That are all wrong... Very, very, wrong.

Come on, think about it. Whoever is in charge of the buildings' service and maintenance decides who does or doesn't go into these areas.



Where do they mention that "engineers were looking at the evidence" in your link?



That's not what I said. There were numerous reports of explosions in the towers, which wasn't the case in previous high-rise fires, even in much more severe fires than in the towers.

But even more important, there was a massive explosion in the basement of one tower before the plane even hit the building. How can you explain that?



Part 1 of 7 (you'll also find links to Part 2 - 7 here)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiL_q1m67k

Turbs, Turbs, Turbs.... perhaps if you actually bothered to read the article, you'd have the answer for yourself... but that's not really your style, now, is it? Doing actual research just isn't as fun as believing every crackpot theory that comes along, is it? At least there's something you're an expert at...

Here... I'll do your homework for you again...

"The core of what may become the cleanup master plan for the wrecked site in lower Manhattan was delivered to the city's Dept. of Design and Construction Sept. 22 by implosion consultant Controlled Demolition Inc., Phoenix, Md."

"CDI was initially retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc., one of the site's four main cleanup management contractors, to assess debris removal in its sector that includes the former Two WTC and several smaller buildings."

""I saw I-beams stacked six stories high," says Allen Morse, chief debris expert for the Army Corps of Engineers, a technical advisor to the Federal Emergency Management Agency"

"Business was slow at first as truckdrivers maneuvered through the site and city streets and had to pass muster with fbi officials checking for evidence."

"He adds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is "writing a plan" to manage hazardous waste recovered on site, including freon, fuel and biomedical waste. "When we run across it now, the stuff is being put in a holding area," he says."

So it seems that several experts were looking at the evidence in one capacity or another.



And surely you have some sort of evidence to back this up, don't you? Again, I know that providing actual evidence really isn't your forté, but maybe you'll surprise us this time...?


Cz

Construction.com brought to you by your corporate overlords!

ENTER the Mcgraw hills company... big money in train development and construction(1910), a union of hills, and mcgraw publishing also, now a mega-corporate family tree stretching from entertainment, big business, and UH OH politics! YAY!

And, many, many, many newspapers and other publications and websites.

Or the momentum is not being reduced, maybe it could be the peak of one event coinciding with the trough of another event to create a flat point which does not represent the choatic, violent nature of what is truely happening. Just another interpretation...


See what I mean? You say your eight 'sharp, well spaced' spikes are indicative of explosives, I point out a flat point between seven and eight, so that part isn't sharp and well spaced and you make up a reason for it without feeling it detracts from your theory. Ask you about the part after your eighth spike and you wave it away like that's what you expect a falling building to look like. The WTC2 collapse graph doesn't look anything like what you say explosive demolition looks like or a falling building looks like and you make excuses and still it doesn't detract from your theory. You just point out bits you like and ignore bits you don't like to fit the graphs to your theory.


I think you know what I meant. You don't know how to interpret seimograms, you have no technical expertise or experience. You don't know what the graphs should look like, you don't know what kind of peaks could possibley indicate explosives or not. Neither do I or, likely, anyone else on this forum. So it's all just guesswork and interpretation which could be completely wrong. Anyone from the official story standpoint could spend a lot of time and effort analysing the graphs, present their finding to you just for you to then say 'Nah, my explaination is better'. Given the fact both have equal value (i.e. virtually none), what would be the point.

My comment about your impartiality is due to your insistance on explosives and your "It now appears I can add seismic evidence as supportive of the third step." comment. The reality is nothing points (or, equally, does not point) to explosives, you've just decided it does because that's what you want to see.

Do you have the source for this, it's the first time I've heard this claim?

Why would they detonate the presumed pre-placed explosives prior to the plane hitting the tower? Why did the towers not collapse for a further hour? Doesn't seem to make much sense to me...

Your lines seem reasonable, however you are reading a lot more information into the signal than is actually there. Because the seismograph is a vibrating system, a subsequent impact signal can either add to or subtract from the signal from an earlier impact, depending on how the timing of the impacts matches with the frequency of the seismograph. It's a similar phenomenon to the low-frequency "beats" you get with two sounds of similar frequency as they either reinforce or cancel each other.

So you phone maintenance about a problem and the guy who shows up says "I can't go into the maintenance area of the building, only the new guys with special clearance can do that". Very plausible.

Read the link.

Certainly reported explosions in the Madrid fire:
http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents/2005/02/13/58231.html

William Rodriguez has changed his story so often that he no longer knows when he is telling the truth:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Let me rephrase that. Have you got a link that does not require me to watch a lot of poor-quality video?

Welcome to the Idiot Nation™ Inc.

Please proceed to the nearest 2 minutes hate station, you are under terrorist attack, and big brother is watching you, and 1984 started in 1943...

so, now that we can all agree we live in distorted twisted realities, where our cuboid television, with its cuboid endorsed mass media, all under 15 corporate partnerships and owned by an even smaller amount of bankers making up war to solve overpopulation because they use(and used) sex too exclusively to sell EVERYTHING WORLDWIDE.

Oh yes "the matrix" is real, in a metaphorical sense, where realities can be changed and the population can be swayed with minimal effort to see and hear exactly whatever you want them to hear and see in order to achieve their selfish goals. 9/11 was the "glitch" if you will, but it was an intended glitch... the culmination of its completion, if you didn't believe you were brainwashed beforehand, i think its probably too late... Even Mario Brothers had two giant smoldering towers in the "Alternate" (New York?) Reality.

Our leaders are complete psychopathic mass murderers, our government political system, and our mass media and entertainment industry are owned(in the end) by the same people who own the federal reserve and control the money of the rest of the world.

By mass media, i mean every single television channel, every radio station, every movie, every news station and Video Game(with the exception of actual public broadcast, and privately made films, etc.)

AHEM, an OBVIOUS propaganda technique, the truth.

Morpheus: Do you want to know what IT is? The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.

Neo: What truth?

Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo.
-The Matrix

morpheus = transformation
neo = new

... ... ...

Movies, the Ultimate Propaganda...

And no, this is not BS, and the Illuminati are not hunting down the "lady in red" Angelina Jolie in a jungle while she tries to climb the pyramid to steal the capstone in a skintight "battle?!" suit thing...

They are laughing at you along with the other billions of people fooled by this ploy.

Indeed the entire world is falling apart, and a dark side is about to emerge as has not been seen in a long while, if you thought it was bad now be can only possibly be going farther.

Iran is america's next target, and then it will be time to initiate the religious war of Armageddon as they have "preshadowed" since ages past with the awe-insipiring brainwashing tool, the bible.

A masonic influence? surely not, especially if the 1611 edition KJV is one of their "sacred texts" And the guy is looking for a connection from Christ to pharaohs, because he is convinced(as masonry IS ancient Egyptian belief) that the pharaohs did have "gods blood" as can be seen in their depictions. They also had the lightbulb, and undoubtedly the Tesla Coil(or natural equivalent?) with various other interesting artifacts.

hope you all tear me to shreds now.

At last, a suggestion of some sort of alternative explanation. There are a number of reasons I do not find the interpretation to be reasonable. There is no reason two events in a building collapse should cancel each other out. If this was the case in a ‘natural’ continuous collapse, it would be realistic to expect a number of these flat areas throughout the duration. Also the coinciding of a peak and trough during a collapse would be down to random coincidence though, as it happens, the flat area which is unique throughout the collapse period, occurs at the specific point after the upper block has fallen through its height.



The calm point occurs specifically as the upper block has fallen through its height. The eight spikes show there was increased activity beginning after the fall of the upper block and calm point. After the eight spikes, the activity reduces back to initial collapse levels and combined with the first debris impacting the floor gives a more distorted reading. I did not ‘make up’ any of this - they are facts I cannot change or have control over.

Questions to be answered are: Why is there a calm point during collapse, specifically at the point where the upper block has fallen through its height? Why is there then increased activity following this calm point?

That my theory of the controlled demolition process is supported by the above events and effortlessly answers the questions along the way is another fact that just cannot be helped.



I am not saying every collapse or controlled demolition, even of equivalent buildings, should appear only one way, either visually or in seismic data. I am saying that the separate Tower collapses both show the features mentioned above. You obviously don’t see it but here is the graph for WTC2: -

• The first red line indicates the initial collapse movement of the upper block.
• The second red line indicates the first debris reaching ground level.
• The third red line indicates beginning of the main debris field impacting the ground.

The above observations were made through comparing the seismic data to this video evidence.

As with WTC1, there is a distinct flat or calm period I have marked out in blue. Again, this reading is specific to the point the upper block has fallen through its height, approximately 6 seconds after initiation, as can be confirmed in this video.

The calm point is then followed by increased activity during the rest of the building collapse - I have this time only been able to mark out 7 red dots. The reason these spikes are more distorted than in WTC1 is due to the fact the first debris more quickly reaches ground level after they begin. The reason there are less spikes than the 8 in WTC1 is due to the fact the lower block was shorter. For both Towers, dividing the number of floors up to the collapse initiation point by the number of spikes gives approximately 12 floors.

Both collapses show the following: -

1. Seismic activity of the upper block fall
2. A calm duration of approximately 1 second at the point the upper block has fallen through its height
3. An increased activity following the calm point

As these events occur in both Towers, it cannot be random chance producing these readings at given points. The seismic data is directly linked to the characteristics of the collapses. Therefore there are specific reasons for these readings.

How the official story can under the above circumstances explain away the reduced activity calm points mid-collapse, followed by greater activity, I do not know.



Please don’t judge me based on your own admitted lack of understanding.

The separate vibrations you mention that may affect the activity levels, perhaps cancelling each other out, would seem unusual and is a situation relying on random chance - if you are correct, it could happen at any point during the collapses and perhaps multiple times.

As I have discussed above, the calm points, mid-collapse, occur only in the instant the upper block has fallen through its height. After this point there is increased activity for both Towers. This is not random chance and actually indicates a change in the building collapse progression. Why there should be such a sudden and noticeable change in a ‘natural’ progressive collapse is not clear. Why there should be such a change in my controlled demolition theory is very clear.

Just read the entire thread. I would have been very entertaining except that it was a little sad that some people actually believe this nonsense. I think the title of the page linked to in this quote sums it all up completely:

9/11 for dummies

Not that I believe it, but I could understand believing theories about the government knowing about the attacks in advance or even in some way being responsible for them. To claim that planes didn't even hit the buildings and not believing that hijackers could take control of the planes is just ridiculous. I could go on and show how stupid almost every claim made in the thread so far is, but what would be the point - people who believe this lunacy in the first place could probably never be convinced, no matter how much evidence they see to the contrary.

Zaus, I believe in this aswell. I have heard a lot about this topic about how the twin towers went down.
I know that that was all the governments little plan and for some support, people who never even met each other, overheard a government offical say, "It's time, take them down," then there they went down perfect enough not to destroy to much.

I Googled the quote you give above and just got a lot of results referring to Xmas decorations.

Are you serious?

How does debris removal by a demolition company remotely compare to a forensic / scientific analysis of the evidence by qualified experts?

It doesn't.

And that's all they did at Ground Zero - debris removal.

Oh, except for the "fbi officials checking for evidence"? You're actually trying to claim that this was some sort of inspection of the steel for possible recovery and scientific analysis?

By the FBI?

And what did the FBI do, exactly? Jump on the back of the trucks, and rummage through 5 to 10 tons of steel by hand, looking for anything they might find unusual?

Such logic! A maintenance worker shows up on the 78th floor just to tell you he can't help. "Only the new guys are allowed to do that".

That's right. His boss told him to do that. Right after his boss said that he wasn't allowed to go into the restricted areas anymore, because he'd hired some new guys for that.

Hilarious.



I did. Read my response.



Your link is to a smear propaganda piece. I've discussed it elsewhere at length, and it's pure garbage.



It's far better quality than the crap article by Mark Roberts you linked.

Still wrong.

The article by Gravy is crap? The you will have no problem showing where is is wrong... Right?

The Egyptian Lightbulb, infact it was massive, and had NO WIRES...

There is only one way i know of that can do this, but then again the pyramids of giza were giant calendars, clocks, pinpoints the sun, moon, and itself on the surface,
And, they are also perfectly aligned to the equator.

Now do you understand why you know nothing? Because until you understand that(as every great thinking man has always said) the more you know, the more things you can be sure you have no clue about.

Have you ever seen physical objects defy the laws of physics? no.

Non-Physical objects however, are not as inclined to look real. There is a mass of evidence supporting this theory, and if it is true that this was the Elite's celebration of complete brainwashing of the people of america, then it makes perfect sense...

You are the crazed insane lunatic who cannot see for himself what has flashed before his eyes. The only reason you even believe airplanes hit the towers is because you watched it on TV.

You watched it, you were shown impossible things, non-existent things, "evidence" was fabricated, just as even the video's were fabricated. Do you even remember the two towers LIVE shots?
Bad CGI animation and Bad Inconsistent CGI planes. Some black, some WHITE, some other off color, every video's coloration is r******ed. These are paid professional CAMERA MEN they really should know how to white balance.

3000 people see a bomb go off, and no plane. atleast 1 billion people are fooled into thinking it was planes... Which do you REALLY think the truth is? Keep in mind the "vaporized" plane in shanksville. The evidence against one hijacker was ON THE STREET AFTER THE EXPLOSION... and the hijacker WAS ALIVE... HE WAS ALIVE... HE DIDN'T DO ISHT. Keep also in mind the obvious disinfo tactic from the beginning, the "military plane" with no windows Then keep in mind you are expected to believe on top of all of this, with vast amounts of missing evidence, that 3 steel buildings(they are made with airplane collision in mind, and can probably take 3-4 impacts) that burned for 4 hours each begin an "initiation of collapse" followed by "global collapse".

WHAT ARE YOU BASING YOUR BELIEFS OFF OF?!?!?!

What don't you understand about "reading more into the graph than is actually there"? You cannot pick out individual swings and link them to specific events. All you can do is take the amplitude averaged over several swings. This means that all you can get out of the graph is a gradual build-up as the building collapses, then a big increase as pieces hit the ground.

Yes, hilarious, but that's the sort of thing that would be happening with your scenario, unless they replaced the entire maintenance staff with conspirators in one go.

I did. You appear to believe that CD experts would be all over a CD site without recognising it for what it was. More hilarity.

Link? On second thoughts, don't bother. The last thing I need is more of your warped view of how the world works. Page after page of the Apollo dust argument was bad enough.

Is that a no?

What did I say in my previous post? Oh yeah "Anyone from the official story standpoint could spend a lot of time and effort analysing the graphs, present their finding to you just for you to then say 'Nah, my explaination is better'." Admittedly it's not like I spent a lot of time and effort, but that's pretty much why.

If your flat point coincides with the end of the top of the building collapsing and the start of the main collapse then why would there have to be a number of flat points, why would the flat point have to be random coincidence? The top of the building collapses and produces a rumble, the main building is overcome by the weight of the top, starts to stress and collapses. The flat point represents interference between two actions - the rumble of the top of the building and the rumble of the start of the rest of the building collapse - which explains why it appears on both graphs. I'm not saying this intepretation is correct, but it is an interpretation that's just as right/wrong/provable/unprovable as yours.

All you've done is calculate approximate timings for the top of building collapse, the rest of building collapse and parts of building hitting the ground. You've then interpreted why those parts look like they do. You're free to do so, but it's not evidence of anything, just opinion. You're not intereprting data from a position of knowledge, experience or understanding. You're looking at the graphs, finding certain peaks where you can make up a story to fit your CD view and waving away other parts. If you don't give quantitive reasoning no one can prove you are wrong but equally you can't prove you are right.


A fine display of arrogance and ego there. Let's have a look at my statement - "You don't know how to interpret seimograms, you have no technical expertise or experience." So am I wrong there - are you trained on interpreting seismograms, some kind of geoscience degree you've not mentioned so far? Unless you do, my statement was correct. Next part: You don't know what the graphs should look like, you don't know what kind of peaks could possibley indicate explosives or not. Again, do you have any experience? Have you done a lot of work investigating normal earthquake seismograms or seismograms from previous, known, controlled demolition? Want to point me to any technical paper on how to define explosive peaks in building collapses that you've been referencing? Because unless you have, again, my statement is correct. Next part (including the bit you didn't quote): "Neither do I or, likely, anyone else on this forum. So it's all just guesswork and interpretation which could be completely wrong." Yep, I'm admitting my 'lack of understanding'. Not quite sure where you have displayed your experience and expertise. Not sure where you've displayed anything other than personal interpretation.

I'm pretty sure on a discussion forum one person with no relevant skills, experience or training is allowed to 'judge' the personal opinion of another person with equally no relevant skills, experience or training.

Morpheus actually means sleep. If you're going to use a phrase from a film to back up your idiotic ideas you could at least get the reference right.

As for this whole almost offensive 9/11 crap:

WHICH IS THE MOST LIKELY:

1. That terrorists hijaked two planes and flew them into a building

2. That a government wuold wilfully kill 3000 of its own citizens simply to declare war on a country who provides it with less that 1% of its oil.

I know which is more likely.

Stupid discussion.

They did have flight training, they went to flight schools. Their membership and hours are all logged at those flight schools

Adding more info to my point of view...

Also, if I am correct, the empire state building was once attacked this same way. Why would that building still stand, and the WTC fall?

the general public definitely doesnt know any better and will believe things the come out of monkeys

Bang!

Once again, emma cuts to the chase in her impeccable fashion.

Yep...stupid discussion.

Kudos, darlin'!

As I said in my first post, I could go on and show how stupid almost every claim made in the thread so far is, but what would be the point - people who believe this lunacy in the first place could probably never be convinced, no matter how much evidence they see to the contrary, but what the heck, since you quoted me, I'll answer.


Actually, yes. Recently a tornado struck a town in either Kansas or Kentucky, I don't remember which since tornado's struck both states that night. In the debris over 100 yards from where the house once stood, rescue workers found what they first thought was a doll. Turned out to be a living baby with hardly a scratch on it. Also, I worked in demolitions for a while while in the Army. It's amazing what strange things can defy the laws of physics in an explosion.


Yes, I watched it, but no, I wasn't shown impossible and non-existent things. First of all, they would have needed to hire someone much better than David Copperfield to fool all of the people who saw the planes crash into the buildings live.

As far as the bad camera work, you need to use a little bit of common sense here. I in no way claim to be a professional, but I do make a little money on the side doing some amatuer photography, mostly of kids at sporting events. No cameraman, amatuer or professional, was there that day to take pictures of a plane crashing into a building. They were there taking shots of a building burning that had already been hit. While doing that, they happened to catch the second plane hitting the other tower. In other words, they were focused on a basically still, long distance shot. If they had been planning on taking shots with the intense movement and crashing of another plane, the camera settings would need to be much different for the best shot. THIS WAS NOT THE EXPECTATION!

Also, the shots showing pixellation and other bad camera effects around the plane are all enlargements, to get a better view of the plane. This will always cause quality problems. In fact, if the images were clearer, I'd be more apt to believe they were fake.


Wow, that number gets bigger almost every time I see it. Amazing that 3000 people, almost as many who died, in a rush to get out of a flaming building, would have actually seen a bomb large enough to bring down the building, and not be killed by it. OK, I jest. I'm sure you meant to say these people heard something that sounded like a bomb, rather than actually seeing it. As I said before, I was in the military a few years back. When scared and in danger, even well trained people can hear things that sound like things that aren't there. Have you ever seen a fire on any scale? Things tend to pop, even if it is just trash burning in a barrel. On the scale of the fire in those buildings, many things could have easily sounded like bombs. Imaginations would have been running wild with the people trying to get out. Even people who weren't in there were worrying about bombs everywhere from the Statue of Liberty, to the Sears Tower in Chicago, to the Golden Gate Bridge.

The bit about the hijacker still being alive isn't even still brought up by most skeptics, for reasons shown exhaustively earlier in the thread. Even if what you claimed was true, that would mean they only had one name wrong. That would mean they had 18 out of 19 correct, which would actually be a pretty good success rate for normal government intelligence.

As far as the buildings being made with airplane collision in mind, they didn't have in mind large passenger planes fully loaded with fuel being aimed at the buildings on purpose, not to mention that the designs couldn't have been tested for this extreme of a situation.


Simple logic and reason, not fear and paranoia. I haven't yet read the related threads, but people who believe this strike me as the kind of individuals that don't believe we landed on the moon, don't believe holecost ever happpened, and might even be members of the Flat Earth Society. I would thing it was funny, except for the fact that it belittles the lives of the thousands of innocent people who died on that horrible day.

Sorry, ran out of time to post and hit the wrong button.

the whole 911 thing was either directly carried out by the US government or they had prior knowledge and simply did nothing (the only 2 ways it went down)

also the entire official story is a lie and most people don't wanna swallow that no matter how much proof there is out there, every one is brainwashed by the corporate media (keep buying the products and the lies, stay enslaved)

911 allowed the War to happen and to continue as well as perpetuating racism and fear, further more I can't help but see the direct parallels between Hitler's rise to power and war and Mr BUsh Jrs (Hitler was not elected but eventually took power, Bush lost the election in florida and still became Pres-- the Nazis had the Richstage fire and the US had 911 both were self inflicted and they were both quick to follow up with the finger pointing-- Hitler repealed Habeas Corpus and BUsh brought in the Patriot Act among other things taking away rights from the American people supposedly to protect them---- also if you look into secret societies you will see that the Skull and Bones society that the Bush family and others are involved in share many of the same ideals, traditions and symbols as the Nazis)

(sorry if this is incoherent, I am currently at work)

There is no doubt they had prior knowledge.

The Patriot Act is ridiculous. It was brought about as a way of preventing another 9/11 - which is a joke in the first place because they already had plenty of information about what was coming in the form of a terrorist attack that occurred on 9/11 without the need of a Patriot Act.

1 How could you believe that a plane that took down the WTC towers could suddenly unveil 2 unscathed passports as "proof"?[/url]
Do you buy EVERYTHING they want you to swallow??!?

2 ROFL
There was a piece i saw on the history channel a while back that i cant find online. It was about the veterans protesting in DC after the vietnam war. After several days with thousands of protesters veteran and civilian alike, they decided to get them out by starting a riot and killing hundreds of people.
Why the hijackers did it...

DC is not a part of the USA, it is a country unto itself, and acts out of the bounds of the constitution and civilian rights. BTW Governments have been killing and enslaving their people for thousands of years...
Not to mention we put hussien in power as a dictator, and took him out as an "act of freedom". BS...



Right....
Or so you have been told...


And the sheep follow the lead...

And then... the holy warrior of "reason" and "logic" rears his head...


uh-huh...


Ok? What??


pre-recorded crappy video's are not hard... and post recorded video's are not hard either. Ya'know whats hard? NEWTON. According to newtons third law...
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object. The direction of the force on the first object is opposite to the direction of the force on the second object. Forces always come in pairs - equal and opposite action-reaction force pairs.
action = heavy plane moving at 400+ MPH
reaction = assertion of 500,000 tons, or, 1 million pounds, this value does not include the concrete weight or the floor's etc, this is strictly the HIGH GRADE steel MESH supposed plane cut like a hot knife through butter.
Planes CRASH AGAINST THINGS. This was not A GLASS BUILDING.




Really, then why arent you in arms about the pentagon video's? they didnt release them for like 4 months, and there ARE camera's at the pentagon... they havent EVER been released.


The Naive...


ROFL, i gave a link did i not?


But even though the passport and the ID card had a snow ball's chance in hell of surviving the WTC and Pentagon meltdown, ABC News and the Associated Press quickly jumped on the story, with accounts running on September 12 and 16 of 2001, telling America essentially the passport discovery was proof positive Osama bin Laden's gang outfoxed the mighty U.S. military.

In fact, whether the FBI/CIA actually planted the evidence never has been thoroughly questioned or investigated by the state sponsored press, perpetuating even further the incredible lies surfacing about the credulity of the official 9/11 story.

Besides the passport, numerous other accounts of suspicious evidence have conveniently surfaced linking the alleged hijackers to 9/11, including two of Mohamed Atta's bags also found right after 9/11.

Not only did authorities find the bags but they conveniently contained a handheld electronic flight computer, a simulator procedures manual for Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft, two videotapes relating to "air tours" of the Boeing 757 and 747 aircraft, a slide-rule flight calculator, a copy of the Koran, Atta's passport, his will, his international driver's license, a religious cassette tape, airline uniforms, a letter of recommendation, "education related documentation" and a note to other hijackers on how to mentally prepare for the hijacking.




They were expected to take on several 707's, the largest planes at the time, 757 67 77 w/e are not really that much larger.



if i am afraid, it is because you are still stuck in a place where you will serve our dark overlords unknowingly and willfully as if it was "truth" and "reason" that you are standing up for...

Along with everyone else fooled time and time again by the mainstream media and associating government conspiracy as "poppycock".

At this rate we will argue about 911 until fema is busting through our doors to drag us away to concentration camps and underground bases.

"forgive them lord, for they know not what they do"

BTW KJV 1611, written by a mason.

Zaus, you are SO out to lunch that you make Turbonium look sane and rational...



Cz

People question whether a government would allow something disastrous to happen as if it hasn't taken place before. I guess we've already forgotten about the likes of Hitler and Hussein, among many others.

Not to mention the mind control experiments done unknowingly on their own civilians.

Had the Holocaust not taken place, I would have thought that impossible as well, but it still happened did it not?

There are so many problems, that it would require an entirely separate thread to go over them all. But here are a few examples...

Under the heading "Part 1: A Summary of William Rodriguez's Statements and Claims", two "claims" made by Rodriguez...

"I’m the last survivor pulled from the rubble." "I saved hundreds of people."

Below these linked quotes, Roberts says.."These claims are false. Rodriguez's story is dramatic enough and needs no embellishment.

The reader is encouraged to click on the links "for much more information". So what do we find?

"last survivor pulled from the rubble"

Roberts concedes that Rodriguez "was likely the last person to leave the north tower before it collapsed. He was pulled from the rubble approximately two hours later." But Roberts then notes that someone else "was pulled from the rubble more than a day after Rodriguez escaped", and so he calls Rodriguez' statement "false" and an "embellishment".

Roberts is purely trying to nitpick - Rodriguez was the last person out of the tower, and one of the last people pulled out of the rubble. What Roberts doesn't realize is that if Rodriguez wanted to "embellish" his heroics, then he would only have "boasted" about being the last one out of the building!

Saved hundreds of lives

Roberts cites two comments from Rodriguez's website...

“On 9/11, Rodriguez single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons from the WTC, and as Rodriguez was the only person at the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells, he bravely led firefighters up the stairwell, unlocking doors as they ascended, thereby aiding in the successful evacuation of unknown hundreds of those who survived.”

"The last man out of the North Tower who in the North Tower saved hundreds of lives, but the 9/11 Commission and the Major Media hid his revealing testimony from YOU, the American people!"

Roberts then says...

"While his actions on 9/11 are deserving of all praise, I am not aware of William Rodriguez single-handedly rescuing anyone, much less hundreds of people. Again, Rodriguez’s story needs no embellishment. He helped the badly-burned Felipe David to an ambulance. While doing so, the 14 people who were with him in the basement office also fled to safety through the loading dock area to Vesey Street. It is unlikely that they would have remained in the basement for an hour and forty minutes until the building collapsed. Rodriguez and a co-worker rescued two men from an elevator that was stuck between the B-2 and B-3 levels. On his way up the stairs he found a woman on the 33rd floor who didn’t know what to do and sent her down the stairwell with the evacuees (Rodriguez says that she was killed by falling debris outside). Based on his stories, that’s perhaps the closest example of him single-handedly saving someone that I can think of."

What nonsense...

"I am not aware of William Rodriguez single-handedly rescuing anyone" - Apparently, Roberts would like us to believe that helping someone half-burned to death out of the building and to an ambulance isn't "single-handedly rescuing anyone"!!

"much less hundreds of people" - This comment is pure crap! Rodriguez never claimed to have "single-handedly" rescued "hundreds of people", but Roberts is implying that he did. Smear tactic.

Varying claims of lives saved

Shocking! Roberts cites various articles which differ in numbers, as if Rodriguez is personally responsible for this.

What Roberts doesn't mention is that the different numbers were written by the authors of the articles!


This is just scratching the surface of all the crap written by Roberts in his article.

That's one way to do it, but it's hardly the only way. They could simply re-assign them to other duties, and/or only let them go into areas which aren't sensitive, to potentially compromise the operation.



Just like they watched WTC 7 collapse without recognizing it for what it was?

That's beyond hilarious. It's prepostorous.

The debris was NOT being inspected at Ground Zero. Period. Even if the "CD experts" onsite - who were actually the clean-up crews - had spotted clues of a CD (such as residue) - they weren't setting any steel aside for inspection, regardless of condition. They would have also recognized any fire-damaged steel, but they didn't set any of that aside, either. Or mention that they "recognized" any such steel in the debris.



If you truly want a warped view, then Roberts' article is right up your alley.



AFAIK, it's the only source for the complete info. A paper should be coming out soon.

Now it's up to you to look at the video.

I didn’t say, “Nah, my explanation is better”, I gave reason as to why I find the seismic readings to be better explained by specific events than by chance – it’s called ‘debating’. As interesting as different viewpoints are, I do not accept them without grounds.



Now, I know you don’t like me doing this ‘debating’ thing but I must point out a large problem with the above. In the ‘natural’ progressive collapse that the official story would have us believe, it is the full weight of the upper block that crushes the lower structure. It does not make sense that the lower structure starts to collapse only after the upper block has fallen through its own height, and indeed in video evidence you will see this is not what happened.



I did not decide, “Right ok, we have a controlled demolition here so I must find seismic readings I can interpret as that” and proceed to find any spike/peak I could, “Aha, explosives!”

I found a distinct increase in activity during the collapses following a distinct point of reduced activity shown in the seismograph that coincides with events in video evidence. I asked the question, “Why do the seismic readings show this?” I did not expect it to, but it does happen that the data fits with my controlled demolition process but not a progressive collapse.



With respect, I see a graph showing seismic activity over the duration of the collapses and regard it as a scientific record; important evidence… you see “wobbly lines”.

The NTSB has released flight paths for each of the flights. Although all the information is not given, we could basically interpret that evidence to indicate times at a given location, angles of turns and average speed travelled between points. I can imagine you would look on aghast as I am not a trained air traffic controller.

This is what I do not understand about your assertion: -

• You said, “Your lines seem reasonable”, therefore accepting that specific moments in collapse, marked by specific changes in seismic data, can be picked out in the seismograph.
• The collapse initiations, indicated by increased activity, can be seen in the data.
• The fall of the upper blocks, indicated by a continuation of activity levels, can be seen in the data.
• The calm points coincide where the upper blocks have fallen through their height in the data.
• The remaining duration of the collapses, indicated by increased activity, can be seen in the data.
• The first lighter debris impacting the ground, indicated by disturbance (or not so clean lines), can be seen in the data.
• The main debris field impacting the ground, indicated by greater activity, can be seen in the data.

These are definitive characteristics of the building collapse that coincide with definitive readings on the seismograph. A seismometer records seismic activity at a given point in time; it does not randomly generate a reading.

If none of the above is the case, which is what you seem to be inferring, I would be absolutely amazed at the sheer low probability of the seismic readings randomly occurring at the points they do – not for just one Tower; but for two.

Your question: What don’t you understand about “the readings all coincide with specific visible features of the building collapses”?



Interesting you should say that, as in a ‘natural’ collapse that is exactly what I would expect to see – a gradual increase in activity of progressively shorter cycles as the momentum of collapse builds, followed by the debris impacts.

What we actually have for each Tower, is continuous activity as the upper block falls, a calm point which specifically coincides with the end of that fall, followed by a step change of increased activity. In fact, the end of the WTC1 collapse coincides with activity reduced back to levels of the upper block fall. This reduced activity is not visible in the seismic data for the WTC2 collapse as debris reaches the ground sooner.

Have you actually looked in detail at the seismic data, comparing it to video evidence?

CD is the only possibility really, the buildings fell at freefall speed (pancake theory is bull) also the buildings were only on "fire" for like an hour, not that the fires were raging after the jet fuel was burned off they were just smoking pretty much

2 planes disappear without a trace of rubble or passengers or luggage, plus that one plane at the pentagon must have lost its wings before it hit cause the hole that was left was pretty damn small (no room for the turbines which should have blow right through even harder than the fuselage)

building 7 is rarely discussed and the owner Larry silverstein admitted that WTC7 was a controlled demolition (bombs must have already been in the building, cause they didn't have time to set up the CD)

also Silverstein made a buttload of money from insurance as he just opened a new contract (90 years or something) and the greedy F'er even tried to claim the collapses as 2 separate acts of terrorism

furthermore you have to wonder why the debris was cleaned up right away, this is illegal I mean If you really believe the buildings were so weak that they could simply collapse so easily then don't you think they should have investigated why and how this happened in order to avoid it in the future


people have trouble beleiving that their Govenment could do this to their own people but look into Opertation North Woods

I didn't say the lower structure starts to collapse only after the upper block has fallen through its own height, I said it was interference between the two happening. No one know the exact details of what was happening - your own timings are based on YouTube videos where you really can't see very much at all, so are approximate. The points you've marked out on the graph are your own guess work and you can fit them where you want to best suit your theory (like the way one of your start points is marked right at the start of the range of 'natural' peaks, the other is marked at a flat point half a second of so before the 'natural' peaks). Add in a bit of flex and you can have the top of the building collapse halfway though it's length and the rest of the building starts to collapse (small effect at first, not really interfering with the top of building peaks, then collapsing fully, causing 1-2 seconds of inteference you think are a flat point).

Of course, given neither of us know what a seismogram of a natural building collapse or a building collapsing with the help of explosives looks like, both of us could be completely wrong and a third, or fourth, or fifth interpretation could be correct...


What - that's your reason for your superiority? The fact I used the phrase 'wobbly lines'? You, me and everyone else reading this thread knows exactly what the graph is and what it represents. If you're seriously trying to say you believed otherwise that's more a comment about you than me. I said at the time "...you're perfectly capable of reading into those wobbly lines whatever you want to, but ultimately it means no more than any other person with no training or expertise saying that that's exactly what they would expect the building collapse to look like without CD." Now, you can be indignant as you want but that doesn't change that being correct. You think the graph is proof of explosives, I think the graph neither proves nor disproves explosives. Much as you deem yourself superior and believe your own interpretation more, both our interpretations have equal value.

That probably summed up my sentiments better than I can write, but what the heck, I’ll respond again.


Glad to see you at least agree with me that no matter how much evidence you see to the contrary, you will never be convinced that you are wrong. I’m at least open-minded about the possibility of some kind of government cover-up, but the claims in this thread about the planes crashing into the towers being fake and it not even being possible for the terrorists to take over the planes goes way too deep into the world of paranoid delusion.


Yes, video’s are easy to fake, but you know what’s even easier? Watching live footage and listening to the people who were eye witnesses to the planes crashing. Also, Newton’s third law isn’t hard to understand either. That was a nice little physics lesson you gave. Maybe it would help if you went back and read it very slowly right now. Since it is in your own words, maybe you will understand it. After that, go back and watch the footage again. The law that you described so eloquently was followed precisely:

Action = heavy plane moving at 400+MPH crashes into building
Reaction = big, strong, well designed building absorbs much of the collision, and much debris/smoke/etc. comes flying out the opposite side of the building, along with starting a huge fire inside the building fed by jet fuel.

Notice, that reaction didn’t include any “HIGH GRADE steel MESH supposed plane cut like a hot knife through butter,” otherwise the law would have been broken when the building didn’t come tumbling down immediately. The resulting explosion and fire actually starts another action/reaction pair.

Action = fire described above burns for hours
Reaction = Integrity of high grade steel girded building deteriorates to the point of collapse.

Actually, several more action/reaction pairs occurred as each floor collapsed onto the next, as the video clearly shows. So, thanks for the physics lesson, just be a bit more careful about applying it correctly to any given situation.


I’m not at all upset about not seeing any pentagon videos. I was up in arms over the live video coming live from the front in both Gulf Wars. No need for our enemies to pursue any normal military intelligence channels when all you have to do is turn on CNN. Any film the pentagon has would have been gained from cameras meant for security, whether for actual pentagon physical security or trained on suspected counter-intelligence locations. Either way, showing that footage could result in result in revealing part of the security measures at one of the most important buildings in the country in terms of national security. That would be almost as stupid as the theories in this thread.


Concerning terrorists still being alive, yes you did. As I said, that was thoroughly covered earlier, but I’ll rehash it since you insist. The link you provided was to a BBC article that came out within days of the attack, when only names had been released without photos. A link which also linked its sources was provided to you showing how foolish that was (remember laughing at the Jim Brown analogy). One of those sources was even the BBC, stating that the article it printed earlier was wrong.


A snowballs chance in hell, just like the baby in the story I told that you didn’t seem to understand.


Get real, a state sponsored press would have been squashed flat long ago for all the times they have made fun of and questioned our current president.


I’m confused, exactly what would you expect them to find, special Playboy magazines with pictures of 72 naked virgins?

Unlike Czero, who makes Charles Manson look sane and rational..