911: Professional experts says it was staged

[mrbusdriver]

There's more then once answer to that question, but the answer that sticks most in my head is one that I heard from a documentary by a veteran reporter, Barrie Zwicker called The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw. Here's the most relevant portion in my view:

Source: http://www.greatcons...pt_GOIssue9.pdf

Mr Ruppert's resume does not list any air defense experience. Why do you feel his comments on the air defense status/response deserve serious consideration?

[MID]

Being the mother of a soldier, a voluteer firefighter and first responder and a very, very proud american..yesterday was hard for me. And hearing some "911 conspiracy theories" without a shred of proof just mades it harder. It sort of diminished the sacrifices borne by so many. I posted my thoughts earlier today on this thread and I still feel the same.

God bless you Mom!

You should be, and have every right to be proud.

I salute you, your soldier, and your firefighter/first responder.

Yesterday was difficult for me as well.

I understand and empathize with tyour emotions, And I salute you and yours!

[Scott G]

You're right. Cutter charges are much more likely. Because there was no security at all at the towers, and the plane that hit it was just a coincidence.

While creating straw men to fight may amuse you, it doesn't actually help the debate. No one here is saying that there was no security at the towers, or that the plane hitting the towers was "just a coincidence". However, if you take a look at -who- was involved in providing security for the towers, you might be surprised. You may wish to read the following article...

9/11 Security Courtesy of Marvin Bush

...you'd have a hard time bringing in explosives and keeping them hidden until it was time to set them off...

I'm sure it wasn't easy, but there were a lot of events that would have facilitated such an action; from "upgrading" the fireproofing (possibly with nanothermite fireproofing paint) and the elevators (which would be a very efficient way of stashing explosives at the core of the building), to people running things in on the weekend before 9/11, while the power on one of the towers was conveniently shut off (no power = no videocameras or security). There were some people who apparently celebrated when the towers came down too; some Israelies that were arrested; but later set free, apparently by highly placed government officials.

[Scott G]

Worth a good laugh, no?

We all need one !

I agree we all need some good laughs, but you might seriously consider some of the points the video makes.

[MID]

I agree we all need some good laughs, but you might seriously consider some of the points the video makes.

Oh I have, Scott.

That video, and the dozens before it.

Edited September 13, 2011 by MID

[Scott G]

Mr Ruppert's resume does not list any air defense experience. Why do you feel his comments on the air defense status/response deserve serious consideration?

So what? I'm not claiming he's a good at manning an air defense post. I notice you didn't mention what he -is- good at. For our audience, I'll bring this up once more. From The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw:

Michael Ruppert, a former Los Angeles Police Department detective, was the first major 9/11 skeptic and researcher in the world and remains one of the foremost. He was one of 40 experts on 9/11 who testified at the six-day International Citizens' Inquiry Into 9/11, held in Toronto in May of 2004.

I've heard this guy speak. He's done some documentaries as well as written a book on 9/11. I thought his first documentary, The Truth and Lies of 9/11 to be quite good. If you'd like to see it, it's here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145

Edited September 13, 2011 by Scott G

[Scott G]

Oh I have, Scott.

That video, and the dozens before it.

So you say. But I have yet to see you challenge any of my assertions with hard evidence to the contrary. Innuendo doesn't cut it.

[The Silver Thong]

Being the mother of a soldier, a voluteer firefighter and first responder and a very, very proud american..yesterday was hard for me. And hearing some "911 conspiracy theories" without a shred of proof just mades it harder. It sort of diminished the sacrifices borne by so many. I posted my thoughts earlier today on this thread and I still feel the same.

Blind trust blind partiotisim does not serve any good purpose. Those that will not question there government due to pride is a copout. Those that question are the true patriots not those that just swollow what they are patriotic to or proud of. What deminishes the sacrifice of our brothers and sisters is complacency with our government. Don`t fall for it as one day you will see that not questioning a government agenda will lead to a government you will not be able to question in the future. To not demand more from a goverment you feel should not be questioned is a true sighn this has allready happened.

please watch this clip.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html

Edited September 13, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[mrbusdriver]

QUOTE

Michael Ruppert, a former Los Angeles Police Department detective, was the first major 9/11 skeptic and researcher in the world and remains one of the foremost. He was one of 40 experts on 9/11 who testified at the six-day International Citizens' Inquiry Into 9/11, held in Toronto in May of 2004. I helped organize that event. At the Inquiry, Michael Ruppert addresses the absence of jet interceptors, but the unlikelihood of a simple stand-down order, and asks…

Michael Ruppert: "What if they were so confused, and had been so deliberately confused, that they couldn't respond?"

BZ: Michael Ruppert is standing by at his office in Sherman Oaks, California. Michael, thanks for this. What is the reason for the failure of US military jets to show up in a timely fashion on 9/11?

MR: Well, the simple fact is, Barrie, that they didn't know where to go. The reason that they didn't know where to go was because a number of conflicting and overlapping war game exercises were taking place, one of which, Northern Vigilance, had pulled a significant number of North American fighter aircraft into Canada and Western Alaska and Northern Alaska in a mock Cold War hijack exercise. There was another drill, Vigilant Guardian, which was a hijack exercise, a command post exercise but it involved the insertion of false radar blips onto radar screens in the Northeast Air Defense Sector. In addition we have a confirmation thanks to General Richard Myers who was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who told Richard Clarke as reported in Clarke's (recent) book that there was another exercise, Vigilant Warrior, which was in fact, according to a NORAD source, a live-fly hijack drill being conducted at the same time. With only eight available fighter aircraft (and they had to be dispatched in pairs) they were dealing with as many as 22 possible hijacks on the day of 9/11 and they couldn't separate the war game exercises from the actual hijacks.

BZ: But this was done deliberately though?

MR: Apparently so and I will be saying that in my forthcoming book Crossing the Rubicon The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. We have done an extensive investigation on that to show that these war game exercises were apparently very well planned by someone, (who I will show, I believe was Dick Cheney) in the United States government, who deliberately confused FAA, NORAD and US Air Force fighter response to fulfill a prophecy that another man once said, "Let one happen and stop the rest."

UNQUOTE

This guy has never seen, been around, or been involved in a NORAD exercise. He speaks from incredulity, and ignorance.

Bottom line is that the FAA and NORAD were not postured or prepared for the events that day...simple as that.

(edited to clarify original statement w/ "quote/unquote")

Edited September 13, 2011 by mrbusdriver

[Stundie]

I'm saying it's more likely to be a a metal that doesn't require as much heat to reach the temperature where it's glowing white hot.

So even though you weren't there and have no supporting evidence to counter the claims of molten steel, you believe that it was likely to be some other metal but not what the witnesses say it was.

Well how convincing is that?? lol

You demand evidence that it was steel, but don't demand any for it being any other metal?

Bizarre logic and typical pseudoskeptical response.

And again, he is an eye witness account, I'm not sure I can trust his judgement here, so I prefer not to.

So what you saying, is that you do not trust the firefighters claims that it was molten metal or are you dismissing their accounts entirely in that they didn't witness the foundry/lava/volcano like conditions??

And it's not just the one eyewitness, notice the other firefighter in the frame nodding in agreement with him and notice that there are other firefighters sitting around and no one object to his claim.

And you say "all the evidence available to us" points to steel. What evidence except eye witnesses? That's not good enough. A metallurgical sample would have been.

I have already said the meteorites and the horse shoe beam, or about FEMA who analysed some steel from WTC7.

"It is much more difficult to tell if melting has occured in the grain boundary regions in this steel as was observed in the A36 steel in the WTC 7."

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

So you're saying this is a squib from a cutter charge?

No, I'm saying it is possible.

Please tell me you got some sort of explosives residue to point to or some other forensic evidence?

Not really, just lots of those pesky eyewitnesses who heard, saw and felt explosions and numerous audio/video recordings of explosions.

We know that explosives were never tested for by the NIST, so therefore the possibility of explosives can't be ruled out.

It would lessen the pressure a little, but not enough to stop it from building up too fast to blow out the side of the building.

Blowing air out of a straw is not even a close comparator but lets use it anyways for giggles.

So if I put a hole in the straw near the bottom and continued blowing, what happens next??

A ) The hole continues blowing out the air as would be expected until I run out of breath??

B ) It would come out of the hole as a short puff of air and then bypass the hole as I continue to breath out??

Because in the case of your comparator, B ) happened in the case of the WTC.

You're right. Cutter charges are much more likely.

Well it's certainly more possible than debunkair ©

After all, it was vital that the towers fell down quickly enough, otherwise there might not be justification for stealing all that oil from the middle east.

Well the PNAC needed a pearl harbour event and they sent a signed letter to Clinton asking him to invade Iraq.

Are you trying to tell me we wouldn't expect air to blow out windows as the building collapses?

Not down some flights of stair, through vents, shafts and doors some 40 odd floors below the collapse zone.

Or is it just that there were explosions going off but that the air then had a path out?

I'm trying to tell that it wasn't air pressure that causes the expulsion some 40 odd floors below the collapse zone.

And I don't need to be an expert to tell you that, seeing as it's obviously not air pressure because whatever caused this expulsion was a plume and it was not continuously blowing out.

And what type of explosives were used, what type of trigger was used, and why was it so important that the buildings fell?

Don't know the explosive types, or the trigger used.

The building were expensive dinosaurs, the port authority had lost a court battle for about $200 million asbestos abatement program, Larry buys the building and insures them heavily and gets to build whatever he likes if they are demolished, a few months later the attacks happen, towers gone. No need to spend $200 million on the abatement program or demolition costs which would probably be astronomical, Larry gets a prime piece of real estate and a massive insurance payout to boot.

Also with the towers collapsed, the public get shocked and scared and will then be willing to give up freedoms for security and PNAC get their new pearl harbour.

I've heard it said that they used thermite, but there's no evidence for that ,except for molten metal which can be any metal, despite what the firefighter says.

It's possible that thermite was used but it was never tested for, so it can't be ruled out. Thermite would account for the reports of molten steel, the pouring metal from the WTC2 before it collapses, the bending of beams etc etc.

There is evidence pointing towards it being used to bring the buildings down, but nothing conclusive.

They also said the sound came from below, but I have to question that statement as well. Eye witnesses mean nothing on their own.

There are numerous eyewitnesses who reported heavy damage in various floors of the basement area.

But we can't trust eyewitness reports can we?? Just wondering does that include numerous eyewitnesses witnessing the same thing??

Again, there's just not enough evidence to for me to accept the claims you (and all too many others) are trying to sell.

I ain't selling anything.

However it is funny that you don't buy certain claims (like molten steel) citing not enough evidence, yet you will buy other claims (like molten aluminium, tin, lead etc) without a shred of evidence or even a source for it.

You are free to believe what ever you like, but saying that evidence for one claim is not convincing, then counter claiming without any evidence highlights a hypocritical view.

Edited September 13, 2011 by Stundie

[The Silver Thong]

QUOTE

UNQUOTE

This guy has never seen, been around, or been involved in a NORAD exercise. He speaks from incredulity, and ignorance.

Bottom line is that the FAA and NORAD were not postured or prepared for the events that day...simple as that.

(edited to clarify original statement w/ "quote/unquote")

Your first sentence here is correct however your second one is flawed big time.

Operation Northwoods 1962. Yes Norad was very well aware, maybe not the FAA however the FAA was not responsiblr for sending interceptors were they.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Edited September 13, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[Stundie]

1500 folks huh?

How about the tens of thousands of real engineers and scientists who disagree?

Doesn't mean much when you weant to believe in idiocy, I suppose?

There are not tens of thousands of engineers and scientist who disagree.

Only 55 architects and engineers have signed the petition since June 26, 2011 who are satisfied that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed due to fires following plane crashes.

http://nothermite.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1898

However, looking at the last lot of names, it looks like anyone can sign it.

Richard Gage is no 46 and someone with a Phd in super cool engineering.

Maybe you could pass it on to these imaginary tens of thousand of engineers and scientist who support the official story, you should have 1500+ in no time, hey MID??

[Scott G]

There are not tens of thousands of engineers and scientist who disagree.

Only 55 architects and engineers have signed the petition since June 26, 2011 who are satisfied that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center collapsed due to fires following plane crashes.

http://nothermite.epetitions.net/signatures.php?petition_id=1898

However, looking at the last lot of names, it looks like anyone can sign it.

Richard Gage is no 46 and someone with a Phd in super cool engineering.

Maybe you could pass it on to these imaginary tens of thousand of engineers and scientist who support the official story, you should have 1500+ in no time, hey MID??

Laugh :-). Good job Stundie. It's time to put the numbers in perspective indeed :-). Not to mention the credibility of those signed up; Richard Gage indeed, laugh :-))

[Scott G]

Your first sentence here is correct however your second one is flawed big time.

Operation Northwoods 1962. Yes Norad was very well aware, maybe not the FAA however the FAA was not responsiblr for sending interceptors were they.

http://en.wikipedia....tion_Northwoods

Actually, that would have been his third sentence, but good point all the same :-). As to his second sentence:

"He speaks from incredulity, and ignorance."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Michael Ruppert is an expert concerning 9/11, as anyone who has listened to him speak for a while should know. However, I don't think that mrbusdriver qualifies in this regard, which would make his own ignorance on the subject understandable.

[portraitartist]

Blind trust blind partiotisim does not serve any good purpose. Those that will not question there government due to pride is a copout. Those that question are the true patriots not those that just swollow what they are patriotic to or proud of. What deminishes the sacrifice of our brothers and sisters is complacency with our government. Don`t fall for it as one day you will see that not questioning a government agenda will lead to a government you will not be able to question in the future. To not demand more from a goverment you feel should not be questioned is a true sighn this has allready happened.

please watch this clip.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html

My being proud does not make me ignorant Sir...

And you don't know me and have no right to call me "blind" in any respect. You have no idea what I have or have not questioned and no right to call my "pride" a copout. What do you know about my personal sacrifices? And these brothers and sisters you speak of are MINE, as an American. You are a Canadian. (And I respect your country and would never insult it or you)

My government is far from perfect, but it's the one I have. I vote every election, I pay taxes, I served my country.

Do not think for an instant that any insult you issue at me will diminish my pride or make me question my allegience. You can verbally and in text put me and my country down with these "conspiracy theories", but it still won't make you right.

[mrbusdriver]

Your first sentence here is correct however your second one is flawed big time.

Operation Northwoods 1962. Yes Norad was very well aware, maybe not the FAA however the FAA was not responsiblr for sending interceptors were they.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

What does an unrealized, unofficial, unapproved "plan" at the height of the Cold War have to do with NORAD's defense posture well after the collapse of the USSR? Incidently, his brief discussion about NORAD and FAA's ROE concerning hijacked aircraft don't apply...there was no confirmation, no "squawk", just off course aircraft that were NORDO. Some suspicious radio calls of uncertain origin. What controller would have thought about the real possibility of multiple suicide attacks that morning?

And the Payne Stewart business...the F-16's weren't scrambled, they voluntarily diverted, on a FAA request (not order), to help out. Not NORAD assets, NORAD wasn't involved.

[Stundie]

Laugh :-). Good job Stundie. It's time to put the numbers in perspective indeed :-). Not to mention the credibility of those signed up; Richard Gage indeed, laugh :-))

I thought it was hilarious too and knew it was BS when the I saw the name Mike Hunt. I suppose I shouldn't laugh cause I'm sure there is a real person called Mike Hunt out there and I'll probably meet him and not believe that his name.

What is even funnier is that these debunkers keep using this desperate and boring argument and are pounding this point to death.

You would think with all these tens of thousand, they would have 1500 real signatures in no time!!

[mrbusdriver]

Actually, that would have been his third sentence, but good point all the same :-). As to his second sentence:

"He speaks from incredulity, and ignorance."

Nothing could be further from the truth. Michael Ruppert is an expert concerning 9/11, as anyone who has listened to him speak for a while should know. However, I don't think that mrbusdriver qualifies in this regard, which would make his own ignorance on the subject understandable.

I still say he knows nothing about air defense and NORAD...or perhaps, he knows just enough trivia to make foolish statements.

I know some air defense and NORAD stuff. Been there, done that...a lot. He is certainly no expert in the air defense business.

[The Silver Thong]

My being proud does not make me ignorant Sir...

And you don't know me and have no right to call me "blind" in any respect. You have no idea what I have or have not questioned and no right to call my "pride" a copout. What do you know about my personal sacrifices? And these brothers and sisters you speak of are MINE, as an American. You are a Canadian. (And I respect your country and would never insult it or you)

My government is far from perfect, but it's the one I have. I vote every election, I pay taxes, I served my country.

Do not think for an instant that any insult you issue at me will diminish my pride or make me question my allegience. You can verbally and in text put me and my country down with these "conspiracy theories", but it still won't make you right.

I never called YOU blind. I reffered to blind patriotisim and yes that does make some blind. Again I never questioned you personaly. I do not take this debate as a one on one sort of debate so please don`t take it as such as I`m sure most will not. Personal reflections on 911 can have an effect on ones emotional stance and I understand that.

You make note I`m Canadian. We took in thousands of Americans after 911 and joined you in your war against the Taliban-AlQuada in Afganistan with out question. We did not join in the war in Iraq for we saw it as for what it was. Please don`t say you would not insult my nation when you just did.

Your government is extremly far from perfect and that is exactly why you need to take that argument to the capital. Until you do you are just toating the government tag line. If your not with us your against us type thing. I love the US and hate seeeing what it is becoming. I am more concerned about you folks then you are about yourselves and that concerns me.

I have not verbaly assaulted you at all, another false flag or do you really think I was being personal. What about the "conspiracy theories" that allowed your nation to enter Iraq. Not such a lie are they as you believe them.

I am not looking to be right nore wrong. I want transparency of government nothing less nothing more and when a government is controled by those that control the money there will always be a conspiracy.

Edited September 13, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[The Silver Thong]

What does an unrealized, unofficial, unapproved "plan" at the height of the Cold War have to do with NORAD's defense posture well after the collapse of the USSR? Incidently, his brief discussion about NORAD and FAA's ROE concerning hijacked aircraft don't apply...there was no confirmation, no "squawk", just off course aircraft that were NORDO. Some suspicious radio calls of uncertain origin. What controller would have thought about the real possibility of multiple suicide attacks that morning?

And the Payne Stewart business...the F-16's weren't scrambled, they voluntarily diverted, on a FAA request (not order), to help out. Not NORAD assets, NORAD wasn't involved.

A false flag to ram planes into buildings in order to blaime Cuba might be a hint. Norad was not ignorant of such a plan. Can you tell me any other time 4 planes went off course and interceptors were not deployed.

Edited September 13, 2011 by The Silver Thong

[mrbusdriver]

Can you tell me any other time 4 planes went off course

...and disabled their transponders to inhibit tracking? This was a first. And the lines of communications between FAA and NORAD were unadequate. Scramble procedures were not designed for what that morning needed. And an OPLAN for firing on civil airliners under such rapidly unfolding, and confused, circumstances was nonexistant.

Hindsight is 20/20, but again, the system was not postured for the unprecedented events of that morning.

[The Silver Thong]

...and disabled their transponders to inhibit tracking? This was a first. And the lines of communications between FAA and NORAD were unadequate. Scramble procedures were not designed for what that morning needed. And an OPLAN for firing on civil airliners under such rapidly unfolding, and confused, circumstances was nonexistant.

Hindsight is 20/20, but again, the system was not postured for the unprecedented events of that morning.

Are you saying that the U.S. could have been attacked by any outside airforce that day. What if the Russians decided to fly bombers that day. Are you saying that when transponders are disabled that doesn`t raise a red flag. Are you saying that planes flying around for an hour with disabled transponders didn`t make one go hmmm.

What was the timeline from the first plane being confirmed hijacked due to onboard phone calles to the last plane crashing. Even though the transponders on 4 planes going off course was not reported. They were tracked on radar no matter there transponders or was it that the entire east coast of the United states lost radar.

[The Silver Thong]

Wow

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1631681/stolen_plane_flies_from_canada_to_missouri.html

[knighterror]

No, I don't trust eye witnesses as a general rule. Not for making informed decisions.

I'm saying it's more likely to be a a metal that doesn't require as much heat to reach the temperature where it's glowing white hot. And again, he is an eye witness account, I'm not sure I can trust his judgement here, so I prefer not to. And you say "all the evidence available to us" points to steel. What evidence except eye witnesses? That's not good enough. A metallurgical sample would have been.

So you're saying this is a squib from a cutter charge? What is your evidence for this except a grainy blurry low res video that might simply feature air pressure explosions? Please tell me you got some sort of explosives residue to point to or some other forensic evidence? Because if not, we'll just have to assume that every light in the night sky that we can't identify ourselves is from outer space. You need hard evidence to suggest that the US government or at least some very high up government officials staged a terror attack on it's own citizens, killing three thousand people, and swept it all under the rug for a decade, launching a campaign of warfare that nearly bankrupted the country and an enormous bodycount. You have got to have some pretty impressive evidence for it if that's what you're suggesting. Pretending to be an expert in construction, demolition, explosives, pyrotechnics, pneumatics and all forms of physics just isn't gonna cut it for me. Why have there not been a single whistleblower on this, which is apparently the biggest conspiracy the world has ever seen? Not one. And you'd need to include a lot of people. I'm not willing to make such a statement without incredibly strong evidence.

Ummm, wasn't there a republican think tank that came up with that report "The New American Century". They talk about needing to attack Iraq for its oil reserves to make sure America has a supply of oil for a long time, the need to control Afghanistan for control of the overland oil pipelines from the Caspian sea, and things which America has been doing over the last decade. I believe the report was written in the mid 1990s. Its been awhile since I read it. Plus if you didn't have planes flying into the buildings and just had people walking in with explosives, we would be able to get on airplanes as easily as we used to. Now, look at all the security and metal detectors everywhere, not just at airports. Look at how much our civil liberties have been eroded since then. The Patriot Act. The War on Terrorism. How much has government spending on new military technology, contractors, homeland security, etc. went up since 9/11. How many in the military industrial complex are part of the Republican party and friends with Dick Cheney and Bush Sr. I was 16 when 9/11 happened. The first time I ever heard about Bin Laden was in a newspaper a co worker had left when I worked after school at Burger King (May 2001). In it, some journalist from the AP had travelled to his hide out in Afghanistan and interviewed him. Yet, in the article it mentioned the CIA and FBI had been looking for him since the USS Cole bombing. Even then I thought it was funny that this journalist from the US had no problem finding and interviewing him, but the CIA wasn't able to find him. Then a couple months later, 9/11 happened and everybody knew who he was. While the USSR was around, we had an enemy and a reason to keep spending money and fighting wars and conflicts. Once they were gone, defense spending plummeted. Now, we have terrorists, which are even better then a nation or empire, because we have no clear enemies, just a bunch of boogeymen anywhere and everywhere, so that war can go on for as long as we need it to. Hell, now we can deem any nation or state as a enemy when ever we need something they have. WMDs, State sponsers of terrorism, abuse of human rights, ideology conflict, regime change, nation building, etc and so on. However, when people want to overthrow their oppressors, we are nowhere to be found or show up late. Now, maybe the government didn't do it, but they were well aware and did nothing to stop it. It wasn't the average Joe who knew. It was those who needed to know and benefit from it. The higher ups in the CIA, DoD, and the other branches of government who work for the rich and powerful who run this country and the western world. And if you don't think there is a circle of people who run the world, then why are we not hearing in the MSM about the other Republican candidates besides Romney and Perry? Either way, we are stuck with who they want. Obama was no different. There was a quote my friend told me years ago, I'm not sure from who and if I'm even close to right, but its along the lines of "I don't want to be President to become wealthy. I'm wealthy so I want to become President."

[The Silver Thong]

You should break that up a bit. Kinda hard to read in that format. However I agree with that to be president you have to be in bed with an awefull lot of people.