9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[skyeagle409]

Well the person who recorded the video and witnessed it disagrees with your opinion.

Well, looking at the videos, all I see are air compression releases, no explosions, and I have seen many explosions in Vietnam to know the difference.

[Little Fish]

Don't worry Little Fish, I know that this is the case but I wanted to see how this is suppose to be possible from a debunker point of view.

the molten iron has always been the achilles heal for the debunkers. they just ignore it, this is why you won't get a response to your questions.

[booNyzarC]

the molten iron has always been the achilles heal for the debunkers. they just ignore it, this is why you won't get a response to your questions.

What "molten iron" are you referring to exactly?

[Little Fish]

What "molten iron" are you referring to exactly?

the molten iron that you are ignoring.

[booNyzarC]

the molten iron that you are ignoring.

I'm not ignoring anything.

[MadMike740]

Al Qaeda just come out the the other day saying the Iranian President is retarded for saying that 9/11 is an inside job because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE.

bin Laden, Zawahiri, KSM all admitted they planned and carried out the attack.

**EDIT** is it going to take for the Morons to realize that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy...**EDIT** is wrong with people...what more proof does someone need?

Why are people still talking about this?

I'll tell you why. It's the people who hate the USA because these people have a chip on their shoulder for some reason...like trashy Nazi's and 51st Staters.

I watched the twin towers fall with my own eyes...there was no explosion....building 7 came down because it was heavily damaged from debris hitting it when the towers fell....not planted explosives...that's just idiotic.

There has never been 1 shred of evidence of an inside job but these **EDIT** keep blabbing their mouth like little kids. It's sickening people can be so STUPID.

**Watch the profanity and the ad homs.**

Edited October 1, 2011 by aquatus1

[Q24]

Al Qaeda just come out the the other day saying the Iranian President is retarded for saying that 9/11 is an inside job because THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE.

bin Laden, Zawahiri, KSM all admitted they planned and carried out the attack.

Do you understand the reasons why many don’t accept this and the theories go on?

The 2004 bin Laden ‘confession’ is in question. First there is possibility the videotape is fake - no chain of custody, U.S. authorities are known to have misled the public regarding the prior 2001 videotape, unusual language is used, the CIA discussed fabricating a videotape of Saddam Hussein, analysts and even John McCain saw that the videotape was a boost for Bush released four days prior U.S. elections, the fact U.S. sources had knowledge of a particular bin Laden tape even before Al Jazeera knew it existed. Second, even if the tape is entirely genuine, there remains a huge problem - there is no confession that bin Laden was the mastermind - he talks about circumstances that led to the attacks but refers to Mohammed Atta as the commander as he did back in 2001. Whichever way it is viewed, even the FBI do not accept the videotape as evidence bin Laden was responsible for 9/11.

Why should anyone accept such non-evidence that bin Laden was responsible?

The Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ‘confession’ was obtained after months of torture at Guantanamo - heck, he suddenly claimed responsibility for a long list of attacks one day, and I think anyone would have done under the circumstances. The idea that Zawahiri knew of the 9/11 attack in advance also comes from these interrogations of Sheikh Mohammed. It is possible Zawahiri’s own claim of Al Qaeda responsibility stems from his dislike of Iran and a desire to promote his own importance - there is no evidence he was involved in planning of the attack.

Why should anyone accept information obtained under these conditions?

There is further doubt because anyone who looks below the surface would question who and what Al Qaeda really are, along with their relationship to elements of the CIA, MI6 and ISI - the boundaries become blurred in places - the intelligence services were all over (and inside) Al Qaeda from day one right up to 9/11. Seriously, you look at people like Ali Mohammed, Omar Sheikh, the profile of hijackers like Atta and Jarrah, the pathway they took, especially Mihdhar and Hazmi, and actions of certain intelligence elements in relation to this… and have to wonder who is running the show.

The majority of those who do, would not say 9/11 leads back to bin Laden so much as it does other sources.

I know the chances are you won’t begin to question any of this MadMike, that‘s fine. I just wanted to get across that, in the main, it is not down to anyone hating the United States but logical and evidence based reasons for doubt.

[skyeagle409]

**EDIT** is it going to take for the Morons to realize that 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy...**EDIT** is wrong with people...what more proof does someone need?

Why are people still talking about this?

Simply amazing!

Who is going to run up all of those stairs to the floors of impact in both buildings and plant thousands of pounds of explosives when hundreds of people are trying to find ways to evacuate the buildings that are now on fire?

Now, there are those who are claiming that no aircraft struck the buildings and that the videos were manipulated. Simply amazing!!.

Edited October 1, 2011 by aquatus1

[Scott G]

Simply amazing!

Who is going to run up all of those stairs to the floors of impact in both buildings and plant thousands of pounds of explosives when hundreds of people are trying to find ways to evacuate the buildings that are now on fire?

Who indeed? Seriously sky, quite dragging out that straw man, he's getting pretty lame -.-

[skyeagle409]

Who indeed? Seriously sky, quite dragging out that straw man, he's getting pretty lame -.-

Then, do you agree with me that there were no explosives planted at all?

[Scott G]

Then, do you agree with me that there were no explosives planted at all?

No, but no one that I know has ever claimed that the explosives were planted while the buildings burned.

[skyeagle409]

No, but no one that I know has ever claimed that the explosives were planted while the buildings burned.

And, no planted explosives up to the 77th floors and above before the impacts either.

[Scott G]

And, no planted explosives up to the 77th floors and above before the impacts either.

Why not?

[skyeagle409]

Why not?

No one is that stupid to carry thousands of pounds of explosives all the up to those levels when they could have done so at the street levels, and besides, the collapses occurred only at the points of impact and there is no evidence anywhere in the videos of any chemical explosions at the points of impacts..

[Little Fish]

the collapses occurred only at the points of impact and there is no evidence anywhere in the videos of any chemical explosions at the points of impacts..

the floors above the impact point were destroyed first. there is evidence of chemical explosions in the videos, the white trails cannot be explained by ordinary building dust.

there is evidence the corners above the impact point were attacked chemically, just after he say "fall away" you can see a bright flash well above the impacted point on the corner facing you, and then the corner column is seen broken at that point.

Edited October 3, 2011 by Little Fish

[Little Fish]

keep your eye on the point between where the molten metal is pouring out and the top of the screen where you see some white smoke whisping out. as the building collpases you'll see the corner break with a flash. this is well above the plane impact point. pause it at 1:26. also notice hte redish material being ejected below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYLGSeK74HY

Edited October 3, 2011 by Little Fish

[Scott G]

And, no planted explosives up to the 77th floors and above before the impacts either.

Why not?

No one is that stupid to carry thousands of pounds of explosives all the up to those levels when they could have done so at the street levels,

If the goal was to fool people into believing that the planes caused the buildings to fall, then planting explosives on several floors, including the ones where the impact occurred, would have been the logical thing to do.

and besides, the collapses occurred only at the points of impact and there is no evidence anywhere in the videos of any chemical explosions at the points of impacts..

I see that Little Fish has responded to this point of yours so I will refrain from doing the same.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Scott G

[TK0001]

If the goal was to fool people into believing that the planes caused the buildings to fall, then planting explosives on several floors, including the ones where the impact occurred, would have been the logical thing to do.

Well, that's completely illogical in itself. Why go through the theatrics of flying planes into the towers? Why not just blow the buildings up and blame it on terrorists?

[Scott G]

If the goal was to fool people into believing that the planes caused the buildings to fall, then planting explosives on several floors, including the ones where the impact occurred, would have been the logical thing to do.

Well, that's completely illogical in itself. Why go through the theatrics of flying planes into the towers? Why not just blow the buildings up and blame it on terrorists?

Because then people would have payed more attention to the doings of companies such as Turner Construction. You may want to read Q24's post 369 in the thread 911: Professional experts says it was staged; It's the most succinct theory I've seen as to how the WTC buildings could have been destroyed using explosives. Q24 admits that he only offers theory as to who did it. Nevertheless, the theory is plausible, unlike the official story concerning the collapse of the WTC buildings. There are others who may have been involved. For an in depth look into organizations that may have aided in carrying out a covert demolition of the WTC towers, I highly recommend atleast browsing through Kevin Ryan's article Demolition Access To The WTC Towers: Part One - Tenants. More attention might have been paid to the Power Down in one of the Twin Towers on the weekend before 9/11 that resulted in a "complete breakdown in security" and the "many, many ‘engineers’ coming in and out of the tower" at around that time as well.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Scott G

[skyeagle409]

If the goal was to fool people into believing that the planes caused the buildings to fall, then planting explosives on several floors, including the ones where the impact occurred, would have been the logical thing to do.

That doesn't make any sense at all because the aircraft were proven to have been responsible for setting the fires that eventually caused the buildilngs to fall.No one planted any explosives before, nor after the impacts and to underline my point, there was never any evidence of a chemical explosion.

The tale of explosives is just that; simply a tale, and no evidence to back it up.

Edited October 4, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

the floors above the impact point were destroyed first. there is evidence of chemical explosions in the videos, the white trails cannot be explained by ordinary building dust.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=DChR1XcYhlw

That is not the result of a chemical explosion.There were no explosions before the buildings collapsed and there was no way that anyone could have planted thousands of pounds of explosives, nor carry them all the way up to the 77th floors and beyond after the aircraft impacts, which wouldn't make any sense anyway when explosives could have been planted at ground level, which happened in 1993 and yet, the WTC building remained standing.

Edited October 4, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Scott G]

If the goal was to fool people into believing that the planes caused the buildings to fall, then planting explosives on several floors, including the ones where the impact occurred, would have been the logical thing to do.

That doesn't make any sense at all because the aircraft were proven to have been responsible for setting the fires that eventually caused the buildings to fall.

No; not only has it not been proven, it's been refuted. Have you read Steven Jones paper titled "Why Indeed did the WTC Towers collapse?" If not, I highly recommend it. Here's the link:

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

No one planted any explosives before, nor after the impacts and to underline my point, there was never any evidence of a chemical explosion.

You can say this all you want, but the fact of the matter is that it's been proven that explosives were present at the WTC buildings. You may wish to read the following paper on the subject to see the evidence of this:

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

[Scott G]

the floors above the impact point were destroyed first. there is evidence of chemical explosions in the videos, the white trails cannot be explained by ordinary building dust.

That is not the result of a chemical explosion.

Yes it is. Did you see the video?

There were no explosions before the buildings collapsed

Yes, there were:

Video: 9/11 Firefighters Reveal Huge Explosions Before Towers Collapsed

and there was no way that anyone could have planted thousands of pounds of explosives, nor carry them all the way up to the 77th floors and beyond after the aircraft impacts,

Again, no one has claimed that some superman carried thousands of pounds of explosives after the aircraft impacts. The general consensus amoung those who believe that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions is that placing the explosives took time; anywhere from a month to several months. Q24 has come up with a plausible theory in post 369 in the 911: Professional experts says it was staged thread.

Edited October 5, 2011 by Scott G

[skyeagle409]

No; not only has it not been proven, it's been refuted. Have you read Steven Jones paper titled "Why Indeed did the WTC Towers collapse?" If not, I highly recommend it. Here's the link:

http://www.journalof...elyCollapse.pdf

Once again, you tend to rely on misleading websites that are short on facts. There were no explosions at the time of the collapses and any planted explosives before impact would have been detonated by the aircraft impacts.To underline my point, there are no evidence of any chemical explosions in the videos.

[skyeagle409]

Yes it is. Did you see the video?

Yes, there were:

Video: 9/11 Firefighters Reveal Huge Explosions Before Towers Collapsed

I didnt' see evidence of any explosions in the video. That guy was dreaming.

Again, no one has claimed that some superman carried thousands of pounds of explosives after the aircraft impacts. The general consensus amoung those who believe that the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions is that placing the explosives took time; anywhere from a month to several months. Q24 has come up with a plausible theory in post 369 in the 911: Professional experts says it was staged thread.

it is not practical to place that much explosive material that high above the street at the exact levels where the aircraft just happen to strike. Not likely at all, and the explosives would have been detonated when the aircraft struck the builidngs.

There are no chemical explosions evident in the videos and only compression air releases from the floor collapses are seen. If you pop a paper bay frull of air with your hands and the air has to escape somewhere, just as was the case with the collapes fo the WTC buildings.

Once again, you rely on websites of those who have no idea what they are talking about. .

s