A question for believers or 'OSers'....

Originally posted by m1991
On a serious note, if you think the US government is not "evil enough" to do something like 9/11, remember back in the early 1960s Operation Northwoods was going to plan a bunch of terror attacks and blame them on Cuba.

but wait, there's more...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by esdad71

 

Really digging deep to discredit my interest here aren't you, minor point you're making and you come off as pedantic. Please stay focused and contribute something other than attempting to question my integrity/knowledge about your 9/11 theories.

Digging deep? Anyone who knows anything about 9/11 should know the basic players you screwed it up. This is not a minor point, is shows that you do not know that you are talking about and rehashing the same questions.

I did contribute something. I simply pointed out not a flaw in your logic but in your 'truth' and not my theory. It is not a theory that I created but the truth.

The designers were also always concerned about fires but you seem to have left that out.

reply to post by esdad71


ahahahahah man!

I'm not trying to prove anything, only asking questions. Pull your judgments back a bit, otherwise you may find that you look a little silly. Please respond to the OP. Otherwise move on! Cheers mate

reply to post by pshea38


There is no video fakery, if you subscribe/watch the 'fakery' then you are a youtube video commentator. Sorry but anyone that looks at 'faked' videos of 9/11 has far too much, loads of space to explore the real videos, they provide enough.

reply to post by spoor



frank de martini? use google, shill (term of endearment).

reply to post by vipertech0596



shills (artistic expression) are everywhere. "who are they, where do they come from?"

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by pshea38

 

There is no video fakery, if you subscribe/watch the 'fakery' then you are a youtube video commentator. Sorry but anyone that looks at 'faked' videos of 9/11 has far too much, loads of space to explore the real videos, they provide enough.

How did you come to this conclusion?

Tina Cart, Wolfgang Staehle, Richard Clark, Luc Courchesne, Jules Naudet, Evan Fairbanks and a cast of dozens say otherwise.

Originally posted by psyop911

frank de martini?

He was NOT involved in the design, nor the construction of the WTC's, so stop posting lies.

reply to post by GoodOlDave



Despite all of the crap we have been told by every government official you maintain there is no Official Story ??

Should you not be asking then why there ISN'T one ??

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by pshea38

 

There is no video fakery, if you subscribe/watch the 'fakery' then you are a youtube video commentator. Sorry but anyone that looks at 'faked' videos of 9/11 has far too much, loads of space to explore the real videos, they provide enough.

It took me weeks to go through everything there and you come back in such
short time with such a definitive conclusion.
All video analysis is based on verifiable source material.

I withdraw my previous comment. You are not genuine and are not interested in truth.

ALL 9/11 TWIN TOWER COLLAPSE VIDEO RELEASED IS PROVEN FAKERY.

You Sir, have Slid, Sir! So Soon, Sir?
Enjoy The Continuing Darkness Inside Of The Gate!

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by pshea38

 

Thank you so much. I will definitely look into those links. And you're right, I really just want to find out what happened, I don't find the arguments that support the OS to be compelling in any sense, it seems very fabriacted to me. Thanks again and I will certainly look into it. Cheers

No problem. I think you will find your worldview transformed.

Just a drop in the ocean of clear evidence of video fakery:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ee638e4c766.jpg[/atsimg]

Good luck Sir. Don't let it Slide

Seriously? Try telling the thousands of eyewitnesses this image is fake.

Done with this thread. Simply disgusting.

Oh and one more thing: We were attacked by Middle Eastern militants. That's what happened. Stop trying to look into something that isn't there. You really want to waste your life going after something silly and well...delusional?

Originally posted by SeventhSeal

Originally posted by pshea38

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by pshea38

 

Thank you so much. I will definitely look into those links. And you're right, I really just want to find out what happened, I don't find the arguments that support the OS to be compelling in any sense, it seems very fabriacted to me. Thanks again and I will certainly look into it. Cheers

No problem. I think you will find your worldview transformed.

Just a drop in the ocean of clear evidence of video fakery:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ee638e4c766.jpg[/atsimg]

Good luck Sir. Don't let it Slide

Seriously? Try telling the thousands of eyewitnesses this image is fake.

Done with this thread. Simply disgusting.

Oh and one more thing: We were attacked by Middle Eastern militants. That's what happened. Stop trying to look into something that isn't there. You really want to waste your life going after something silly and well...delusional?

edit on 15-8-2011 by SeventhSeal because: (no reason given)

The Usual BS. Explain The Physics Behind What You See In The Photograph!
Middle-Eastern Militants My Arse!
You Swallowed It All...And Don't Forget How Oswald Killed JFK, The 1969 Moon Landing
Footage Was Real and The Estonia Sank Because Some Idiot Forgot To Close The
Bow Doors. Obama Got Osama and Bush Won Both Elections Fairly and Squarely!

You Are Delusional About Who Is Being Delusional.

Although Maybe Since You Put up Such Convincing Arguments, I Should Change My
Stance. Hmmm. I'll Have To Think About It.

reply to post by SeventhSeal

Seriously? Try telling the thousands of eyewitnesses this image is fake.

Done with this thread. Simply disgusting.

Oh and one more thing: We were attacked by Middle Eastern militants. That's what happened. Stop trying to look into something that isn't there. You really want to waste your life going after something silly and well...delusional?

Oh good grief, is this all we will ever get? The fake outrage and the crocodile tears?

Ever wonder who benefits by keeping the "middle eastern millitants" myth alive?

Who benefits from invasions; the invaded or the invaders?

reply to post by samkent


ok Samkent....yes there are sites spewing stuff....but hey same sites as other(OS) get their info from also...(ONLINE).

but hey go check the references once you read things it does help.

Statements by Engineers
Engineers who participated in the design of the World Trade Center have stated, since the attack, that the Towers were designed to withstand jetliner collisions. For example, Leslie Robertson, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.

John Skilling
John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3
A white paper released on February 3, 1964 states that the Towers could have withstood impacts of jetliners travelling 600 mph -- a speed greater than the impact speed of either jetliner used on 9/11/01.

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact. 4
The Richard Roth Telegram
On Feburary 13, 1965, real estate baron Lawrence Wien called reporters to his office to charge that the design of the Twin Towers was structurally unsound. Many suspected that his allegation was motivated by a desire to derail the planned World Trade Center skyscrapers to protect the value of his extensive holdings, which included the Empire State Building. In response to the charge, Richard Roth, partner at Emery Roth & Sons, the architectural firm that was designing the Twin Towers, fired back with a three-page telegram containing the following details. 5

THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON, SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.
...
4. BECAUSE OF ITS CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY THAT OF A STEEL BEAM 209' DEEP, THE TOWERS ARE ACTUALLY FAR LESS DARING STRUCTURALLY THAN A CONVENTIONAL BUILDING SUCH AS THE EMPIRE STATE BUILDING WHERE THE SPINE OR BRACED AREA OF THE BUILDING IS FAR SMALLER IN RELATION TO ITS HEIGHT.
...
5. THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED IS SIXTEEN TIMES STIFFER THAN A CONVENTIONAL STRUCTURE. THE DESIGN CONCEPT IS SO SOUND THAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER HAS BEEN ABLE TO BE ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE IN HIS DESIGN WITHOUT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE ECONOMICS OF THE STRUCTURE. ...
At the time the Twin Towers were built, the design approach of moving the support columns to the perimeter and the core, thereby creating large expanses of unobstructed floor space, was relatively new, and unique for a skyscraper. However, that approach is commonplace in contemporary skyscrapers.

Frank Demartini's Statement
Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.
Demartini, who had an office on the 88th floor of the North Tower, has been missing since the 9/11/01 attack, having remained in the North Tower to assist in the evacuation. 6 Demartini had first worked at World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the truck bombing in 1993.

I know you wil say....oh that site

Leslie Earl Robertson (born 1928) was one of the chief structural engineers of the World Trade Center in New York, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and was responsible for the design of the buildings' sway-reduction features. He has since been structural engineer on numerous other projects, including the Shanghai World Financial Center and the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong.

SOURCE



now here he mentions the 707.....now taking that into account he also does not say that a 767 could not be responsible.......

But just a side note here....the 707 has four engines...the more robust structures in any aircraft.

John Skilling (October 8, 1921, Los Angeles, California – March 5, 1998, Seattle, Washington) was a civil engineer and architect, best known for being the chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center.

Design Claims

Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson White Paper

A white paper on the structure of the Twin Towers carried out by the firm of Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson contained eleven numbered points, including:

3. The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707-DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

--City in the Sky, p 131
Glanz and Lipton summarize the findings of the white paper:

The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.
--City in the Sky, p 133

SOURCE

lets look at the damage at ground level in which we know explosives were used....1993 truck bombing.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d9f5a5bedf5a.jpg[/atsimg]

as we see in the photo.....lots of damage....concrete was steel re-inforced as you can see the rebar protrude from the remaing concrete still attached to the steel uprights.

now this is three floors underground...yet entire structure is still supported...strange that is....for being such a flimsy structure.

i guess we should look at fire too huh......

On February 13th, 1975, just two years after completion, a building custodian working at the North Tower of the World Trade Center set a fire on the 11th floor which spread to areas of the 6 floors above it, and had raged for 3 hours. The New York Times reported that "flames could be seen pouring out of the 11th-floor windows" on the North Tower's East side, but said that damage to the core structure of the tower was "apparently confined to electrical wiring." It took 132 firefighters [16 were treated for smoke inhalation] with 24 pieces of firefighting equipment to battle this blaze. According to Capt. Harold Kull of Engine Co. 6, "It was like fighting a blowtorch." This event prompted the owners of the complex to fit the towers with sprinkler systems.

SOURCE


Lets now look at Frank Martini......

Frank DeMartini died on September 11th a hero. After accompanying his wife down 88 flights of stairs from his office in the North Tower, he went back up with fellow WTC worker Pablo Ortiz and rescued over 70 people. DeMartini and Ortiz - both 49 years of age - perished in the collapse of the North Tower.

Source



Now what does all this do...NOTHING.....

IT makes no difference what is said as all things are speculative......and sure enough the truthers will be made out to be lunatics...and a smear campaign soon follows and then...as GEN red will do come in and associate all truthers into the halogram pyscopath group....even though logical questions get ask.

Did the building just falldown due to the planes and fires.....Not sure

Are there other possibilities.....I would think so.

Do i believe what the gov says.....Not for one second.

Do i have an understanding of Building construction and materials used in the construction of said buildings....yes.

Does that make any difference ......No.

All i can say to the OP....is this has been debated Verbatim.....and all his points have been brought forwrd before...I know as i have been at issue with this for many years on here.....i have presented very much material....and have had many discussions with the debunkers...and you know something.....

until some one finds that smoking gun...and beats millions of people over the head with it repeatedly...no one is going to believe it.

The world turns......

just a note....when Frank had a radio transmission stating he thought the central lifts were going to collapse....it seemed to me he was recognising a problem in the central core as he asked for them to send up a structural engineer to 78th floor.

Now to me since the lift shafts were in the central core it would mean the central core may have been comprimized......now i have been working on a simulation....but is very complicated and is taking me time....but it is a simulation to fit the collapse so it will be interesting if i can get it to work....by removing sections on from the central core at sub basement level it is appearing the way the buildings came down is quite plausible.

we shall see.........

Oh and one more thing: We were attacked by Middle Eastern militants. That's what happened. Stop trying to look into something that isn't there. You really want to waste your life going after something silly and well...delusional?

edit on 15-8-2011 by SeventhSeal because: (no reason given)

This is why I can't stand (most) military people, they dish out this "shut up you are a retard" crap to people who question their leaders. People like that ARE part of the elite plan.

The things that you don't know, or have wrong could fill a county!

Donald Rumsfeld picking up "debris"

One question I have is why the American President didn’t give a F*#K on 11/09/2001.

bushtimeline

Sorry don’t mean to take away from your threads puzzling questions, but I just read this article and almost shook my head off in disbelief over the commander and chiefs bizarre actions that morning.

reply to post by Yankee451


Too hasty with my response. The problem I have with this holographic theory is that all you need to do is watch any single one of the hundreds of available videos from the day to realize that this theory seems a little silly. While I did say there was 'no video fakery' which is obviously incorrect, I don't see how people can put stock into any faked video, holographic plane or not and by putting theories such as this forward really detract from the overall argument here.

While I said there was no video fakery, I guess what I meant is there is no video fakery worth mentioning. I am sorry for such a dismissive response, do you understand where I am coming from here?

reply to post by Charizard


Incredibly informative post and precisely what I am after. I appreciate you taking the time to post that. Cheers mate

Ok, I'll answer these, and maybe provide some counter-questions of my own. Now, I have watched some things on the 911 conspiracy, both for and against it being an inside job. I remember when it happened. I was sitting in my high school English class, watching it on TV when the second plane hit the second tower. I remember thinking that it was replay footage, I didn't even realize it was a second plane hitting the other tower. Anyway:

Originally posted by sir_slide
Do you flat out believe the official story for 9/11? Do you believe there is no evidence to support any other theory?

Do I believe the official story 100%? Nah, not really. I'm sure there are things that happened that we don't know about and that we will probably never know about.But which sounds more likely? Terrorists hijacked the planes and crashed them into buildings, or our government organized this incredibly elaborate plot, snuck into the WTC buildings, used some magic "paint on" thermite (which I've never seen any evidence that this stuff actually exists, and that's another point.Some people say explosions were seen, ala demolition charges, but others claim thermite was used. So which was it?), hijacked said planes again, flew them off to some air base, unloaded the passengers, executed them, disposed of the bodies, took off, flew the planes, managed to crash them into the building without immediately triggering the thermite/explosives that the buildings were wired with, then somehow managed to keep everyone who was involved with this plot (which would have been a large number) silent, and managed to pull off this elaborate ruse even though they can't do anything else right?

Mohamed Atta (one of the main hijackers) was a coc aine snorting, vodka drinking hedonist who spent much of his time prior to the attacks motor boating strippers and doing lines of coke off them. He had even gone into the world trade center building completely out of his mind demanding blue prints for the building and generally acting deliberately suspicious. Few problems here. Extremist Muslims, especially martyrs are likely by definition to be incredibly religious, well needless to say Atta's behavior does not seem to fit here, it seems more like the behavior of a deranged hedonist. This doesn't fit.

Is there any evidence of these claims? Either way, all I can say is "so what?" Plenty of religious nuts aren't exactly true to their religion. Look at all of the pedophile priests; the recent Norway shooter....heck, I knew of a guy who got high while reading the Bible and ended up sawing his own arm off with a pocket knife because of some passage he read. He was really religious, but he also did drugs.

The hole that was left in the side of the pentagon. We are told that without a doubt, a Boeing 757 slammed into the pentagon. Well sorry but the hole is absolutely tiny and anyone who payed attention can clearly see that a Boeing 757 would make a far larger hole, and there would also be a great deal of debris laying about. Donald Rumsfeld was also seen clearing the Pentagon lawn after the 'attack', pretty odd for the secretary of defense to do that. I would also like to know how people think that the hijacker who apparently flew the pentagon plane, who could barely handle a single engine Sesler according to his American flight instructor, was able to make such difficult maneuvers and actually successfully hit the pentagon.

The hole: The Pentagon's walls were strongly re-enforced. Especially compared to, say, the WTC buildings, so you would expect less damage to that structure. From what I understand and from witness accounts I've read (Truthers say that believers of the OS ignore witness reports of explosions in the WTC, but Truthers always ignore/deny the eyewitnesses who say they saw an airplane hit the Pentagon) the wings of the plane struck a concrete barrier and some kind of large generator? (memory is fuzzy here) before the plane hit the actual facade of the building. This surely would have ripped the fragile wings to shreds.

Now when it comes to this subject, I have some counter questions for you (or any Truther in general). What about the photos taken from the Pentagon lawn that clearly show airplane wreckage strewn about and body parts within the structure? Do you really want me to believe that some government agent ran around planting shredded pieces of plane wreckage while the people were distracted there? I mean, really? Or are you going to claim that these photos are fake?

Also, assuming a missile did hit the Pentagon: Why? What was the purpose of this? What happened to the plane that was said to hit the Pentagon, then? They already hijacked the plane, so why shoot a missile at the Pentagon instead of just flying the plane into it like they did with the WTC towers?

The pentagon is one of the most protected and secure buildings in the US. It has missile defense systems that automatically take out incoming targets, as it is a military zone and an absolute no fly zone for a 30km perimeter. So what happened? Do you really think that a 757 could make it all the way to the pentagon without having any issues? Norad's missile defense systems would have shot it out of the sky before it got anywhere near the pentagon.

This is one of the aspects of the official story which I admit is dubious. I don't think I've ever heard any official speak out about why they were on stand down and why they did nothing to stop the plane from hitting the Pentagon. My best guess is that everyone was still in a state of confusion at the time and maybe they were just reluctant. Sure, you have plans to shoot down a plane in place, but when it comes to actually doing it....yeah, it's easy to say "well they're going to die anyway and we'll be saving more lives", but is it really that easy to give an order to blow up a plane full of innocent passengers? I don't know. I would like to hear the reasoning and thought process that was going on during this chaos.

Building 7. How can a building that was not hit by any plane, apparently had no explosives in it and only some tiny fires on a couple of floors collapse demolition style, in free fall? People may say that it was damaged when the towers fell. Why didn't other buildings collapse like that then?

Maybe the other buildings weren't as heavily-damaged?

The exercises taking place on that day. Military exercises were taking place that day that predicted the exact same situation that was took place on 9/11, a lot of fighter pilots and so forth thought that the actual attacks were an exercise so they did not respond to the threat out of confusion. Strange that, not really relevant but the same thing happened on the day of the London bombings.

I can't comment on this as I've never heard about this until now. Maybe the hijackers had inside information and knew that the military would be distracted with exercises that day? Who knows.

The explosions. Many many people have said they heard explosions on the ground and in the basement, witnesses saw their friends killed by exploding walls in the basement. So if we listen to the hundreds of witnesses claiming to have heard explosions, then who planted the explosives, video evidence has also revealed explosive flashes occurring as the towers fall. So do you believe there were no explosives? or that the terrorists planted them and the commission was just too lazy to investigate it or?

I don't think I've personally seen video evidence of explosions outside of dust and debris blowing out of the windows as the buildings are collapsing. It is entirely possible that someone involved may have snuck a few bombs into the lower levels of the buildings, but I don't believe that the buildings were wired for demolition as some claim.

So believers and 'OSers' what do you think of these things? Do you choose to ignore them to fit your idea of what happened, deny these realities because of the grim realization that the government may have actually let this atrocity take place? Even if you don't believe it was orchestrated by the government, do you not think that they may have had prior knowledge? which has been proven by the way. If they did have prior knowledge and did just let it happen, that is almost just as bad. Even if they didn't orchestrate it, can you not believe that they may have assisted? Pulled a few strings and turned a few blind eyes so that it could happen?

Personally, I don't choose to ignore the evidence, but a lot of Truthers seem to. They ignore the eyewitnesses who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon. They ignore the photos that show plane wreckage laying about on the lawn right after. They ignore the phone calls from the passengers aboard Flight 93, going so far as to make ridiculous claims about how the government used voice-over machines to fake them or some nonsense like that.

Do I believe it was all an elaborate plot staged by the US government and/or TPTB? No. Do I think the government/Bush/Cheney/the military/*insert rich corporation here* were involved in some way? Eh, not really. Do I believe they knew about it and let it happen anyway? I believe it may be possible that they caught wind of the plot but didn't take it seriously and as a result were caught completely off-guard.

I like to keep an open mind, but some of the claims I've heard about 911 are just flat out inane and laughable. I lose all respect for people when they start talking about fake victims and holographic airplanes.