WTC 911 EyeWitness~Hoboken

[skyeagle409]

No, it's not a joke. It is simply the mind in denial, in action.

Let's look at reality in another way. You have said that :

* A P700 anti-ship missile struck the Pentagon. I might add that the Pentagon was not ship sailing in the ocean at the time it was attacked.

* Explosives was responsible for knocking down light poles leading to the Pentagon despite evidence proving the light poles suffered impact damage and were knocked down. Add to the fact no evidence of explosives was found near the light poles.

* No airliner crashed into the Pentagon despite video and FDR evidence, and the fact that aircraft wreckage, which was determined to be from a B-757, was recovered from inside and outside the Pentagon. Furthermore, American Airlines and the Boeing Aircraft Company have confirmed that American 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Human remains from the passengers and crew of American 77 were recovered at the Pentagon and have been identified.

* After claiming that no airliner was involved in the attack on the Pentagon, you then back-stepped and said the aircraft passed north of the gas station, yet the level of damage leading up to the Pentagon proved that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

* No aircraft wreckage at Shanksville despite the fact that recovery crews, investigators, United Airlines, and yes, even Wally Miller, the same person you used as a reference, have confirmed the crash site as that of United 93.

* You have said that mini-nukes were used during the 911 attacks despite the fact the WTC mini-nuke story was determined to be a hoax. In fact, even Steven Jones debunked the WTC mini-nuke story. Clean-up operations at ground zero was not indicative of a radiological hazard clean-up operation.

In addition, nukes create temperatures in the millions of degrees yet people were standing within a short distance as the WTC buildings collapsed and yet, suffered no radiation sickness nor burns associated with a nuclear detonation.

You have to place the tag-of-denial upon yourself, or perhaps, you are just here to have fun and nothing else.

[skyeagle409]

Good job

SkyEagle!

Thanks! Babe Ruth doesn't play with a full deck.

[Zaphod222]

Thanks! Babe Ruth doesn't play with a full deck.

I have yet to see a troother who does.

But really, where do you get the energy from to step down into that morass of pure stupidity and deal with minute detalls of their bizarre conspiray, which is fundamentally on the intellectual level of "Look! The moon looks like a Swiss Cheese! Therefore, it must be a Swiss Cheese!"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An none of the discombobbled snippets of selective factoids that the troothers cite comes close to that.

11 jihadist committed a jihadist terror attack on that day. Just as thousands of jihadists have been doing before and since. Why a gigantic and convoluted conspiracy would be needed to simulate in an byzantine way what could be done and was done by 11 jihadists with determination, a good plan,and some box cutters is something no troother has answered or can answer.

UFO belivers and Elvis ghost believers are entertaining. 9-11 troothers are pathetic.

Edited August 3, 2013 by Zaphod222

[skyeagle409]

I have yet to see a troother who does.

But really, where do you get the energy from to step down into that morass of pure stupidity and deal with minute detalls of their bizarre conspiray, which is fundamentally on the intellectual level of "Look! The moon looks like a Swiss Cheese! Therefore, it must be a Swiss Cheese!"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. An none of the discombobbled snippets of selective factoids that the troothers cite comes close to that.

11 jihadist committed a jihadist terror attack on that day. Just as thousands of jihadists have been doing before and since. Why a gigantic and convoluted conspiracy would be needed to simulate in an byzantine way what could be done and was done by 11 jihadists with determination, a good plan,and some box cutters is something no troother has answered or can answer.

It is appalling that thousands of people have lost family members and friends in the 911 attacks and then conspiracy theorist come along and have the audacity to say the passengers and crew of the aircraft are not dead but were were part of a government 911 conspiracy and given new identities. They continue to say that Osama bin Laden and terrorist had nothing to with the 911 attacks despite the overwhelming evidence and their admissions they were responsible for the 911 attacks, but instead, they claim that the U.S. government was responsible despite no evidence whatsoever.

Just a few good reasons why conspiracy theorist have no credibility and instead, they have the audacity to insult family members over the loss of relatives with false and misleading claims and outright lies.

[Skep B]

a dozen years later and this is still an argument people have.

This is gonna wind up being the new holocaust or moon landing isn't it?

[turbonium]

Which I have, and another reason why I have stated for the record that no explosives were involved in the 911 attacks.

No, you have not looked at all the evidence. Nobody has. Much of the evidence was removed - illegally - before anybody had a chance to look at it.

I've told you this many times, and you know it.

You want to go on living in denial, and fear of the truth.

You are making the criminals very happy.

[skyeagle409]

No, you have not looked at all the evidence. Nobody has. Much of the evidence was removed - illegally - before anybody had a chance to look at it.

The evidence you speak of never existed in the first place.

[skyeagle409]

I've told you this many times, and you know it.

Why your so-called evidence never existed in the first place and it is all very simple to understand why.

* No explosions seen as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No explosions heard as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No explosions detected on seismic monitors as the WTC buildings collapsed

* No explosive hardware found within the rubble of the WTC buildings after they collapsed

* Demolition experts at the scene have stated they heard no demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed

The World Trade Center's Steel Structure Was Buckling Before the Collapse

Police, Firemen and Civilians Saw Warning Signs of Collapse of the Twin Towers on September 11th 2001

Before the collapse of either tower, evidence the structures of the WTC were failing was reported by Police, Firemen and civilians. As already mentioned, flying around outside the WTC, the NYPD helicopters reported "an inward bowing of the buildings' columns in the minutes before they collapsed." Inside WTC 1, New York City Fire Department's Assistant Chief Joseph Callan realized the building was in trouble even before the first building, building two, collapsed. Interviewed Nov. 2, 2001, Assistant Chief Callan told New York City Fire Marshal Michael Starace, "Approximately 40 minutes after I arrived in the lobby, I made a decision that the building was no longer safe.

http://www.represent...xplosives2.html

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories.

Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.

But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center - and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.

The video shows up-close shots of the lower floors of World Trade Center Building 7, located just across the street from the Twin Towers, and focuses in on the exterior metal beams of Building 7 as they begin to buckle as they are overheated. The buckling led to floors falling in on one another, causing the building to collapse.

Though the entirety of the collapse is not shown in the video, it does show how there is legitimacy to the explanation provided by the government's 9/11 Commission investigation.

The video was made by a local news reporter and was released through a Freedom of Information Act request.

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz2ayiGKzzi

WTC photos show buckling steel columns in the minutes before the collapse of the buildings.

http://toolateforreg...owbuckling.html

Busted! The 9/11 WTC Building 7 Conspiracy Theory Debunked

Footage that kills the conspiracy theories: Unseen 9/11 footage shows WTC Building 7 consumed by fire

Its dramatic collapse several hours after the Twin Towers fell triggered a decade of conspiracy theories. Those who believed that the September 11 attacks on America were not carried out by Al Qaeda terrorists pointed to the fall of World Trade Center Building 7 as proof of their wild claims.

But a newly released video appears to finally prove once and for all that Building 7 was brought down by the intense heat of the blazing World Trade Center – and not explosives, as conspiracy theorists claim.

http://www.nowtheend...om/blog/?p=7075

The World Trade Center Fire

In the case of the World Trade Center, the burning jet fuel spread the fire across several floors in a matter of seconds. This massive fire put exceptional strain on the structure at nearly all points on those floors.Additionally, the report suggests that the force of the collision removed much of the fire-resistant material sprayed on the steel, making the structure more susceptible to heat damage.

The heat expanded, twisted and buckled the steel support structure, gradually reducing the building's stability. Any number of things could have happened during this period. For example, connections between vertical columns and floor trusses probably broke, dropping sections of floor on lower levels and breaking connections between the core and the perimeter wall, possibly causing columns along the perimeter to buckle outward.

Every broken connection or buckled length of steel added to the force acting on connected steel segments, until the entire structure was weakened to the point that it couldn't hold the upper section of the building. When this happened, the top part of each building collapsed onto the lower part of the building. Essentially, this was like dropping a 20-story building on top of another building. Before the crash, this upper structure exerted a constant downward force -- its weight -- on the superstructure below.

Obviously, the lower superstructure was strong enough to support this weight. But when the columns collapsed, the upper part of the building started moving -- the downward force of gravity accelerated it. The momentum of an object -- the quantity of its motion -- is equal to its mass multiplied by its velocity. So when you increase the velocity of an object with a set mass, you increase its momentum. This increases the total force that the object can exert on another object.

To understand how this works, think of a hammer. Resting in your hand, it doesn't hurt you at all. But if you drop it on your foot, it can do some damage. Similarly, if you swing the hammer forward, you can apply enough force to drive nails into a wall.

http://science.howst...ctural/wtc7.htm

9/11: Absolute Proof NO DEMOLITION at WTC Twin Towers -- "THE TOWER IS LEANING" & Buckling

"THE TOWER IS LEANING" declares the New York City policeman, ordering everyone to leave the area. This was the word passed down to all police officers in the area.

* This ABC News clip broadcast on 9/11, PROVES ABSOLUTELY there was NO controlled demolition of the World Trade Center Twin Towers.

* The North Tower started to buckle several minutes before it collapsed.

* Controlled demolition is instantaneous. Explosives would cause the building to fall imemdiately. In fact, the speed of collapse is claimed as evidence of controlled demolition.

"The Tower is LEANING" the police see, several minutes before collapse.

* The police could see that the tower was coming down before it started moving.

* Then a bystander says he saw the tower buckling before collapse. Explosives did NOT bring down the WTC Twin Towers.

* The North Tower was leaning and buckling for SEVERAL MINUTES before it gave way.

This (and every other detail) is totally unlike any controlled demolition.

Which brings us back here.

WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory

Indications of the Imminent Collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings Disprove Explosives Theory

Scientists investigating the Sept. 11, 2001 collapse of the twin towers said, "the World Trade Center towers showed telltale signs they were about to collapse several minutes before each crumbled to the ground."

http://www.represent...Explosives.html

Civil & Structural Engineers on WTC Collapse

"The aircraft moved through the building as if it were a hot and fast lava flow," Sozen says. "Consequently, much of the fireproofing insulation was ripped off the structure. Even if all of the columns and girders had survived the impact - an unlikely event - the structure would fail as the result of a buckling of the columns.

The heat from an ordinary office fire would suffice to soften and weaken the unprotected steel. Evaluation of the effects of the fire on the core column structure, with the insulation removed by the impact, showed that collapse would follow whatever the number of columns cut at the time of the impact."

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

Did experts on the scene think WTC 7 was a controlled demolition?

"Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00 pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event. We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported seeing or hearing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation precipitating the collapse.

As one eyewitness told us, "We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn't know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges.

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

https://sites.google...wtc7resembledac

No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives. The report is published on ImplosionWorld.com, a demolition industry website edited by Blanchard.

Blanchard is also director of field operations for Protec Documentation Services, Inc., a company specializing in monitoring construction-related demolitions. In his report, Blanchard says that Protec had portable field seismographs in “several sites in Manhattan and Brooklyn” on 9/11.

http://www.implosion... of 9-8-06 .pdf

http://www.historyco...ent_blanchard_1

So once again, a list of reasons why your so-called evidence never existed. The buckling of the WTC buildings was proof that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

Edited August 4, 2013 by skyeagle409

[DONTEATUS]

WHere do we get these guys Sky ? Its like they are actually from a different Planet ! What Happened was right on T.V. that morning ! Do they believe we invented that Disaster !

[skyeagle409]

WHere do we get these guys Sky ? Its like they are actually from a different Planet ! What Happened was right on T.V. that morning ! Do they believe we invented that Disaster !

I've noticed some folks have deliberately placed false and misleading information on the Internet in order to discredit the 911 truther movement, and unfortunately, the schemes actually worked. The hoaxed WTC mini-nuke story and hoaxed WTC7 video are two prime examples where known hoaxes were used by 911 truthers in their arguments.

[Stundie]

Explosions, which are the result of explosives, leave behind lots of evidence, and that was not the case at ground zero.

Firstly, it was never looked for and secondly, what evidence does it leave behind amongst 110 floors of rubble??

The guys who were clearing up GZ said they couldn't find a computer, a phone or a desk, so how are they going to find detonated explosives?? lol

They still haven't been able to find all the bodies, so if they can't find something they are looking for, how are they going to find something which they never looked for.

I suppose the next thing you will tell me is that there would have to be tons of explosives to bring the buildings down, even though you believe it was done without any! lol

Your logics makes no sense!! But then you knew that anyway...lol

There were no shrapnel, detonation cords, and nor hardware associated with explosive demolition and demolition experts at ground zero have stated for the record they heard no demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed nor found explosive hardware with in the rubble, which can be confirmed on video.

Utter nonsense. Detonation cords?? lol I mean you truly are stunningly stupid if you think that there would be detonation cord when there has been wireless technology around for many years. Even if we assumed detonation cord was used, how do you figure those at GZ are qualified to recognise detonation cord, from general building wiring.

There were no secondary explosions observed as the aircraft struck the WTC towers, which would have rendered planted explosives ineffective anyway.

Wrong again! Plenty of evidence for secondary explosions including multiple eyewitnesses and news reports! lol

There was no way to prepare the WTC buildings for demolition, which would have taken many months of preparation, and would have attracted a lot of attention as well.

Nonsense!

It took many months to prepare a bridge in Corpus Christi, TX for demolition in which case there was no way the WTC towers could have been prepared for demolition in a few days as some conspiracy theorist have suggested..

More nonsense!! lol

It makes you wonder why the demolition team didn't just start a fire on the bridge at Corpus Christi because according to your logic, it would have collapsed in a matter of hours and it wouldn't require any explosives and minimal preparation! lol

[Stundie]

What the fekk does any this has to do with the simple fact, that 9-11 was not anything new or surprising by any means at all.

Jesus! lol You guys don't half come out with some ass hat statements. lol

• 9/11 was new because it was the first time that terrorists had used planes as missiles crashing into to buildings.
  
• 9/11 was surprising because no one outside of the intelligence loop expected it, even though there were plenty of warnings.
  

Unless you are saying that you know of another 9/11 attack before 9/11?? And that you knew it was going to happen cause of you are clairvoyant?? lol

It was simply are a very successful jihadist attack, but only one of thousands of jihadist attacks that have been going on for a long time, are going on now, and will be going on for a long time.

Well it was not that simple was it really. Because it took years of planning in a cave by OBL in Afghanistan and the jihadists had to take flying lessons and sleep until they got the call for the attack.

Jihadists had never attacked on American soil before and although attascks had been committed before, none were so devastating.

Only a complete idiot would be unaware of that.

So what does that make you then?? lol

But I guess that is the pre-condition for being a good 9-11 troother.

Does being a pantomime debunker mean you are preconditioned to talk utter crap which isn't based on any kind of reality.

Cause that is what you have just posted.

The troothers are an embarressment to this board.

Well considering that your opinions have the same weight and value as your statement that 9/11 was nothing new or surprising, then we will have to take it with a pinch of salt, to take away your bitterness against da toofers! lol Edited August 6, 2013 by Stundie

[skyeagle409]

Firstly, it was never looked for and secondly, what evidence does it leave behind amongst 110 floors of rubble??

First of all, there was never a reason to look for explosives because we knew that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 suffered serious impact damage and fires were raging within those buildings.

Secondly, there was no way to rig WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 with explosives, which would have taken many, many months, and not draw a lot of attention. It took months just to prepare and demolish a bridge with demolition charges in Corpus Christi, TX.

Thirdly, demolition experts have stated they heard no demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which can be confirmed by the fact that no explosions are seen nor heard in the videos as the WTC buildings collapsed.

Why the World Trade Center Buildings Collapsed A Fire Chief ’s Assessment

Bearing walls and Open floor design

When the jet liners crashed into the towers based upon knowledge of the tower construction and high-rise firefighting experience the following happened: First the plane broke through the tubular steel-bearing wall. This started the building failure. Next the exploding, disintegrating, 185-ton jet plane slid across an open office floor area and severed many of the steel interior columns in the center core area. Plane parts also crashed through the plasterboard-enclosed stairways, cutting off the exits from the upper floors. The jet collapsed the ceilings and scraped most of the spray-on fire retarding asbestos from the steel trusses.

The steel truss floor supports probably started to fail quickly from the flames and the center steel supporting columns severed by plane parts heated by the flames began to buckle, sag, warp and fail. Then the top part of the tower crashed down on the lower portion of the structure. This pancake collapse triggered the entire cascading collapse of the 110-story structure.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

The buckling of the WTC buildings was proof that fire was responsible for their collapse.

The guys who were clearing up GZ said they couldn't find a computer, a phone or a desk, so how are they going to find detonated explosives??

How did investigators determine that a huge bomb was responsible for the bombing of WTC1 in 1993?

https://en.wikipedia..._Center_bombing

Despite the detonation of a huge bomb beneath WTC1, why was that building still standing?

They still haven't been able to find all the bodies, so if they can't find something they are looking for, how are they going to find something which they never looked for.

Let's take a look.

Why did NIST not Consider a “Controlled Demolition

Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

http://www.webcitation.org/5pvOUTcar

The responses to questions number 2, 4, 5 and 11 demonstrate why NIST concluded that there were no explosives or controlled demolition involved in the collapses of the WTC towers.

NIST considered the possibility that 7 WTC was brought down with explosives and concluded that a blast event did not occur.

As noted in the report, a blast event did not occur.

I suppose the next thing you will tell me is that there would have to be tons of explosives to bring the buildings down, even though you believe it was done without any!

Not only tons of explosives, and thousands of feet of detonation wires, but many months of structural pre-weakening as well which would have drawn a lot of attention.

How Building Implosions Work

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

Concrete columns (on the left) are blown apart with conventional dynamite or a similar sort of explosive. Steel columns (on the right) are sliced in half using a high-velocity explosive called RDX.

Photo courtesy ImplosionWorld.com

To ignite both RDX and dynamite, you must apply a severe shock. In building demolition, blasters accomplish this with a blasting cap, a small amount of explosive material (called the primer charge) connected to some sort of fuse. The traditional fuse design is a long cord with explosive material inside. When you ignite one end of the cord, the explosive material inside it burns at a steady pace, and the flame travels down the cord to the detonator on the other end. When it reaches this point, it sets off the primary charge.

That is how building implosions are done. No such preparation was observed nor noted in the days prior to the 911 attacks.

Your logics makes no sense!! But then you knew that anyway..

Of course it makes sense, and that logic has been supported by civil engineers, structural and demolition experts and firefighters and by forensic evidence at ground zero..

Utter nonsense. Detonation cords?? lol I mean you truly are stunningly stupid if you think that there would be detonation cord when there has been wireless technology around for many years.

Well, why do they still use detonation cords in building demolitions? You can't pull things out of thin air and expect Mr. Reality to agree with you!

It makes you wonder why the demolition team didn't just start a fire on the bridge at Corpus Christi because according to your logic, it would have collapsed in a matter of hours and it wouldn't require any explosives and minimal preparation!

Understand why thtat even with explosives, the demolition team was very nervous about demolishing that bridge.

Edited August 6, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I suppose the next thing you will tell me is that there would have to be tons of explosives to bring the buildings down, even though you believe it was done without any!

Evidence has proven beyond a doubt that WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and the partial collapse of WTC4 was caused by fire, not explosives. which explains why after 12 years, not one shred of evidence of demolition explosives has been found, In other words, no evidence of explosives to begin with.

[media=]

[/media] Edited August 6, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Well it was not that simple was it really. Because it took years of planning in a cave by OBL in Afghanistan and the jihadists had to take flying lessons and sleep until they got the call for the attack.

Jihadists had never attacked on American soil before and although attascks had been committed before, none were so devastating.

Let's take a look here at what was up the sleeves of those terrorist.

The Bojinka Plot

The money that funded the Bojinka Plot came from Osama bin Laden and Hambali, and from front organizations operated by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, bin Laden's brother-in-law.

Wali Khan Amin Shah, an Afghan, was the financier of the plot. He funded the plot by laundering money through his girlfriend and other Manila women, several of whom were bar hostesses and one of whom was an employee at a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. They were bribed with gifts and holiday trips so that they would open bank accounts to stash funds. The transfers were small, equivalent to about 12,000 to 24,000 Philippine pesos ($500 to $1,000 US), and would be handed over each night at a Wendy's or a karaoke bar.

The funds went to "Adam Sali", an alias used by Ramzi Yousef. The money came through a Filipino bank account owned by Syrian Omar Abu Omar, who worked at International Relations and Information Centre, an Islamic organization run by Mohammed Jamal Khalifa.

A company called Konsojaya also provided financial assistance to the Manila cell by laundering money to it. Konsojaya was a front company that was started by the head of the group Jemaah Islamiyah, an Indonesian named Riduan Isamuddin, also known as Hambali. Wali Khan Amin Shah was on the board of directors of the company.

In 1994, Yousef and Khalid Sheik Mohammed started testing airport security. Yousef booked a flight between Kai Tak International Airport in Hong Kong and Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport near Taipei. Mohammed booked a flight between Ninoy Aquino International Airport near Manila and Kimpo International Airport near Seoul.

The two had already converted fourteen bottles of contact lens solution into bottles containing nitroglycerin, which was readily available in the Philippines. Yousef had taped to the arch of his foot a metal rod, which would serve as a detonator. The two wore jewelry and clothing with metal to confuse airport security. To support their claim that they were meeting women, they packed condoms in their bags.

The details of Phase I were found in the evidence discovered in the investigation into Room 603 in the Doña Josefa.

Phase II, Airline Bombing Plot

If Phase II of the plot had been successful, it would have been, in terms of casualties, the most devastating terrorist attack in recent history.

The next plan would have involved at least five terrorists, including Yousef, Shah, Murad and two more unknown operatives. Beginning on January 21, 1995, and ending on January 22, 1995, they would have placed bombs on 11 United States-bound airliners which had stopovers scattered throughout East Asia and Southeast Asia. All of the flights had two legs. The bombs would be planted inside life jackets under seats on the first leg, and each bomber would then disembark. He would then board one or two more flights and repeat.

After all of the bombers had planted bombs on all of the flights, each man would then catch flights to Lahore, Pakistan. The men never needed U.S. visas, as they only would have been on the planes for their first legs in Asia.

United States airlines had been chosen instead of Asian airlines so as to maximize the shock toward Americans. The flights targeted were listed under operatives with codenames: "Zyed", "Majbos", "Markoa", "Mirqas" and "Obaid". Obaid, who was really Abdul Hakim Murad, was to hit United Flight 80, and then he was to go back to Singapore on another United flight which he would bomb. Zyed, probably Ramzi Yousef, was to target Northwest Flight 30, a United Flight going from Taipei to Honolulu, and a United Flight going from Bangkok to Taipei to San Francisco.

The explosions were to be timed by the operatives before they disembarked from the plane. The aircraft would have exploded over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea almost simultaneously. If this plan worked, several thousand would have perished, and air travel would have been shut down worldwide for days, if not weeks. The U.S. government estimated the prospective death toll to be about 4,000 if the plot had been executed. (For comparison, about 3,000 were killed during the September 11 attacks in the United States.)

Phase III, CIA Plane Crash Plot

Abdul Hakim Murad confessed detailed Phase III in his interrogation by the Manila police after his capture.

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House(Washington, D.C.), the Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets. Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka.

This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.

Airports planned to be targeted

Asia

* Kai Tak Airport(renamed Hong Kong International Airport), Hong Kong

* New Tokyo International Airport, Narita, Chiba Prefecture, Japan, near Tokyo

* Ninoy Aquino International Airport, Pasay City/Parañaque City, National Capital Region, Philippines, near Manila

* Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport, Taoyuan, near Taipei, Taiwan

* Singapore Changi Airport, Singapore

* Gimpo International Airport, Gimpo, South Korea (Now a part of Seoul)

* Bangkok (Don Mueang) International Airport, Bangkok, Thailand

United States

* Honolulu International Airport, Honolulu, Hawaii

* John F. Kennedy International Airport, New York City, New York

* Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles

* Chicago O'Hare International Airport, Chicago, Illinois* San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Bojinka_plot

There is a first time for everything and the terrorist had plans to kill thousands of innocent people prior to the 911 attacks.

Edited August 6, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Jesus! You guys don't half come out with some ass hat statements.

* 9/11 was new because it was the first time that terrorists had used planes as missiles crashing into to buildings.

So you now agree that terrorist hijackers, not the U.S. government, flew those aircraft into the WTC buildings. Let's take a look here and tell us how many terrorist plots were foiled that would have used aircraft as missiles?

Terrorist Considered Using Aircraft as Weapons

http://usatoday30.us...elligence_x.htm

Let's take a look at one of those incidents.

Air France Flight 8969

Air France Flight 8969 was an Air France flight that was hijacked on 24 December 1994 by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) at Algiers, where they killed three passengers, with the intention to blow up the plane over the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

When the aircraft reached Marseille, the GIGN, an intervention group of the French National Gendarmerie, stormed the plane and killed all four hijackers. The GIA's plan appeared to foreshadow the September 11 attacks. Thomas Sancton of TIME magazine described the event as "one of the most successful anti-terrorist operations in history."

http://en.wikipedia....nce_Flight_8969

How many people would have died had the anti-terrorist operation against the hijackers failed?

9/11 was surprising because no one outside of the intelligence loop expected it, even though there were plenty of warnings.

Let's take a look here.

WARNINGS THAT THE DANGER WOULD COME FROM THE AIR

BRITAIN, WARNING #1: Al-Qaeda is planning to use aircraft in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs"

the British intelligence agency, gives a secret report to liaison staff at the US embassy in London. The reports states that al-Qaeda has plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways", "possibly as flying bombs." [sunday Times, 6/9/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #3: An Al-Qaeda attack will involve multiple hijackings

Early August 2001 ©: Britain gives the US another warning about an al-Qaeda attack. The previous British warning (see July 16, 2001) was vague as to method, but this warning specifies multiple airplane hijackings. This warning is included in Bush's briefing on August 6. [sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #2: Three al-Qaeda agents are part of a plot "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines"

August 29, 2001: Three men from either Pakistan or Afghanistan living in the Cayman Islands are briefly arrested in June 2001 for discussing hijacking attacks in New York City (see June 4, 2001). On this day, a Cayman Islands radio station receives an unsigned letter claiming these same three men are agents of bin Laden. The anonymous author warns that they "are organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines." The letter is forwarded to a Cayman government official but no action is taken until after 9/11 and it isn't known when the US is informed. Many criminals and/or businesses use the Cayman Islands as a safe, no tax, no questions asked haven to keep their money. The author of the letter meets with the FBI shortly after 9/11, and claims his information was a "premonition of sorts." The three men are later arrested. Its unclear what has happened to them since their arrest. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01] FTW

EGYPT, WARNING #1: An undercover agent learns 20 al-Qaeda agents are in the US, four have received flight training

Late July 2001 (D): CBS later has a brief mention in a long story on another topic: "Just days after Atta return to the US from Spain, Egyptian intelligence in Cairo says it received a report from one of its operatives in Afghanistan that 20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas. To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn't sound terribly alarming, but they [pass] on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. The request never [comes]." [CBS, 10/9/02] This appears to be one of several accurate Egyptian warnings based on informants (see June 13, 2001 and August 30, 2001). Could Egypt have known the names of some or all of the hijackers? Given FBI agent Ken Williams' memo about flight schools a short time before (see July 10, 2001), shouldn't the US have investigated this closely instead of completely ignoring it?

GERMANY: Terrorists will use airplanes as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols"

June 2001: German intelligence warns the CIA, Britain's MI6, and Israel's Mossad that Middle Eastern terrorists are planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack "American and Israeli symbols, which stand out." A later article quotes unnamed German intelligence sources who state the information was coming from Echelon surveillance technology, and that British intelligence had access to the same warnings. However, there were other informational sources, including specific information and hints given to, but not reported by, Western and Near Eastern news media six months before 9/11. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01, Fox News, 5/17/02] FTW

ITALY: Muslims warn of an attack on the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons

September 7, 2001: Father Jean-Marie Benjamin is told at a wedding in Todi, Italy of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He isn't told time or place specifics. He immediately passes what he knows to a judge and several politicians. He states: "Although I am friendly with many Muslims, I wondered why they were telling me, specifically. I felt it my duty to inform the Italian government." Benjamin has been called "one of the West's most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world." Two days after 9/11, he meets with the Italian Foreign Minister on this topic. He says he learned the attack on Britain failed at the last minute. [Zenit, 9/16/01] He has not revealed who told him this information, but could it have been a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan (see August 12, 2000 and January 24, 2001), which appears to have helped with the 9/11 attacks?

JORDAN: A major attack using aircraft is planned inside the US

Late summer 2001: Jordanian intelligence (the GID) makes a communications intercept deemed so important that King Abdullah's men relay it to Washington, probably through the CIA station in Amman. To make doubly sure the message gets through it is passed through an Arab intermediary to a German intelligence agent. The message states that a major attack, code named The Big Wedding, is planned inside the US and that aircraft will be used. "When it became clear that the information was embarrassing to Bush Administration officials and congressmen who at first denied that there had been any such warnings before September 11, senior Jordanian officials backed away from their earlier confirmations." Christian Science Monitor calls the story "confidently authenticated" even though Jordan has backed away from it. [international Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] FTW

RUSSIA: Russian intelligence clearly warns the US several times that 25 or so terrorists, including suicide pilots, will attack the US, targeting "important buildings like the Pentagon"

August 2001 (D): Russian President Putin warns the US that suicide pilots are training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also later states, "We had clearly warned them" on several occasions, but they "did not pay the necessary attention." [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] A Russian newspaper on September 12, 2001 claims that "Russian Intelligence agents know the organizers and executors of these terrorist attacks. More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation to these actions a couple of weeks before they happened." Interestingly, the article claims that at least two of the terrorists were Muslim radicals from Uzbekistan. [izvestia, 9/12/01, (the story currently on the Izvestia web site has been edited to delete a key paragraph, the link is to a translation of the original article from From the Wilderness)] FTW

OTHER WARNINGS

AFGHANISTAN: Al-Qaeda is planning an imminent "huge attack" inside the US that will kill thousands

ARGENTINA: A major terrorist attack is planned against either the US, Argentina, or France

Late July 2001 ©: Argentina's Jewish community receives warnings of a major terrorist attack against either the United States, Argentina or France from "a foreign intelligence source." The warning was then relayed to the Argentine security authorities. It was agreed to keep the warning secret in order to avoid panic while reinforcing security at Jewish sites in the country. Says a Jewish leader, "It was a concrete warning that an attack of major proportion would take place, and it came from a reliable intelligence source. And I understand the Americans were told about it." Argentina has a large Jewish community that has been bombed in the past, and has been an area of al-Qaeda activity. [Forward, 5/31/02]

BRITAIN, WARNING #2: Al-Qaeda is the "final stages" of a very serious attack on a Western country

July 16, 2001: British spy agencies send a report to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and other top officials warning that al-Qaeda is in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in the West. The prediction is "based on intelligence gleaned not just from MI6 and GCHQ but also from US agencies, including the CIA and the National Security Agency," which cooperate with the British. "The contents of the July 16 warning would have been passed to the Americans, Whitehall sources confirmed." The report states there is "an acute awareness" that the attack is "a very serious threat." [London Times, 6/14/02] This information could be from or in addition to a warning based on surveillance of al-Qaeda prisoner Khalid al-Fawwaz (see August 21, 2001). [Fox News, 5/17/02]

CAYMAN ISLANDS, WARNING #1:

June 4, 2001: At some point in 2000, three men claiming to be Afghans but using Pakistani passports enter the Cayman Islands, possibly illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01] In late 2000, Cayman and British investigators begin a yearlong probe of these men which lasts until 9/11. [Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] They are overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City. On this day, they are taken into custody, questioned and released some time later. This information is forwarded to US intelligence. [Fox News, 5/17/02] In late August, a letter to a Cayman radio station will allege these same men are agents of bin Laden "organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines" (see August 29, 2001).

EGYPT, WARNING #2: Al-Qaeda is in the advanced stages of a "significant operation" probably within the US

August 30-September 4, 2001: According to Egyptian President Hasni Mubarak, Egyptian intelligence warns American officials that bin Laden's network is in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He says he learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. US officials deny receiving any such warning from Egypt. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

FRANCE: An echo of Israel's warning of a major assault on the US

Late August 2001 (D): French intelligence gives a general terrorist warning to the US; apparently its contents echo an Israeli warning from earlier in the month (see Mid-August 2001). [Fox News, 5/17/02]

INDIA: Missed opportunity with White House attack warning

India gives the US general intelligence on possible terror attacks; details are not known. US government officials later confirm that Indian intelligence had information "that two Islamist radicals with ties to Osama bin Laden were discussing an attack on the White House," but apparently this particular information is not given to the US until two days after 9/11. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

ISRAEL, WARNING #1: 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists are inside the US and planning an imminent "major assault on the US" aimed at a "large scale target"

August 8-15, 2001: At some point between these dates, Israel warns the US that an al-Qaeda attack is imminent. [Fox News, 5/17/02] Two high ranking agents from the Mossad come to Washington and warn the FBI and CIA that from 50 to 200 terrorists have slipped into the US and are planning "a major assault on the United States." They say indications point to a "large scale target", and that Americans would be "very vulnerable." They add there could be Iraqi connections to the al-Qaeda attack. [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01] The Los Angeles Times later retracts the story after a CIA spokesman says, "There was no such warning. Allegations that there was are complete and utter nonsense." [Los Angeles Times, 9/21/01] In light of later revelations of a Mossad spy ring trailing numerous Muslim terrorists in the US, it is easy to see that Mossad would have known this info. Could this be later disinformation by the Mossad to spin the spy ring story and blame Iraq for 9/11, or it is another smoking gun showing extensive US foreknowledge?

ISRAEL, WARNING #2: Israel gives the US a list of 19 terrorists inside the US planning an imminent attack, the list names at least four of the hijackers, including Mohamed Atta

August 23, 2001: According to German newspapers, the Mossad gives the CIA a list of terrorists living in the US and say that they appear to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the 19 9/11 hijackers or if the number is a coincidence. However, four names on the list are known and are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Haaretz, 10/3/02] The Mossad appears to have learned about this through its "art student" spy ring (see for instance, March 5, 2002). Yet apparently this warning and list are not treated as particularly urgent by the CIA and also not passed on to the FBI. It's not clear if this warning influenced the adding of Alhazmi and Almihdhar to a terrorism watch list on this same day, and if so, why only those two. [Der Spiegel, 10/1/02] Israel has denied that there were any Mossad agents in the US. [Haaretz, 10/3/02] The US has denied knowing about Atta before 9/11, despite other media reports to the contrary (see January-May 2000).

MOROCCO: Al-Qaeda is planning large scale operations in New York City in the fall of 2001, possibly targeting the World Trade Center

August 2001 ©: The French magazine Maximale and the Moroccan newspaper al-Ittihad al-Ichtiraki later simultaneously report that a Moroccan agent named Hassan Dabou had penetrated al-Qaeda to the point of getting close to bin Laden by this time. Dabou claims he learns that bin Laden is "very disappointed" that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the WTC, and plans "large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001." Dabou is called to the US to report this information directly, and in so doing blows his cover, losing his ability to gather more intelligence. The International Herald Tribune later calls the story "not proved beyond a doubt" but intriguing, and asks the CIA to confirm or deny, which it has not done. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02] FTW

You will notice those international warnings had warned that foreign terrorist, not the U.S. government, would carry out the attack on America.

Edited August 7, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

First of all, there was never a reason to look for explosives because we knew that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 suffered serious impact damage and fires were raging within those buildings.

Of course there is a reason to look for explosives, to rule out the possibility of explosives.

You can't rule it out if it was never looked for.

Secondly, there was no way to rig WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 with explosives, which would have taken many, many months, and not draw a lot of attention.

If you believe it would take months and months (Which it wouldn't...lol) then using fires would be used as a demolition method because according to your logic, it over 100 times quicker and cheaper than explosives.

It took months just to prepare and demolish a bridge with demolition charges in Corpus Christi, TX.

Well why don't you call the demo team and tell them to use fire seeing as you believe it is a better technique for demolition?? hahahahaha!!!

Thirdly, demolition experts have stated they heard no demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which can be confirmed by the fact that no explosions are seen nor heard in the videos as the WTC buildings collapsed.

ZZZZZZZZ!!!!

The buckling of the WTC buildings was proof that fire was responsible for their collapse.

ZZZZZZZZ!!!!

How did investigators determine that a huge bomb was responsible for the bombing of WTC1 in 1993?

https://en.wikipedia..._Center_bombing

Despite the detonation of a huge bomb beneath WTC1, why was that building still standing?

Because there was still way too much redundancy in the building. However, if the terrorist in 93 had used fire, the attacks in 2001 wouldn't have happened because the terrorists would have brought down the building. lol

Let's take a look.

[/size]

As noted in the report, a blast event did not occur.

Your spam tells us what I have already said, there were no tests done, therefore it can't be ruled out as a possibility.

Not only tons of explosives, and thousands of feet of detonation wires, but many months of structural pre-weakening as well which would have drawn a lot of attention.

So what you are saying this that a fire demolition doesn't require many months of structural pre-weakening because as WTC7 proves, it will drop straight down like an explosive demolition at partial free fall speed within a matter of hours.

Just think about the amount of money a demolition firm could save in all these monthly wages for planning, pre-weakening and preparation.

Just think about the amount of money a demolition firm could save in detonation cord and explosives.

That is how building implosions are done. No such preparation was observed nor noted in the days prior to the 911 attacks.

Well, why do they still use detonation cords in building demolitions? You can't pull things out of thin air and expect Mr. Reality to agree with you!

When I first saw this question, I thought are you pretending to be patently stupid. Then I realised who I am talking too! lol

Ever thought to yourself the reason why they still use detonation cords in building demolitions is because of this thing called cost?? lol

And of course you can't pull things out of thin air, although you do this yourself very often. Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as wireless devices exist? lol Of course you are, you have to take the belief that there is no such thing as wireless technology and expect Mr Reality to agree with you. lol

I can imagine the terrorists in the cave...

Ebil Tweerorist: "Osama, we need to rig the buildings, so when the plane crashes, the building comes down."

Osama: "Here is some money to get some detonation cords and explosives."

Ebil Tweerorist: "But Osama, we can't go around the buildings laying detonation cords, it would be a health and safety hazard and people would be suspicious. We need wireless devices, we can plant them discretely but they'll cost more."

Osama: "Wireless explosive devices? What kind of allah hating technology is this? You are stupid although I have chosen you for the holy mission I am not forking out more cash for wireless devices. I mean look at how much they are? I do not mind funding this mission but even I've got my limits."

Ebil Tweerorist: "But sir, we would also have to buy those yellow plastic signs warning people about the detonation cord and we are dealing with a building with 100 floors, it would require miles of detonation cables and we would be restricted as to where we could detonate it because of the cord. So we must have wireless technology.

Obama: "No you stupid camels testicle, because even a jihad has a budget! .. and therefore this allah hating technology doesn't exist!"

Understand why thtat even with explosives, the demolition team was very nervous about demolishing that bridge.

I bet they would literally doo doo there pants if they had used fires. I wouldn't want to be the one lighting that fire under the bridge cause it might come down the moment I strike the match.

As we know, fires are the best method for demolishing a building. lol

[Stundie]

Evidence has proven beyond a doubt that WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 and the partial collapse of WTC4 was caused by fire, not explosives. which explains why after 12 years, not one shred of evidence of demolition explosives has been found, In other words, no evidence of explosives to begin with.

[media=]

[/media]

So what you are saying is that fire is the best demolition method then?? lol

[Stundie]

Let's take a look here at what was up the sleeves of those terrorist.

[/color]

There is a first time for everything and the terrorist had plans to kill thousands of innocent people prior to the 911 attacks.

So I wonder why Condi Rice said they had never envisaged that the terrorists would use the planes as missiles??

And why Bush ignored his August presidential daily briefing.

[Agent0range]

Skyeagle..I don't know why you are wasting your time with someone who puts "lol" after everyone of his arguments, and fails to answer your questions that make sense. Of course fire can't be used as a demolition technique. It may be cheaper, but it is also unpredictable. In Vegas, they use demolition on buildings all the time. How much damage occurs to the buildings in close proximity? None. How much damage occured to the buildings in close proximity to the WTC? Tons. Fire can't be controlled, therefore it is not an alternative to consider. It is sad that you have resorted to that as your final argument.

[skyeagle409]

Of course there is a reason to look for explosives, to rule out the possibility of explosives.

Nope! No explosions seen, heard, detected nor evidence found in the rubble. In other words, you have no case.

If your neighbor told you that an 18000 pound bomb blew up in your 100" X 100" foot backyard yet you saw no explosion or heard an explosion nor saw a bomb crater in your backyard, would you have a reason to look for evidence of an explosion from an 18000 pound bomb in your backyard anyway? If so, you might want to check your calendar to see if it is 'April Fools Day.'

Judging by what you have been posting, looking for non-existent evidence is what you would have done.

As we know, fires are the best method for demolishing a building. lol

Wrong again! Fires cannot be controlled in a precise manner as explosives and it is apparent that common sense logic escaped you.

So I wonder why Condi Rice said they had never envisaged that the terrorists would use the planes as missiles??

She was aware of the warnings as well.

Condoleezza Rice

In her testimony to the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice stated that "the threat reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to time nor place nor manner of attack. Almost all the reports focused on al Qaeda activities outside the United States." However, on August 6, 2001, the President's Daily Briefing, entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US warned that bin Laden was planning to exploit his operatives' access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike:

FBI information... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country, consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attack.

Edited August 7, 2013 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle..I don't know why you are wasting your time with someone who puts "lol" after everyone of his arguments, and fails to answer your questions that make sense. Of course fire can't be used as a demolition technique. It may be cheaper, but it is also unpredictable. In Vegas, they use demolition on buildings all the time. How much damage occurs to the buildings in close proximity? None. How much damage occured to the buildings in close proximity to the WTC? Tons. Fire can't be controlled, therefore it is not an alternative to consider. It is sad that you have resorted to that as your final argument.

I have been handing him certain tools and he has been misusing those tools which exposed his lack of knowledge on what those tools actually mean, and amazingly, he has been exposing his lack of knowledge for everyone to see.

He has also failed to understand that his claims have been refuted and debunked with facts and evidence time and again, even by firefighters, Investigators, demolition and structural experts at ground zero who have reported that fire, not explosives, was responsible for the collapse of the WTC buildings. Simply amazing!

Judging by the shear magnitude of ignorance he has displayed on facts and evidence relating to the 911 attacks, perhaps, 'lol' is a way he laughs at himself whenever he post a message..

[Stundie]

Skyeagle..I don't know why you are wasting your time with someone who puts "lol" after everyone of his arguments, and fails to answer your questions that make sense.

Should I really be answering Skyeagles objection to a possible demolition because he believe the only way for it to be done, is by trailing miles of detonation cord throughout the building??

Of course fire can't be used as a demolition technique.

According to pantomime debunker logic, you have to believe it because you believe that fire demolished 3 buildings.

It may be cheaper, but it is also unpredictable.

It would be a lot cheaper because according to Sky, demolitions take months and requires pre-weakening. With fire, you just need a fire.

And fires brought down WTC 7 in the same manner as a controlled demolition according to Sky's logic, so its not unpredictable because there is a 33% chance of it dropping the building like a traditional demolition.

In Vegas, they use demolition on buildings all the time. How much damage occurs to the buildings in close proximity? None.

That is because with demolition, you can set the explosives up how you like to get the building to fall the way you want it.

How much damage occured to the buildings in close proximity to the WTC? Tons.

In the case of WTC7, then I would say none at all, it fell down pretty symmetrically in to a nice pile.

Fire can't be controlled, therefore it is not an alternative to consider.

Of course fires can be controlled? Controlled fires are often used for clearing in agriculture and even fighting forest fires.

Fires can go out of control but does an out of control fire really matter if you are demolishing a building? The hotter the better right?

It is sad that you have resorted to that as your final argument.

What is even sadder is that this is even an argument at all.

All of that without a lol.

[skyeagle409]

According to pantomime debunker logic, you have to believe it because you believe that fire demolished 3 buildings.

Fire brought down the WTC buildings, which is what firefighters, investigators, demolition and structural experts have stated for the record. In addition, overwhelming evidence support the fact that fire brought down the WTC buildings as noted in reports which mentioned the WTC buildings buckled moments before they collapsed.

Add to the fact there is no evidence of explosives after 12 years since the 911 attacks.

Just think about the amount of money a demolition firm could save in all these monthly wages for planning, pre-weakening and preparation.

Just think about the amount of money a demolition firm could save in detonation cord and explosives.

Your comment underlines the fact that you enjoy broadcasting your lack of knowledge on the demolition implosion process and the laws of physics and you did so for all to see.

Edited August 7, 2013 by skyeagle409

[Stundie]

Nope! No explosions seen, heard, detected nor evidence found in the rubble.

You keep believing that Skyeagle, but the reality is that by people who were actually at GZ reported plenty of explosions seen, heard, detected and even felt by those at GZ and although none was found in the rubble, it was never looked we know they never found all the things they were looking for.

In other words, you have no case.

Of course there is no case....lol You have dismissed it but it is obvious to anyone reading this that there is a little voice in your head which doubts what you believe and you externalise it into a fiction which you then present, often as arguments that no one has made and then spam the crap out of it. lol

If your neighbor told you that an 18000 pound bomb blew up in your 100" X 100" foot backyard yet you saw no explosion or heard an explosion nor saw a bomb crater in your backyard, would you have a reason to look for evidence of an explosion from an 18000 pound bomb in your backyard anyway? If so, you might want to check your calendar to see if it is 'April Fools Day.'

The investigators were not looking for bombs and even if they were, it would be trying to find the remnants of an explosive device the size of a penny in your 100" x 100" and only being given 2% of the soil to analyse. Or in the case of the WTC7 100" x100" backyard, no soil to examine at all.

Judging by what you have been posting, looking for non-existent evidence is what you would have done.

Oh the irony........lol

Wrong again! Fires cannot be controlled in a precise manner as explosives and it is apparent that common sense logic escaped you.

Oh I understand perfectly why demolition teams use explosives rather than fires and I'll explain why common sense hasn't escaped me, but escaped you.

Let us say for instance that a demo team have a building to demolished with no other surrounding buildings, they are still demolished with explosives and not fires. Why would it matter if the fire was controlled or not?? The hotter the better chance of the building weakening and collapsing, saving all that time and effort in planning, prep, pre-weakening and a fortune saved in explosives.

The reason demolition teams don't use fires is because frankly, is because they are totally rubbish at demolishing buildings.

She was aware of the warnings as well.

That is not what she told the 9/11 commission is it?

"I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons.".............."I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [Condi responding to Kean]