More LIES of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists exposed...

Originally posted by r2d246
The moon lander at the Air and Space musem in DC is a nice prop too. These types of museum props are nothing. Any amature could make this thing and say it's from ground zero. There's little to no way of varifying it was from ground zero. and even if it was of course some of the metal would get bent a bit even if something else caused it because it was such a maelstrom of materials colliding.

Prove it's fake. It's your assertion so the responsibility is yours to back the claim up, whcih should be easy since it's sitting right there at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washignton D.C. waiting for you to analyze it.

reply to post by EvilBat

I am allowed to assume it was on his person or in his bag right ?
re-read my post - you say it's possible

Oh, its possible.

so explain how it is possible that a passport can go through his cloths or bag

Top shirt pocket, he placed in the cockpit in front of the windscreen.

through a plane

Windscreen shattered upon impact, negative pressure in milliseconds after impact propels the passport forward

through a building

Explosive force wave from the expanding fuel air gas mixture sends the passport out the window which breaks from the same expansive force ahead of the passport

land blocks away

got to land somewhere.

yes office papers would survive they blew out the windows and hole

but for some odd reason papers that deflate your fantasy cannot?

Originally posted by NWOwned
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Dave you're hardcore, I went to Tahiti on my vacation.

I agree with you though the 9/11 forum was starting to get boring.


Cheers

LOL well, I've already been to Europe three times, plus, I've already travelled all over Canada, all over Mexico, and even to Honduras. Washington D.C. was one of the few places left I hadn't seen before...and I once stood on the deck of a sunken German U-boat 100 feet down and was even at Times Square in NYC to watch the ball drop on New Year's Eve, so it's not easy for something to impress me these days.

I saw this wreckage in a museum there so I considered it good form to post them here on ATS, since I doubt anyone here was aware of them.

reply to post by hooper


Sounds possible.

I still say

Originally posted by EvilBat
The passport I'm talking about was found on the ground blocks away from wtc
and was handed over to the NYPD

Yes, I know. It was found by an unknown good samaritan who to this day is still unidentified.

Aren't "unknown people unidentified to this day" usually secret gov't agents in the truther world? Why would it be any different this time?

reply to post by EvilBat



Black box vs unscathed passport.... and passport wins!

They should make black boxes out of passport material!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by VictorVonDoom
No, it means that if the Government hands the Smithsonian a hunk of steel and says it is from WTC, then the Smithsonian will accept the Government's word for it. Now, that display you saw may actually be from WTC, but you can bet that if the Government gives a piece of the WTC to the Smithsonian for display, they will not hand over evidence to contradict the official story.

To say that one piece of steel on display at the Smithsonian is evidence of no thermite is like handing your insurance company a sparkplug to prove you are not at fault in an auto accident.

That analogy doesn't even remotely apply here because it isn't any ordinary piece of wreckage- it clearly shows deformation from when the monumental forces of the collapse came crashing down on it. If this is what happened to this column, then it stands to reason this is what happened to a lot of other columns. My contention is that this is what happened to every column.

A more apt analogy would be akin to a holocaust denier claiming those seven million Jews actually weren't murdered; they just moved to another country and forgot to send word to anybody. When they're shown a skull with a bullet hole buried outside of Auschwitz, they'll say, well okay, THAT one individual guy might have been murdered, but nope nope nope the other six million nine hundred and ninety nine thousand Jews really moved away. It's excuse making, pure and simple.

All right, let's try a different angle here.

I personally believe that Apollo 11 landed on the Moon in 1969. I realize that a lot of people think the Moon landing was a hoax. Now, if I were to take a picture of a rock in a display case at the Smithsonian, do you think that would be enough to convince anyone that the Moon landing was not a hoax? I wouldn't expect it to be considered conclusive evidence. It's not like I could ask the Smithsonian to borrow the rock and have it tested to insure it actually came from the Moon. And even if I could, I would still have to establish that the rock was brought here by Apollo 11, and not just a meteor fragment that landed in a desert somewhere. The simple fact is, something on display at the Smithsonian doesn't prove or disprove anything when there are plausible alternative explainations.

But, I must confess, your analogy does clear up something for me. Like I said, I believe the Moon landing was real, but I don't think I've ever shown up in a "Moon Landing was a Hoax" thread and try to convince someone of my position. It doesn't bother me if someone thinks the Moon landing was a hoax. I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince them otherwise unless I had a clear reason for wanting other people to accept my point of view.

Originally posted by EvilBat


Sounds possible.

I still say

No Satam's passport survived this fiery inferno... unburned.



Why can't Truthers ever get any thing right.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You can't NOT know that when you truthers introduce outrageous claims like "the world trade center was nuked" (what that you or the last guy I responded to?) you ARE trying to start a debate, whether you fully understand you're doing it or not. As for the ground workers, everyone was searching for bodies, not just emergency services. In Joel Meyerowitz' book "Aftermath" he documents a case where a woman operating an excavator dug up human remains, and emergency personnel wanted to remove it without fanfare. Up until that point they only covered police and firefighter victims with flags, but she covered the remains with the bucket of her excavator and refused to move it unless they give that victim a flag as well. After that point, every victim found was given a flag.

Unless someone can show why the drivel Alex Jones is spewing isn't just the hallucinations of a lunatic, I'm necessarily going to need to believe the people who were actually there, rather than him.

No, that wasn't me, as I certainly don't believe the WTC was nuked, or a hologram, or any of that nonsense. I don't deny that planes hit the building. I DO think it is a lie that two buildings fell due to structural damage above midrange. And one building managed to fall due to debris and small fires.

Your story about the flags is very nice and touching. But it doesn't address my response. My response was, those who were removing debris and looking for bodies were NOT looking for signs of sabotage or any wrong doing. I can attest myself that on that day I too was angry and believing the story being put out by the media. I remember distinctly how quickly it was coming out that the middle east was involved. I remember the videos of "dancing Pakistani's" being broadcast. I remember how many things were being broadcast on the media that day to fall in line with the story.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I have no idea, but is researching such a thing really an attempt to discover the truth behind the 9/11 attack,or is it really grasping at straws in desperation from not having any real tangible evidence of impropriety? It seems to be about the same level of low importance as arguing how many vending machines in the towers sold potato chips vs Doritos.

Researching that sort of thing is relevant because it goes to show there was REASON for a cover up. It's no more grasping at straws then trying to make someone believe a building fell due to fires. All we "truthers", as you put it, have to go on is finding every single link to show that the official story is FLAWED. Am I saying we, or I have the exact answers? No. But I believe the official story is bogus. Too much to gain, too little to loose.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Since such a Google quote will ALSO uncover a multitude of photos of steel workers actually cutting steel at ground zero, that explanation is a safe bet to make...or are you insisting that every single piece of cut steel needs to have an actual steel worker standing next to it in the photograph for you to believe it was cut by a steel worker? Or are you saying that every photographer should have photographed the steel being cut by a steel worker for the benefit of you conspiracy theorists?

If you understood how thermite actually cut steel you wouldn't need to even ask this question. I am stating that there are pictures that show steel cut by thermite. There is evidence of the use of thermite. The fact that the buildings fell at the speed they did could only have been because of lower support being taken out. Something that thermite could and would do. That is what I am getting at. Am I saying no workers cut steel after the fact? Absolutely not. But I again, am not believing that a 100+ story building (TWO of them) managed to fall at near free fall speeds, with little to NO resistance, due to fires and structural damage. That is what I am getting at.

So again.. if you who believe the Governments "Official Story" would stop, for one minute, put aside any opinion or emotion, and just seriously LOOK at the official story. Don't you see how absolutely ridiculous it is??? Don't you see how many things just magically fit into place to make everything work?

Why did WTC 1 and WTC 2 both fall at damn near the exact same speed?
Why did building 7 fall in the same manner?
Why is there so many questions surrounding the strike on the Pentagon?
Why weren't ALL the videos from the surrounding areas from the Pentagon released?
What the hell is up with the plane in Shanksvile? Why was debris found miles away?

There are so many questions, and it seems the OS'ers just brush it off. They neglect to give any sort of tolerable answer because, according to them.. we "truthers" (and ps I hate that name) are all nut jobs. We're all crazy and looser and uneducated idiots. Everything manages to fit so perfectly in the official story doesn't it

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Cassius666

 

What? What do you mean? It is well reported.

CJ

What is the source of the story that the remains of the WTC have been shipped off to China? Well reported by whom?

Oh nvm, found it

www.china.org.cn...

So, yeah I guess that one isnt a lie after all. What is up to debate, is wether the ammount shipped hurt investigations or not.

But New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg insisted there are better ways to study the tragedy of September 11. "If you want to take a look at the construction methods and the design, that's in this day and age what computers do," said Bloomberg, a former engineering major. "Just looking at a piece of metal generally doesn't tell you anything."

So I guess this LIE of the truthers is not a LIE after all.

Also interesting bit of history. The Smithsonian was originally built to receive artifacts which were to recovered from an expedition to the center of the earth, which never materialized obviously.

I have a question...

Will this museum allow for the testing of these columns for residue from explosives? While I know its unlikely that there is much residue left over considering it has been decades, it would be interesting to find out if they would allow people (with proper credentials), to test these columns in a series of tests. I know that NIST did not test for explosive residue because "NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives.". Which is a plain, and simple lie, considering the tons of witness testimony's.


To my knowledge several investigators were denied access to the metal (that was kept), for testing purposes. This seems to beg the obvious question of why? If they have nothing to hide, why wouldn't they test for explosive residue, and let outside investigations be carried out on the core columns? Certainly seems like an admission of guilt to me when the investigators (NIST), wont check for explosive residue, even tho its very probable that even if we follow the government's conspiracy theory that the box cutter wielding Muslims did it, there is still reason to believe that they used explosives on the planes.

Certainly one would imagine that the least we can do for the victims family's, is to find out what really happened.

reply to post by EvilBat

And yet it is made of paper.

That doesn't seam strange to you? The plane was almost absorbed in the north tower , where is any other belongings to the hijacker?
Yes yes I know there was paper all over the place but that is completely different.

So explain to me how it is possible that that can happen..

These pieces of paper were on American 11 - same as the passport they survived the impact and descent to
the street

On the street, standing in a shower of office paper and the siding from the building, he found a piece of paper. It was an airliner's itinerary, listing information about a flight from Boston to Los Angeles

So the flight manifest survived too.....

Along with the letter was a note: ''To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy. Sincerely, a friend in New York!''
...Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars.
'

Piece of mail from the cargo hold survived ........

reply to post by EvilBat

And yet it is made of paper.

That doesn't seam strange to you? The plane was almost absorbed in the north tower , where is any other belongings to the hijacker?
Yes yes I know there was paper all over the place but that is completely different.

So explain to me how it is possible that that can happen..

These pieces of paper were on American 11 - same as the passport they survived the impact and descent to
the street

On the street, standing in a shower of office paper and the siding from the building, he found a piece of paper. It was an airliner's itinerary, listing information about a flight from Boston to Los Angeles

So the flight manifest survived too.....

Along with the letter was a note: ''To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy. Sincerely, a friend in New York!''
...Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars.
'

Piece of mail from the cargo hold survived ........

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by waypastvne


Why can't Truthers ever get any thing right.

edit on 25-7-2012 by waypastvne because: (no reason given)

Like you not being able to correctly place where Jimmy Grillo was!

You got your ass handed to you twice on that, and got caught out lying twice, and you still argue he was in the Marriot, even though he never ever mentions it and only mentions the south tower in both his video interviews!

You think an OS defender disinfo site with a made up quote trumps 2 Jimmy Grillo videos where he never ever says Marriot Hotel, and only says he was in the south tower!

When you can get facts right yourself, then you have room to complain at others. Everytime you're wrong, and every time you lie, I'll hand your ass to you.

reply to post by 007Polytoks

To my knowledge several investigators were denied access to the metal (that was kept), for testing purposes. This seems to beg the obvious question of why? If they have nothing to hide, why wouldn't they test for explosive residue, and let outside investigations be carried out on the core columns?

Dont seem to have any problem examining the WTC steel ........

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Cassius666


Any reason you posted the same post three times throughout the day from 6:42 am to your last post at 4:53 pm in response to what I said?

There are plenty of US MSN articles. Why did you pick the one from china?

I also found it strange someone signed up this am @ 6:48 am and wrote a cryptic message on my profile wall...no posts elsewhere, no threads, nothing. Just that one message to me. Hmmm. What up Cassius666, why the bizzare posting in this thread?

CJ

Originally posted by thegameisup

Like you not being able to correctly place where Jimmy Grillo was!

Jimmy Grillo, James Duffy, and Tyrone Johnson were all in the staging area located in the Marriott Hotel lobby when the south tower collapsed. They mistook the collapse for an explosion.

All the evidence, including yours, points to this fact.

reply to post by thedman


The company/people who investigated this (in your video) "American Society of Civil Engineer's ", are the one's that published the initial report with FEMA. Its quite obvious that they were given access to the steel, since they were the original investigators, however, that was not my question. I was asking why other outside party's were not allowed to investigate.

"the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) -- was denied access to the evidence. The Science Committee of the House of Representatives later identified several aspects of the FEMA-controlled operation that prevented the conduct of an adequate investigation:"

Why were the BPAT denied access to the evidence?

According to Bill Manning, editor of Fire Engineering Magazine:

"Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything."

Most of all why was 50,000 tons of the steel sold to the Chinese firm Baosteel?

There is also no evidence that either FEMA, NIST, or the American Society of Civil Engineer's tested the steel for explosive residue, which was the key part of my question. Why didn't they test it for explosive residue?

Also, according to the report done by ASOCE(American Society of Civil Engineer's), Chapter 2: "The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in les then 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficent air for combustion was available."

So, according to them the fuel likely only burnt for 5 minutes, which seems to contradict the popular narrative that the jet fuel was burning a raging blaze for hours.... They also indicate later on, that the fires (by their own admission), never got to hot enough temperatures to cause the steel to significantly weaken.

"2-22: Temperatures may have been as high as 900-1,000 degrees Celsius, in some area's, and 400-800 degree's Celsius in others."

This is proven as impossible to have cause the towers to fall, by NIST's data (which I posted earlier)...

"NIST calculations (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 4) showed that even if the entire column had been immersed in a 1400 degree's Celsius/ 2550 degree's Fahrenhiet flame, it would have taken 6 hours to heat the column to the point of significant loss of strength, and stiffness."

American Society of Civil Engineers: SOURCE

NIST investigation: SOURCE

Sure seems like no matter which investigation I look at, the producers of the investigation debunk themselves. However, I don't expect this to be news to anybody who has actually taken the time to read these investigation's that were produced by the party's in question. Its pretty to easy to see the holes when you do...

Click here to learn more about this warning.