Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact

page: 50
12
<< 47  48  49    51 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by XxaudioholicxX
 


After all the data and facts available, its amazing these morons can still be in such incredible denial and state of ignorance... either that or they're apart of the equally disturbing cancer of disinformation agents who will in the future be hunted down along with the rest of the "ma bus" (see nostradamian terminology for definition) administration conspirators when the the truth finally makes it to the mainstream... and it will. Unfortunately though, there's too much stupidity in control at the moment and its far too late to stop the course this country is on. We past the point of no return the day this country invaded Iraq.

Someone should move the hands of the doomsday clock another minute... ooops,,, that would put it at 12midnight.

oh dear...




posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 2 2008 @ 04:45 PM
link   
The conspiracy theory is just not plausible.

Suppose I were planning to blow up the towers with bombs. This is how I would do it: 1 - plant the bombs; 2 - blow them up; 3 - blame terrorists. Why in hell would you make it a million times more complicated than it needed to be when it makes it far more likely that you would be found out?



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Reporting events before they actually happen isn't very plausible either, yet it happened...


The building the BBC reported as collapsed still stands behind the reporter. Interestingly, the BBC, usually well known for their meticulous record keeping, has since 'lost' the time coded originals for this broadcast. Scripted events or amazing ability to predict the collapse of the assumably structurally sound WTC 7? This is just one example of a myriad of cooincidences and anamolies we're expected to swallow in order for the official story to work.
Plausibility works both ways...



posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


I would weigh your opinions more heavily if you would come out of the shadows of anonimity.

How is a CT not plausible?
The OS is a conspiracy theory.



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
completely right... i cant agree anymore ..... this is magnificent... you... me... we ... all of us people in America need to stand up for our selves and destroy our government ... take back whats ours and REVEAL THE TRUTH TO OUR NATIONS PEOPLE...
and yeah i know this is anonymous but hell i'm thirteen and i have not once trusted our government.... the government is going to crash no matter what.... and i say we over power the system



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Reporting events before they actually happen isn't very plausible either, yet it happened...


The building the BBC reported as collapsed still stands behind the reporter. Interestingly, the BBC, usually well known for their meticulous record keeping, has since 'lost' the time coded originals for this broadcast. Scripted events or amazing ability to predict the collapse of the assumably structurally sound WTC 7? This is just one example of a myriad of cooincidences and anamolies we're expected to swallow in order for the official story to work.
Plausibility works both ways...


Is it really that far-fetched to think that they were using recorded/looped video in the background?



posted on Nov, 25 2008 @ 06:02 PM
link   

posted by twitchy
Reporting events before they actually happen isn't very plausible either, yet it happened...


The building the BBC reported as collapsed still stands behind the reporter. Interestingly, the BBC, usually well known for their meticulous record keeping, has since 'lost' the time coded originals for this broadcast. Scripted events or amazing ability to predict the collapse of the assumably structurally sound WTC 7? This is just one example of a myriad of cooincidences and anamolies we're expected to swallow in order for the official story to work.
Plausibility works both ways...


posted by n o o d l z
Is it really that far-fetched to think that they were using recorded/looped video in the background?

Did you notice that it says live on the BBC screen 26 minutes early before demolition charges actually brought WTC 7 down? Maybe they set them off for Jane Standley; but there was an unaccounted for 26 minute delay? Did you know that CNN live also reported WTC 7 destroyed an hour early? What is so far-fetched about the 9-11 planners keeping their Mainstream News Media partners advised of the status of their operation. Wouldn't you like a heads-up once in a while from your mission members? Is it really that far-fetched that the BBC normally the finest record keepers, somehow managed to lose that damning piece of live video?

WTC 7 actually fell at 5:20 pm (22:20 GMT) The BBC reported it fallen at 21:54 GMT.







BBC denies "conspiracy" over 9/11 video

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Yesterday, Richard Porter, an editor from BBC News, wrote a blog entry to respond to a controversy that has erupted overnight in the blogosphere. "We're not part of a conspiracy," he assures his readers. "We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

At the heart of the controversy is a video that surfaced on Google Video and YouTube. It is a segment taken from the BBC's own archive of their news coverage of the events of September 11. In it, reporter Jane Standley reports the complete unexpected collapse of WTC 7. However, she presented this information half an hour before it actually happened. In fact, while she is reporting the demise of WTC 7, it is clearly visible right behind her. During the course of the broadcast, the studio loses the connection with her, and when she returns, the building is gone.

During the first part of the broadcast, she gives specific details about the building, how many floors it has, who owns & leases it, and the fact that nobody was inside at the time of the collapse. All of these facts that Ms. Standley presented were 100% accurate.

In Porter's 5-point response to the accusations, he insists that his organization was the victim of chaos, not conspiracy. Unfortunately, Porter says, none of the reporters involved remember exactly what happened, and they have lost all of the original archive tapes, making it impossible to check. Porter explains that "like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."

He concludes that, at worst, they simply made an error — an error that happened to be prophetic. He signs off by quoting a flippant comment from YouTube: "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... ".

Directly beneath Porter's blog are two-dozen comments from BBC News readers. The comments are less than appreciative.

en.wikinews.org...



posted on Nov, 26 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
Not to mention the advanced warning received by Goulianni to get out of the building because it was going collapse. Plenty of videos circulating of Piloce Officers telling people to clear the area as well for the same reason... Going to Collapse.... How could they possibly know that?

If all that doesn't convince you, just look at WTC going down and ask yourself if it 'looks' like a fire related collapse, or a very carefully planned demolition...



Controlled Demolitions Inc. was contracted to clean up the site, FEMA was in NY sept. 10, some guy went around destorying the airline pilots tapes and depositing them into seperate trash cans despite direct orders to retain the material, Dancing and Vanishing Mossad Agents, Willie Brown being told by Condiliar Rice not to fly that day, the cooincidences go on and on and on...



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...
logic If ... Then...
If freefall in WTC7 then freefall in WTC1&2



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by All Seeing Eye
 


what are you retarted or something?
planes brought down those towers and it is websites like this that give not only false hope to the families of the victims but also open up old wounds for those poor people.
sure the us governments explanation has a few holes in it but they were not responsible, no single organization, even a very powerfful government, would ever try to execute a plan with that many oppurtunities for being found out or caught. Even one as idiodic as George Bush was would ever be dumb enough to attempt it.

A bunch of pissed of muslims brought them towers down and anyone dumb enough to agree with this screwed up faggot can go die of cancer.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
For your information, there is a chance that the WTC attack by terrorist is planned or at least known by the israel. Why? Because on that horrible day, 9 September 2001, 4000 jewish worker who work in WTC did not go to their office in WTC, ALL OF THEM. Is this make sense? Maybe one or two is reasonable. But 4000 of them, all in one day, the day the terrorist attack WTC. There must something behind their absence on 9 September 2001. Maybe they planned it or knew but not tell the american officer. Now let me ask you, who is the parties that gain the most benefit from the WTC attak. THE ONE AND NOT ONLY ISRAEL.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
USA(United Scum Association)
kill these goons before they end life on Earth
# You goons



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Le

911 Thermite

Editor's Note

Below is the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusuions of this important article. The complete article can be downloaded (pdf)


Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007


Complete Article

Abstract:
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.




Excerpts
Complete Article


INTRODUCTION
The destruction of three skyscrapers (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001 was an immensely tragic catastrophe that not only impacted thousands of people and families directly, due to injury and loss of life, but also provided the motivation for numerous expensive and radical changes in domestic and foreign policy. For these and other reasons, knowing what really happened that fateful day is of grave importance.
A great deal of effort has been put forth by various government-sponsored and -funded investigations, which led, in large part, to the reports released by FEMA [1] and NIST [2]. Other studies of the destruction have been less well publicized but are no less important to the outstanding obligation that remains to the victims of that tragedy, to determine the whole truth of the events of that day [3-10]. A number of these studies have appropriately focused attention on the remaining physical material, and on available photographs and video footage, as sources of evidence still in public hands, relating to the method of destruction of the three skyscrapers.
CONCLUSIONS
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in significant numbers in dust associated with the World Trade Center destruction. We have applied SEM/XEDS and other methods to characterize the small-scale structure and chemical signature of these chips, especially of their red component. The red material is most interesting and has the following characteristics:
1. It is composed of aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon and carbon. Lesser amounts of other potentially reactive elements are sometimes present, such as potassium, sulfur, lead, barium and copper.
2. The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in particles at the scale of tens to hundreds of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing.
3. On treatment with methyl ethyl ketone solvent, some segregation of components occurred. Elemental aluminum became sufficiently concentrated to be clearly identified in the pre-ignition material.
4. Iron oxide appears in faceted



posted on Apr, 4 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
It's amazing reading the first page of this thread. How far we have come.

Well... on the subject of bombs in the building(s), this thread references Core of Corruption, an excellent new video that deals with many of the issues raised in this thread.

I've never seen such a comprehensive collection of media clips proving conclusively that there were indeed bombs in the building.

Further, the evidence denoting Israeli/Mossad involvement gets a good airing.

And there's even a clip (not from the BBC!) in which the newscaster reports that WTC7 has collapsed and you can see it fall in the background just as she says it! They even remark on this!

Well worth a look.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Wrong. The 47 core columns were welded together end to end; some mechanism caused the welds to fail and shearing at the weld points. Perhaps some form of Tesla vibration wavelength. The 30 foot multi-ton columns were perfect lengths to quickly load on trucks and quickly remove from the public eye.

NIST Core Column Data

In this NIST taped meeting, NIST engineer John Gross denied there was WTC molten steel. Multiple eyewitnesses to the molten iron and this horseshoe bent core column proved the Lie.

NIST Engineer John Gross refused to give the individual his email so the NASA AVIIRIS hot spot images could be e-mailed to him, even though Gross asked him to during the meeting. NIST frauds and liars with an attitude of wilful ignorance.



This 8-ton structural steel column (called I beam by narrator) was once straight, but is now curved into a horseshoe shape without stress cracks or buckling or tearing, by the intensive heat which formed the molten metal under the WTC.




Google Video Link



Google Video Link


Images of the World Trade Center Site Show Thermal Hot Spots on September 16 and 23, 2001




Originally posted by twitchy
I suppose jet fuel also causes structural Steel to section itself off into 30' pieces for hauling though.



posted by HowardRoark
I don’t suppose it ever occurred to the theologian (or to you for that matter) that the columns were originally manufactured in 30 foot lengths, did it? The 30 foot lengths were bolted together to form the structure. When the structure collapsed, the bolted joints were the weak points that failed.

Furthermore, it two pieces were still attached after the collapse, it would have been a lot easier and faster for the workers to separate them by cutting the bolts rather then to cut the column itself in half.



posted by Zamboni

I am trained in structural engineering (University of Western Ontario - Canada) ... and even IF the collapse was initiated at the point of plane impact the entire structure would have only partially collapsed and surely not in symetry. Also the time for a complete collapse due to the absurd 'pancake' theory would have been at least 20-30 secs since each structural joint would have resisted failure, not to mention the central support structure was designed inside of the floor truss structure (47 columns). However the video evidence shows pulverization and disintegration at near free fall acceleration which means the internal central structure must have failed throughtout the 110 stories in a simultaneous dynamic action .... which is exactly what demolition crews attempt to create.

Mr Roark either has the attention span of some brevity or he is blinded by internet disinfo .... It is common knowledge in the 'Structural Engineering' community worldwide that the WTC's didn't collapse, but very few will publically admit it due to fear of corporate reprisals.

The key to understanding the demolition of the WTC's is to know that nearly ALL the concrete floor and wall structures were pulverized ... a simple collapse would have left thousands of tonnes of broken pieces of concrete piled high above ground zero. And a number of static vertical support columns would have remained standing at least a few hundred feet in the air and a 'collapse' would have been slow moving and partial or toppling in appearance.




posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
There's been alot of fresh bickering in the 9-11 forum... I thought that, for the benefit of a few in particular, this would be a worthy thread to bring back up. We've been at this for years, so when I see new members faceitously asking how long we've been 'twofers' and what kind of research we've put into all of this, well use your search function guys. We're not all noobs here, and some of us have put more reasearch than we care to recall into it.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by twitchy
 


I was going to use this for another thread but here we go;

From the archives at the top of the forum:

NBC 9-11-01
Eliot walker producer for "Today" show reports a secondary explosion.

George Shay (commuter) reports "I heard 2 explosions however. There was a first explosion that was louder then a second explosion"



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The conspiracy theory is just not plausible.

Suppose I were planning to blow up the towers with bombs. This is how I would do it: 1 - plant the bombs; 2 - blow them up; 3 - blame terrorists. Why in hell would you make it a million times more complicated than it needed to be when it makes it far more likely that you would be found out?



Look at the big picture, evidence suggests something bad is OTW it's predicted, on going, on schedule, and 100% planned.

There is some objective evidence of Mossad / CIA involvement in this incident which indicates (not prove) Jack Bernsteins 1985 predictions (below) accurate. He was murdered. Link

Israel could trigger a large scale Mideast war, a large war which Israel could not win alone. Then the New York leg of the New York/Moscow/Tel Aviv Triangle would use its influence on the U.S. Government to send U.S. military forces to aid Israel.

Bernsteins added what would happen "next":

when the U.S. military is deeply involved and the U.S. citizens demoralized... International Bankers will make their move... and likely will, trigger an economic collapse in America — like they did in 1929

Then..

Since the money system currently used in the U.S. is not backed by gold, silver or anything of value, the paper dollars and tin coins now in use will be worthless. # In the resulting state of confusion and in an effort to obtain food and other necessities, the American people will accept the ‘New States Constitution’ which has already been written.

..and

"...International Bankers will likely create an economic collapse and throw the U.S. into a state of chaos."

Not bad for 1995, that sh#t is happening.

Constitution for the New states of America is real, and includes:

Article 1-A Sec.1 - "Freedom of expression shall not be abridged except in declared emergency."

Article 1A Sec.8 - "The practice of religion shall be privileged."

Article 1B Sec. 8 - "Bearing of arms shall be confined to the police, members of the armed forces, and those licensed under law."

Recall the Russian dude who recently predicted the US would break up into 10 states?

www.newswithviews.com...

Did you know?:

March 27, 1969, President Richard Nixon divided the country into 10 regions via the Government Reorganization Act. Then with Nixon’s Executive Order 11647, the nation was divided up into 10 administrative regions on February 14, 1972 (Federal Register February 12, 1972, Vol. 37, No. 30), which also established the Federal Regional Council for the newly designed 10 regions. Now, why did former President Richard Nixon redefine the United States? He did so because the United Nations passed a resolution that the United States must reorganize into 10 regions.

what if I told you that a new constitution was written at the same time the country was divided into 10 regions? Ever heard of the Proposed Constitution for the New states of America? In 1964, the Ford Foundation funded an outfit called the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions to write a new constitution for our nation. After 40 drafts, a staff of 100+ people, and at a cost of 2.5 million dollars a year, a decade later (1974) the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America was finished.



posted on Aug, 30 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Did you know?:

March 27, 1969, President Richard Nixon divided the country into 10 regions via the Government Reorganization Act. Then with Nixon’s Executive Order 11647, the nation was divided up into 10 administrative regions on February 14, 1972 (Federal Register February 12, 1972, Vol. 37, No. 30), which also established the Federal Regional Council for the newly designed 10 regions. Now, why did former President Richard Nixon redefine the United States? He did so because the United Nations passed a resolution that the United States must reorganize into 10 regions.

what if I told you that a new constitution was written at the same time the country was divided into 10 regions? Ever heard of the Proposed Constitution for the New states of America? In 1964, the Ford Foundation funded an outfit called the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions to write a new constitution for our nation. After 40 drafts, a staff of 100+ people, and at a cost of 2.5 million dollars a year, a decade later (1974) the Proposed Constitution for the Newstates of America was finished.


Lets see it then.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 47  48  49    51 >>

log in

join