9/11 landfill (or, as we prefer to call it, the STUPID thread)

[W4d5Y]

I managed to fly into the twin towers and pentagon on flight simulator quite easily.

Yeah, maybe you're like an super-special awesome pilot, right? But maybe you should consider that people have question regarding
1) how some of them got into the country 2) how some of them got on board 3) how they could even keep the planes steady 4) how they could navigate towards a target 200 miles away 5) how they could hit them with such bewildering accuracy.

And this is not just me, or any given generic conspiracy theorist, but these questions actually are widly cited by professional pilots, as I explained.
Nikki Lauda even pointed this out (he's an expirienced pilot, apart from formula one drvier, surprises me nevertheless)
And I read this in a book from Tarpley (I ordered it in french to help me widen my linguistic capabilities) that two pilots were on a show with G?nther Jauch (he should be known to any badly educated german) and that they said there, that this must've been something done by professionals because of the aviational accuracy pulled off back there.
But those hijackers weren't aviation professionals, THEY JUST WEREN'T. NO WAY.
This accounts for Hanjour, Jarrah, Atta and the fourth guy from flight 175, final destination WTC 2, I think it was Al Shehi.
As I said, name me one professional pilot who will tell me something different than this:

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''

Flight school employee referring to Hani Hanjour

Yeah well I'm convinced.

I lol'd for some reason :/

Fine, whatever.

I'll throw out some points on a few things mentioned above:

I'm a little leery of that quoted block, because without any of the actual supporting material from the book it just reads like an advertisement for it. Unfortunately I can't find any objective reviews of the book online yet, since most seem to be written by people who already support the author. If I come across it I'll take a peek, but until then it's neither here nor there for me.

Also, a quote from later in the incident report mentioning the explosives:

While I'd warn against making any conclusions based on the details of a single eyewitness, it sounds more to me like what its being described is basically the building starting to be badly effected by fire and stress, since it seems to be an ongoing process for a few minutes.

And lastly I just want to point out that there are plenty of reasons that a smaller hole could be present in the Pentagon than on the towers. One good guess is simply that the Pentagon is a hell of a tough building. I don't think its a stretch to think that a lot of thought has been put into protecting it against ballistic attack. Also, the angle with which the plane impacts can make massive differences in how much energy is put into the building and how much is transfered to the ground. This won't happen with a midair collision such as the towers. All the kinetic energy in that case goes into the side of the building.

What book?
I only quoted a source from oped and a publicly available site of the NYtimes, so what are you talking about?

And the eyewitness you quoted there i never heard of.

And sheesh, I told you to explain "explosion on floors 7, 8, 7 and 8, that's the world trade center"? Why this can be heard on firemen tapes which the port authority first refused to release?
Just like the WTC blueprints...So that the kean comission could further perpetuate their lie of the WTC core collumns being "hollow steel shaft"

No, I believe the world trade center impact zones received less kinetic energy than the pentagon since as opposed to the pentagon, they weren't static but flexible.

When the plane struck, we remember the reports of the tenets on that day, it violently shook.
This means that energy must've been traversed down into the building, since the mechanical energy is partly transformed into deformation energy which was in turn absorbed by the lower building.

Also what you said about the lack of protection against ballistic projectiles is a lie.
As I said, the reconstruction that was going on down there included bomb-proof windows (remember loose change: "Why aren't the windows scaved?") and kevlar on the back of the walls among other things.
And that, from what I have heard, so I probably have to doublecheck this one to remove your doubt in my judgements, was in direct response to a wargame, I can't remember its name, well, probably just a normal exercise rather than a proper wargame, including planes crashing into the pentagon, I assume it was a scenario involving a simple accident, nothing more.

Also, it has been said that flight 77 came straight into the pentagon.
You can look up the flight recorder data yourselves.

I dunno wether the navy department actually was the single area being under reconstruction, if it actually was, damnit, that would be a great smoking gun.

Ooooh the pain.

I remember Jackie Chan cheated death by not showing up on a movie shot on the WTC roof because of a late script.

:O :O :O

I just read this whole thread. Wow



/Leaves

:sniper:


Ps: Would anybody mind ridiculing my efforts to elaborate on a possible plot to plant false evidence on the crash site of flight 77?
Anything?
Debunkage attempts?
Doesn't this bother you in any way!?

 

[Jintor]

No. My mental impression of you has grown to the point where anything that looks as though it was copy-pasta'd from a conspiracy website is automatically blanked over in my mind. My eyes refuse to read the text. They just can't.

This is partially because of an aversion to your horrible typesetting, spelling, and grammar, and partially because I get the sensation that reading your posts is the internet equivilent of letting a crazy person rant at me for 20 minutes.

 

[Solaris]

Yeah, maybe you're like an super-special awesome pilot, right? But maybe you should consider that people have question regarding
1) how some of them got into the country 2) how some of them got on board 3) how they could even keep the planes steady 4) how they could navigate towards a target 200 miles away 5) how they could hit them with such bewildering accuracy.

I'm telling you, didnt even do the tutorial flying lessons, now maybe I didn't hit them with "bewldering accuracy" but I hit them non the less. It was piss easy.

 

[W4d5Y]

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''

How more crazy can it get, seriously.

Solaris, for the last fecken time, you aren't a professional pilot and no, the easterbunny doesn't exist either.

I told you to explain

"explosion on floors 7, 8, 7 and 8"

And I continue to do so until you do so.


Yeah, REFUSE TO READ THE TRUTH JUST GO AHEAD JUST DON'T YOU *********** OF A ******* WITH ****** IN HIS **** AND ******* UNLESS ******* TILL YOU ******** **** ********* SIDEWAYS!


NO MATTER HOW WRONG ANY CONSPIRACY REGARDING 911 CAN GET, IT'S IRREFUTABLE THAT SOME OF THE PASSANGERS THAT ALLEGEDLY DIED ON FLIGHT 11 ACTUALLY BOARDED ANOTHER FLIGHT YET NEVER HAVE BEEN HEARD OF AGAIN, THAT WAS THE SECOND FLIGHT 11 THAT DAY, FLIGHT 11 FROM GATE 32 OF LOGAN AIRPORT OR WHAT****EVER THAT PLACE IS CALLED.

IT IS IRREFUTABLE THAT THERE ACTUALLY WAS PLANTED EVIDENCE AT THE PENTAGON CRASH SITE!
BUT WHY IS THAT?

WHY DID THEY KNOCK THE LIGHTPOLES DOWN IF THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY, AS YOU MORONS BELIEVE?!?!?!


WHY IS IT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT RATIONALLY CONCEIVABLE THAT MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE FIGURES RECEIVE PROMOTIONS AFTER WHAT OBVIOUSLY IS STONEWALLING TERRORISM PREVENTION EFFORTS!?!?!?


PLEASE GOD PLEASE I BEG YOU JUST READ THE DAMN STUFF, DON'T CONTINUE YOUR BLOODY DENIAL OF WHAT MOST OBVIOUSLY ARE INDICATIONS THAT 9/11 FINALLY COULD TURN OUT NOT TO HAVE WENT IN THAT PARTICULAR FASHION IN WHICH YOU BELIEVE IT DID!

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

None of the things that you claim to be irrefutable are irrefutable. I suggest that you check the definition of the word.

 

[repiV]

Please can we just STFU about this conspiracy drivel. It's baseless, tedious, and noone cares. Nothing but a crutch for those lacking in credible intelligence to explain away things they cannot understand. A diagnosis of insanity on your part would not surprise me. Why is this inane thread nine pages long, not to mention the 150 other threads you've made on the subject?

 

[W4d5Y]

Plane-32 is the jet that crashed into the WTC North Tower. Its flight path is well documented by the transponder data, the radar data and the radio talk with the controllers, at least up to a few minutes before the crash.

Plane-32 referrs to the official flight 11.

"(Amy) Sweeney’s first call from the plane was at 7:11 a.m. on Sept. 11—the only call in which she displayed emotional upset. Flight 11 was delayed, and she seized the few moments to call home in hopes of talking to her 5-year-old daughter, Anna, to say how sorry she was not to be there to put her on the bus to kindergarten." So at 7:11, gate departure and boarding time already were rescheduled, i.e. shifted back by some minutes. And Mrs. Sweeney was likely not calling from plane-32.

"Richard Ross, 58, of Newton Mass., called his wife Tuesday morning to say his plane was leaving a bit late. He was frustrated, concerned about arriving in time for a business meeting in Los Angeles, his son said." So this was a substantial delay, not just five minutes. And obviously Mr. Ross didn't intend to take plane-32 - this plane was right on time.

The American flight left from Gate 26 in Terminal B

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/Crashes_in_NYC_had_grim_origins_at_Logan+.shtml

American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767, took off from Gate 26 in Terminal B at 7:59 a.m.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/globe_stories/0912/Travelers_workers_cry_console_cope+.shtml

American Airlines Flight 11 had backed away from Gate 26 of Terminal B at Boston's Logan Airport and was rolling toward the runway for a six-hour flight to Los Angeles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15


For god's sake, just because it's about a conspiracy, it doesn't necessary mean it's BS.

Do you actually think JFK was not shot from the grassy knoll?
And what a frigging moron believes in the magic bullet theory anyway. That's just insulting.

JFK's and Robert Kennedy's assassination has many mysteries.
For example, where is John's brain?
Why was it removed?
Why did they fake the autopsy photographs?
Because they tried covering up the fact that there were multiple gunmen firing from different directions.

Why did the secret service not respond appropriatly to the situation that unfolded at Dealy plaza?
Why did they call back secret service agents designated to protect the president minutes before the assassination?


And why is this all happening after JFK signed a presidential order revoking the federal reserve act, after having given speeches on how secret societies constituted an evil conspiracy around the globe and were repugnant from a "free and open society" (whatever that is)


And just because people have their alternative views on this, which is not forbidden, they automatically are called "conspiracy theorists".

And therefore, they are wrong, wrong, wrong.









Calling somebody a conspiracy theorists is just an excuse to deny any sort of review of dubious events that might have shadowy motives behind them, that apparently nobody wants to know, or wants others to know about.

 

[Que-Ever]

I wonder if wadsey is a hobo that got into a public library or something.

 

[W4d5Y]

A possible inconsistency with my flight-77-ditched-the-pentagon-theory?

The alleged pilot of the C130 plane that trailed flight 77 on its approach path to the pentagon who allegedly made following statements:

I told Washington the airplane has impacted the ground.

(of course referring to flight 77)

A possible inconsistency within the official theory:

He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land. Somewhere over western Pennsylvania, O'Brien looked down at a blackened, smoldering field.

Wtf?
He just decides to fly westwards and suddenly just happens to discover flight 93's crash site?
Without being requested to land somewhere?


All civilian planes to the ground, but a c-130 airborne is a-okay?

Also, there's not a single witness describing a plane having encircled the 93-crash site, other than the mystery plane. We only have their word, which apparently is an outright fabrication.
Unless of course you can proove the opposite.



OTHERWISE JUST LEAVE ME ALONE!
WHY DON'T YOU GO DO YOUR OWN GODDAMN RESEARCH!!! YOU MORONS!!!!
THIS WHOLE STUPID AFFAIR WOULD BE HELL LOTTA EASIER FOR ME IF YOU WEREN'T SO GODDAMN STUBBORN!!!!

 

[Glirk Dient]

explosions? in my wtc?

Sorry w4d5y I am still not getting the picture. You seem to have posted no evidence and a whole lot of "well...in my opinion I don't think this should have been here therefor bombs". Take a look at other controlled demolitions. Notice how easily you can see and hear the bombs? Notice how whole levels implode with glass flying everywhere?

W4d5y I want evidence...a smoking gun. Not jumps to conclusions.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Please can we just STFU about this conspiracy drivel. It's baseless, tedious, and noone cares. Nothing but a crutch for those lacking in credible intelligence to explain away things they cannot understand. A diagnosis of insanity on your part would not surprise me. Why is this inane thread nine pages long, not to mention the 150 other threads you've made on the subject?

This somes up exactly what I am thinking. Thank you repiV.

 

[W4d5Y]

Glirk Dient, the problem why people don't understand me is that they first have an aversion towards bias.
My bias is that 9/11 was at a minimum was allowed to happen, given what I've read.
And even more, that many terrorist related incidents around the world actually turn out to have been actively aided by the respective governments affected and rewarded with precious legislation passages by it.

So I'm all alarmist as Jones is, being all capslock-ish with conspiracy themed political-activist tones and screaming to holy heavens, only finding out that everybody will further retract from my ideas, scared of by the thought to try to engage in a discussion with someone, who actually's just a frustrated average guy desperately trying to find truth, expose lies and maybe get some more freedom to this society by doing the above.

That is why hardly anybody would even bother engaging in a regulated conversation with me, simply because I'm waaaay to frustrated to get something out of my lungs other than "fascism!".




Ooookay, Glirk, so why don't you follow the links I supply you with?
Whatever "troofing" site I might offer you shouldn't be held as biased distribution platform of lies but simply something you might review and then deem either falsely laid out or correct in its basic assumption.


Just remember, if I told you I didn't believe there were any aeronautic devices flown into the WTC, you'd call me crazy.

But the only way of actually eliminating that idea is by disprooving it within scientific standards.

And quite so, I actually review no-plane and tv-fakery claims and then make up my mind on it.
It is that we live in a rational society, not in a absolutist one, where knowledge is not given but can only be held true by aquisition by each and every individual.

An act out of group instinct never is an intelligent one, and so it is not wise to passively accept, without scrutiny, any kind of information.



Just because I watch Loose Change and in plane site it doesn't actually mean I actually believe every word they say.
If it wasn't for the aquisition of information and critical but not skeptic review, since skepticism always is a form of bias, being deconstructively opposed to an idea from the start, I wouldn't have to watch them all anyway, would I?
Whenever I watch a movie surrounding conspiracy theories for example, I keep murmuring to myself "oh I didn't know that" and "hmm, I think that's a bit too blurry" or "I don't know much about [certain details] so I can't judge on that".

I'm constantly trying to dig through the evidence that I am offered -by all parties involved - no matter wether skeptic or suggestive of insiders' complicity- to finally come to a conclusion that is derived from all gathered evidence for a complete and neutral judgement of the case for a specific event or theory involved in it.


As for the actual evidence about "secondary explosions" I'm talking about, you might as well just bother to look up "911proof" to find a compilation of firemen quotes and press reports, witness testimonies etc and so on that include accounts of what is described to sound like a bomb, or even actual reports of "low level flashes" and "popping sounds" and the same.


Mind me, I don't know how loud those actually are.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

You know, if you took a bunch of people and got them to stand nearby where a building was collapsing after a major catastrophe that absolutely did not involve explosions at all, and asked them what it sounded like, which of the following 3 do you think they'd be more likely to say:

1) "That sounded just like a building collapsing with no intervention whatsoever"

2) "That sounded kind of like explosions"

3) "Waffles"

Oh, and the reason no-one takes you seriously (and has been pointed out to you by several people including myself already) is because no-one really cares. You present your information in a haphazard way, and you insult people that don't subscribe to your (frankly lol-worthy) theories. You present no compelling arguments at all. You don't seem to be able to grasp the fact that other people have drawn their own conclusions from the available evidence and these conclusions are different to yours. Guess what? You don't have a lockhold on universal truth. Get over it.

 

[Gray Fox]

Somebody is in denial.

 

[repiV]

This somes up exactly what I am thinking. Thank you repiV.

Glad to be of service.

9/11 was really orchestrated by the Illuminati. Every moron knows that.

 

[Glirk Dient]

As for the actual evidence about "secondary explosions" I'm talking about, you might as well just bother to look up "911proof" to find a compilation of firemen quotes and press reports, witness testimonies etc and so on that include accounts of what is described to sound like a bomb, or even actual reports of "low level flashes" and "popping sounds" and the same.

none of those are evidence. Do you think science will accept a scientist saying "Well...I think this cures cancer...and he says it does too then it must, correct?". That's not how it works. All of those "reports" mean nothing. I am looking for evidence that clearly points to an alternative theory.

 

[Jintor]

By the way w4d5y, it is not our job to be convinced. It is your job to convince us.

 

[delusional]

By the way w4d5y, it is not our job to be convinced. It is your job to convince us.

But most of us don't even read what he writes.

 

[staticprimer]

But most of us don't even read what he writes.

I know I don't, I just make assumptions as to what he's actually saying.

 

[W4d5Y]

How could I possilby convince you if you guys wouldn't even bother to take me seriously?

I really feel frustrated here because I already wrote more than thirty pages in total about 9/11 conspiracy theories yet still you demand more from me?

I told you to look up those sites and judge for yourselves.
But not just go around calling anybody promoting such ideas crazy.


But oh well, *some* Indications of insider complicity: Insider trading, intergranular melting of the WTC steel, Andrews AFB's inability to intercept flight 77 with something else than a c130, the kean-comission's cover-up of the fact that cheney tracked flight 77 for at least 70 miles on its way to the pentagon and possibly even more, plus his ominious orders that were reconfirmed by him by the time "the plane" (allegedly flight 77) was located ten miles off washington DC.
Also, heavy intelligence implications of impending attacks, the promotion of people like Dave Frasca who didn't act on the minneapolis memo and was head of the FBI's OBL unit, but who eventually would do nothing to prevent terrorism.
Furthermore, the FBIHQ's unwillingness to give out a search warrant on Zacarias Moussaoui's laptop despite 70 requests citing Moussaoui's interest to fly "planes into the world trade center", the destruction of telephone wiretaps related to Bin Laden.

The fact that from 8:00 to 9:30, a guy called leidig was responsible for the coordination of the nationwide military response to the hijackings after being asked by the guy who usually was responsible there, but whose name I forgot, to hold his shift in that timeframe on september 10th.

The fact that building seven was destructed.
And that a danish demolitions expert explicitely stated he believed that it was in every way consistent with a controlled demo.

Oh yeah, most importantly, Bush's request to the FBI to back off the Bin Laden Family concerning investigations.
And most most important, the fact that some of the passangers that allegedly died on flight 11 actually boarded another plane, other than flight 11 that departed from gate 32, but rather a flight to san francisco from gate 26 and so on etc.

The allegation that they found Al Shehi's passport in NYC.
The possiblity that some hijackers might still be alive (this requires more investigation on my side tho)
The fact that the damage to the pentagon is smaller than the damage to world trade towers, despite planes of the same type doing all the damage.

The claim that was made after a 14-month investigation into flight 93 that no DNA of an arabian person was found on the wreckage site.

That's just my two cents.


//edit: A funny fact about some guys who have been skeptic of my views ever since I first shared them here. They at times alleged that there would be no expert who actually agrees with conspiracy theories, yet when I present them experts and government officials citing government/some private insiders' complicity, they doubt why this would be in any way relevant!?!?!
So the absence of experts would be relevant to the validity of conspiracy theories, yet the presence is not?

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

Are there experts that believe the planes caused the collapse of the towers? Are there experts that believe a plane crashed into the pentagon?

Yes there are. So how do you reconcile your absolute belief in what experts say when, obviously, some experts are wrong? Tricky one, that, isn't it?

 

[Seppo]

my rare visit to the politics forum was really worth it thanks to this thread

 

[W4d5Y]

A person standing next to 110-storey high-rise building that collapse of cooourse would describe things like this:

One eyewitness whose office is near the World Trade Center told AFP that he was standing among a crowd of people on Church Street, about two-and-a-half blocks from the South tower, when he saw "a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15." He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by "a crackling sound" before the tower collapsed. Each tower had six central support columns.

Note: brief lights on a relatively low level of the tower before its collapse.

Louie Cacchioli, 51, told People Weekly on Sept. 24: "I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there were bombs set in the building."

Note: "bomb" on the way up to the 24th floor. In which manner could jet fuel, that burned out after minutes, cause this?

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse."
The collapse of the structures resembled the controlled implosions used to demolish old structures and was "too methodical to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures," Romero told The Albuquerque Journal hours after the attack. "It would be difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that," Romero said. If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," he said.
"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion, in this case the collision of the planes into the towers, which brings emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," he told the Journal on Sept. 21.

I won't argue why he changed his mind, but it really is worth giving his initial ideas a go.

“I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . [at] the lower level of the building [not up where the fire was]. You know like when they . . . blow up a building ... ?" -- and a lieutenant firefighter the Commissioner spoke with independently verified the flashes

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt

Meanwhile we were standing there with about
five companies and we were just waiting for our
assignment and then there was an explosion in the south
tower, which according to this map, this exposure just
blew out in flames. A lot of guys left at that point.
I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One
floor under another after another and when it hit about
the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it
looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I
was there in '93.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110290.PDF

The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an escalator and out to Church Street. There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run.

eptember 11: An Oral History by Dean E. Murphy (Doubleday, 2002), pp 9-15.

After a while, and I don't know how long it
was, I was distracted by a large explosion from the
south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out
a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all
of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down
in a pancake. I remember my jaw dropping and just
staring at it and Richard Banaciski, one of the
firemen that was there, yelled "Run" and I turned
and I started running into the parking garage of the
Financial Center.

Q. Bill, just one question. The fire that
you saw, where was the fire? Like up at the upper
levels where it started collapsing?

A. It appeared somewhere below that. Maybe
twenty floors below the impact area of the plane.[emphasis added] I
saw it as fire and when I looked at it on television
afterwards, it doesn't appear to show the fire. It
shows a rush of smoke coming out below the area of
the plane impact.
The reason why I think the cameras didn't get
that image is because they were a far distance away
and maybe I saw the bottom side where the plane was
and the smoke was up above it.

When I first read this statement, I thought she simply misinterpreted the collapse, however reading on, you find out she describes a phenomenon that was not related to the actual pancaking.
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110288.PDF

My lieutenant said he looked down at
the first floor, and he auto see the first floor
of the south tower like exploding out. I looked
up. I looked up, and the sky was filled with
that debris cloud. You could see the debris
coming down, pretty much toward us. We were
standing underneath it.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110510.PDF

Although its spectacularly televised impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible noise - he calls it an "exploding sound" - shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the stairwell.

"In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up," he says.

In a flash of panic, people began fleeing higher into the building. Then a few men began working on the crowd, calming people down, saying that downstairs was the only way out.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0917/p1s1-usgn.html


That's enough right now.
I looked through a couple of links on 911proof and selected the ones most compelling.

 

[Glirk Dient]

w4d5y you still don't get it.

What people think doesn't matter. People are idiots. Were the people at the base of the tower experts in the sound of a tower collapse?

I am talking about scientific evidence. Where are the bomb casings, wires, bomb residue? I want physical evidence, not some idiot on the street who thought the building sounded pretty loud coming down...almost as loud as a bomb. I want physical evidence, and not a jump to conclusion. Something irrefutable. Some shred of evidence that clearly shouldn't be there. Anything. You really need to take some logic courses because you seem to confuse evidence with assumptions. They aren't interchangeable in this case.

Seriously wadsy...everyone is getting mad at you because you just don't seem to understand. You are taking assumptions and taking things out of context and making jumps to conclusions. It seems your so wrapped up in these conspiracy theories you can't grasp reality. Sure they might be fun to believe in but that's why they are conspiracy theories and never get any serious consideration. You need physical evidence to prove something like this, not a mere conspiracy.

So until you find physcial evidence that proves an alternative theory...the majority of us will remain objective and stick with the more logical and probable side.

 

[W4d5Y]

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.
...
The unusual thinning of the member is most likely due to an attack of the steel by grain boundary penetration of sulfur forming sulfides that contain both iron and copper.
...
liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel.
...
The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure. A detailed study into the mechanisms of this phenomenon is needed to determine what risk, if any, is presented to existing steel structures exposed to severe and long-burning fires.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

"[Hani Hanjour's] name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html

//five corpses allegedly found in pentagon wreckage could not be matched with DNA that the victims' families brought to the FBI and therefore were "concluded" to be those of the hijackers. Without actual genetic identification.

The remains of the five hijackers have been identified through a process of exclusion, as they did not match DNA samples contributed by family members of all 183 victims who died at the site.
The hijackers' remains will be turned over to the FBI and held as evidence, FBI spokesman Chris Murray said. After the investigation is concluded, the State Department will decide what is to be done with the remains."

-Arlington National Cemetary (11/21/01)


//Hani Hanjour's awesome flying abilities

"Whoever flew at least three of the death planes seemed very skilled. Investigators are impressed that they were schooled enough to turn off flight transponders -- which provide tower control with flight ID, altitude and location. Investigators are particularly impressed with the pilot who slammed into the Pentagon and, just before impact, performed a tightly banked 270-degree turn at low altitude with almost military precision."

-Detroit News (9/13/01)

"To pull off the coordinated aerial attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on Tuesday, the hijackers must have been extremely knowledgeable and capable aviators, a flight expert said.
By seizing four planes, diverting them from scheduled flight paths and managing to crash two into the twin towers of the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon, they must have had plenty of skill and training.
It was not known how the hijackers slipped through airport security checkpoints with their weapons.
There are no indications that any of the airline crews activated a four-digit code alerting ground controllers that a hijacking was in progress."

-CNN (9/12/01)

About airport security:

"Nine of the hijackers who commandeered jetliners on Sept. 11 were selected for special security screenings that morning, including two who were singled out because of irregularities in their identification documents, U.S. officials said this week.
Six were chosen for extra scrutiny by a computerized screening system, prompting a sweep of their checked baggage for explosives or unauthorized weapons, authorities said. The ninth was listed on ticket documents as traveling with one of the hijackers with questionable identification.
Law enforcement and aviation officials declined to provide further details about the security screenings, including which of the hijackers were chosen and what flights they were on.
Authorities also said they could not say if any of the nine were interrogated in any way before being allowed to board their flights, or if screeners noticed the box-cutting knives used in the attacks. Such knives were allowed on airplanes before Sept. 11."

-Washington Post (3/02/02)

"New radar evidence obtained by CBS News strongly suggests that the hijacked jetliner which crashed into the Pentagon hit its intended target."
"But the jet, flying at more than 400 mph, was too fast and too high when it neared the Pentagon at 9:35. The hijacker-pilots were then forced to execute a difficult high-speed descending turn."
"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes."
"The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

-CBS (9/21/01)

"But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver."
"Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers."

-Washington Post (9/12/01)

The issue in question is the identity of the doomed plane. Plane-32 is the jet that crashed into the WTC North Tower. Its flight path is well documented by the transponder data, the radar data and the radio talk with the controllers, at least up to a few minutes before the crash. But there is no evidence of any people embarking, or intending to embark, on a plane starting at 7:45 from Gate 32, not one report, not one witness. Whereas it's possible that the passengers boarded partly plane-26, partly plane-32, it seems to be far more likely that the irregularity of the two gates is part of a hitherto unknown plan to get control of plane-32 without disturbing passengers or crew members. So in all probability, the plane was "stolen" from the airport by the so-called hijackers, - with no passengers aboard.

See here for a compilation of indications that several people believed to have died in the WTC never boarded flight 11 to get there

I can tell you beforehand, the whole page argues on a flight controller radio transmission excerpt and telephone calls, describing details that do not match flight 11.

//insid0r trading
too lazy copypaste anything here.
Given that I might know about things you maybe might not, however refusing to give out that information potentially absent from your memories, as I just declared, I shan't be able to convince you of anything.
Therefore, irrelevant talking about that particularly stunning topic.

//norad standdown
http://standdown.net/index.htm

Let the experts speak, this topic is also to big to cover within one post.
Basic tagline: They *inexplicably* failed to intercept the three other planes on 9/11 that were not united airlines 93.

It is worth mentioning that a internetarchive saved a version of Andrews AFB from april 2001, that explicitely stated Andrews was responsible for defence of Washington DC airspace,

To provide combat units in the highest
possible state of readiness

.

"Months before Hani Hanjour is believed to have flown an American Airlines jet into the Pentagon, managers at an Arizona flight school reported him at least five times to the FAA.
They reported him not because they feared he was a terrorist, but because his English and flying skills were so bad...they didn't think he should keep his pilot's license.
"I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." Peggy Chevrette, Arizona flight school manager."

-CBS News (5/10/02)

"Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.
"I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon," the former employee said. " He could not fly at all."

-New York Times (5/04/02)

"Instructors at a flying school in Phoenix, Arizona express concern to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials about the poor English and limited flying skills of one of their students, Hani Hanjour.
They believe his pilot's license may be fraudulent."

-BBC (5/17/02)



Correction of my recent suggested CT:

Penny Elgas --
The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building. I saw a smoke ring surround the fuselage as it made contact with the wall. It appeared as a smoke ring that encircled the fuselage at the point of contact and it seemed to be several feet thick. I later realized that it was probably the rubble of churning bits of the plane and concrete. The churning smoke ring started at the top of the fuselage and simultaneously wrapped down both the right and left sides of the fuselage to the underside, where the coiling rings crossed over each other and then coiled back up to the top. Then it started over again -- only this next time, I also saw fire, glowing fire in the smoke ring. At that point, the wings disappeared into the Pentagon. And then I saw an explosion and watched the tail of the plane slip into the building.

Tim Timmerman -- from 16th floor apartment
... it had been an American Airways 757. It added power on its way in. The nose hit, and the wings came forward and it went up in a fireball. Smoke and flames poured out of a large hole punched into the side of the Pentagon.

...
and as is went ... by the Sheraton Hotel, the pilot added power to the engines. I heard it pull up a little bit more, and then I lost it behind a building. And then it came out, and I saw it hit right in front of -- it didn't appear to crash into the building; most of the energy was dissipated in hitting the ground, but I saw the nose break up, I saw the wings fly forward, and then the conflagration engulfed everything in flames.

No-757-actually-impacted-in-pentagon-theory shows very low probability of being reality.

 

[Llama]

w4d5y you still don't get it.

What people think doesn't matter. People are idiots. Were the people at the base of the tower experts in the sound of a tower collapse?

I am talking about scientific evidence. Where are the bomb casings, wires, bomb residue? I want physical evidence, not some idiot on the street who thought the building sounded pretty loud coming down...almost as loud as a bomb. I want physical evidence, and not a jump to conclusion. Something irrefutable. Some shred of evidence that clearly shouldn't be there. Anything. You really need to take some logic courses because you seem to confuse evidence with assumptions. They aren't interchangeable in this case.

Seriously wadsy...everyone is getting mad at you because you just don't seem to understand. You are taking assumptions and taking things out of context and making jumps to conclusions. It seems your so wrapped up in these conspiracy theories you can't grasp reality. Sure they might be fun to believe in but that's why they are conspiracy theories and never get any serious consideration. You need physical evidence to prove something like this, not a mere conspiracy.

So until you find physcial evidence that proves an alternative theory...the majority of us will remain objective and stick with the more logical and probable side.

tl,dr; we don't demand MORE, we just want something that isn't conjecture and / or rubbish.

(Unless a Mod posts otherwise, I'll use that as a reply every time he posts until he comes up with a decent answer)

 

[Solaris]

Clarky Challenge or ban tbh

 

[W4d5Y]

If I may correct you, it's about people watching flashes of light going of all over the towers ffs.

Solaris, you're not interested anyway.

 

[Solaris]

If I may correct you, it's about people watching flashes of light going of all over the towers ffs.

Solaris, you're not interested anyway.

indeed.
char

 

[W4d5Y]

Solaris, do you want to discover the real circumstances of 9/11?
Is it your opinion that those answers reside in the Kean comission report?
Do you believe the bush administration would have had an interest in preventing the attacks?
If so, tell me why you think that.

And when we're getting there anyway, just tell me what makes you believe the white house actually used the frequent intelligence briefings they received from the CIA in the year of 2001, warning them of Bin Laden's determination "to strike in the US"?


I just believe those people had enough time to locate the hijackers, search Moussaoui's harddrive, read the Minneapolis Memo, listen to the foreign intelligence services, listen to Mike Vreeland, and bloody put those hijackers (if there were any) IN JAIL.

No reason to believe why 9/11 couldn't have been prevented and why it was inevitable, eradicating any effort (if there would have been any, which does not account for the reality) prior to september, 2001, to take any suspected terrorists into police custody.

 

[Llama]

w4d5y you still don't get it.

What people think doesn't matter. People are idiots. Were the people at the base of the tower experts in the sound of a tower collapse?

I am talking about scientific evidence. Where are the bomb casings, wires, bomb residue? I want physical evidence, not some idiot on the street who thought the building sounded pretty loud coming down...almost as loud as a bomb. I want physical evidence, and not a jump to conclusion. Something irrefutable. Some shred of evidence that clearly shouldn't be there. Anything. You really need to take some logic courses because you seem to confuse evidence with assumptions. They aren't interchangeable in this case.

Seriously wadsy...everyone is getting mad at you because you just don't seem to understand. You are taking assumptions and taking things out of context and making jumps to conclusions. It seems your so wrapped up in these conspiracy theories you can't grasp reality. Sure they might be fun to believe in but that's why they are conspiracy theories and never get any serious consideration. You need physical evidence to prove something like this, not a mere conspiracy.

So until you find physcial evidence that proves an alternative theory...the majority of us will remain objective and stick with the more logical and probable side.

tl,dr; we don't demand MORE, we just want something that isn't conjecture and / or rubbish.

Edit : Whether or not you want me to think otherwise, a few people saying they may or may not have seen something which they have no idea about (What's this, flashes of light when there are raging fires and multiple possible flashbacks happening? Surely not!) does not amount to evidence. Try again.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Looks like w4d5y is banned which pretty much means this thread is over.

I guess this is a good lesson in logic. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's probable. In a case such as this it's best to look at both sides objectively and figure out which one has more supporting evidence. I will hand it to w4d5y his theories are within the realm of possibilities. However...when we look at his side we can attribute a very very low possibility of such events happening this flawlessly. When we look at the official story it's fairly solid. 100% possible. Which seems more logical to believe in?

People need to learn to look at something with an unbiased view and look at both sides objectively. Not get wrapped up into one side and defend it to the point you have lost any shred of logic and reason. R.I.P W4D5Y

 

[Eejit]

We might as well get this locked now he's gone, since he was the only person arguing that side.

 

[Glirk Dient]

Nah no need to. Perhaps someone else will take up his banner, or this thread will drift off and hopefully be forgotten along with the nonsensical theories it harbors.

 

[delusional]

Molten Concrete found in WTC debris! And the only thing capable of melting this is THERMITE.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/9-11guns/

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Hai guyz I sawz a hel1copt3rz passing ov3r my plac3 and 1t wasn't black but it was a helocopter that waz spying on mez. Even tho it say "Ambulance" on teh bottomz, I know what it r3a11y was yo.

 

[delusional]

Hai guyz I sawz a hel1copt3rz passing ov3r my plac3 and 1t wasn't black but it was a helocopter that waz spying on mez. Even tho it say "Ambulance" on teh bottomz, I know what it r3a11y was yo.

At least I was serious. :dozey:

 

[Eejit]

OMFG I just realised... this whole time the government has been covering up that 9/11 was a GODZILLA ATTACK!

Think about it... it suddenly all makes sense!

 

[Druckles]

May I ask; is this a Politics forum or a conspiracy forum?

 

[delusional]

May I ask; is this a Politics forum or a conspiracy forum?

They are one in the same.

You don't want this spilling over into the rest of the forum now do you?