99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by godfather420


Well you are assuming I believe what the government says, which indicates you didn't bother reading what I said, which invalidates your opinion as not fully informed. Oh look, I just read the first two lines of your reply and replies without reading the rest. Don't much care to read it all if you won't do the same.

Originally posted by Observer99

Originally posted by Sinny
I Have a question if you lot dont mind sharing your opinions on this... Do you think that here in England our 7/7 bombing may have also been a false flag attack?

Given that 9/11 was clearly staged, I think your major terror attack also being staged would be by far the most reasonable conclusion. However, that's just based on pure logic. I haven't done any research on yours.

Originally posted by Sinny
Im a bit rusty on my facts, but I think there was also some confusion with who ever was supposed to respond to this incident as they were also running training simulations in the area and in these simulations they were responding to bomb attacks.

Quite scary if it was a false flag, I hate beeing an American ally, That country will drag us down with it.

Well, you need to understand that the real power behind all of this murder for money is the corrupt group of people who run the world banks. And I believe the Bank of London is the real center of banking power. So while the American military is the strong right arm of the 'beast', you're living at the head. Not really much better.

Maybe watching " 7/7 " Ripple effect will help.

As true as this may be,it will never see the light of day as long as the MSM has been told to lay off...and they have

reply to post by TupacShakur

resulted from controlled demolition

Demos do not make clouds of thousand degree heat. Ergo, it is not that type of cloud. You added the straw of the only man made thing that makes that type of cloud being demos, but the straw is a false statement, thus a null point.

Multiple witnesses who were at the site agree that they noticed no visible debris larger than a phonebook

That's lovely of those people, cause last I remember, there was the entire outer structure of the wtc towers and 7 at the base. Oh I see, you're changing straws again to attempt to make me look wrong. So now you're talking about flight 93? Cause just a moment ago it was WTC7, andf a moment before that the towers. Get your story straight.

Plus human eye witness is not the most reliable form of evidence, as people tend to change their stories.

Why should I watch a video that photographic proof contradicts?

Clearly...
www.davesweb.cnchost.com...
There...
www.chasingthefrog.com...
Was...
m1.ikiwq.com...

Now I really don't care what a bunch of people said when there is clear proof against them.

You make a good point . However I find it impossible to believe that an airplane smashes into a skyscraper at over 450mph, explodes on impact engulfing the surroundings in jet fuel, and a drivers lisence and passport manage to escape the explosion and interior of the airplane with minimum damage, fall all the way down to the ground, and get picked up by a pedestrian.

So do I. This is why we look at alternate examples. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense when it's happened before. Colombia is very similar to what happened to 93. And likewise, not much large debirs were found.

encycl.opentopia.com...

Crashing into literal thin air can vaporize most of a high-tech space plane, I don't see why it's impossible for a low-tech jet plane can't have similar events happen to it when crashing into dirt.

Do you see it as purely coincidental that BBC happened to have technical difficulties during the interview in which they reported WTC7s collapse when WTC7 was clearly visible in the background? You don't see anything odd about two different major media outlets reporting the collapse of WTC7 before it collapsed? How? The other towers sustained much more damage from falling debris, why were they not assuming that those would collapse? A few fires and an evacuation = imminent collapse? It's random chance that two separate media outlets both concluded that the tower would collapse several minutes before its collapse with nothing to indicate that other than an evacuation and a few fires? NO WAY!

I remember that day. when the towers fell, every network had technical difficulties. We lost the tv entirely, I watched the rest at my local bank that had cable, and even then the signal was crappy. If there was no other technical incident that day then yes it would be suspicious. But there were countless technical errors all day, with many non-cable viewers having complete termination of signal, and many, including myself, thinking a nuke or something just blew up. I had to go to the top of a hill to see the city and know for sure. The fact that these profound technical failures littered the entire day, especially after the towers fell, means that a technical problem for BBC is just not that unique nor suspicious.

wow sounds like you had an exciting childhood. How can you make the claim that the WTC head structural engineer and construction manager do not know what they're talking about when describing the very building that they worked on?

For the same reasons the titanic sank, the same reasons the abrams failed against IEDs, and the same reason bridges like Tacoma Narrows collapsed. The fact that you are knowledgeable does not mean you cannot be wrong.

Who are they impressing by saying those things after they collapsed? The buyer whose building collapsed due to a supposed event that the buildings were made to withstand?

Money. They're not at fault if they claim it was suppose to stand up against it.

reply to post by Gorman91
You have a mean streak in you, lad. Tupak has just cleaned your clock, so take it like a man! You guys have had eleven plus pages to make your case rebutting Tupak, and you come off as bitter, whiney little school kids. You're pathetic, and you have the balls to say you are a man of science. We're done here now. Someone will start a new thread (although it will be hard to do better than Tupak's), and the same team of mental midgets will spring forth and defend their right to post worthless rhetoric, defending the indefensible. We are winning.

First off I am no expert and can't provide any evidence,many of you are very knowledged in this field I am not.I did not see this posted already so if it has been I apologize.

I do remember watching the first edition of Loose Change and then also recall it being thoroughly debunked by by Popular Mechanics.However I do realize Popular Mechanics could have been under the thumb of the untrustworthy MSM, yet I have usually found Popular Mechanics to be pretty accurate.I seen this years ago however, and do realize that some new theories have come to light, as I have not investigated the tragedy of 9/11 as consistently and as vigorously as I should have.

I also remember after the debunking the filmakers made some just awful statements.I can't remember the exact quotes but the gist of it was that even though many of their theories were proven wrong, that they would continue to change the film to fit their theories.As I said I can't remember the exact quotes,though I do remember that it was laughable, considering that these guys were "journalists".

I do believe that there is much more to the story than we have been given.Possibly a few bad eggs in our government had knowledge of these attacks beforehand and let them or even helped them happen for sinister reasons.Or perhaps we had some knowledge of possible attack,yet were unable to stop it due to incompentence. And no I don't discount any theory no matter how outlandish, because the truth is often stranger than anything we can imagine.It is also good to question convential thinking,so my hats off to the truthers in that reguard, yet many do so in a disrespectful way. (not on ATS usually)

In conclusion however I still do not believe it was an "inside job",possibly a few rogue members of government perhaps helped this event to take place or turned a blind eye.What I don't believe is that this was a big time plot by some shadow government or a coalition of very powerful groups of people within our government to murder in cold blood thousands of innocent people, no matter what agenda it could help to fulfill.However as I said I could be completely wrong on all my thoughts and my mind is always open, yet I didn't see the Popular Mechanics issue brought up in this thread.

reply to post by Gorman91

Demos do not make clouds of thousand degree heat. Ergo, it is not that type of cloud. You added the straw of the only man made thing that makes that type of cloud being demos, but the straw is a false statement, thus a null point.

I see, so I take it you didn't read the article that I posted?

That's lovely of those people, cause last I remember, there was the entire outer structure of the wtc towers and 7 at the base. Oh I see, you're changing straws again to attempt to make me look wrong. So now you're talking about flight 93? Cause just a moment ago it was WTC7, andf a moment before that the towers. Get your story straight.

WTF are you talking about dude? The evidence used in the trial that I just posted was recovered from the Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville, it seems that you confused that with WTC7. My story is straight, look back at the previous posts to clarify any misinterpretations.

Plus human eye witness is not the most reliable form of evidence, as people tend to change their stories.

What about the photographs of the crash site that I posted, also unreliable?

Clearly...
www.davesweb.cnchost.com...
There...
www.chasingthefrog.com...
Was...
m1.ikiwq.com...

You are a damn fool, I posted those three images in my previous post. Refer back to the previous post to illustrate your ignorance. If you won't even look at the things that I took the time to find, why am I even discussing this with you? You clearly have no intentions of considering an alternative perspective and looking at the evidence which I presented, so this argument is completely pointless. If all you want to do is find flaws in my posts without even looking at the evidence I presented, than we should just end this discussion right now.

I remember that day. when the towers fell, every network had technical difficulties. We lost the tv entirely, I watched the rest at my local bank that had cable, and even then the signal was crappy. If there was no other technical incident that day then yes it would be suspicious. But there were countless technical errors all day, with many non-cable viewers having complete termination of signal, and many, including myself, thinking a nuke or something just blew up. I had to go to the top of a hill to see the city and know for sure. The fact that these profound technical failures littered the entire day, especially after the towers fell, means that a technical problem for BBC is just not that unique nor suspicious.

Instead of answering my questions you chose to tell me about your experiences on 9/11? Your response reminds me of this interview with the former drug czar where he gives a diversionary response and dodges the question: Is that you, Barry McCaffery?

I don't care about how your day went, answer the questions that I asked:

--Do you see it as purely coincidental that BBC happened to have technical difficulties during the interview in which they reported WTC7s collapse when WTC7 was clearly visible in the background?

--You don't see anything odd about two different major media outlets reporting the collapse of WTC7 before it collapsed? How?

--A few fires and an evacuation = imminent collapse? It's random chance that two separate media outlets both concluded that the tower would collapse several minutes before its collapse with nothing to indicate that other than an evacuation and a few fires?

For the same reasons the titanic sank, the same reasons the abrams failed against IEDs, and the same reason bridges like Tacoma Narrows collapsed. The fact that you are knowledgeable does not mean you cannot be wrong.

From the OP:

Both world trade centers were designed to withstand multiple impacts from a Boeing 707, the largest aircraft at the time of completion. An analysis released in 1964 claims that the buildings were investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a 707 traveling at 600mph, which would only cause local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building. The 767s that crashed into the towers were traveling at only 440 and 540 mph.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

Money. They're not at fault if they claim it was suppose to stand up against it.

Who the hell would hold the structural engineer and construction manager accountable for a terrorist attack? It was them darn Al Qaeder terrists!

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Wotcher

 

No, I am saying that they demoed what was left of that building and others in the days and weeks after. The context of Silverstein's word's do not say when they demoed it, only that they gave up trying to save the building, and instead evacuated everyone. Everything beyond that is assumption and speculation.

Oh, Ok, I see what you're saying.

But why would they need to use explosives to bring down a pile of rubble? The building had already collapsed in to its own footprint.

reply to post by dillweed


Well not really, Even some of his own photos contradict the witness testimony he uses. I'm not mean, I'm honest. When honesty is mean, that's just what happens.

I see, so I take it you didn't read the article that I posted?

Why would I read something that contradicts common sense?

WTF are you talking about dude? The evidence used in the trial that I just posted was recovered from the Flight 93 crash site in Shanksville, it seems that you confused that with WTC7. My story is straight, look back at the previous posts to clarify any misinterpretations.

No, now it's on 93. Go back to your last post and it was WTC7. Go before that one and it was the towers. You are mixing straws in an attempt to confuse so you can claim you are right, when you are not.

What about the photographs of the crash site that I posted, also unreliable?

Clearly, they show larger than phone book pieces.

You are a damn fool, I posted those three images in my previous post. Refer back to the previous post to illustrate your ignorance. If you won't even look at the things that I took the time to find, why am I even discussing this with you? You clearly have no intentions of considering an alternative perspective and looking at the evidence which I presented, so this argument is completely pointless. If all you want to do is find flaws in my posts without even looking at the evidence I presented, than we should just end this discussion right now.

I took those photos from your own post. They clearly show eye witness testimony was wrong.

Instead of answering my questions you chose to tell me about your experiences on 9/11? Your response reminds me of this interview with the former drug czar where he gives a diversionary response and dodges the question:

it's rather difficult to not look like I'm dodging questions when you don't keep on the same topic. That would be your doing.

--Do you see it as purely coincidental that BBC happened to have technical difficulties during the interview in which they reported WTC7s collapse when WTC7 was clearly visible in the background?

As I stated, everyone was having technical difficulties throughout the day, especially after the towers collapsed. Had it been the only technical difficulty of the day it would be suspicious, but it was but one of countless.

--You don't see anything odd about two different major media outlets reporting the collapse of WTC7 before it collapsed? How?

Well two towers did just collapse and blanket the city in dust. I'd expect a lot of chaos and inconsistencies. That doesn't mean it was planned, that doesn't make it a conspiracy. It makes a chaotic situation. Plus, considering they all report the news from the same general sources, it's not that abnormal. I remember when a NASA probe crash landed from a failed parachute they reported they successfully recovered extraterrestrial dirt. Within an hour after the report, at least 3 other news sources had seen the word extraterrestrial, assumed life, and reported the recovery of life. Being the news does not make you right, nor does it mean being wrong means you are part of a conspiracy. It means you heard something and reported it.

--A few fires and an evacuation = imminent collapse? It's random chance that two separate media outlets both concluded that the tower would collapse several minutes before its collapse with nothing to indicate that other than an evacuation and a few fires?

Actually the entire building was in flames and after just loosing a few thousand people, they didn't want to bother saving buildings, and were more focused on people.

Both world trade centers were designed to withstand multiple impacts from a Boeing 707, the largest aircraft at the time of completion. An analysis released in 1964 claims that the buildings were investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a 707 traveling at 600mph, which would only cause local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building. The 767s that crashed into the towers were traveling at only 440 and 540 mph. Let's just agree to disagree on this one.

nah, I won't agree to disagree. The 707 was developed int he 50s. The 9/11 attack happened in 2001. If you want to tell me that designing to resist the impact of a plane from 1957 is the same as being prepared for a plane developed in the early 80s, then you're being incredibly ignorant.

Who the hell would hold the structural engineer and construction manager accountable for a terrorist attack? It was them darn Al Qaeder terrists!

Insurance companies.

reply to post by Wotcher


Other buildings that had not collapsed but they demoed. The fact that silverstien said that is not an indication he knew which building they were talking about. They DID demo other WTC buildings because of damages, and they DID essentially "pull it" in the sense of letting the building burn and letting it bring itself down. This may also be why BBC reported it as collapsed early. They may have had contacts in the fire department that were saying they were pulling the plan to save the building. Simple fact is we just don't know, and it is ignorant to jump to conclusions without data.

reply to post by Gorman91


The post i replied to was a one liner. You called people who believe in something other than the OS mentally unstable. Its not an opinion niether its the truth.

I miss a couple posts becuase i see one that i have to reply to....its only human. Sorry.

reply to post by Gorman91

Why would I read something that contradicts common sense?

You're right, it's much better to let me waste my time finding things that provide some scientific analysis over the subject when you don't even read those things that I spend time searching for. Thanks a lot dude.

No, now it's on 93. Go back to your last post and it was WTC7. Go before that one and it was the towers. You are mixing straws in an attempt to confuse so you can claim you are right, when you are not.

I hate to backtrack so far, but in the post before that one you said this:

no different than the people who crowed around what the government says and don't bother fact checking.

So to prove to you that much of the information is indeed factual, I went through the OP and selected at random some bullet points which contained information that I believed to be factual. The first one refered to the calculations of how long it would take the two main towers to free-fall. The second one referred to the pyroclastic clouds that formed after the symmetrical collapse of the twin towers and WTC7. The third one referred to the impossible evidence found at the Shanksville crash site. The fourth one referred to the impossible evidence found at the base of the twin towers. The sixth one referred to CNN and BBC predicting WTC7's collapse prior to its collapse, and the final one referred to the structural engineer and construction manager stating that the twin towers could absorb such an aircraft impact. I wasn't attempting to "mix straws" as you strangely put it, I was just pulling information that I saw as factual from the OP, relating to 9/11 as a whole and not just WTC7. Now that we cleared up that communication error, we can continue on with our pointless discussion which will get us both nowhere.

Clearly, they show larger than phone book pieces.

Three larger than phonebook pieces out of the entire plane. The rest is very small debris.

I took those photos from your own post. They clearly show eye witness testimony was wrong.

Yeah sure dude, you took those photos from my post except the links lead to different websites. The eyewitness testimony that they noticed no debris larger than a phonebook is fairly consistent with only three pieces of debris larger than that found, one of them being partially underground. Plus there were two debris sites, one of which was closed off from the public by the FBI, so some if not all of those large pieces of debris could have been recovered from there.

As I stated, everyone was having technical difficulties throughout the day, especially after the towers collapsed. Had it been the only technical difficulty of the day it would be suspicious, but it was but one of countless.

You're focusing more on the technical difficulties part of the question, and the question as a whole refers to technical difficulties during the interview reporting WTC7s collapse when WTC7 was visible in the background. That leads me and many other common-sense thinkers to believe that they noticed their error in reporting the collapse before it happened, and just cut the interview ASAP in hopes that people would not notice their critical mistake.

Well two towers did just collapse and blanket the city in dust. I'd expect a lot of chaos and inconsistencies. That doesn't mean it was planned, that doesn't make it a conspiracy. It makes a chaotic situation. Plus, considering they all report the news from the same general sources, it's not that abnormal. I remember when a NASA probe crash landed from a failed parachute they reported they successfully recovered extraterrestrial dirt. Within an hour after the report, at least 3 other news sources had seen the word extraterrestrial, assumed life, and reported the recovery of life. Being the news does not make you right, nor does it mean being wrong means you are part of a conspiracy. It means you heard something and reported it.

Your consistent denial and refusal to accept the inside job and prior knowledge makes me laugh . OK, so according to you they could have simply got their news wrong due to the source, and they falsely reported that WTC7 collapsed. What are the odds that it actually did collapse a few minutes after their false reporting? I find that to be one of the most stunning coincidences to ever strike mankind, as well as the unbelievable coincidence that the only three skyscrapers to collapse from strucural damage happened in the same day. (Uh oh am I "adding straws" again?)

Actually the entire building was in flames and after just loosing a few thousand people, they didn't want to bother saving buildings, and were more focused on people.

As I've addressed several times in our endless discussion, the entire building was NOT in flames, 6 out of the 47 floors had fires on them. Would you consider 13% = 100%?

nah, I won't agree to disagree. The 707 was developed int he 50s. The 9/11 attack happened in 2001. If you want to tell me that designing to resist the impact of a plane from 1957 is the same as being prepared for a plane developed in the early 80s, then you're being incredibly ignorant.

Boeing 707-120B Statistics- Maximum takeoff weight: 116,570 kg
Maximum fuel: 65,590 L
Cruise Speed: 1000 km/h

Boeing 707-320B Statistics- Maximum takeoff weight: 151,320 kg.
Maximum fuel: 90,160 L.
Cruise speed: 972 km/h

Boeing 767-200 Statistics-
Maximum takeoff weight: 142,880 kg
Maximum fuel: 91,000 L.
Cruise speed: 913 km/h.

Boeing 767-200ER Statistics-
Maximum takeoff weight: 179,170 kg
Maximum fuel: 91,000 L
Cruise speed: 913 km/h

The heaviest model of 707 (which is what one would assume the calculations would be done with to determine whether or not the towers could absorb the most potentially destructive blow) weighs rougly 9K more than the lighter model of 767, has the same fuel capacity, and a higher cruising speed. Compared with the heavier 767, it weighs roughly 28K less, has the same fuel capacity, and a higher cruising speed. The lighter model of 707 compared with the lighter 767 weighs roughly 36K less, has the same fuel capacity, and a higher cruising speed. And the lighter model of 707 compared with the heavier 767 weighs roughly 63K less, has the same fuel capacity, and has a higher cruising speed. Make of that what you will, but don't forget that the Boeing 767-222s crashed into the towers at 440 and 540 mph, which is equal to 708.09 km/h and 869.02 km/h.

Insurance companies.

Right so instead of shedding light on the lies in the official story based on their extensive knowledge of that buildings design, they lied when they stated on the record that it was designed to absorb such a blow to avoid issues with insurance companies.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


First off they don't use 87 octane in semi's they use diesel. Second there is nothing underneath the bridge to make it stop falling so yeah i can believe that. But when there is a whole 70 story building that is undamaged structurally, underneath a 40 storiy one.....where is that 40 storys going to go?? Not through solid matter, and not at free fall speed.

reply to post by godfather420


No, I said people who believe in anything without question seem mentally unstable. That goes for anyone who believes in conspiracy theories and the "official story".

I had an engineer tell me that my subdivision had adequate drainage for a 100 year rain.

It's flooded 6 times in the last 2 years.

Just because they say they designed it to withstand a 707 doesn't mean it was.

Did they fly a 707 into a similar structur to test their assertion?

Truthers claim to do their own research, but then post Youtube clips and cut and paste jobs. Do some research into the overpass collapses, they're very easy to find using Google.

So many claims in this thread that have been debunked to death.

1 Pyroclastic clouds, clearly there was no volcanic activity, so stop using the term, it makes you look dense.

2 Pull it being a demolition term, again, not a term used in the industry.

3 No pieces of wreckage bigger than a phonebook, when there clearly were.

4 Building collapsed on it's own footprint, again, this is not true, for any of the buildings.


I'm all for the truth, but when something is debunked you need to stop using it. Loose Change proves nothing, it only asks questions, and poor examples of questions at that. It's why it on like it's fourth cut, it gives you a fuzzy scenario then implies evildoing.

To be honest it's genious filmmaking, it makes the viewer think he/she is somehow smart for asking a question that has been already answered by the largest single investigation into a criminal act in mans history.

I work in medicine and have a very strong science background. And one of the first things you learn is that things are not always what they seem. And just because one thing seems odd to you it doesn't mean it impossible. They found all kinds of wreckage that defied common sense, like the passport. But just because it's unlikely it isn't automatically faked.

Just for kicks I took my old passport just now and tried to burn it with my lighter. The inner pages that get stamped will light, but not easily, and the outer cover and photo page are damn near indestructable.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


By the way was another one in Bridgeport Conn fews years back. Tractor-trailer loaded with #2 heating oil
rolled and caught fire

On March 26, 2004, a bridge on I-95 in Bridgeport, Connecticut was partly melted by the explosion of a tanker truck carrying over 11,900 gallons (45,000 L) of fuel oil. Repairs were estimated to take at least two weeks, but the highway was opened to northbound traffic in only a few days. Southbound traffic resumed about a week later.

Fire warped bridge carrying I 95, one of the most important routes on the east coast

Talked to one of the FF at the scene couple days later

Remember listening to radio traffic reports about what a total cluster f*** road was

reply to post by Wotcher


It does indeed, kill two birds sort of deal. (or more depending on how you view things that day)

The government doesn't need to have orchestrated the events all by themselves, it only means that they had the knowledge and forbearing to plan ahead - to ensure their goal, whatever that is.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil, is that good men do nothing." - and all that good stuff.

Personally, I feel the government was complicit in at least that much, and part of my being, tells me they may have done more. Unfortunately, that is more than I suspect, you or I will probably ever know on that matter.

reply to post by AGWskeptic


Wasnt so much the initial impact which doomed the buildings, but damage to the systems needed to fight
the resultant fires

Navy has know for years it not enought to suvivve the initial blow - you must control the damage or lose the
ship aka put out the fires and stop the flooding. Which is why Navy sends everyone to damage control schools
to learn to fight fires and stop flooding

At WTC the plane impacts cut through the building smashing the central core which contained the elevators
and stairs, the plumbing for the sprinklers and standpipes

#1 Without functioning sprinklers no way to control fires and limit their spread

#2 With no elevators FF were forced to walk to the impact zones - except for one crew at South Tower who
found a working elevator to the 41 floor none made it that far. Walking 80-90 floors in full gear was impossible,
would had taken 1 1/2 hr to get to the impact floors, FF would have been exhausted

No FF, no way to extinguish the fires

I did it for 10 floors in my town when elevator motor on penthouse of building caught fire - it was exhausting

#3 Fireproofing - the spray on fire proofing was noted for being friable and easily flaked off the steel. The aircraft
impacts knocked off much of the fire proofing exposing the steel to the fires

The steel heated up and weakened until could no longer support the structure and collapsed

Witness the disaster in Japan - the reactors at Fukushima survived the eathquakes and backup systems
functioned - that is until tsumani swamped them and all hell broke loose

Here as in WTC flaws in the system design allowed critical systems to fail

At WTC critical flaw was lining central core and elevator shafts with sheet rock vs concrete to save money and
weight.

The aircraft and associated debris was able to penetrate the central core and destroy the critical operating
systems - sprinklers/standpipes, elevators and fire proofing leading to total failure

Today the building core - elevator shafts and stairways are lined with 2 - 2 1/2 feet of high strnght concrete
to prevent such an occurance

New WTC 7 design (building completed in 2006)

The building is being promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. According to Silverstein Properties, the owner of the building, it "will incorporate a host of life-safety enhancements that will become the prototype for new high-rise construction". The building has 2 ft (60 cm) thick reinforced-concrete and fireproofed elevator and stairway access shafts. The original building used only drywall to line these shafts. The stairways are wider than in the original building to permit faster egress.

reply to post by AGWskeptic

So many claims in this thread that have been debunked to death

So many is an incredible overstatement, 3 out of that entire massive list from the OP is considered "so many"? Great work guys, it only took you 14 pages to "debunk" four pieces of evidence used in this thread. Now just work on debunking the other 50+ bullet points, many of which are entire paragraphs and/or contain several pieces of evidence, that should only take a couple hundred pages of this thread at the rate your debunking is currently going.

Truthers claim to do their own research, but then post Youtube clips and cut and paste jobs.

they're very easy to find using Google.

I find that very hypocritical of you.

I guess to truly understand the topic, I should quit studying Astronomy and Physics, and instead pursue a career in Engineering so I can come on this thread in a few years with my expertise and prove some people wrong.

1 Pyroclastic clouds, clearly there was no volcanic activity, so stop using the term, it makes you look dense.

The molten metal underneath all three of the towers which collapsed actually do suggest some volcanic activity .

2 Pull it being a demolition term, again, not a term used in the industry.

Yes you made your point earlier when you said this, and I don't think too many people here used his words "Pull it" as evidence of a controlled demolition, we focus more on the actual evidence of a conrolled demolition, not two words that some old geezer said. His "pull it" comment definitely is not included in the OP either.

3 No pieces of wreckage bigger than a phonebook, when there clearly were.

Three pieces of wreckage larger than a phonebook on the entire crash site. Look at my earlier post which includes photos of the main Shanksville crash site, and tell me if you see any pieces larger than a phonebook. Don't forget that there were two crash sites, one of which was closed off from the public by the FBI, so they could have been from there.

4 Building collapsed on it's own footprint, again, this is not true, for any of the buildings.

I beg to differ: WTC7-


Controlled Demolition-

The similarities are staggering.

North WTC:

South WTC:

It's very hard to judge exactly where they collapse, because there's so much debris that it clouds your view, but in the video of the south tower, notice how the top chunk is falling independent of the rest of the tower which is standing straight up at that point, yet the whole tower falls.

reply to post by TupacShakur

You're right, it's much better to let me waste my time finding things that provide some scientific analysis over the subject when you don't even read those things that I spend time searching for. Thanks a lot dude

Just show me an example where a demo was over a thousand degrees. hell, how about one where it stayed that temperature for days after?

The first one refered to the calculations of how long it would take the two main towers to free-fall

To which I watched, timed, and discovered it did indeed take longer.

The second one referred to the pyroclastic clouds that formed after the symmetrical collapse of the twin towers and WTC7

To which pictures show it was not perfectly symmetrical. And to which temperatures of 1000+ degrees have yet to be proven.

The third one referred to the impossible evidence found at the Shanksville crash site.

Which photographic evidence shows to be untrue, even though it's not entirely impossible, given the example of Columbia.

The fourth one referred to the impossible evidence found at the base of the twin towers.

Which one? The temperatures? That I don't even believe, not until I see some real raw data.

The sixth one referred to CNN and BBC predicting WTC7's collapse prior to its collapse,

To which is understandable given the huge technical failures of the day.

and the final one referred to the structural engineer and construction manager stating that the twin towers could absorb such an aircraft impact

To which, as I've repeated, a plane from 1957 is not a plane from 2001. A plane from 1968, is not a plane from 2001.

I wasn't attempting to "mix straws" as you strangely put it, I was just pulling information that I saw as factual from the OP, relating to 9/11 as a whole and not just WTC7. Now that we cleared up that communication error, we can continue on with our pointless discussion which will get us both nowhere.

I've got my replies, still waiting.

Three larger than phonebook pieces out of the entire plane. The rest is very small debris.

Colombia shows it to be quite possible.

Yeah sure dude, you took those photos from my post except the links lead to different websites. The eyewitness testimony that they noticed no debris larger than a phonebook is fairly consistent with only three pieces of debris larger than that found, one of them being partially underground. Plus there were two debris sites, one of which was closed off from the public by the FBI, so some if not all of those large pieces of debris could have been recovered from there.

I've yet to be told what the presence of these debris, or their lack there of, matters. The debris are pretty consistent with accidents like Colombia. The two involve a fast-going plane hitting a sudden change in density. The recovered artifacts and wreckage are similar in consistency.

You're focusing more on the technical difficulties part of the question, and the question as a whole refers to technical difficulties during the interview reporting WTC7s collapse when WTC7 was visible in the background. That leads me and many other common-sense thinkers to believe that they noticed their error in reporting the collapse before it happened, and just cut the interview ASAP in hopes that people would not notice their critical mistake.

Won't deny its possible, but it is not common sense to think that. Common sense cannot derive an answer. There are to many variables. Silverstein's claims, the news claims, and the firefighter claims could also, equally possible, allow for the news to have simply picked up the report a fire chief told Silverstien. There is no data to go either way. Claiming it is evidence of a conspiracy is subjective, just as much as claiming it evidence of a technical mix up with a fire chief. It's speculation, and therefore not proof. Common sense can only tell that there was a mix up, but there is no way to factually derive it as definite proof of a conspiracy or a mix up. Considering the number of technical failures of the day, it is more logical to conclude it was a mix up, however, this is just an educated guess.

Your consistent denial and refusal to accept the inside job and prior knowledge makes me laugh

I refuse to believe speculation.

OK, so according to you they could have simply got their news wrong due to the source, and they falsely reported that WTC7 collapsed. What are the odds that it actually did collapse a few minutes after their false reporting?

Quite high if their source was a fire chief reporting that they were abandoning the building.

I find that to be one of the most stunning coincidences to ever strike mankind, as well as the unbelievable coincidence that the only three skyscrapers to collapse from strucural damage happened in the same day. (Uh oh am I "adding straws" again?)

Actually many buildings suffered dramatic damage, and many were demoed in the weeks and years after the incident. There were not only 3 buildings lost. The 3 buildings with the most damage collapsed, which is perfectly understandable. The other buildings, ranging from high to low damage, each met their end fate according to their condition. Those with unrecoverable damage were torn down, those with high damage were slowly taken down over a number of years, those with mild damage were repaired, and those with little damage were cleaned up. This is a perfectly logical account of the total damages. You are playing straws by making it look like only 3 buildings were destroyed by the incident, which is not true.

As I've addressed several times in our endless discussion, the entire building was NOT in flames, 6 out of the 47 floors had fires on them. Would you consider 13% = 100%?

I am talking about WTC7, which was entirely in flames. WTC towers we've already been through. Architecture deals with joints. The design style, much like a mosquito net, dealt with minimalism. One floor cannot hold the mass of 6 floors.


I actually decided to look up the statistics of the planes myself.


The 720B, a pretty conservative estimate to what the designers may have been prepared for, had 11,500 gal of fuel and weighed 235,000 lb . The plane that crashed into one tower, a 767, had 10,000 gal of fuel when it crashed. Too lazy to look up weight but I'll guess you are right on it being lighter.

www.aviation-history.com...

What I can extract from such data is this. I don't know if they prepared the towers to resist the impact, or the fires. I don't know if they prepared the building for the fuel at take off, or less for some time at flight. What I do know is this. People can be wrong, and the statements of the designers is not enough for me to believe it was fit to resist that. I cannot judge therefore. And therefore don't have an opinion.

Right so instead of shedding light on the lies in the official story based on their extensive knowledge of that buildings design, they lied when they stated on the record that it was designed to absorb such a blow to avoid issues with insurance companies.

Speculation, but yes. If they didn't want to have to be responsible, they would lie. Not unbelievable, but speculation. There is no proof either way, and personally, sellers often lie.