The Great 9/11 Challenge.

Brown Bomber

seannash wrote: »

Can I ask,do you genuinely believe the building were taken down with explosives?
The company I worked for was doing ongoing renovation work in the building at the time it happened and had been for years.They were actually doing alot of work in the lift shafts amongst other areas
Didn't know the illuminati signed my paycheck,Kinda funny how they looked like a small balding irish man.

With that in mind I'd appeciate your thoughts on this (forged WTC passes, lift broken for at least the month prior to attacks, Israeli companies that don't seem to exist working in the towers from Sept 5th and witnesses being murdered the day before their trials.

From 8:15

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With that in mind I'd appeciate your thoughts on this (forged WTC passes, lift broken for at least the month prior to attacks, Israeli companies that don't seem to exist working in the towers from Sept 5th and witnesses being murdered the day before their trials.

From 8:15

I actually didn't ask you but if I had any answer for the murders I'm sure I'd notify the NYPD.
In work now so cant look at the video but I'm fairly sure that all the lifts werent down for a month before the event,They could be down for maintainance individually.

Can I just ask before I look at the video does it give evidence for the claims or just make claims that they have found it out.

And seeing as how you asked me,can I get your stance.Do you believe explosives brought them down?
(post comes across a bit aggressive,not meant to be)

Brown Bomber

seannash wrote: »

I actually didn't ask you but if I had any answer for the murders I'm sure I'd notify the NYPD.

???

seannash wrote: »

In work now so cant look at the video but I'm fairly sure that all the lifts werent down for a month before the event,They could be down for maintainance individually.

I didn't say "all the lifts"

seannash wrote: »

Can I just ask before I look at the video does it give evidence for the claims

Yes.

seannash wrote: »

or just make claims that they have found it out.

No.
I take it you will now watch the few minutes of film and give a response?

seannash wrote: »

And seeing as how you asked me,can I get your stance.Do you believe explosives brought them down?

I genuinely don't know. I don't exclude the possibility of explosives.

seannash

???

If I had thoughts or any idea why the murders happened Id tell the police

I didn't say "all the lifts"

True so is routine maintainance out of the question.They could be "rocking" the lift shaft and needed to shut it down.

Yes.

Cool

No.
I take it you will now watch the few minutes of film and give a response?

Yep I'll give it a watch

I genuinely don't know. I don't exclude the possibility of explosives.

But you put this forward as evidence that it could happen,so you support this theory?
I think your a very smart guy BB but you wont give a direct answer,not because your unsure,but because you know if you commit to the explosives theory then you will have to deal with all the other debunked evidence that comes with the theory.

Lets say all the reasons you gave above are unexplainable.it doesnt give the whole theory any more or any less credibility because this theory has been disproven time and time again by other factors that would be involved in rigging the building for explosives.
I'm not going to bring up those factors because we'll just end up going in a circle

Iv'e asked my co worker who was there on the day in the building if there was anything out of the ordinary on the floors he worked on and he said no.
He would have been accessing the building in service elevators,using stairwells,trademens entrances and not the common areas for people who work in the offices.

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Didn't know the illuminati signed my paycheck,Kinda funny how they looked like a small balding irish man.

that's is just plain racist ... illuminati can look like a small balding irishman too.

i guess it is lucky that you had the day off so ... along with your boss

seannash

davoxx wrote: »

that's is just plain racist ... illuminati can look like a small balding irishman too.

i guess it is lucky that you had the day off so ... along with your boss

Nope just on another site with about 10 other alibi's....eh I mean coworkers

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Nope just on another site with about 10 other alibi's....eh I mean coworkers

ok, that makes it totally not suspicious so ...

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Perhaps your right.
hmmm maybe I should rethink this beard I'm growing,might make me look suspicious

bearded kiddy fiddlers do stand out at the school gates ...

but come on now, why would you think that there is a conspiracy involving bearded med taking down the twin towers ... are you privy to some information about the explosives?
are you feeling anxiety that when the cops interviewed you (i imagine they would since you had access to a crime scene before the crime) they let you off without giving you credit for you role in the event?

seannash

davoxx wrote: »

bearded kiddy fiddlers do stand out at the school gates ...

Jesus typical CT'er,there was no mention of kiddy fiddling but you shoehorned it in anyway to make me look evil :D

Jonny7

seannash wrote: »

Jesus typical CT'er,there was no mention of kiddy fiddling but you shoehorned it in anyway to make me look evil :D

Well they wouldn't rig the two buildings with explosives and let some company do work on the building in the days before the incident.. so you must be a part of the conspiracy..

This is great fun

seannash

seannash wrote: »

I actually didn't ask you but if I had any answer for the murders I'm sure I'd notify the NYPD.
In work now so cant look at the video but I'm fairly sure that all the lifts werent down for a month before the event,They could be down for maintainance individually.

Can I just ask before I look at the video does it give evidence for the claims or just make claims that they have found it out.

And seeing as how you asked me,can I get your stance.Do you believe explosives brought them down?
(post comes across a bit aggressive,not meant to be)

Okay Just watching this video now.
Firstly the fake documents were to gain access.I have had them myself.It can just be a fake student ID that could be bought from a travel agent(Ironically I got mine at a travel agents in Downing street in manhattan).
Mine was indeed fake but did have my correct name and dat of birth.It was necessary to have several forms of ID on you when you worked in any of the buildings that had goverment sections in it.

Very very very common for illegal immigrants who worked for cash for construction company's in New York.When you know what ther talking about its not that sinister but I an see how it would look highly suspect in this situation.My co worker who was in the towers that day was also Illegal and would have to have these when he entered for the first few weeks.
Not a big deal really

Okay in the video it says that the "company turned out to be an apartment building on an israeli"
I dont fully understand what "on an israeli" means but I gather that its an addressed registered as an office in the city to be written off for tax purposes.Again this is Illegal but common.I should know as I lived in just such an apartment.Alot of companys do it for there kids when they go to NYU so they an write it of to tax.

also shutting down the fire prevention system is a common practice when theres work being carried out,no big deal.

Okay so its going back to the driving licence thing in the video
Okay so before 9/11 people on there 90 day holiday visa could get a legitimate New York driving licence id they had an Irish driving licence(or any other country I imagine)
You can look this up,its true.Practically every Illegal Irish person in New York before 9/11 did this and some went out of state
.
Yes its shocking how simple it was but most americans wouldn't know this was possible.You could also pay for a licence,This is New york were talking about.You can buy anything!!

I dont think you guys realise how contractors work

Some work needs doing,its sent out to tender to the big constrution contractors who bid the whole job.
They then tender every single aspect of the job to sub contractors.
Sub contractors can be a guy who is running his own business out of his house(How do you guys think people build big constuction company's,they hardly wake up one day and decide to be a big company)

The people who own and run the building wont know who the sub contractors are,they will deal directly with the main contractor.

This guy doesn't give links to his claims either,just states claims as facts.

I dont have all the answers to the video but its not conclusive proof of anything

seannash

Also not saying that my explainations explain all of the above but from my experience it doesn't sound very sinister.
But again when you look at the whole argument for explosives it doesn't stack up

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Jesus typical CT'er,there was no mention of kiddy fiddling but you shoehorned it in anyway to make me look evil :D

you mentioned about the beard ... :D

davoxx

seannash wrote: »

Also not saying that my explainations explain all of the above but from my experience it doesn't sound very sinister.
But again when you look at the whole argument for explosives it doesn't stack up

the main point of contention is how the build that was not hit by planes collapsed despite no other building of similar construct every failing that way.

what is sinister is what was in that building that was destroyed, how the immediately knew who did it, iraq, which changed to bin laden, and they killed him without trial.

but regarding the explosives, scientifically, and if you've read the nist report, have a high scientific background or understand building design, explosives is a very probably explanation. if you didn't read the nist report, nor have any of the scientific background ... then you can't made an informed opinion and will base it on others who have no idea of the facts.

seannash

davoxx wrote: »

but regarding the explosives, scientifically, and if you've read the nist report, have a high scientific background or understand building design, explosives is a very probably explanation. if you didn't read the nist report, nor have any of the scientific background ... then you can't made an informed opinion and will base it on others who have no idea of the facts.

But isn't that what the CT'ers are doing.There believing people on YouTube videos.

Brown Bomber

seannash wrote: »

But you put this forward as evidence that it could happen,so you support this theory?

No. I am reserving judgement on all the conspiracy theories, including the official one until convincing evidence is presented.

seannash wrote: »

I think your a very smart guy BB but you wont give a direct answer,not because your unsure,but because you know if you commit to the explosives theory then you will have to deal with all the other debunked evidence that comes with the theory.

You are mistaken. I can assure you I always attempt to speak what I consider to be truth regardless of consequences.

I don't believe that a explosives hypothesis can be excluded based on the available evidence, I am open to this however. If you believe it can be excluded the please offer the the best three reasons for this.

seannash wrote: »

Iv'e asked my co worker who was there on the day in the building if there was anything out of the ordinary on the floors he worked on and he said no.
He would have been accessing the building in service elevators,using stairwells,trademens entrances and not the common areas for people who work in the offices.

And assuming that there was explosives in the building they surely would have been placed in areas out of the reach of those not involved.

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And assuming that there was explosives in the building they surely would have been placed in areas out of the reach of those not involved.

Well thats my point.the most obvious place to hide the massive amounts of explosives would be in the areas not populated by the general office workstaff which would have been where my mate was all the time.

seannash

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't believe that a explosives hypothesis can be excluded based on the available evidence, I am open to this however. If you believe it can be excluded the please offer the the best three reasons for this.

Its very hard to put down the top 3 reasons it cant be something.I'd be more inclined to look at the evidence for disputing all the theories of how it can be explosives,such as nanothermite,cabling,time required,manpower required,the amount of people who would have to swear to secrecy about this etc etc.

After looking at the evidence put forward from people claiming it was explosives and hearing the actual evidence its very clear to me it wasn't explosives.

Nobody really puts forward the best evidence for explosives so perhaps you'd d the honours on that

Brown Bomber

seannash wrote: »

Its very hard to put down the top 3 reasons it cant be something.

Not really, take the nuclear weapon hypothesis, A very obvious reason it can't be a nuke that took down the towers is the lack of any nuclear fallout.

Therefore I conclude that it wasn't a nuclear weapon and exclude this theory. If there is such a reason to exclude a controlled demolition of the towers I am not aware of it, and this is why I've asked you.

seannash wrote: »

I'd be more inclined to look at the evidence for disputing all the theories of how it can be explosives,such as nanothermite,

???

seannash wrote: »

cabling,time required,manpower required,

Which I haven't seen evidence on that confirms that it would be impossible to carry out.

In 2009, Raw Story noted:

A Government Accountability Office investigator smuggled live bomb components into a federal building in just 27 seconds, then assembled a bomb in a restroom and ventured throughout the building without being detected, a leaked tape revealed Wednesday.
In addition, congressional investigators were able to penetrate every single federal building they probed without any difficulty — 10 in all.

And see this.

In fact, there is additional evidence that bombs could have been planted in the World Trade Center without anyone knowing:

• Bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably removed from the Twin Towers five days before 9-11

• The Twin Towers had been evacuated a number of times in the weeks preceding 9/11

• There was a power down in the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11, security cameras were shut down, and many workers ran around busily doing things unobserved (confirmed here)

• A tenant of the World Trade Center hired a "sprinkler repairman" shortly before 9/11, and gave him access to 6 underground levels at World Trade Center building 1

• And -- as an interesting coincidence -- a Bush-linked company ran security at the trade centers, thus giving it free reign to the buildings

seannash wrote: »

the amount of people who would have to swear to secrecy about this etc etc.

Again is not a reason for me:

It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. Bureaucratic rivalries, especially over budget shares, lead to leaks. Moreover, to a certain extent the ability to keep a secret for a given amount of time diminishes with the number of people who know it. As secret keepers like to say, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

--Daniel Ellsberg
Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers

seannash

And the circle begins once again.
BB you know only too well all these points have been raised before and answers given.so I'm not going to waste my time bringing up links because theres already a massive thread about this

Again whilst you dont say outright that you believe explosives took it down your evidence that you put forward without accepting the explaination from the other side suggests you believe it.

Get off the fence

But lets look at the bombsniffing dogs issue which I'm sure you've had explained to you before.

Heres the explaination

Bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the building

The basic quote you see most often is:

"Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed. "Today was the first day there was not the extra security," Coard said. "We were protecting below. We had the ground covered. We didn't figure they would do it with planes. There is no way anyone could have stopped that."" —Newsday, September 12, 2001

Note that it is extra security in response to the phone threats that was removed. The standard level of bomb-sniffing dogs was still present, and in one case, crushed when the tower collapsed.[18] Even if all bomb dogs were still present, their presence would either be ineffective (i.e. not able to already detect explosives being planted in the pillar), or weren't able to stop a rushed-job where sufficient explosives were somehow added overnight without being detected.

I believe if you google "Sirius" you will pull up results for a bomb sniffing dog that died in the towers.

Jonny7

I'm still stuck on the points of:

Basic reasoning

Why would "they" rig the two largest buildings in the world with explosives that were to be hit by fuel-laden airliners anyway? it's quite honestly one of the most ridiculously risky plans I've ever heard theorised.

What if the plane hijackings failed? there would be the obvious smoking gun of the twin towers both rigged with explosives which would lead directly to the guilty culprits on all levels.

Those planning this, those implementing it, those coordinating with the hijackings - this is a huge number of people involved over a long time period, again under extraordinarily treasonous settings, one leak would spell disaster for all involved. The US has been riddled with spies since WW2 - they couldn't even keep their most secret nuclear tech away from other countries, how would they keep a secret of this magnitude away from their own people?

Ignoring the reasoning, if bombs were planted then where are the names, dates, information, suspects, etc of..

1) which personal and people ordered the tower to be rigged with explosives?
2) when was this ordered, who put it into operation, how many were involved? from which departments?
3) did the President know? did the chief of staff know? who knew and who didn't know?