Originally posted by ULTIMA1
As for the WTC most of the planes fuel was burned up in the intial explosion outside the building, what was left burned off quickly. ( please check the NIST and FEMA reports)

Yep. And what people fail to realize is the towers DID stand up to the jet fuel, the fires, and the impact.

The towers didn't collapse when the planes hit, therefore, they accomplished what they were built to do and tested to do, which was stand up to an aircraft impact.

The towers didn't collapse in the massive explosion during the impact that took up most of the jet fuel, therefore, they stood up to the fire.

The towers didn't collapse due to the jet fuel, because as I just said, most of it was taken up in the initial explosion, therefore, it stood up to the heavy amounts of jet fuel.

So if it was a combination of all three, the best possible time for it to collapse because of all three would be on impact or very very shortly thereafter. But that's not what we saw.

Also, these people that claim that it was some raging inferno there in the towers even up until the time of the collapse, for one, fail to provide pictures of this raging inferno. They simply just assume it happened. And two, can't explain why there's no "raging inferno" at the crash sites of Flight 93 and Flight 77 immediately after those impacts, but the ones in the Twin Towers lasted at least an hour.

Originally posted by Leo Strauss

Originally posted by seanm

Another 9/11 Denier who can't comprehend the written word. How many times do I have to repeat the fact that there is no such thing as an "official story?" Does it have to be spoon fed to you over and over?

I don't particularly like the 9-11 truther label. I am a skeptic of the official government story!

LOL. You just revealed yourself as a devoted member of The Church of 9/11 Truth who can't possibly give up his religious beliefs of some mystical "official story." You just believe whatever 9/11 Deniers tell you without thinking.

Wake up, man. There is only the evidence from hundreds of independent sources.

Now you're sounding hysterical! There is an official story it's called the 9/11 Comission Report! Ever read that Sean?

Yes, I have. Obviously you haven't since you don't know the scope of it's investigation. Neither do you understand how the term "official story" is used by 9/11 Deniers like Ultima1, Craig Ranke, and the rest of the 9/11 Denial Movement.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
Yep. And what people fail to realize is the towers DID stand up to the jet fuel, the fires, and the impact.

I have a video from a blind surviver. he was in the North tower on the 78th floor. When the plane hit he said the building moved about 20 feet towards the South tower and slowly came back .(the buildings were made to move to survive high wind loads)

Stonger loads then what the planes impacts were.


[edit on 13-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
Now you're sounding hysterical! There is an official story it's called the 9/11 Comission Report! Ever read that Sean?

I have read it, and it raises more questions then it answers. It does not even mention builidng 7.

That was another dumb move on your part Ultima1 revealing you haven't read the report.

Also even some of the people on the 9/11 commission stated they did not have enough time or money to do a proper investigation.

Entirely immaterial to the investigation of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

I guess I'm dealing with a bunch of newbies here.

Originally posted by seanm
That was another dumb move on your part Ultima1 revealing you haven't read the report.

Entirely immaterial to the investigation of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

I guess I'm dealing with a bunch of newbies here.

So i guess you can prove i did not read it... I can quote a lot of parts from it, can you?

You are the 1 who brought up the 9/11 commission report. Now when someone uses it against you, you say its not important.

Oh again with the name calling. I guess since you cannot up with facts or evidence to debate with you have to resort to name calling.

I am still waiting for the evidence you stated you have.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Lets see how many people would have to be involved?

every passenger on board the planes, whether they were willing or not.

The people that killed or are detaining said passengers

Whom ever ran around spreading airplane parts and breaking off light poles.

The expansive demo teams that planted thermite explosives.

The hologram operators, and sound effect crew.

The 9/11 commision.

The pilots via the undisclosed remote control locations.

The script writers and communication fabricators for the recorded radio communications, and air phone converstations with loved ones.

And as I write this these theroys get even more outlandish.

Originally posted by wsamplet
every passenger on board the planes, whether they were willing or not.

They'd have knowledge of it how?

Desperate much?

Originally posted by wsamplet
The people that killed or are detaining said passengers

The plane crashes did.

Originally posted by wsamplet
Whom ever ran around spreading airplane parts and breaking off light poles.

No one credible is saying someone did do that.

Again, desperate much?

Originally posted by wsamplet
The expansive demo teams that planted thermite explosives.

Could have been planted by a few people during construction, or could have been a private contractor team who would keep their mouth shut for the right price.

Originally posted by wsamplet
The hologram operators, and sound effect crew.

You're only taking the most ridiculous of the theories to make a weak point.

Once again - desperate much?

Originally posted by wsamplet
The 9/11 commision.

Nope, they were just interfered with.

Let me ask you - why didn't Bush and Cheney go under oath, and why didn't they give separate testimonies, if they had nothing to hide?

Originally posted by wsamplet
The pilots via the undisclosed remote control locations.

Yeah - rounding up four people to do that is tough. I see your point.

Originally posted by wsamplet
The script writers and communication fabricators for the recorded radio communications, and air phone converstations with loved ones.

"with loved ones", good way to put an emotional touch on it to try and make these theories seem ridiculous, rather than just trying to address them with facts.

It wouldn't take a lot of people to do that, ya know. And the technology exists.

Do some research.

Originally posted by wsamplet
And as I write this these theroys get even more outlandish.

And as I write this, people like you get even more ignorant.

Deny ignorance, my friend. Don't embrace it.

Originally posted by wsamplet
Lets see how many people would have to be involved?

every passenger on board the planes, whether they were willing or not.

The people that killed or are detaining said passengers

Whom ever ran around spreading airplane parts and breaking off light poles.

The expansive demo teams that planted thermite explosives.

The hologram operators, and sound effect crew.

The 9/11 commision.

The pilots via the undisclosed remote control locations.

The script writers and communication fabricators for the recorded radio communications, and air phone converstations with loved ones.

And as I write this these theroys get even more outlandish.

1. Please explain to me why the passengers would have to be involved, they are dead. Unless your stating the the DNA on all the passengers was faked?

2. Are you saying the FAA documents are wrong and the planes are still around?

3. Please explain how the 9/11 commission were involved, unless you mean they only wrote what they were told to write.

I am sorry you took my post so personel. I would point out to you that I did not call you outlandish, just the theroys, however you attack me and call me ignorant.

I was posting on topic, I never said that the passengers would have fore knowledge, merely that once they were on board they were involved, whether they liked it or not. You sound as if I implied it would require an abundance of people when I did not. I did not put a number on how many people would be involved. For example if you feel it would only take 4 people to remote control the planes then lets start there and debate it.

For instance, I would ask you why you say 4 people to remote control the airliners?

originally posted by MOD.

The towers didn't collapse in the massive explosion during the impact that took up most of the jet fuel, therefore, they stood up to the fire.

So, if I go into my office on Monday morning and dump jet fuel all over the computers and desks and filing cabinets, the fire that it causes will extinguish itself in a matter of minutes?

While I'm at it, I better stop by the construction site of that steel frame building that is on my way to work and tell the engineers that they don't have to fireproof all the steel and that they can also probably scrap the sprinkler system.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by seanm
This is one of the dirty little secrets 9/11 Truthers are unable to address.

It's been addressed, you just fail to recognize it. Many people, just like ULTIMA1 said, have brought up that 19 men where supposedly able to do it - so why would it take thousands if it was an inside job?

Sigh... another one with reading comprehension problems. Try again.

I'd like to see proof that it would take thousands. Do you have it?

You forgot, it's up to 9/11 Truthers to demonstrate how it could have happened and how thousands of witnesses who had first-hand knowledge of what happened haven't outed the government.

You people that believe 9/11 couldn't have possibly been an inside job always have your hand out for proof, it's always given to you, it's always proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and you continue to cover your eyes and cover your ears and pretend it's not there, all while not providing any evidence or research of your own to back up your claims.

You must be new at this. In the six years since 9/11, not one person has presented any evidence that hasn't been refuted, much less presenting the massive necessary to refute the overwhelming evidence against you. You must think rational people are idiots to try to foist that nonsense on us.

The only thing you have as "evidence" is what government agencies claim happened, and you're not even quick enough to realize the same people feeding you this BS would be the same ones covering an event like this up.

Indeed, you are a true 9/11 Denier. To make such a ridiculous claim in the face of thousands of non-government witnesses and investigations consisting of predominately non-government structural engineers, physicists, chemists, architects, and forensic scientists means you don't have a clue what you are talking about. You don't even understand that the evidence of what happened on 9/11 never came from the government to begin with. You don't even know that the evidence, methodologies, and conclusions of the investigations like NIST are fully open to everyone and that any expert in the relevant fields the world over could tear those investigations apart if there were reason to.

Get real, man.

Originally posted by seanm
Not only would it require a substantial number of people to be involved in all of the pre-event activities required for a plan to be pulled off

Proof?

Demonstrate otherwise if you are so convinced. I gave you my examples.

Originally posted by seanm
planting explosives in the WTC towers

And what if they were planted during the construction?

40 years ago?!! Now, that is REAL planning ahead!

Even if they weren't, private contractors like Blackwater have been caught killing our troops over in Iraq. I doubt they'd have a problem with planting explosives in the Twin Towers if the price was right.

Ah, yes, speculate wildly and dispense with the necessity of presenting any evidence. Classic 9/11 denial.

Originally posted by seanm
getting NORAD to "stand-down"

Cheney could easily get that done. Who would question him? Who would speak out? Do you realize how easily the President/Vice President could get someone taken out for speaking out?

You mean several hundred, right? Just a slip of your tongue, I guess.

Originally posted by seanm
planning what to do with aircraft and their passengers that "didn't" hit the Pentagon,

And now you're bringing in aspects still being discussed and implying that the "truth movement" accepts this as 100% truth, all to make your weak point, if you have one at all.

Yup, I knew it. Classic 9/11 Denial. The same thing was said in 2002. You ARE a newbie at this.

I LOVE no-planers. "It is definite that AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon but it's not fair to ask us what happened to it." Sorry, but I have heard every excuse in the world to avoid your responsibility.

Stick to the more concrete things. Stop ignoring the tougher aspects of 9/11.

There is no question at all that I am definitely focusing on the concrete by showing that 9/11 Truthers do not have a clue that they have no evidence to back them up. I'm sorry, but the truth requires that we be really tough on you 9/11 Deniers.

Mod Edit: BB Code.

[edit on 14/10/2007 by Mirthful Me]

originally posted by Ultima 1
2. Are you saying the FAA documents are wrong and the planes are still around?

Would you mind elaborating a little farther? What FAA documents are you talking about.

You truthers really do yourselves a diservice by not having one common theroy. You contridict each others so called research at every turn.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by wsamplet
Lets see how many people would have to be involved?

every passenger on board the planes, whether they were willing or not.

The people that killed or are detaining said passengers

Whom ever ran around spreading airplane parts and breaking off light poles.

The expansive demo teams that planted thermite explosives.

The hologram operators, and sound effect crew.

The 9/11 commision.

The pilots via the undisclosed remote control locations.

The script writers and communication fabricators for the recorded radio communications, and air phone converstations with loved ones.

And as I write this these theroys get even more outlandish.

1. Please explain to me why the passengers would have to be involved, they are dead. Unless your stating the the DNA on all the passengers was faked?

2. Are you saying the FAA documents are wrong and the planes are still around?

3. Please explain how the 9/11 commission were involved, unless you mean they only wrote what they were told to write.

Sounds like Ultima1 just gave up the church. Could you possibly be seeing the error of your ways?

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi


there would be a far greater number of people having no prior knowledge of the plan who would have known that the explanations of what happened AFTER the events didn't jive with what they knew.

What?

Actual witnesses to what happened would know if the government were lying about what they witnessed, wouldn't they?

Originally posted by seanm
Add to that the many hundreds of non-government investigators and forensic scientists who would have had to either lie or be threatened to put out what would have to be false reports from NIST, FEMA, and ASCE.

First - how do you know they weren't threatened?

I have no reason in the world to think so. I mean, why would independent investigators sign up to begin with? Of course, if you have evidence that any of those many hundreds of investigators were made to shut up so successfully just like the 8,000 people at the Pentagon ULTIMA1 claims the government threated, please don't keep us in suspense!

Second - a lot of the evidence was taken away before they could see it.

False. That was debunked in 2002. Look it up. Do your homework.

Originally posted by seanm
Necessarily, thousands of people would know of either the plan in advance and/ or that the the explanations post-event didn't jive with what they personally knew.

You seem to think our government can't keep a secret.

The government keeps a lot of secrets. But as long as you cling to the illusion that thousands of non-government citizens who witnessed all aspects of the events THEMSELVES and could contradict the government at any time but HAVEN'T; that they could be silenced when the government has no clue who they may be, then you are in bigger trouble than I thought.

Many people would know that Iraq didn't really have weapons of mass destruction right before we invaded, but that still went ahead without leaks, and continued for a while before it was concluded that the intelligence reports were false.

False analogy. Most every European nation and the UN believed Saddam had the capability. DO read the UN documents in case you forgot. And it is irrelevant to the discussion anyway.

Originally posted by seanm
The peculiar notion by 9/11 conspiracy buffs that such an event could be planned, executed successfully, and covered-up is far beyond absurd and irrational.

Yet these "cave dwellers", as people like you call them, ...

Only you 9/11 Deniers call them "cave dwellers," The rest of us know them them as educated people with great financial resources at the time. Of course, your 9/11 Denial Movement has to demean them to make their "official 9/11 conspiracy story" sound more plausible.

...with their allegedly poor weapons training and poor technology compared to the "greatest country in the world" could do it, but our government couldn't.

Is that right?

Great logic.

Your logic is indeed very poor. Which is why you are a 9/11 Denier.

Originally posted by seanm
That's why the 9/11 Truth Movement is known by its proper name: the The 9/11 Denial Movement.

Good one. Take you a while to come up with that?

It's actually been the proper term since 2002. Obviously, you really are a newbie at this since nobody outside of your "movement" uses the term "Truth" Movement anymore.

DO catch up.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by seanm
That was another dumb move on your part Ultima1 revealing you haven't read the report.

Entirely immaterial to the investigation of AA77 hitting the Pentagon.

I guess I'm dealing with a bunch of newbies here.

So i guess you can prove i did not read it... I can quote a lot of parts from it, can you?

Then do you have a poor memory about WTC 7? Did you forget that the 9/11 Commission was not charged with investigating the collapses?

You are the 1 who brought up the 9/11 commission report. Now when someone uses it against you, you say its not important.

False. I never brought it up.

Oh again with the name calling. I guess since you cannot up with facts or evidence to debate with you have to resort to name calling.

If you will stop insulting my intelligence and address the questions you keep evading, then you will have earned a modicum of respect.

The expansive demo teams that planted thermite explosives.

Could have been planted by a few people during construction, or could have been a private contractor team who would keep their mouth shut for the right price.

How irrational does one have to be to entertain the thought that those who built the WTC towers from 1966-1971 had the foresight and the vision to plant explosives that would be set off at the exact locations two aircraft not even on the drawing boards at the time would hit so precisely 30 years later?

Originally posted by Boone 870
Would you mind elaborating a little farther? What FAA documents are you talking about.

The FAA registations of course. the ones that state either the planes were destoyed or the registrations were cancelled.

Originally posted by wsamplet

Sounds like Ultima1 just gave up the church. Could you possibly be seeing the error of your ways?

No just showing how there is still no proof it would have taken a lot of people for an inside job.

Originally posted by seanm

Then do you have a poor memory about WTC 7? Did you forget that the 9/11 Commission was not charged with investigating the collapses?

If you will stop insulting my intelligence and address the questions you keep evading, then you will have earned a modicum of respect.

1. Then please tell me what was the 9/11 commision was supposed to investigate, because they talk about the towers collapse.

2. Your a good one to talk about earning respect, when you insult people about providing evidence but you will not provide any.

I am still waiting for you to show any kind of evidence.




[edit on 13-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by wsamplet
For instance, I would ask you why you say 4 people to remote control the airliners?

Because there were four planes