It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hydrogen Bombs Brought Down The WTC's Hypothesis

page: 14
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Everybody:

Here is a schematic of a “non-existent” miniature pure hydrogen bomb with an antimatter trigger.


And here is also an illustration of a “non-existent” antimatter “storage container system”, a Penning trap, ready for pickup by commercial shipper.


For further reading, this is the link to the article on Antimatter Weapons (also “non-existent of course”).
cui.unige.ch...

By the way thank you Insolubrious for the link to the highly informative interview with Bill Deagle.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods




Hey WITW, interesting post. It seems there maybe a few different ways to trigger the fusion reaction without the need for primary fission, red mercury (if it exists) is also another possibility, I also heard high powered lasers may work too. Still it seems the information is rather bleak (not really surprising considering the nature of it). Regardless, we can only make assumsions until more information is made available.

I find that it is all rather disturbing. The whole micron scaled devistation is unreal and I don't see how people are able to accept normal CD methods with this result, and the fires that burned for 100 days, even with high pressure water being sprayed on them day and night. The only other example I have heard of where a structure has this type of fire and heat was the Chernobyl reactor core fires brought about by the nuclear meltdown, and some of the damage looks pretty similar too. Even if the WTC buildings were a blazing inferno on every floor you wouldn't expect this, maybe for a few weeks to put out fires but not a few months, and it wasn't even a towering inferno, just a few floors they were only burning for an hour.

I say wake up people, especially if your into the whole truth movement! You don't want to get it wrong do you? I feel at this rate nothing will be accomplished, infact i feel the perps. have gotten away with this and will continue to do so. It maybe even working to their advantage, if it was foriegn look at all the trouble they have caused with people thinking its their own government!

You must consider that if this technology was used then the US government may not be entirely to blame and most of the work and planning was foriegn. Perhaps some members in the government had prior knowledge or hints and disregarded it as empty threats and perhaps there were a few insiders, very few though if any i would imagine, to me it seems the majority must of known nothing. Now, if this is micro nuclear technology easily deployed by a small number of individuals, possibly as little as one it makes the whole thing fall into place and how much more realistic it is to achieve by a foriegn organisation and how much easier to keep secret. Still thats not to say certain members of US government were not involved. I believe the motive here ultimately is to do with money, whether it was intended to save the economy or cripple parts of it is debatable.

One thing is for sure, this is like no other event ever on the face of the planet, these were two of the biggest man made structures in the world! If it were officially a controlled demolition it would of been a record breaker and a monumental and painstaking task in itself. You could imagine how much extra hard work it would of been for demo contractors to set it all up. Still if it were a proper CD the buildings debris would of fallen with less damage to the other buildings, we know that CD would be careful enough not to even smash a window on another building if they could help it, yet we have material being ejected 60+ foot and then some so really it was pretty brutal and not CD. Building 7 however was much more like CD.




posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   
just to add i ran out of chars.

A small suspicion i have had is the government may not be involved or saying there were bombs because they actually do not know/understand or have the technology for such a device, and that a foriegn weapons development agency have developed something the US don't. Which may explain the hard press by US government to start their mini nuke development plan after 9/11 so they can catch up, which i found rather odd. Look at Israeli (now not so) secret nuclear site, where it has been revealed that they have been developing nuclear weapons and researching for many years, it was only leaked recently that such a site existed and the only reason it really came to public knowledge because the guy managed to get the evidence out before he was silenced. Perhaps its possible some high rollers or government organisation had contacts in the Mossad and brought them in to do the job since they could possess the technology.

pentagon wants mini nuke ban lifted:

www.guardian.co.uk...
www.newscientist.com...

Its funny but why lift a ban on something that does not exist, according to many skeptics on the forums. Also, why unban something if they have it already, albiet secret and illegal. Maybe they do, they just want it legalised, or there are tests they need to do which cannot go un-noticed any longer. I do not know. Mostly these mini nukes are assumed to be bunker busters but it usually involves a whole range of devices, as there are many different nuclear devices you may or may not of heard of. Just going off topic a little i read recently about the developments of new 'mini nuclear reactors'. Seems like mini nuclear things are all the rage! :-P

www.newscientist.com...

Perhaps in a way I am trying defend the US government, i find it hard to believe that they know the truth behind 9/11 and keeping silent without them having any other option but to do 9/11 for the sake of the country or its economy.

If any of the US government were involved I state again it must of been a really small number of them and it would of probably been a military like decision they had to make based on cold numbers, you know how it goes - do we sacrifice a few thousand civilians in an desperate yet elaborate plan to save/hotfix our economy, or take a risk and do nothing, let millions die from a huge stock crash pludging the country into an economic crisis from which point there would be nothing they could do. You know what they would do if they had no other choice. Its not really much different then sending our troops to war, they know some are going to die but its like there really isn't much choice, that is the consequence. Unfortunately we live in a world where decisions like this have to be made and people just can't handle this sort of decision so it gets made for them. You think they asked the public if it was okay to go to war? No, they just did it and put up with the protests because they believed they knew what was better. We did not get to where we are from being placid and weak. Also to add, 9/11 casualty numbers are nothing compared to the number of innocent Iraqis and other civilians that have felt the wrath of american military so in away US has gotten off pretty lightly so far.

But does the limited amount of casualties and target tell a story of US government planning? Surely if this was a pure terrorist campaign to enduce terror and fear, then perhaps they could of killed thousands more, and why the WTC? If they have the nuclear devices in question they could of easily put it in a highly populated public area and just let it go, rather than taking a risk at planting it in a building that has (at least) some security and hijacking planes etc. That doesn't entirely add up for me, unless they figured toppling the towers really would serve to smash the economy.

[edit on 22-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Going back to the nuke theory, somthing that does not entirely add up for me is
The directable effect - if they were set off in the basement and directed upwards, i find it quite hard to believe how accurate this effect was, and there was no visible effect on the floors below it. To me it seems like the collapse happens from the plane impact area which makes me feel like some sort of payload was on those planes.

Also the squibs don't totally make sense unless normal demo charges were used or a series of devices. Perhaps a small amount of tnt or c4 were used to back up the main bomb. Its hard to tell. It really bugs me that a crew were able to go into that building and spend much time setting it up with explosives, drilling and what not and getting away with it.

Perhaps it possible that a few small devices were placed on different floors rather than just the basement? They would have to be really really small yield devices if nuclear!

Also, what doesn't add up for me is the audio, it seems clear there is more than a few big booms which suggests multiple devices and its happening before the collapse and most likely it is coming from the basement. We don't see any effect to the outside of the building, except the smoke rising from the basement and it clearly looks like there is some sort of huge wave of destruction rolling down the building when the collapse begins a few moments after. Clearly something was happening in the basement before the demo wave began. Perhaps the core columns were getting knocked out then the nuke was set off. I still have a hunch that there may of been something on those planes, as this is where the demo wave appears to start. Its very clever however it was done, they were either the key to the op or the scapegoat. Otherwise these nukes are pretty damn accurate, it just seems if it was directed they were perhaps too accurate. The planes hit slightly different floors and we know the angles were different too. They would have to be directable and accurate to the exact floor? Doesn't seem to work for me. However, if they knew the planes would some how puncture the hermetically sealed inner chambers perhaps that would allow for the effect to travel upwards explode in the correct area but I doubt this also.

Initally when i first saw wtc collapse on tv back on 9/11 I thought the buildings must of been extremely weak and the architects should of been ashamed and pretty much embarrassed by their work, like the quality of concrete and structure was extremely poor and you wouldn't even of thought it had a steel core, not to mention how unsafe it must of been before, it looked like it could of been blown away in a heavy storm. It reminded me of a sand castle being kicked with great force, but i never fully realised the buildings had been burning for a whole hour before they collasped, you would of expected them to fall pretty soon after the initial collision. But as i discovered later it was a whole hour and the buildings stabilized well before the collapse. And looking into it further you see its that micron scaled devistation which is only possible from explosives like a nuclear weapon (albeit a small one) that have the amount of energy and force required which is tremendous, its the actual nature of the shockwave which is produced only by these bombs which can disassociate the molecules within the concrete. Which for me cannot be put down simply to building failure of any type or typical demolition, which leaves a much larger clumps of solids. The mechanism and energy required to initiate the whole thing just doesn't seem to be there without it.



[edit on 22-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Insolubrious
Going back to the nuke theory, somthing that does not entirely add up for me is
The directable effect - if they were set off in the basement and directed upwards, i find it quite hard to believe how accurate this effect was, and there was no visible effect on the floors below it.


It's hard for me to believe that they have directed h-bombs. Maybe they do, and it's not so hard as I'm thinking it would be, but I can't see how they could direct such a device. They could make them very small, though, and I'm thinking that that would be more possible.

It's also possible that such a device could be used higher up in some region of the core, or a couple places in the core, but not in the basements. After the 1993 bombing, there were apparently reports of molten concrete in the basement, though, which is ridiculous. If those sorts of reports are true, then I guess they could use such a device in the basements after all without immediate global destruction.


To me it seems like the collapse happens from the plane impact area which makes me feel like some sort of payload was on those planes.


A payload on the planes would be risky business, pretty sloppy imo, whereas the collapses were symmetrical as hell. I'm thinking more along the lines of the perimeter columns and trusses being disconnected via more mundane explosives or incendiaries, and then the cores following afterwards, possibly with pure h-bombs, and the foundations being disrupted similarly. If you watch the collapses on video, watch after the perimeter falls away, and you'll see sublimating material rocket out through the dust cloud a second or so afterwards from within. That suggests to me that the core destruction was lagging behind the perimeters (and maybe trusses too) being cut away.

And on that note, how many trusses have we seen at Ground Zero?

We see lots of perimeter columns, lots of core columns, even spandrel plates, and rebar at the bases of the towers, but where are ~108 floors of scores of trusses?



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

After the 1993 bombing, there were apparently reports of molten concrete in the basement, though, which is ridiculous. If those sorts of reports are true, then I guess they could use such a device in the basements after all without immediate global destruction.


yes I have heard these reports too which is rather bizzare, the plan in 93 was to damage the foundations in such a way as to topple the building and have it crash into its twin! Its a bit like the OKC bomb, that plan failed too but the devistation left was rather suspisious and some what reminiscent of some of the damage to the surrounding buildings of WTC. Its interesting that when the Oklahoma blast was investigated, it was supposed to be a ANFO bomb in a truck parked out side but as the investigation went on the estimate on the payload kept increasing and there were explosive experts who totally disagreed that it would be possible with this type of bomb, especially at the given range. The explosions signature heavily suggested it must of occured from within the building. Also, the amount of ANFO required would be too large to pack into the infamous ryder truck.



A payload on the planes would be risky business, pretty sloppy imo, whereas the collapses were symmetrical as hell. I'm thinking more along the lines of the perimeter columns and trusses being disconnected via more mundane explosives or incendiaries, and then the cores following afterwards, possibly with pure h-bombs, and the foundations being disrupted similarly. If you watch the collapses on video, watch after the perimeter falls away, and you'll see sublimating material rocket out through the dust cloud a second or so afterwards from within. That suggests to me that the core destruction was lagging behind the perimeters (and maybe trusses too) being cut away.


yes a fine point to be taken about the symmetry which would not ring true with the slightly chaotic placements of each plane. It was a very even distribution of explosive energy occuring all the way down so I guess your right there had to be something else at work.

Another thing that gets me is the 9/11 mysteries video, the two different reports of the 'construction' like sounds heard on different floors in the building and dust being found around the building, which does suggest some sort of building prep. was taking place. It certainly did not normal though. One of the witnesses said he could literally feel the building shaking as it sounded like really heavy equipment was being moved around and dumped, but when he went to investigate the floor that the sounds were coming from, nothing was there!

check it out in the video 9/11 mysteries:

video.google.com...

go to 1:20




And on that note, how many trusses have we seen at Ground Zero?

We see lots of perimeter columns, lots of core columns, even spandrel plates, and rebar at the bases of the towers, but where are ~108 floors of scores of trusses?


yes its so strange, one would never expect such a loss of material from a pancaked building. Perhaps it could mainly be explained with the pools of molten steel? When you see the thermal hotspots it seems like a rather large area. We know a good deal of it was removed from the scene almost straight away but I suppose it is possible some of the evaporated steels (which perhaps fused with other elements) were some how carried away by the massive dust cloud, one would assume the evaporated steel particles to be too heavy to travel far from the site but at that level of destruction and forces involved it hard to say and that may go to explain for some more of the loss. You would expect a steel beam that has been reduced to a molten fluid would take up very little physical space too. There seems to be no reports on the size and quantity of these molten pools in the basement but judging by the thermal imaging they were pretty big, it was like there were several large pond sized areas. I would expect most of that molten metal was produced by the central core though. Many of the solid members were hurtled over 60ft clear of the building too...

Oh and not to forget also in the 9/11 mysteries video toward the end they show us one huge 'asteroid' recovered from the site, a massive lump of concrete completely fused with steel!

video.google.com...

check out 1:15:57 (massive warped steel member) then 1:16 molten iron fused with concrete. Architect Bart Voorsanger states himself and other in the construction and demo business have never seen anything like it in their lives.





[edit on 22-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Bombs At WTC's Were Upside-Down Bunker Busters

Dear Insolubrious:

You’ve listed a number of relevant questions, I’ll try to address as many as I can, starting with the more important ones first.

1. If there had been planes (more on this next) with explosive payloads then why would the buildings have collapsed with a delay instead of right away?

2. I know, everyone thinks I’m crazy and disagrees with me on this one, but I insist — there were no planes at the WTC towers. Perhaps this will prove my point; a nine millimeter bullet from a handgun travels at a minimum speed of 670 miles per hour — faster than a commercial airliner. It will not, I repeat, it will not penetrate quarter inch thick steel. Yes bullets coming from assault rifles will go right through it, but they’re screaming in at speeds of over 1,800 miles per hour. Therefore, if a pistol bullet — which is much denser than an aluminum airplane — could not have plowed through the WTC perimeter columns or spandrels, why would it be reasonable to assume aircraft did so?

3. The towers collapsed from the top down because “directional” hydrogen bombs were used. The energy was projected forward in the shape of a flashlight beam. Essentially these were the same type of devices used in the latest version of our bunker buster bombs. In principle these were “upside-down” underground explosions. Being that these buildings were made primarily of concrete, gypsum, glass, aluminum and steel — the same substances found commonly in the earth’s crust. And yes, there was EMP. E. g. the two-way radios stopped working.

Bunker-buster bombs are now capable of “tunneling” through hundreds of feet of solid ground, mountain granite if necessary, and then once they reach their target can penetrate another say 30 feet (or more) thick steel-reinforced concrete bunker walls. They can only do this because the explosion is tightly focused into a narrow path.

4. Of course there were many other conventional detonations at the WTC prior to and during their collapse. But there is plenty of evidence, seismic and otherwise that there were some really BIG booms immediately proceeding the free fall destructions.

5. The perimeter columns were load bearing also, very much so actually. I cannot validate this — it’s outside of my scope of expertise — but I postulate that even without the core, those buildings would have stood. Akin to a hollowed and rotted out giant oak tree. Yes the 110 floors would have tilted, listed and partially collapsed inward — but the towers would have stood. In any tube or pipe, it’s the outside perimeter which gives the object its stiffness. E. g a piece of plain ol’ printing paper rolled in a circle will support the weight of an eight pound brick.

So, here’s what I’m getting at; the core was destroyed first (yes I’m aware of the spiral still standing but that was one out of 47 core columns). Everything inside those buildings was vaporized, starting at the top because of the shape of the hydrogen bomb yield (cone of neutrons). This includes all the lighter gauge steel floor trusses and highly sensitive-to-rapid-changes-in-temperature concrete. The perimeter columns had to be taken out with cutting charges — else “feathery pieces” of ¼” 14x14” steel box columns attached to their 52” wide steel spandrels would have been flying even more so — as lethal projectiles — than they did. These perimeter columns were mostly not sublimated like the core columns. They were strewn in “toothpick-fashion” in a radius of perhaps 300 around the WTC sites. They represent the majority of the debris seen in the 9-11 pictures.

Additionally, here are some recent posts of mine regarding the above discussion.

FURTHER COMMENTS ON WHY THERE WERE NO PLANES ON 9-11
All the following facts put together show, i.e. prove, that there either were no flights AA11, AA77, UA93 or UA175 on 911 or they didn’t crash at any of the official locations.

1. There are no FBI reports.
2. “The NTSB has chosen not to provide any information on the aircraft from 911 publicly.”
3. No parts traceable to those four planes were found anywhere, period. Please keep in mind that all important mechanical aircraft parts are numbered, all of them, always.
4. Two of the crash sites, Shanksville and the Pentagon don’t even show credible “phony” visual evidence of airplane impacts.
5. The video footage of the WTC airliner attacks resembles “cartoons”.
6. The perimeter walls of the WTC buildings were essentially ¼” thick steel walls. The enormously strong 14” welded box columns were spaced 39” on center which left only ca. 24” of open window space in-between. Vertically every eight feet there were “belts” of 52” wide ¼” steel plates fully encompassing the building. Anyone who thinks aluminum aircraft can penetrate ¼” stout steel has seen too many Steven Seagal movies.

Oh yes, sure the NSTB and the FBI will hem and haw, and give all kinds of excuses why they don’t have this and don’t have that. But considering of all the other oddities on 9-11 I don’t think it’s reasonable to accept their version of events.


And lastly, here is something I wrote on one of doctor fungi’s threads:

We Will Never Know "The Names" Of Those Responsible For 9-11

Dear doctor fungi:

Sounds like you want to hear some “names”. Well I don’t know anyone personally who is even remotely involved with the 9-11 events. I don’t associate with people of that “caliber”. I tend to mingle with nice people only. And those who arranged 9-11 definitely do not fall in that category. So sorry, I can only speculate who might have been involved.

It’s self-explanatory which top government officials might have had a hand in this. And as for the more “hands-on” participants, well their psychological profile is pretty clear also. They would be professionally trained killers. In principle we’ve got at least 1.1 million of them, they’re called “soldiers”. Theoretically, soldiers are trained to do one thing, kill. Why beat around the bush here. I know it sounds harsh, and there will be many “protests” but that’s the way it is. Obviously, most soldiers are decent human beings trying to do the “right thing” and would refuse many an order. But they’re not supposed to and might very well get in trouble for doing so. Since a solder NEVER gets punished for following commands from a superior officer, but by default gets penalized for denying directives, he or she will be strongly inclined to carryout the demands — whatever they may be.

The Stanley Milgram experiment of the early nineteen sixties provides further insight how people behave under authoritative pressures. But still, whoever was directly affiliated with the over-the-top 9-11 operations must have been “cold as marble” and very “fanatical”. Unfortunately these types do exist. And they have no conscience whatsoever. Which is why we should never expect anyone to “come forward” and fess up. Hell will freeze over and the devil will change his name before that ever happens.

Insolubrious, I’m not trying to be lazy here. I’m simply trying to pull together as many pertinent thoughts as possible. So that you don’t have to search all over the place.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



[edit on 11/22/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Nov, 22 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
first, agianst my better judgment, a comment on your comparison of aircraft and 9mm bullets in relation to speed.

it has to do with mass, and im sure you know/understand this so i wonder why you even made the comment but, in case im assuming, here goes

a 9mm pistol lead weighs very little really. few grams maybe? ive never weighed one but ive handled many. an airplane by comparison weighs a lot. which is going to do more damage to a wall? a vw bug doing 50mph or an 18 wheeler doing 50 mph.

now, as to the 'inverted bunker buster' can anyone explain why an exlosion that goes bottom to top causes a top to bottom collapse? im having some trouble with that one. ive never seen any other explosive work that way. just curious



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 03:42 AM
link   
Have you guys seen this article by Ed. Ward MD on the nukes?

He says all the first responder cancers point to nukes at the WTC.

The US Government's Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC
By Ed Ward, MD

www.thepriceofliberty.org...



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 07:39 AM
link   
Dear Damocles:

That’s an ominous username you got there, so I’ll be extra careful. First, let me thank you for your query. The point you’re bringing up about the minute mass of the bullet versus the massive airplane has got to be on just about everyone’s mind — so thanks for speaking up.

Allow me to begin with a common analogy. A competition soccer ball weighs about one pound. When kicked solidly it travels at ca. 55 miles per hour. It will not hurt you upon impact at most places on your body. You can have it bounce of your head and no permanent harm will come your way. In contrast, a one pound rock from an old-fashioned slingshot coming in at 20 miles per hour can kill you if it hits you in the noggin.

Yes mass matters. But the way the damage to the WTC towers was “presented” to us — i. e. holes in the facades — only density and velocity of the hypothetical projectile is relevant. And commercial airliners to not fit into this picture, their density and velocity are too low to have breached the perimeter wall. They would have been crushed immediately upon impact.

The designers of the towers were worried about them being “knocked over” by something, such as an airplane or a hurricane. Their “topple-proofness” is what they were talking about when they said the buildings could withstand those type of events. Surely they never spent much time discussing the scenario where planes actually “enter” the buildings, because as engineers they intuitively knew this wasn’t possible.

Hope this helps.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
As much as I have tried to ignore this thread since the theory behind it is completely baseless. However, some statements were made that I cannot let go.




2. “The NTSB has chosen not to provide any information on the aircraft from 911 publicly.”


Thats because the FBI is running the investigation and it is still considered open.




3. No parts traceable to those four planes were found anywhere, period. Please keep in mind that all important mechanical aircraft parts are numbered, all of them, always.


This is so wrong its laughable. However, many will take this seriously and use it to reinforce their own perceptions. EACH AND EVERY AIRLINER had serialized parts recovered from the respective crash sites. Everything from the data recorders to engine parts to cockpit instruments were recovered.




4. Two of the crash sites, Shanksville and the Pentagon don’t even show credible “phony” visual evidence of airplane impacts


Obviously someone thinks they are a trained crash investigator. BUT I guess the witness statements and debris photos hold no water for an internet trained investigator.




6. The perimeter walls of the WTC buildings were essentially ¼” thick steel walls. The enormously strong 14” welded box columns were spaced 39” on center which left only ca. 24” of open window space in-between. Vertically every eight feet there were “belts” of 52” wide ¼” steel plates fully encompassing the building. Anyone who thinks aluminum aircraft can penetrate ¼” stout steel has seen too many Steven Seagal movies


If you can, find a World War II vet who survived a kamikaze attack about this one. Japanese aluminum planes had NO problems penetrating STEEL HULLED warships. Hell in the right conditions (hurricane, tornado) STRAW can pierce trees.



And then there is this one....



He says all the first responder cancers point to nukes at the WTC


ANY use of nukes at that range would have caused IMMEDIATE deaths to many of those people who escaped the collapses. Quit reading internet BS and try learning some real facts about nuclear weapons.




The designers of the towers were worried about them being “knocked over” by something, such as an airplane or a hurricane. Their “topple-proofness” is what they were talking about when they said the buildings could withstand those type of events. Surely they never spent much time discussing the scenario where planes actually “enter” the buildings, because as engineers they intuitively knew this wasn’t possible.


Again, more ignorance............



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
As much as I have tried to ignore this thread since the theory behind it is completely baseless


Hey Swampfox, Do you think the micron scaled pulverisation of concrete and subliminating steel members could be caused by a natural gravity driven collapse or do you believe there maybe something more to this?

None of us can be 100% certain exactly which devices were used but a mini h-bomb or the likes just seems to fit the results and data much closer than many other theories, especially considering how easy they could be to deploy.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Thats because the FBI is running the investigation and it is still considered open.

EACH AND EVERY AIRLINER had serialized parts recovered from the respective crash sites. Everything from the data recorders to engine parts to cockpit instruments were recovered.

If you can, find a World War II vet who survived a kamikaze attack about this one. Japanese aluminum planes had NO problems penetrating STEEL HULLED warships.


Dear Swampfox46_1999:

Doesn’t it strike you just a little odd that there still are no FBI reports on any of these four “crashes”? I mean it’s been FIVE YEARS! That in itself is highly suspicious.

But the purported airliner crashes become even more questionable when:
a)NONE of the photographic records show any credible parts — whatsoever — relating to those commercial aircraft. If you have a picture, go ahead and post it. I’ll be glad to comment on it. All known visual documents have been dissected to the hilt by expert after expert. The legitimate ones all agree — what’s been found is bogus.

b) the displayed impact effects at Shanksville and the Pentagon are ridiculously unlike anything even remotely resembling a jetliner crash.

And lastly c) unless we are to rewrite the laws of physics, aluminum aircraft at the reported speeds could not have breached the steel perimeter columns at the WTC. I’m not even going to research the following, because I’m so certain of this; Japanese kamikaze planes never broke through the steel hulls of any warship ever unless they were carrying bombs. But then it would have been those explosive devices doing the damage. Obviously, when crashed on a ship’s surface of a ship these aircraft created major havoc among anyone on deck such as clusters of sailors manning gunning stations.

And about internet “bull-sh…aving cream”. Never before in human history has it been possible to get as close to the truth as now. If you know where to look. But if you are indeed only looking for cow manure to fertilize your garden with then go to the mainstream media. As they used to say in the former Soviet Union “there is no news in Pravda and no truth in Isvestia!”

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
also worth noting on the FBI most wanted list Bin Laden is public enemy no.1 however, they do not make any mentions to his involvement with sept. 11th !

www.fbi.gov...




MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

CAUTION

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.



I guess they still haven't made the connection with Osama (Usama) and the 9/11 attacks, funny that, I wonder why that is? No solid proof perhaps!

[edit on 23-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   


Doesn’t it strike you just a little odd that there still are no FBI reports on any of these four “crashes”? I mean it’s been FIVE YEARS! That in itself is highly suspicious.


No, just no reports that have been released to the public, and there is precedence for that. The full Pearl Harbor report wasnt released until after World War II.




a)NONE of the photographic records show any credible parts — whatsoever — relating to those commercial aircraft. If you have a picture, go ahead and post it. I’ll be glad to comment on it. All known visual documents have been dissected to the hilt by expert after expert.


As was explained once to me, an expert is either a) someone from out of town or b) a drip under pressure. I have 20 years in aviation and have dealt with 5 accident investigations, and ive examined plenty of the photos and have had no problems identifying airliner parts.




b) the displayed impact effects at Shanksville and the Pentagon are ridiculously unlike anything even remotely resembling a jetliner crash.


And you have investigated how many aircraft accidents?



And lastly c) unless we are to rewrite the laws of physics, aluminum aircraft at the reported speeds could not have breached the steel perimeter columns at the WTC.


Not familiar with mass and momentum amongst other things I see....



because I’m so certain of this; Japanese kamikaze planes never broke through the steel hulls of any warship ever unless they were carrying bombs


Choose to remain ignorant, thats okay.



posted on Nov, 23 2006 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Dear Swampfox46_1999:

Just to make sure this gets read I’ll re-post this link
www.physics911.net...

Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.

He seems rather knowledgeable on the subject of aircraft and also doesn’t think there were any plane crashes on 9-11. You’re more than encouraged to retort his findings with an expert of your own or directly yourself if you feel up to it.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Rebut a retired officer whose main arguments are:

1. They didnt let private investigators into the crash scenes
2. They didnt tell me what parts they found

Are you serious? The man is having a conniption because HE wasnt allowed to participate. Oh yeah, thats confirmation right there. The whole conspiracy must be true because Col Nelson didnt get to see the information...



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Dear Swampfox46_1999:

All of us are equally qualified to review photographs of 9-11 and draw our own conclusions. We don’t require any outside assistance to analyze the following pictures. All we need is a little “horse sense”.

Exhibit 1: Bird’s eye view of the Shanksville, PA “crash-site”


Exhibit 2: Recovery workers search the debris field near the Flight 93 crash site, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, September 12, 2001


Exhibit 3: Bird’s eye view of the Pentagon crash-site


Does anyone see any signs of the Boeings?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 11/24/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Not all crashed have an abundance of large pieces. ( Maybe they had hydrogen bombs on them)

911research.wtc7.net...
This shows SEVERAL pictures of several crashed where therer is minimal debris.

911review.com...
This shows an F-4D Phangom jet fighter jet into a 10-foot-thick concrete block at 480 mph.

Here are SEVERAL pictures of Aircraft Debris at the pentagon:
911review.com...
911review.com...
911review.com...
911review.com...
911review.com...

I guess this was all planted?



posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Wizard ...

Sorry But i have to pull the curtain on you. you claimed in a previous post:

"And lastly c) unless we are to rewrite the laws of physics, aluminum aircraft at the reported speeds could not have breached the steel perimeter columns at the WTC. I’m not even going to research the following, because I’m so certain of this; Japanese kamikaze planes never broke through the steel hulls of any warship ever unless they were carrying bombs. But then it would have been those explosive devices doing the damage. Obviously, when crashed on a ship’s surface of a ship these aircraft created major havoc among anyone on deck such as clusters of sailors manning gunning stations."
Well, this picture completly DEBUNKS your claim. Please take a peek at this one.
www.ww2incolor.com...


These are other.. but not as good as the above.
members.iinet.net.au...

upload.wikimedia.org...

The USS Essex (CV-9) was hit by Kamikazi and was damaged. But it was repairable damage.
But as you can see, the planes dont "bounce off"
en.wikipedia.org...:Essexfire.jpg



posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Swampfox46_1999:

All of us are equally qualified to review photographs of 9-11 and draw our own conclusions. We don’t require any outside assistance to analyze the following pictures. All we need is a little “horse sense”.

Exhibit 1: Bird’s eye view of the Shanksville, PA “crash-site”


Exhibit 2: Recovery workers search the debris field near the Flight 93 crash site, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, September 12, 2001


Exhibit 3: Bird’s eye view of the Pentagon crash-site


Does anyone see any signs of the Boeings?

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 11/24/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]


I have always found the crash sites very odd, it has always made me wonder if there were some type of device on board all of these planes. The plane at the Pentagon apparently 'vaporised' and look at Shanksville crash site, a hole in the ground and some smoke, v little in the way of plane debris. Totally unexpected for a plane crash, if it were to be expected no one would have a problem with it but many people do. We have all seen dozens of plane crashes but none like this. I have suggested devices on the planes a few times but whenever i do it is usually thrown back in my face but i still have suspisions regardless. Its possible that the Shanksville wreckage was additionally hit with a missile or something to destroy evidence before the investigation teams arrived.





For those of you who don't know those are contamination suits. I suppose one would gear up with this is there were some risk or danger of contamination. Is that common for investigators to wear at plane crash sites? I am unsure.

Pentagon was similiar:



High pressure water spraying for veichles at WTC, note the guy in the contamination suit present also. Really all the rescue workers should of been issued these suits too, more so than at the pentagon! Why weren't they?

www.interclean.com...



Not really incriminating evidence or anything but just something to consider.


[edit on 27-11-2006 by Insolubrious]



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join