PROOF 9/11/01 was an inside job

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 24 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by superluminal11
 


Directed Energy Weapon theory is not a fact, and if it was it is still a controlled demolition, just not an "implosion" demolition as WTC 7 was.

The towers were too tall and skinny for conventional implosion demolition.

All they needed was cutter charges, not anything exotic.




posted on May, 24 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by exponent
 

No, you are pretending that proof that trusses can sag is proof they can pull in columns.

Explained in the reply you keep ignoring. Here...

Clearly not ignoring, you're literally not even reading posts anymore. Come on ANOK, this is embarassing.


You have not supplied anything that says sagging trusses can pull in columns.

Now please stop before you hijack another thread.

I quoted a paper discussing in detail how trusses pulled in on columns and caused a collapse.

Here, let me quote it again as you are literally refusing to read quotes now.

The initial deflection rate matches closely. At about
250 s the deflection rate in the 2D analysis increases slightly.
This is the point in the 2D analysis when the column begins to
be pulled back inward by the deflecting floors. The deflection
rate then becomes more moderate at about 400 s as the rate of
heating in the steel reduces. Runaway failure is then obvious as
the building collapses.
Further analysis of results shows that this extra deflection is
caused by the failure of the column rather than further failure
of the truss. The column is pulled out of plane enough that
P–Delta moments cause plastic hinges to occur in the column
creating a mechanism. This then becomes a global phenomenon
and is outside the scope of this paper.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 07:26 PM
link   
I can't work out how these so called Hi jackers were able to fly a the plane when all they had was Cessna experience.

The OS smells like BS.
edit on 24-5-2013 by amraks because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by amraks
I can't work out how these so called Hi jackers were able to fly a the plane when all they had was Cessna experience.

The OS smells like BS.
edit on 24-5-2013 by amraks because: (no reason given)

It's been more than a decade and you couldn't even use google? They were all commercially certified and had time on simulators. Even without that do you think flying an airliner is impossible? Hell I've played a few flight simulators and I don't doubt that I could manage it. Furthermore it's been reproduced in simulators by amateur pilots a bunch of times.

Anything can smell like BS when you don't bother to do any research at all.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by amraks
I can't work out how these so called Hi jackers were able to fly a the plane when all they had was Cessna experience.


What makes you think they only had Cessna experience? Why do truthers keep making crap like this silly comment up?

Oh, a Taswegian, that explains a lot!
edit on 24-5-2013 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
The fact remains 9/11 was and had to have been, an inside job.....
We may not know the details, but we do understand enough physics to realise we were lied to.....
And the most poignant and pertinent questions were NEVER ANSWERED by the phoney investigation.


Unless you have an well founded education you are unlikely to understand the physics, even if you think you do. It would be more fruitful to look into whom pulled the strings. If it turns out that it were foreign muslim terrorist whom made the attack, but were directed and financed by entities within America and/or Europe, such as the CIA or party unkown, wouldnt you consider that to be an inside job?



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by superluminal11
Controlled demolition was used for WTC7 only.

Videos and witness testimony suggest explosives were used on the towers as well.



Originally posted by superluminal11
Steven Jones is incorrect and was planted to direct people away from the Directed Energy Weapon theory(fact)

The only thing factual about the Directed Energy Weapon theory is that it is planted disinformation. A hoax theory created by a disinformation artist, planted or otherwise.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Videos and witness testimony suggest explosives were used on the towers as well.


Are there any videos that unambiguously show explosives? Or is it your own interpretation?

Are there any eyewitnesses that explicitly back explosives? Or is it your own interpretation?

The idea that kooky ideas are deliberate disinformation is just nonsense. You don't have any evidence for that either.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Man it's the same fight every time..

No matter how many times I look at it,
something is ridiculously descisive about the
way BLD 7 came down.

No matter how many photos I see of the Pentagon
or Shanksville it's what I dont see thats weird,
and too many"firsts" and anomalies abound .

Something stinks to high heaven.

Well at least it's not like any government officials
at the time made any profit from the ensuing war,
war on terror or with the "rebuilding" of Iraq.
Oh wait...



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
Are there any videos that unambiguously show explosives?

Any video showing ejections coming out of the sides is proof that explosives are being detonated:




And please don't try the "it's only air" ploy. You can't prove it, and there's no other collapse video in existence that exhibits these ejections other than controlled demolitions. You can watch controlled demolition videos all day long and see these ejections, which are a direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

In the following video, you can hear the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosives being detonated from 2 miles away:





Originally posted by exponent
Are there any eyewitnesses that explicitly back explosives?

There are plenty. Many of them first responders. It's also not about whether they back explosives or not. What they describe, along with all other evidence, can only be explained by explosives.

Several first responders independently testified to seeing flashes going up, down and around both towers at the lower and middle floors while the buildings were collapsing up above. The flashes were also reported to have popping or exploding sounds associated with them.

Numerous other witnesses: first responders, by-standers, and survivors also reported timed/synchronous "booms" as both towers collapsed.


Timed "booms", flashes, ejections: all are associated with controlled demolitions and can be viewed all day long in controlled demolition videos. None of them are associated with fire-induced collapses, and no amount of searching all day long will reveal a video of a fire-induced collapse exhibiting controlled demolition characteristics while not being an actual controlled demolition.

And as has been discussed numerous times, along with the above information, if steel-structured highrises could actually be brought straight down with fire, controlled demolition companies would be saving millions of dollars by using fire to bring the buildings down. But they don't, because you can't. Steel-structured highrises can only be brought down by explosive demolition (or a very strong earthquake that exceeds the earthquake design tolerances), period.



Originally posted by exponent
The idea that kooky ideas are deliberate disinformation is just nonsense. You don't have any evidence for that either.

Actually, we do. That's why some of those "kooky ideas" are in the hoax bin of this and most other websites.





edit on 24-5-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by exponent
Are there any videos that unambiguously show explosives?

Any video showing ejections coming out of the sides is proof that explosives are being detonated:
...
And please don't try the "it's only air" ploy. You can't prove it,

So let me get this right. It's proof because you say it's proof, but an alternate argument isn't proof because it can't be proven.

Got it.


and there's no other collapse video in existence that exhibits these ejections other than controlled demolitions. You can watch controlled demolition videos all day long and see these ejections, which are a direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated.

So according to your theory, conspirators wanting to create a secret controlled demolition placed large explosives designed to destroy concrete on the outer walls of the steel framed WTC for what purpose exactly?


In the following video, you can hear the pre-collapse and during-collapse explosives being detonated from 2 miles away:

But oddly, not from right next to the towers. I thought you'd accepted that this is wind noise but I guess any straw is graspable.



There are plenty. Many of them first responders. It's also not about whether they back explosives or not. What they describe, along with all other evidence, can only be explained by explosives.

So there are none that actually explicitly back explosives then is what you're saying, it's your intuition that the only explanation could possibly be explosives.


And as has been discussed numerous times, along with the above information, if steel-structured highrises could actually be brought straight down with fire, controlled demolition companies would be saving millions of dollars by using fire to bring the buildings down. But they don't, because you can't.

Do you really think this is a convincing argument? Collapses that destroyed the entirety of Ground Zero, caused something like 13 buildings to be demolished? Why would anyone use that mechanism?


Steel-structured highrises can only be brought down by explosive demolition (or a very strong earthquake that exceeds the earthquake design tolerances), period.

Why does the wider building community completely disagree with you? Why are there no published papers backing up this view? How have you even come to this conclusion with no experimentation? It sounds like you've decided your views trump experimentation and youtube videos are good enough proof.


Actually, we do. That's why some of those "kooky ideas" are in the hoax bin of this and most other websites.

Please cite some evidence then.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by cornucopia
"And now we are being bombarded with messages that Osama Bin Laden is planning to attack the United States of America. And I'm telling you, be prepared for a major attack. But it won't be Osama Bin Laden, it will be those behind the NWO. It is very likely that they will stage a terrorist attack."

"Whatever is going to happen that they're going to blame on Osama Bin Laden don't you even believe it. When in hell... are all you people going to wake up?"

- Bill Cooper, 6/28/2001




Cooper's best, most timely prediction, made 2.5 months before 9/11. He was shot by LEOs less than 2 months after 9/11.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   
The 1st video was:


Published on April 1 2012


www.youtube.com...

How aprapos.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent
It's proof because you say it's proof

Ejections coming out of both towers as they collapsed is proof of explosives because you can see those same ejections in most other explosive controlled demolitions. Why do I have to repeat this point? Why is this point so difficult to comprehend?

You cannot see those ejections in any other type of building collapse except for explosive controlled demolitions. I guess it's easier to deny this fact and make up something to explain the ejections away just for this one and only day in history so that one can remain in denial. But it doesn't make the previous fact any less factual.



Originally posted by exponent
So according to your theory, conspirators wanting to create a secret controlled demolition placed large explosives designed to destroy concrete on the outer walls of the steel framed WTC for what purpose exactly?

There were no explosives on the outer walls.



Originally posted by exponent
But oddly, not from right next to the towers.

Almost every camera recorded the initial explosions that initiated the collapse of the south tower. There are plenty of witnesses that heard the explosions from right next to the towers whether cameras picked them up or not.



Originally posted by exponent
I thought you'd accepted that this is wind noise but I guess any straw is graspable.

And here we start diving into the disinformation pool, whether deliberately or ignorantly. Wind can't know to blow during each collapse, and for the duration of each collapse. Why one would even peddle this blatant disinformation is completely baffling.

These are the pre-collapse explosions before WTC 2 collapsed:




At least one firefighter testified in the Oral Histories to nearly that exact number of pre-collapse explosions before WTC 2 collapsed. That means we have a witness. That means it's not wind.



Originally posted by exponent
So there are none that actually explicitly back explosives then is what you're saying

That is not what I said, and changing what I said is dishonest. Especially when you quoted what I said.



Originally posted by exponent
It sounds like you've decided your views trump experimentation

My "views" are backed up by architects, engineers, scientists, physicists, and history.



Originally posted by exponent
Please cite some evidence then.

Take yourself into the hoax bin and look for them yourself. I'm not going to do it for you.



posted on May, 24 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
ok, ok, ok I'll come clean I'll admit it
I'm one of the guys who planted demo charges in building 7
me and my coworkers spent all evening putting those charges in and the following day when we got the order to pull it we did.
all 15 of us got 1 million dollars to keep quiet after the attacks and after media messed up in reporting, I had to sign non disclosure agreements which I signed under threats duress and coercion but I did it anyway since everyone else did.
But it's been long enough I can come clean...

Now if someone would offer to do Wall Street next time I'd do that one for free.

har har




The only conspiracy is security was lax, they had warnings during Clinton administration that radical Muslims wanted to hit a big target in the U.S. we also knew of targets in the U.S. after the USS Cole incident. But the threats weren't taken serious, no one believed it could be pulled off.

things went nuts after the attack and government overreacted and started taking away rights left and right destroying the constitution.

that is the only real conspiracy is they didn't act on plausible threats they knew existed. There is no bigger conspiracy

all the after effects of 911 is cause Bush got scared and said, “You’re movin’ with your auntie and uncle in Bel-Air.” I whistled for a cab and when it came near The license plate said fresh and it had dice in the mirror If anything I could say that this cab was rare But I thought, “Nah, forget it. Yo home to Bel-Air!” I pulled up to the house about 7 or 8 And I yelled to the cabby yo holmes smell ya later Looked at my kingdom I was finally there To sit on my throne as the prince of Bel-Air.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Same old thing over and over.

CARL SAGAN'S BALONEY DETECTION KIT

You can't start at point A walk on water to point B then with dry feet try to have a scientific discussion.

How were Bush and Chaney able too?

Get 64,000 Kg's of explosives into each building. Requiring 8 charge relays per floor, over 150 miles of wire with a team of 18 experts 3 weeks to do the job consisting of over 600 cuts to the sub and super structure for placement of charges in a building that is never empty. Maintenance, security and cleaning staffs of 600 or more employees occupied both towers during non business hours. Complete radio silence for last 8 days of preparations. Forgetting, of course, that the micro-manager from hell John O'Neill was in charge of security.

Until any kind of plausible explanation of how this was done is offered, engineering reports, YouTube videos, wordplay from witnesses and any other hologram theories are just self disillusion fodder.

At one time it was thought that a House or Senate panel might take up the issue of the Bangkok-Kuala Lumpur- Los Angeles-San Deigo travels of wanted terrorist before the attack during President Obama's lame duck year before the election cycle began.

With the way things are now that will never happen. It's over and there will be no other investigations by the Government or anyone else.

Tell the world how they did it.

OR

Find something else to fantasize about.
edit on 25-5-2013 by spooky24 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by cornucopia
 

I listened to the first few minutes.

With regards to "proof", I think that Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have made the most compelling arguments.

Other than a couple of internet shills and editors at Popular Mechanics, the government would not dare attempt to refute these guys.

Lets assume for a second that criminal elements within the government weren't involved. People dont seem to understand that all the government (in the form of NIST and FEMA) did was present a theory as to why the buildings collapsed (FEMA! These clowns arent even capable of setting up trailers let alone explaining why the impossible happened).

Some people have given into this idea that somehow the government's theories (progressive collapse vs. truss failure vs. column failure, the government doesn't even agree with itself) are automatically correct, why?

edit on 25-5-2013 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by spooky24
 





Get 64,000 Kg's of explosives into each building. Requiring 8 charge relays per floor, over 150 miles of wire with a team of 18 experts 3 weeks to do the job consisting of over 600 cuts to the sub and super structure for placement of charges in a building that is never empty. Maintenance, security and cleaning staffs of 600 or more employees occupied both towers during non business hours. Complete radio silence for last 8 days of preparations. Forgetting, of course, that the micro-manager from hell John O'Neill was in charge of security.


Just curious, how did you arrive at those figures?



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Ejections coming out of both towers as they collapsed is proof of explosives because you can see those same ejections in most other explosive controlled demolitions. Why do I have to repeat this point? Why is this point so difficult to comprehend?

What is difficult to comprehend is how
  • You think that 'looks similar' is proof
  • You think that other plausible explanations are unacceptable because 'they cant be proven'


If 'looks the same' is the level of rigour you require then why aren't the different timings somehow relevant? They don't look anything alike when analysed in detail but apparently that doesn't matter?


You cannot see those ejections in any other type of building collapse except for explosive controlled demolitions. I guess it's easier to deny this fact and make up something to explain the ejections away just for this one and only day in history so that one can remain in denial. But it doesn't make the previous fact any less factual.

The 'fact' here is that there's never been a remotely comparable collapse caught on video. So we have nothing to compare it against. It's a little dishonest to say you don't see it in other collapses when there have been no other collapses


There were no explosives on the outer walls.

Then how did a concentrated pressure wave hit the outer walls without obeying inverse square law or similar? In the demolition you posted the explosives were on exterior walls, how can they be the same?


Almost every camera recorded the initial explosions that initiated the collapse of the south tower. There are plenty of witnesses that heard the explosions from right next to the towers whether cameras picked them up or not.

No camera picked up any 'initial explosions'. They picked up loud noises. There are many cameras from many angles that do not corroborate Rick Siegel's wind noise.


And here we start diving into the disinformation pool, whether deliberately or ignorantly. Wind can't know to blow during each collapse, and for the duration of each collapse. Why one would even peddle this blatant disinformation is completely baffling.

Please be careful, I like you and don't want you to get banned. I'm not promoting disinformation, I have seen 911 eyewitness and know that there's no attempt to do anything but correlate them together. The wind was blowing constantly and by cutting out sections pre collapse Rick can infer they are 'pre-collapse explosions'.

They are not, they are wind.


At least one firefighter testified in the Oral Histories to nearly that exact number of pre-collapse explosions before WTC 2 collapsed. That means we have a witness. That means it's not wind.

No, that's just total nonsense. Picking the same or similar numbers under 10 does not = corroboration. That is a complete joke and I can't believe you're trying to claim it. By that logic the many many people saying 'building collapsed' corroborate that there were no explosives. Obviously a ludicrous suggestion but using the same logic as yours.


That is not what I said, and changing what I said is dishonest. Especially when you quoted what I said.

How could it be dishonest if I quoted you? How could it be more dishonest due to quoting? No logic is used here at all and you point out clearly that it's your interpretation of the evidence.


My "views" are backed up by architects, engineers, scientists, physicists, and history.

Name one who has a coherent theory that matches yours please. SE or at least well cited please.


Take yourself into the hoax bin and look for them yourself. I'm not going to do it for you.

I asked for evidence of disinformation, not evidence of how wild the theories are. I'm well aware of how wild they are and I've met people who espouse them IRL. I didn't accuse them of being government plants as you seem to be doing.



posted on May, 25 2013 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
Other than a couple of internet shills and editors at Popular Mechanics, the government would not dare attempt to refute these guys.

You realise they've put nothing forward yet right? They campaign to make money while calling for a 'new investigation'. Their backers have been duped and they are not attempting to resolve any of the issues.

They exist to take money off you.


Some people have given into this idea that somehow the government's theories (progressive collapse vs. truss failure vs. column failure, the government doesn't even agree with itself) are automatically correct, why?

Nobody's suggesting 'automatically correct'. The reason is that NISTs report (not FEMAs, that was a small scale initial enquiry) well characterises the fires and damage done and discovers explanations for this for example:



No competing hypothesis has an explanation for this that is backed up by any research or even calculations. AE911Truth say these are faked images but I know for a fact the effect is visible on many many amateur VHS transfers from the day, something extremely hard to fake.

What you need to understand is that they have no real theory, this is why they mention high explosives and thermite in the same list, why they talk about silent demolitions and huge explosions pushing steel 600ft at the same time.

What they present is a list of 'things wot look weird'. They then give an unobjectionable petition to the people who are watching it which says 'I support a new investigation'. Those names are then used to back up their wild claims on their website, often with no idea and often despite complete disagreement in the signer's personal statement.

It's a big scam. If they'd like to prove otherwise they're welcome to sue me. I'll win.





new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join