Mainstream media now questioning the official 9/11 narrative

Timberrrrrrrr

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Good watch. The host gave him a hard time and rightly so.

Identifying the hijacker DNA. What DNA was the comparison to? Hijackers Families would likely have to give DNA samples to carry out a comparison check. Since the bodies were burned to ash that likely never happened. You may find scraps of bones and human tissue, maybe?

I have seen photographs of damage on the southwest side of building seven. There are images that appear to show a long hole down the side of building seven, but the image is blurry and obscured by smoke. All engineering studies agree the final collapse started on the eastside of the building whereas the damage is on the opposite side south side corner. The building stood for another 6 hours- so most people think the damage caused by the towers falling had very little impact on the structure stability.

I was given an official document recently explaining what happened to the cameras around the building. Just say discovered some new things about the event. I leave it for another thread.

Why leave for another thread? If you have an "official document" and you have a new discovery then why not share it here?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

What difference does that make no whistleblower have stepped forward?

You literally wrote the below a few posts ago

"Whistleblowers have come forward."

Nobody provided a credible fire scenario, i have seen yet. 

There have been at least four separate investigations which came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse.

There have been none that point to explosives, whatsoever

So in your mind it must be explosives. Silent ones, that make explosive sounds sometimes, or not, when it suits.

corcaigh07

This thread seems oddly familiar

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You literally wrote the below a few posts ago

"Whistleblowers have come forward."



There have been at least four separate investigations which came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse.

There have been none that point to explosives, whatsoever

So in your mind it must be explosives. Silent ones, that make explosive sounds sometimes, or not, when it suits.

Whistleblower has not come forward to date he planted explosives. Personally, not expecting someone to come forward, when highly likely this was military-style operation that involves compartmentalization. My opinion only a handful of people are read in and are aware of this operation.

Whistleblowers have come out and spoken about different topics related to 9/11 attacks.  I see Richard Clarke as a whistleblower who revealed he was kept out of the loop about Al Qeada terrorists entering the country. Richard Clarke was employed by the White House Chief Counter Terrorism Advisor to George Bush. Yet he only learned after 9/11 that the CIA had tracked 9/11 terrorists inside the United States and kept this information secret from the FBI and local enforcement agencies.  

There Coleen Rowley an FBI agent who passed information to FBI headquarters that she suspected there was Muslim men in her area training to hijack planes. A flight instructor in her area Minnesota, suspected Muslim men there were up to know good and phoned the local FBI office in August 2001.  The local FBI agents tried to get a warrant to look into it and this can only be issued by FBI headquarters when it was about terrorism. The FBI agents were denied the warrant and still an open question who was denying the request to monitor them suspected of being terrorists? Many more people who pointed out the US government had all the information needed to arrest and capture the 9/11 cells.

Engineering WTC7 fire research
Arup and Partners and Guy Nordenson and Sons were hired by Aegis Insurance to find defects in the structural design of the building. They were as a conflict of interest when you hired to stop paying out a large sum. They reached a very different conclusion to NIST and claimed sagging beams pulled the girder of its seat at column 79. NIST said it beams thermally expanded. They totally dismissed the thermal expansion theory NIST came up with.

None of these groups claimed fire brought down the building on a different floor, they just disagree about where it started.

Engineering study that disagrees with all three studies
Weidlinger engineering group was hired by World Trade center company. They claimed the failure started on 9th and 10th floor. The girder unseated would not come through the floors below like the other Engineering firms stated. They claim the floors just collapsed due to extreme heat.  
None of these groups agree with each other about how it all started- the only agree fire was the cause correct. Hulsey has looked at these theories and none of them making sense.

Silent explosives:
There was a noise bang heard on CBS video. NIST states no noise was heard at all before collapse on any video. Skeptics often make the mistake thinking this a masonry building being taken down. It was a steel framed building, therefore only a number of floors needed to be loaded with cutter charge explosives. There not blowing up the whole building. They're taking out columns on a specific number of floors. Hulsey computer model dropped the building when eight floors of core and exterior columns got removed. It's false when people claim 47 floors need to the loaded with explosives. It curious you always claim silent explosives rules out demolition, yet 47 floors internally coming down crashing silently you never question? I would think 47 floors collapsing would make more noise than explosives causing damage to steel in the building on eight floors? It not bomb going off. Demolitions can be muffled for sound if needed ( CDI demolition expert said so on video) and wireless radio demolitions can be used. Wireless it not used commercially as it very expensive. US Military was a setting of demolitions for decades by wireless methods. 

Cheerful Spring2

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why leave for another thread? If you have an "official document" and you have a new discovery then why not share it here?

If you want to read it.
https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/oral_history/OH_Trans_AustinBrian%20Steve%20Pennington111-9-2006.pdf

Interviews with people who installed the cameras and looked after them.

Poles were taken down during the construction to be replaced near the roadway. They had cameras some did not.
The Heliport had two cameras and never knew this. Was destroyed on 9/11. Had a field of view on impact site.
What i found strange when guy turned up the next day and looked to see if it had footage, it recorded nothing he says there is nothing there?
He said normally more cameras would be looking at the impact site area, but due to construction were not.
Images are captured inside the building. 
VDOT had a traffic camera, but the guy did not know what happened to the camera and footage.

Whereabouts did they remove the poles on the roadway?

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Whistleblower has not come forward to date he planted explosives.

Exactly, no one has come forward with anything about bombs or secret explosives, zero.

Whistleblowers have come out and spoken about different topics related to 9/11 attacks.  I see Richard Clarke as a whistleblower who revealed he was kept out of the loop about Al Qeada terrorists entering the country.

Richard Clarke doesn't believe the buildings were blown up, he completely contradicts your theory

There Coleen Rowley an FBI agent who passed information to FBI headquarters that she suspected there was Muslim men in her area training to hijack planes.

The FBI investigation absolutely points to no explosive devices in the buildings. They contradict your theory of exploding buildings.

Arup and Partners and Guy Nordenson and Sons were hired by Aegis Insurance to find defects in the structural design of the building.

Not a single investigation, including the above pointed to explosives in the buildings.

Weidlinger engineering group was hired by World Trade center company.

Their conclusion? fire bought it down. Again, no mention of explosives

There was a noise bang heard on CBS video. NIST states no noise was heard at all before collapse on any video.

No explosive blast were recorded at the times each building fell. To summarise, you have no credible evidence for these "explosives", every talking point you bring up further contradicts you, and the theory itself doesn't make any sense

Why would they rig WTC 1 and WTC 2 with explosives just to get them hit by planes?

What if one of the planes missed and they discovered this entire building rigged with incriminating evidence, why would they take that risk?

Was the hijacking of the planes real, then how did they plan the rigging of all the buildings perfectly with explosives around the hijacking? If the hijacking wasn't real, then who were the men on board, what, were they paid to kill themselves?

Cheerful Spring2

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Exactly, no one has come forward with anything about bombs or secret explosives, zero.



Richard Clarke doesn't believe the buildings were blown up, he completely contradicts your theory



The FBI investigation absolutely points to no explosive devices in the buildings. They contradict your theory of exploding buildings.



Not a single investigation, including the above pointed to explosives in the buildings.



Their conclusion? fire bought it down. Again, no mention of explosives



No explosive blast were recorded at the times each building fell. To summarise, you have no credible evidence for these "explosives", every talking point you bring up further contradicts you, and the theory itself doesn't make any sense

Why would they rig WTC 1 and WTC 2 with explosives just to get them hit by planes?

What if one of the planes missed and they discovered this entire building rigged with incriminating evidence, why would they take that risk?

Was the hijacking of the planes real, then how did they plan the rigging of all the buildings perfectly with explosives around the hijacking? If the hijacking wasn't real, then who were the men on board, what, were they paid to kill themselves?

Richard Clarke was kept of the loop known terrorists had entered the country to carry out an attack and you seem to ignore that if it's not relevant and not suspicious. Richard Clarke, believing my demolition theory is irrelevant here. His testimony gave us insight into what the CIA was up to and they kept information private about Al Qeada members planning an attack.The 9/11 demolitions can only have taken place if the terrorists succeeded with their mission. It's the reason I am highly suspicious they kept Richard Clarke and others of the loop so the plan would not fail.

FBI never investigated explosives at the site. FBI role in the investigation was to find out who organised the terrorist attacks.We know the White House then obstructed this ongoing FBI investigation and shut it down. 

Even all the WTC7 steel was taken away and never seen again. NIST admitted during their investigation could not locate any steel member from the WTC7 site. You investigating a collapse and the building steel the vital evidence gone!

The private engineering firms are like you they can't imagine someone would rig the building for demolishing prior to the attack. Since the steel evidence gone, they too are guessing what caused the collapse. What we know based on construction drawings NIST lied to achieve a fire collapse scenario.

If this building had collapsed on another day in history and this same report came out, i bet nobody would accept it. It only accepted because of the terrible events seen on TV. History never repeated itself since or before 9/11 a Steel framed high rise collapsed just to fire alone. You have this one-off event on 9/11 and that looks like a controlled demolition and the fire study NIST did was false and that's a proven fact. 

Dohnjoe

Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »

Richard Clarke

Richard Clarke doesn't believe the buildings were blown up.

FBI never investigated explosives at the site. FBI role in the investigation was to find out who organised the terrorist attacks.We know the White House then obstructed this ongoing FBI investigation and shut it down. 

The FBI don't for one second maintain the buildings were blown up

Even all the WTC7 steel was taken away and never seen again. NIST admitted during their investigation could not locate any steel member from the WTC7 site. You investigating a collapse and the building steel the vital evidence gone!

Nope

The private engineering firms are like you they can't imagine someone would rig the building for demolishing prior to the attack. Since the steel evidence gone, they too are guessing what caused the collapse. What we know based on construction drawings NIST lied to achieve a fire collapse scenario.

No credible evidence the buildings were blown up

If this building had collapsed on another day in history and this same report came out, i bet nobody would accept it.  

You can't support any other theory, no one can. That's because it doesn't exist.

Homelander

Conspiracy theories around 9/11 are amazing. It's like claiming a 1000 piece jigsaw of a dog may in fact be a cat because a handful of pieces are missing.