9/11 Comprehensive Concise Evidence---please contribute

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
A single video would be easier to fake than the eyewitness accounts of dozens of people who don't know each other.

Wrong Dave. If the videos were easy to fake, we'd have seen dozens of them already and Craig Ranke wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. They are hard to fake. The five fake frames released by the government prove it. That's why we won't see the dozens of fakes for quite a while.

When you start having trouble spotting the CGI stuff in Hollywood movies, the government will finally relent and show their fakes to you. I'm sure, if you are still around, you will have an "I told you so" moment.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
"I know enough physics to know that it is strictly impossible for those buildings to collapse in their own footprint, at free-fall speed

Except that the buildings did not fall at free fall speed (except WTC7 for a short time) nor did they collapse in their own footprint.

It is lies like this that just show the "truther" movement is not at all actually interested in the truth!

Originally posted by Doctor Smith
1 No Trusters have been able to come up with just one example of a steel frame building globally collapsing as the three buildings 1, 2 and 7. Without explosive demolition. Never in the history of mankind before or since 911.

Care to show us a steel frame building that was hit by a high speed jet airliner that has not collapsed?

Hello,

I do not believe that actual airplanes hit the buildings or Pentagon, or hit the ground in Pennsylvania. But few people are concentrating on where these four planes actually went as well as the 300-500 passengers.

I think three or four planes were crashed into the Atlantic. There was a navy task force in the area as well as a major hurricane off the coast on 911. Most people have forgotten the hurricane off NYC on 911. The Navy task force probably had a small copter force out to make sure no survivors or wreckage remained afloat from the 3 or 4 ditched airliners. The hurricane was the main blocking force of aircraft and ship coming and going in this area of the Atlantic. So no civilian interference or eyes were present to see the 3 or 4 ditched airliners.

And lastly another airplane crashed off Long Island several weeks later. This crash was probably deliberate also to cover any wreckage that might come ashore from the four ditched planes on 911. Then any wreckage found could be blamed on the recent airplane crash.

SO I think remote viewers and ship salvage crews might locate three or four missing 911 airplanes in fairly shallow waters just off the coast in the Atlantic.

reply to post by antelopone


Sorry...this is SO incredibly devoid of any facts, doesn't even deserve to be considered as even a shred of consideration...and it thusly deserves this:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bd2c6f45dfae.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Wrong Dave. If the videos were easy to fake, we'd have seen dozens of them already and Craig Ranke wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. They are hard to fake. The five fake frames released by the government prove it. That's why we won't see the dozens of fakes for quite a while.

So you're genuinely telling me that a bunch of sinister boogeymen could successfully sneak in and plant secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building without anyone noticing or leaving any evidence behind, as well as running out and planting aircraft wreckage all over the front of the Pentagon lawn in broad daylight without anyone seeing them, and getting 20,000 investigators to go along with the coverup, and yet they can't even superimpose a picture of an airplane on a video still when Hollywood has been showing ultrarealistic movies of terminator cyborgs and seven foot tall wookies long before 9/11. Dude, It's blatantly obvious you're just making things up as you go along to suit your purposes.

Tell me something, in all honesty. Eyewitness accounts aren't enough for you. The black box isn't enough for you. Wreckage lying all over the Pentagon lawn isn't enough for you. Even the Boeing fuselage sized hole punched into the walls of the Pentagon aren't enough for you. Why in the name of Ronald McDonald should I think you're not just lying through your teeth with this Pentagon footage bit and you'd just brush any such video off as fake like you do with everythign else that disproves your conspiracy ideas?

When you start having trouble spotting the CGI stuff in Hollywood movies, the government will finally relent and show their fakes to you. I'm sure, if you are still around, you will have an "I told you so" moment.

This sounds more like the viewpoint of a religious fanatic than a serious researcher. I already know you're never going to find what you're looking for becuase Bush is long gone and Obama is in the White House now. True to form, you're just coming up with more excuses of coverup to explain why Obama isn't on board with your conspriacy stories in runaway circular logic, the same way you make up excuses to explain all your other failings. Go ahead, admit it- you think Obama is a patsy in this conspriacy too, don't you?

reply to post by antelopone


Or they could of just had three airliners just crash into the buildings, have the fourth crash into a field, and that way there is less to worry about with all this ridiculous Rube-Goldberg style planning. Dont you realize that sometimes, the simplest explanation is the correct one?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I guess we just have a different take on 9/11, Dave. I'm sure, like most mature adults, you will have no difficulty accepting marked differences of opinion.

Im writing this in memory of one of the witnesses Barry Jennings who died mysteriously recently!

Emergency coordinator for the New York Housing Authority, and key 9/11 eyewitness, Barry Jennings has passed away with controversy about WTC7 still hot as the BBC hit piece and NIST report have been released to counter Jennings exclusive testimony of explosions inside Building 7. Jennings passed away at age 53 from circumstances not yet disclosed.

A spokesperson for the Housing Authority has now confirmed his death, after weeks of rumors circulating online, but refused to give any further details. Several other individuals at the Housing Authority also confirmed that they knew Barry Jennings, and that indeed he had passed away about a month ago. No other details were available.
It is very unusual that a prominent — and controversial 9/11 witness would die only days before the release of NIST's report on WTC7 and shortly after a firestorm erupted over his testimony that he heard explosions inside the building prior to collapse of either tower and that there were dead bodies in the buildings blown-out lobby.

The BBC aired The Third Tower in July in attempt to debunk Barry Jennings' account, which is both contradictory and damaging to the official 9/11 story by making issue over whether or not he said he saw dead
bodies in the lobby.



The truth about WTC7 will come out, and Barry Jennings' testimony will not be in vain.



Source,,naturalplane.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So you're genuinely telling me that a bunch of sinister boogeymen could successfully sneak in and plant secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building without anyone noticing or leaving any evidence behind,

I wonder if it was the same boogeymen that sneaked in to plant nanoo nanoo thermite in the WTC buildings? Or did another team do that. And which went off first - the explosives, or the nanoo nanoo thermite?. And how did they ensure the explosives did not disrupt the nanoo nanoo thermite, or the nanoo nanoo thermite did not set off the explosives?

Sad how so many of the vids have gone inaccessible.
Lot's of great posts in this thread.

Is it true, that there was a crusher in each tower of the World Trade Center? a reply to: rival

originally posted by: dereks


I wonder if it was the same boogeymen that sneaked in to plant nanoo nanoo thermite in the WTC buildings? Or did another team do that. And which went off first - the explosives, or the nanoo nanoo thermite?. And how did they ensure the explosives did not disrupt the nanoo nanoo thermite, or the nanoo nanoo thermite did not set off the explosives?

Just for argument here.

Nanothermite has nano sized ingredients, with greater energy releases than standard thermite. It makes perfect sense to place nanothermite near steel that in an area with fire. Lot of people don’t seem to get that it ignites due to heat.

Military grade nanothermite probably going to perform like an explosive anyhow. It has to have a practical application for the military to even invest time in it. Who knows what would happen, when you put a block of nanothermite in a office tower building on fire. Might explain the mushroom like cloud, if there was a chemical blast. Look at what happened in Beriut Lebanon, when you mix chemicals with fire!

This is all problematic since we don't know what materials and type of explosives were potentially used here. Demolition crews use cheaper materials because it not economically viable. The people involved in the 9/11 demolitions, probably had access to materials still in the testing stages in military labs, but picked to get the job done.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

You

Military grade nanothermite probably going to perform like an explosive anyhow.

Then what was “cut”. If the cores were left sanding for the twin towers.



Too bad there is zero evidence that steel columns were cut by explosives creating a pressure wave with the force to cut steel columns. No echos of explosions bouncing around Manhattan before downward movement. Nothing in the video evidence, audio evidence, seismic evidence. No demolition shrapnel. No injuries to the living nor dead caused by demolition shrapnel. No indication of an over pressure event from explosives setting off.


You

This is all problematic since we don't know what materials and type of explosives were potentially used here.

Then the BS “study” the identified “super thermite” was a lie. Your slip up betrayed you.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

A little bit of help that AE are still pushing the same lies.

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: democracydemo
Well now haven't the jolly Daily Mail been nice to publish an article just a few days ago:

The conspiracy theory that still won't rest in peace: Think it's only cranks who believe the Twin Towers attack was a U.S. government plot? Twenty years on, the family of one British victim is demanding a fresh inquest in the hope of proving just that

So. Still no credible evidence of the WTC being brought down by pyrotechnics. Just the same truth movement lies.

The article lies.

The view that the Twin Towers' girders melted because of fires caused by fuel from the two hijacked planes has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11 and television documentaries in the UK and U.S

www.dailymail.co.uk... jGf_Mbwspk

Cite what “official study” claims “ girders melted” to start the collapse.

Oh.

There it is.

Yet the Campbell family and a U.S. campaign organisation, Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth (A&E), say this makes no scientific sense: most steel does not melt until it reaches around 2,800f (1,537c), and open fires of jet fuel — such as those in the Twin Towers inferno — cannot burn hotter than 1,700f (926c).

Just the same truth movement lies and false mythology debunked over and over again.

Again. Based on lies. Cite what “official study” claims the WTC buildings collapse because of steel reaching its melting point.

But steel will heat up and become more workable without reaching its melting point. As proven by WTC5




At 1700 F steel loses about 50 percent of its strength to resis load. Is that a false statement.

Nine respected scientists have also published peer-reviewed research showing that dust from the destroyed Twin Towers contained microscopic remnants of nano-thermite explosives, which can be tailored for use in controlled demolitions.

Funny the actual paper is not named and linked to. The “paper” that was published in a crooked pay to play publication. Where it bypassed the paper’s referee. From samples not burnt in an inert atmosphere to prove there was actual “thermite”. With “peers” that were actually consulted during the writing off the paper. So no actual unbiased peer review.

While ignoring such a system of wiring and detonators would never have survived the jet impacts and fires to initiate the collapse in the areas of the jet impacts. As the collapse initiation is captured in the video evidence from different angles.

While ignoring that thermite would been too slow, taking whole minutes to cut through columns. Making it impossible to use as the supposed split timed fantasy top down CD. With the thermite burning so slow it would result in molten cut joints pushed together under load, and cold welding together. With the need of actual explosives referred to as kicker charges to misalign the columns.

In other words, the absence of deceleration in the 'free fall' is apparent proof that another force — explosives — had already destroyed the lower part of the building, allowing the upper section to plunge down through it at an increasingly fast pace.

Cite any times from the video of the Twin Towers this actually occurred. The cores of the twin towers fell last from losing lateral support after the floor systems were stripped away.

Some of the core was still standing up to 20 seconds after the collapse. And why would they not reach “free fall” if they tumbled outward after being stripped of the floor system. So. The truth movement is based on a lie.











So. No core columns actually cut

With even hydraulic equipment induced explosive free implosions causing huge amounts of dust.





—————————
Is your collapse initiation different than the lie pushed by AE in this current article:

The conspiracy theory that still won't rest in peace: Think it's only cranks who believe the Twin Towers attack was a U.S. government plot? Twenty years on, the family of one British victim is demanding a fresh inquest in the hope of proving just that

By Sue Reid for the Daily Mail
17:36 EDT 01 Apr 2021 , updated 05:34 EDT 02 Apr 2021

www.dailymail.co.uk... jGf_Mbwspk

www.youtube.com...

Direct energy weapons. Please explain this. Anyone understand this technology?

a reply to: adrianprophet

Directed energy weapons are the providence of conspiracy loons

THEY DO NO EXIST except for paper studies and a few small scale lab tests

Because they do not exist are the perfect vehicle for all sort of outlandish claims like a hurricane 1000 miles out in the Atlantic was used to power a weapon

As astronomer Carl Sagan used to say "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof"

There is a post on Telegram today by Dr. Lee Merritt, who has been a deep researcher into all public issues after becoming a spokesperson regarding the "pandemic," regarding 9/11.

Screenshots and a link to view the video (scroll up):

t.me...

Scientific Evidence:

Study performed by the University of Alaska Fairbanks that refutes WTC 7 collapse theory proposed by NIST. The principal conclusion of the study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, contrary to the conclusions of NIST and private engineering firms that studied the collapse. The secondary conclusion of our study is that the collapse of WTC 7 was a global failure involving the near-simultaneous failure of every column in the building.

UAF Study on WTC 7

Study performed by University of Copenhagen, Denmark that identified unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic in 9/11 dust samples.

9/11 Dust Samples Study

Legal Evidence:

Among other claims advanced in the sprawling litigation, the 9/11 families and victims have alleged that agents and employees of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia provided assistance to certain of the 9/11 hijackers and plotters. The 9/11 plaintiffs have further alleged that al Qaeda’s development into a sophisticated terrorist organization was fueled principally by financial and operational support from “da’wa organizations” established and sponsored by the Saudi government – commonly described as alleged “charities.”

9/11 Litigation

The recent earthquakes in Turkey were also caused by the same weaponry. Check out what the Romanian govt says about it.