Questions for 9/11 Debunkers Re: Twin Towers' Destruction.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Hey, regardless if you wish to believe it or not I do belong to what is considered the "Tin Foil Hat" club. Heck technically to the rest of the world I am just as much a "truther" as you are. As I have stated before I do believe the government is duplicent. I just do not believe that duplicity is to be found in how the buildings fell down IE the mechanics of the collapse. Well, that is not completely true. As I believe the designs were flawed and secondly maybe, possibly, most likely corners were cut in construction as can and does happen.

Which is, incidently, part of the reason why I said you were jumping to conclusions and concentrating more on attacking me than what I was saying. Cointelpro? Hardly.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Well it's not about you, or me, but the truth, and proof of controlled demolition is, as the other poster pointed out, plainly obvious, and it's the physical reality which people will look back on, and go "WTF?"

reply to post by OmegaPoint


You see. I disagree with the "plainly obvious" part obviously . Particularly when you refer to CD. And maybe if you spent less time bombing on me and disregarding anything I say as disinformation or whatever else you could think of. You would at least understand where I am coming from. But I am not holding my breath.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Forgive me if this sounds cold, but who cares what YOU think.

The only thing that will matter in the final analysis, is what History will think of it, looking back, and forward.

reply to post by OmegaPoint


That sword cuts both ways. And YOU definantly seem to care. But you are now deflecting from the basic premise of the fact that you do not understand my stance because you do not wish to.



[edit on 3-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by OmegaPoint

 

That sword cuts both ways.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2e314514bf87.jpg[/atsimg]


Actually, if the sword can be likened to Occam's Razor, then within the context of all evidence, observable phenomenon and all available information, it slices in one direction only.

In fact the sword of truth when wielded properly, can perform miraculous feats, and save history from the condemnation of repeating it's worst mistakes.

Yours is a useless and ineffectual sword and one you wear just for show..

[edit on 3-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


No, this is what I was talking about.

but who cares what YOU think.

You see that is part of my problem with you. You seemingly subconsciously twist my statements *Unless of course you think you can read my mind in which I assure you are very much mistaken.* despite the fact it should be painfully obvious that was not what I was talking about. Introducing whole stacks of information despite the fact it does not fit into the context of what I am saying. It seems that I could, for example, "I don't like fish." and next thing I know you will be launching into a great rant how I hate the ocean.



[edit on 3-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


No, I'm saying that your protestations and attempts to divert attention away from the obvious, have become completely irrelevant, and are no longer even contributing to this thread or this debate. And, that YOU take yourself way too seriously.

If you would like to unmask and unveil your credentials or something, then maybe that might be different, but as it sits, you've pretty much demonstrated that you are not to be taken seriously.

Anway, this is not a chat session, but perhaps the most important and crucial issue in modern history, and angling for a limited hangout for the perps based on gross negligence, does neither the truth, history nor the victims any justice, because that's just not the truth or the reality.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Yet the name of the thread was what again? I think I will go ahead and call my earlier suspisions confirmed and take my leave. Go ahead and enjoy your ego-masterbation session. Seeing as to how any serious debate will get filed away like it has been because you will only see what you want to see. Good day.
But do feel free to say whatever else you will say to make yourself feel better and to further demean me. Not that you need my permission anyway.

[edit on 3-10-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by esdad71
reply to post by CaptainAmerica2012

 

So you are saying that CDI bought down the WTC?

I don't know what captain america is saying, but CDI did do the clean up for the world trade center.

They do a lot of work for the pentagon. This is all public knowledge on their site.

Peace

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Well it's not about you, or me, but the truth, and proof of controlled demolition is, as the other poster pointed out, plainly obvious, and it's the physical reality which people will look back on, and go "WTF?"

woa woa woa, i never said that it was obvious it was a "controlled demolition", only that it was obvious the buildings exploded and did not merely collapse.

I don't claim to know exactly what happened or how it happened; but for me personally, it appears that the buildings were "blown up" in a manner that is not described in the 9-11 commission report and is not addressed in the pancake collapse theory. The 48 concrete reinforced heavy steel core columns are also completely ignored in the pancake collapse theory . . .

Standard "controlled" demolitions are not that powerful. The amount of force that was exerted outward from the core of the building was so great that i do not believe it could have been the result of dynamite or jet fuel. certainly not jet fuel because jet fuel bursts into flames and doesn't actually "explode" with that type of force . . . (last i checked . . .)

i'm still trying to figure out what happened.

[edit on 10/3/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


You'll note that I did make you one of my friends again. This is not personal W.I.T.S., please don't construe our debate as an attempt by me to malign you personally, or make you look bad. I love all people, and from our U2U's I detect some authentic mirth and compassion in you. And you arrived at your conclusion about the collapse initation hypothesis and progressive pancaking collapse theory long ago, and of course you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe. I would point out though, that to correctly evaluate something, you must have the capacity to look at the same problem from other perspectives, and, well, based on the evidence presented so far here in this thread, there is an overwhelming amount of self explanatory evidence in diametric opposition to the position you've chosen. So it's really the evidence, which speaks for itself, and it's really not about you or me at all. Sorry I'm sorry that you've taken offense. You must admit that you HAVE been very annoying in the tone of some of your responses..

Anyway, peace and love,

OmegaPoint

Introducing - Chief 9/11 Master Mythmaker, Philip D. Zelikow. Bush Appointed Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission.

The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.'

Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

If 9/11 was nothing but a huge HOAX, you would naturally expect that the event itself would have to be perfectly scripted.

In 1998, Zelikow actually wrote Catastrophic Terrorism about imagining "the transformative event" three years before 9/11.

Here are Zelikow's 1998 words. Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination.

An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.

Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after."

Philip D. Zelikow

www.ksg.harvard.edu...

And here he is, pre-9/11, our chief mythmaker and history bender, in action.



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9d8173d55208.jpg[/atsimg]
Philip D. Zelikow
Executive Director

Philip Zelikow is the executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, better known as the "9/11 Commission." He is also the director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. After serving in government with the Navy, the State Department, and the National Security Council, he taught at Harvard before assuming his present post in Virginia to direct the nation's largest research center on the American presidency. He was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and served as executive director of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former Presidents Carter and Ford, as well as the executive director of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Zelikow's books include The Kennedy Tapes (with Ernest May), Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (with Condoleezza Rice), and the rewritten Essence of Decision (with Graham Allison). Zelikow has also been the director of the Aspen Strategy Group, a policy program of the Aspen Institute.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States

govinfo.library.unt.edu...

Members
The members of the commission were:

Philip D. Zelikow, Executive Director/Chair

Thomas Kean (Chairman) - Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana
Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
Max Cleland - Democrat, former U.S. Senator from Georgia. Resigned December 2003, stating that the "the White House has played cover-up"[7]
Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
Slade Gorton - Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska
John F. Lehman - Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana
James R. Thompson - Republican, former Governor of Illinois
The members of the commission's staff included:

Christopher Kojm, Deputy Executive Director
Daniel Marcus, General Counsel
John J. Farmer, Senior Counsel
Janice Kephart, Counsel
Alvin S. Felzenberg, Spokesman[8]
President Bush had initially appointed former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to head the commission, but he withdrew shortly afterward because he would have been obliged to disclose the clients of his private consulting business.[9]

en.wikipedia.org...

ZELIKOW’S CONFLICT OF INTERESTS

A Partial Chronology Of Zelikow’s Ties To The Bush Administration:

1989-91: Zelikow works closely with Condoleezza Rice as part of the National Security Council during George Bush Sr’s Administration.

1995: Zelikow & Rice write a book together.

1996-98: Zelikow & Rice are together again when Zelikow is Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, a Zionist foreign-policy strategy “think tank.” Rice, along with Dick Cheney & Paul Wolfowitz, are also members.

2000: Zelikow & Rice are reunited when Bush names Zelikow to his transition team for the National Security Council.

2000: Zelikow is briefed by former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke about the growing al-Qaida threat.

2001: Zelikow is appointed by Bush to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

2003: Zelikow is appointed Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Thus it is no different than if Rice or Cheney had been running the Commission.

2004: Zelikow skews the investigation by deciding which topics would be investigated and which ones not. Bush’s comic book line for the motive behind 9-11 is taken by Zelikow: “Al Qaida hates our freedom.”

2004: Zelikow is secretly in contact with President Bush’s close adviser Karl Rove while the “independent” Commission is completing its report finalized on July 22 2004.


-------------------------------------

“Why was Philip Zelikow appointed as Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission?

Zelikow, with his close ties to Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, & President George Bush, could not conduct an unbiased investigation as Director of the Commission.

In his new book, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9-11 Investigation, Philip Shenon wrote:

“The appointment of Zelikow to head the inquiry into America’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks was akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.”

The Family Steering Committee for the 9-11 Commission repeatedly called for Philip Zelikow’s resignation. The families, citing Zelikow’s close connections to the Bush Administration, were concerned that Zelikow’s appointment made a mockery of the idea that the Commission was “independent.” But the Bush Administration ignored their complaint.

Philip D. Zelikow says: .."An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime, and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged, as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force.

More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible, like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after," our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently."

www.hks.harvard.edu...

Originally posted by FewWorldOrder
And who else was a member of that "Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group"?

From the OP's link:
www.hks.harvard.edu...

Graham T. Allison, Jr.

Zoe Baird

Vic DeMarines

Robert Gates

Jamie Gorelick

Robert Hermann

Philip Heyman

Fred Ikle

Elaine Kamarck

Ernest May

Matthew Meselson

Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

William J. Perry

Larry Potts

Fred Schauer

J. Terry Scott

Jack Sheehan

Malcom Sparrow

Herbert Winokur

Robert Zoellick

Emphasis Mine.

Oh no, nothing to see here, move along quietly...

[edit on 26-9-2009 by FewWorldOrder]

whitewash

• exonerate by means of a perfunctory investigation or through biased presentation of data
  
• cover up a misdemeanor, fault, or error; "Let's not whitewash the crimes of Stalin"; "She tried to gloss over her mistakes"
  

"... if the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed even in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America's fundamental sense of security..Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with.."
~ Philip Zelokow, pre-9/11

"Zelikow's focus was on what he calls 'searing' or 'moulding' events [that] take on 'transcendental' importance and, therefore, retain their power even as the experience generation passes from the scene."
~ Wikipedia

9/11 Commission - Regarding the Hijackers credentials as accomplished aviators..

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Despite of all the reports of Hani Hanjour weak piloting skills, the 9/11 Commission-Report concludes:

"Among the five hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 77, Hani Hanjour was the sole individual who FAA records show completed flight training and received FAA pilot certification. Hanjour received his commercial multi-engine pilot certificate from the FAA in March 1999. He received extensive flight training in the United States including flight simulator training, and was perhaps the most experienced and highly trained pilot among the 9/11 hijackers." Commission Report
and states that 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed assigned the Pentagon target specifically to Hanjour because he was “the operation’s most experienced pilot.”
9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 530

Hani Hanjour Reloaded

The original three questions posed in the OP stand.

1) How to explain the excessive heat present, such that the presence of molten steel was produced, both in the pit of destruction, and in the dust in the form of tiny spheres of atomized steel droplets?

2) How to explain the actual occurance of explosive destruction of both buildings, in the very same manner, an hour or so after impact, outside of the mere collapse initation hypothesis offered by FEMA, NIST and the 9/11 Commission?

3) How to explain the entire volume of first hand eyewitness accounts, and news reports, of multiple explosions, from the scene of the event, when it happened, after the plane impacts, occuring repeatedly, then leading up to, at the initation of, and during the complete and final explosive destruction of the buildings, first one, then the other not long after.

I purport that Zelikow and officials (and MSM's) official story MYTH about 9/11 is absurd, when placed under ANY amount of rational scrutiny and analysis whatsoever, and I do believe that that has been shown rather clearly, and regardless of the implications, must be contended with.

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
Question One (to debunkers):

First of all, given all the talk about the HEAT from the fires at the area of plane impact causing the all the steel to weaken and bend precipitating a sequential and successive global "collapse" of the buildings, into a smoldering pile of rubble, which burned at excessively high temperatures for days, weeks, even months - my first question for all 9/11 debunkers who read this board, is:

How do you explain the EXCESSIVE HEAT recorded, such that micro-spheres of iron were found in plentiful supply in dust samples from the destruction, a destruction which also completely pulverized the entire building, uncluding just about every cubic meter of concrete used in its construction - how do you explain what amounts to the atomization (spraying) of steel, or the presence, in other words of molten steel, absent the kind of termperatures which would be present if various explosives and firing elements such a thermite or nano-thermite, and how do you explain the presence of extremely hot metals in the pit of destruction?

Extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center destruction

reply to post by OmegaPoint


Can anyone provide an explanation for this, absent the presence of incendiaries (explosives)?

Anyone..?

So on what are these so-called "sceptics" and "debunkers" basing their claims. It can't be science..

Originally posted by OmegaPoint
I purport that the Twin Tower of the World Trade Center EXPLODED, from the top down via the use of explosives, and am prepared to back that contention up with supportable evidence, which, if you were to take the position of the official story about what happened, must be refuted and shown to be entirely false.

So far I have presented three principal observations and three questions.

So is this nothing but "outlandish conspiracy theory", or is simply, the truth, based in reality.

I leave it up to the reader to decide..

Best Regards,

OmegaPoint

P.S. Please ckick my sig, and imagine, not unlike the character Winston in the book 1984, that we live in the real world, and not in the Zelikow created myth that is the official story about what happened, on September 11th, 2001.

And God Bless.



[edit on 4-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

Originally posted by OmegaPoint

Listen to him, at the 3:50 mark, through 4:44..

How apt, how ironic. How telling!

How grotesque

[edit on 4-10-2009 by OmegaPoint]

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor".

Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century
September, 2000

Project For A New American Century