Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Persia

9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

764 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

skyeagle409

He credited Atta for the operation.

In other words, he did not credit George Bush nor the CIA for the 9/11 operation. Now, were are getting down to specifics because what have I said about those aircraft being hijacked by foreign terrorist that flew airliners into buildings and another into terra firma?

Atta, was just a pilot and one of the masterminds, and again, it is no secret that Bin Laden claimed responsibility. As I have said before, Bin Laden did not have to fly an aircraft into a building to be responsible. Another 9/11 plotter is now in prison and he had the honor to experience a form of waterboarding.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

It doesn't matter, since there was no way to properly prepare structrual support beams and plant explosives in the time frame in question.

what "time frame" are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

what "time frame" are you talking about?

The time frame from when the airliners were hijacked, to the time of impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Atta, was just a pilot and one of the masterminds…

Oh, now you are claiming there were multiple masterminds… Atta, KSM, bin Laden.

Can you let us know which area of the operation each of them planned?

And let us know how anyone can be sure Atta wasn't an intelligence agent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

The time frame from when the airliners were hijacked, to the time of impacts.

so you are still insisting that any thermite would have to have been planted on the morning of 911 rather than before the morning, even though Q24 has already gone over this with you. you are being cognitively deficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering

I cannot believe I wake up to this. I have to go to work but I think I may have to take Czeros advice here.... After seeing the way skyeagle blindly ignores any and all refutation of his 'evidence' in order to repeatedly post/say the same thing... I doubt anyone is going to get anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

I cannot believe I wake up to this. I have to go to work but I think I may have to take Czeros advice here.... After seeing the way skyeagle blindly ignores any and all refutation of his 'evidence' in order to repeatedly post/say the same thing... I doubt anyone is going to get anywhere.

Czeros, and I, have gone head-to-head before on another thread so what he is saying is nothing new to me, but the bottom line here is, the 9/11 conspiracy folks have yet to present any evidence to support their claims. In fact, they have yet to refute any claims I have presented. They are not knowledgeable on how buildings must be prepared before demolition can occur nor the physics behind thermite, which is why wrongly we see claims of the use of explosives in regards to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I provide hints on why explosives were not used and those hints have been ignored, hence I continue to provide other hints, which were ignored as well.

I have revealed a number of hints and clues and yet, they have failed to understand what has been presented to them because they are not knowledgeable on the issues at hand to make any judge calls and the fact that some continue to toe the line that explosives could have been used because of the presence of thermite or nano-thermite within the wreckage underlines my point, so I just sit here and add more hints and still, they fail to understand what has been presented.

The presence of thermite does not automatically indicate the presence of explosives and I have repeatedly gone into details as to why, but it seems there are those who are comfortable ignoring what I have been presenting. I give them every opportunity to find out for themselves why they are wrong, yet the ignore the right road and turn on a dead-end street.

We knew that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and much of how that information was obtained is classified, but I have provided another hint where a judge ruled against Al Qaeda, and yet,the 9/11 conspiracy folks failed to understand the significance of that ruling. Add to the fact that after more than 10 years, there's no evidence implicating the U.S. government nor evidence that explosives or drones were used. Those are not just hints, they are facts!!

Once again, the U.S. government would not have concocted a terrorist plot in regards to the 9/11 attacks. Such a plot could easily have been uncovered and subject many government employees and contractors to the death penalty and no doubt brought down the United States government and additionally, forever damage our relationship with the rest of the civilized world.

The 9/11 conspiracist didn't think of little things like, which would have dire effects for the whole country and remember, foreign nationals were also killed, so what would those countries think if it was determined hat the U.S. government initialted a terrorist attack that was responsible for their deaths?

To sum that up, the 9/11 conspiracist have yet to present any evidence to the contrary.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

so you are still insisting that any thermite would have to have been planted on the morning of 911 rather than before the morning, even though Q24 has already gone over this with you. you are being cognitively deficient.

I did have a breakthrough with skyeagle on that point… lasted 37 minutes… before he regressed.

This does rather support the claim of a cognitive deficit.

Czeros, and I, have gone head-to-head before on another thread so what he is saying is nothing new to me…

And is it telling you anything that we all agree with Czero regarding your approach to debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

They are not knowledgeable on how buildings must be prepared before demolition can occur..

You say they must prepare explosives to do it, then you contradict yourself by claiming the planes alone caused two (no, three!)total collapses, right?

So which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering

the bottom line here is, the 9/11 conspiracy folks have yet to present any evidence to support their claims. In fact, they have yet to refute any claims I have presented.

facepalm.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike 215

So it would take months to plant the necessary explosives to bring down those buildings. It is no accident the attacks took place in the 9th month of President Bush's term. They had plenty of time.

Concerning the collapse of Building 7, the 911 commission did not mention it in their report. So the rest is guess work. You say that debris from the towers set it on fire and that caused it to collapse. The only problem with that story is that there have been fires all over the world in tall buidlings and none have collapsed. Also, the owner of Buildig 7 is quoted as saying to the fire chief to "pull it down."

Concerning the hijackers. They could not have done what is claimed. IF you red the chapters of the 911 Commission Report on google conerning the hijackers you will see that they could not flown the planes in the manner that led to the attacks. Most of them were from rural ares of Saudi Arabia, had little education and knew little English. They kept failing flight schools tests and they were so stupid that even the small plane operators refused to allow them to practice flying. The comptent one was Atta and he had no experience flying jet airliners.

Yet we are told by the commission thatthey had to flying skills of the Blue Angels. Two of them fly hundreds of miles off course because the hijackers were able to reprogram the naviagtion computers, they were able to fly in formation right into the towers. Perfect hits that even experienced fighter pilots would envy. Many experienced pilots said that the plane which hit the Pentagon would have been a big probem for them. To fly so low and such a low speed right into the building is beyond their skills and experince.

Years after the report was issued members said that they got no cooperation from the FBI or the CIA in their investigation. The same happened with the Warren Commission which investigated the death of President Kennedy. The result is that both reports are totally useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

so you are still insisting that any thermite would have to have been planted on the morning of 911 rather than before the morning, even though Q24 has already gone over this with you. you are being cognitively deficient.

Were there any secondaries noted in the videos after the impacts? Of course not, which simply means that there were no planted explosives before the impacts, so, they had to take a look after the impacts, but then again, that created another problem and that is, no time to properly prepare the structural beams and place explosives. That's two strikes right there, and the third strike is that after all of these years no evidence of planted explosives has ever surfaced and that completes the inning, and the added bonus was the ruling against Al Qaeda as responsible for the 9/11 attacks and with those facts in hand, we can effectively rule out explosives as responsible for bringing down the WTC buildings..

I like to keep things very simple.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

facepalm.jpg

Well, let's take another look at all of this. Has any evidence surfaced over the years that implicated the U.S. government in the 9/11 terrorist attacks? If not, then that creates a problem for the 9/11 conspiracist. There was no 9/11 conspiracy to begin with and that is the message that I have been conveying all along.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

And is it telling you anything that we all agree with Czero regarding your approach to debate?

I like to keep things very simple. All too often, the opposition gets caught up in technical issues for which they do not understand and instead, parrot disinformation and misinformation from websites that are nortorious for spewing out junk and I have recorded many such examples as well.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Were there any secondaries noted in the videos after the impacts? Of course not

so you disagree with the firefighters that were actually there.

this should be simple enough for you:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

so you disagree with the firefighters that were actually there.

Yes, skyeagle disagrees with the FDNY…

  • News reporter, Pat Dawson, “Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off, there was another explosion which took place, according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”

And the NYPD…

  • Police officer, “There were numerous secondary explosions taking place in that building, there were continuous explosions.”

And many other eyewitnesses and reporters…

  • Eyewitness evacuating from 47th floor, “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion.. and another.. I didn't know where to run.”
  • News reporter, “We’re obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location because we just heard one more explosion… do you know anything about those extra explosions we heard? Were they car bombs?”

In fact, it appears skyeagle disagrees with everyone on scene…

:huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering

Yes, skyeagle disagrees with the FDNY…

  • News reporter, Pat Dawson, “Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off, there was another explosion which took place, according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.”

And the NYPD…

  • Police officer, “There were numerous secondary explosions taking place in that building, there were continuous explosions.”

And many other eyewitnesses and reporters…

  • Eyewitness evacuating from 47th floor, “There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion.. and another.. I didn't know where to run.”
  • News reporter, “We’re obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location because we just heard one more explosion… do you know anything about those extra explosions we heard? Were they car bombs?”

In fact, it appears skyeagle disagrees with everyone on scene…

:huh:

No, no we and everyone else are all wrong!!!! Skyeagle knows exactly what went down there!! :rofl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

so you disagree with the firefighters that were actually there.

this should be simple enough for you:

Yes I disagree with them, and for a very good reason. Did you see the program on the H2 channel today(11/05/2011)?

It was determined that the firefighters did not hear secondary explosions after all, but what they heard were the effects of the collapses which sounded like explosions, but were not explosions at all. Also covered in the program is what I have brought up before, and that is, the explosive expulsion effects of internal air as the floors pancaked upon one another during the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. I have repeatedly brought that out and mentioned that the effect was like blowing up a paper bag and then piping the bag with your hand, which will produce a loud noise like a small explosion, and you can see the effects on video. I hope the program is shown again.

American 77

In addition, further evidence was revealed, which included ATC communication tapes and an interview with a C-130 pilot who flew near the Pentagon as American 77 struck. American 77 flew by his aircraft and it was revealed that hundreds of witnesses saw American 77 strike the Pentagon. ATC had American 77 on radar as it flew past the C-130, which some 9/11 conspiracies thought had launched a missile toward the Pentagon. The C-130 was from the Minnesota National Guard and was not equipped to fire missiles, it was confirmed that the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was American 77, B-757 and its flight path was tracked as it struck the Pentagon, and now, a video has been released that shows American 77 trailing smoke from its right engine, which was damaged from FOD just before it struck the Pentagon.

WTC 7

During the program, it was proven that no explosive device took down the building and that the fire was fed from fuel lines and diesel tanks located at the bottom of the building, which incidentally, was the focus of a lawsuit because the tanks were feeding the fire that led to the collapse of WTC 7 after the building was struck by remains of another WTC building.The lower truss supports on the lower portion of WTC 7 were eventually weakened enough by heat and could no longer support the upper section of the building, and when the truss support failed, the building collapsed upon itself. It was revealed that no evidence of explosives were found, nor caps, or detonation cables. A focus was made on the diesel tanks and the truss supports on the lower section of WTC 7.

WTC 1 and WTC 2

The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were examined and it was determined that the buildings collapsed due to structural failure of the support beams when the beams lost half of their supporting potential due to heat. The support beams were also damaged during the impacts, which further eroded the ability of the beams to support the upper floors. No explosives were found within the wreckage. To further add, it was revealed by experts that it would have taken months to properly plan, prepare, and place explosives in order to bring down the buildings and no evidence of explosives were found in either building.

United 175

Some 9/11 conspiracist, including a commercial pilot, have claimed that United 175 carried a special pod beneath the fuselage. The pod as I have said before is standard equipment which houses the main landing gears and form an aerodynamic fairing around the inner wing/fuselage area.

United 93

9/11 conspiracist have claimed that cell phone calls could not have been made from that aircraft. The program had shown that not only were cell phone calls made from United 93, but that cell phones could be used airboard aircraft below 40,000 feet. In addition, communication tapes were released and you can hear the commotion in the background as the passengers attempted to overtake the hijackers before the aircraft crashed in a field. A photograph was taken within seconds after United 93 crashed by a woman who lived nearby, and amazingly, the 9/11 conspiracist claimed that the photo was hoaxed and that the smoke was from another fire. I have seen aircraft fires firsthand and the smoke plume was definitely that of an aircraft that had just struck the ground in the area where United 93 crashed.

American 11

ATC communication tapes were revealed and you can hear Atta's voice on tape shortly after the hijackers took control of the aircraft.

Radar tracking

It was shown that despite the change of codes on the transponders, the aircraft could still be tracked by radar although it was difficult to do so. I have brought up that fact before because I have used radar following and ATC have identified targets that were not transmitting 1200 nor any assigned codes yet they were able to notify me several times of aircraft in the area that were not using transponders.

There was much more and the program confirmed what I have been telling you, and others in regards to the 9/11 attacks. When the 9/11 conspiracist folks at 'Loose Change' were shown the facts, they decided to make some adjustments to their claims. Now, that would anger many of those who have lost members of their family and friends in the attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

No, no we and everyone else are all wrong!!!! Skyeagle knows exactly what went down there!! :rofl:

Of course they were wrong and I was right all along. They didn't hear secondary explosions and it was shown on the program that what they were hearing were the sound effects as the buildings collapsed. Gee whiz, how many times have I asserted that no explosives were found within the wreckages? disgust.gif

In addition, it was shown that there was no way that anyone could have properly prepared and planted enough explosives over a period of months in either of the WTC buildings and not go unnoticed. The program made it very clear from recovered evidence that there were no explosives involved in the 9/11 attacks on WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7, but what have I been saying all along? disgust.gif

Seems to me that there are those who should have listen to me in the first place. I hope the program is repeated soon, because there are those who seriously need to learn something in regards to documented facts concerning the 9/11 attacks. :w00t:

To pass out the hint once again;

After more than 10 years, no evidence has surfaced that implicated the U.S. government in the planning and oeration of the 9/11 attacks.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wandering

To pass out the hint[/u][/i][/b] [/size]once again;

After more than 10 years, no evidence has surfaced that implicated the U.S. government in the planning and oeration of the 9/11 attacks.

And the investigations into them having a part number.....0!!!

:lol:

oh skyeagle....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

Yes, skyeagle disagrees with the FDNY…

  • News reporter, Pat Dawson, "Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department, he received word of a possibility of a secondary device; that is another bomb going off, there was another explosion which took place, according to his theory he thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building."

And the NYPD…

  • Police officer, "There were numerous secondary explosions taking place in that building, there were continuous explosions."

And many other eyewitnesses and reporters…

  • Eyewitness evacuating from 47th floor, "There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. There was another explosion.. and another.. I didn't know where to run."
  • News reporter, "We're obviously having a bit of trouble right now maintaining our location because we just heard one more explosion… do you know anything about those extra explosions we heard? Were they car bombs?"

In fact, it appears skyeagle disagrees with everyone on scene…

:huh:

Yepper, I do disagree, and rightfully so. I think you needed to watch that H2 channel program. It was shown and proven beyond any doubt, that they did NOT hear any secondary explosions, but what they heard were the sound effects as the buildings collapsed. Investigators also determined that there were no explosives involved in the destruction of WTC 1, WTC 2, nor WTC 7, and in fact, there was a lawsuit filed in regards to the diesel tanks at the base of WTC 7, but the suit was thrown out. It was also shown that WTC 7 collapsed because of the failure of one of the supporting truss structure at the base of WTC 7 due to heat, not from explosives and the truss failure is what caused WTC 7 to collapse upon itself.

So I will reiterate once again, no explosives of any kind were responsible for the destruction of the WTC buildings and why, after more than ten years, no evidence has ever surfaced that explosives were planted nor used. There was no evidence in any of the videos that pointed to any explosive devices withn the buildings and I have seen many explosions during wartime conditions and yet, I saw no evidence of secondary explosions in any of the videos.

Did you know that after the program was aired and documentation and data reviewed, that some of those 9/11 conspiracist on the program backed off their claims? Now, some have revised their claims, which simply means they have no clue what they are talking about.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

And the investigations into them having a part number.....0!!!

:lol:

oh skyeagle....

The facts proved me correct on all counts and as a result of the ATC communication tapes, data, and other evidence revealed on the program, some of those 9/11 conspiracist who were interviewed and saw the evidence have begun to make adjustments to their claims. In fact, the 9/11 conspiracist claimed that a C-130 fired a missile at the Pentagon, yet the pilot of that C-130 saw American 77 fly past his aircraft toward the Pentagon as ATC tracked both aircraft. The C-130 was an ordinary cargo plane and not fitted to carry missiles. The aircraft belonged to the Minnesoto Air National Guard.

110227-F-3188G-112.jpg

Let that be a lesson to them, and other 9/11 conspiracist. As a result of what was revealed, the 9/11 conspiracy folks bit the bullet on the way down to bitting the dust.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turbonium

WTC 7

During the program, it was proven that no explosive device took down the building and that the fire was fed from fuel lines and diesel tanks located at the bottom of the building, which incidentally, was the focus of a lawsuit because the tanks were feeding the fire that led to the collapse of WTC 7 after the building was struck by remains of another WTC building.The lower truss supports on the lower portion of WTC 7 were eventually weakened enough by heat and could no longer support the upper section of the building, and when the truss support failed, the building collapsed upon itself. It was revealed that no evidence of explosives were found, nor caps, or detonation cables. A focus was made on the diesel tanks and the truss supports on the lower section of WTC 7.

WTC 1 and WTC 2

The collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 were examined and it was determined that the buildings collapsed due to structural failure of the support beams when the beams lost half of their supporting potential due to heat. The support beams were also damaged during the impacts, which further eroded the ability of the beams to support the upper floors. No explosives were found within the wreckage. To further add, it was revealed by experts that it would have taken months to properly plan, prepare, and place explosives in order to bring down the buildings and no evidence of explosives were found in either building.

Here we go again...

"..the buildings collapsed due to structural failure of the support beams when the beams lost half of their supporting potential due to heat. The support beams were also damaged during the impacts, which further eroded the ability of the beams to support the upper floors.."

WTC 1 had seven floors (93 to 99) damaged and/or exposed to fire, while WTC 2 had nine floors (77 to 85) They were structurally intact above and below those floors.

The towers were demolished, and you claim no explosives were used whatsoever.

Then you say...

"..it would have taken months to properly plan, prepare, and place explosives in order to bring down the buildings.."

Why would they go to all that trouble? You just told me that a few floors of random damage and fires will suffice!! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Little Fish

Yes I disagree with them,

you said it doesn't matter that engineered unreacted nanothermite was found at the wtc. the reason you gave for asserting that it doesn't matter that engineered unreacted nanothermite was discovered in the dust was that there were no reports of secondary explosions, a non-sequitur in of itself, but you have now been shown a whole list of reports of secondary explosions, so your reason for ignoring the evidence of engineered unreacted nanothermite has now been shown to be misplaced. unreacted explosive material was found, explosions were heard and reported. "people don't understand, this ain't over, anyone of these buildings could blow up". you are letting your belief drive your thinking, rather than your thinking drive your belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott G

you are letting your belief drive your thinking, rather than your thinking drive your belief.

I think that that's the essence of skyeagle's reasoning, yeah. Start with the conclusion (it wasn't an inside job), then work your way backwards from that.

Pretty good video, though I think would have been better without the last comment from the woman; I know intelligent people who believe in the official story; I think the main reason they believe this is that, like skyeagle, they worked on the problem in reverse; starting with the conclusion and working backwards instead of starting with observations and seeing where they lead.

Edited by Scott G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.