Scientific Evidence, 9-11 was a inside Job

reply to post by rich23

Good for you! your information is correct, I thought ATS had rules on people who deliberately post false information. He could have google that information in seconds but chose not to.

No, none of the hijackers have turned up alive. Not one. Yes, in the days after 9/11, the FBI had a couple pictures of men with almost the same name as the hijackers in use. HOWEVER, that was corrected within a week of 9/11 and of the 19 as identified by the FBI two weeks after 9/11...NONE are alive.

Several major news organizations wrongly identified at least four pilots of Middle Eastern descent as likely hijackers. Two of the wrongly suspected pilots had Arabic names similar to those of two dead hijackers. A pilot living next door to one of them became a third wrong suspect. A pilot with the same last name became the fourth wrong suspect -- even though he'd been dead for a year. [Wall Street Journal]

the only people that do not accept this are people like you reading outdated and false information on conspiracy sites.

Right! LOL since, when did CNN, and Wall Street Journal become false information on a conspiracy site. Lol

The FBI has named five hijackers on board Flight 11, whereas Ms Sweeney spotted only four. Also, the seat numbers she gave were different from those registered in the hijackers' names. [BBC News]

CNN reported that the men who hijacked the aircraft used phony IDs containing the names of real people living in Arab nations in the middle east.
The Saudi Airlines pilot, Saeed Al-Ghamdi, 25, and Abdulaziz Al-Omari, an engineer from Riyadh, are furious that the hijackers' "personal details" - including name, place, date of birth and occupation - matched their own. [Telegraph]

In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." [Insight]

Well I guess that leave out the FBI phony DNA reports.

We are told that the group that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks were highly trained (possibly by the CIA) experts, with knowledge of how to steal identities and forge fake IDs, yet at the same time we are being told that these men were incapable of correctly filling in US visa applications.
We are also being told that they spent the night before the attack getting drunk in bars, making noise, screaming insults at the "infidels", and doing everything they could to attract attention to themselves. They used the credit cards issued in their stolen names, allowed their driver's licenses with the stolen names to be photocopied, and used public library computers to send emails back and forth using their stolen names signed to unencrypted messages about their plans to steal aircraft and crash them into buildings, then decorated their apartments with absurdly obvious props such as a crop dusting manual to the point where the whole affair reads like a low budget "B" detective movie from the 1930s.
In short, these men did everything they could to make sure everyone knew who they were, or more to the point, who they were pretending to be.
Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists' identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left was left deliberately-for the F.B.I. to chase." [The New Yorker]

We don't know who planned 9/11 attacks.
But we do know who they wanted us to think they were.
We do know who they intended America to blame for the attacks.

whatreallyhappened.com...

I do not believe any of this information is from any conspiracy sites, just good research well done.

Tracking the 19 Hijackers
What are they up to now?
At least 9 of them survived 9/11
A former high-level intelligence official told me, "Whatever trail was left
was left deliberately--for the F.B.I. to chase." New Yorker 10/1/01 by Seymour Hersh

www.welfarestate.com...

MANY 9-11 "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE.
The world's media has reported that many of the so-called hijackers "fingered" by the FBI are still alive. For example the BBC (British Broadcasting Cooperation) carried this report:

guardian.150m.com...

reply to post by rich23


Now how did I know you would go back to the Sept 23 article from the BBC....and would ignore the more current articles?

So, step up to the current articles on the BBC website....then get back to me about the identity of the terrorists.

reply to post by WonderwomanUSA

Good for you! your information is correct, I thought ATS had rules on people who deliberately post false information. He could have google that information in seconds but chose not to.

Then you might want to step back and consider that maybe I have my facts straight. I have that BBC article on my favorites...as well as the articles that cleared up the intial misunderstandings....something you seem to lack.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


LOL Is this what you do just go back and forth crying you are always right!
And everyone else is wrong, as I stated before you stay on the defense

Then you might want to step back and consider that maybe I have my facts straight. I have that BBC article on my favorites...as well as the articles that cleared up the intial misunderstandings....something you seem to lack.

Please post your article from BBC
With you, everyone lacks understanding, are you always this nasty, or is this just your nature.

reply to post by WonderwomanUSA

A five-year-old story (which would be the BBC story dated 23Sep2001) from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.

The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names

www.bbc.co.uk...

Did you catch that last sentence?

There is also this page...

www.911myths.com...

And this...

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Saudi Arabia acknowledged for the first time that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens, but said Wednesday that the oil-rich kingdom bears no responsibility for their actions

www.usatoday.com...

Or this..

(AP) The FBI has resolved questions about the identities of the 19 hijackers involved in the Sept. 11 attacks and has discovered places outside the United States where the conspiracy was planned, FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday

Saudi Arabian officials and others have questioned whether some of the hijackers identified by the FBI in the weeks after the attacks used stolen identifications. Mueller said those questions have been answered

We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible," he said. "We have been successful in working with our foreign counterparts in identifying places where the conspiracy we believe was hatched as well as others who may have been involved in the conspiracy

www.cbsnews.com...


Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 3/13/2009 by Hal9000]

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Well you just showed how BBC sold out to the United States corporate proganda machines, nothing new here. BBC said they were confused, lol, like when they reported WTC 7, twenty min before it exploded to dust. I supposes they were confused then to. You can keep reading that garbage and you can believe in what you want, however you will not convert me to become ignorant, and uninformed, sorry you wasted so much time presenting another BBC lie.

Originally posted by WonderwomanUSA
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

Well you just showed how BBC sold out to the United States corporate proganda machines, nothing new here. BBC said they were confused, lol, like when they reported WTC 7, twenty min before it exploded to dust. I supposes they were confused then to. You can keep reading that garbage and you can believe in what you want, however you will not convert me to become ignorant, and uninformed, sorry you wasted so much time presenting another BBC lie.

So the BBC was telling the truth at first, but they're lying now? How do you determine whether they're being truthful or not? It seems to be based on whether they say what you want them to say.

reply to post by adam_zapple



They are not lying now, the FBI put them in check, thats how cover ups work, you gotta go an tie those loose ends.

Where is the prof from the info provided by the FBI where are all the videos they seized?

Nothing, BBC its only reporting on hearsay(from the FBI), nothing else.

Well, others have pretty much made the points I would have in reply to swampy's nonsense, particularly the part about the BBC reporting WTC7 went down 25 minutes or so before it actually fell. They were being fed names, someone checked them out, whoops! And then they have to backtrack.

It's worth noting that the comments that go with this wonderful new article that swampy quotes are almost uniformly negative, and cut to the heart of the problems it raises... to cite just one example (source is from the BBC article quoted by swampy)

This column is really most unsatisfying. It seems to be political spin. Real journalism would be to further investigate the issues raised. For instance, who are the men you pictured in the article? What is their current status?

Changing the photo caption at this late date seems to be inappropriate. This redaction of a historical and controversial news article smacks of Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth.

I really couldn't put it any better. It's very sad, as far as I'm concerned, that the BBC just left it as saying, oh, well, the FBI says that's the way it is. There was a time they'd have done their own independent investigation. Now, just like the pathetic US MSM, they are content to parrot FBI spin as though it were incontrovertible fact.

I can still remember the Beeb's Panorama Special on the 25th anniversary of the JFK assassination. Now that was proper reporting, and we won't see its like again.

****

I always like looking at 9/11myths, it's always good for a laugh:

This has never struck us as an idea that made much sense, especially if you believe the US Government were behind 9/11. If you were constructing a fake terrorist attack because you wanted to attack Afghanistan, or Iraq, then wouldn’t you involve a few Afghans or Iraqis? But no, we’re supposed to believe that they made them inconvenient Saudis, instead.

Why, indeed, Saudis?

Well... perhaps because the hijackers were only playing the bad guys in the pre-arranged hijacking exercise, as Webster Tarpley has suggested. For those of you who are interested, I thoroughly recommend this excellent lecture of his...

I have tried to go through all the posts, but there is just to many. If this video has been posted before than I am sorry. Just watch it and draw your own conclusions.

www.youtube.com...

[edit on 11-3-2009 by jdub89]

reply to post by jdub89


Sorry, but...

First, this is well off-topic.

Second, that video is the dumbest I've seen in a long time. Why? The annotations say "this can only mean that the plane fired missiles into the building". (My emphasis)

No. It could mean a variety of things, among them possibly a static discharge between the plane and building. I don't know what it means, but I do know that missiles are NOT the only conclusion to be drawn from this, and I think they're probably the most preposterous. Why, if you're about to crash a 500mph airliner into the building, would you fire a missile at the very last second?

I think I'd go with the theory that it was a light effect from a holographic projection before I went with "airliners fired missiles". And while I have a lot of respect for John Lear (now, sadly, banned from this forum), I'm far from convinced by the holographic projection hypothesis.

The video you posted then loops this footage with an increasingly distorted loop of "Kashmir" (WHY do people have to have music soundtracks? Does everything have to have dumb MTV production values?) and I stopped viewing. If I missed anything... I don't care.

There are quite a few pics in that movie that show steal beams lopped off at over a 45* angle..Some under..If any one knows steal that doesnt happen by chance..NO matter the circumstance..The odds are billions to one I would suspect for just 1 beam to be broke at that angle cleany on one side let alone the other..Steal will bend before it shears and when it does its far from symetrical at most times...They were cut plain and simple..

For those who dought the ability for some one to be near molten metal,well how do the men that work in foundries survive??

you would have to be blind not to see that this beam was cut by either torch or thermite,,If cut by torch after the fact the towers cam down,the slag would be on the inside of the beam,as the oxygen would push it away from the torch..

cipshare.com...


[edit on 12-3-2009 by Redpillblues]

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Redpillblues]

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Redpillblues]

Originally posted by rich23
reply to post by jdub89

 

Sorry, but...

First, this is well off-topic.

Second, that video is the dumbest I've seen in a long time. Why? The annotations say "this can only mean that the plane fired missiles into the building". (My emphasis)

No. It could mean a variety of things, among them possibly a static discharge between the plane and building. I don't know what it means, but I do know that missiles are NOT the only conclusion to be drawn from this, and I think they're probably the most preposterous. Why, if you're about to crash a 500mph airliner into the building, would you fire a missile at the very last second?

I think I'd go with the theory that it was a light effect from a holographic projection before I went with "airliners fired missiles". And while I have a lot of respect for John Lear (now, sadly, banned from this forum), I'm far from convinced by the holographic projection hypothesis.

The video you posted then loops this footage with an increasingly distorted loop of "Kashmir" (WHY do people have to have music soundtracks? Does everything have to have dumb MTV production values?) and I stopped viewing. If I missed anything... I don't care.

I don't think it is off topic. =/

You should really consider watching the whole video. It has some interesting things in the later part of it. If you do go back and watch some the video, browse through the others that are showed on the youtube page. There are some really interesting videos that show "suspicious" things.

I can't remember if it was in this video or a different one. You could see what seemed to be explosions well under the part of where the building was hit. As it collapsed there were explosions under the collapsing part of the buildings.

Just browse through all the videos, they have some really useful footage.

en.wikipedia.org...

Most steel cutting is done by plasma touches now and are remote. There is another kind called a thermal lance

www.wisegeek.com...

This uses the oxidization of Iron and other metals and creates a tremendous amount of slag.
It flows both directions with the thermal lance as it simply turns whatever you are cutting to liquid.

a thermal lance can cut almost anything including stone and is one fo the most effective methods for cutting.

Speaking as an engineer you could not get thermite to cut that cleanly. it does not work like that. as for the use of other demolitions those require quite a bit of precise placement.

let me give you an example. a typic US military termite grenade is about 7 ounces of thermite. in a can. if you place it on an engine block (350 cc for arguments sake) it will bore a hole the size of the can (about 4-6 inches) the rest of the metal is usually unaffected. to make those cuts (and they are jagged (like a thermal or plasma torch would make) you would have to use an extremely large amount and the support would warp and bend first before cutting. Thermite is not instant and takes time to work.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Funny how you have seemed to miss all the threads where the molten metal has been discussed appearantly. But, to recap, we know that there were fires in the bottom of the pile, we know that air was able to enter the bottom of the pile through the subway tunnels, we know that there was tons of aluminum used in the construction of the towers, and we know that the fires in the base of the pile were hot enough to melt aluminum. No thermite, no C-4, no Semtex, no super secret moose and squirrel Hush A Bombs needed.

This is the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that the molten metal in the WTC wreckage was aluminum. How do you know it was aluminum? From what I understand, aluminum does not glow red when molten. I'd really like to know where you got this information, because I've been hearing and reading over and over again that molten steel was found at the WTC wreckage and seen pouring out of the side of the building, tons of it in fact, and the official explanation of jet-fuel fires cannot account for a single drop of it.

Originally posted by outsider13
[This is the first time I have ever heard anyone claim that the molten metal in the WTC wreckage was aluminum. How do you know it was aluminum? From what I understand, aluminum does not glow red when molten. I'd really like to know where you got this information, because I've been hearing and reading over and over again that molten steel was found at the WTC wreckage and seen pouring out of the side of the building, tons of it in fact, and the official explanation of jet-fuel fires cannot account for a single drop of it.

can you post a link to the source for the motlen metal seen? considering the small number of cut beams that people are showing as proof I cannot see how tons would be seen running out.

Also it would have flowed down the streets bruning everything and everyone one until it cooled and that would have left slag behind yet none of this is evident in any photographs.

reply to post by Achorwrath


If you google video or you tube molten metal, a number of videos will come up that show the substance pouring out of the side of the building, firefighters claiming to see it under wreckage, and footage of "meteorites" that were said to be made of fused steel, all from mainstream media newscasts. I can't post the links myself because I am at work and those types of sites are blocked for me. So glad this one isn't, or god knows how I'd be spending my time.

Molten Metal

Ok here is one but also read all of it

The Melting point of Steel

The firefighters are saying that Molten steel was flowing AFTER the collapse and that the fires were over 2,000 degree. that is more than enough to melt typical steel. JP5 (typical jetfuel) is a very intense fire (I know I have seen and fought them).

It can get to enoumous temperatures and we all know our highschool physics if you combine heat with pressure(pressure of the building and the debris) you increse the temperature. So them findind pools of molten metal during the clean up is not surprising considering the fires were still bruing in some places for as long as 24 days.

reply to post by Achorwrath


I'm still waiting to hear from the other poster about why he thought the molten material was aluminum.
Jet Fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, but I can't say with certainty that the added pressure couldn't have contributed to turning the steel molten. However, the steel flowing from the side of the building happened before the collapse, so the combination of high temps + pressure wouldn't have been present.
Also, the site remained extremely hot not just for days, but months after the collapse. Seems to me it should have cooled more quickly if the only source of heat was from burning office materials, but I don't know this for sure.
It might be worthwhile to note that NIST has completely ignored the existence of the molten steel, even though its existence is well documented. There has been no official explanation of the phenomena, its been completely ignored, which to me seems rather suspicious. Therefore, it also shouldn't be surprising that no mention was made of the slag that would have formed from the steel falling from the building before the collapse which would have been buried under the debris of the towers.
The official NIST explanation of the molten liquid falling from the side of the building was that it was aluminum mixed with burning office materials.
To my knowledge, aluminum does not turn red/orange when molten, even when burning office materials are added to it.
The BYU physicist who analyzed some of the WTC dust, I forget his name (stephen jones maybe?), also claimed to have found tiny spheres of steel in the dust which would have resulted from quick melting and explosive outward directed force, along with chemical traces that would corrobate the presence of thermate.
The original FEMA report made a brief mention of the fact that some of the steel seemed to have been corroded by an extremely high temperature, corrosive chemical reaction. No one from FEMA or NIST has since explored this phenomena since that initial statement.

edit- also, apparently molten steel was found at WTC 7, which did not have any jet-fuel fires

[edit on 12-3-2009 by outsider13]

Jet Fuel buring in the open air burns at 549.5 F this is if you have it sitting there in a pot burning.
Now most aircraft use an aliminum titanium alloy which has a metling buring point of 1250F now given the super conductivity of aluminum it is entirely possible that retained heat could ignite the titanium in the alloy and cause a spontaneous thermadorean reaction.
Anyone that has seen a fighter plane burn knows this can and does happen with just the heat of the burning JP5.
(I have seen this, also read up on the USS Forestal Fire)

Now lets move back to the small pellets When Aluminum (a component of thermite) and titanium burn they create a self oxidizing fire that has the same prinicpals as a thermal lance which also produces these pellets.

Next we know that in the late 90s the Asbestos thermal protection was removed from the WTC what was put in its place was not able to resist the fires heat and pressure (after all a building that is 1,368 or 1,362 Feet tall is pretty heavy) would assit in the downfall.

I will add more to this later

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Achorwrath]