9-11 simple facts

reply to post by fmcanarney


BTW, dont send me anymore messages asking about M-16 rifling. The topic is 9/11, not the pissing contest you tried to start.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Niobis

 

Absolutely NO evidence of CD present. NONE. Only misinformed individuals swallowing everything they hear on conspiracy sites.

Really? Well, I just went through them all on the thread I linked to earlier, please have a look. All characteristics of CD (except government documentation) are featured in all 3 WTC collapses.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Niobis]

reply to post by Niobis


No evidence, only supposition based on goofy theories. Oh wow that looks like a CD. Ive watched a couple buildings get imploded in person. Really didnt resemble what I saw with the towers. Nor did WTC 7, one of the videos taken that day shows it collapsing towards the tower rubble...not straight down.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Of course the Twin Towers' demolition doesn't resemble any other CD because we've never seen a CD from the top down. They were a first in CD history, but they still have ALL the characteristics of a CD, you can't deny that!

As for WTC7, you have to be closing your eyes! It completely collapsed in 6.5 seconds. Fire cannot and will not do that to a building.

I'd like to hear your explanation of the squibs on the upper floors of WTC7. There are 5 of them, and there was no fire in those floors.

Please post that video you mentioned because in all videos I've seen, it's falls straight down and very symmetrically.

www.youtube.com...

Hmm, those two look exactly the same!

Ya gotta love the video that people will post. One angle of WTC7 falling put next to a chosen angle of a controlled demo, smoke billowing from WTC and from a controlled demo. Big Freaking Deal! That video shows jack.

reply to post by Niobis


WTC 7 took a lot longer to collapse. According to seismograph readings about 18 seconds total. The internal structure started failing before there was any visual evidence the building was coming down. And btw, it wasnt just FIRE that caused the building to collapse, it was also the damage it suffered when WTC 1 clobbered it. How else do you think the fires got started in WTC 7 in the first place.

And I dont know how breaking windows and debris indicates squibs in the Twilight Zone, but here in the real world it does not. Not to mention, there wouldnt be squibs at the TOP of the building.

As for the evidence it collapsed towards the tower site go here...

www.debunking911.com...

Still working on finding the video, but that site has some stills that show a distinct angle to the collapse.

Originally posted by scotty18
Big Freaking Deal! That video shows jack.

Wow! I guess some people, like yourself, will deny all evidence and believe countless laws of physics and motion were violated on 9/11. What will it take for you to see the blatant similarities between acknowledged CD and WTC7's CD? Sorry to burst your bubble you live inside, but fire cannot cause buildings to collapse in 6.5 seconds. Even if we go by Swampfox's 18 seconds collapse, which is, for lack of a better word, BS-fire and gravity alone cannot account for the core column damage. The squibs in the upper floors, the experts that say it was a CD, the pyroclastic dust of pulverized concrete, the foreknowledge that the building would collapse, or the convenient 7-story rubble pile left over. Not to mention the molten steel found in the basement of WTC7.

WTC5 and 6 did not completely collapse even though they were closer to WTC1 and 2 and suffered a lot more damage than WTC7. Seems just a little odd, yes?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Not to mention, there wouldnt be squibs at the TOP of the building.

I think you need to research controlled demolitions a little more.

Wow! I guess some people, like yourself, will deny all evidence and believe countless laws of physics and motion were violated on 9/11. What will it take for you to see the blatant similarities between acknowledged CD and WTC7's CD? Sorry to burst your bubble you live inside, but fire cannot cause buildings to collapse in 6.5 seconds. Even if we go by Swampfox's 18 seconds collapse, which is, for lack of a better word, BS

ROTFLMAO....first you talk about him denying the evidence, and then you call the evidence BS.....

Textfire and gravity alone cannot account for the core column damage.

No, that would be from a large piece of WTC 1 carving through WTC 7

the foreknowledge that the building would collapse

Gee after watching two other buildings collapse, and seeing the bulges and damage to WTC 7.....yeah that would be a hard call to make.........

WTC5 and 6 did not completely collapse even though they were closer to WTC1 and 2 and suffered a lot more damage than WTC7. Seems just a little odd, yes

Not really, different construction, different damage pattern...and oh yeah, the collapse of the towers basically carved through those two buildings almost all the way to the ground.

Originally posted by Niobis


Wow! I guess some people, like yourself, will deny all evidence and believe countless laws of physics and motion were violated on 9/11. What will it take for you to see the blatant similarities between acknowledged CD and WTC7's CD? Sorry to burst your bubble you live inside, but fire cannot cause buildings to collapse in 6.5 seconds. Even if we go by Swampfox's 18 seconds collapse, which is, for lack of a better word, BS-fire and gravity alone cannot account for the core column damage. The squibs in the upper floors, the experts that say it was a CD, the pyroclastic dust of pulverized concrete, the foreknowledge that the building would collapse, or the convenient 7-story rubble pile left over. Not to mention the molten steel found in the basement of WTC7.

WTC5 and 6 did not completely collapse even though they were closer to WTC1 and 2 and suffered a lot more damage than WTC7. Seems just a little odd, yes?

Well swampfox, did a good job of blowing you out of the water but I will add an item or two that I am sure you will ignore as that seems to be part of your MO:

1) I coach college soccer and we had an exhibition match this past weekend. One goal looked like a nice near post shot from the angle we had on the bench...on video from a different angle you could see it was actually a far post shot that deflected. Cherry picking angles and videos to compare with proves nothing except that someone has the video skills to show people what they want them to see. Now if you show me video from various angles, compared to various CD's I would actual consider it.

2) The damage from fire and debris did not suddenly take the building down, it worked for hours. One of the big differences in WTC7 and 5 and 6 is that 7 had an atrium and thus fewer core columns, making it easier to collapse if one or two are heavily damaged.

Eagerly anticipating your next illogical, spinning answer.

My brain cannot comprehend you guy's ignorance to this building and what fire can and cannot do. I can sort of understand people's ignorance to the Twin Towers, but WTC7 is a oh-so obvious CD. No one should have to show comparisons. We've all seen CD since we were kids and WTC7 has all the similarities and all the characteristics of a CD. When has a building ever collapsed like WTC7, that wasn't a CD, before 9/11? Even in strong earthquakes we never see collapses like that. Only in CD!

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
first you talk about him denying the evidence, and then you call the evidence BS.....

Come on, show the evidence that WTC7 collapsed in 18 seconds. I can show videos, pictures, data and other conclusive evidence all day long showing it collapsed in 6.5 seconds.

By the way, I'm still waiting for that other video and your explanation of the five puffs of smoke, or squibs on the upper floors.

yeah that would be a hard call to make.........

Yes, it would unless someone planned to take it down. Seeing as how no other buildings in the surrounding area collapsed after 1 and 2.

No, that would be from a large piece of WTC 1 carving through WTC 7

oh yeah, the collapse of the towers basically carved through those two buildings almost all the way to the ground.

Almost all the way to ground. Wouldn't that weaken the buildings more making them more susceptible to complete collapse?

Originally posted by scotty18
Now if you show me video from various angles, compared to various CD's I would actual consider it.

Sure thing.
www.youtube.com...

Come on, show the evidence that WTC7 collapsed in 18 seconds. I can show videos, pictures, data and other conclusive evidence all day long showing it collapsed in 6.5 seconds.

The only data that would record the initial collapses would be the seismic data....and that data shows that from initial collapse to final...it was 18 seconds.

Which you will refuse to accept because YOU have videos.....of course those videos were taken from the side of WTC 7 opposite the damage. NONE of those videos are going to show what was going on inside WTC 7 as its structure failed.

By the way, I'm still waiting for that other video and your explanation of the five puffs of smoke, or squibs on the upper floors.

Those were the first outward signs that the structure of the building was failing.

Seeing as how no other buildings in the surrounding area collapsed after 1 and 2.

You cannot compare the buildings, they werent cookie cutter.....and none of the rest of them suffered the same damage to their structure as WTC 7 did. The design of WTC 7 greatly aided in its collapse.

Almost all the way to ground. Wouldn't that weaken the buildings more making them more susceptible to complete collapse?

No, because none of them had gaping holes at the bottom. The way that WTC 1 cut into 7 the damage got worse the lower it went in the building.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
The only data that would record the initial collapses would be the seismic data....and that data shows that from initial collapse to final...it was 18 seconds.

I asked to see it, not for you to tell me what it is. You've already told me that.

Those were the first outward signs that the structure of the building was failing.

Haha, okay. What caused the smoke? Do you have a comparison to show or anything that would prove that claim?

The way that WTC 1 cut into 7 the damage got worse the lower it went in the building.

Do you have any proof of this either?

Your words are not going to prove anything. You've got to show type of some evidence for these claims.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by Niobis]

My point from the whole 9/11 thing was what the government was saying to the media just hours after the event.

Here's a snap shot of CNN.com through the Internet Archive:

web.archive.org...


My favorite part is here:

Taliban diplomat condemns attacks

September 11, 2001 Posted: 2:04 PM EDT (1804 GMT) ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Afghanistan's Taliban ambassador to Pakistan has condemned the string of astonishing terrorist attacks on the United States. "We want to tell the American children that Afghanistan feels your pain. We hope the courts find justice," ambassador Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef said in a statement in Pakistan after America was hit by a series of attacks that have been called the worst since Pearl Harbor. U.S. President George W. Bush has said they were "terrorist attacks" and American officials say their "working assumption" is that the attacks in New York and Washington are acts of "overseas terrorism." They have added they cannot rule out additional attacks. Officials say they had no intelligence beforehand that a massive terrorist plot was under way. There have been a number of denials of responsibility by Palestinian groups and by the Al Quaida group headed by fugitive Saudi accused terrorist Osama bin Laden.
U.S. officials say they have no credible claim of responsibility.

Now these denial of responsibility say something to me. If you're trying to make a global statement through an act of terrorism wouldn't you want people to know it was you who had been so clever as to foil the Americans and deliver a crippling blow? So this initial report seems interesting.

Even AFTER US official reported NO credible claims of responsibility, and even Osama bin Laden denied involvement in the attacks..Although he praised the effort, it is my belief Osama bin Laden is NOT responsible for the attacks of September 11th 2001. He was blamed for it however, and the policy to remake and reform the Middle East was enacted...Funny thing is, on the FBIs most wanted list Osama bin Laden listing does NOT include the 9/11 attacks, and there is actually very little evidence Osama bin Laden had anything to do with this.

www.fbi.gov...
From FBI.gov

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.

September 11th, the biggest and most destructive terrorist attack in known history, is not mentioned? Why?


Now here is a counter point claim for what I just reported. Mind you the CNN article from a few hours after the attacks has bin Laden denying responsibility, the article from the Washington Post claims bin Laden has "Proudly claimed responsibility" and that "Exhaustive government and independent investigations have concluded otherwise" in respect to charges filed against Osama bi Laden:

www.washingtonpost.com...

Now here's a Grand Jury Indictment mentioning Osama bin Laden...From October of 2005!!!

If they were so sure about the intelligence linking bin Laden to 9/11 why did they wait FOUR YEARS to file an official indictment even mentioning him? Where was this initial evidence, and how did it appear? How did the Justice department produce enough information 4 years after the fact? Had the evidence or lack thereof been influenced by the Administrations propaganda machine?

www.usdoj.gov...

This however does NOT indict Osama bin Laden. Matter of fact, when you do a DOJ search you can find several people linked to bin Laden that have been charged with crimes, however bin Laden himself seems to be lacking any file bearing his name, and his name only.

Here's a CNN article(Sourced from CNNs Archive)

archives.cnn.com...

This is another reiteration of Osama bin Laden AGAIN denying responsibility for the attacks on September 17, 2001
archives.cnn.com...

DOHA, Qatar (CNN) -- Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

In a statement issued to the Arabic satellite channel Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, bin Laden said, "The U.S. government has consistently blamed me for being behind every occasion its enemies attack it.

"I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons," bin Laden's statement said.

"I have been living in the Islamic emirate of Afghanistan and following its leaders' rules. The current leader does not allow me to exercise such operations," bin Laden said

And another from the AP through the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on September 16, 2001

www2.jsonline.com...

There are slight variations in translation which I believe are important to note as this helps us get to the bottom of this.

Dubai, United Arab Emirates - Osama bin Laden, the prime suspect, issued a statement Sunday denying that he was behind last week's terror attacks on the United States.

"I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation," said the statement, broadcast by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel.

In the statement, read out by an Al-Jazeera announcer, bin Laden said that he was used to the United States accusing him every time "its many enemies strike at it."

Bin Laden, a Saudi exile who has lived in Afghanistan since 1996, has said on at least one other occasion that he wasn't behind the attacks. Jamal Ismail, a Palestinian journalist, has said a bin Laden aide called him after Tuesday's attack to say bin Laden denied being involved but "thanked almighty Allah and bowed before him when he heard this news."

Now alot of 9/11 truthers go out of their way to make stuff up..So you have to be careful what kind of crap you get involved in. Being misinformed is worse than being uninformed. It isn't easy to do this kind of comparative research. But once you get through the head ache of reading page after page of archives and government reports things start to pop out at you.

Keep seeking the truth.


[edit on 19-8-2008 by projectvxn]

reply to post by projectvxn


Now thats what I call doing research great fine.

I think it will be hard for Government believers to slam you on this one.

Please watch this video closely. And watch the whole thing.

It might clarify the connections of people involved with 9/11 and their motives.

vids.myspace.com...

Originally posted by Niobis

Originally posted by scotty18
Now if you show me video from various angles, compared to various CD's I would actual consider it.

Sure thing.
www.youtube.com...

Now that was better, not sure why you would post the other video first. I looked at it and I noted two major things:

1) Except for the angle in your previous post every angle of WTC7 is obscured by smoke so you can't see the whole or even most of the building from the various sides. Thus you can't make any definite claims.

2) In every CD in the video the middle of the buildings clearly goes down first, but not in WTC7.

Originally posted by scotty18
2) In every CD in the video the middle of the buildings clearly goes down first, but not in WTC7.

I've viewed a number of WTC7 collapse videos and what I see is the centre of the building dropping first (watch the penthouses). It takes the rest of the building with it so it comes down with generally the same relationship across the top as was established approx 1 second into the main collapse with a 'kink' slightly left of centre.

Originally posted by Pilgrum

Originally posted by scotty18
2) In every CD in the video the middle of the buildings clearly goes down first, but not in WTC7.

I've viewed a number of WTC7 collapse videos and what I see is the centre of the building dropping first (watch the penthouses). It takes the rest of the building with it so it comes down with generally the same relationship across the top as was established approx 1 second into the main collapse with a 'kink' slightly left of centre.

Perhaps a bit, but not even close to the CD's shown in that video he posted.

reply to post by scotty18


I know what you mean - in CDs you normally see the centre falling pulling the outer walls in. In WTC7 it appears the upper steelwork was still intact allowing the building to (generally) hold its shape as it fell indicating all the action was taking place progressively at the base of the building.

reply to post by cashlink

That was just an hour and a half of looking. If I can find such discrepancies so quickly imagine what a real investigation would net.

Now, all this said, I have no idea if it was an inside job or not. But there are too many sobering realities that certainly do point in that direction.