chief for example, used the word explosion before the collapse, which he had heard (remember he was right under the tower, he didnt have the zoomed in view we had) about, and assumed that there was an explosion before the tower fell. but what he didnt say... was BOMB.

And of course the debris field was huge, simply because it wasnt a demolition. If it was a demolition, it would have been made to collapse neatly into a pile and the lack of massive resistance as the floors crumbled would have kept the steel and other debris confined... but that wasn't the case, the debris can be seen clearly on the video piling up and even falling off to the sides because the collapse wasn't free-fall.

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 07:12 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Agh, it's okay. I've done the same. Like when I see the name "Cray0la" I just snap, don't know what it is.

Anyway, I understand what you're trying to tell me, but in every piece of evidence when they try to show the use of Thermite, it's preceded by the word "Generally" or "Primarily" and this brings doubt to my mind that it cold 100% be an explosive.

If this were a trial on a person, this would be one additional piece of evidence, but wouldn't hold much ground. I'm not too fond of sentencing someone or something based on evidence that may or may not prove to be a "smoking gun"

-np-
 
  by: NicPre     04/06/2009 07:20 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Sorry to cherry pick but have to point out 2 major flaws(lies) about your statement. Be them unwitting or not I dont care but just need to point out the truth.

1) The buildings took only 10 seconds roughly to collapse. You can get out a stop watch and time it yourself with videos from youtube if you want! The pancake theory is a lie if you take into account each floors relative time to collapse. It would have taken each tower over 60 seconds to collapse if the pancake theory were even remotely true.

Add to this a bit of scientific truth called a LAW:

"This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true."

Basically if your "theory" was correct, it would be in direct violation a few of Newtons laws. The conservation of motion for starters.

Just go back to school and take a basic Physics 101 class. You will learn that what is said in the 9/11 commission is total insanity.

2) The black boxes. Namely Flight 93(Pentagon). The data obtain from the black box is miles apart both literally and figuratively from what the 9/11 commission claims. The NTSB verified the data as correct and you can download it from their website yourself.

These are 2 main main points that can be both scientifically and mathematically proven. Unless you can find something wrong with Newtons laws... or even with the data provided by the NTSB, you are merely supply evidence which is what they call in a court of law, Hearsay.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 07:26 PM     
  Here we go again... (4)  
 
------------------------------------------
"9) Building 7, a 47-story steel skyscraper across the street, imploded and then completely collapsed in free-fall speed, with loud 'thunder clap' explosions occurring just before it's collapse and with the concrete being pulverized into fine dust. It fell almost entirely into it's own footprint and collapsed in exactly the manner in which buildings are professionally demolished. Emergency workers were told that it was going to be 'brought down' and eyewitnesses saw a man with a radio say "3..2..1.. Run for your lives!" just before the collapse. Do you get the picture?"
------------------------------------------

Wow, this is even worse than 8 because of how inaccurate it is. Firstly, let me start with that "countdown". It was a lie and it was exposed by the "witnesses" themselves. The first witness contacted one of the Loose Change guys if I remember correctly, and they were happy until they realized that it was a bogus claim made form someone who was a kid at the time and nowhere near WTC on the day (if I remember that correctly)

Then came forth a second guy with the SAME story, which seemed like big evidence, until you look at archived footage of 9/11 Truth events and see him there... for years... without saying anything at all. Then he also managed to give multiple versions of the story. It's outright bogus.

Emergency workers, such as firefighters, abandoned the building HOURS before it collapsed because it was too dangerous. The WTC collapse had inflicted massive damage onto the building, so bad that one whole face was covered in smoke, you couldn't see it. A huge chunk was missing from the base of the building. The building as far as they knew was empty (although there was one guy who was accidentally left there but managed to get out in time), so they used all their resources to try to save people. The fire department had also said that the building was showing signs of impending collapse... what the conspiracy theorists never say is how long it really took to collapse... which was about 18 seconds. The penthouses fell into the buildings first because the trusses holding it up started failing. then the rest of the building was literally dragged down as a result. Conspiracy theorists only show the few seconds version of the collapse though....

Btw, there was no demolition wave or explosions heard before WTC7 collapse. There was cracking heard by firefighters however, and as the building buckled, the glass shattered and might be interpreted from poor video quality as a wave, but there were no flashes, no demolition sequence... nothing at all like a controlled demolition.

------------------------------------------
10) The Pentagon is one of the most monitored buildings in the world. If it was hit, we should not only see videos showing an airplane, but videos showing an airplane from a number of different angles. However, we have seen no videos clearly showing an airplane. There is no damage above the 'impact hole' from where the 44ft tail section should have hit the building and there are no distinctive marks from where the engines should have hit. We are told that it's wings somehow clipped five light poles without breaking into pieces and that it somehow flew over the lawn at 530mph without even disturbing the grass. We are also told that the fiberglass nosecone managed to pierce through the hardened outer wall and continue on to the C ring, which was 3 rings down from the 'impact hole'. No 757 wreckage was visible in the photographs. Do you get the picture?
------------------------------------------

There was plenty of photographic evidence of plane debris from the Pentagon. The recordings from the 5fps security cams at the Pentagon DO show Flight 77. It is blurry as hell, but that's what happens when you have a low quality camera which is only there for vehicle recoridng running at 5fps (or was it 10fps?). Nevertheless, looking at the blur the colors of Flight 77 are apparent, ill try to find a comparison image that isn't doctored and post the link here. Also, a plane is seen very briefly on a camera from a gas station nearby before it disappears behind the highway.

It did hit several light poles and ripped them out of the ground... it's like how even a football that is hollow and full of air can smash a window if it's hit hard enough, it's basic physics. Evidence of the wings of the plane were found outside the walls and it is worth noting that that area of the Pentagon was renovated not long before the attack and was built to withstand stronger attacks than the older parts of the building. That's why the fuselage punched through but the wings didn't penetrate the outer wall.

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 07:29 PM     
  @NicPre  
 
I concur that it does not prove it 100% but it does add credence to something that has slowly been gaining more and more scientific weight.

We will truly never know for sure until we can receive a real investigation. Not one controlled by beaurocrats...

We need a true criminal investigation. Using real science, video, sound recorded, mathematical evidence. If we do ever get this, then I have a feeling we would find that these conspiracy nuts have some things that may be true.

Some things are a bit far fetched but I would not put it past these building being brought down by explosives at least.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 07:31 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Yep, your reply to me is the usual, to keep saying what is totally false and tell ME to go back to school, while you ignore MOUNTAINS of evidence about what really happened on Sept. 11th. But just to address your two points btw..

The buildings did NOT fall at free-fall speed, and I just did you a favor and found you someone who did the timing for those who don;t want to, because they want to believe they free-fall claim...

http://www.youtube.com/... (No Free Fall Speed)

As for your second comment, you do realize you are raising a brand new issue, you aren't actually responding to something I said?
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 07:35 PM     
  Bizzare  
 
I'm amazed at the depth of stupidity amongst the Western rabble, and to think I thought you were all anglo, goose steppers.
 
  by: alcred   04/06/2009 07:41 PM     
  About the article...  
 
Oh ye, I totally forgot to actually address this so called "news".... which isn't news, Steven Jones has been talking about this for years (funny how his name was left out of the summary, is it because of his questionable beliefs, such as believing there is evidence that Jesus visited North America a loooong time ago, or is it just that he has absolutely no background in structural engineering yet he believes he has disproven the collapse explanations compiled by NIST, MIT and ASCE's 125,000 structural engineers?)

Basically, Steven and co believe the presence of common elements and compounds that were abundant in the World Trade Center are proof of a thermite demolition that is totally impossible. The seem to forget that these compounds were found in the dry wall, fire proofing, cars parked the garages and even the god damn plane.

Of course they have to go for a highly experimental version of thermite that we "don't have access to" to backup the demolition claim, because if you ever watched that stuff eat through metal you notice it gives off enormous unmissable smoke clouds, and its bright as hell, yet it can't be seen anywhere on the twin towers as it collapses. It would have been IMPOSSIBLE to co-ordinate a collapse with it. Conspiracy Theorists have backtracked because of this basic fact and said basically "Ok, we accept that the collapse started at the point of impact and the pancaking began, but we think the collapse initiation wasn't the plane or the fire" etc. Well the truth is, nothing extra was needed, the plane did the necessary damage to the fireproofing on the steel to expose it, and the fire did the rest.

Again, there is nothing new in Jones' claim, it's just another attempt at getting media attention.
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 07:44 PM     
  @ the tinfoil hat crowd  
 
In addition to all the evidence and mainstream media that already showed what actually happened, Penn and Teller debunked this. Seriously, if Penn and frickin' Teller debunk your conspiracy theory, maybe you should reconsider the validity of your argument and the purpose of beating a dead horse?
 
  by: captainchainsaw   04/06/2009 08:29 PM     
  Conspiracies.  
 
Everyone enjoys a good conspiracy and some intriguing theories. But when a person delves deep into a conspiracy for many years they obviously have some much larger issues. Mainly with close relationships and simply being unhappy with life.
 
  by: steme   04/06/2009 08:36 PM     
  @captainchainsaw  
 
heh ;-) Ye the Penn & Teller conspiracy theory episode was pretty funny, but obviously it rubbed up the movement the wrong way so they have actually tried to come up with some kind of evidence that Penn & Teller are controlled by someone who's in on it etc. which is pretty pathetic.

I'd like to see P&T do a whole season dedicated to the biggest conspiracy theories, as that episodes only dedicated a very short time to 9/11, and when it was made, it was nowhere near as big as it is now.

As for your comment though, yes indeed, every single 9/11 conspiracy theory has been address, debunked, explained etc. by many many different people, and that information is EASILY available on the Internet by using just even Google. The problem is... these guys don't want to see it, they are much happier it would seem to think there was a conspiracy than to accept the thousands and thousands of details of evidence that shows exactly what happened... instead they pick up these pieces of gossip from 9/11 truthers (who are for the most part not scientists or experts) and attempt to insult anyone who'll dare to tell it like it is.

They simply cannot take criticism, and can't take the fact that their explanations don't fall in line with reality, or physics and instead try to find and poke as many holes as possible as they can in the official account.... and then reject the responses and explanations offered up by some of the world's most notable institutions like MIT.

It would be funny if 3000 people didn't die and if this stuff didn't have a corrosive effect on people willing to buy the material. My advice to them... don't watch the shopping channel!
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 08:38 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Thanks! I would comment some similar but I don't have the ambition nor the time to type all of that information as you did. How long did it take for you to do investigative work? Probably faster and obviously more accurately than the false, fictional, story writers I have been hearing past few years.
 
  by: thedevilsmachine   04/06/2009 08:48 PM     
  @ "tin foil" derogatory name calling  
 
If there was nothing to hide about 9/11, then please explain to me why the 500+ page 911 Truth Commission Report does not have ANY mention of WTC building 7.

It is not explained, discussed, or even mentioned in a footnote. How (or more importantly, why) does such a lengthy report completely omit this building?
 
  by: reverend j roach     04/06/2009 08:48 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Actually you can see demo squibs (smoke and windows poping) coming off the building before it totally collapses.

But back onto the point of speed of collapse. The tops of the buildings hit the ground in roughly 10 seconds after the initial collapses. Another scientific law that this violates is the law of conservation of momentum. If the WTC had collapsed as a result of structural failure, physics says that it should have fallen on its side. What we saw was it falling nearly straight down. Now due to the size of the building pieces flew off in all directions but generally the majority of the rubble fell squarely into the are directly below and around the base of the towers.

NIST's own arguments left out key facts. Such as locations of fires within tower 7 (on the investigation of bld 7).

Again their data was based on political bias's rather than factual evidence. New video evidence of building 7's fires debunked their debunking...

We can literally go back and forth with hearsay vs scientific facts all day. In the end you cannot disprove things that are scientifically provable. IE: The results that are documented by numerous tests, videos, etc.

You can make "claims" and "conjectures" as much as you want. However your claims are not backed by peer reviewed sources. You omit things, like facts, that show that many of the government reports have been doctored.

Again I point to the NIST report primarily as this one was debunked quite clearly and cherry picked evidence from the sites and ignored evidence that contradicted it.

Like I said, we can argue all day long till we are blue in the face. The only way this argument can really be settled is for a true scientific and criminal investigation to be brought onto the events of 9/11. So far the powers that be have stonewalled and fought tooth and nail to prevent just this from happening.

Surely we could agree that a true criminal investigation need take place? One that is not controlled by an executive or any other political organization.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 08:52 PM     
  @ Dela  
 
Well done!

My personal favorite is Rosie O'Donnell's comments, made several times;

“I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."

Yes, I know she's a loon - but there are many folks that believe her, and those like her. That's why many of these theories persist.
 
  by: thePav   04/06/2009 08:54 PM     
  Reverend J  
 
Well its quite simple you see.. The CIA had to place all the explosives at night so no one would notice. But one night they were a bit plastered and ended up placing explosives in the wrong building. Honest mistake.
 
  by: steme   04/06/2009 08:54 PM     
  @thedevilsmachine + @reverend j roach  
 
@thedevilsmachine

Basically a few years ago, when I was a teenager, I believed a lot of this stuff. All it took was one night looking at the criticisms of these claims and since then I realized that the whole Truth Movement is based on one big fraud. There is no leg to stand on for these claims. I only bother to challenge people on it when they abuse services like Shortnews to spread the cult.

@reverend j roach

The 9/11 commission was very clear that the WTC-7 collapse investigation was delayed at the time of the publication (in fact, it only came out recently). This was nothing to do with any problem explaining the collapse, it was resources. There was a LOT to take on board with 9/11, the amount of details that needed to be searched through and analyzed was overwhelming, so they prioritized it based on the human costs... and nobody died in WTC-7. Simple as.
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 08:59 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Peer review? Are you serious? I haven't seen you quote any source either and guess what, you won't find peer reviewed sources for your information with any degree of acceptance. The list of 9/11 information you put up was full of stuff that was settled years ago, such as the false flight manifesto claims, the comments of honjour's flight instructor, the false collapse timing, the fictitious demolition countdown and that's not to mention the stuff I didn't actually reply to, like the bulls**t cell phone claims.

I got into this pretty deep with one other guy on this site before, so its useless me typing the same stuff again, but if you are interested in the level of detail I'm willing to go to to convince you otherwise then visit the following link...

http://www.shortnews.org/...

BTW, let me just point out that I'm only doing this as a reply to a bunch of details you put up.
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 09:09 PM     
  Funny...  
 
How all those conspiracy wackos never admit that you HAD the conditions to make and ignite Thermite when the ALUMINUM fuselages impacted the IRON framings with such high temperature and impact.
Thermite is ALUMINUM PLUS IRON -DUH!
 
  by: ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh   04/06/2009 09:10 PM     
  @dela  
 
THats complete bullshit.

If that were the case, there would be a short explaination or at least a footnote that said "WTC building 7 analysis is still incomplete and will be released at a later date" or something of the like.

They are simply trying to pretend this building did not exist, and have been pretty successful for the most part. If you took a poll of all Americans, I am sure that under a third are aware of it.

Then again, maybe angry muslims just hate our freedom. lol
 
  by: reverend j roach     04/06/2009 09:16 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Did you not even bother to read the article???

The Open Chemical Physics Journal is a peer reviewed journal.

Lets agree to this then because this is my main point. A criminal investigation, culminating in all the scientific facts, data, research, eye witnesses, recorded and video taped evidence, etc. must be undertaken.

You, myself, any of the others here, will never be able to prove what happened and we can argue with each other till we are blue in the face. We can give evidence, try to educate ourselves, etc. However we cannot prove the events towards our thinking.

That is why I have been asking for an investigation since day one! Not one person has been brought up on charges. There have been numerous explanations brought forth by the government as to the reason for collapse. This is all the truth movement is asking for.

A fair trial that under the constitutional system we supposedly have now, should have started some 8 years ago... To this day, both the victims and the rest of America have been denied answers to some very basic questions. They call us "crazy" and "insane conspiracy wacksos" merely because WE DEMAND ANSWERS!
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 09:24 PM     
  @ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh  
 
It didn't even need that level of temperature. You can clearly see footage of molten metal while the South Tower was burning.. and where is it positioned? Exactly where the front of the plane came to rest after the impact, which of course had a lot lower melting point than the steel columns of the WTC towers.

Unfortunately the WTC towers' design turned into a major nightmare on 9/11. The buildings technically did withstand the impacts of the planes. They did move slightly but nothing too serious at the time.

It is kind of screwed up because if the plane hit the building, and by some miracle there was no fire, which is impossible but still, the building would have kept standing. If a fire broke out in the building without a plane impact, and some unbelievable determined arsonist poured the same amount of jet fuel onto the floors into the same locations it spread across and let it burn.... it still would have stood.

The recipe for the disaster was the consequences such a high velocity impact had for the fireproofing using on the steel columns. So there was a number of core and perimeter columns severed anyway from the impact, but along with that, the impact blow the fireproofing clean off the steal, leaving it naked and exposed to fire.

Of course, the steel didn't melt (nobody claimed it did either) but it lost close to half of its strength. The floors sagged and pulled on the outer walls (PLENTY of photographic evidence of this minutes before collapse) until it finally went over the line. Perimeter columns just snapped and bent and the floors let loose. You can see how the floors over the impact zone fell first toward the impact zone, then the sheer force of that matter accelerated the overall collapse but the video evidence of the core remaining intact shows there was no demolition carried out. It's not _that_ complicated and it has far more evidence in its favor than any demolition theory.

I really don't understand what's so complicated...
 
  by: Dela     04/06/2009 09:27 PM     
  Glad I'm not American.  
 
n/t
 
  by: Anthrox   04/06/2009 09:48 PM     
  @Dela  
 
The thing that makes us wonder is very simple. Why 3 buildings. Now if only one of the towers collapses, we could say, yes it was reasonable to assume that the plane along with fires, brought it down.

But 3 buildings! This is when mathematical statistics start saying to us.... Maybe not. In the history of steel structures like these, they are the first to ever collapse as a result of fire. Never in history has a skyscraper collapsed from fires. Now 3 in a single day... Thats pretty improbable.

Now I know you will say, but some airplanes hit them. Well then we also have to take into tower 7 which no plane hit it.

Tower 7 was the thing that really took me into the truther movement. It was so obviously brought down by explosives than any statement to the contrary was merely a fantasy. Just the fact that demolitions experts have even said that tower 7 was the work of demolition is pretty damning.

Watch the demo expert that have on the 3rd installment of Loose Change. He was unaware that it was a WTC building until they told him. In fact he noted that the people that brought it down did a very good clean job. That is when they told him it was Building 7 and he was very surprised...
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/06/2009 09:53 PM     
  what's important to look at here..  
 
is the prior knowledge of 9/11 that was available to certain members of the society.
 
  by: mr.g   04/06/2009 10:58 PM     
  ....  
 
here is a link to a BBC news report where they talk about the building 7 collapsing,, before it even collapsed!!
how do you explain that one???
http://www.youtube.com/...
 
  by: mr.g   04/06/2009 11:02 PM     
  n/t  
 
These 9-11 conspiracy wing nuts just keep spewing the same old tired drivel and never listen or answer anyone that proves them wrong. I don't think they could live anymore if they didn't keep believing their bullsh!t - even though there is not a word of truth in it. You'd think they'd give up, but then they'd probably die without a conspiracy to rail on about. Give it a rest, people.
 
  by: Lurker     04/07/2009 12:25 AM     
  I love you guys...  
 
I have been here in various forms for probably the last 6 or 7 years and i find it truly entertaining when stories like 911 come up or presidential elections or Scientology. Just thought i would say thanks for the entertainment, world trade center arguments take me back to the good old days.
 
  by: shiftyfarker   04/07/2009 02:10 AM     
  Not all journals are created equal.  
 
A quick check shows that "The Open Chemical Physics Journal" doesn't appear in the databases for sciencedirect, Engineering Village, SciFinder, Scopus or Wiley InterScience. This journal doesn't even have a impact factor. Which means no one has referred to it in other scientific literature. I would not take this as a reliable source, it's peer reviewed status is debatable. The fact that this rather important analysis is published in the lowest of the low in terms of journals is significant. This is like a back yard newspaper, or worse for being on the web.
 
  by: felixilef   04/07/2009 02:29 AM     
  @ Dela  
 
Thankyou.

It's people like you who restore my faith in this site.
 
  by: dook   04/07/2009 03:59 AM     
  would anyone care to give narrative of 9/11  
 
I'm not claiming that I know exactly what happened. But I am damn sure that some fishy shit went on and i find the mainstream explanation completely unsatisfactory.

I would love it of one you would tell me the story from the top.
 
  by: reverend j roach     04/07/2009 05:19 AM     
  hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha  
 
I believe that we weren't told the full story of 9/11 but there weren't any explosives. planes flew into those towers and brought them down i'm sure, but who flew them? my guess? israeli mossad.

People who really believe that those towers underwent a controlled demolition are, sorry to say, dumb. Look at it this way: an airplane carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel pounds into each tower going 500mph and each tower stands for about an hour. people say this is evidence of explosives but guess what, when those planes hit the towers they knocked out parts of the internal core of the building (which was the main framework of the world trade center) it weakened the structure and created pressure. Guess what? pressure creates heat, which explains the molten metal pouring out of the south tower seconds before its collapse. both towers underwent extreme structural damage and their weight made the people inside pay the price. wake up people! the conspiracy everyone things is taking place isnt happening! the world trade center is a huge political move
 
  by: datsuncaptain1     04/07/2009 05:58 AM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
"Unless you can find something wrong with Newtons laws"

E=mc^2
 
  by: jamiehackl   04/07/2009 06:34 AM     
  Just so its known  
 
Anything that is said here has been said others before & being parroted once again from both sides.

We are not experts, we only know what we see & hear & repeat what we feel is the truth. But we can only take other peoples word for it for now, for 9/11 has passed.

If anything we need to get over it, both sides.
 
  by: Vhan     04/07/2009 06:46 AM     
  Let's look at post 9/11  
 
As a result of 9/11 what has taken place?
War, the patriot act, homeland security.
The question beckons, who gains from these war's, the erosion of the US constitution and a big brother watching you policy?
 
  by: thinking   04/07/2009 07:40 AM     
  the matrix man...  
 
it's the computer trying to balance itself out.

without intrigue and dissent there is no passion. with out passion zest for life dies down. we need mysteries. we don't have the answers to what really happened. we dont' know who killed jfk either. some would think they have a better idea than others, some may actually know, but the rest of us won't know if they tell the truth or not. same here. honestly even if george bush went on tv right now and said i am responsible for blah blah blah would it really fix it for us? no. we would keep on. because we have to. every so often something bad happens, by some bad people, then something else bad happens, and it keeps going and then it gets really crazy and then goes back to normal for a while. we're almost at the "gets really crazy" part i think. the truth is that 9/11 was a f3cking hoax and it's obvious but completely unprovable. obviously just read this forum. the 9/11 report was a joke. the fact that only specific group was allowed to investigate and report findings on it is shameful but to be expected. if thats not a giant red arrow i don't know what is. "nothing to see here folks move right along we'll do the investigatory type work move alone people...." give me a break i mean c'mon.

also, it's a tool to use to figure out very quickly if someone has a functioning logical brain. ask them what they think happened. if they tell you some muslims slammed into our towers you can pretty much just turn around and walk away, knowing anything you say will be casting pearls amongst swine and anything they have to offer is probably from mtv...



total mental side note but there was totally an mtv commercial warning about martial law. was it someone on here that posted that?
 
  by: mrmarler     04/07/2009 08:35 AM     
  why  
 
does anyone still care? to this day I do not understand. worse things go on all the time, and have been for decades (and centuries).

Of course the us government is corrupt, you will be hard pressed to find one that isn't! power corrupts, there is no avoiding that. Mix that with religious/puritan leaders, and you have the tools necessary to destroy.

Nothing will change either way, no one will ever really be held accountable.
 
  by: o9k   04/07/2009 09:28 AM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Again, you are really only reading one side of this, especially if you actually think Loose Change... a video that has been criticized even within the truth movement for applying a method called "Sifting Through Loose Change" (the practice of looking through details and taking whatever is helpful to your cause, and disregarding the rest... so.. Loose Change...).... is actually a "credible source" which it isn't. Remember the black guy who was in WTC-7 that they had saying he was stepping over bodies in WTC-7 for example? That same guy came out and said they misrepresented him with editing.

Anyway, let me just run through some points here and I'll try to give you the source for as much of it as I can, and I do need to quote areas of your text to identify what I'm addressing.

-----------------------------------------
"The thing that makes us wonder is very simple. Why 3 buildings. Now if only one of the towers collapses, we could say, yes it was reasonable to assume that the plane along with fires, brought it down."
-----------------------------------------

Pretty happy to hear you say it's reasonable to assume the Twin Towers fell from the damage of impact to the columns and more specifically, to the fireproofing of columns, and the deadly office fire that wasn't just composed of jet fuel, but also of computers, monitors, desks, chairs and anything else you would find in an office building, with a lot of platics and other materials that burn hot for long periods of time.... the only thing is you don't have to actually assume it. There is evidence of bowing in the WTC buildings in the minutes prior to their collapses which shows clearly that the floors were sinking (as well as radio reports that they were) and dragging on the other walls...

1: http://www.debunking911.com/... (Evidence of the bowing on the right hand side of the building

2: http://www.debunking911.com/... - (From NIST, marked floor-by-floor, showing the tell tale signs of impending collapse as the perimeter columns and outer walls are being pulled inward)

3: http://www.debunking911.com/... (NYPD picture showing evidence of sagging)

4: http://www.debunking911.com/... (The moment that collapse initiated, notice how the perimeter columns have given way and the walls collapse inward)

5: http://www.debunking911.com/... (showing the floor sagging increasing over time)

6: http://www.debunking911.com/... (another NYPD picture showing the bowing)

7: http://video.google.com/... (view from Trinity church that shows the moment of collapse, notice the moment where the the perimeter columns and walls give in and pull inward as the floors sink)

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/07/2009 10:06 AM     
  @ all  
 
Oh for christ sake..
" LET IT GO>>>" It happend, ITS OVER....
JFK IS DEAD...
UFO'S Exist...AND there is no Santa Claus...
 
  by: steve2045     04/07/2009 10:36 AM     
  @slavefortheman (2)  
 
-----------------------------------------
"But 3 buildings! This is when mathematical statistics start saying to us.... Maybe not. In the history of steel structures like these, they are the first to ever collapse as a result of fire. Never in history has a skyscraper collapsed from fires. Now 3 in a single day... Thats pretty improbable."
-----------------------------------------

You know, I have heard that many many times, but nobody has pointed out the differences in building structure within the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I'll get to WTC-7 in a moment, but first it's important to point something out. Most high rises have either a concrete inner core, and/or concrete encased outer columns -- the World Trade Center had neither. Instead, they had foam fireproofing on the steel columns and trusses.

Now, conspiracy theorists like to say the following: "9/11 was the first time in history that steel frame high-rises collapsed due to fire". Of course, you also have to take into account the 100s of tons that struck the buildings at near 500MPH, losing their fireproofing and 15% of their support columns severed (while others were badly damaged).

As for WTC-7, it had a huge 47 stories of weight on top of it's supports, and following the collapse of the WTC, was reported to have very large chunks of its lower 10 floors scooped out, while the fires were allowed to burn for 7 hours.

Now let's talk about steel-framed structures collapsing due to fire, even without aircraft or being severely damaged from falling debris.

In 2005, the Windsor building in Madrid caught fire. Only the top 11 floors were comprised of a steel-frame structure (it had a concrete inner core), and all 11 floors collapsed due to fire.

The Kader toy factory in Singapore in 1997 caught fire, and three 4-story buildings using steel-frame structure collapsed in under 2 hours from the fire alone.

The Dogwood elementary school in Virginia caught fire in 2000, and most of the fire affected areas collapsed in just over 20 minutes.

In 2005, the Mumbai High North Platform caught fire and completely collapsed in two hours.

Even stepping away from buildings, parts of the Interstate 580 collapsed in 2007 from fire alone.... there is nothing about steel-frame structures that makes them immune to collapse from fire, evidently, even without the need for a plane. It is worth noting too that future plans for the rebuilding of the WTC complex will use a concrete inner core and concrete-encased outer columns. The WTC-7 building has been rebuilt with both already.

Now there is no doubt that 9/11 was the fire time in history that a skyscraper completely collapsed from fire, but it is also the first time (and still only time) that a fire raged from a massive intentional impact on a steel-framed skyscraper, that has steel then unprotected from fire. They burned with the fires unfought until the collapse began.

So, in other words, 100% of all steel-framed skyscrapers, with steel left unprotected from fire, that were subject to raging fire and impact damage from aircraft over a prolonged period collapsed.

continuing....
 
  by: Dela     04/07/2009 10:43 AM     
  @slavefortheman (3)  
 
------------------------------------------
"Now I know you will say, but some airplanes hit them. Well then we also have to take into tower 7 which no plane hit it."
------------------------------------------

WTC-7's design made it extremely vulnerable to the situation it was left in. WTC-7 was not hit by a plane, there was never an argument made that it was. Instead, WTC-7 was impacted by the collapse of the North Tower. It was struck by huge perimeter columns, and this is clearly seen in video footage of the North Tower collapse. It was about 400 feet away from the tower, which was 1300ft high.

8: http://www.debunking911.com/... (Picture shows the buildings that were impacted by the collapses)

The side of the WTC-7 building that faced the North Tower was badly impacted and the fires were extremely bad.

9: http://www.debunking911.com/... (a picture of the smoking coming from the WTC-7 building, not usually shown by conspiracy theory videos)

10: http://www.youtube.com/... (Conspiracy videos show the North side of the building as it collapses, which was not nearly as damaged as the South side because it didn't face the North Tower. This video shows the smoke and a hole in the South Side of WTC-7)

11: http://www.debunking911.com/... (The debris pile following collapse. Notice how the North Face of the building covers over it. That's because the South Side began to collapse first following the collapse of the East and West Penthouses, conspiracy theorists love the videos that are from a distance of the North side of the collapse, which makes it look Symmetrical)

12: http://www.structuremag.org/... ( PDF warning! Structure Magazine examined the WTC-7 collapse and found that under the conditions, how the loss of a single column could bring the whole building down)

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/07/2009 11:00 AM     
  @slavefortheman (4)  
 
------------------------------------------
"Tower 7 was the thing that really took me into the truther movement. It was so obviously brought down by explosives than any statement to the contrary was merely a fantasy. Just the fact that demolitions experts have even said that tower 7 was the work of demolition is pretty damning."
------------------------------------------

You will always find the 1 in 1,000 historians who will deny the holocaust, but that does not mean the holocaust didn't happen. It's the same with anything to do with 9/11, the broad consensus for all three buildings does not include any demolition. The only thing conspiracy theorists can actually say is it "looks like" a controlled demolition, and it doesn't even look like that.

Have you ever watched a controlled demolition? Watch some videos of them, they are all over YouTube. It takes a very large group of people and whole lot of planning. Then the sheetrock and other things have to be stripped off the walls of the buildings so the support columns can be gotten to.

Then, for a building the size of WTC-7, you would need hundreds of miles of wiring to wire the whole building to blow. Upon the controlled demolition, the flashes would have been seen clearly on the video footage... it wasn't. The bangs from the explosions would be unmistakable and heard for miles around, and would have been recorded from the video footage... none were recorded. There was no demolition sequence at all. It's actually kind of funny how conspiracy videos zoom on the side of the building and show smashing glass, air ejection and concrete crumbling caused by the other side of the building falling down (buckling the walls suddenly, which cases glass to break you know) and say it is a demolition sequence. It looks absolutely nothing like a controlled demolition.

They also claim it fell in a few seconds. One very funny moment is when Dylan Avery (Loose Change) says in an interview (Fact or Fiction) that the building only fell in a few seconds... and then pauses and puts on this kind of weird expression and says "18 if you count the penthouses", almost like the penthouses have no part to play in the collapse.... Bullsh*t!

Of course you count the penthouses, they fell right into the building, which shows that the trusses holding up the upper 40+ floors were failing before collapse. This is an example of the selective picking he and his friends insist on.

13: http://www.youtube.com/... (Firefighter talks about how WTC-7 is going to collapse before it does, and how there is nothing they can do to stop it)

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/07/2009 11:14 AM     
  @slavefortheman (5)  
 
------------------------------------------
"Watch the demo expert that have on the 3rd installment of Loose Change. He was unaware that it was a WTC building until they told him. In fact he noted that the people that brought it down did a very good clean job. That is when they told him it was Building 7 and he was very surprised..."
------------------------------------------

Hardly surprising, look at the fotoage they showed him of the building, the favorite one of the movement, just a few seconds long, nothing pointing out the East Penthouse or West Penthouse, no pictures of the damage or massive fires raging on the other side of the building, or mention that the building was struck with falling debris from the North Tower. It is quite simply deception, I wonder just how many demolition experts who dismissed it are shown in Loose Change?..... but anyway, just look back at my last message about historians denying the holocaust.

Other buildings were impacted by the tower collapses too and most of them stayed intact, even with seemingly worse damage (And they were later "pulled" down, literally pulled down, not blown down, as it would have been too dangerous to plant explosives to bring down their remains). The reasons for WTC-7 not being able to hold on longer than 7 hours are within the building itself.

"On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom, approximately ten stories, about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out"
- Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST.

Firefighters, police officers and other rescue workers spoke on video (like the example shown in my last message) about the extensive damage done to WTC-7. With damage done to the columns like that, the weight of 47 stories was redistributed to the remaining columns.

14: http://www.debunking911.com/... (the hole shown in the south side of WTC-7)

WTC-7's fires, which were started by the collapse of the North Tower, had more to feed on in the series of diesel generators located on the lower floors.

15: http://www.debunking911.com/... (shows locations of fuel distribution throughout the building, with the green marking areas of extensive damage shown in photo and video evidence)

WTC-7 was also unique in that the entire upper section above the 7th floor was supported by three main trusses.

16: http://upload.wikimedia.org/... (WTC-7 trusses)

At 5:20 PM after 7 hours of exposure to fire, Truss 1 failed. The collapsed progress vertically up to the roof and the East Penthouse collapsed.

17: http://www.debunking911.com/... (WTC-7 before East Penthouse Collapse, top left hand corner, see 18 for after)

18: http://www.debunking911.com/... (WTC-1 after East Penthouse Collapse, top left hand corner)

About 8 seconds later the building collapsed, starting with the West Penthouse

19: http://www.debunking911.com/... (WTC-7 West Penthouse Collapsed)

This is no "smoking gun" as conspiracy theorists claim. The firefighters weren't surprised at all about the collapse. News teams from around the world had gotten that information beforehand too, where the BBC made the mistake that it had already collapsed when it hadn't and then immediately apologized for the mistake... something again not shown by conspiracy theorists.

The thing about WTC-7 is conspiracy theorists love a vacuum. The NIST took years to finally produce a report on the WTC-7 collapse, again because nobody died as a result of it. So much effort was put in to the twin towers because of the huge death toll it had, to at least determine cause of death for thousands of people. Conspiracy theorists jumped on that vacuum and made the common mistake that the absence of an readily-available explanation of the collapse at the time had to mean there was a sinister explanation.

Remember too that selling Loose Change DVDs, as well as the box set, brings in money for these guys, not to mention that they can't back off now, they have invested too much of their reputation into it. Alex Jones certainly does profit from lying, as he does in pretty much every DVD he puts out.

Now you can do the usual thing and say I'm close minded, believe in fantasies or that I need to take a Physics 101 class all you want, but I have been where you are now and come out the other side. All it takes is rational and reasoned analysis to figure out that the massive coordinated attack, and unprecedented cover-up dreamed up by conspiracy theorists is not at all likely.
 
  by: Dela     04/07/2009 11:50 AM     
  Like destrying some building filled with humans...  
 
Would really assist in world domination! Remember we don't already control the world(well we try), just because "we staged" an attack that could convince the WORLD to accept the american way?!
 
  by: bbymkr29   04/07/2009 12:09 PM     
  @Slavefortheman  
 
I haven't read all the posts between you and Dela, but I did notice you ask about WTC 7.
http://www.youtube.com/...
Then watch all the videos from that person regarding WTC.
 
  by: agnaram   04/07/2009 01:12 PM     
  @M4CRO  
 
I'm with you. There is more evidence pointing towards our own government doing it, than anyone else. Ugly truth. But, there will always be people who refuse to believe that the US would do that. Blindly patriotic fools I say! I wish Obama would dig into this and get the truth out, no matter how ugly.
 
  by: homegrown420     04/07/2009 02:34 PM     
  Fact is  
 
This is not an isolated incident. Say it with me.....Pearl Harbor, or faked aggression to US ships, thereby giving the US the green light into Vietnam. How about the steel on the building, glowing red hot days after? Sorry, but steel doesn't do that on its own. Why is that Bush and Cheney when questioned by the 9/11 commission refused let it be taped or transcribed? They went into that meeting with it set up so they would free and clear afterward. The USA isn't going to commit atrocities like 9/11 without making sure to sweep up key details. This country is full of cowardly, backstabbing, underhanded, lying, cheating, murdering fools who use what little power given to them to fatten up their wallets and pad their egos.

All other bullshit aside, lets take a count of all those that have gotten rich from DOD spending post 911.


If there is irrefutable proof that USA DID NOT set this up, then where is it?

Another thing, funny that the Bush family and the USA have such strong ties with many known "terrorists". What a bs word, the USA is composed of a massively corrupt group of government funded and backed terrorists.
 
  by: homegrown420     04/07/2009 02:59 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Your arguments on building 7 are to numerous for me to list out so I will be as brief as possible.

You referenced the recent NIST report a bit and several youtube videos, etc. The NIST report, which as I have already pointed out several times, was factually incorrect. They made assumptions that were documented as being false from video/photographic and scientific evidence:

1) They totally ignored high severe high-temperature corrosion:

http://wtc.nist.gov/...


2) Standard investigating procedures use also ignored in the WTC7 investigation:

http://www.911podcasts.com/...


3) Quote from structural engineer Kamal S. Obeid: “Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”

4) Even the report itself damns itself:

“With the exception of the fires on the 19th, 22nd, 29th, and 30th floors discussed at the start of this section, there is essentially no direct visual evidence of fires on other floors of WTC 7.”

5) The NIST report also reported incorrectly on the locations of the fires:

http://www.ae911truth.org/...



So basically you are trusting a report, that is riddled with flaws, assumptions and highly scrupulous data. They didnt maintain their standard procedures and ignored evidence. This makes the data biased and unscientific. If their data was reviewed in a scientific journal, I can say with 100% certainty that their results would not be duplicatable.

Again the information from the above article is in a PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL! Meaning you can try to replicate the data yourself if you do wish to do so. If you find differing results, then by all means please publish them! I am unsure why you keep trying to argue with scientific data.

So far, you have produced very little that can be validated scientifically. I have given sources directly from government reports and scientific journals. All you referenced was a few videos and some information from an anti-9/11 site. Which admittedly may count a small bit as evidence, but is like I have said now countless times, is not scientifically credible as being evidence unless it can be recreated. Unless you have some sort of information or tests that can be backed and also replicated in a lab, this conversation is over.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/07/2009 03:29 PM     
  ?  
 
Im not going to get in on this one really, but anyone who thinks that 3 towers, one of which never even got hit - can freefall like a demolition - on its own, is simply not allowing their mind to grasp the fact that someone could do that.

That being said, I don't know if either side will ever be able to prove it - but I have seen enought evidence to question it.
 
  by: jOnO_oRiGiNaL     04/07/2009 04:30 PM     
  @homegrown420  
 
I think you should of put in the Gulf of Tonkin incident not Pearl Harbour for USA involvement in Vietnam.
Pearl Harbour was a legit reason for USA in WW2.
 
  by: thinking   04/07/2009 04:53 PM     
  @thinking  
 
The US goaded Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor.
The Secretary of War at that time was Henry Stimson, a member of the CFR. In his
diaries he said:
In spite of the risk involved, however, in letting the Japanese fire the first shot,
we realized that, in order to have the full support of the American people, it was
desirable to make sure that the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there could be
no doubt in anyone’s mind as to who were the aggressors…. The question was, how
we should maneuver them into firing the first shot without allowing too much
damage to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition. This information is available here: Hearings before the Joint Committee on the Investigation of the Pearl Harbor Attack, Congress of
the United States, Seventy-Ninth Congress (Washington, D.C., 1946), Part 11. p. 5421, as cited by
Prang. The reference is Part 11, p. 5433, as quoted by Kimmel, p. 1. Also quoted by Stinnett but
with no reference, p. 179.
 
  by: John E Angel     04/07/2009 06:54 PM     
  and to to all who say  
 
"just let it go", this will never go away. Not for a long long long time, if ever. Besides, it's good debate substance.
 
  by: John E Angel     04/07/2009 07:06 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
I've answered every single thing you've said, and included photographic evidence that discredits the controlled demolition hypothesis quite clearly, yet you like to single out little parts of what I say and attack that instead, just as you are being told to by the leaders of your movement.

I literally quoted and replied to everything you said, and because you have no answer for the vast majority of it (and neither do any conspiracy theorists, such as the bowing, the hole in WTC-7 and excessive smoke rising from it which is _clearly_ seen, the penthouse collapses, the position of the debris of WTC-7 after it collapsed showing that it fell to one side and not straight down etc.) you are simply looking for any other way you can attack.

In this case you keep bringing up the fact that the article you posted about was in a peer reviewed journal. Obviously, peer review is an important part of the scientific method, but to think that _all_ content submitted for peer review is correct or legitimate etc. is nonsense. For years, for example, Biologists have been screaming for the Intelligent Design advocates to engage in peer review, mainly so they can show them why they are full of sh*t, but even if they did, it wouldn't make I.D. any more valid.

When it comes down to it, Steven Jones is a former physics professor, and has a background in nuclear fusion and archaeology (as it relates to the book of Mormon), so he is a rarity in the 9/11 truth movement, someone who actually might be qualified to be a leading voice. However, if you are going to trust everything that comes out of this man, you should get to know his work, such as "Behold My Hands", which he claims holds evidence Jesus visited North America. In reality he is talking about Mayan artwork that has nothing to do with Christianity, but he decided to take the leap of faith on behalf of his religion, obviously rejecting any rational impulse in the process - not a very good mindset for a scientist?

He is a physicist but he is not a structural engineer. His paper "Why indeed did the WTC buildings collapse?" found its first critics in the members of his own Physics department.

"To me, a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941 - 1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing"
-D. Allan Firmage

About the only good thing I can credit him with is distancing himself from Jim Fetzer, who is on a whole level of insanity on his own. You said I mentioned the NIST report and attacked that, yet if you just looked you would see that I barely mentioned the NIST report in anything I said, so it's interesting you left out all the other stuff and instead sent me links to whatever you could find that attacks NIST reports. Again.. I used to believe what you believed until I realized that this "operation" would be far too huge to pull off and keep secret, and that's leaving out the piles of falsified evidence found within the truth movement (still presented as fact on many 9/11 truth sites), the disinformation, the selective editing, the "sifting through loose change" etc. it's a total mess. These guys are bending over backwards to find some other explanation than 19 hijackers and 4 planes, and have gone as far as star wars-like energy weapons.

What was clearly amazing is Dylan Avery seemingly backing off the controlled demolition ideas for the Twin Towers and saying he'd focus more on WTC-7.... wait... so what... the Twin Towers were brought down by the actions of the hijackers but WTC-7 was destroyed by..... sh*t these guys don't even agree on who you are blaming for it. Why would they bring it down (WTC-7)? Oh that's right, it had "important documents" on fraud and other crimes..... it seems that its a long way to go to destroy some files but I guess anything is possible in conspiracy realm.

BTW, what anti-9/11 site? What is an anti-9/11 site? I linked to photos hosted on a site that debunks 9/11 myths, how is that an anti-9/11 site?

Let's also remember here that before you started telling me to take Physics 101 class and championing Peer Review like I'd actually disagree with it, you made several points that have been discredited years ago, even backed off from by most in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Just worth mentioning.

But ye, whatever, good luck!
 
  by: Dela     04/07/2009 07:24 PM     
  .  
 
I can see it now...

Them: Obama, please look into this whole 911 thing!

Obama: I did. Evidently it was a bunch of pissed off Muslims.

Them: Oh my GOD! He's in on it too!

Nothing can be said here to change the minds of certain people, no matter how much evidence you slap them with.
 
  by: deadtaco   04/07/2009 07:45 PM     
  @dela - havent addressed this yet  
 
one more small question for you.

if the planes really brought down the towers, then how did they fall straight down? like really precise straight down.

those buildings were damn tall. if they fell even one degree off of center it would've easily crossed a street and hit something else. instead, they fell straight into themselves (at freefall speed no less). Tons of weight hitting at 500MPH would be more likely to make it fall to its side, dont you think?
 
  by: reverend j roach     04/07/2009 07:45 PM     
  @reverend  
 
the weight of the building favored falling straight down versus at an angle

No I don't have a source but I'm sure somebody does
 
  by: syoware   04/07/2009 07:50 PM     
  @deadtaco, @reverend j roach  
 
@deadtaco, I have noticed just that yes, but like I said above, I used to believe this stuff too so sometimes it might be worth the argument.

@reverend j roach, None of the three buildings fell straight down. It depends on the camera angle of the footage you watch. Obviously the building didn't just topple over as it was built to withstand the force of that impact, and was actually gigantic in size... seriously, video footage does not do those buildings any justice for sheer scale.

The plane impacts had ensured the buildings inevitable collapse because while they did massive damage to the wall they hit, and perimeter columns on that side, the sheer force of the impact piles up debris including parts of the plane, parts of the floors that were impacted and all of the objects you would expect to find in an office building at the furthest away wall, so it was a lethal combination.

Around the 82nd floor of the South Tower, the worst fires were at the Northeast corner, with the temperature reaching 1800 fahrenheit. It would have to have been 2750 fahrenheit for the steel to actually melt, but at just 1100 fahrenheit, the steel would lose 50% of its strength.

Because of the location of these fires, the South Tower actually collapsed to the east, not straight down. Likewise, the North Tower collapsed to the south because of where the burning debris was concentrated in the building. It depends on the angle you watch the collapse from but this is very noticeable if you find the right angle, particularly with the floors above the impact zones.

As for WTC-7, as I mentioned already, the North Face of the building was piled on top of the debris, because the building fell to the South. None of the buildings fell straight down.
 
  by: Dela     04/07/2009 08:03 PM     
  @John E Angel  
 
Thanks for that.
That puts a few things into a different perceptive for me.
 
  by: thinking   04/07/2009 08:26 PM     
  Conspiracy  
 
My question is this:

If the government planted explosives in the buildings, why in hell did they make them fall in a perfect collapse, as you claim? I know if I was running the Dr. Evil's School for Secretive Demolition, I'd purposely make the building fall to the side, or something else that looked more chaotic.

Hey, let's blow up a building in a perfectly balanced way as if we were demolishing it! That way it makes it more questionable!

It just doesn't make sense.
 
  by: deadtaco   04/07/2009 08:59 PM     
  Word count  
 
Starting from "Okay here we go" to "fell straight down" by Dela 04/07/2009 08:03 PM. A complete drag copy paste with everything in between copied.

Pages: 37
Words: 14,425
Characters (no spaces): 69,851
Characters (with spaces): 85,074
Paragraphs: 372
Lines: 2,336

Don't you find it kind of disturbing that there is no clear evidence of what happened on American soil? Y'all would best discuss aliens and their supposed crashings and visits to earth. At least such discussion would lead to perhaps having some of their fancy technology over at Area 51 like zero point energy and antigravity.
 
  by: LykosSN4   04/07/2009 09:06 PM     
  @deadtaco  
 
A lot of things about that day do not make sense.

Why did the supposed hijacker Hani Honjour crashing his plane into a relative empty area of the pentagon. Why didnt they simply take the pentagon tour and find out where the top brass's offices were along with The Secretary of Def. He could actually have looked on the internet to get this info! Either Al Qaeda people are total fools or Americans are. Pick one just from this problematic situation...

How did Mohommad Atta's passport survives the plane crash?

How did Honjour manage to pull off such a magnificent maneuver without putting the plane into a high speed stall even with his extremely limited piloting skills?

Why is the information on the Pakistani ISI link to Mohammad Atta, classified?

Why are the surveillance tapes of the Pentagon still being withheld?



Here is a simple exercise. Write down those capable of actually pulling off such a crime.

Al Qaeda, Hamas, the ISI, the CIA, etc. Tons of names and groups could go on this list. But which ones truly had the manpower, the funding and the knowhow to do it.

Do to the classification of data regarding the events, that pretty much removes several terror organizations like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc.

The only groups on the list that could potentially do all these things would be government agencies or groups sponsored by governments. IE: The ISI, CIA, MOSSAD, etc.

Would Al Qaeda have the ability to train pilots? Probably. Would they have the ability to get people into the US. Yes of course. Would they be able to obtain the funding needed for such an operation? Possibly. Would they be able to get the ISI to wire money to Atta? Possible but unlikely. Would they be able to get the US government to hold off their interceptors from shooting down the 4 flights? Definitely NOT! I will stop here.

Basically just get some basic questions like these and then ask yourself if they were capable of doing this or that. If a "NO" comes up on that list, this essentially invalidates them as a suspect group.

The only groups capable of calling off US Fighter planes would be those within our own government or foreign infiltrators.

What if Mossad was responsible for 9/11 or a rouge group within the CIA. Hell it could even be a group that merely was using government agents as their pawns. Such as powerful businessmen. It might even be several different groups working together.

The idea of Al Qaeda acting alone is not possible. They were incapable of performing parts of the operation that made it possible. Now it is possible that members linked to Al Qaeda were involved but due to the nature of some of the things that happened that day, it is impossible they were working alone.

As I stated, the only groups capable of doing some of these things had to be connected to government security groups.

This is basically how police investigations work. You get your suspects and you start eliminating them from your list based on the facts. Since there has yet to this day, be an investigation into 9/11, you will keep having conversations like this.

I have lobbied my congressman and senators for formal criminal investigations into 9/11 and have told everyone I know to do the same. This is the only way we will finally get the answers we are looking for!
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/07/2009 09:46 PM     
  Give me a break...  
 
Yet more stuff that has been cleared up a LONG time ago but lives on in conspiracy realm. Maybe in the morning I'll run through them again.

But before I go to sleep, why the hell do people see this as such a complicated and amazing attack? Yes, a lot of people died. Yes, they destroyed the World Trade Center and they damaged the Pentagon.

How did they do it? Actually, it was pretty damn easy. It was a lot easier to go and live in the U.S. as an immigrant before 9/11 than it is now, so that part wasn't a big fuss.

Learning to fly... not a problem. Don't even need to worry about taking off and landing (and only those designated to pilot had to learn to fly). Again, pre-9/11 security mentality and peace time, so getting some sharp objects on-board wasn't a big deal, and these guys flew first class too.

Not long after the flights took off, they took hostages etc. and made their way to the cockpit. From there it was simply to fly the planes into their targets, and THAT's it. Their involvement ended right there... they weren't alive to cut through the core and perimeter columns of the world trade center, the fire caused the collapse, the hijackers are nowhere near criminal masterminds, the media just makes it look like that.

It's natural for a person to look at such a huge event and have to immediately attribute it to a huge cause, but that's not the case. When you think about it, it's the only way to pull it off. They exploited the fact that it was relatively easy to get to America, easy to learn to fly, easy to get on a plane and that the passengers weren't afraid or skeptical of each other, the pilots of the planes couldn't have known what was about to happen (except actually for pilot of flight 93, who got an SMS message warning from another pilot that a plane had crashed into WTC, but it was a badly written txt message and he replied something like "please confirm details").

And that's that, the masterminds didn't exactly do anything too complex, the only hard part was learning to fly, and when u don't have to take off and land that probably becomes a whole lot easier too.

But of course, some people are still absolutely sure that somehow, some group, behind the scenes, managed to wire the entire world trade center twin towers + building 7 with thermate, forgetting that all the Sheetrock would have had to have been stripped from the walls to gain access to columns, and then run thousands of miles of cabling throughout the building.... and considering they supposedly used a thermite compound of some sort, they miraculously managed to coordinate it collapse perfectly... and not at free-fall speed?.... err what?

I think somebody would have noticed the army of guys wiring the building... this is not something you could do in a few days, this would take months, buildings much smaller take months.

Now is there secrets about 9/11? Probably ye. The NSA got off pretty damn lightly considering they had bin Laden's Yemen house address bugged, his cell phone number in America etc. and didn't share half the phone conversations with the CIA (again, this is nothing weird, intelligence services are rivals for funding after all), and considering the Americans were not the only ones who were monitoring bin Laden, and had received messages from overseas of a planned attack against America, why didn't the White House take it seriously?

Incompetence however doesn't mean guilty.
 
  by: Dela     04/07/2009 11:01 PM     
  You can debunk anything  
 
but not why they removed the debris from the site as quickly as possible. I knew then that something was wrong with 9/11
 
  by: evilrat   04/07/2009 11:20 PM     
  @slave  
 
"Why did the supposed hijacker Hani Honjour crashing his plane into a relative empty area of the pentagon....
How did Honjour manage to pull off such a magnificent maneuver without putting the plane into a high speed stall even with his extremely limited piloting skills?"

Maybe his "magnificent" maneuver was so poorly executed as to have been lucky to have hit anything at all? And for all the research they did, maybe those 19 guys didn't think any part of the Pentagon would be any better a target than any other.

I'm hearing about strokes of genius but seeing what need only be a series of shortcomings. It's like a comedy with a bumbling villain who escapes by virtue of a few fortunate accidents, leaving the gruff police chief to grunt, "Huh, this guy's good."
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/08/2009 12:20 AM     
  @dela  
 
"I think somebody would have noticed the army of guys wiring the building... this is not something you could do in a few days, this would take months, buildings much smaller take months."

actually they did power down all security from florr 500 and up for 36 hours and removed the BOMB SNIFFING DOGS.


off course the whole concept of the WTC being destroyed by demolition is a complete impossibility to you, much like the chance of 9/11 playing out as the official story says, infact the chances are so unlikely its actually IMPOSSIBLE. thats litterally means its COULD NOT have happened the way we told it did.

thats how how abundance ignorance and a lack of common sense in in this wacky world, the story of 9/11 was an illusion; like a magic trick to conceal what was really happening right infront of you..

"what the eyes see, and the ears hear, the mind believes"

my wuestion is why automaticall dismiss the only theory that can accurately explain what happened on 9/11 not on of the 5 events of that day (the twin towers, building 7, "crashing" in the feild nor crashinging into the pentagon) happened as they would have if they actually happened as we were told they did, the odds of one event defying all known science is hard enough to swallow, but for 5 events all in th3e same limited time frame is absolutely impossible... to believe otherwise is foolish at best, and thats even ingoring the hundreds of other points like how quickly they covered it up, how they repeatidly falsified bin laden videos taking credit for it.

but instead half of people still choose ignorance over even considering the possibility that it was their own governemnt that attacked them... and its not like the government hasn't planned to do so in the past (operation north woods) or done so in the past; they attacked their own military to justify vietnam... and evidence suggests the governemnt was involved in the oklahoma bombing and 1993 wtc bombing... so, to think that its impossible that the government did it is very nieve at best.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/08/2009 12:27 AM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
And the cover-up of the attack on the USS Liberty, the fabricated claims about the murdered babies in Kuwait and on and on!
 
  by: evilrat   04/08/2009 12:41 AM     
  @  
 
I mean, it doesn't make any sense what Copernicus claimed. When i look at the sky, it's pretty damn evident that the sun and the stars move, not the earth. An idiot can see that.
 
  by: HAL 9000   04/08/2009 01:09 AM     
  Well..  
 
I blame the Jews... It's always the Jews, one way or another. :)
 
  by: shiftyfarker   04/08/2009 03:49 AM     
  @shiftyfarker  
 
You can blame Zionism for much of it, which is a very dangerous ideology, but not all jews are in support of it. There are also many who oppose it. Did you forget what happened when jews where blamed for everything in germany?!
 
  by: evilrat   04/08/2009 03:55 AM     
  @evilrat  
 
The Jews were used as lab rats?
 
  by: shiftyfarker   04/08/2009 03:59 AM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
------------------------------------------
"actually they did power down all security from florr 500 and up for 36 hours and removed the BOMB SNIFFING DOGS."
------------------------------------------

You know that sounds awfully familiar.... oh yeah, you made that claim to me back in January and I already trashed it... but no biggie, for the sake of other readers, I'll copy and paste what I already explained to you.

BTW, an obvious mistake of yours, the WTC didn't have 500 floors.

As for the claim that there was a "power down" at the World Trade Center, it was made by an employee at the WTC called Scott Forbes... and just him. Just one guy of 50,000 employees noticed this. No other employee has corroborated this story, and no documentation has ever been provided or recovered to back it up. This seems strange since Forbes claims that everybody was notified three weeks in advance.

Additionally, Forbes keeps changing his story, at first it was a 36 hour Power Down, then he claimed in an interview it was 26 hours. He originally said that the Power Down affected floors above the 50th floor, but then since his company was on the 90th floor and up, he went on to say that he can't say for sure if floors lower than that were affected????

The top half of the South Tower without power at night (at 36 or 26 hours it would have to be night sometime) would have been significant enough for someone to remember it or take a photograph of it. Nobody did. This power down is touted as evidence that bombs could have been planted in that few days period, but since it only affects half of the South Tower if it even ever happened, then what about the lower half, the north tower or building 7?

As for security being removed from the complex, Loose Change claims a news report as saying that bomb sniffing dogs were pulled from the towers and other security was lapsed in the days leading up to 9/11. In fact there were at least 2 bomb sniffing dogs at the towers and the security was at normal level in the days leading up to 9/11. The news source was a Newsday.com report ( http://www.newsday.com/... ) that Loose Change exploited, it in fact says that extra bomb sniffing dogs were removed "following a period of heightened security" when phone threats had been made. Do you get that? Dogs were removed FOLLOWING the heightened security. In fact, there were extra dogs in a short while before 9/11, and then they were removed as the building went back to normal security level.

Both bomb sniffing dogs were at their stations on 9/11, with one of them confirmed dead in the attack (Police K9 Sirius).

So the evidence for the lower security is 1 of 50,000 employees reporting an undocumented power-down, and not being able to confirm it's true or not or even give a time frame it lasted for, and an article that confirms security was at normal level on Sept 11th? See this is why these documentaries are bull, they will bend anything they can to make it fit.

Steven Jones, the irrational physicist who co-authored the article the above news piece advertises, was in a radio debate with World Trade Center Chief Engineer Leslie Robertson, who schooled Jones on just how impractical the idea is that bombs could have been planted in the building like this.

"In order to bring it down, in order to put demolitions on every floor, or every second floor, or every third floor, whatever you think it would take to create that speed of demolition; that would require an absolutely monumental effort, which would have to get by security police, office workers, ah, you can't just walk into someone's office and put explosives on columns. I mean forget it, before or after 9/11, we all controlled our own space".

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 10:40 AM     
  @HAVOC666 (2)  
 
------------------------------------------
"off course the whole concept of the WTC being destroyed by demolition is a complete impossibility to you, much like the chance of 9/11 playing out as the official story says, infact the chances are so unlikely its actually IMPOSSIBLE. thats litterally means its COULD NOT have happened the way we told it did."
------------------------------------------

In your OPINION, never mind the fact that the broad consensus among all experts is that you are dead wrong. What experts do you have? Steven Jones? Jim Fetzer, Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, Jason Bermas, Alex Jones etc. Are you serious?

Again, the IMPOSSIBILITY lies with wiring the MASSIVE World Trade Center for demolition with bombs that make no sound and produce no flashes, without ANY employees or security noticing you ripping through the walls to get to the columns, and being amazing enough at it to make the collapse initiate at impact zone.

------------------------------------------
"thats how how abundance ignorance and a lack of common sense in in this wacky world, the story of 9/11 was an illusion; like a magic trick to conceal what was really happening right infront of you.."
------------------------------------------

You know, you have a serious problem with overestimating yourself. All it takes is to read your posts on this site to understand how your mind works... here it is in a nutshell ok?

"I'm smart and anyone who disagrees with me is IGNORANT"

That's very childish of you, you will learn someday though that simply putting your hands over your ears and saying "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA" whenever anyone challenges your opinions or your evidence doesn't make your case any better. Instead it says a lot about your character. You should accept that not all of us get our information from the "Illuninati" documentaries. And I say that as somebody who used to, so don't dare play the bias card on me, because I've been where you are and decided instead of ignoring what wasn't helpful to my beliefs, I'd see both sides, and I gotta tell you, the view is very different from here.

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 11:00 AM     
  HAVOC666 (3)  
 
------------------------------------------
my wuestion is why automaticall dismiss the only theory that can accurately explain what happened on 9/11 not on of the 5 events of that day (the twin towers, building 7, "crashing" in the feild nor crashinging into the pentagon) happened as they would have if they actually happened as we were told they did, the odds of one event defying all known science is hard enough to swallow, but for 5 events all in th3e same limited time frame is absolutely impossible... to believe otherwise is foolish at best, and thats even ingoring the hundreds of other points like how quickly they covered it up, how they repeatidly falsified bin laden videos taking credit for it.
------------------------------------------

Like I said before, I didn't automatically dismiss _anything_. I used to believe the same stuff you believe, even your New World Order fears. The difference is, I decided to go and check these out properly instead of accepting Loose Change, Zeitgeist etc. at face value and realized its, for the most part, a bunch of crap.

I've already, on this thread, gone over why the World Trade Center towers collapsed, and Building 7, and left plenty of links to photographic and video evidence for it, so that takes up three of the 5 events of the day right there.

Now as for Flight 93, we have relatives who had phone conversations (which despite ridiculous claims to the contrary, were totally possible with cell phones in 2001, not to mention that only 2 of the calls came from cell phones, not 10), we have black box recordings from the aircraft which tells the story of what happens and 95% of the entire debris recovered.

So what's the opposition to it besides the fraudulent claims that the _2_ cell phone calls were impossible? Oh that's right, a guy said his full name instead of his first name to his mother.. give me a break. If you were on a hijacked aircraft and were making a franctic phone call of emergency, you might just do the same thing. Also, there is the horrendous part which asks you to believe that these people's loved ones, whom they spent their LIVES with, were fooled by 2001 voice recognition technology or just a good impersonator... again, give me a break. And don;t try to pull that "Flight 93 landed in Cleveland" claim either, that's also entirely false.

Now, as for the pictures of the crash site, conspiracy theorists claim there isn't enough wreckage and compare it with other crashes. Conveniently, they forget that in a normal plane crash, the pilot TRIES TO SAVE THE PLANE. Even when a pilot knows the plane is going down, he/she will try to glide as far as possible, reduce speed as much as possible and attempt to "crash land" if possible.

United 93 however, was controlled by a group who had no intention of saving they plane. They literally dived the plane as fast as they could into soft ground. This plane was approaching the speed of SOUND, it would have reached it if it went much further, and it slammed into soft earth as opposed to a runway or similar hard ground, and the plane literally buried into the ground... that's why there are photos of diggers literally digging the plane out of the ground.

The problem is some people seem to have a cartoon-mentality, when it comes to this stuff.

So that's 4 out of 5.

I also already covered a lot about the Pentagon B.S. theories above, so I need not delve into that again, so 5/5.

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 11:19 AM     
  HAVOC666 (4)  
 
I don't think I really need to even continue to go through your claims, as like before, you'll just ignore them anyway and keep touting them as fact throughout this site... that's the 9/11 Truth way after all.

But personally, I believe most people involved in this simply "want" for 9/11 not to have been the work of bin Laden or any of the 19 "innocent" hijackers. Admit it, you want it to be the Bush Administration, you want it to be as scary as possible.... or do you... or do you just get a kick out of feeling like you have a great truth that the rest of us don't have? So you can provide this remarkable service on getting the word pout there, even if it does turn out to be totally false.

You are 100% exactly the same as every other person I went head to head with on this. You make a bunch of claims, I respond to them (and can't help how long the responses are), you ignore my responses and make another bunch,, I respond, you ignore them and make another bunch and maybe even throw in stuff that has nothing to do with 9/11... basically hoping that I won't reply to something so you can say AHA!! you didn't reply to point X, that means you don't know what happened, so it MUST be evidence of conspiracy.

All you can really say back to me is that I'm an "IGNORAMI" and that I write too much so you can't read it all. So a bit of advice, if you are not prepared to backup what you say, then don't say it, because every time I see you doing it I'll call you out on it... not because I don't like you... I don;t know anything about you, you could be the nicest guy in the world for all I know, but I'll do it for the benefit of other readers, because at least on ShortNews, I have the ability to reply and not be edited or silenced with a ban.
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 11:30 AM     
  @shiftyfarker  
 
------------------------------------------
"I blame the Jews... It's always the Jews, one way or another. :)"
------------------------------------------

That's pretty much it ye. Even with 9/11, the first widespread conspiracy theory was that the Jews did it, sourced from a middle eastern website that made a bogus claim about how thousands of Jews were told not to show up at work. In reality, an Israeli embassy site put up a notice of condolences for all victims, and mentioned that there were 4,000 Israelis working in or around the WTC... and that's it... that's how it started.

The White House copped on to it pretty fast too, that's why a couple of months later George Bush said in a speech to the U.N. "let's never tolerate ridiculous conspiracy theories, regarding the attacks of September 11th". Conspiracy Theorists think this is proof that he is hiding something... in fact he was defending Israel, none of these big Truth Movement entities even popped up until years after 9/11... with Loose Change for example, starting as a FICTIONAL book about a group of friends exposing 9/11 as an inside job.

But ye... as with all conspiracies, the first one was "the Jews did it"... and certain people on this thread STILL think that... If you really believe Jews didn't go to work in the WTC on 9/11, then go take a look at the list of the dead....
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 11:38 AM     
  @thinking  
 
Thanks, I was having a bit of trouble remembering that name, "Gulf Of Tonkin".
 
  by: homegrown420     04/08/2009 01:56 PM     
  @dela  
 
Holy crap..
You dont have much to say on this subject do you?LMAO.

Why cant people just forget it you'll never know the real truth..It just like the Lincon conspiracy and JFK..
Like drugs JUST SAY NO.....
 
  by: steve2045     04/08/2009 02:28 PM     
  @steve2045  
 
I dont think we can ever stop asking. Not when it involved so many lives.

To date, not one person has been faulted with those events in a criminal proceeding.

If Bin Laden is the guilty party as has been the popular theory, why not simply charge him for those deaths?

I have been demanding a criminal hearing into these events since pretty much day one. Bush fought tooth and nail to prevent any real investigation. So my advice is simple. Email your congressman and senators. Demand a criminal investigation. Demand justice. Until a trial begins, essentially this so called "Government of the People" is denying its own people the justice they so rightfully deserve.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 02:35 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
The U.S. Department of Defense charged Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and Walid Bin Attash for the September 11 attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed admitted to planning the attacks "completely" with the permission of Osama bin Laden. The trial of all of these men however is fairly uncertain, whether it will be a military court as planned, or whether they will be brought to a civilian court, either way the U.S. Government is seeking the death penalty for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for 2,973 individual counts of murder for 9/11, as well as other charges for his involvement with other attacks, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 03:52 PM     
  @analysis  
 
oh my, it seems we got multiple PhD holders here in their respective fields :P

as for me, the normal average guy, as far as I know is that
- the US is capable of attacking their own troops just to start a war (i read it somewhere that it was gonna happen in cuba at some point),
- that the US also lied about attacking iraq (no point in going over this again now is there?)

so, should I trust reports coming from the same people mentioned above?

I don't think so :P

but does it matter anymore?

Even in cases like the iraq war, in which the ill-intentions of the US was proven. and even in the case of the recession where so many companies and senators got exposed (yet not many governmental people are getting their heads rolled).

do u really, honestly, expect something as controversial as the 9/11 attacks to get exposed?

nah :P
 
  by: trynix   04/08/2009 04:48 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Fair enough I'll play. The person who is supposedly the one that is the ultimate monster behind it all, "Osama Bin Laden" AKA CIA Asset Tim Osman, has been left off of this list for some reason???

We DO NOT need bin laden to be captured to charge him. We can charge him in absentia, like how was done in his RICO trial in Feb. 2001.

Just take a gander at FBI.gov:

http://www.fbi.gov/...

And I quote:

"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

Not a single word regarding 9/11...

Now here is another interesting quote:

June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Instead of placing this on the headlines worldwide, the US govt and media outlets are still attributing 9/11 to Bin Laden even though our own FBI says he cant be connected to it.

Apparently this entire War in Afghanistan is nothing more than a massive farce if this is true and he isnt connected with it. Countless BILLIONS have been spent all in the name of "combating terror" and bringing those responsible for 9/11 to justice.

If he is the man they want then surely they would bring formal charges against him! Instead they have done the total opposite.

So far the Bush administration has created a system of Soviet Styled kangaroo courts where defendants cannot even question evidence or even look at evidence against themselves. Obama is supposedly rolling back these but we will see where that goes.

If they use testimony that has been obtained through the use of torture, then they really have no legal basis. So far this guy is looking less like a 9/11 suspect and more like just a regular Jihadist they picked up in the desert that is trying to obtain martyrdom!

Note: CIA Director Michael Hayden told a Senate committee on February 5, 2008, that the agency had used waterboarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

How can we trust anything this guy even says?

The case the US government is planning on building has the weakest foundation ever legally conceived!
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 05:06 PM     
  @admins and devs  
 
You guys should really think about adding paging to the comments section of this site!
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 05:12 PM     
  @dela  
 
you believe whatever you want to believe i'll believe what the evidence provides as a possibility... not the government's and media's VERSION of it.

FYI, those experts you speak of had to falsify data for NIST's model of the collapse to work, making the heat higher, making the duration of exposure longer, increase floor sag from a max of 4 inches to a over 40 inches just so pancake theory could hold weight amongst the ignorant/stupid masses foolish enough think it was possibility, completely ignoprant of the fact that the WTC's cor is a stand-alone structure if the floors had pancaked from heat causing sagging floors the core column would still be standing... and if it was damagaed enough to be unstable (and it wasn't, firefighters admit this; but they they also admit to hearing multiple bombs... so they must be liars...lol)... then again ignoring the fact that if the towers has fallen without being demolished it would topple to the damaged side... as thats the side of least resistance... but instance the laws of physics were cicumvented for 9/11 in all 5 events... if anyone can't see the gross impossibility there then quite frankly there are only 2 descriptive words for that "stupid" and "ignorant"... and whoever fits in that catagory can take their pick of which one they prefer to be.

"I also already covered a lot about the Pentagon B.S. theories above, so I need not delve into that again, so 5/5."

good cover the part of how the PLANE DOESN'T FIT THROGUHT THE INITIAL HOLE IN THE PENTAGON... again to believe this is requires stupidity or ignorance to be prevelent since its an ABSOLUTE impossibility, so if the plane couldn't have fit through the hole yet SOMETHING did pass through several layers of the pentagon walls it only stands to reason that something that wasn't a plane crashed into the pentagon, something small enough that be confused for a small plane, something that has the potential to pass through several defensive walls.... a boeing 757 doesn't fit the bill


"including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing"

you mean the one where the FBI provided the bomb, but the person carrying out the mission parked the truck too far from the core columns to be effective.

hell why not bring up the oklahoma bombing some people think al-queida had a hand in that to... and in the oklahoma instance the truck bomb was a diversion for the bombs planted in the buiding, atleast 2 or 3 which failed and were removed. though until 9/11 no-one really tried to uncover these cover-up, it only took 3000 deaths for a portion of the people to wake up to panick and fear their own government (or at least parts of it) are doing to justify their power grab.

"Admit it, you want it to be the Bush Administration, you want it to be as scary as possible.... or do you... or do you just get a kick out of feeling like you have a great truth that the rest of us don't have? "

nope not at all... i wish i could bring myself to believe the ignorant things most people believe... would sure make my life easier... but i cant and refuse to put my head that far up my ass, or in the sand, or more accurately up the government and media's ass... you might think i believe in something scary... i think you believe in something that is not only merely inprobable but absolutely IMPOSSIBLE... you might as well be saying i don't believe in "god" because its "scary" instead of the fact that there's not proof that its even possible, let alone probable, much less a reality... but most people still believe it... because it comforts them... by your same faith in 9/11 you'd have believe the russia burnt down the reichstag instead of hitler's henchmen simply because the government attacking the people is unthinkable and the government and media are more than willing to cover it up... i guess the vietnamese werew resonsible to the gulf of tonkin incident, much like no-one believes about the south korean incursion into north korea simply because the media never reported it and the government way saying the opposite of what was happening.

most people ARE ignorant (if not stupid) enough to continually believe the government and and media's misdirection, outright omissions, lies and cover-ups, i'm just blunt enough to say it outright rather than dancing around it, i don't and won't shy away from calling a person or their idea's ignorant or stupid if they genuinely appear that way... this happens during and before nearly if not all (i can't think of an exception) military conflicts its quite litterally the US's MO to have false flag operations to justify their military actions.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/08/2009 05:26 PM     
  Debunking  
 
Dela, really enjoying your debunking. Keep at it.

As for the truthers, do you even attempt to look at your so-called facts objectively? Dela has repeatedly shown the mistruths that are told in Loose Change, yet you still think that it was pure truth. The fact they edited so much crap out of it in order to skew it in their favor should have raised a few red flags.

Even I think there is a lot to 9/11 that isn't being truthfully told, but most of this conspiracy garbage has been debunked over and over, yet you just don't seem to care.

It's almost becoming a cult. You refuse to look at your "evidence" objectively. Do a little research that doesn't involve conspiracy websites before throwing this garbage out there. If you can find something that can't be debunked, then by all means use that, but most of what I've seen is refuted crap and nothing more.
 
  by: deadtaco   04/08/2009 05:51 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
You know, I have heard a lot of people saying that the CIA gave a load of training and money to Osama Bin Laden, and it's not really true. In reality, bin Laden was part of the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the U.S. spent billions in a covert effort against it. That's pretty much as far as it goes.

As for the code name, it's not the first time I've heard it _at all_ and it's only on conspiracy sites or media reports based from conspiracies that tie it to "CIA training". A code-name does not mean anything more than a code-name, if you are a CIA target, you'll have a code-name, like everyone else. Remember Bill Clinton did try to kill him, and he persuaded the United Nations to impose sanctions on Afghanistan to force the Taliban to give up bin Laden too, all before 9/11. It is true to say that bin Laden and the CIA were technically on the same side at times, but only really with regard to the Soviet Union. Osama called for Jihad against America afterwards because of its permanent military establishments throughout the region.

The reason bin Laden has never been charged for 9/11 is because bin Laden was never detained. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed IS facing charges for 9/11, and admitted that he answered to Osama bin Laden (and they even had disagreements on what buildings to target). Osama bin Laden also, himself, admitted to being behind 9/11...... and wearing "gold rings", bad video aspect ratio and writing a note with his assumed bad hand doesn't discredit his own confession, especially since Khalid Sheikh, a globally renowned terrorist who was pursued for much more than just 9/11, admitted he answered to Osama.

As for the waterboarding, it was used on him to get information on a plot that had been uncovered, and led to the capture of Riduan Isamuddin, who was also responsible for the 2002 Bali bombing. I don't agree with torture in any case, but that's not what this is about, and the fact of the matter is he confessed to 9/11 before that (as he called it, the "Holy Tuesday" operation) he wasn't tortured into a confession, he was tortured into revealing details about a planned attack.

Khalid admitted, himself, proudly, to plotting the 9/11 attacks "from A to Z", after _that_ confession I don't think the U.S. Government needs to worry about a verdict. As a note too, for the real mastermind of 9/11, it is Khalid and not bin Laden, bin Laden was just the leader.

As for Osama bin Laden, if he is captured alive (if he is alive), he will be interrogated about 9/11 and everything else he was linked to as well, and he will admit it too, and opt to die as a martyr. The NSA also has tied bin Laden's Yemen hide-out to the phones used by the hijackers in the United States before the attack.

BTW, you do realize that hard evidence includes DNA, fingerprints, video of a crime being committed clearly showing the suspect etc. The FBI and all American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are 100% sure that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks, however it is highly unlikely they will ever jail or execute him for it, as he has made it clear he intends never to be captured and will martyr himself first. Quit quote mining the FBI. BTW, you didn;t mention how bin Laden was not top of the FBI's most wanted list before 9/11, but he was afterward, even though his crime was not changed to include 9/11.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. by the way, will get a fair trial in the end, and when he says it himself that he committed the 9/11 attacks, I'll watch you bend over backwards to claim the CIA have a chip in his brain or something similar. You guys will accept quotes supposedly made by bin Laden, and false reports of meeting the CIA at an American hospital etc. before you'll ever check it out yourself.
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 05:51 PM     
  @Dela  
 
"The reason bin Laden has never been charged for 9/11 is because bin Laden was never detained."

Not true! In fact very false and misleading.

On November 4, 1998, Osama bin Laden was indicted by a Federal Grand Jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on charges of Murder of US Nationals Outside the United States, Conspiracy to Murder US Nationals Outside the United States, and Attacks on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death for his alleged role in the 1998 United States embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. The evidence against bin Laden included courtroom testimony by former Al Qaeda members and satellite phone records.

I must note that this was done under Federal RICO statutes and he was prosecuted in ABSENTIA! Meaning he was not present.

Here is another interesting fact:

It wasn't until after the bombing of Afghanistan began in October 2001 that the Taliban offered to turn over Osama bin Laden to a third-party country for trial, in return for the US ending the bombing and providing evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks. This offer was rejected by George Bush. He stated that this was no longer negotiable responding "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty."

Again the FBI (Thats actually part of our own government if you dont know) has said there is NO HARD EVIDENCE to connect him to 9/11...

I dont know how to make this any clearer!
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 06:09 PM     
  @HAVOC666 - @deadtaco  
 
@HAVOC666, Here you go again with the "everybody else is ignorant but me" stuff. From your 1993 World Trade Center bombing comments, I see you also enjoy the work of Alex Jones ;-)

As for the Pentagon part, the fuselage fits perfectly in the hole, and the wing damage is on the outer wall (hint, the wings were NOT level to the ground on impact, one even struck and moved a generator, and they also knocked over multiple light poles..... show me a cruise missile that can do that and I'll give you my hat)

But you replying about the Pentagon is again showing the stereotype, as deadtaco pointed out, you are ignoring the majority of what I posted. You are only looking at what you perceive as holes in what I post and pretending the rest wasn't there at all.

However, I can't go over all of this now, but I'll reply to your message, again, in its entirety as I always do without leaving anything out, either later on or in the morning (too much typing here for one day), and I'll even track down some photographs that mark out the wing damage too.

@deadtaco, it is a cult, make no mistake. Just watch the footage of these guys protesting on 9/11... shouting down anyone who dares to challenge them, screaming "9/11 was an inside job" with their hands in the air... while others try to mourn their loss. Or take a look at the celebrity-like photos of the Loose Change creators in their "Investigate 9/11" hoodies around the net... they are so HOT right?! ;-)

Conspiracy theorists don't care when their information is debunked or discredited, especially those from the age of the Internet. You can easily register a domain and make bogus claims about hijackers being alive or whatever, and you don't have to submit to any standards like print media for example... so it thrives, unchecked, just trying to get as many people to believe the fantasy as possible. It's a total cult, make no mistake about it.
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 06:11 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
I OBVIOUSLY meant Osama bin Laden wasn't detained since 9/11, since, you know, they went LOOKING for him. Also, the Taliban is hardly the most trust-worthy government, and Mullah Mohammad Omar had no intention of turning him over to the Americans in any case. The Taliban was given a legitimate period of time to hand over bin Laden before the bombing started, and they didn't. By that time, Osama was already _gone_ from any location associated with him. The Taliban was only looking to buy time, they never would have captured and handed over bin Laden, they would have done what Islamic radicals always do, use the ceasefire to get as many weapons and fighters across the border as they could.

As for the lack of charges pressed on Osama bin Laden, it's a non-point. I can only give my opinion on it. Osama was indicted in 1998 when the Clinton administration was in power. As for the Bush administration, they wanted bin Laden dead or alive, and charging him for the crime when they couldn't catch it would be bad for their image, from their point of view. I wouldn't be surprised to see charges brought under the Obama administration, probably when Khalid is sentenced to death for his part.

And again, FBI hard evidence would be a video of a crime being committed by a suspect, fingerprints on the murder weapon, DNA evidence etc. They will definitely get a confession from him if they ever catch him,. because he will brag about it like he has many times over, only this time he will do it to an interrogator.

But ye, point is, criminal proceedings are brought against Khalid, who is in custody, who was the real mastermind and who admitted to it "from A to Z", and it will be interesting to see what comes from the troofies when that happens. You can go ahead and keep bringing up more points if you want, but I'm done for the night guys.
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 06:24 PM     
  Short and sweet  
 
Short and sweet answer. Everyone seems to have forgotten that after the towers were destroyed several of the surrounding builds were damaged so severely they had to be taken down also. This was done with controlled explosions, cranes and other instruments of destruction So guess what you use explosive when you create explosions! This is why explosive residue was found!
Now go put your tin foil hats back on and stop trying to make the USA out to be so evil.
 
  by: damndave   04/08/2009 06:34 PM     
  @dela  
 
"You know, I have heard a lot of people saying that the CIA gave a load of training and money to Osama Bin Laden, and it's not really true. In reality, bin Laden was part of the resistance to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the U.S. spent billions in a covert effort against it. That's pretty much as far as it goes"

nope at all... th3e US was funding the mujadeen (sp?) in the 70's under jimmy carter BEFORE the soviet invasion not, just during and popular history says... why were they doing it... because part of afghanistan openly supported marxist communism...


"Osama bin Laden also, himself, admitted to being behind 9/11"

LMFAO... no hje didn't are you bloody blind... those were fake bin laden's, they couldn't even be bother to get a decent look alike because they were counting on ignorance... and boy, did they cash in on that bet.

"Khalid admitted, himself, proudly, to plotting the 9/11 attacks "from A to Z", after _that_ confession I don't think the U.S. Government needs to worry about a verdict."

AFTER BEING TORTURED FOR 5 YEARS!... thats a VERY important detail that not only did you not mention was commited but lied (or were ignorant about) him being tortured into his confession.

"As for Osama bin Laden, if he is captured alive (if he is alive), he will be interrogated about 9/11 and everything else he was linked to as well, and he will admit it too,"

don't count on it... since he denies an involvement in 9/11 at all... not something a terrorist leader would do if he had commited it... the fact that fake videos are the only ones that show "bin laden" taking credit for 9/11 should in and of itself raise alarms but people people dont even know what osama bin laden looks like than the fake video deceptions proved that repeatidly, again they get o nthe ignorance of the american population and cashed in big time.

". The FBI and all American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are 100% sure that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks"

not in the least thats why they only say they are going after him, yet even the FBI can't charge him for 9/11 because of LACK OF EVIDENCE.

"however it is highly unlikely they will ever jail or execute him for it, as he has made it clear he intends never to be captured and will martyr himself first. "

and not the fact that he is a CIA asset, not CIA target are you tried to spin from slave's comment

"Khalid Sheikh Mohammed et al. by the way, will get a fair trial in the end, and when he says it himself that he committed the 9/11 attacks,"

fair trail... what planet are you living on... he has no chance of a fair trial, his confession was obtained by torture, if they even try to use such a confession they insure that a fair trail never is had... not they they ever intend to give any of those suspects held in secret prisons (gitmo is just the one we know about, countries like spain have been pissed off at the US for illegally [it was done without authorization nor even acknowledgement by the government of spain] trafficking detainees through their borders to such secret prisons).. at best they will get kangroo courts and be found guilty whether or not there were involved by any means... justice will not be served, the US can't afford for justice to be served concerning 9/11 because they refuse to even suspect their own, some of which (like cheney) was directly involved with 9/11, and was also directly responsible for ordering torture to obtain confessions.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/08/2009 06:35 PM     
  @  
 
As far as i know, the fundamentals of a controlled demolition is to make the building collapse under it's own weight, or implode. This requires a realtively good deal of explosives(depending on the size and structure of course) to be placed at the base of the building. These explosives will cause what is keeping the building up to fail, and as it does, the whole of the building will fall with it, imploding.

So to my knowledge, if this would have been a controlled demolition, firstly, the proposed explosions would have been heard/seen. Secondly, the whole of the building would have collapsed at the same time, not from top to bottom.

Of course, i am only a layman myself. If my understanding of a controlled demolition is errendous, i am sorry.
 
  by: HAL 9000   04/08/2009 06:54 PM     
  @HAVOC + @damndave  
 
Just popped in to see if anyone replied, oh wow, this is going to be fun ;-) Gotta watch the game, might go to bed after that but then I'll get back into it if I get time working in the morning, so make sure to go point by point through Loose Change, as you appear to be doing since we first clashed about this -- oh that is if you actually plan to read what I typed, instead of saying the same bull over and over that I already exposed as phony. BTW, Khalid admitted his role in 9/11 to Yosri Fouda (Al Jazeera) in 2002 in a secret location in Pakistan, so Al Jazeera tortured him to get him to confess? Incredible... just incredible!

@damndave, AFAIK, all of the other WTC buildings were literally pulled own, not blown, but nobody has ever found actual traces of explosives, or blasting caps etc. Again, it's a totally ridiculous idea anyway, considering the amount of work it would have taken to wire the building and the absence of the tell-tale signs of demolition (explosion sequence, flashes, HUGE unmistakable subsequent explosions right before it... oh and the prolonged time it took for the towers to hit the ground and total collapse of the WTC-7 building). But ye, people will still claim otherwise...
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 06:57 PM     
  @HAL 9000  
 
Yes, you are right. As I said many times, it would have taken an army of men, with months of work, tons of explosives, thousands of miles of wiring. The sheetrock would have been stripped from the walls to gain access to the columns and the core of the building etc. And yes, you are right, the collapse would not have initiated at the point of impact. There was simply NO CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
 
  by: Dela     04/08/2009 07:00 PM     
  @Dela  
 
"... the absence of the tell-tale signs of demolition (explosion sequence, flashes, HUGE unmistakable subsequent explosions right before it... oh and the prolonged time it took for the towers to hit the ground and total collapse of the WTC-7 building)"

Telltale signs? You mean like this:

Volunteer EMT Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be "brought down" and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.

-or-

NYPD officer Craig Bartmer described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse.

-or-

WTC7 NIST Report: "Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified."

-or-

Larry Silverstein (WTC7 Lease Holder): "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

The damned NIST report says there was unexplained events such as the ones you said didnt happen. Yet the government says they did in their own reports!

The owner himself said on video tape that they demo'ed it with his authority! He now denies even making this statement even thought it aired on PBS.

Several witnesses recall hearing a countdown just prior to its collapse. The truth of the matter is they already admitted it to be controlled demolition. Only after did the story changed to being "fire"...

The one thing that gets me the most is this. Our leaders have historically lied and caused the deaths of their own citizens as historical documented facts have shown. Yet for whatever reason you say they are not lying in this case?

The next thing you know, you will be telling me that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not staged and it really was the N Vietnamese that did it! Or that it was those rascals in Spain the blew up the USS Maine. Or it was really the Egyptians that attacked the USS Liberty. Or that Opperation North Woods wasnt real. Or that REX84 is all in my head. Or even that Executive Directive 51 is just a fantasy!

You are dealing with MURDERERS!!! Why would murderers all of a sudden tell the truth? That is a very naive way of looking at the world IMHO.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 07:36 PM     
  AT: dela  
 
"As for the Pentagon part, the fuselage fits perfectly in the hole,"

ok... and the engines just disappear from the outside of the pentagon and reappeared in the hole eh? that it couldn't have fit through with the hull.


"and the wing damage is on the outer wall (hint, the wings were NOT level to the ground on impact, one even struck and moved a generator,"

and the same wings that couldn't break more than a window or two espite that they would have directly hit DOZENS of windows, infact outside of internal fires, the initial/collaspe, the debris (most of which looked as if it was planted, and not exploded, and all of which was small enough to move by hand), if you believe thats the outcome of a plane crash

"and they also knocked over multiple light poles..... show me a cruise missile that can do that and I'll give you my hat)"

i don't think a plane nor a cruise misile removed those poles... infact half of them look like the jaws of life were used on the bottom of them and ther other look like they we unscrewed from their base, the tops of the the base [bottom of the pole on the ones with square bottom] as there is no visible damage to them at all not even being pinched at the bottom like the some of the pther poles. certianly doesn't look like anything actually hit them.

"But you replying about the Pentagon is again showing the stereotype, as deadtaco pointed out, you are ignoring the majority of what I posted. You are only looking at what you perceive as holes in what I post and pretending the rest wasn't there at all."

there are holes, the whole story is a hole, you have to be stupid not to understand that and blind not to even see it.

you or anythone else can think of me any way you want at the end of the day i might believe is something you can't accept, but you believe soemthing that is litterally impossible.

"Steven Jones, the irrational physicist who co-authored the article the above news piece advertises, was in a radio debate with World Trade Center Chief Engineer Leslie Robertson, who schooled Jones on just how impractical the idea is that bombs could have been planted in the building like this."

despite the fact the engineers of the WTC SPECIFICALLY built to to withstand aircraft strikes, among other things,

despite it being proven that the heat never got high enough, nor for long enough enough to cause failure.

the building was basically designed to ONLY be taken down by demolishion.

""In order to bring it down, in order to put demolitions on every floor, or every second floor, or every third floor, whatever you think it would take to create that speed of demolition; that would require an absolutely monumental effort, which would have to get by security police, office workers, ah, you can't just walk into someone's office and put explosives on columns. I mean forget it, before or after 9/11, we all controlled our own space".

on a building that size not every floor only 5-8 floors (which is visible in the collapse), and its only necessary on the top half of the building, as the bottom core column is already cut by the time the other bombs go off, thsis is what allows a buildign to fall straight down, if the core column is cut IT CANNOT fall straight down... to think ortherwise is VERY ignorant, and agains circumvented all applicable laws of physics if it happened. and yes contrary to one of your previous statement it DID fall at NEARLY free fall speed, it was less than 1 second longer than free fall.


"Conspiracy theorists don't care when their information is debunked or discredited,"

not when the debunking has already been debunked itself... in some cases before the orignal debunking started... popular mechanics is a good example of that and used to be the only source people had to debunked 9/11.

and yes the "from 500 floor up" was a typo, its was supposed to be 50.

" because he will brag about it like he has many times over, only this time he will do it to an interrogator."

he NEVER bragged about it... he didn't condemn it either, but he DID opennly deny it many times, ONLY fake videos of bin laden ever show him taking credit for it..

if you had really looked into this we wouldn't have to tell you this DOZENS of times, its just that obvious. just look at their faces and body types... they are nothing alike. infact i garauntee the person they used for the fake bin laden was a pakistani, not a saudi arabians line bin laden, the skin complexion alone is a dead give away of what region the imposter bin laden was from. never mind a completely different facial alignment, and no regard of islamic tradition.

to believe the official story you have to do exactly what you accuse me and other conspiracy theorists of; ignoring evidence to fit you belief of the events of 9-11; which is more holey than swiss cheese on a gun range.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/08/2009 07:43 PM     
  @Dela  
 
On what HAVOC is saying about faked videos of Bin Laden, yes WIRED magazine did an article on this. They had a IT Security export analyze the footage and they in fact found that many parts of the videos were faked.

Ex: IntelCenter. They are the company the White House has employed many times to obtain these videos. It was found in analysis of the footage that IntelCenter was adding in things to the video. Such as the As-Sahab logo was found to be the same bit rate as the intelcenter logo. Meaning they were literally added simultaneously to the video.

Now the only way I can explain this is if IntelCenter was the group actually responsible for the special effects and graphics of the video itself. And on that note, why in the hell would this company be adding a known terror groups logo to a video???

Another big piece of evidence is the from the very first video of Bin Laden that was supposedly found by US soldiers in Afghanistan where he claimed to take total credit for the events. In this video it was revealed that bin Laden was magically no longer suffering from the disorder that ha plagued him in videos just made weeks earlier, he somehow stopped writing with his left hand and magically became right handed, he started showing off his sense of fashion by wearing jewelry and ignoring the Sharia laws he so adamantly preached in the past, not the mention his nose to ear ration somehow magically changed as well!
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 08:04 PM     
  Sounds like a Creationism argument!  
 
The strength of the "truth" argument lies in debunking the prevailing theory, but the weakness is that the alternative is even weaker than its opposition. Just as you can see a Creationist's argument about any given missing link and raise them the argument of a missing God, one can see a "truther's" argument of bomb noises and raise them the utter impossibility of setting up such a demolition unnoticed. Undoubtedly, you'll hear the former exclaim that God is unquestionably present (and you're a heathen), and the latter remind you that the government is evil (and you're an idiot).

You're doing a great job, Dela, keep it up!
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/08/2009 08:04 PM     
  ear to nose ration i meant  
 
...
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 08:06 PM     
  dangit! I meant ratio!!!  
 
Arghhh!
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 08:08 PM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
Why is it impossible. I guess secret services such as CIA, Mossad etc. have possibility's that we can't even imagine. And the security firm of the WTC and United Airlines was headed by George W. Bush's brother. There were also reports of renovations on the elevators prior to 9/11, for me that raises questions!
 
  by: evilrat   04/08/2009 08:18 PM     
  @evilrat  
 
"Questions" are not evidence. Yes, powerful people and firms were involved, but that fact alone doesn't mean that they had the resources to pull all that off unnoticed. Creationists have "questions," too, and the flaw in their thinking is that they equate such knowledge gaps as holes in the prevailing theory. Yes, we can say the CIA is capable of anything, just as some will say God is capable of anything, but when we get right down to it an assumption of supreme contol of events and amorality doesn't coalesce into a better explanation of what happened.

I have no doubt that aspects of this have been covered up. Maybe the government DID doctor videos to make a case against Bin Laden; it's even conceivable that a few people may have let this happen to further their business and political ends. That doesn't mean the whole official story is out the window and just any titillating alternative becomes more likely.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/08/2009 08:32 PM     
  @MomentOfClarity and Dela  
 
One thing you have to admit though is that Al Qaeda, even though they were capable of doing many things, there is no way they could have pulled off all the things that happened that day.

Ex: The fighters that were recalled could have shot down at least 2 of the planes hijacked yet were held back for some reason.

There are several other examples like this. This indicates some complicit actions of members of the military or part of the government. Or even the possibility of foreign infiltration by another government.

Either scenario creates some pretty scary notions.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 08:58 PM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
despite the fact the engineers of the "WTC SPECIFICALLY built to to withstand aircraft strikes, among other things"

"despite it being proven that the heat never got high enough, nor for long enough enough to cause failure"

Tell me, why are you not the least critical to these claims themselves?

A lot of things in history have been designed for a purpose, and later proven not to be up for the task. Tell me, why do you not even consider this a possibility? Why do you see this as evidence for your cause?

As have been said many times over the planes didn't directly cause the buildings to fail. The buildings withstood the impact, but like a trojan horse allowed the fire to access the now exposed steel beams and weaken the structure.

And again, the fire couldn't melt the steel. It never had to. But as with most materials(except that freaky one in "The Core") as they are heated, they gradually lose integrity, i.e. strength. They don't go from solid to liquid instantly, and that was what happened with the steel in WTC.

---------------------

"on a building that size not every floor only 5-8 floors (which is visible in the collapse), and its only necessary on the top half of the building, as the bottom core column is already cut by the time the other bombs go off, thsis is what allows a buildign to fall straight down, if the core column is cut IT CANNOT fall straight down..."

Now, this is an example of why the geocentric world view was so dominant in the 16th century. It seems so god damn evident that the sun circles the earth when you observe it passing through the sky. In other terms, this is where ones own observations lead to the most logical explainations based on ones limited level of knowledge.

These explainations seem obvious until you get conclutions and explainations from professionals, people deeply devoted to the subject.

I have read up briefly on controlled demolitions for the sake of this argument, and you do simply not blow just top levels of a building to achieve a controlled implosion.(What you do with explosives on higher levels in a building undergoing demolition is weaken it's structure. The destruction of major support columns at the base is what causes the implosion.) You even go as far in your own conclusion as adding numbers to the amount of floors between explosives and claiming to know how a building can/cannot fall straight down. Do you have any experience/knowledge in the field of controlled demolition of buildings to back that up with?
 
  by: HAL 9000   04/08/2009 09:02 PM     
  @slave  
 
No, I don't think al-Queda could have deliberately engineered all of that. I think they had a good amount of luck, confusion, negligence, and yes, maybe even complicity that worked in their favor. These seem to account for just about every detail pointing to massive government conspiracy, so I don't see why we have to conjure up such a thing to make sense of that day.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/08/2009 09:20 PM     
  @MomentOfClarity  
 
I agree. I however do not even believe in the existence of Al Qaeda as we know it. I think the arabs on those planes were terrorists yes, but I do not think they were "card carrying members" of any group. I think they had rough affiliations with people in Afghanistan but that was the extent of the so called "Al Qaeda" connection.

My theory is actually quite simple. I think there were arabs on those planes and they did intend to hijack them. However I think that either they were doing so as either part of a test run or they were working with agents of a government intelligence service such as Mossad or the CIA or even the ISI.

This extra link would help explain the funding they received from Pakistan. This would also explain how some of the hijackers managed to receive pilot training at USAF bases.

I do find it highly suspect that the pilot of Flight 77 just also happened to be by coincidence working for the USAF on an identical project that theorized on the use of airliners as weapons that could be crashed into the Pentagon. How ironic how this same individuals plane would be hijacked in nearly the exact scenario he had trained for!

Another part of my theory is that if they were doing a dry run, they had been infiltrated by an intelligence service that essentially hijacked their operation.

Part of the reasoning behind my theory is the fact that the last 5 minutes of the black box recording for flight 93 has been classified. This would indicate something::

T personally think that Flight 93 was shot down by the USAF and they wanted to cover this up for whatever reason. This would also account for wreckage of the plane found 8 miles away from the main crash site.

Basically my theory has 2 possible branches. Either the hijackers were working along with an intelligence and or military service of some kind or their operation itself was hijacked by outsiders.

In either event, there is some definite complicit activity from either ours or another government. Our own government would make the most logical suspect with Israel coming in a close 2nd. Possibly both working together.

Regardless, this would explain the massive amount of cover up and refusal by our own government to answer some very basic questions. Simple things such as the validity of the NTSB's black box dataon Flight 77. The NTSB refuses to comment on any of the data on flight 77's flight path and final location.

Also a good point that leads me to my thinking is why the ISI's link to Mohammad Atta is "classified", according to now Vice President Joe Biden.

Anyhow those are just some of my thoughts. I try to be as rational as possible and exclude any crazy ideas that cannot be validated by either government reports or scientific data.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 10:01 PM     
  lmao  
 
this thread reminds me of why two pschologists can't be in a relationship together.

what it boils down to is what i've said all along. the more they keep from us the crazier we will get. we don't pay these a-holes to lie to us, or cover things up, even if they think they are "protecting" us. usually they are just leaving us MORE open to attack. financially, politically, and militarily.
 
  by: mrmarler     04/08/2009 10:34 PM     
  @slave  
 
I'm curious where the information about flight 77's pilot comes from (and please do not say Loose Change...) I hadn't heard the one about him being trained about using planes as weapons and crashing them into the pentagon.

The only thing I could find after lots of searching is a Washington Times article that quotes:

"At Dulles Airport, Capt. Charles Burlingame, who had been a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon"

Nothing about what you mention. Can I get a resource?
 
  by: deadtaco   04/08/2009 10:54 PM     
  @deadtaco  
 
Always happy to oblige:

http://www.usatoday.com/...

Just some info on the project itself^

Now as you noted loose change I will tell you that loose change was wrong about one thing. They claimed he was the author when in fact he was nothing more than one of the participants.

October 24, 2000: the Pentagon conducted the first of two training exercises called MASCAL (Mass Casualty), which simulated a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Source: The U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)

Charles Burlingame had actually retired 20 years earlier, but he still participated in the MASCAL exercise at the Pentagon, a year before the attacks:

Charles F. Burlingame III was the pilot of flight 77. He was an F-4 pilot in the Navy, and as his last Navy mission, he had helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Source: Associated Press. August 22, 2002
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/08/2009 11:27 PM     
  @hal 9000  
 
"Tell me, why are you not the least critical to these claims themselves?"

is there reason i should be esspecially critical of it, the plane didn't cause the collapse IE, it did what it was designed to.

"The buildings withstood the impact, but like a trojan horse allowed the fire to access the now exposed steel beams and weaken the structure."

"And again, the fire couldn't melt the steel. It never had to. But as with most materials(except that freaky one in "The Core") as they are heated, they gradually lose integrity, i.e. strength. They don't go from solid to liquid instantly, and that was what happened with the steel in WTC."

and again the fire wasn't hot enough, nor long enough to do that... and beyond that when the tower fell the fires were almost entirely out, hence it wasn't continuing to lose strength, not that it had or even could have lost enough strength from the fire to cause structural failure.

"I have read up briefly on controlled demolitions for the sake of this argument, and you do simply not blow just top levels of a building to achieve a controlled implosion.(What you do with explosives on higher levels in a building undergoing demolition is weaken it's structure. The destruction of major support columns at the base is what causes the implosion.) You even go as far in your own conclusion as adding numbers to the amount of floors between explosives and claiming to know how a building can/cannot fall straight down. Do you have any experience/knowledge in the field of controlled demolition of buildings to back that up with?"

i have common sense an a basic understanding of physics... things fall to the path of lest restistance... its as simple as that, a building will ALWAYS fall towards the damaged side because thats the weakest point for gravity to bring the building down.

and if you read my comment about this over the years i do state the core columns have to be cut (as MANY column in the WTC were)

the sign of demolition are very evident

intense flashes of light plumes of smoke comming straight out of the building AHEAD of the collapse

and explosion heard From beneath from a person in the basement (this happen almost immediately after [within seconds] of the building being struck by the plane as repeatidly quoted by a WTC former janiter that was working in the building that day).

a perfectly symmetrical collapse

a near freefall speed collapse meaning it encounter little of not resistance from the floor below which weren't damaged at all

the recovery of chemical used in explosives

columns cut diagonally

and wasn't in imminant danger of collapse prior to the being of the collapse, infact the core was almost visually undamaged as reported by people fleeing the building and firefighters (who also report hearing explosions inside the building just before the collapse)

and as experience i only have observational experience, unfortunately you need a licence to get such experience first hand however how buildings fall isn't as complicated as you might think, infact you even summed it up (much like i have dozens of times before) quite easily...

my numbers for floors is a guess (an educated one) based on how they collapse smaller building... the only time i've ever seen them use explosive on all floors is on small factories, for narrower bases fewer floor require explosive, and it really only necessary at the core of a sky scrapper not so much the out column... this is esspecially true for the WTC's which the twin towers core are stand alone structures themselves, the outer walls exists only to support the floors to keep them level and keep the weather out of the work area, of course. the rest of the building was built onto the the core, hence even if ALL of the outer colulms wer severed entirely on every floor the worst that could have happen was the shell (the floors not the core) of the building collapse level the core standing erect, but this couldn't occur if the core colum were severed starting from the bedrock and then peroidically to the floors above speciically near the top half otherwise after the collapse the remenants of the building will topple after it reaches the point where it can no lower continue to fall into its own footprint.

its really ultimately a logical affair, those buildings in particular were all but demolition proof, and even then only a handful of demolition experts would consider taking that demolition job, due to the difficulty involved in creating a safe collapse has it hapened to all 3 WTC building, all of which were leases to the same person that made BILLION of his investment of i believe it was S250 million + the lease. they were intending to demo them before but ruled it out as too expensive, they were considering demo'ing them because of outdated materials, namely abestos, which they said was too expensive to replace, the only way it wouldn't cost them money was to make it an insurance claim, which is exactly
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/08/2009 11:56 PM     
  @slave  
 
The associated press has no record of any article containing any of the phrases there. Google only shows a single response from that sentence - straight to a conspiracy site with an identical quote.

Could you tell me where on AP news' website this article can be found? Their archives have lots about 9/11, but nothing about the 2002 quote you pasted.
 
  by: deadtaco   04/09/2009 12:04 AM     
  Has everyone forgotten the first hand testimonies.  
 
of the FireDept and footages?
 
  by: redstain   04/09/2009 12:15 AM     
  Nevermind  
 
It was already debunked and they came to the same conclusion that I did after researching. AP News had nothing to do with it. Here's the debunkers response:

http://www.911myths.com/...

I came to the same conclusion that they did after extensive Google searching. There is no mention of Burlingame drafting the MASCAL response anywhere that I looked (and I looked at well respected news sites, including AP.)
 
  by: deadtaco   04/09/2009 12:18 AM     
  @deadtaco: institutionalized site doesn't mean  
 
a respected site; eg FOX.

The trouble about elctronic words are that they get edited so easily. And in cases Photoshop'ed.

I've saw some of the first reports of it and I'm sure many of you did too. the firetrucks, the jumpers. And I'm sure many of you seen the firsthand accounts from the emergency teams going in.

'rivers of metal... like in a foundry'
 
  by: redstain   04/09/2009 12:42 AM     
  @redstain  
 
My 'nevermind' was in response to SlaveForTheMan, not your post about the firemen. I'd take the firemen's first-hand accounts over the Loose Change garbage any day.
 
  by: deadtaco   04/09/2009 01:05 AM     
  @Havoc  
 
They don't build skyscrapers and jets with nothing more than common sense and a basic understanding of things like physics and metalurgy, so I really doubt a collision of the two can be explained so simply. A lot of Creationists have similar confidence in their common sense and basic knowledge of evolution, too. But, being sure of your opinion doesn't make it anything more than just opinion, and as we've both seen they're often wrong.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/09/2009 01:11 AM     
  @dela  
 
I wasn't serious about the so called Jew conspiracy... but i do believe that if their was no Israel this wouldn't of happened. the American government is responsible for September 11 but not in the way these nut jobs think, you push and push and push at people and eventually they will retaliate, Americas presence within the middle east was what caused the attacks, along with their support of Israel.
 
  by: shiftyfarker   04/09/2009 01:25 AM     
  @shiftyfarker  
 
I agree with you about that Israel part, but you call 628 Architects & Engineers that question the official story nut jobs? Look at this site: http://www.ae911truth.org/...

Its over for the liars in the government, so many people around the world know the truth now! They will never get this to fade away as these "nut jobs" will not shut up ever!
 
  by: evilrat   04/09/2009 01:44 AM     
  It's obvious...  
 
...that the government did it. I choose not to publicly debate or state this other than on the internet because those in power have convinced everyone to look at 9/11 "truthers" as being crazy. Regardless, no matter what the truth is, the government has made sure to shape the mind of the public.
 
  by: Winters Demise   04/09/2009 01:56 AM     
  @MoC  
 
when i talk about the collapse i mean the collapse in general not the planes effect on the structure which was overall neglible ad the cores were still fully intact up till the collapse occurred hence i'm talking about the time frames between the peroidic decending explosions immediately before the collapse to the point of total collapse.

the fact that the impact point didn't effect the collapse SHOULD have raise questions for everyone... as if the plane in ANY WAY was the cause of the collapse, it would start TOPPLING fro mthe impact point, not falling straight down, as it did... thats not faith, nor even an opinion, thats common sense.... then of course there's the fact that all the lower should SHOULD have been intact and WOULD have prevent total collapse, as has been seen in many accicental muti-story collapses.

if fire cause the collapse a similar problem would occur unless of course the fire magically weakens all side of the building and esspecially the core (remember the core in the WTC in and of itself a free-standing structure) equally... then agin there is no remedy for the lower floor that should have been intact, and that if had been would have prevented total collapsed from occuring. multi-story structure are built to support their own weight MANY times over for exactly this reason; that and shift on weight would cause a collapse, thats why for a collapse like the WTC ONLY demolition seems to explain what happened that day...

if there a better theory THAT WORKS i'd love to hear it... unfortunately i'm not naive enough, ignoranct enough, nor stupid enough to swallow the impossible story we were fed. and i'm rather insulted that they didn't do a better covering it up (but it worked for the moment on almost everyone including me at that point and about half still believe it, so in hindsight it was good enough, since it was good enough to misderict attention from who did it), and instead making it look rather obvious once you get past the initial media reports and shock of the event, like making the building collapse straight down, BAD IDEA, safe, but still a bad idea if your trying to sell being under attack its just stupid, because thats just not how buildings fall on their own from damage, the ONLY time a build will or more important CAN fall straight down is if thats the path of least resistance, and if the floors below were intact its IMPOSSIBLE that falling straight down was the path of least resistance (much least posssible since the building s are designed to hold several time their own weight, the nature path of least resistance would obviously have been to topple toward the impact point... it didn't hence the impact point COULDN'T have been the source of the collapse, by impact nor by fire (also in either case a near freefall collapse wouldn't have occured... again its not a matter of faith, its common sense... its logic, and thats something no event in the offical 9/11 story lives up to, hence hence in by all right impossible, hence there has to be another answer... if you have one that better fits the event we saw AND the outcome, AND the evidence aquired since (which does suggests explosives; thermate specifically, thermite with sulfer added) i'd love to hear it... but just so you know if the lower floors are still intact in the propopsed theory, the theory can't work, as to work it would have to defy physics, specifically its application to gravity.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/09/2009 01:59 AM     
  @evilrat  
 
Whether what happened on 911 was an inside job or terrorists doesn't matter, it happened, your government is never going to admit to different and sitting trying to convince people that this conspiracy exists wont change any think. The 628 architects and engineers are nothing in a population of 300 Million, you will always have people that disagree with what the majority says, i would say with a population so large that perhaps 1 percent are nut bags, thats 3 million people that you can use to support your agenda, you will always be able to find people that support your agenda even if it's 100% incorrect.
 
  by: shiftyfarker   04/09/2009 02:06 AM     
  It will all come down to this  
 
There will be a civil war and a revolution in the USA, because the government will never succeed of silencing all this people and the movement who believe to know the truth know. And then everyone in America will need to choose the side he will be on! This war will be the most horrible event of all times and i really hope that it will not happen, but as i see it now there is no other way! I hope this does not spill over to europe and does not affect us so much!
 
  by: evilrat   04/09/2009 02:07 AM     
  @evilrat  
 
"Its over for the liars in the government, so many people around the world know the truth now! They will never get this to fade away as these "nut jobs" will not shut up ever!"

and that truely is the beauty of the baud, the internet litterally allowed this event crutinized the world over, rather than contained and only reported how they wanted it reported like so many false flag operations the US has done in the past that the truth didn't come out years or decades later, often times after the war they caused ended and those responsible long since out of power, often nothing is down about it at all do to how long it too the information to surface but with the internet what really happened (or as best we know based on all collected informated), the evidence and the motives and spread like wilfire the world over.

the only way i'm going to shut up about 9/11 is when they prove me wrong... or better yet when they prove their story is true... or even possible.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/09/2009 02:12 AM     
  @HAVOC666 & @slavetotheman  
 
"nope not at all... i wish i could bring myself to believe the ignorant things most people believe... would sure make my life easier... but i cant and refuse to put my head that far up my ass, or in the sand, or more accurately up the government and media's ass"

I love this quote, what i find so hilarious about it is you seem to think you are special and can see the truth where no one else can, thousands and thousands of professors, scientists, millitary personal/commanders, anlysists, detectives, intelligence experts and genuinely smart people are just too ignorant and stupid too see what you can.
Either that or they are part of the conspiracy.

You call everyone that doesn't think they way you do ignorant and yet you are the first one to jump on any conspiracy and march around denouncing anyone thinking otherwise, you are also the first one to jump in and dismiss ANYTHING that could pertain to positive about the West or the U.S. Any media that reports otherwise is false, any organisiation that sometimes agree's with the west/U.S. is corrupt or taking money (the U.N is a good example)

Every country that opposes the U.S. or the west are the good guys and do nothing wrong. N.Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria. They all can never do anything wrong, but as soon as someone starts condeming them you start frothing at the mouth and start your fear mongering here to everyone about the pure evils of the west and the U.S.

Also serious you need to stop spouting this south korea invaded the North nonsense, it's funny that you basically ended up agreeing that it probably was the North that invaded first a month or two back in a NK article, and now here you are again saying the same whole triade over again. I seriously think it wouldnt amtter what kind of evidence was shown to you, you are going to think what you think no matter what becauce for some reason thats just how you want to see everything.

What you should really be saying is everyone in the world that doesn't believe the same theories as me is ignorant and stupid, because thats what it comes down to.

@slavetotheman
I have said before i respect the stuff you input into these forums as it is realtivly balanced and you are able to take in points from both sides. You seem a lot more open minded and open to opposing evidence then some people around here......
So i just wanted to say although i dont agree with you on your 9/11 points you have made good arguments without resorting to complete paranoid stubborness, The reason i say this is because your input is appreciated by me and others and i don't want you to turn into a havoc666.....for the good of the site.
 
  by: pexa02   04/09/2009 02:35 AM     
  @pexa  
 
how am i supposed to responded seriously to such drivel.

oh and about south korea invading i saw mor info on that recent something about the tiger regiment or the white tiger regiment and their incursions into north korea in 1949,

"what i find so hilarious about it is you seem to think you are special and can see the truth where no one else can,"

no, i just refuse to beleive the illogical, and i have no quam accepting the governemnt can and has target and attacked its own people before. its just easier for most people to blame "the terrorists" (with osama bin laden as the figurehead) than to look at who actually could have commited this, and there really isn't than many groups capabale of it, and radical muslims aren't one of those groups, infact the two most capable are the US'S CIA, FBI, a few defense contractors and israel's mussad, and of course if given access handful of demolition companies, the most likely being the CIA, who planned an identical mock-attack on the those targets well in advance on 9/11 and was taking place ON 9/11... but i suppose to believe everything about 9/11 was just coincidence and not something to be intensely skeptical of.

"You call everyone that doesn't think they way you do ignorant and yet you are the first one to jump on any conspiracy and march around denouncing anyone thinking otherwise"

i call like i see it... i don't call a spade a diamond even if most of the rest of the people do.

and no not any conspiracy only the ones that make sense that replace the ones that dont.

"Every country that opposes the U.S. or the west are the good guys and do nothing wrong. N.Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Syria. They all can never do anything wrong,"

bullshit... i support their right to have the same right has any other nation... if thats anti-american or anti-west to you than so beit, but that IS an ignorant view.... theres that word again.

"and start your fear mongering here to everyone about the pure evils of the west and the U.S."

you can deny what i say all you want... but good luck refuting it.

"What you should really be saying is everyone in the world that doesn't believe the same theories as me is ignorant and stupid, because thats what it comes down to."

no infact what i'm saying is alot of people either or or believe in ignorant or stupid things.

disagreeing with me is fine, providing you can prove i'm wrong, if you can't you can still hold whatever differing belief you have, but if it doesn't make sense, if it doesn't fit the existing evidence, don't expect me to take it face value.

 
  by: HAVOC666     04/09/2009 03:11 AM     
  @Conspiracy believers  
   
  by: syoware   04/09/2009 03:20 AM     
  @syoware  
 
You don't have to believe in the conspiracy's, because they will come to you soon. The people always first think that the government are the good guys, millions of my people voted for Hitler. Then our parliament building was burned down by a jew (=9/11), then Poland "attacked" us and we "defended the homeland". You know how that story ended! History repeats itself and you are to stubborn to see it my friend! But keep watching your stupid fox shows, i know they are entertaining, i watch them myself!
 
  by: evilrat   04/09/2009 03:27 AM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
"oh and about south korea invading i saw mor info on that recent something about the tiger regiment or the white tiger regiment and their incursions into north korea in 1949,"

You mean the attack the chinese performed on the White Tiger Regiment in 1953? that later got turned into a opera by the Chinese government?

http://books.google.com/...

http://books.google.com/...

"no, i just refuse to beleive the illogical, and i have no quam accepting the governemnt can and has target and attacked its own people before. its just easier for most people to blame "the terrorists" "

I have no quams believing governments can be corrupt and turn on their own people as well, infact when i first saw loose change i thought wow, and got right into it, at which point i started to try to confirm all of the information in there with other sources, it is at that point that i started to realise that dylans explanation was far more outrageous then the offical one. With all the editing and selective quoting i just had to find out mroe about the other side of the argument. You seem to assume everyone that doesn't follow the conspiracy has taken in only what the news/government has told them and simply dismissed the conspiracy, i would say most people here that don't follow the loose change gospel have been smart enough to find out their own information, like Dela.

"US'S CIA, FBI, a few defense contractors and israel's mussad,"

Of course! it could only ever be the US or the Jews, what new and surprising information from you,
It could never have been the ISI, or a Radical sect funded by a intelligence service in a unstable anti west country.

"i call like i see it... i don't call a spade a diamond even if most of the rest of the people do.

and no not any conspiracy only the ones that make sense that replace the ones that dont."

You mean only the ones that make the Western governments look bad? Thats all i have ever seen you talk about anyway when it comes to this kind of stuff.

"you can deny what i say all you want... but good luck refuting it."

Thats a good point you make, i have been reading comments here for a good number of years, i defiantly have not read every comment you have made, but since i have read your first comment on here till right now, i have NEVER seen you concede a point of view in the face of a mountain of evidence. The most i have seen you do is explain that you had been sick as the reason you kept capslocking Dela to death with names while he was trying to refute the claims in the illuminati documentries. It is almost cultish in some respects, the utter devotion to what you see/think is true can never seem to be shaken or disturbed. Which means it comes down to a case of your either 100% right all the time or you are as stubborn as a mule.
So yes "but good luck refuting it." makes a hell of a lot of sense.

I would honestly bet $100 that if they found some peice of evidence or footage that could put this 9/11 thing to rest and it showed Arab hijackers were on the planes, they did guide them into the trade centre and pentagon then you would call it a fake.
Even with all the best digital analysts in the world confirming its legitamcy, it will just be classified as a high end fake.

At the end of the day, like i have said in previous posts, you have made good points on certain topics that i have agreed with but that doesnt suddenly mean i am stupid or ignorant if i follow the facts and advice from scientists and experts and it leads me in a different direction then you.
 
  by: pexa02   04/09/2009 04:40 AM     
  @havoc  
 
"thats not faith, nor even an opinion, thats common sense...."

No, it's your layman's opinion, and the jets and buildings were engineered well beyond that. 1WTC was not like toy blocks that, when struck, would fall in a way we can all guess because it's a simple structure with which we're all familiar. The fact remains that you've no objective certainty of any of this, just like it means nothing when a Christian insists God exists because he just knows, because he's FELT him. You say the point of impact didn't matter, which you couldn't possibly know for sure. You say the buildings fell straight down, which you can't know for sure and Dela's already rebutted. You talk about time frames you couldn't possibly know a thing about without a background in structural engineering or demolitions. Your argument sounds good, but I get about half way through before I start skimming because I know the author has no sound factual basis for any of it, save that the logic sounds good to him. But that's not logic, that's storytelling.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/09/2009 07:18 AM     
  @MoC  
 
"You say the point of impact didn't matter, which you couldn't possibly know for sure."

but certianly beyond all REASONABLE doubt since it wasn't the point of collapse as again as it couldn't have fallen into its foot print from resistance, now you can say thats my layman opinion but that physics and common sense.


"You say the buildings fell straight down, which you can't know for sure and Dela's already rebutted."

umm yes i can know for sure... i like HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS have seen picture of the collapse and ground zero... what are you going to say nexty that building 7 didn't fall into its footprint... we all saw it, many may have forgottten but it damn sure happened

"You talk about time frames you couldn't possibly know a thing about without a background in structural engineering or demolitions."

or a knowledge of what freefall is, and the fact that it cant be acheive (or even close to it) it its encounters constant resistence. again you say i can't know this but its common sense.... but many common sense is really thats rare.

"Your argument sounds good, but I get about half way through before I start skimming because I know the author has no sound factual basis for any of it, save that the logic sounds good to him. But that's not logic, that's storytelling."

no, its called a theory when it based on evidence or even a strong hypothesis.

what your basically saying is that the only people that should have opinions about 9/11 being a conspiracy are the experts... which are quite divided on this... and beyond that many have made one statement (notable about explosive being used as the only way to explain it) then a day or two later come out all of a sudden and say no the offical story explains it and gives no explaination.

no offence to the "experts" at NIST but they have got to be crazy if they think their explaination actually works... and never mind the fact that had to omit and change details to get their model to work then published it as the explainetion for how the towers fell; thats about has unscientific and deceitful as you can get, yet this is how the working theory of demolition is rebutted by a theory that was debunked before they even finished modifing their model to collapse, changing the temperature, doubling the duration, increasing the maximum floor sag by a factor of 10... by my layman opinion those "experts" were and are full of shit and should be publicly discredited for lying and falsifying their models prove the offical story, rather than using the actual evidence; which they tried and couldn't cause a collapse, but they cannot release that information that would mean the government openly admitting they at very least lied about what happened.

and in this case they can't just dismiss it as "well we were lied to, we had bad intel" because they were the source of the information, them and the media, and the media was reporting their claims.

and of course the invasion plans for afgahnistan and iraq were drawn up months before 9/11...

so again is they lied their lie killed more than million a half people, displaced over 5 million more, and cost 1 or 2 trillion directly already... its a lie the government can't afford to admit to.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/09/2009 08:04 AM     
  Oh wow  
 
You guys just keep piling on the same old cr@p don't you? Bringing up points again I already showed you are full of it, which shows you aren't even reading my responses or you are simply immune to reason. But I would like to say I'm happy to see a nice little push back here since I went to bed last night, ShortNews has been basically hijacked by conspiracy theorists and extreme-lefts (and yes, a few extreme rights), so it's nice to see some people come out of the cracks and fight the established way here... Anyway, time for breakfast and then I'll once again go through this pile of falsified evidence, exaggerated evidence, anecdotal evidence (claims made by a few people at the WTC site but not mirrored by other thousands of rescue workers etc.) and of course, duplicate details I already brought up.

Back shortly...
 
  by: Dela     04/09/2009 10:00 AM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
------------------------------------------
"nope at all... th3e US was funding the mujadeen (sp?) in the 70's under jimmy carter BEFORE the soviet invasion not, just during and popular history says... why were they doing it... because part of afghanistan openly supported marxist communism...
------------------------------------------

Mujahideen (plural) is a word used to describe an Islamic fighter, it is NOT just associated with Afghanistan. The Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan were resisting the Soviet Union invasion, it was this resistance that Osama bin Laden was part of, that was my point, although I have no idea why you even brought up your point, besides of course having an opportunity to once again crap on America...

------------------------------------------
"LMFAO... no hje didn't are you bloody blind... those were fake bin laden's, they couldn't even be bother to get a decent look alike because they were counting on ignorance... and boy, did they cash in on that bet."
------------------------------------------

"I will explain to you the reasons behind these events, and I will tell you the truth about the moments when this decision was taken, so that you can reflect on it. God knows that the plan of striking the towers had not occurred to us, but the idea came to me when things went just too far with the American-Israeli alliance's oppression and atrocities against our people in Palestine and Lebanon."
- Osama bin Laden, 2004.

From an 18 minute authentic tape, aired by Al Jazeera in 2004. It is confirmed to be Osama bin Laden, and at the time was new since he mentioned the upcoming Presidential election. It was this interference in the U.S. election that is noted by many to have given George Bush a sharp rise in the polls... of course you will see that as some kind of proof that it's fake (even though there is no claims it is fake, conspiracy theorists rely on the December 2001 video that was badly translated to english), but in reality, John Kerry had promised exactly the opposite of what bin Laden wanted, to end the war and think of terrorism as no more than a nuisance.

Osama also tried to interfere with the proceedings against Zacarias Moussaoui in May 2006 by releasing an audio tape claiming he alone was responsible for 9/11 and that Moussaoui was never involved. Moussaoui claims he wasn't involved, but that he was planning a separate attack, which explains his flight training etc.

In September 2006, Al Jazeera aired video footage of Osama bin Laden with two of the hijackers. The footage also included them training in arm to arm combat, and using box cutters.

In a September 2007 recording, one that had been predicted for release by Islamist websites for weeks before, bin Laden is heard praising Waleed al-Shehri, a 9/11 hijacker, and also mentioned the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq.

Anyway, the point is, bin Laden has been confirmed many times, to take responsibility for 9/11. Of course conspiracy videos only show the low-quality December 2001 video with the bad translation, bad A/R, gold ring etc. not surprising really...

------------------------------------------
"AFTER BEING TORTURED FOR 5 YEARS!... thats a VERY important detail that not only did you not mention was commited but lied (or were ignorant about) him being tortured into his confession.
------------------------------------------

He admitted it to Al Jazeera reporter in 2002... he was captured in 2003... what the hell are you talking about? And you call me ignorant.

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/09/2009 11:09 AM     
  @HAVOC666 (2)  
 
------------------------------------------
"don't count on it... since he denies an involvement in 9/11 at all... not something a terrorist leader would do if he had commited it... "
------------------------------------------

This argument is only half true. There were accounts of bin Laden saying he had nothing to do with it. Where did they mostly come from? THE TALIBAN! The Taliban were at a stage where they were being told "hand him over or be bombed out of power", and they made several extremely uncharacteristic claims about bin Laden.

As for this quote: "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it. I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons,I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations."

It is sourced from a CNN report of a bin Laden statement. However, Hamid Mir had a totally different thing to say about what REALLY happened. He said that privately they admitted everything to him, but that they were denying it because of America denying responsibility for Muslim deaths in Sudan. They told him to turn off the tape recorder before claiming full responsibility and explaining this, and then told him to turn it on and THEN denied it. He also was shown pictures of Mohammad Atta at the exact location he was at.

Source for that is: Hamid Mir interview with Peter Bergen, Islamabad, May 11 2002 and March 2005
Chapter 10
The Fall of the Taliban and the Flight to Tora Bora
The Osama bin Laden I Know
Peter L Bergen

Also, Mullah Mohammad Omar had forbidden Osama bin Laden from this activity, but he didn't believe Osama would actually do it behind his back, which is why he vigorously defended him at first. Again, bin Laden claimed and accepted responsibility for 9/11 on numerous as I already have shown, but hey if you want more statements from him and other leaders within his group after 9/11, let me know....

------------------------------------------
"the fact that fake videos are the only ones that show "bin laden" taking credit for 9/11 should in and of itself raise alarms but people people dont even know what osama bin laden looks like than the fake video deceptions proved that repeatidly, again they get o nthe ignorance of the american population and cashed in big time."
------------------------------------------

You are referring to the December 2001 video tape, which does have one major problem with its translation. Some of the finer details that mention 9/11 don't appear to be what Osama is actually saying, but that raises a HUGE question. If it was a fake video, why the hell would the U.S. Government, or "whoever", put in the wrong subtitles and give it away? What is present in the video, and never pointed put by conspiracy theorists, is a mention of Mohammad Atta of the "Egyptian family".

Also present are Suleiman Abu Ghaith and Ayman al-Zawahiri. Now let's get to the other fakery claims. It is claimed it looks nothing like Osama bin Laden in many videos and many sites. However, the videos only play a few seconds of the video and compare it to an older version of an Osama video (where he is younger to begin with)--- and websites take a screenshot from this clip --- the only problem is it is obviuously enhanced. It is much brighter than the original video tape... see below..

Bin Laden 1: http://www.911myths.com/... (this is the image from the video clip conspiracy sites want you to see)

Bin Laden 2: http://www.911myths.com/... (this is a shot from an unenhanced version of the video, notice his face doesn't look near as fat, and his nose is starting to look more long,. like bin Ladens.)

Bin Laden 3: http://www.911myths.com/... (another from an unenhanced version of the video, look at his nose.)

Now, as for the gold ring. It is said firstly that Osama never wears a gold ring in any other video of him... well...

Bin Laden 4: http://www.911myths.com/... (Osama clearly wearing a ring that looks gold)

Bin Laden 5: http://www.911myths.com/... (another video showing Osama wearing a ring that looks gold)

Now notice I said that "looks" gold, as unless you have actually examined it you have no idea what it is. Secondly, we are told that its forbidden by Islamic law... well so is murder, yet with 9/11 and beyond, Osama et al. never shared that view either

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/09/2009 11:45 AM     
  @HAVOC666 (3)  
 
One last point about the bin Laden, so called, fake tape... he writes a note with his right hand when he is left handed. Well, this is nothing new...

Bin Laden 6: http://www.911myths.com/... (This is a totally different video showing Osama bin Laden writing with his right hand)

An explanation of this lies in culture. Some troops deployed in Afghanistan have revealed that you are supposed to use your right hand for anything formal, and your left for anything supposedly dirty. This was briefed to many troops who have come forward to explain Osama's writing with his right hand.

While they were there, if they were around locals, they were to use their right hand to shake hands or other respectful things. The locals, use their left hand when doing seemingly non-respectful things, like wiping themselves. Why would they brief them on this if it wasn't important?

----------------------------------------
"not in the least thats why they only say they are going after him, yet even the FBI can't charge him for 9/11 because of LACK OF EVIDENCE."
----------------------------------------

That's another pile of crap, they have plenty of evidence linking Osama and his associated to 9/11, including confessions. They want to catch this guy, or kill him, not press charges against him while the American public is still mad that he hasn't been even caught. Everyone charged with connection to 9/11 is currently in custody, that's quite a lot more people than the 0 claimed by slave (but I'll get back to that later).

-----------------------------------------
"and not the fact that he is a CIA asset, not CIA target are you tried to spin from slave's comment"
-----------------------------------------

Slave "claimed" he is a CIA asset, and then went on to say his codename was Tim Osman. I went on to explain that the codename doesn't prove he is linked to the CIA in any way other than an historical link against the Soviet Union. So what exactly is the point you are making? He is a CIA target and was for YEARS before 9/11... or are you totally unaware of the efforts of Bill Clinton to kill him? Again, your nonsense reply shows your stereotype.

-----------------------------------------
"fair trail... what planet are you living on... he has no chance of a fair trial, his confession was obtained by torture"
-----------------------------------------

Bullsh*t, as shown above in an earlier message.. but for those unwilling to read, Havoc was totally unaware that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed his role in 9/11 to Al Jazeera in 2002, before he was even captured. But hey, who cares about the facts, right havoc?

-----------------------------------------
"if they even try to use such a confession they insure that a fair trail never is had... not they they ever intend to give any of those suspects held in secret prisons (gitmo is just the one we know about, countries like spain have been pissed off at the US for illegally [it was done without authorization nor even acknowledgment by the government of spain] trafficking detainees through their borders to such secret prisons).. at best they will get kangroo courts and be found guilty whether or not there were involved by any means... justice will not be served, the US can't afford for justice to be served concerning 9/11 because they refuse to even suspect their own, some of which (like cheney) was directly involved with 9/11, and was also directly responsible for ordering torture to obtain confessions."
-----------------------------------------

If you followed the criminal case against Khalid and his associates at all, you would see that he is getting a proper trial, he is currently building his defense (which will no doubt be some radical islamist crap he just wants to say on the stand since he already admitted to 9/11 before and after capture, given every detail about the plan and accepted that he expects the court to put him to death, and welcomes it).

As for your Cheney comments, I already went head to head with you on this in January, but hey, if you want to put up the same Cheney points you made, go ahead and I'll just copy and paste asap.
 
  by: Dela     04/09/2009 12:02 PM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
"i have common sense an a basic understanding of physics... things fall to the path of lest restistance... its as simple as that, a building will ALWAYS fall towards the damaged side because thats the weakest point for gravity to bring the building down.

and if you read my comment about this over the years i do state the core columns have to be cut (as MANY column in the WTC were)"

Be critical to your own knowledge if you are only a layman! In your second paragraph, you make it clear that you use your own interpretation as evidence, just as the catholic chuch did about the universe hundred of years ago. But you are not qualified to on your own come to valid conclusions since you have no professional knowledge of the matter, and that's why you should use multiple indipendent sources for information. Just dig around on the net for information on how controlled demolition works!

And by the way, you talk about an understanding of physics; now, if explosives where placed from top to bottom, causing a near free fall setting for the building- would there have been an as large outspweing of material from the points of collapse?
The large pieces being slung out whispers of a lot of resistance.
Also, take a look at 2.16 in http://www.youtube.com/...
-----------------
"the sign of demolition are very evident"

But this is not how controlled demolition ever has been carried out!
------------------------
"intense flashes of light plumes of smoke comming straight out of the building AHEAD of the collapse"

Please do refer me to a video where you can see flashes. Also, yet again it is only your layman interpretation of what is "ahead". You, as well as i, have no valid conclusions as to the inside of the building looked when collapsing.
-------------
"and explosion heard From beneath from a person in the basement (this happen almost immediately after [within seconds] of the building being struck by the plane as repeatidly quoted by a WTC former janiter that was working in the building that day)."

Still! The parts of the buildings beneath the collapse stood solid. Again, this is not how a controlled demolition looks like.
---------------
"a perfectly symmetrical collapse"

Look at the above video. The reason for the majority of the building falling towards the earth is that gravity is the only force acting upon it.
---------------
"a near freefall speed collapse meaning it encounter little of not resistance from the floor below which weren't damaged at all"

As i said above, what about the very large amount of material getting shot out a large distance from all sides of the buildings? The tell of a lot of resistance.

Sorry for the delay. Another timezone and all that.
 
  by: HAL 9000   04/09/2009 01:11 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Your first comments back to me are to do with WTC-7, let's take a look.

------------------------------------------
Telltale signs? You mean like this:

Volunteer EMT Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be "brought down" and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.
------------------------------------------

The interview you are paraphrasing from is right here: http://www.nowpublic.com/...

What's interesting is how she uses the word "us" and "we", yet it doesn't seem any of her colleagues feel the same way. Also weird how she said, "because Building 7 was gonna come down, or being brought down." So which is it? She goes on to say that they used the "word" and then "we're gonna have to bring it down"... so what does this suggest? It suggests that the emergency workers had knowledge that the building was going to be demolished and that they were told... remember, she said "we" and "us", as if her experience is exactly the same as everyone elses. Unfortunately for her, it's not nearly the same.

Account 1: http://www.nytimes.com/... (Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department, talks about pulling the rescue works from WTC-7 in case it would collapse from damage caused by the North Tower collapse)

Account 2: http://www.nytimes.com/... (Lieutenant William Ryan, Ladder 85, talks about how it took a long time after a possible collapse alert was made around 3:00 in the afternoon)

Account 3: http://www.firehouse.com/... ( Deputy Chief Peter Hayden talks about Building 7)

And that's just three of the prevailing accounts of what really happened at WTC-7. The building was analyzed and found to be extensively damaged and dangerous following the collapse of the North Tower. Later on when the building started showing of imminent collapse, they made the decision to get everyone out of the way. The firefighters were fully aware of the danger..

WTC-7 - http://www.youtube.com/... (Firefighter explains that the building is going to come down, and it can't be stopped.)

------------------------------------------
"NYPD officer Craig Bartmer described hearing bombs tear down the building as he fled the collapse."
------------------------------------------

I saw Bartmer's interview with Dylan Avery asking open ended questions, and I actually felt very sorry for the guy because of his health. However, in the interview itself, he seems to make a lot of bizarre claims.

Firstly, he mentions how he could hear explosions, but if you listen closely or read the transcript, he said he heard these noises as the building was falling down, not before it which is when they would be heard as the columns were being blown out. Again, no video camera or recording equipment captured these explosions. There were number bangs in and around the WTC complex following the collapse of the twin towers, because there were literally hundreds or thousand of vehicles that had been crushed etc. all with fuel tanks, and raging fires from buildings all over the site that had diesel generators and other systems, just like WTC-7.

What is missing from his account is any actual new evidence, at all. All he does, is repeat Loose Change. He trashes the 9/11 Commission Report, he says he saw a hole in WTC-7 but that it wasn't "big enough" to bring the building down, which is ridiculous as nobody claimed the hole brought it down, it's just evidence that it was adversely damaged by the North Tower collapse... and of course, he doesn't explain how he is qualified to make that call.

Then he claims he didn't hear any creaking sounds or similar... which is at odds with most accounts from building 7 even long before it collapsed. He claims then that he say the building come down and there was an "umbrella of sh*t" 7 feet over his head before someone pulls him away and he runs and THEN hears the explosions behind him... which is inconsistent with a demolition, if you don't believe that, again, go to YouTube, search for "controlled demolition" and watch any normal controlled demolition... there is a sequence of bangs and flashes that can be seen / heard for miles around, and then usually one or two much louder bangs at the base of the building and then it comes down at free fall.... all inconsistent with WTC-7.

The rest of the interview is just him regurgitating Loose Change. Really, I do feel sorry for this guy. He obviously has health conditions that go beyond physical, he's traumatized like a lot of people at that site, and he was let down by being told the air was safe to breathe. But did he provide any new evidence for WTC-7 demolition? Not a shred, and how many of his colleagues have come forth to back him up? None.

And to say that they are afraid is totally stupid, c
 
  by: Dela     04/09/2009 01:36 PM     
  @slavefortheman (2)  
 
part that got cut from last message...

And to say that they are afraid is totally stupid, considering these guys are in many ways fearless, thats why they are good at their job, and if they thought the U.S. government or whoever you guys feel is the boogeyman, has just murdered hundreds of their fellow rescue workers, they wouldn't keep quiet about it.

-----------------------------------------
"Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified"
-----------------------------------------

Ah yes, this is the one liner that was picked up by conspiracy nuts, and then put out in the blogosphere as the NIST claiming an "anomaly" had brought down the WTC-7 building. In reality, you are jumping FAR to conclusions if you think this is evidence of a controlled demolition.

Here's what is known, the fires in WTC-7 were raging for 7 hours before collapse. WTC-7 had numerous diesel generators and pressurized pipes moving the fuel throughout the lower building.

All the NIST said is that the cause of this "jet of flames", not explosion btw, is unidentified, that simply means that they cannot confirm what it was. It could have been a collapse inside the building pushing the fire out, as we see the East and West Penthouse it was crumbling before it fully collapsed, or it could have been from the furl in the building, nobody knows... what it doesn't say, was there was a major explosion prior to collapse that could have cut through a column instantly, now does it? You are extending the meaning of these words to whatever you want, just like all conspiracy theorists did when NIST released that report, they jumped on it as the one-liner to get a headline.

-----------------------------------------
"Larry Silverstein (WTC7 Lease Holder): "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
-----------------------------------------

This part of your message proves to me that you are simply the run of the mill 9/11 conspiracy theorist, just like HAVOC, and no different even though you brag about an article published in a peer review journal, just so you can let me know you know what a peer review journal is...

Larry Silverstein said maybe the best option is to "pull it", so that "MUST" mean demolition right? There's no other possible explanation on EARTH for the words "pull it" with regard to a building... right? I have heard that "pull" a building means demolish, and I saw the bald headed guy say it on many of these "documentaries"... unfortunately he's in a minority as those experienced with C.D. who are not conspiracy theorists say they have never heard the term "pull it" being associated with demolishing ANYTHING, and even if they did, how the hell would Larry Silverstein know that?

Now let's examine what Larry Silverstein said next. "And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Who's They? oh ye.. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT! so the FDNY demolished WTC-7? No, by the accounts given by FDNY commanders themselves, they pulled everybody out of the buildings... and by the way, this is the weirdest part..... you guys claim they destroyed WTC-7 with explosives to hide some evidence or something.... yet Larry Silverstein says clearly that they were trying to save the building but didn't know if they could.... so he's lying there but later on he "accidentally" admits to his part in a MASSIVE conspiracy.

Hardfire host Ronald Wieck contacted 11 demolition companies to ask them about it, and every single one of them confirmed that "pull it" is not a term associated with "bring down with explosives" at all.

A quick search of this brings up the following video - http://www.youtube.com/... - which includes comments directly from these companies.

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/09/2009 02:07 PM     
  @slavefortheman (3)  
 
------------------------------------------
"The damned NIST report says there was unexplained events such as the ones you said didnt happen. Yet the government says they did in their own reports!"
------------------------------------------

You really should lie about something I said on the same page I said it. What I actually said if would read it properly, is there was no demolition sequence, no bombs going off, no flashes recorded.. nothing like that. The NIST said there was a jet of flames pushed out of the building and they weren't sure where it came from, they didn't say it was a bomb or even an explosion. Don't play scrabble with my words.

------------------------------------------
"The owner himself said on video tape that they demo'ed it with his authority! He now denies even making this statement even thought it aired on PBS."
------------------------------------------

Owner? He was the lease holder of the complex, the complex itself was owned by the Port Authority. When you sign a lease to rent a house you don't own the house... never mind, back on point, as I showed already Larry Silverstein never gave any order to demolish anything, not in the "real world" anyway. If he denies giving that order, then he's dead right.

------------------------------------------
"Several witnesses recall hearing a countdown just prior to its collapse. The truth of the matter is they already admitted it to be controlled demolition. Only after did the story changed to being "fire"..."
------------------------------------------

If you are referring to the TWO accounts that you gave me, then please refer to what I said about them. Also, you really shouldn't ignore the elephant in the room, in which case is the 1,000's of other rescue workers who didn't hear anything of the sort. I guess they are all government agents....

There are a couple others as well, one I already mentioned, where a guy affiliated with the movement for MANY months suddenly decided he heard a radio countdown, and then gave conflicting reports on what heard. I wonder why he waited to tell his friends about his experience... hmm...

------------------------------------------
"The one thing that gets me the most is this. Our leaders have historically lied and caused the deaths of their own citizens as historical documented facts have shown. Yet for whatever reason you say they are not lying in this case?"
------------------------------------------

As yes, the referring to historical events or an incompetent government or something else like that that makes you think you re-enforced your points, when in reality you didn't, you strayed off 9/11 issues, which is VERY telling. Like I said before, I used to believe what you believed until I decided to allow my rational and reasonable side analyze it, and it fell off quickly, so I don't believe anything on faith with regard to 9/11, you have to prove it to me, and so far, none of the conspiracy theories can be proven, only easily disproven or discredited....

------------------------------------------
"The next thing you know, you will be telling me that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was not staged and it really was the N Vietnamese that did it! Or that it was those rascals in Spain the blew up the USS Maine. Or it was really the Egyptians that attacked the USS Liberty. Or that Opperation North Woods wasnt real. Or that REX84 is all in my head. Or even that Executive Directive 51 is just a fantasy!"
------------------------------------------

Ah, here we go again with the straying away from 9/11, as if it somehow is evidence for 9/11 being an inside job... sigh...

------------------------------------------
"You are dealing with MURDERERS!!! Why would murderers all of a sudden tell the truth? That is a very naive way of looking at the world IMHO."
------------------------------------------

Now that's some extreme paranoia right there.

continuing...
 
  by: Dela     04/09/2009 02:22 PM     
  Wow  
 
Active topic.

I don't know what happened but for the neoconservative PNAC agenda it was the best thing that could've happened.

"...the PNAC blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go" button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement."
Micheal Meacher. British MP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/...
 
  by: Kaleid   04/09/2009 02:25 PM     
  @slavefortheman (4)  
 
----------------------------------------
"On what HAVOC is saying about faked videos of Bin Laden, yes WIRED magazine did an article on this. They had a IT Security export analyze the footage and they in fact found that many parts of the videos were faked.

Ex: IntelCenter. They are the company the White House has employed many times to obtain these videos. It was found in analysis of the footage that IntelCenter was adding in things to the video. Such as the As-Sahab logo was found to be the same bit rate as the intelcenter logo. Meaning they were literally added simultaneously to the video.

Now the only way I can explain this is if IntelCenter was the group actually responsible for the special effects and graphics of the video itself. And on that note, why in the hell would this company be adding a known terror groups logo to a video???

Another big piece of evidence is the from the very first video of Bin Laden that was supposedly found by US soldiers in Afghanistan where he claimed to take total credit for the events. In this video it was revealed that bin Laden was magically no longer suffering from the disorder that ha plagued him in videos just made weeks earlier, he somehow stopped writing with his left hand and magically became right handed, he started showing off his sense of fashion by wearing jewelry and ignoring the Sharia laws he so adamantly preached in the past, not the mention his nose to ear ration somehow magically changed as well!"
----------------------------------------

I never read the WIRED article and couldn't find it with a Google Search so please link that to me? I will read it because I am experienced with digital video technology, it's how I make my money, let me comment on what you said...

I assume what you meant was that the logos were added to the video afterwards at the same time, where I get fuzzy is how the "bitrate" tells them this. Have you ever used even a basic video encoder? Change the bitrate is as easy as typing a number. The bitrate is the amount of data (usually shown in kilobits) used up in a second for the video. So this value is divided between the number of frames or fields in the second by the encoder, so it is directly linked to video quality.

Therefore I don't really understand what they mean by the "bitrates of the logo", since the logo is not separate from the video stream, it is hard-coded onto it, and the bitrate then is for the overall picture. There are ways you could tell if the same program or process was used for the two logos, you could even find signs that they may have been added simultaneously, but the bitrate wouldn't really tell you this (unless their argument is that the original recording bitrate, as estimated by the quality of the video, is lower than that used by the re-encoded version with the logos... in which case the logos would be noticeably higher quality than the rest of the video.)

Either way I'll look at the article if you link to it and see what I get from it. If they really did splice on two logos, then obviously I don't know why they did, but as for the other alleged anomalies in the video, check my response to HAVOC about the videos.
 
  by: Dela     04/09/2009 02:42 PM     
  @deadtaco  
 
You appear to be correct. I just went through their archive and could not find any story related to him on that date with that quote. They had several other stories related to him but the only thing related I could find was another article on another site showing how he was definitely part of a MASCAL but they were unable to pin down which one he was apart of.

He either participated in a MASCAL in 1989 or the one mentioned in 2000 but they could not determine which.

Personally I am pretty POed that someone would fake a source and stick it on their site as genuine... It really makes it much more difficult to track down real sources.

@Dela - I guess you are right about the ring. Since it was such an insignificant fact I never really questioned it. However it does not answer the IntelCenter video "fixing" question and also the ratio of his ear to nose.

Since the december 2001 video he released, all videos since have had a person where the ear to nose did not match.

I will try to find a still image that shows this but I am not having any luck. I did see this on a video at BYU showing the extreme difference but I cannot seem to locate an image on the web of it... I will try to nail this down.

"Now that's some extreme paranoia right there."

I was showing how our past leaders have in fact murdered american citizens. This is not paranoia but rather pure fact. There is no fiction to the fact that the gulf of tonkin incident was staged. It was recently declassified that it was a setup or made to appear that the N Vietnamese were responsible.

The USS Liberty was fired upon by Israeli jets and recently declassified info shows that the US knew about this and wanted it to happen to get into a war with Egypt.

Executive order 51 states that the President of the US can essentially initiate dictator powers and suspend the constitution under the conditions of an emergency and that the president himself will deem what is considered an emergency.

REX84 was a program with the intent to round up americans and put them into what are essentially concentration camps. Here is a quote from scholar Diana Reynolds: "The exercise anticipated civil disturbances, major demonstrations and strikes that would affect continuity of government and/or resource mobilization. To fight subversive activities, there was authorization for the military to implement government ordered movements of civilian populations at state and regional levels, the arrest of certain unidentified segments of the population, and the imposition of martial law."

This is not paranoia when those in power are willing to murder myself and my friends and family merely to stay in power or to project even more power. Somewhere the US lost its way and is no longer a "Government of the People" but rather a "Government of the Government"...
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/09/2009 03:00 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Sorry I didnt mean bit rate but rather error level. Sorry for the confusion.

Here is a PDF presentation (its pretty lengthy) about how they were able to show modifications made by the folks at IntelCenter:

http://blog.wired.com/...

I believe this was presented at the BlackHat conference but I am uncertain.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/09/2009 03:08 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Nots not forget that we saw images like these on mainstream news almost every night after 9/11:

http://moinansari.files.wordpress.com/...


This is an outright lie. If lies like these are going to be on the news then how hard is it to put out other lies. Like this:

http://www.independent.co.uk/...


This is nothing new though:

http://www.youtube.com/...


Lies, lies and even more lies after that. Yet for some reason 9/11 is a special day they tell the truth...
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/09/2009 03:26 PM     
  @slavefortheman - @HAVOC  
 
Don't really have much time to reply here until later (working), but I downloaded the PDF and it's basically an instruction manual on how to find image manipulation, which is fine, but what I asked you for is the WIRED article you reference where they give evidence for the December 2001 bin laden video being fake.

Now I don't want to delve too much into history (although I did take HAVOC666 on in the forum back in January for a lot of historical stuff referenced by conspiracy theories) but you seem to be picking and choosing different events and bits and pieces of information and lumping them together to backup the 9/11 inside job claims.

In this comments, if you don't mind me saying so, you have gone from putting out multiple details about 9/11 itself that you believed proved a conspiracy... now you are backing off of it and are instead attacking the 1, the practicality of these guys pulling this off, 2, historical claims of past conspiracies and, 3, things that happened after 9/11.

Now you can call that what you want, but I call it backtracking. I have tried to answer everything brought up here by you and HAVOC, although admittedly I might have missed a few points, it is a lot to deal with at once afterall, but in almost every case all you keep doing is throwing more details at me. Now I'm happy to keep on replying, I don't have a problem with that, but at least acknowledge that MANY things I replied to, you had no answer for later on, and at least accept the fact that you might be wrong... I accept the fact that I might be wrong but I'm choosing to go by what the evidence and logic tells me.

Oh and as for HAVOC, I still have to reply to the second thing you put up, particularly about the Pentagon attack, and the weird claims that the light polls were cut down, despite the fact that hundreds of people saw it up close, including Lloyd England, a taxi driver who saw it VERY close when the damn poll shattered his windscreen --> http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/...

But ye, I'll keep that for later, gotta get back to work.
 
  by: Dela     04/09/2009 04:03 PM     
  @Dela  
 
Actually this is not really related technically to 9/11. The stuff from this pdf was actually just showing how videos from al-qaeda had been doctored after the fact.

I do want to add one thing about those light poles you were debating with HAVOC:

http://www.aa77fdr.com/...


This file is probably useless to you without a player so I will link you to a video that shows the outcome of the flight data recorder:

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/...


There is no way in heaven or in hell, that that plane hit those light posts. The NTSB's own data they released shows the flight path according to 9/11 commission is false.

There was a presentation of this done some time ago as well that interviewed police that witnessed it also and said the place was exactly where the NTSB shows in this video. However the 9/11 commission says otherwise...
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/09/2009 04:43 PM     
  @havoc  
 
Yes, I tend to trust experts over eye-balling laymen watching grainy videos.

Where was this "evidence" you presented? What is your "strong," falsifiable hypothesis? "9/11 was an inside job?" What proof could disprove that, making it a valid theory? Looking at this topic where you reject or ignore any counterpoint, the answer is clearly none, so it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis - a belief.

The only strength in your "theory" is that it has proponents who won't subject it to the same doubt they have for the official story. All I've seen is a lot of repetition of personal opinion based on second-hand knowledge, and a lot of shouting at people who contradict you. That's not critical thought, that's a fevered defense of a belief. And like Creationism, that belief is a "theory" without legs of its own, merely supporting itself on doubt with the prevailing theory and appeals to anti-government sentiment.

That may cut it for people who want to blame the government anyway and feel more is better than less, but it's hardly a pursuit of "truth."
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     04/09/2009 06:25 PM     
  @Dela  
 
I found those police witnesses accounts but you have to watch this video:

http://video.google.com/...


This video covers the entire length of the black box data from flight 77 in detail along with the witness testimony that goes along with the final impact.

Both the NTSB confirm that Flight 77 never hit those poles as well as police at the scene confirmed the flight path as well since they made note that the plane flew by a gas station on the opposite side the 9/11 commission claimed it was on. It was both too high to have hit those poles as well as as good distance away. I would have to watch it again to see how far but we are talking that it literally could be measured in fractions of a KM or more. So those poles came down in some other manner.

I dont know what took them down and have no answer for that. All I can offer is speculation.

My best guess is that they were either wired with explosives or something else collided with them.

The NTSB confirmed that the plane itself never even hit the Pentagon and was some 180+ feet off the ground at the moment the data sequence ended.

We could easily confirm how those poles came down if we had access to view the security tapes of the cameras surrounding the Pentagon in the days leading up to and the day of the attach. These would definitely reveal what caused them to come down. However this information is not being released by the FBI.

http://www.pagenews.info/...

FOIA Request Denied^

The Above form is a request from the USDoJ denies the existence of a security tape from the Sheraton Hotel. However they do admit the existence of the CCTV tapes from both the Citco Gas Station and the VDoT. These 2 videos are not being released since the DOJ is claiming them as "Exempt from Disclosure".
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/09/2009 10:00 PM     
  @dela  
 
"Mujahideen (plural) is a word used to describe an Islamic fighter, it is NOT just associated with Afghanistan. The Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan were resisting the Soviet Union invasion, it was this resistance that Osama bin Laden was part of,"

yet they were funding them BEFORE THE SOVIET INVASION.

"although I have no idea why you even brought up your point, besides of course having an opportunity to once again crap on America..."

if the shoe fits.

"From an 18 minute authentic tape, aired by Al Jazeera in 2004. It is confirmed to be Osama bin Laden,"

LOL that was fake video... again wrong facial structure, and a fat nose, is osama having frequent rhinoplasty...lol

http://whatreallyhappened.com/...

the september 2006 was also a fake here's a video, now compare it to the real b in laden on the left compared to 3 fakes on the right.

http://911lies.org/...

Anyway, the point is, bin Laden has been confirmed many times, to take responsibility for 9/11. Of course conspiracy videos only show the low-quality December 2001 video with the bad translation, bad A/R, gold ring etc. not surprising really..."

shows how lacking your info is about us on the conspiracy theorist side, most of the video have been completely refuted, esspecially the ones you've cited.

the only real bin laden videos show him denying it. which was on semptember 16th, oddly enough the only version i can find is the one the US release that was slammed for deliberate (or highly imcompetent) mistranslation to change his denial to a confession knowing full well most people would never know the difference.

and a further denial days later:
http://www.public-action.com/...

"He admitted it to Al Jazeera reporter in 2002... he was captured in 2003... what the hell are you talking about? And you call me ignorant."

and was his confession authenticated or simply assumed to be true like you've done for all the bin laden video many of which were long since proven fake.

and if it was real, why did they have to torture him for 5 years to get a confession of of him rather than putting him on trial?

and yes glossing over key details is ignorant.

"This argument is only half true. There were accounts of bin Laden saying he had nothing to do with it. Where did they mostly come from? THE TALIBAN!"

HIS OWN BLOODY MOUTH... funny how you trust fake videos of him taking responsible but can't accept a real one of him denying it.

" Again, bin Laden claimed and accepted responsibility for 9/11 on numerous as I already have shown, but hey if you want more statements from him and other leaders within his group after 9/11, let me know...."

no you've shown your gullible enough to accept obvious forgeries as the truth so long and the government and media say it real regardless of the fact its been denied repeatidly by the person accused to taking respionsiblity for it and refutted by experts nearly every time a new video is released, why, because they're are more fake video than real ones.

atleast 4 out of 4 of those pictures you posted were obvious fake, again proving that the average american doesn't even know who bin laden is.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/09/2009 11:11 PM     
  @del (part 2  
 
"Now notice I said that "looks" gold, as unless you have actually examined it you have no idea what it is. Secondly, we are told that its forbidden by Islamic law... well so is murder, yet with 9/11 and beyond, Osama et al. never shared that view either"

i really doubt it was brass, bronze, copper or painted plastic... any reason to think that its not gold?

and again your assuming he was involved despite him denying it, and the only admissions being obvious forgeries most of which have been disproved via computer model not just visual comparision.

and the 6th picture from the 3 post doesn't even show a face to compare.

"This was briefed to many troops who have come forward to explain Osama's writing with his right hand."

now all they have to do is prove that bin laden EVER used his right hand to write other than the obvious fake bin laden in the video. then of course they have to prove he was involved from there... rather than just assuming it.

"That's another pile of crap, they have plenty of evidence linking Osama and his associated to 9/11, including confessions."

no, again you ASSUMMING THE FAKE VIDEO ARE REAL... in order to justify your beleif that the government and media fed you.

they have nothing on bin laden for 9/11 that would pass in a normal court room... all they have is their suspicion and fake confessions from imposters, and evidence that was almost certianly planted to implicate people having nothing to do with 9/11.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/09/2009 11:25 PM     
  @hal 9000  
 
"just as the catholic chuch did about the universe hundred of years ago."

no offense but any one that can't discern interpreting evidence from faith shouldn't be in this discussion such people don't have the ability to tell the difference between logic and faith.

"Just dig around on the net for information on how controlled demolition works!"

i have (and have seen a few in person), i also how how gravity works in relation to supported and unsupported objects; something which is completely overlook by tyhe people that accept the offical story.

"And by the way, you talk about an understanding of physics; now, if explosives where placed from top to bottom, causing a near free fall setting for the building- would there have been an as large outspweing of material from the points of collapse?
The large pieces being slung out whispers of a lot of resistance."

of course it will dust anyways... the stuff that shot out from the building like the beam that got caught in an adjacent building was shot out from several floor below the collapsed section, if it was encountering constant resistance it would be shooting out from the already collapsed section only and constantly, not several floors below and peroidically. nor would falling on its own account for the frequent and intense flashes going down the top half the building

"But this is not how controlled demolition ever has been carried out! "

indeed... usually we are warned about it... but usually it also usualy isn't done to incriminate people to justify war either...

historically they stage an attacks on their military not citizens maybe they figured the vietnam trick wouldn't work twice or goading the enemy to attack them to justify war or sanctions/embargoes.

"Please do refer me to a video where you can see flashes."

bad res buit stil visible... the conspiracy videos have higher resolution, and many different angle, and even point out the explosions in slow motion (keeping in mind the whole collapse took 9 seconds, thatsa small amount of time to notice anything much less brief frequent flashes, often time you end up questioning your vision when played in real time)
http://www.youtube.com/...

"Also, yet again it is only your layman interpretation of what is "ahead". You, as well as i, have no valid conclusions as to the inside of the building looked when collapsing."

actualyl yes you can... even by NIST's own report a layman with an understanding of gravity can see why the building couldn't fall straight down

http://wtc.nist.gov/...

page 31&32: on WTC1 it couldn't have fallen at all the on its own the damaged was all at the side in the middle it never effect a whole side n nor any of the corners on the core or the parimeter.

page 33&34: on WTC 2 it could only have toppled to the damaged corner, it was the only part damaged, and during a collapse the collapse matter will ALWAYS take the path of least resistence... but it didn't. instead if demolition wasn't used it took the path of most resistance.. something which a) makes no sense and B) is impossible.

"Still! The parts of the buildings beneath the collapse stood solid. Again, this is not how a controlled demolition looks like."

you forgettign that the core isn;'t the only support... just the main support... a buuilding can stand without its main support, however any sudden shift in weight will initial a collaspe with e main support cut from below.

again indeed thiss is not how a demolition is usually carried out... usually all the explosions are down in succession from the bottom core then from the top down, cut the core doesn't initate the collapse it prevent the collapse from stopping to to resistance, multi-story building are design to prevent collaspe by being designed to hold their own weight many time over, the collapse would normally be stopped by the lower floors... this will happen even if the building hase been built down to its metal skeleton.

"Look at the above video. The reason for the majority of the building falling towards the earth is that gravity is the only force acting upon it."

EXACTLY... you inadvertly hit the nail on the head...

it fell straight down BECAUSE gravity was the ONLY force acting on it... there wasn't any resistance to stop gravity from bring the building down due to the floor floors not being supported to to their supports being cut.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/10/2009 12:19 AM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
"no offense but any one that can't discern interpreting evidence from faith shouldn't be in this discussion such people don't have the ability to tell the difference between logic and faith."


Let me rephrase; "just as the vast majority of european people did about the universe hundred of years ago."

I was talking about how it's easy to believe you have an understanding of a situation without it actually being the case. People believed the sun circled around the earth because this seemed the most logical at the time. Faith was irrelevant to the comparison.
--------------

"i have (and have seen a few in person), i also how how gravity works in relation to supported and unsupported objects; something which is completely overlook by tyhe people that accept the offical story."


Still, you must agree that you have nothing more than a very basic, layman understanding of this whole situation. This does not make you qualified to dismiss "the official story".
--------------

"of course it will dust anyways... the stuff that shot out from the building like the beam that got caught in an adjacent building was shot out from several floor below the collapsed section, if it was encountering constant resistance it would be shooting out from the already collapsed section only and constantly, not several floors below and peroidically. nor would falling on its own account for the frequent and intense flashes going down the top half the building"


For those dust clouds to be created by explosives, i would assume you'd need ridicolous amounts of explosives. Just compare to any demolition video ever recorded. The only place you'll ever see that big of a dust cloud is at the base of buildings undergoing controlled demolition -- because there is where the impact occurs.

Also, we were talking about resistance. You must admit that the massive amount of debris spewing out of all sides tell of large resistance/collition forces.
---------

"indeed... usually we are warned about it... but usually it also usualy isn't done to incriminate people to justify war either...

historically they stage an attacks on their military not citizens maybe they figured the vietnam trick wouldn't work twice or goading the enemy to attack them to justify war or sanctions/embargoes."


I don't give a damn about theories on who enacted these events. It could have been some japanese fishing companys doing for all i care. What i care about is the theories on how the building collapsed.

Why must you go to such lenghts as to imply that secret agents snuck into the workplace of 30,000+ people and implanted 300+ tons worth of TNT, only to prove that the government -- or any other organization for that matter -- was behind it all. Couldn't they just have flown planes into the towers? I'm all for that one.

No, what i meant by what i wrote, was that a controlled demolition does not look anything like what we saw on 9/11.
----------

bad res buit stil visible... the conspiracy videos have higher resolution, and many different angle, and even point out the explosions in slow motion (keeping in mind the whole collapse took 9 seconds, thatsa small amount of time to notice anything much less brief frequent flashes, often time you end up questioning your vision when played in real time)


Thanks for the link!
I'm sorry to say, but i can't see any explosions in that video. I do see these white flashes, which are most probably glass debris reflecting sunlight as the flashes also appear in the dust far above the destroyed portion of the building.

Worth mentioning is that these flashes seem to not at all affect the building, i.e. no dust or debris. There are just flashes, which leads me to the previous mentioned conclusion.

And 9 seconds? i thought Dela proved that to be not the case?
-----------

"actualyl yes you can... even by NIST's own report a layman with an understanding of gravity can see why the building couldn't fall straight down

page 31&32: on WTC1 it couldn't have fallen at all the on its own the damaged was all at the side in the middle it never effect a whole side n nor any of the corners on the core or the parimeter.

page 33&34: on WTC 2 it could only have toppled to the damaged corner, it was the only part damaged, and during a collapse the collapse matter will ALWAYS take the path of least resistence... but it didn't. instead if demolition wasn't used it took the path of most resistance.. something which a) makes no sense and B) is impossible."


This is what we fall back to every time: Accept your knowledge for what it is - limited.

You interpret the NIST report under your own limited understanding. You create your own criteria for what was required for the building to collapse.

Can you see my analogy to 16th century understanding of the universe now? People had seen objects circle around them before, may it have been a child running, or a boat sailing. That led them to believe that t
 
  by: HAL 9000   04/10/2009 03:46 AM     
  @hal 9000  
 
"Still, you must agree that you have nothing more than a very basic, layman understanding of this whole situation. This does not make you qualified to dismiss "the official story"."

thats true on the flip side too, i'm more more qualified to accept than offical story either... atleast the theory i do accept makes sense as to how it could have actually happened and works in the world we actually live in; one where the everyday laws of physics were void on behalf of "a terrorist attack".

"For those dust clouds to be created by explosives, i would assume you'd need ridicolous amounts of explosives. Just compare to any demolition video ever recorded."

luckily i have a video for just that:
http://www.dailymotion.com/...
http://www.youtube.com/...

"Also, we were talking about resistance. You must admit that the massive amount of debris spewing out of all sides tell of large resistance/collition forces."

not at all

http://www.livevideo.com/...

the the thicker, wider dust clouds are at the bottom yes, thats partly due to the fact that at the ground level the smoke/dust/debris cannot expand downwards, though you will note that the debris cloud is at the top of the structure also as its falling.

"Couldn't they just have flown planes into the towers? I'm all for that one."

i bet, its easy to believe that "terrorists" did it of course you have to ignore all the structural data for that to even approach possible... the buuilding was built to withstand MULTIPLE airliner strikes... it was in the design plane ... the engineers still say its impossible.

"No, what i meant by what i wrote, was that a controlled demolition does not look anything like what we saw on 9/11."

quite the contrary its exactly like a controlled demolition, the only difference is we weren't told in advance and cleared to safety

"I'm sorry to say, but i can't see any explosions in that video. I do see these white flashes, which are most probably glass debris reflecting sunlight as the flashes also appear in the dust far above the destroyed portion of the building.

Worth mentioning is that these flashes seem to not at all affect the building, i.e. no dust or debris. There are just flashes, which leads me to the previous mentioned conclusion.

"And 9 seconds? i thought Dela proved that to be not the case?"

dela thinks he proved alot of things, yet openly and repeatidly proved he doesn't even know who osama bin laden actually is, its been times though... to the point it disappears into the debris cloud is about 8.2 seconds (which would have been the freefall speed, but it continues collapsing atleast 20 stories further before stopping on the top of the pile (we can know for sure how long, thats what the longest estimates have been capped at 10 seconds, 8.2 is the observable fall and 9 seconds... possibly up to 11 for the other tower but again 11 would be the absolute maximum as it hidden within the debris after about 8 seconds these maximums are the same number NIST used.

and that 8.2 second freefall speed also assume its a vacuum meaning no resistance at all, not even air, even air slows down freefall.

"This is what we fall back to every time: Accept your knowledge for what it is - limited."

are you honestly telling you don't understand structural engineering enough to play jenga...lol

granted thats very simplified but even kids that play jenga how that the collapse it always to the lest supported side... CHILDREN KNOW THIS... how most people can so easily gloss over the obvious is beyond me.

"You interpret the NIST report under your own limited understanding. You create your own criteria for what was required for the building to collapse."

no, that would be gravity providing and resistance providing that crieria; or therefor lack of.

"Can you see my analogy to 16th century understanding of the universe now? People had seen objects circle around them before, may it have been a child running, or a boat sailing. That led them to believe that t"

no i don't... because that analogy is about believe what you see and NOT questioning it... hence it more accurately appluied to people that beleieve the planes and the fire brought the buildings down because thats what it SEEMED like, much like it SEEMED like the sun revolved around earth. the faith is with the people that BELIEVE what the government and media told them and didn't question it and instead continuing believing a theory (the official story) that couldn't possibly work.

so again you can say i'm not qualified to have an opinion that explosives were used, but under the same laymen knowledge your not qualified to accept the official story as true... unless your a structural engineer or a physicist or something of that sort.

oh and just and FYI, NIST (the organisation most people quote to support the offica
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/10/2009 04:45 AM     
  part 2  
 
oh and just and FYI, NIST (the organisation most people quote to support the offical story) has already been caught lying (namely changing data to support their models) and doctoring evidence (such as their image of the WTC in which they removed a larger portion of a damaged area as was confirmed via picture from citizens in the area at the time that clearly show mush less damage. and at atleast one point (after pancake theory was blown out of the water) they even admitted that they couldn't explain the WTC collapse but refuse to even question if explosive may have been use...

for all intents and purposes there as never been a REAL offical 9/11 report, the only real reports come from independant reseachers and most of them are now called conspiracy theorists too.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/10/2009 04:50 AM     
  @Dela  
 
Oh I thought I would add something extra about the final position of the plane vs. the light poles using the black box data recorder.

If you adjust the flight path so that the data allows the plane to hit the poles, the plane would have actually missed the pentagon entirely. Secondly, if you adjust the flight path by only 2 degrees or so, the plane would have missed one of the 5 light poles. So since the data in no way matches the 9/11 commissions described flight path, and if changing it causes the plane to miss one of the poles and miss the pentagon, you will be able to see that there is a big problem here.

Oh for quick reference, the police witness account is about 24 min into the video. If you go to about 26 minutes into the video, you will see that the plane in no way came near the light poles and again, didn’t go along the flight path described by the commission.

Another problem with your theory is the fact that the plane itself was much too high to hit the poles.

Another problem was the fact that if the plane did drop altitude fast enough to hit the poles, it would have destroyed the plane with a -9 G force by diving the plane in such a quick manner. The plane itself can only withstand +-2 G’s or so. In fact anything much higher than this can damage or destroy the plane. It was physically impossible for this plane to hit these poles by dropping its altitude.

Also I would like to point out the final altitude of the aircraft just right before the moment of impact was some 180+ feet off the ground.

http://video.google.com/...

^Link to video just in case you don’t want to have to dig for it through this massive comments section

 
  by: slavefortheman     04/10/2009 02:53 PM     
  Please cite  
 
the name of ONE person who has admitted to setting the charges that allegedly brought down the WTC.

I'm still waiting.

It's amazing. Privates at Abu Ghirab take photos of each other stacking naked captives and it's all over the Internet.

But the greatest conspiracy of all time occurs, and not one, not one witness comes forward to confess to committing the most heinous crime in American history.

Get a life, folks. Bin Laden brought down the towers. The Chimp and his gang of goons made good use of it, following Milton Friedman's economic principle of shock therapy. But these clowns successfully turned you away from seeing that they were incompetent - proved again and again over the past eight years - and instead have you debating how the towers couldn't have fallen without help. Yes, they had help. Two 767s with full fuel loads, striking them in a way so as to maximize the impact.

And for those of you who insist that there was no plane that struck the Pentagon, you'd better talk to all the front row witnesses that were up the hill at the Navy Annex and saw the plane fly in. Get a life, and start demanding an investigation of how the financial community could have soaked us for $800 billion without so much as a requirement that they forego bonuses until the money was paid back.
 
  by: caution2     04/10/2009 06:59 PM     
  @caution2  
 
Im not going to start up the debate about the WTC since you can see from above it seemed to have gone on forever...

However the Pentagon has quite some substantial evidence behind it. The black box data from the NTSB even shows that the 9/11 commission was caught in a major lie and that the plane itself never even hit the building! Police confirmed this flight path information in their testimony!

Now I am going to just suggest one thing. The JFK assassination... Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that Oswald was either not a gunman or not the only gunman. To date only one man has ever come forward to confess to that and that was just 2 years ago(2007) just right before he died. E. Howard Hunt.

So if we assume the JFK murder was a conspiracy and it took 44 years for any sort of confession to come out, why would this be any different?

We knew that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged and for years this was called a "Conspiracy Theory". It has now been revealed that this was in fact true and there are documents declassified to prove it.

Again what makes this any different?
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/10/2009 07:18 PM     
  @caution2  
 
I just wanted to add something more.

Just keep an open mind and do one thing for me please. Please look at the video in the post just right above yours that I posted earlier. It covers that black box data in detail.

Its about an hour long so you will need some free time.

Those light posts in front of the pentagon are critical in the analysis to reveal if that plane hit it or not. With the data obtained by the NTSB, it is hard to figure out a way to both make the plane hit the building and also hit those light poles.

Im not going to argue about WTC 12 or 7 since we will just go round in round on that one since there is no concrete evidence either way except for this recent study.

This is data directly off of flight 77. I even provided the file itself that was obtained by a FOIA request higher up this list of posts.

Just please watch that video. If yuo watch it you will understand that there is a major problem here that needs to be addressed. The people that made the video are pilots. They tried to throw deviations at the data just in case the data is wrong. However these deviations causes even more problems with the outcome. Either the plane never would hit the light posts or the pentagon itself.

In either event, there is no way the plane could have hit both the light posts and the pentagon according to the NTSB. It either hit 1 of the 2 or didnt hit either.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/10/2009 07:31 PM     
  If you want to believe  
 
that the Pentagon wasn't hit by the plane, then you must explain where flight 77 is now, and why the remains of the people who were seen boarding that flight and taking off from the airport were found at the crash site. Think about what you're suggesting for a moment: All of those people, and the plane, if it truly didn't hit the Pentagon, was flown elsewhere, perhaps safely, and everyone on board was killed and had their remains shipped to the Pentagon for forensics officials to recover them. Ridiculous.

Please leave the JFK assassination out of this, it was a totally different situation involving a completely different set of circumstances, the most significant being that it happened in an age which had much, much better control over the flow of information. Just because there have been conspiracies in the past doesn't necessarily mean that 9/11 was. You HAVE to consider this.

I don't understand why you're so quick to dismiss all the reports of people who saw flight 77. Everyone I know that goes batshit over this are all the same - focus only on the things that don't add up.

 
  by: caution2     04/10/2009 07:46 PM     
  @caution2  
 
I am not dismissing that it did fly close (over) the pentagon. I am however dismissing that it actually impacted the pentagon.

Please watch the video of the black box data recorder. This is literally concrete evidence that makes the case for something else happening. If refuse to watch the video then that means you are off hand dismissing evidence that is contrary to your belief.

You will not be able to form a viable opinion if you do not take into account all angles.

We could actually end this argument here and now if we could get 2 things but here was the response from the DOJ:

http://www.pagenews.info/...


They have denied access to the 2 video tapes that would prove once and for all what happened.

Since they refuse to give us evidence, we have to use other evidence. The black box data along with Police say one thing and the 9/11 commission is saying something else.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/10/2009 08:13 PM     
  Sure  
 
I'll watch it when I have some more time.

You are still ignoring my questions. How were the remains of the passengers found in the rubble if the plane never hit the Pentagon? Why are there dozens of people that say they saw it the Pentagon? This to me is a more compelling question than the government being uncooperative about releasing information on the tragedy, that shouldn't surprise anyone but the most disciplined bootlick.

Here's the thing: If you believe that this evidence is credible, and barring any belief in some situation where the other crashes on 9/11 were NOT linked to a conspiracy, then you have to assume that every crash that day were part of a government conspiracy.
 
  by: caution2     04/10/2009 08:40 PM     
  @caution2  
 
Well from the viewpoint of thinking there is a bigger conspiracy, I do think that the passenger remains, etc. must have been placed there somehow.

But from the view point of someone that doesnt believe the conspiracy, this one piece of evidence would throw a huge wrench in my belief...

Pay attention to the light poles in the video. Those are critical. According to the commission flight 77 brought down 5 light poles.

Since the angle of approach had to be very precise (within 3 degrees). If the angle was change in any way, one of these poles would still be standing and the wing would have missed it.

Now according to the NTSB and the flight data recorder, the flight path is some 20-25 degrees different than what the commission claimed. If this is true, this means there is no way flight 77 hit any of those light poles.

If you change the flight path within the data file so the plane does fly through the poles, then it misses the pentagon...

Its a conundrum that I cannot explain without the possibility of the plane not being the object to collide with the pentagon...

You said how if finding out this was a conspiracy somehow shows that the other flights were part of a conspiracy as well. This might be somewhat true.

If this particular flight happened to be part of a greater conspiracy, it is still possible that we could assume the following to be a possibility:

If the WTC destruction was caused by the only terrorists and flight 77 and possibly 93 were the work of some intelligence service or other group that found out about the WTC hijackers and decided to create even more destruction by crashing a plane into the Pentagon.

For all we know, the WTC was the only target and the pentagon was pulled off by another unrelated group...

Of course this theory is dependent on 2 things. Either US complicity or the US government had been infiltrated by an outside intelligence service such as Mossad, the ISI or the like.

This is all just speculation. Im not going to ever say who did what and pass blame onto any one particular person or group unless it can be proven without a doubt that they were the responsible party.

I have never attributed this to any NWO conspiracy or Bush or anything like that. I do think there is a lot more that happened that day than we know now. We are only getting small bits of it through leaks, FOIA requests and photographs and videos. If the US government was complicit in the operation, I cannot say. All I can do is make educated guesses as to who the most likely suspect would NOT be and I can pretty much with certainty say that the evidence takes bin Laden out of the picture.

There may be some rough affiliations to him but I would be willing to bet that he is not party to this crime.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/10/2009 09:01 PM     
  Making a Mockery of this...  
 
You know, dirty laundry may have been an additional culprit in the WTC collapse. I've found several traces of gas--methane gas--in dirty boxer shorts...perhaps that contributed to additional explosives which weakend the integrity of the building!
 
  by: veX   04/10/2009 09:20 PM     
  *sigh*  
 
"This is all just speculation."

That, my friend, is the problem. Speculation on how impossible it must be for various details about the crash site does not a conspiracy make.

Who's to say that the plane had to actually hit the poles to take them down? The thrust itself could've pushed them over. Maybe something was kicked up off the ground that knocked them over, point is, you are making way too many assumptions about what happened, and building a case for conspiracy from just those "odd" details that don't add up.

To fit your theory that some person or group of people incinerated the passengers and placed their remains at the site before officials got to them, raises even more questions about what would have to happen in order for this to be true. According to your theory, the plane flew by the Pentagon, landed somewhere else, the passengers were murdered, dismembered and burned beyond recognition, then transported the remains and meticulously scattered them throughout the crash site with not even one person noticing. I could go on but I think you understand how ridiculous these theories get once you play them out to the end, like you have to in order for them to have any credibility.

To sit there and suggest that the planes that hit the towers or the Shanksville incident were truly acts of terrorism, not at all linked to a government-coordinated ruse-attack on the Pentagon is out of this world. I know I know, "but it's possible!" Yeah, sure, but eventually dude, you draw the line and say no - there's a limit to how elaborate something on this scale would have to be in order for all the players - and I mean ALL of them - to stay absolutely silent for almost a decade afterwards. People talk, people notice things, people screw up and say things they didn't mean to... you get my drift. Something as this just doesn't stay under 100% silence for this long. Dela made some excellent points, I hope you considered what was said.
 
  by: caution2     04/10/2009 09:37 PM     
  @caution2  
 
I try to consider everything as best as I can. Of course I am human and do have biases just as does everyone. But this one piece of evidence throws the whole pentagon piece out of whack...

The NTSB has signed off on this data as being reliable.

That in and of itself scares me because it means there is a bigger conspiracy. It means that the plane did not hit the building at all. It merely flew over it.

But yes, my assumptions on the issue of the bodies, etc are nothing but assumptions. In the case of the black box though. I am stating fact. That is the difference here.

We can quantify this. We can use this information to build a case. My theories are just that... Theories. In the case of the black box and the police witnesses, this is very hard evidence and it leads me to believe that what happened at the pentagon is being withheld.

http://www.911truthcampaign.net/...

^photo of light post

The idea of the plane kicking up something else into hitting the light post is not possible. Those posts are literally some 500 meters away from the flight path.

But if we changed the flight path so the plane does hit them... Well then it misses the Pentagon.

Very strange situation here. Plus the fact that the police said they saw the plane fly by on the West side of the Citco which is exactly what the NTSB data on the flight recorder says as well. Meaning if this is true, something else took those posts down.

But then if you come to the conclusion that the flight data is correct, this must mean that the Pentagon was not hit by flight 77...

Nothing really adds up here...
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/10/2009 10:00 PM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
thats true on the flip side too, i'm more more qualified to accept than offical story either... atleast the theory i do accept makes sense as to how it could have actually happened and works in the world we actually live in; one where the everyday laws of physics were void on behalf of "a terrorist attack".

There is no flip side. Accept your knowledge for what it is -- limited.
--------

"luckily i have a video for just that:
http://www.dailymotion.com/... http://www.youtube.com/...
"Also, we were talking about resistance. You must admit that the massive amount of debris spewing out of all sides tell of large resistance/collition forces."


Thanks for the link!
Let's analyse the dailymotion one:

The first clip shows small, symmetrical puffs. This is nothing like the WTC collapse.

The second video resembles the WTC collaspes as there is an upper part that falls onto a non-moving lower part which creats an impact. The dust generated from that impact is in no way near the magnitude of the WTC collapses though.

The third clip only show a building entirely covered in dust from the start. Again no resemblance.

The fourth clip shows the entire building clumble at the same time, and again the dust is no way near the magnitude of the WTC collapse.

The fifth clip is the same building as clip two and clip five isn't even a high-rise building.

None of these dust clouds comes close to resembling the WTC towers collapse. The dust and debris clouds stretched hundreds of meters out from the building, something that can only be seen at the base -- the place of impact in other videos.
----------

not at all

http://www.livevideo.com/...
the the thicker, wider dust clouds are at the bottom yes, thats partly due to the fact that at the ground level the smoke/dust/debris cannot expand downwards, though you will note that the debris cloud is at the top of the structure also as its falling.


Allright, let's do it like this:

Would you agree to that the large bottom dust cloud in that video is due to the impact force of the building smashing into the ground?

I can only assume you would say yes.

Would you also agree on that the dust/debris getting thrown from the WTC towers collapsing closest resembles that of the impact with the ground in the video you provided?

I assume you would say yes.

Now, would you also agree on that this tells of there being an impact fore involved in the WTC collapses?

In no video on the net does the explosives of a controlled demolition throw dust and debris more than a hundred meters. This is what happened when the towers collapsed.
--------------

"i bet, its easy to believe that "terrorists" did it of course you have to ignore all the structural data for that to even approach possible... the buuilding was built to withstand MULTIPLE airliner strikes... it was in the design plane ... the engineers still say its impossible."


I was referring to the possibility of the government being involved in the airplane collitions.

As we've been through before, the buildings did indeed withstand the airplane impacts.

You, as i, have no way of being able to interpret structural data, we are just not qualified to do that. The vast majority of the qualified people that have looked at it says it is nothing strange with "the official story"( http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/... ).

You and me have no reason not to trust their judgement.
------------

"quite the contrary its exactly like a controlled demolition, the only difference is we weren't told in advance and cleared to safety"


Compare it to any other video on the net, this is just not how a controlled demolition looks like. A dust/debris cloud of that magnitude can't be seen anywhere on the higher levels of any building undergoing demolition, and furthermore, the lower part of the building remains solid throughout the collapse.
-----------

"dela thinks he proved alot of things, yet openly and repeatidly proved he doesn't even know who osama bin laden actually is, its been times though... to the point it disappears into the debris cloud is about 8.2 seconds (which would have been the freefall speed, but it continues collapsing atleast 20 stories further before stopping on the top of the pile (we can know for sure how long, thats what the longest estimates have been capped at 10 seconds, 8.2 is the observable fall and 9 seconds... possibly up to 11 for the other tower but again 11 would be the absolute maximum as it hidden within the debris after about 8 seconds these maximums are the same number NIST used.

and that 8.2 second freefall speed also assume its a vacuum meaning no resistance at all, not even air, even air slows down freefall."


What Dela knows or not knows about Osama Bin Laden is highly irrelevant to this discussion. Dela provided a video on the subject of collapse time that is pretty straight forward. http://www.youtube.com/...
-------------

"are you ho
 
  by: HAL 9000   04/10/2009 10:16 PM     
  @HAVOC666  
 

"so again you can say i'm not qualified to have an opinion that explosives were used, but under the same laymen knowledge your not qualified to accept the official story as true... unless your a structural engineer or a physicist or something of that sort."


You're absolutely right! I am just as you, a layman. I can only interpret what i see, at the most basic forms. I do not claim to being able to interpret structural data from a report or claiming to know how a building will act under certain circumstances, because i am indeed not educated in the field.

I am left to trust those of related higher educational level than myself.
-------------

"oh and just and FYI, NIST (the organisation most people quote to support the offical story) has already been caught lying (namely changing data to support their models) and doctoring evidence (such as their image of the WTC in which they removed a larger portion of a damaged area as was confirmed via picture from citizens in the area at the time that clearly show mush less damage. and at atleast one point (after pancake theory was blown out of the water) they even admitted that they couldn't explain the WTC collapse but refuse to even question if explosive may have been use..."


I can neither confirm or deny those claims as i know little about them, but there are many more sources to trust.
--------------

for all intents and purposes there as never been a REAL offical 9/11 report, the only real reports come from independant reseachers and most of them are now called conspiracy theorists too.


What do you mean by no real report? If you can't accept what's in the report, how can you then use it's contents for your cause? (i.e. interpreting structural data)

There are many papers on what happened. There are half a dozen related papers linked to on http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/... from people over at MIT.
 
  by: HAL 9000   04/10/2009 10:16 PM     
  @slave  
 
The only thing I can say to you at this point is that I'm a skeptic, and you sir are not. I am not quick to jump to nefarious conclusions. Despite this "rock-solid" piece of evidence of the plane's flight path is still just that - one piece of evidence.

You have to look at ALL the evidence together. In this case, I would question the black box data, as crazy as you may find that. It doesn't fit in with the rest of the evidence.

It's tempting to believe that this evidence is the tip of a huge conspiracy iceberg, which is why so many people including yourself will always have a bias toward a conspiracy and not a more skeptic point of view which treats ALL evidence, even the bits that don't fit your theory of that day, on an even keel.

I hope that you seriously think about what I said about the impossibility of absolutely none of the involved individuals saying but one word, or how all the forensics experts involved in the recovery of the Pentagon site could have never even once suspected foul play through their analysis of the scene.
 
  by: caution2     04/10/2009 10:43 PM     
  @caution2  
 
Well we could merely write it off except for one thing. There are several things that verify the validity of the data. IE: The last time the plane appeared on radar matches the path. Also the Police noted that the plane was exactly where the NTSB said it was as well.

These 2 things corroborate the validity of the data.

But you are correct. It is merely evidence to add to it. It really doesnt prove anything. However just the idea that it is valid raises some major questions.

There is one thing that could answer your question about witnesses. That is simple fear. If this were a conspiracy and lets assume elements of our government or even a foreign government were complicit. If we do assume this, then it would also mean that these people are capable of murder without thinking about it. This would lead me to believe that there would be a lack of insiders willing to come forward simply because they may not live very long after to tell their story. Not just that but their entire careers would essentially be over...

Lets face it. Those that do decide to publicly criticize the official events are usually ostracized.

Ex: Steven Jones at BYU lost his teaching position as a result of coming out against the official story.

So there are reasons why people will stay quiet. However that is besides the point.

In any event, we wont know for certain until we can see with our own eyes what happened. We can speculate all day long about this and that.

There is one thing that would clear this whole mess us but as I pointed out earlier, the video tape that was confiscated by the FBI is being withheld by the DOJ...

If we could view these tapes, this would literally wipe out all the pentagon arguments.
 
  by: slavefortheman     04/10/2009 11:14 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
In a few years, when CGI-Movies finally are indistinguishable from real recordings, you will see those tapes ;-)
 
  by: evilrat   04/10/2009 11:18 PM     
  @hal 9000  
 
"There is no flip side. Accept your knowledge for what it is -- limited."

so your opin that it was structurally possible is valid and mine opinion that it wasn't isn't... bullshit... if a laymen like me can point out how impossible the event was then something is quite clearly wrong... even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

its simply a matter tyhat the offical version of the story simply couldn't have happened. and no amount of ignorance can make it possible.


"None of these dust clouds comes close to resembling the WTC towers collapse. The dust and debris clouds stretched hundreds of meters out from the building, something that can only be seen at the base -- the place of impact in other videos."

they were examples... nothing of the magitude of WTC.

and secondly please use some common sense, under a normal controlled demolition the buildings are cleared you; hence alot least debris, normally the only debris being ejected on the inital half of the collapse will be some pulvesized concrete and regular run of the mill dust, then once the collaspe starts a fraction of a second later the debris cloud grow as it falls, then as it all collides with rock bottom spews out a wave of dust in all directions...

again dust will be much greaster from the WTC just due to its size alone, then there the fact it was a full loaded building rather than gutted as it normally would be.

"You and me have no reason not to trust their judgement."

on the contrary i DO and i HAVE for years, and at no point as the offical story been proven nor controlled demolition refuted... then off course theire the lack of precident for fire building a building down... even after it has suffer some structural damage (far more severe by comparison to the structural damage form the WTC like completely several collasped floors and completely burnt away concrete leaving the partially collapsed metal structure still standing... oh and that was a 22 hour fire the engulf the ENTIRE building.

and no offence but within second and third sentence alone they lie twice... in your source, saying theres nothing to back up the claim, and no calculation...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...

you could probably spend a week reading the calculation in these articles alone; 52 articles, all perr-reviewed, published by experts.

oh and pncaking has already been debunked aswell... http://www.youtube.com/...

yes yes i know the naysayer hate alex jones, but thats only becasue he's saying something they refuse to accept or acknowledge it

and just how did the steel melt kerosene jet fuel CANNOT burn hot enough to even approach the melting point of even regular steel much less structural heat treated steel.


"I am left to trust those of related higher educational level than myself."

and yet not the mass of experts that say to the don't that DONT work for the government which has openly lied many time about 9/11 and since 9/11... most people... would call that a conflict of intrest if your working for the government to prove their innocent and the guilt of another, while ignoring all evidence that points to anything other than the offical story being true, which is entirely circumstanstial at best and yet is widely believe to be the absolute and unquestionable truth.

"I can neither confirm or deny those claims as i know little about them, but there are many more sources to trust."

google: NIST lies tthe two most popular subject will be their manipulation of raw data (this is an older claim and can be harder to find outside full length documentaries about 9/11) and more popualrly their recent (i think it was only two years ago, maybe less) manipulation of WTC7 photo's to support their reason for the collapse.

and furthermore most people EVEN conspiracy theorists use NIST's data.

"What do you mean by no real report? If you can't accept what's in the report, how can you then use it's contents for your cause? (i.e. interpreting structural data)"

real, as in open and unmanipulated; not real, as in existing, and not deliberately ommiting anything that would refute their case like melted steel; or how a building designed to withstand airliner strikers failed to; i doubt the designers were dumb enough not to think of fire from and airliner crash, and even if they didn't no multi-story building (much less an overdesigned skyscrapper) has ever collapse from fire, even in cases with durations nearly 20 times longer and in far less isolated situations; the worst case was madrid spain's windor building which was far less structurally sound (namely for having much less support from the core)

"There are many papers on what happened. There are half a dozen related papers linked to on http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/... from people over at MIT."

just as there are many supporting controlled demolition and furthermore stating it COULDN'T have occured otherwise based on what little evidence about 9/11 remains (
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/11/2009 12:13 AM     
  @hal 9000 part 2  
 
"There are many papers on what happened. There are half a dozen related papers linked to on http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/... from people over at MIT."

just as there are many supporting controlled demolition and furthermore stating it COULDN'T have occured otherwise based on what little evidence about 9/11 remains (not all that much) or was able to be studied very little infact alex jones is one of VERY few people to have acces to even a small peice of the WTC, that same peice with its nothing more than a pelt/thick flake of iron that suffered sulfidation; pancake theory even if it were plausible cannot exaplain how sulfer became chemically fuse into the iron... infact very view thing EVEN in controlled demolition can... thats where the thermate (a thermite compound with sulfer added to achieve higher temperatures) became implicated specifcally, there is also video eivdence to support this just before the collapse as liquid metal pours out form the WTC seconds before and durign the collapse... the melted steel cannot be explain by any means in the rubble nor from the upper floor just before the collapse... most people simply choose to ignore this type of evidence in order to maintain the offical stories perceived integrity.
 
  by: HAVOC666     04/11/2009 12:14 AM     
  @HAVOC666  
 
"so your opin that it was structurally possible is valid and mine opinion that it wasn't isn't... bullshit... if a laymen like me can point out how impossible the event was then something is quite clearly wrong... even if you refuse to acknowledge it.

its simply a matter tyhat the offical version of the story simply couldn't have happened. and no amount of ignorance can make it possible."


I'm starting to believe that you are deliberatly misinterpreting what i am saying.

Once again: We are laymen. We don't know anything about what it takes for a building to collapse. We can't make any valid assumptions since we know nothing about structural engineering.

I am saying that neither you nor me can judge if The WTC collapses could have happened or not based upon our level of knowledge. Since we can't do that, we can't rule out that this was a true collapse, and thus, we have no reason to believe that this was a controlled demolition.
-----------------

"they were examples... nothing of the magitude of WTC.

and secondly please use some common sense, under a normal controlled demolition the buildings are cleared you; hence alot least debris, normally the only debris being ejected on the inital half of the collapse will be some pulvesized concrete and regular run of the mill dust, then once the collaspe starts a fraction of a second later the debris cloud grow as it falls, then as it all collides with rock bottom spews out a wave of dust in all directions...

again dust will be much greaster from the WTC just due to its size alone, then there the fact it was a full loaded building rather than gutted as it normally would be."


Ok, let's catch up briefly. I initially claimed that the dust/debris getting thrown out hundreds of meters at the WTC collapses spoke of a lot of resistance, some kind of impact force.

This was my argument against your free fall theory -- the theory of that secret government agents proposedly developed and used a whole new technique of demolish a building by blowing floors with an 5-8 floor interval in perfect sequence from top to bottom, requiring them to prepare a majority of the 135 columns with explosives of each floor, at atleast 20 floors given your proposed intervals, to achieve a free fall controlled demolition.

Anyway, back to the current issue. I asked for a video that would proposedly show dust clouds comparable to those of the WTC collapse, since your premise for the free fall theory was that the clouds was to have been created by explosives. This video did not deliver any evidence since the clouds created by explosives did not in any way resemble the clouds of the WTC collapses.

A basic understanding of physics requires one to understand that for matter to travel perpendicular to the gravitational force, it requires additional influence other than gravitational force. If that influence is nothing other than explosives -- which is your premise -- We would have seen simliarities with the clouds in the videos you provided. Granted there was additional matter in the WTC towers, but would that really make the difference between a transparent cloud reaching ~5 meters out and a incredibly thick one reaching ~100 meters out?

What other demolition videos instead tells me as a layman is that explosives used for this purpose aren't capable of doing that. Of course, since i am after all a layman, i could be wrong.
-------------

"on the contrary i DO and i HAVE for years, and at no point as the offical story been proven nor controlled demolition refuted... then off course theire the lack of precident for fire building a building down... even after it has suffer some structural damage (far more severe by comparison to the structural damage form the WTC like completely several collasped floors and completely burnt away concrete leaving the partially collapsed metal structure still standing... oh and that was a 22 hour fire the engulf the ENTIRE building."


I couldn't understand all of that, but in a nutshell: How much or how little "the official story" has been proven, or how much or how little the "demolition theory" has been refuted, can only lie in the number of professionals analyzing and commenting on the subjects. The vast, vast majority of professionals related to the field in USA, that have read the official report says it is legit. The vast, vast majority of professionals related to the field in USA, that have analyzed the demolition theory, have refuted it.
------------------

"and no offence but within second and third sentence alone they lie twice... in your source, saying theres nothing to back up the claim, and no calculation...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...
you could probably spend a week reading the calculation in these articles alone; 52 articles, all perr-reviewed, published by experts."



No offense taken. On the link: journalof911studies.com has a pretty bad reputation, and has taken some heat from the academic
 
  by: HAL 9000   04/12/2009 03:48 AM     
  @HAVOC666 (2)  
 
------------

"google: NIST lies tthe two most popular subject will be their manipulation of raw data (this is an older claim and can be harder to find outside full length documentaries about 9/11) and more popualrly their recent (i think it was only two years ago, maybe less) manipulation of WTC7 photo's to support their reason for the collapse."


Unless you can come up with any proof, how can i know this is more than baseless claims?
-----------

"and furthermore most people EVEN conspiracy theorists use NIST's data."


Well that was my point, wasn't it? My question is, how can you use this data if you accuse it of being false?
-------------

"real, as in open and unmanipulated; not real, as in existing,"


As far as i know, it is pretty much on the internet. As far as manipulating goes, it occationally happens that reports get revised.
--------------

"and not deliberately ommiting anything that would refute their case like melted steel; or how a building designed to withstand airliner strikers failed to;"


I think this is the third time you bring this up. As for the Steel, read the links above. I suggest the popular mechanics one, it goes through a lot of issues.

As for the airplane chrashes, let me reiterate; The towers withstood the impact. Period.
------------------

" i doubt the designers were dumb enough not to think of fire from and airliner crash,"


They thought of that. That's why they had fireproofing material surrounding the steel. What wasn't accounted for obviously, was that that particular fireproofing material wouldn't withstand the kinetic energy that of a commercial airliner.
---------------

"and even if they didn't no multi-story building (much less an overdesigned skyscrapper) has ever collapse from fire, even in cases with durations nearly 20 times longer and in far less isolated situations; the worst case was madrid spain's windor building which was far less structurally sound (namely for having much less support from the core)"


How many buildings of the same composition and size as the WTC towers has had a commercial airliner flown into their side? You are comparing two different situations with very different properties. Please do read the articles relating to the fire/steel above.
-------------------

"just as there are many supporting controlled demolition and furthermore stating it COULDN'T have occured otherwise based on what little evidence about 9/11 remains (not all that much) or was able to be studied very little"


Allright, show me all those papers supporting controlled demolition that doesn't come from journalof911studies.com.
---------------

"infact alex jones is one of VERY few people to have acces to even a small peice of the WTC, that same peice with its nothing more than a pelt/thick flake of iron that suffered sulfidation; pancake theory even if it were plausible cannot exaplain how sulfer became chemically fuse into the iron... infact very view thing EVEN in controlled demolition can... thats where the thermate (a thermite compound with sulfer added to achieve higher temperatures) became implicated specifcally,"


Tell me, why do you willfully trust everything from this Jones character?
His track record seems to make him less than trustworthy.
------------------

"there is also video eivdence to support this just before the collapse as liquid metal pours out form the WTC seconds before and durign the collapse... the melted steel cannot be explain by any means in the rubble nor from the upper floor just before the collapse... most people simply choose to ignore this type of evidence in order to maintain the offical stories perceived integrity."


You are fully aware of that demolition charges do not create rivers of molten metals, right? Explosives work on the basis of rapid expansion of the ignited material under an incredibly short time. There is no way for a demolition charge to melt steel.

Also, did you know that aluminum melts at a temperature of around 660 degrees celcius?

Finally, please be open to debate. You do not seem to take into account what i say at all. I am open for changing my opinion, and so should you.
 
  by: HAL 9000   04/12/2009 03:48 AM     
  3 words, a url and a smiley face  
 
"Zeitgeist, The Movie"

http://video.google.com/...

=)
 
  by: djskagnetti     04/15/2009 12:35 AM     
  NicPre GROW UP!  
 
NicPre your comments are insulting and you are no more than a boy living in a man's world. Grow up, pay bills, pay taxes that your Messiah demands of you, experience what life is really like.
Your websites prove that you are simply a child with naive ideas about the world.
 
  by: Atlgymguy   04/15/2009 04:27 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com