9/11 Comprehensive Concise Evidence---please contribute

I'm sure someone's already posted it, but just in case, this has already been done...911 Timeline

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
You do realise that a simile compares things that are unalike, except in the respect to which they are being compared? you haven't used one above. Rather you've implied that he either is a "perpetrator" or makes posts like one.

Note that simply using the word "like" doesn't create a simile - it's a fairly specific type of construction deigned to draw out one aspect of the thing compared.

Like, I get it. OK. Tricky, I'm just not going to get into this kind of thing right now, OK.

Like, it must be a slow day at the water cooler in Langley.

reply to post by ipsedixit


Slow? It's a snail's pace.

You lot haven't found anything meaty for a while and we're getting worried about the workflow. If you don't locate another smoking gun soon we'll have nothing to debunk.

It wasn't paint! It was Nano Thermite! The Latest.

www.youtube.com...

The 911 timeline posted online by paul thompson is the most
concise out there with MSM links to back it all up.

www.historycommons.org...

It was the foundation for the film 911 press for truth that
you can watch on google video.

Google Video Link

These two show at a minimum there was a cover up.

When you bring in the israeli's saying they were sent there to
document the event you kinda have a what the hell moment.



Don't jump all over the israeli's as it has come out that they
warned our government as per sibel edmonds who lost her
job over trying to expose it.

en.wikipedia.org...

The video in my signature shows that there was molten steel
at the site and the firefighters confirming this.



I will take the word of ppl willing to risk their lives to save others
over some government shill like the one in the video ANY DAY.

Also John P. O'Neill who was in the position to stop the event before
hand was shutdown , stonewalled, and railroaded out of his job at
the FBI for being too aggressive in pursuing the terrorists by
Barbra Bodine, may she rot in hell.

en.wikipedia.org...

Not too long after getting canned at the FBI anti terror unit he
gets offered a job where ???

You got it, the WTC, and it cost him his life.

There is a lot more, but this will give you enough ammo to
convince most ppl that at a minimum there was a cover up
and the government knew BEFORE the event.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

Originally posted by mikelee
I think the facts are the following:

2) Airliner struck the Pentagon.
The Government needs to release what they have in order prove this issue.

Yeah they quickly grabbed all the surveillance footage in the area
and would not allow it in the 911 commission report.

How odd...

Almost like there is something there they do not want us to see.

What a joke...



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by hooper

 

Do you really think they believe the US government conspired to killed thousands of its own citizens? Don't think so.

Yes I do!

Operation Northwoods

I'd like to add the intentional release of radiation at hanford reactor.

www.primitivism.com...

www-rohan.sdsu.edu...

There are others as well if ppl want to go round and round on it.

We can go into Iran Contra and bring drugs in thru Mena, etc etc.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by Stewie

 

I'm sure a religion professor is far more knowledgeable than NIST in engineering.

Ah yes theologians, history professors, english teachers, sociologists, psychologists, are far more credible professionals than the actual teams at NIST, MIT, FEMA.

My God! The ignorance! IT BURNS!!!

Lets check out John Gross from NIST lying himself silly.



From the video in my signature.




[edit on 4-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Stewie

 

Looked at your little link there - do you really think Max Cleland and Loius Freeh are "truthers"? Do you really think they believe the US government conspired to killed thousands of its own citizens? Don't think so.

They believe that, like some members of the 9/11 commision, that the intelligence, law enforcement and defense communtities did not give a full accounting of the deep flaws in their organizations that allowed something like 9/11 to happen.

The firing of Sibel Edmonds for whistleblowing tells me all I need to know.

en.wikipedia.org...

When you add in John P. O'neill and the confession by the
cab driver at the pentagon, it gets pretty ugly.

Also the seized video tapes they still will not let the public
watch to this day.

It is just so "JFK goes to Dallas - season 2" as far as I am concerned.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Hey Dave just wanted to compare notes on your signature here.

""Nine-eleven was NOT an inside job, it was an Osama Bin Laden job with 19 people from Saudi Arabia, they murdered 3000 Americans and others foreigners including Muslims and we look like idiots, to deny that the people who murdered our fellow citizens did it, when they are continuing to murder other people around the world." - Pres. William Jefferson Clinton"

In light of Sibel Edmonds being fired for the information she
brought forward showing that these ppl were in the employ of
the US government right until 9-10-2001 it makes one wonder
what the hell is going on.

en.wikipedia.org...

Or do you think that only truth comes out politicians mouths ?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by richierich
Notice: Not ONE official story cultist has dared to try and respond to my last post: VAPORIZATION OF STEEL CANNOT, REPEAT CANNOT BE CAUSED BY FUEL BASED FIRES.

They can ignore this proof, this total evidence, but they cannot hide from it.

Would you mind terribly posting your source for where you heard that steel was ever vaporized during the collapse?

I think he was referring to liquefaction as reported by firefighters
for days after the crash.

They "only" thing that will liquify steel for days without an obvious
energy source is a chemical reaction like thermite.



It is also pretty obvious John Gross is lying his backside off.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

"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? "

As someone who was near the explosion I can tell you I have talked
to a lot of ppl around here and the official story on the OKC
bombing is a lie as well.

A reporter here wrote a book about it, and it is the definitive proof
of the cover up, she lost her job for pursuing the story.

jaynadavis.com...

www.freerepublic.com...

MSM news confirms there was more than one bomber, and that
the security tapes from nearby bldgs they STILL refuse to release
like the several tapes from several bldgs near the pentagon.

www.dailymotion.com...

Puts it to bed for me.

Get the book, read the book, it is all sourced and verified.

Originally posted by GeneralFSTF23
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.

This group of film makers takes on a lot of aspects that are open
to interpretation, and thus can be argued for many many hours.

AJ puts out all the info, but some of it can be twisted either way
and you just end up in the mud with ppl for 10 years on 911.

I have heard this called shotgun journalism, it gets all the
info out there, but leaves you exposed if anything is weak.

I tend to go with Paul Thompson's 911 timeline with sourced
verified evidence and laid out chronologically via the MSM.

This ended up being the point reference for the film 911 press for truth.

In 911 press for truth they do not come out and say it was an
inside job, but they do say that LOTS of ppl were lying about
a LOT of different things.

They also made it AMPLY clear that a LOT of their questions went
totally ignored thru the 911 commission hearings.

Additional information provided by pilots, architects, and engineers
have shown that other aspects of the story are false.

Ppl such as the cab driver basically admitting he was coerced into
spoon fed testimony.

It all reeks of cover up on many different levels.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

[edit on 4-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

Originally posted by spacedonk
BBC news reported the collapse of wtc7 some twenty minutes before it fell.

This is reporter Nostradamus reporting the future collapse of a building !

They sure scooped that story !

They must have called the Psychic Friends Network !

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

Ex_MislTech, welcome to the discussion. I'm assuming from your avatar photo and "handle" that you are an "ex missle technical specialist", although assuming credentials is obviously not the smartest thing to do on the internet.

Be that as it may. Do you think that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile? Do you think that the so-called "doomsday" plane in the air over Washington that day had anything to do with the Pentagon strike? Do you think that the "overflying" aircraft could have landed at Washington National Airport?

The plane is known to have flown just "north" (above) that row of shoe box looking buildings (the Naval annex), over the site of the explosion on the far side of the Pentagon, curved to the right, "south" in the photo and either left the area or possibly nestled down on that conveniently placed runway, which was also closed to other traffic.

That runway, presumably, was the one that the Pentagon tower ATC, Sean Boger, was referring to when he talked about worrying many times about a plane colliding with the Pentagon on approach to National Airport.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/60748cc7c0e0.jpg[/atsimg]

Thanks for the video links as well. I want to check out a couple I haven't seen before.



[edit on 5-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

Has everyone seen this already? Some good info here.

reply to post by ipsedixit


There are many things on 911 that can go either way, thus why the
argument has raged on for so many years.

There are a few things about 911 though that show that all is not
as it would seem in the official story.

Even members of the 911 commission were tossed off it, and some
that stayed on even felt there was a cover up.

I focus on what is hard to refute and then the vague can sit the
game out on the sidelines.

A lot of ppl jump willingly to battle on any of the issues, but some
of the issues offer too much obfuscation to make a clear point.

Thus I stick to the pieces that are least open to debate.

If we can get most of the World to look at the evidence that is
solid then it should open a new 3rd party investigation.

You cannot have the criminals putting on their own trial, and
that is what the government has become if you just look at
the corruption in the house and congress on various issues.

A corrupt government cannot police itself without bias.


[edit on 5-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

Amen to that.

I was just trying to generate a little speculative discussion, but I realize there could be a number of reasons for not wanting to indulge in that sort of thing.

I think next to WTC7, which was an obvious controlled demolition, the incident at the Pentagon is the most obviously "tilted", straight as a broken arrow story that the government tried to foist on people.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I think next to WTC7, which was an obvious controlled demolition, the incident at the Pentagon is the most obviously "tilted", straight as a broken arrow story that the government tried to foist on people.

All right, just to play devil's advocate, don't you think there's even a shred of possibility that a passenger jet really *did* hit the Pentagon, and all this supposed suspicious activity is nothing but gibberish being invented by people who are just a tad too paranoid? After all, the Pentagon isn't out in the middle of the desert or at the bottom of the ocean. It's in an industrial park, and hordes of people were around who saw the passenger jet hit the building. Besides, it makes no sense to use something else when the conspirators already perfected commandeering the two or more disposable passenger aircraft under their control.

Think about it- if there really was all some false flag operation, deliberately embellishing the facts of any of the events is only going to give people reason to think everything else you say has no credibility, even if everything else you say is actually true.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I have to agree with you here, Dave.

The evidence we have is sketchy, at best. We have photo evidence
of what appears to be a smaller than required hole in the Pentagon wall
and no expected accompanying wings marks. Some evidence of engine
components that don't match the aircraft type, and a complete blanket
of continued secrecy involving the video evidence confiscated immediately
after the attack. None of this is strong enough to amount to anything more
than conjecture...and if TPTB do eventually release the videotapes
and they corroborate the OS, then my side looks foolish which strengthens
your sides argument.


But I also like to look at this from the perspective of those who might
have perpetrated the attack. It makes no sense to go to the trouble of
hoaxing a missile attack from their perspective. The most important point
here is, by the time of the Pentagon attack the public was aware of
the possibility of planes flying into buildings. One would also have to
assume that a few would be out with recording equipment, at the ready.
Regardless of eyewitness testimony which could be compelling if
several strong witnesses reported seeing a missile, videotape, if published,
would be damning and would bring TPTB's house of cards down at their
feet. I cannot assume that they would be this ignorant or arrogant, when
simply allowing, or causing, one more plane crash to happen would be
the easy way out. AND...to what purpose??

The only thing that comes to mind is the logistics of flying the plane itself
with the accuracy required, but even if it missed, so what? The agenda
of TPTB would still be served by the other successful attacks.

Those are the reasons it is hard for me to believe it was a missile. I am
not writing off that possibility, but it stretches the imagination more than
a bit.

Oh, and thanks to ExMisl for the new info and bringing the thread back
around to its original purpose of finding the hardest evidence instead
of premature debate on what has been presented so far.