9/11 Comprehensive Concise Evidence---please contribute

I have created this thread for the purpose of compiling a list of the most
important and relevant evidence for the 9/11 Truth Movement. I believe
that the in-house knowledge here at ATS concerning 9/11 is unrivaled. And
I believe that a concise and comprehensive listing of evidence, such as we could
produce, would be an important asset. Whether used personally, when educating
friends and family, or as a potential listing that could be used as a petition.

I ask that you please keep your replies extremely concise--one sentence if
possible for each point of evidence. Brevity is important.

When finished I would like the responses to be listed numerically,
easily understood, and difficult to refute. The example below (taken from
another thread) is what I wish for the responses:

1. Extraordinary airline stock option fluctuations days prior to 9/11
2. Evidence of explosions below street level prior to collapse
3. Bin Laden family flown out of country during FAA ordered grounding


Also, please do not use this thread to debunk as there will probably be NO new
evidence presented that hasn't been thoroughly discussed already. When
finished, if need be, I will start a new thread wherein debunkers can go line by
line with the list.

Thx in advance, I actually hope we can come up with a list compelling
enough to use as a petition.

There were 3 impacts that occured at or in 3 large, nationally adored structures.

concise

edit. my post was at 9:11. time stamp is wrong

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Myendica]

On the FBI website, Usama Bin Laden IS on the 10 most wanted list but there is no mention of charges or affiliation with the events of 9/11.
Here is what is said:

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.

www.fbi.gov...

Originally posted by Myendica
There were 3 impacts that occured at or in 3 large, nationally adored structures.

concise

edit. my post was at 9:11. time stamp is wrong

[edit on 9-7-2010 by Myendica]

Hmmm, that was too concise. Three impacts being the planes? "Or in"...as in
bombs? Sorry, you did too good a job at being brief


[edit on 9-7-2010 by rival]

BBC news reported the collapse of wtc7 some twenty minutes before it fell.

reply to post by rival


4. The freefall, or near freefall, speed of the collapse of the three buildings.
5. Thermite found in the dust.
6. At the Pentagon, no plane on the lawn but no hole in the facade that it could have passed through.

Hani Hanjour: Flight 77 Hijacker - Incompetent Cessna 172 Pilot

7. According to a flight instructor Sherri Baxter At Freeway Airport in Bowie, Md., 20 miles west of Washington. Hani Hanjour the supposed pilot of Flight 77 a Boeing 757 which struck the Pentagon was not able to competently pilot a small student aircraft, a Cessna 172, during a "check ride" a month prior to 9/11.

...When Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons.

In this short video, you can hear (and see some of) the individual explosions bringing down one of the WTC towers.

George Nelson, USAF Crash Investigator, claims that the planes reported to have been used on 911, were likely NOT the aircraft used in at least two of the cases, and the Pentagon was likely not hit by a Boeing 757 at all.

physics911.net...

Originally posted by rival
Also, please do not use this thread to debunk as there will probably be NO new evidence presented that hasn't been thoroughly discussed already. When finished, if need be, I will start a new thread wherein debunkers can go line by line with the list.

Well, that's being intellectually dishonest. Your condition of "no debunking" means that anyone can say any fool thing they want with complete license. You alreeady posted an innacuracy (the Bin Laden family was flown out of the country AFTER the FAA grounding order was lifted...and even then you're leaving out that they were all distant relatives who had no contact with him...but the way you set it up you're allowing it and everything else posted here to go unchallenged.

If you genuinely want to go that route then I present Dr. Judy Wood's comprehensive and concise research that shows the towers were destroyed by directed energy weapons from outer space-

Dr. Judy Wood's research on directed energy weapons

Remember...no debunking!

reply to post by rival


Don't forget:

www.septemberclues.info...

That's right! There were no victims on 9/11!

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Great! Not concise, but maybe you will learn to follow instructions!
(But, it is too bad you have shown that even YOU think what you have submitted is B.S.!)

Back to business. Al Qaeda is a fiction created by the U.S.

revolutionarypolitics.com...

Originally posted by Stewie
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Great! Not concise, but maybe you will learn to follow instructions!
(But, it is too bad you have shown that even YOU think what you have submitted is B.S.!)

Back to business. Al Qaeda is a fiction created by the U.S.

revolutionarypolitics.com...

Well, if that is so, they seem to have branched out :-

www.abc.net.au...

reply to post by rival


You should watch the Loose Change films, Fabled Enemies, Zero: an investigation into 9/11, 9/11 the road to tyranny, 9/11 the rise of the police state, and September Clues. All of those films will give you what you need to make an argument that will be at least possible for a person who has never heard of the New World Order to comprehend.

Originally posted by GeneralFSTF23
You should watch the Loose Change films, Fabled Enemies, Zero: an investigation into 9/11, 9/11 the road to tyranny, 9/11 the rise of the police state, and September Clues. All of those films will give you what you need to make an argument that will be at least possible for a person who has never heard of the New World Order to comprehend.

I did watch Loose Change. This is how I found out the second plane hitting the towers had missile pods and how flight 93 secretly landed in Ohio. Those college kids making internet flicks in their dorm room must have some hard core inside contacts for them to be finding out all this super-secret stuff that noone else knows about.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas are just smart along with having collected all the evidence they could find they said what made most sense. Why do you have a quote of bill clinton as your signature? He had his own false flag operation you know. It was the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Make sure you watch all of those films they are all free online they will make you see what really happened although there will be conflicting theories that most could be possible. Thats when your individuality comes in to play, you have to start thinking for youreself and forming your own opinions

Here is conclusive proof : Vaporization of steel CANNOT be attributed to fuel bawsed fires. Impossible. No so called ' debunker' can possibly explain the vaporization of steel and the physical evidence is beyond doubt.

Read it and weep, debunkers:

911blogger.com...

From the scientist that examined the evidence:

"•Astaneh-Asl said that steel flanges "had been reduced from an inch thick to paper thin." [3]
•At a recycling center in New Jersey, he saw 10-ton steel beams from the towers that "looked like giant sticks of twisted licorice." [4] He showed the San Francisco Chronicle a "banana-shaped, rust-colored piece of steel" that had somehow "twisted like toffee during the terrorist attack." [5]
•He noted the way steel from the WTC had bent at several connection points that had joined the floors to the vertical columns. He described the connections as being smoothly warped, saying, "If you remember the Salvador Dali paintings with the clocks that are kind of melted--it's kind of like that." He added, "That could only happen if you get steel yellow hot or white hot--perhaps around 2,000 degrees." [6]
•In an interview in 2007, Astaneh-Asl recalled, "I saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center." [7]
•He found a foot-long twisted shard of steel that was "like a piece of bread, but it was high-strength steel." He commented, "I haven't seen anything like this [before]." [8]
•He came across "severely scorched [steel] members from 40 or so floors below the points of impact [by the planes]." [9]
•The fireproofing that had been used to protect the WTC steel also showed evidence of extreme conditions. In some places it had "melted into a glassy residue." [10]
•Astaneh-Asl saw a charred I-beam from WTC Building 7--a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed late in the afternoon of 9/11, even though no plane hit it. "The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized." [11] "


So, 40 floors BELOW the impact points there was steel so scorched that it stood out; how on earth can any official story cultist explain incredible temperatures FAR BELOW where any fires were? They cannot! Simple.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by rival
Also, please do not use this thread to debunk as there will probably be NO new evidence presented that hasn't been thoroughly discussed already. When finished, if need be, I will start a new thread wherein debunkers can go line by line with the list.

Well, that's being intellectually dishonest. Your condition of "no debunking" means that anyone can say any fool thing they want with complete license. You alreeady posted an innacuracy (the Bin Laden family was flown out of the country AFTER the FAA grounding order was lifted...and even then you're leaving out that they were all distant relatives who had no contact with him...but the way you set it up you're allowing it and everything else posted here to go unchallenged.

I'm not intending to be intellectually dishonest. To a debunker like yourself
everything in this thread should be a "foolish thing," and that is okay.
You will get your chance, and in doing so, will perform a service
for me by helping cull the list.

Because what I am looking for are the CORE responses that initially swayed
the poster to the conspiracy side. The one or two bits of evidence that
were so compelling that they caused the respondent to finally make up
their mind and DENY IGNORANCE as they see it.

I promise you your chance, and I promise you I will do the work involved to
answer your challenges...but in due time

*edit to add: I have done alot of homework, watching films, verifying
claims of posters, websites, films etc., and I could easily compile
MY OWN list from MY point of view. But the objective is to compile
a consensus list of the best evidence from many perspectives.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by rival]

Originally posted by GeneralFSTF23
Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas are just smart along with having collected all the evidence they could find they said what made most sense.

After the first plane hit everyone in Manhatten was watching the WTC when the second plane hit. Why is it that none of the witnesses nor any of the close-up videos...or any of the other videos at all for that matter... show any missiles launching? Please, explain to me how this "makes the most sense".

Why do you have a quote of bill clinton as your signature? He had his own false flag operation you know. It was the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

...so a guy that couldn't even keep something as piddling inconsequential as a marital affair secret from the public is the mastermind behind a secret plot to blow up the Murrah building...? While you're at it, would you mind terribly explaining that to me, as well?

Originally posted by rival
Because what I am looking for are the CORE responses that initially swayed the poster to the conspiracy side. The one or two bits of evidence that were so compelling that they caused the respondent to finally make up their mind and DENY IGNORANCE as they see it.

While you're at it, I invite you to likewise inquire as to the original source of the information that swayed the poster. My position from day one is that conspiracy proponents have been and are being swayed by the paranoid rubbish these 9/11 conspiracy web sites (I.E. Loose Change) are pushing out, and so far, from my conversations here, I have not been proven incorrect.

Let's start from the beginning- what was the source of the information that originally swayed YOU to the conspiracy side?