250+ 9/11 Smoking Guns

MCMLXXXIII

meglome wrote: »

Ah jesus we've said this a dozen times in here the plane didn't vaporise. There were bit of it lying all around. Hundreds of people saw a plane, it was a ****ing plane.

...Of course the plane did not vaporize - there was no plane. I don't care how many times you say it. There is no evidence there was a plane at all. Oh, and there were no actual plane parts on the ground after the crash, it was debris from the construction crews that were working on the building.

humanji wrote: »

The New York skyline is icon. The most noticable part of the skyline was the Twin Towers. It was the perfect target for attack. Although the Statue of Liberty is more iconic, it's destruction wouldnt' have nearly the same effect as destroying the towers.

And the timing is more to do with when the planes could be hijacked and not when would be the time to kill most people. The object of terrorism is to create a state of fear, not to just kill people. The body count means nothing in the grand scheme of things, where the terrorists are concerned. Their ideologies are much more important.

You are right about the skyline (even though those of South America are much more impressive). But as far as timing, Logan Airport is in the top 20 busiest airports - planes take off quite often. None of those planes were scheduled to go near NYC, but they still made it anyway (it's only about a 35-40 minute flight), so they could have just waited a bit until the right time to get the most from their efforts.

Diogenes wrote: »

There is photographic evidence (as Oscar pointed out) that the building was engulfed with flames, and badly damaged, there is countless testimony from firemen who reported that it was clear that the building was coming down.

Who cares if it was on fire? The building isn't THAT old - it's not going to implode because of a fire. Besided, fires don't create a perfect implosion - the building would have crumbled and fallen over - if anything at all.

Diogenes wrote: »

Offaly the largest building CT in history was no where near as large as the WTC 7. It took dozens of people months, to work on a building (completely empty and stripped bare) to cut the supporting columns, and lay the charges.

Offaly can you explain how for the first time in history a building full of people was prepped for demolition without the knowledge of the occupants.

I work in a building that has people working on it all the time. People are always up in the heating system or fixing other things. There are 13,000 people that work in the same building as me, so if I see someone I don't know I will give a polite nod and go on with my day. The WTC had 50,000, so you can't expect them to interogate everyone that walks by. Oh yeah, and a lot of work can get done overnight as well.

humanji

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

...Of course the plane did not vaporize - there was no plane. I don't care how many times you say it. There is no evidence there was a plane at all. Oh, and there were no actual plane parts on the ground after the crash, it was debris from the construction crews that were working on the building.

Why would the construction crews be using plane parts?

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

You are right about the skyline (even though those of South America are much more impressive). But as far as timing, Logan Airport is in the top 20 busiest airports - planes take off quite often. None of those planes were scheduled to go near NYC, but they still made it anyway (it's only about a 35-40 minute flight), so they could have just waited a bit until the right time to get the most from their efforts.

They didn't want body count, they wanted to make a statement. It didn't matter how many people were in the towers, just as long as the towers were hit by the planes.

Diogenes

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

...Of course the plane did not vaporize - there was no plane. I don't care how many times you say it. There is no evidence there was a plane at all. Oh, and there were no actual plane parts on the ground after the crash, it was debris from the construction crews that were working on the building.

Right so the hundred of emergency workers on the ground in the first few hours after the crash who picked up body parts and wreckage, they were in on it?

How about the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly into the pentagon?

Who cares if it was on fire? The building isn't THAT old - it's not going to implode because of a fire.

It didn't implode. It collapsed out onto the street and surrounding air

[IMG]http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/didwtc7fallintoa“tidypile”initsownfootpr[/IMG]

Besided, fires don't create a perfect implosion

Define perfect implosion.

- the building would have crumbled and fallen over - if anything at all.

Structural engineer are you?

I work in a building that has people working on it all the time. People are always up in the heating system or fixing other things. There are 13,000 people that work in the same building as me, so if I see someone I don't know I will give a polite nod and go on with my day. The WTC had 50,000, so you can't expect them to interogate everyone that walks by. Oh yeah, and a lot of work can get done overnight as well.

Do you know how long it takes to wire a building for controlled demolition. The closest example is the Hudson building in Chicago which took a team several months to wire. They had to empty the building cut structural supports to allow charges to be placed.

Are you really telling me that this occured in the Twin Towers.

Also much of the supports for the WTC were on the exterior of the buildings, how come there aren't photos of demolition crews wiring these external supports, You'd need a hefty amount of scaffolding to get up the outside of the 70th floor.

Eeb

OscarBravo,
Now you're just being a jerk. When one of the few building demolition experts in the world says he thinks the building was brought down by a controlled demolition, I think we should listen and explore that possibility. If you think that's not right, say so and explain why. If you want an answer to your sneering condescending question, the answer is no, I don't think crazy notions should be considered. Do you think the possibility that it was brought down in a controlled demolition is not worth any investigation?

Diogenes,
For the third time, you asserted that there is photographic evidence that shows the building was "engulfed with flames" and you have provided none. I of course admit that a lot of firefighters claim the building was burning and I appreciate the importance of their statements. That is not proof that the building fell because of fire. How long did it take for the building to fall? It didn't fall symmetrically? How do you know this? I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it didn't come from NIST.
NIST has stated that it will not be investigating the possibility that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition. That's not a full investigation. As to whether NIST is independent enough, I'd be concerned about statements like this: http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4069
Anyway, I thought you were sure you knew how the building came down and it was because of fire. NIST didn't tell you that because they haven't provided much of an explanation yet. How do you know this?

oscarBravo

Eeb wrote: »

OscarBravo,
Now you're just being a jerk.

Actually, I'm not. I was perfectly serious.

Eeb wrote: »

When one of the few building demolition experts in the world says he thinks the building was brought down by a controlled demolition, I think we should listen and explore that possibility.

Link, please.

Eeb wrote: »

If you think that's not right, say so and explain why. If you want an answer to your sneering condescending question, the answer is no, I don't think crazy notions should be considered. Do you think the possibility that it was brought down in a controlled demolition is not worth any investigation?

No, I don't. Beyond a fleeting superficial resemblance to a controlled demolition, there is absolutely no evidence - absolutely no evidence whatsoever - to support the idea of a controlled demolition.

We've been over and over this. People are quoted out of context (if I hear the ridiculous Larry Silverstein "pull" thing one more time I'll scream), only the photographs that support a position are shown, videos of collapsing buildings are linked ad nauseam.

Where are the signature "firecracker" sounds of the cutting charges being detonated? Why is there no seismic record of such charges? Who wired the building? How did nobody notice the building they were working in was rigged for a controlled explosion?

As always, there's no coherent hypothesis, and as such nothing to investigate.

Eeb wrote: »

For the third time, you asserted that there is photographic evidence that shows the building was "engulfed with flames" and you have provided none.

What do you think is causing all that smoke?

Eeb wrote: »

NIST has stated that it will not be investigating the possibility that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition. That's not a full investigation.

They also won't be investigating space weapons or unicorns.

Why?

Because there's abolutely no evidence that space weapons, unicorns or controlled demolition were involved.

Diogenes

Eeb wrote: »

For the third time, you asserted that there is photographic evidence that shows the building was "engulfed with flames" and you have provided none.

There is smoke billowing from every floor in the building. How do you think it got there?

I of course admit that a lot of firefighters claim the building was burning and I appreciate the importance of their statements. That is not proof that the building fell because of fire.

But I take you, you now admit they support my assertion that the building was completely engulfed in flames?

How long did it take for the building to fall?

You said it fell in "7seconds" where did you come by that figure?

It didn't fall symmetrically? How do you know this?

Do these look like photos of building that fell symmetrically.

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it didn't come from NIST.
NIST has stated that it will not be investigating the possibility that the building was brought down in a controlled demolition.

Where did they say that?

That's not a full investigation. As to whether NIST is independent enough, I'd be concerned about statements like this: http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4069

This is literally why I loath conspiracy theorists, they take a good intelligent man, take his quotes out of context and use it to support them.

Dr Quinere wrote:

Why is not the design process of assigning fire protection to the WTC towers fully called out for fault? The insulation thickness of the truss members varied from 0.5 inches at its construction, changed to a specification of 1.5 inches in 1995, and was taken on its face as 2.5 inches for the North tower fire floors based on a PA report. This extraordinary range of thicknesses bears an in depth investigation. Why were no hearings held or witness testimonies heard on this critical design process?"

Quintiere is concerned about the fireproofing of the twin towers and the lessons that should be learnt from it, he in no way endorses idiotic conspiracy theories.

Anyway, I thought you were sure you knew how the building came down and it was because of fire. NIST didn't tell you that because they haven't provided much of an explanation yet. How do you know this?

Because the NIST isn't the only game in town, other reputable scientific journals have discussed it;

Read some of them here

Eeb

OscarBravo,
Danny Jowenko is the expert I'm reffering to.

I've decided in the last hour that this is a total waste of time. I've wasted the guts of a day corresponding with you guys and it gets me nowhere. You guys can continue to waste your days slamming everyone who questions the various anomalies of the day. As I've wasted my time, I'm sure you're wasting yours too. Noone changes their mind on the basis of what some anonymous goon posts on the internet.
Enjoy yourselves, dudes.

humanji

You're not a goon, so don't be so hard on yourself.

oscarBravo

Eeb wrote: »

Danny Jowenko is the expert I'm reffering to.

John Lear is an aviation expert that believes that a holographic projection was used to make people believe a plane hit the Pentagon.

Again: there's no evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC7. None.

Eero New

Eeb wrote: »

OscarBravo,
Danny Jowenko is the expert I'm reffering to.

I've decided in the last hour that this is a total waste of time. I've wasted the guts of a day corresponding with you guys and it gets me nowhere. You guys can continue to waste your days slamming everyone who questions the various anomalies of the day. As I've wasted my time, I'm sure you're wasting yours too. Noone changes their mind on the basis of what some anonymous goon posts on the internet.
Enjoy yourselves, dudes.

I feel your pain.

tunaman

tunaman wrote: »

So what about these multiple warnings they received in the months before 9/11?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_warnings

What about the secret military program codenamed "able danger"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger

According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and those of four others, Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001, attacks leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's other 19 hijackers, as possible members of an al Qaeda cell linked to the '93 World Trade Center bombing.

This theory was heavily promoted by Republican Representative Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and House Homeland Security committees. In December 2006, an investigation by the US Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that those assertions were unfounded. It rejected as untrue "one of the most disturbing claims about the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes."[3] The committee has published a letter to its members as a result of these hearings, dated December 22, 2006. However, witness testimony from these hearings is not publicly available.

So the story is that a US senate committee which was set up concluded that these claims were unfounded. What a surprise, just makes the cover-up that little bit bigger.

Here is a very short video, which shows footage of the Lt. Col. testifying and a congressman getting incredibly angry about the cover-up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsM3oCsEJOE

Whistleblowers...

Who needs them?

People claim they want a discussion then when faced with evidence claim everybody is an idiot, so it proves nothing.

So why was nobody fired for any incompetence?

Not one person who worked in all the departments that cocked up, not only that but a huge number were actually promoted.

This world really is a fools paradise...

General Richard Myers was acting head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11/01. He stated that he went into a meeting after the first tower was hit, and stayed there until just after the Pentagon was hit. Apparently his meeting with Senator Cleland was more important than the ongoing attack on the nation. Two days after the attack, Myers was asked some softball questions by the Senate Armed Services Committee, and promoted to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

General Ralph Eberhart was in charge of NORAD on 9/11/01. NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center maintains up-to-the-second monitoring of airspace over the entire nation. It would have easily tracked the unfolding attack from 8:20, when Flight 11 went off course, to 10:06, when Flight 93 crashed. Instead of dispatching interceptors from bases near the targets, or calling for intercepts from multiple bases, it chose a few far-away bases. Eberhart was promoted to head the new "Northern Command" established in October of 2002.

So the 500billion a year US defenses (due to major confusion) were unable to get any fighter jets anywhere near 4 airliners, yet many news crews had helicopters above New York within minutes of the first impact.

If you believe that then I guess you will believe anything...

humanji

To be honest, how do you know that no one was fired? You'd hear about the bigwigs being kicked out, but Private Bloggs being discharged for telling fighters to scramble from the wrong airfield isn't exactly going to make the headlines. Nor is he really going to go public, since he'd mosst likely feel guilty and want to kepp his head low.

With regards, Meyers, do you know what went on in the meeting he was at? Did he talk about the weather? Did he organise rescue crews for the survivors? We don't know. And he may have been promoted for any number of reasons.

Eberhart was in charge of NORAD, but he wasn't the person sitting at a console, tracking planes and sending fighters to intercept. And then a year later he was promoted. Maybe they felt he was the most skilled person for the job?

People make mistakes. Nothing like that had happened before so it's understandable that people could choke and do the wrong thing. Assuming that because these things happened, that the government is behind it all is a bit of a stretch.

Diogenes

tunaman wrote: »

General Ralph Eberhart was in charge of NORAD on 9/11/01. NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center maintains up-to-the-second monitoring of airspace over the entire nation. It would have easily tracked the unfolding attack from 8:20, when Flight 11 went off course, to 10:06, when Flight 93 crashed. Instead of dispatching interceptors from bases near the targets, or calling for intercepts from multiple bases, it chose a few far-away bases. Eberhart was promoted to head the new "Northern Command" established in October of 2002.

All of the above is an utter lie, and has been pointed out to tunaman before.

meglome

tunaman wrote: »

So the 500billion a year US defenses (due to major confusion) were unable to get any fighter jets anywhere near 4 airliners, yet many news crews had helicopters above New York within minutes of the first impact.

If you believe that then I guess you will believe anything...

sigh... My understanding is that there were in the region of 3,000 aircraft in the skies over the US on 911. So you're telling me that it's unlikely a system designed to detect attack from outside, could easily find 4 planes with their transponders turned off out of 3,000. I'd need to be an idiot to believe that, is that what you're saying? Cause I'm thinking it would be surprising if they did quickly find these planes, that would be suspicious. Seriously the air traffic controllers didn't even have a direct link into the airforce to let them know what was happening.

And the fact that news crews got to the twin towers within minutes is completely utterly irrelevant. They already knew exactly where the towers where, they didn't need to look for them.

MCMLXXXIII

Diogenes wrote: »

Right so the hundred of emergency workers on the ground in the first few hours after the crash who picked up body parts and wreckage, they were in on it?

How about the hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane fly into the pentagon?

This is close enough to after the even that the building is still on fire. Since the claim is that the plane hit the first floor of the first ring, there should be debris...just like you said. Show me where there is ANY debris from a plane crash of that green lawn. Also, I'm not sure a boeing would be able to fit through that tight of a break in the building. Where are the wings?


http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/images/pelouse.jpg

Diogenes wrote: »

It didn't implode. It collapsed out onto the street and surrounding air

Structural engineer are you?

Actually...a double-major degree where is half is static engineering.

Diogenes wrote: »

Do you know how long it takes to wire a building for controlled demolition. The closest example is the Hudson building in Chicago which took a team several months to wire. They had to empty the building cut structural supports to allow charges to be placed.

Are you really telling me that this occured in the Twin Towers.

Also much of the supports for the WTC were on the exterior of the buildings, how come there aren't photos of demolition crews wiring these external supports, You'd need a hefty amount of scaffolding to get up the outside of the 70th floor.

It takes a long time...months. There are supports throughout the entire building, and yes - you can get to the outside supports from the inside. BTW, Hudson's was in Detroit - not Chicago, and still is recorded to be the tallest building to be imploded. I don't think they count the WTC as the tallest because planes helped the destruction. Oh yeah, Tower 7 wasn't hit by any planes, but I guess the large, steel, fire-protected building just fell in on itself hours after the other two had fallen because of some "suggested" fire damage...right?

humanji

MCMLXXXIII wrote: »

Show me where there is ANY debris from a plane crash of that green lawn. Also, I'm not sure a boeing would be able to fit through that tight of a break in the building. Where are the wings?

I think there's a photo knocking about that shows a wheel or something like that.

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote: »

Where are the signature "firecracker" sounds of the cutting charges being detonated? Why is there no seismic record of such charges? Who wired the building? How did nobody notice the building they were working in was rigged for a controlled explosion?

Thermite doesn't make such noises, or register any seismic activity. Simple Iron Oxide and Aluminium strategically placed on the support beams of a few lower floors or mid level floors would do the trick.

As for John Lear, he is regarded as a disinfo agent nowadays since his claims became more and more preposterous...

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Thermite doesn't make such noises, or register any seismic activity.

Thermite also isn't an explosive, and isn't used in controlled demolition.

Simple Iron Oxide and Aluminium strategically placed on the support beams of a few lower floors or mid level floors would do the trick.

A few tons of it, maybe....but then you'd see the massive amounts of visible energy released as it burned.

As for John Lear, he is regarded as a disinfo agent nowadays since his claims became more and more preposterous...

And yet again we see the inability for those supporting the inside-job notion to say something like "he's a nutcase who happens to be seen as being on our side, ho we were foolish enough to believe for a while".

No...instead, we need a conspiracy to explain this guy, so that the previous belief in him was correct, just as the dismissal of him is now.

On the other hand, those who are "non-believers" said he was a nut then, and say he's a nut now. They, of course, can't be right.

rubadub

What are the best sites debunking the 911 CTs. I have watched zeitgeist and loose change. I think some may subtitle them or stop and ad bits, I would prefer a movie like that, but pages with facts would be good too.

Thermite also isn't an explosive, and isn't used in controlled demolition.

Yes and makeshift knives are not used by professional knife throwers.

Somebody else pointed out building 7 did not fall symmetrically, as though to show was not a "controlled explosion", by controlled explosion people are talking of explosions other than those by the planes. If you did place explosives it would make sense you would do your best not to make it look like a professional demolition job. You would expect them to go out of their way not to have traces of professionally used standard explosives, and try and make it appear unsymmetrical. If they are not caring about people dying why would they give a damn about the surrounding buildings.

On some other film I saw it was similarly said, the explosions started at the top, and controlled explosions start at the bottom- again as though this was proof it wasn't a controlled explosion.

If I wanted to burn down my house on purpose for insurance claims and make it look accidental, I would not douse the place in petrol, a know accelerant which will be noticed by the firemen. Poisoners will often use low doses over time of poisons which might not be detected, i.e. not use cyanide, but maybe lead that the person killed may have been in contact with.

In another thread somebody arguing against the CTs gave a definition of "conspiracy theory", and then went on to say the US may have lied to cover up their ineptitude. Well some people might consider a single lie by the government to be a conspiracy, peoples definitions may clash as much as opinions.

I work as an engineer, and know how easy it is to skew figures one way or another. I also know people can easily misinterpret data and ignore important details, sometimes on purpose, sometimes through ignorance. I do a lot of test work and any people who test REAL devices will know they can preform very differently to simulations. In a lot of tests I might get strange results, it is only when you later sit down that you might spot what you have missed. Also you can easily have 2 machines that appear similar in operation, maybe only the scale has changed, but in reality they can perform every differently, and without fundamental understanding of what is going on people can get very odd notions.

Ciaran500

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561 - Subtitled video

Lots o text,
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/introduction.html
http://emptv.com/research/loose-change

oscarBravo

rubadub wrote: »

Somebody else pointed out building 7 did not fall symmetrically, as though to show was not a "controlled explosion", by controlled explosion people are talking of explosions other than those by the planes. If you did place explosives it would make sense you would do your best not to make it look like a professional demolition job. You would expect them to go out of their way not to have traces of professionally used standard explosives, and try and make it appear unsymmetrical. If they are not caring about people dying why would they give a damn about the surrounding buildings.

On some other film I saw it was similarly said, the explosions started at the top, and controlled explosions start at the bottom- again as though this was proof it wasn't a controlled explosion.

If I wanted to burn down my house on purpose for insurance claims and make it look accidental, I would not douse the place in petrol, a know accelerant which will be noticed by the firemen. Poisoners will often use low doses over time of poisons which might not be detected, i.e. not use cyanide, but maybe lead that the person killed may have been in contact with.

I'm not sure what your point is. It seems to be that the building collapses on 9/11 could have been controlled demolitions, but were cleverly made not to look like controlled demolitions so they would look like uncontrolled collapses.

If this is, indeed, your point, I urge you to apply Occam's Razor to the idea, and see if you can think of a simpler explanation.

toiletduck

Heh, thought this funny

Al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has blamed Iran for spreading the theory that Israel was behind the 11 September 2001 attacks.

"The purpose of this lie is clear - [to suggest] that there are no heroes among the Sunnis who can hurt America as no-one else did in history, he said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7361414.stm

Obviously he's not a fan of Loose Change

Kernel

toiletduck wrote: »

Heh, thought this funny

Obviously he's not a fan of Loose Change

Naturally, he's one of the Sunni's that work for the CIA isn't he?