9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[Stundie]

Review the video I posted on WTC 7

I have and the point still stands.

If it takes lots of men, lots of hours to demolish a building, why bother when you can just start a fire and leave it for a few hours?

Yepper, and the fires did not need to be hot enough to melt steel.

Isn't applying a totally false argument to another poster constitute as a rule breach!

Or does me pointing this out mean I am in breach of the rules??

And yet the drama STILL continues!!

After all, at a little over 1100 degrees, steel loses half of its strength and you must take into consideration that some of the supports were damaged when the aircraft impacted the buildings so the heat needed to commence the collapse would just be high enough to weaken steel even further.

WTC7 was not damaged by an aircraft.

I tell you what Skyeagle, you should tell these demo experts that they are wasting time and money with all this wiring and explosives when all they need is a fire. Maybe they could get a few guys in there with lump hammers and give some of the supports a bashing before they start the inferno.

The funniest thing is, that you probably do not see the irony of your posts.

[Stundie]

I will second all that from my own experience.

I did not question the official story whatsoever for around two years - I was actually looking-up the reason we were in Iraq and stumbled over some 9/11 information.

I hardly blinked; I wrote it off as an oddity. It was only after a further two years research and watching events unfold that I accepted the evidence supported a false flag. And I still wouldn’t have it! There was a mental block that, “they just wouldn’t”. I went on forums and asked questions that I now see were completely naive. The straw that broke the camel’s back is in my avatar and sig - it was the first piece of evidence that led me to realise, “oh, perhaps they would”. I have researched a huge volume of additional evidence and moved on a lot since then, now accepting the nature of 9/11 as self-evident.

The above is a story common to most who accept a false flag - I’ve read it many times. In eight years I have only heard perhaps two or three who claim to have gone through that process in reverse (and to be honest I wonder if that claim is only for effect; a fib in attempt to counter the type of story above).

There will be those who made accusations of a false flag from day one, though that is apparently a fringe of those who now comprise the truth movement. I would suggest it also includes those who were more farsighted and already had information which led them to question certain intentions, rightly so. I know that whenever any major event happens I will never auto-accept the official story again.

In contrast, practically (if not literally) every person who now accepts the official story will have done so from day one. I’m not sure it’s a good idea for the official story to raise the subject of exactly who is starting and primarily working from a belief rather than evidence base.

That's pretty much how it started for me too. I watched Loose Change but I still didn't quite believe in the conspiracy as I didn't understand why they would do such a thing. After the invasion of Iraq, I started taking an interest in global politics and read some good books like The Grand Chessboard and watched a few great documentaries like The Power Of Nightmares and Why We Fight.

Then it all started adding up, so I decided to do some investigating and research myself.

When I looked into the movements of Dick Cheney on the morning of 9/11 especially in regards to Norman Mineta testimony and the commissions version of events, it was obvious there was a cover up or a conspiracy of some sorts. When I joined the JREF forum with some question, the responses showed me that these official story believers have no answers, but they pretend to in order to fool others and more importantly themselves because of the very same mental block you mention above. "They wouldn't do such a thing...." or "They couldn't do it...." and "Someone would come forward wouldn't they..." etc etc!

It make me laugh when people say that conspiracy theorists want to believe in a conspiracy because I'm sure you'll agree, I would rather it not be true as it's much more comforting to know it was some guy in cave miles away than certain people within government who are suppose to protect you.

It also makes me laugh when people say that conspiracy theorists only believe in a conspiracy because they don't trust government. And while it might be that the majority do not trust government, can they really be blamed when they get and do so many things wrong. Of course, governments are big and sometimes mistakes and errors will be made but even if someone can't trust them, it doesn't answer the question of whether there is any truth in the possibility of a conspiracy.

These excuses for why people believe in conspiracies do not address the issue and are nothing more than a side track to dismiss genuine concern and questions which if answered and matched the evidence, would quash any conspiracy.

Of course, there will always be some who even in the face of irrefutable evidence of no conspiracy would still say there was a conspiracy, but there wouldn't be anywhere near as many people who question the official accounts as there is now.

[frenat]

Or something fishy happened here. And that still doesn't explain the "reason" they were cancelled. Why was there no mention of N612UA or N591UA being destroyed?

Have you ever worked with the government? I'm actually surprised they finally got all 4 deregistered at all. Not surprising that they didn't do all of them the same.

There's more as well. As a website states:

***Beyond this conundrum is the apparent fact that N591UA was noted at O'Hare Airport by a United Airlines employee named Dave Friedman and duly recorded in his personal flight log as the equipment used for United Airlines Flight 1111 on 4/10/03, when he flew in it to Las Vegas. (See friedmanfamily.org/ua2003/). Incidentally, in the "guest book" link on Friedman's web page, there are two entries from "Joe" and "GS" asking how he could have possibly flown on N591UA when it no longer exists? As of 12/14/04, Dave Friedman has not responded to these queries. Curious, yes?***

Source: http://portland.indy...12/306111.shtml

Is it certain he couldn't have made a mistake? Doubtful. Especially when the log shows the plane he was on was just one number off. In fact there is even a comment from Friedman saying this

catching the numbers was a surprisingly difficult task depending on the angle that the aircraft was parked at the gate. In fact, the FAA database for that flight clearly indicates that the aircraft was N594UA, which would have been very easy for me to mis-transcribe on a numeric keypad as N591UA.

There's yet another issue; N334AA has been re-registered in 2006 (note that this can't account for the siting of this tail number in 2003). Is it normal for a tail number to be re-used? And I'm not even getting into certain anomalies that happened in the days prior to 9/11, which can be seen here:

http://portland.indy...12/306111.shtml

Your link says nothing about it being reused in 2006 that I can see. All I see is them trying to make a big deal out of it sitting still for 2 days before 911 (which is more of a so what situation. I'll bet a lot of planes sit still for multiple days at various times) based on a log they ADMIT HAS ERRORS.

You may be right. But why would it be under the name of a bank trustee instead of the bank itself?

Maybe that's the way they do it. Maybe yet another lazy employee did it that way. Have you asked them?

[Scott G]

Or something fishy happened here. And that still doesn't explain the "reason" they were cancelled. Why was there no mention of N612UA or N591UA being destroyed?

Have you ever worked with the government?

Not personally, though my mother has spoken to certain parliaments in the past.

I'm actually surprised they finally got all 4 deregistered at all. Not surprising that they didn't do all of them the same.

I've heard this type of reasoning before; it's been used to explain away countless flaws in the 9/11 official story. I certainly agree that in government, the left hand frequently isn't aware of what the right hand is doing, but that is actually a double edged sword, if you're of the belief that a select few within the government were behind 9/11. So unless you can provide evidence that most airplanes take 4 years to be deregistered after being destroyed, and that there's a 50/50 chance that the reason for their cancellation will be that they were "cancelled" (which is clearly ridiculous), then I will continue to view this with a high degree of suspicion.

Or something fishy happened here. And that still doesn't explain the "reason" they were cancelled. Why was there no mention of N612UA or N591UA being destroyed? There's more as well. As a website states:

***Beyond this conundrum is the apparent fact that N591UA was noted at O'Hare Airport by a United Airlines employee named Dave Friedman and duly recorded in his personal flight log as the equipment used for United Airlines Flight 1111 on 4/10/03, when he flew in it to Las Vegas. (See friedmanfamily.org/ua2003/). Incidentally, in the "guest book" link on Friedman's web page, there are two entries from "Joe" and "GS" asking how he could have possibly flown on N591UA when it no longer exists? As of 12/14/04, Dave Friedman has not responded to these queries. Curious, yes?***

Source: http://portland.indy...12/306111.shtml

Is it certain he couldn't have made a mistake? Doubtful. Especially when the log shows the plane he was on was just one number off. In fact there is even a comment from Friedman saying this

catching the numbers was a surprisingly difficult task depending on the angle that the aircraft was parked at the gate. In fact, the FAA database for that flight clearly indicates that the aircraft was N594UA, which would have been very easy for me to mis-transcribe on a numeric keypad as N591UA.

On this point, the explanation does sound plausible.

There's yet another issue; N334AA has been re-registered in 2006 (note that this can't account for the siting of this tail number in 2003). Is it normal for a tail number to be re-used? And I'm not even getting into certain anomalies that happened in the days prior to 9/11, which can be seen here:

http://portland.indy...12/306111.shtml

Your link says nothing about it being reused in 2006 that I can see.

The first sentence in the above quote was actually referring to a link I had mentioned in a previous post. Here's the link:

http://registry.faa....Numbertxt=334AA

And I'm not even getting into certain anomalies that happened in the days prior to 9/11, which can be seen here:

http://portland.indy...12/306111.shtml

All I see is them trying to make a big deal out of it sitting still for 2 days before 911 (which is more of a so what situation. I'll bet a lot of planes sit still for multiple days at various times)

Betting is not the same thing as knowing.

based on a log they ADMIT HAS ERRORS.

Some rather interesting errors too. Quoting from it:

****

On 9/5/01, N612UA, as Flight 22, leaves SFO for JFK at 8:12 and arrives there at 16:09. (The BTS/DS log for 9/5/01 also shows that United Airlines Flight 18, which left LAX for JFK on 9/4 at 21:59 with Tail number N620UA, is recorded in the BTS/DS log as "N612UA." This is apparently a "mistake" of the type that I briefly mentioned above.) At 17:56, N612UA, as Flight 29, departs for LAX and arrives there at 20:06. Then, at 22:06, N612UA, as Flight 18, leaves LAX for JFK and arrives there on 9/6/01 at 5:57, but the Tail number is recorded in the BTS/DS log as "N605UA," another apparent "mistake."

****

Tail Number N612UA, aka Flight 175 on 9/11 just can't seem to be recorded right very often in the days prior to 9/11. Perhaps this continued up to 9/11 as well? Honestly, it doesn't matter which way you cut this; either N612UA had an unusual amount of 'mistakes' in the recording of its tail number, or aircraft are frequently mixed up with each other; the bottom line is that there's a lot to suggest that N612UA didn't crash into the South Tower.

There is also something else that's rather suspicious concerning 9/11's Flight 175:

Two "Flight 175" taking off from Boston Logan: CONFIRMED

You may be right. But why would it be under the name of a bank trustee instead of the bank itself?

Maybe that's the way they do it. Maybe yet another lazy employee did it that way.

Incompetence strikes again, eh :-p?

Have you asked them?

No, I haven't. I imagine it'd take a while just to figure out who to ask, and I can easily imagine I wouldn't get a straight answer anyway. I'm glad you're atleast curious enough to ask the question though.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Scott G

[skyeagle409]

Sky,

I have no idea how many times we have butted heads in the UFO part of the forum from completely opposite ends of the spectrum, but your inputs here certainly have earned my respect!!

Cheers,

Badeskov

Thanks!

It is difficult for me to imagine that there are those who think that the U.S. government could have plotted to killed thousands of its own citizens. That is going to the extreme for the sake of asking for a raise in the Pentagon's budget or for going to war in Afghanistan.

[Scott G]

Thanks!

It is difficult for me to imagine that there are those who think that the U.S. government could have plotted to killed thousands of its own citizens.

I think I've told you this before, but you keep on saying the "U.S. government", as if the entire U.S. government was in on it, so I keep on feeling obliged to bring up a quote from the pilot episode of "The Lone Gunmen":

******

BYERS SNR: There you go, indicting the entire government as usual. It's a faction, a small faction..

BYERS: For what possible gain?

BYERS SNR: The Cold War's over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market's flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you'll find a dozen tin-pot dictators all over the world just clamoring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.

BYERS: I can't believe this. This is about increasing arms sales?

BYERS SNR: Mmhm.

******

The following clip of the episode includes some more interesting information if you haven't seen it yet:

Now, if this had come out -after- 9/11, that would be one thing. But it aired about 6 months before 9/11 occurred.

Edited November 9, 2011 by Scott G

[skyeagle409]

Again, you do not answer the question, instead repeating that the 'numbers are deregistered' like the robot you are. I am aware that the planes serial numbers are deregistered in the FAA database.

Question is: Why were those numbers deregistered? There were no switch of aircraft in regards to the 9/11 attacks.

My question to you, for the 5th time in a few days is: IF they were not the planes that crashed, yet the FAA are for all intents and reasons under the impression that flights 11, 175, 93 and 77 all crashed, why would they not deregister the numbers?

The numbers were assigned to those aircraft.

For example, a plane is sitting in a Cairo underground bunker!! The FAA think that plane was blown up by terrorists the other week. Do they keep the planes serial number active or do they deregister it?

Why would they keep the same serial number? What are they going to do afterward? Replace the serial number on another aircraft and replace it with the one in Cairo for the sake of juggling numbers between aircraft? That doesn't make any sense at all. When we lost aircraft, we didn't reuse the same tail numbers and for obvious reasons and that is, it would have messed up the record system.

As for you B767 picture, I do not see a 'pod' I see a smooth underbelly with the square shape in the middle of a landing gear pod. That square shape is not what any conspiracist has mentioned in regards to a 'pod like' object in the 9/11 photos.

It is a pod that can be removed if needed. The fuselage is,tubular in construction and the flat section you see on the bottom is not part of the fuselage itself.

Where's The Pod?

Claim: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."

FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images—the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

Read more: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Planes - Popular Mechanics

As I have said all along, the pod on the B-767 houses the main landing gears, but because the 9/11 conspiracist didn't know that, they thought the pod was added to the aircraft sometime before the 9/11 attacks. Why were my messages ignored on that fact???

The planes are all gone yes, but the fact that the FAA has deregistered their numbers is part of Skyeagles 'definitive evidence'. I've asked him more times than I can remember, IF <<< (see the IF MID?) there was a plane switch and the FAA are under the impression those 4 flights were destroyed that day, why would they not retire the number? Would the keep a destroyed planes number active because....They're aware of a switch? They're just too lazy?? They're understaffed? Why?? This is what Skyeagle refuses to answer, instead repeating like a parrot.... 'numbers deregistered....numbers deregistered...'

Now read this and understand the reason why it says the aircraft was deregistered. It was deregistered because the aircraft was destroyed. Read the link.

Boeing 767 - MSN 21873

Last Airline United Airlines Status : Written off

Last Registration : N612UA

Last Airline United Airlines Country : USA

Date : 1931 -

Codes UA UAL

Callsign : United

Web site : http://www.united.com

My link

My link

Edited November 9, 2011 by skyeagle409

[darkbreed]

So the crux of your theory is that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by occultists before Columbus crossed to the Americas right? And that the towers themselves were built with the idea for ritual sacrifice? Am I following you so far? In fact, the entire city was built for this purpose?

Well, I hate to break it to you, but NYC wasn't built as a sacrificial lamb for occultists.

Like all cities...

Actually to the contrary of what you believe, USA was founded by occultists, implementing occult designs and patterns into their structures, buildings, logos, street layouts etc, placing buildings on specific points of importance esoterically speaking, as well as to make them align up with specific occult symbols like the pentagram. The white house is at the tip of a reversed satanic pentagram. Check all the videos I posted in the 911 Mega Ritual thread and you will get to see all this for yourself, its historical facts and well known. It was all created as a ritual ground and magical practice place and occult power center.

[skyeagle409]

WTC 7 Report

The final report describes how debris from the collapse of WTC 1 ignited fires on at least 10 floors of WTC 7 at the western half of the south face. Fires on Floors 7 through 9 and 11 through 13 burned out of control, because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system had failed. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply. Those water lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and 2. These uncontrolled fires in WTC 7 eventually spread to the northeast part of the building, where the collapse began.

After 7 hours of uncontrolled fires, a steel girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to one of the 81 columns supporting the building. Floor 13 collapsed, beginning a cascade of floor failures to Floor 5. Column 79, no longer supported by a girder, buckled, triggering a rapid succession of structural failures that moved from east to west. All 23 central columns, followed by the exterior columns, failed in what's known as a "progressive collapse"--that is, local damage that spreads from one structural element to another, eventually resulting in the collapse of the entire structure.

Read more: World Trade Center 7 Report Puts 9/11 Conspiracy Theory to Rest - Popular Mechanics

No Explosives

Spurred by conspiracy theorists' questions, investigators did look specifically at the possibility that explosives were involved. "Hypothetical blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7," the report states, adding that investigators "found no evidence whose explanation required invocation of a blast event." Moreover, the smallest charge capable of initiating column failure "would have resulted in a sound level of 130 dB [decibels] to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile." Witnesses did not report hearing such a loud noise, nor is one audible on recordings of the collapse.

Edited November 9, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Flight 175's Windows

Claim: On Sept. 11, FOX News broadcast a live phone interview with FOX employee Marc Birnbach. 911inplanesite.com states that "Bernback" saw the plane "crash into the South Tower." "It definitely did not look like a commercial plane," Birnbach said on air. "I didn't see any windows on the sides."

Coupled with photographs and videos of Flight 175 that lack the resolution to show windows, Birnbach's statement has fueled one of the most widely referenced 9/11 conspiracy theories—specifically, that the South Tower was struck by a military cargo plane or a fuel tanker.

FACT: Birnbach, who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.

While heading a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) probe into the collapse of the towers, W. Gene Corley studied the airplane wreckage. A licensed structural engineer with Construction Technology Laboratories, a consulting firm based in Skokie, Ill., Corley and his team photographed aircraft debris on the roof of WTC 5, including a chunk of fuselage that clearly had passenger windows. "It's ... from the United Airlines plane that hit Tower 2," Corley states flatly. In reviewing crash footage taken by an ABC news crew, Corley was able to track the trajectory of the fragments he studied—including a section of the landing gear and part of an engine—as they tore through the South Tower, exited from the building's north side and fell from the sky.

Read more: Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Planes - Popular Mechanics

So much for the switched aircraft and drone theories.

Edited November 9, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I have and the point still stands.

If it takes lots of men, lots of hours to demolish a building, why bother when you can just start a fire and leave it for a few hours?

Explosives were used in the WTC attack in 1993 and the building was left standing. It takes a lot of planning and preparation to demolish a building. In other words, you can't just tape explosives anywhere and expect the desired results, especially for a buiding the size of the WTC towers.

And yet the drama STILL continues!!

WTC7 was not damaged by an aircraft.

For further reading.

WTC 7 Collapse

Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottomapproximately 10 storiesabout 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factorsalong with the building's unusual constructionwere enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

Edited November 9, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

We know that skyeagle is talking from a misinformed position - I doubt he has even read any study on the collapses. Even in the direct impact region the worst case NIST could reasonably envision did not damage half of the core columns, let alone perimeter columns that carried a large percentage of the building load. Immediately after impact the towers were both stable, as the designers had intended.

It does not appear the impact damage was a determining factor. I mean, look at WTC1 - it tilted away from the impact damage side. This means the fire or… something… opposite to the impact side caused greater damage than the impact itself.

Interesting the main elevator banks were on that side of the tower, and this where it is suggested provided best access to the core columns… for instance, if anyone wanted to demolish the building.

The NIST damage and fire theory for the towers does reach the point of "collapse initiation" where the upper structure started moving down (albeit using visibly non-real world assumptions to get there). It is in explaining the "global collapse", how the downward movement continued, that NIST cop-out and refer to Bazant's paper (equally non-real world).

Reality check time.

Seismic Spikes

Claim: Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

Fine Lines: Revisionists say sharp spikes (graph 1, above) mean bombs toppled the WTC. Scientists disprove the claim with the more detailed graph 2 (below). (Seismograph readings by Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University: Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist; Arthur Lerner-Lam, associate director; Mary Tobin, senior science writer)

FACT: "There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear—misleadingly—as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves—blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower—start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Popular Mechanics

To sum it up; No bombs.

[skyeagle409]

Yes, it was deregistered. But did you take a look at when? Just in case that bit slipped your notice, I'll point it out to you: 09/28/2005

Anyone who knows the FAA, knows that the FAA does not move with the speed of Superman. For an example, there was a crash of a DC-9 in 1987, which was operated by Continental Airlines and registered as: N626TX. The aircraft was written off in 1987, but the registration number was still showing as a "VALID" status as of September 2007, and there are other cases where aircraft have crashed and yet, their registration numbers remained valid years later.

Continental Airlines, Flight 1713

My link

So, here is where we have an aircraft that crashed in 1987, and its registration number remained valid for that aircraft only and there are other cases where the FAA does not move with the speed of lightning when it comes down to deregistration of numbers.

[skyeagle409]

If the FAA are under the impression that 11, 77, 93 and 175 have all crashed and burned, why would they not deregister their numbers? Would they keep them active even though they thought the planes had crashed? Is this what you are saying?

Yes, and it has been done in the past with Continental Airlines, Flight 1713, as one example of many. That aircraft crashed in a snowstorm in November 1987 and yet, its registration number remained active up to September 2007.

Edited November 9, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

That's pretty much how it started for me too. I watched Loose Change but I still didn't quite believe in the conspiracy as I didn't understand why they would do such a thing. After the invasion of Iraq, I started taking an interest in global politics and read some good books like The Grand Chessboard and watched a few great documentaries like The Power Of Nightmares and Why We Fight.

Are you familiar with 'Loose Change?"

Loose Change

Loose Change speculates that 200 people were somehow herded onto Flight 93 (perhaps from Flights 11, 175, 77) and then mysteriously disappeared into a NASA research facility.

My link

Edited November 9, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I saw a page on rense.com that got things mixed up, confusing flight numbers with tail numbers. We're not all experts on the subject and people can get confused. But there's definitely something suspicious about the tail numbers. The following web page elaborates:

VERY STRANGE 9.11 AIRCRAFT REGISTRATIONS

Concerning 9/11's Flight 175 (aka N612UA), there's some interesting information that strongly suggests that it wasn't the plane that crashed into one of the Twin Towers as well. Aside from the apparent speed of the craft at the time of the crash (too fast for a passenger plane), there's also the fact that it was the wrong shape:

Flight 175. The Wrong Plane

Nor is that the only thing that's strange about N612UA:

The Strange Appearance, Disappearance and Reappearance of N612UA

From one of your links. I would like for you to see how things tend to become clouded in regards to registration numbers. The following was taken from one of your links.

Beyond this conundrum is the apparent fact that N591UA was noted at O'Hare Airport by a United Airlines employee named Dave Friedman and duly recorded in his personal flight log as the equipment used for United Airlines Flight 1111 on 4/10/03, when he flew in it to Las Vegas. (See friedmanfamily.org/ua2003/). Incidentally, in the "guest book" link on Friedman's web page, there are two entries from "Joe" and "GS" asking how he could have possibly flown on N591UA when it no longer exists? As of 12/14/04, Dave Friedman has not responded to these queries. Curious, yes?

Turns out that Mr. Friedman wasn't an employee of United Airlines after all, and he provided the wrong registration number for the flight to Las Vegas on 4/10/2003/ He stated that the aircraft he flew on had a tail number of N591UA, which was the tail number of United 93, but records show that the tail number of the aircraft for that date to Las Vegas (LAS) was N594UA, not N591UA.

Mr. Friedman has this response as well.

Dave Friedman

I am the person who has now been oft-cited as the "United Airlines Employee" who logged my flights in 2003, and referenced N591UA. Your site, as well as numerous others, have taken numerous liberties with what was intended to be a pure hobby.

1) I am not a UA employee, as would be plainly obvious to anyone who spent 2 minutes looking at my site

2) There is a clear disclaimer present now (though I agree it was not when you wrote your article) explaining the situation with the tail number. I generally recorded *either* the tail number *or* the nose number, and extrapolated the other based on the numbering scheme. It is VERY likely that I transcribed my notes incorrectly from that day's flight -- catching the numbers was a surprisingly difficult task depending on the angle that the aircraft was parked at the gate. In fact, the FAA database for that flight clearly indicates that the aircraft was N594UA, which would have been very easy for me to mis-transcribe on a numeric keypad as N591UA.

3) Why didn't I respond to the guestbook entries? Simple... I wasn't reading them by the time you wrote this article. The site was done purely for fun in 2003, and by August 2003 I had stopped maintaining it.

4) One comment above lists "news from Friedman" -- I'm not sure who that was from. See #2 as to how I recorded "both" wrong -- I rarely had the opportunity to see both the nose and tail numbers, so in about 90% of the cases, I extrapolated one from the other.

All of that being said, the various theories proposed about what may have happened on 9/11 certainly seem to carry some merit. I'm not convinced of the accuracy of either the official account or of the alternate theories. I am, however, convinced that my little website should not be considered evidence one way or another, as I can guarantee you there are several other typos to be found in my data as well. It was not scientific, and was done purely for fun.

My link

Edited November 9, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

Skyeagle does not want to admit that a number being retired does not definitively prove that an aircraft has been destroyed as it has been a main point in his argument all along.

The reason why you said that is because you do not know how things worki in the real world of aviation. In the document I have presented, the reason given for the FAA to deregister the aircraft was because it was--in its own words--destroyed.

That was years after the aircraft struck the WTC building, and remember Continental Flt 1713, as just another example where registration numbers remained open years after an aircraft was destroyed.

Edited November 9, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

As for you B767 picture, I do not see a 'pod' I see a smooth underbelly with the square shape in the middle of a landing gear pod.

Apparently, the 9/11 conspiracist think that pods were later attached before the 9/11 attacks. Here is a video of United 175 just before it struck WTC 2.

http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/podimages/CNNwtc2southpov.mov

There are no pods in the video they claim to have been attached. And, more photos.

Look at the center photo and note that there is no way to carry missiles inside the main landing gear wheel wells. They just let their imaginations run wild and another reason why they are 9/11 conspiracist. Check it out.

"Loose Change" Claims

World Trade Center missiles

Included only in the first edition, Avery repeatedly zooms into low-resolution footage of Flight 11 crashing into the North Tower. He claims a flash is seen before the shadow of the plane is visible on the building's surface, and therefore it could not have been a result of the impact. Except the shadow is already there, visible even in poor-quality still frames. Avery repeats this process with footage of Flight 175 striking the South Tower, taken from multiple angles, and claims that an extra piece of equipment is visible under the fuselage.

My link

Revisions

Although each version of the film asserts that the events of 9/11 were essentially an "inside job", there were significant revisions between the particular theories that different editions posited. For example:

• The first edition, Loose Change, suggested that there was an unusual device (which the filmmakers refer to as a "pod") under the fuselage of the plane that struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center. The "pod" was presented as evidence that the planes involved in the attack were replaced with remote-controlled drones. Official flight records were also presented as evidence that the aircraft involved are still in active service, though it is stated that the producers do not know what happened to the passengers of the flights. This information is omitted from all subsequent versions.
• 
  My link

Edited November 9, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

It is difficult for me to imagine that there are those who think that the U.S. government could have plotted to killed thousands of its own citizens. That is going to the extreme for the sake of asking for a raise in the Pentagon's budget or for going to war in Afghanistan.

You're right, the US Government is like a fluffy bunny in it's approach to human rights, resources other people own etc.

You say you worked in Intelligence, yet don't believe that a few would be sacrificed for the good of the many? I suppose you have an American flag on your front lawn and salute it each morning while singing the national anthem.

You honestly think a couple of thousand people are worth more to a few people than trillions of dollars?

[skyeagle409]

You're right, the US Government is like a fluffy bunny in it's approach to human rights, resources other people own etc.

You say you worked in Intelligence, yet don't believe that a few would be sacrificed for the good of the many? I suppose you have an American flag on your front lawn and salute it each morning while singing the national anthem.

I have to make it very clear that I have never worked for any intelligence agency even though I have been briefed, debriefed, and interviewed by them from time to time. I am patriotic and fly the American flag, but I don't always agree with the government.

You honestly think a couple of thousand people are worth more to a few people than trillions of dollars?

I can't honestly say for sure, but I do know that such a plot using drones and explosives would take far more than just a few people, but why go that far to raise the budget of the Pentagon or for going to war? We could have gone to war when terrorist blew up the USS Cole and our embassies in Tarzania and Kenya. Did we bomb North Korea when it shot down our EC-121 or captured the USS Pueblo? What about Pan Am Flt 103?

USS Pueblo

EC-121

USS Cole

Tanzania and Kenya Embassy Bombings

Pan Am 103

Did the government have to go so far as to fly three airliners into buildings and another into the ground in order to force airline passengers to take off their shoes before boarding their flights?

[Q24]

Reality check time.

To sum it up; No bombs.

Not for the benefit of skyeagle, but for anyone else interested…

It is impossible to rule out use of explosives using the seismic readings.

The reason: -

A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/WTC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

It is seen there is no reason that explosions should necessarily register in the seismic data. The largest explosions would be occurring as the towers fell, during which time any readings from them would be concealed by the collapses themselves.

At best for the official theory, the seismic data shows “inconclusive” on the issue of explosives.

It is however notable that the readings do not match what might be expected of a progressive collapse described by the official theory. The fall of the upper block and destruction of the lower block produced readings in two distinct phases. This suggests not a continuous collapse but a change in the method of destruction - first a natural fall and then… increased activity.

Before anyone says it, I am not referring to the large spikes visible in the graph above - this is debris impacting the ground. I am referring to the building collapse readings prior to that seen in more detailed graphs.

[skyeagle409]

Not for the benefit of skyeagle, but for anyone else interested…

It is impossible to rule out use of explosives using the seismic readings.

The reason: -

A truck bomb at the WTC in 1993, in which approximately 0.5 tons of explosive were detonated, was not detected seismically, even at a station only 16 km away.

http://www.ldeo.colu...TC_LDEO_KIM.pdf

It is seen there is no reason that explosions should necessarily register in the seismic data. The largest explosions would be occurring as the towers fell, during which time any readings from them would be concealed by the collapses themselves.

At best for the official theory, the seismic data shows "inconclusive" on the issue of explosives.

It is however notable that the readings do not match what might be expected of a progressive collapse described by the official theory. The fall of the upper block and destruction of the lower block produced readings in two distinct phases. This suggests not a continuous collapse but a change in the method of destruction - first a natural fall and then… increased activity.

Before anyone says it, I am not referring to the large spikes visible in the graph above - this is debris impacting the ground. I am referring to the building collapse readings prior to that seen in more detailed graphs.

You have to understand that the vehicle where the detonation occurred in the 1993 WTC incident was not coupled to the ground unlike the WTC buildings. And despite the fact that explosives were used in the 1993 incident, the WTC building remained standing, so once again, no evidence of explosives was found in the 9/11 terrorist attacks after more than 10 years because the 9/11 conspiracist made it up.

Edited November 11, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Q24]

You have to understand that the vehicle where the detonation occurred in the 1993 WTC incident was not coupled to the ground unlike the WTC buildings. And despite the fact that explosives were used in the 1993 incident, the WTC building remained standing, so once again, no evidence of explosives was found in the 9/11 terrorist attacks after more than 10 years because the 9/11 conspiracist made it up.

I’m honestly impressed with that response, skyeagle. It actually addressed what I had said without diverting to another point. I’m kind of in shock right now. In fact, I need to go lay down

Ok I’m back.

The bomb used in the 1993 attack was not coupled to the ground but was underground. It was large, affecting three floors, damaging or destroying 200 cars, heavily damaging nine structural columns and destroying connections to lateral supporting steelwork. There is no reason that any single pre-collapse charge placed higher in the building and used in a demolition should exceed this and provide a seismic reading - especially if those charges were thermite based, relying more on melting than blasting through the steel.

Where larger explosive charges may have been required (to destroy foundation columns or large box columns in the core structure), evidence indicates that detonation occurred either at the moment of the aircraft impacts or during the collapses (the seismic reading of which, before debris hit the ground, was equivalent to the aircraft impacts). There is no reason explosions should be discernable in the seismic data during the time of these larger events.

It is not direct evidence of explosive charges, but it is not evidence against them either.

On another point, as you are very into physical evidence for cause of the collapses, could you let us know what physical evidence was used to corroborate extreme temperatures required by the official theory?

Actually don’t worry, you would be wasting your time…

NCSTAR1-3C: -

“From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”

That’s right - NIST found no conclusive physical evidence that fires weakened the structure to collapse.

[skyeagle409]

The bomb used in the 1993 attack was not coupled to the ground but was underground. It was large, affecting three floors, damaging or destroying 200 cars, heavily damaging nine structural columns and destroying connections to lateral supporting steelwork. There is no reason that any single pre-collapse charge placed higher in the building and used in a demolition should exceed this and provide a seismic reading - especially if those charges were thermite based, relying more on melting than blasting through the steel.

From the limited number of recovered structural steel elements, no conclusive evidence was found to indicate that pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure.”

That’s right - NIST found no conclusive physical evidence that fires weakened the structure to collapse.

You tend to visit the wrong sites.

WTC Towers 1 and 2

A test performed by the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center showed that conventional thermite was unable to melt a column much smaller than those used in the World Trade Center

The investigation cited as evidence the claim that no blast was audible on recordings of the collapse and that no blast was reported by witnesses, stating that it would have been audible at a level of 130-140 decibels at a distance of half a mile.

The structural engineering community rejects the controlled-demolition conspiracy theory. Its consensus is that the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings was a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse, an explanation that does not involve the use of explosives.^[

WTC 7

The report concluded that the building's collapse was due to the effects of the fires which burned for almost seven hours. The fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure, and extreme heat caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures throughout the buildings until the entire structure succumbed. Also cited as a factor was the collapse of the nearby towers, which broke the city water main, leaving the sprinkler system in the bottom half of the building without water.

Apparently, there seems to be a little bit of a problem with what you are posting the conflict with the facts.

That's right - NIST found no conclusive physical evidence that fires weakened the structure to collapse.

I think you had better read the report because it is apparent from your response that you failed to read the report.

NIST REPORT

GENESIS OF THIS INVESTIGATION

On August 21, 2002, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced its building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center (WTC) disaster.1 This WTC Investigation was then conducted under the authority of the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act, which was signed into law on October 1, 2002. A copy of the Public Law is included in AppendixA.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Objective 1: Determine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the initial impacts of the aircraft.

• The two aircraft hit the towers at high speed and did considerable damage to principal structural components (core columns, floors, and perimeter columns) that were directly impacted by the aircraft or associated debris. However, the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multi-floor fires. The robustness of the perimeter frame-tube system and the large size of the buildings helped the towers withstand the impact. The structural system redistributed loads from places of aircraft impact, avoiding larger scale damage upon impact. The hat truss, a feature atop each tower which was intended to support a television antenna, prevented earlier collapse of the building core. In each tower, a different combination of impact damage and heat-weakened structural components contributed to the abrupt structural collapse.
• In WTC 1, the fires weakened the core columns and caused the floors on the south side of the building to sag. The floors pulled the heated south perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the south wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by how long it took for the fires to weaken the building core and to reach the south side of the building and weaken the perimeter columns and floors.
• In WTC 2, the core was damaged severely at the southeast corner and was restrained by the east and south walls via the hat truss and the floors. The steady burning fires on the east side of the building caused the floors there to sag. The floors pulled the heated east perimeter columns inward, reducing their capacity to support the building above. Their neighboring columns quickly became overloaded as columns on the east wall buckled. The top section of the building tilted to the east and to the south and began its descent. The time from aircraft impact to collapse initiation was largely determined by the time for the fires to weaken the perimeter columns and floor assemblies on the east and the south sides of the building. WTC2 collapsed more quickly than WTC 1 because there was more aircraft damage to the building core, including one of the heavily loaded corner columns, and there were early and persistent fires on the east side of the building, where the aircraft had extensively dislodged insulation from the structural steel.
• The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.
• In the absence of structural and insulation damage, a conventional fire substantially similar to or less intense than the fires encountered on September 11, 2001, likely would not have led to the collapse of a WTC tower.
• NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view.
  

.

So once again, there were no explosives involved in the 9/11 attacks upon the WTC buildings and remember, the myth was made up by the 9/11 conspiracist.

Edited November 11, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Reality2011]

The word government, a general term, is usually used by people who dont understand or know really what happened when it comes to conspiracy.

Granted looking at the situation, an average person cannot say that it wasnt just a few dozen rogue men who set thermite, and took over the planes.

Perhaps if you do believe the government was involved, it would be best to identify the names of the individuals, and the specific agency in question.

I also suggest you post your name and address here on the off chance you are right, so the situation can be properly dealt with.

Muah hahahahahahahaahha ha