911 was a complete inside job-No Question About it-Evidence Here...

[Scud]

Just look at WTC7.

There's all the proof you need to know it was an inside Job.

[seabhcan]

Steven Jones' discovery of sulphate inside hardened iron droplets (micro spheres) is definite physical evidence.

These droplets are spherical - so they solidified in freefall. They contain chemical traces of thermate - a substance only used in demolition. It has no other possible function and there is no other explanation for these chemicals to be in the iron.

[seabhcan]

Another point is the work of the Madcow News people who have been investigating the owners of the Venice Flying club where the hijackers trained. The Venice flying club guys are CIA, and do a sideline in flying mercenaries to Haiti and importing cocaine

[OneShotKi11]

I just researched Sulphate and it can be found almost anywhere. So i think that holding that as proof positive of a controlled demolition is kind of silly. I am still up in the air as to the events that happened on 9/11. I first believed the official story i then believed the LooseChange version,but i am now somewhere in the middle of both now. Well while on the topic of Sulphate the most  notably source of it would be what i found here....

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/air_travel.asp

"When jet fuel is burned, the carbon in the fuel is released and bonds with oxygen (O2) in the air to form carbon dioxide (CO2). Burning jet fuel also releases water vapour, nitrous oxides, sulphate, and soot. Aircraft emissions trigger the formation of contrails (condensation trails), and contribute to the formation of cirrus clouds."

[seabhcan]

OneShot - Yes - sulpher is common in the atmosphere - but not in steel - because it would significantly reduce the strength of that steel.

Thermate works - in part - by implanting sulpher into steel to reduce its strength.

ordinary fires could not have melted the steel (as the 9/11 CR agrees), yet these microspheres exist and were produced by some melting process. Where did they come from?

Eddy155 - The microspheres research is unpublished at the moment (in peer review, I believe) but Steven Jones sent me an advance copy. I'm not sure I should pass it on, but why don't you contact him directly and ask to see the paper?

[jbrid1138]

Okay EDDY155 -- Let's say I am wrong about you, that I misjudged you only because you state (wrote) 'no evidence' // I would hope you might step back if for only a moment and look at your statement -- How can anyone not interpret what you said as someone other than a debunker.  An intelligent one, not saying that, your approach with saying you used to believe (back then) and then saying what you did shows me (and others) that you may very well be telling it as you believe it BUT forum friend it sounds to me like you slipped back to sleep. 

There is no one, let me repeat that -- no one -- that can come to understand the questionable happenings (not getting hung up on one or two things, but everything, and there is much) and later say but that was then.  If you're truly awake then you see, and nothing can change that reality.

Of course people can slip back to sleep // we do it everyday, and quite naturally.  But saying alseep is only a word when it comes to seeing 9/11 in the ugly light that surrounds it.  Those of us that do fall back asleep, naturally, at the end of day, do so usually with nightmares of the reality we know awaits when we're up and typing again. 

Say what you will but you're not fully awake to 9/11.  And not one of us is here to shake you and disturb your sound sleep, believe me.  Waking is an individual thing and no one else can ever convince us -- that is a road we must take all by ourself. 

Go read David Ray Griffin and maybe he might be of some help to you.  Not forcing you now am I -- just gently urgining you to seek out Mr. Griffin's intelligence on the subject.  He makes a nice convincing logical argument that might serve to assist you.  And I say assist because I hate to see anyone alseep.  Some snore louder than others, but alseep is alseep when it comes to 9/11.

[bigron]

My Friend
You must be joking !
You have not researched the matter at all........
It would take you months to cover all the evidence allready on the web
proving it was an inside job.......looking a wtc 7 is enough to convince anyone........of course the insiders are not publishing what they have done....so dont expect their help.....
Please do your homework and come back jpoining us who know it definitely was an inside job..........if you decide not to research go back to popular mechanics and enjpy their version for ever

[OneShotKi11]

First i would like to say this....

So what if he is a debunker! I dont mind them as long as they come here in an intelligent matter and are actually trying to see some proof. I like to here there claims and see what comes up when heads collide. As for eddy's continually asking for evidence, that argument is old. It is a tiresome boring get nowhere argument! Instead of asking for evidence constantly while dont you sit done take a piece of evidence and examine it together as two groups looking for answers. Even if it is in search for an answer that suits your beliefs atleast you guys would be giving each other the proper time of day.

An example would be this Sulphate topic we are on that i am trying to discuss. Truthers say its tell tale signs of a CD, while debunkers say thats not evidence. Rather why dont both sides sit down and say, ok lets figure out all possibilities on how this might have gotten to where it has been discovered and come to a reasonable decision. Even if in the end you disagree atleast it was done in a fair educational manner.

Please stop acting like these DEBUNKERS are a form of poison to the community. I think the people here reading are smart enough to judge for themselves. Like i said as long as they come here as well mannered as Eddy originally did i see no need for such harsh reactions. Although i do see Eddy's argument starting to head in the direction of a normal annoying Debunker. Please Eddy show me evidence of what you believe happened.

Now as for what i was discussing seabhcan....

Could the Sulphate that is created by Jet Fuel been able in the WTC crash explosions fuse to broken steel particles. Now please dont come back at me with just a NO its not hot enough or a NO its impossible. Im not stating your wrong in your assumption, i just want to know that for a fact the crashes explosions themselves could not have fused these small particles together in and of themselves! I must do more reading on the topic!!!!

[jbrid1138]

(quote)
I've watched David Ray Griffin speeches. He is an interesting and genuine speaker, but that is not good enough.
EDDY155
______________
You're telling on yourself, forum friend.  And by the other things you said as well.

Don't take offense at me pointing out your snores // You're doing quite fine in that regard all by yourself.

Watched a few video tapes have you // Why not step that up a bit and perhaps go in search of a printed book by the man.  Now don't try and turn that into anything like me trying to help the man financially, for I am not, just interested in HELPING HIM get his logical, well-thought out intelligence to as many people as possible -- you included.  

You find him interesting is nice, I suppose -- I find him to be a window to the truth.

Like for example:  His identification (not that it wasn't seen by all of us, it was, but he put it into logical organized focus) -- his identification of eleven elements that indicate a true controlled demolition took place at the World Trade Center.  Eleven is quite an impressive number if one allows oneself to absorb that fact // and his detailed manner of describing each of the eleven elements that indicate the same can not be so easily dismissed.  On one hand there is the school of thought that NO controlled demoltion took place (the official version of the story) while on the other hand there are those 11 essential elements that say there was.  David Griffin goes on to cap that with five (5) more reasons to see this as a demolition, again going into his well-thought out easy to understand manner of presenting facts.  Taken together that is 16 elements that strongly suggest the official story version is a load of crap.  16 elements saying it was compared to 1 stand that it wasn't.  Go figure.

And some will say 16 elements isn't sufficient.

Only the truly guilty in 'pulling' off 9/11 know the intricate details of their crime.  The same crime they tried but failed to hide from the world.  

Groucho Marx said it best when he said:
-- Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
(or perhaps this one)
-- There's one way to find out if a man is honest - ask him. If he says, "Yes," you know he is a crook.

To which I can only say to those slill asleep, please don't snore so loud, some of us are trying to do serious research on this subject because we understand how important the same is to our own survival and the survival of the nation.  Not to mention an honest and unbiased search for TRUTH for those that lost their life the day of 9/11 and for the loved ones they left behind.  Not to mention the heroes that willingly game their life and/or health in a brave attempt to recover survivors and then turning that into a grim reality of searching for the dead.  Not to mention one hell of a lot that understanding the truth presents when coming to grips with 9/11 being an inside job.

[jbrid1138]

To EDDY155 --

Asleep.  You're talking in your sleep.  Wake up, please -- for your own sake.  Either way it doesn't affect me directly, but I hate to see people say they used to be awake but see things a bit differently now.  Don't you understand -- you're asleep (still) and talking // and that's annoying.  Roll over, do something, other than ask any of us to show you the evidence.  If you had your eyes open at all (and I honestly don't believe you ever have) then you'd be on the road to searching out the truth from the lies yourself // no one would have to show you anything.  Am I right, folks?  Sure, I'm right.

The person's asleep and thinks they're awake.  Wild.   

I mean for God's sake -- You're quoting NIST as an authority.  Wake up!   

[seabhcan]

Eddy - I don't pretend to know what happened. And I think you're right that there is no proof, but there is a lot of evidence. On the balance of probabilities it seems highly unlikely, for hundreds of reasons, that it was simply a cover up of incompetence.

There is mountains of evidence of cover up and of criminal tampering with physical evidence. There are countless inconsistencies in the official theory. Everything from the lack of response to the hijackings to the numerous slow clocks in the pentagon.

Explain this, in terms of the 9/11 Commission report:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/september11/collection/record.asp?ID=19

Context: When terrorists flew American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, the crash nearly took the nearby Pentagon helipad firehouse with it. The concussion caused the ceiling of the firehouse to collapse, temporarily trapping firefighter Dennis Young in the fallen debris. The blast also knocked this clock from the wall, freezing it at 9:32. The airplane actually struck the Pentagon at 9:38 am; apparently the clock was six minutes slow.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1546876.stm

A clock in the Pentagon - stopped at 0931

These are different clocks, from different parts of the building. Is it reasonable to assume that both clocks were independently set to the same wrong time? Or, is it more likely that the plane hit 6 minutes earlier than the official story. If it did, something is wrong, because the hijacked plane wasn't there at that time.

[DIG_THE_HEAVY]

You haven't made one interesting or reasoned comment. I am anti NWO. Here look at my weblog.
thecountercharge.blogspot.com/

Get off my back with that will you.

Just observe and study the collapse of building 7.....Replay it a few times and just watch your common sense kick in. You sound smart so I know you will get this....Be patient, watch and think. Heres the short clip and remember if you do come to the conclusion building 7 was a controlled demolition, know that it takes several weeks to set up a building to come down in ballet fashion as 7 did.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1050167767997322802&q=collapse+building+7&total=548&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[jbrid1138]

(quote)
Jbris stop filling up my thread with your bullshit please.
EDDY155
_______________
Well, okay, since you said 'please' // I'll ignore the piece it was attached to.

You want some concrete proof (which is impossible, considering) how about some seriously strong questioning arguments such as this, then:

Our VP and his most obvious Stand Down Order --
 http://911exposed.org/Stand%20Down.htm
(video reference)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y

Or perhaps this, then:
 
Our President sitting reading (pet goat story with children) while 'Rome Burned' and his elite and in every way 'special' Secret Service stood watching --
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11secretservice.html
(vidceo reference)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ro3o-ld0CWw

Just those two THINGS to consider, up front.  How's that for bullsh*t?

[sneexe21]

HOLY FREAKIN CRAP!!!

ok, first off if they had a new investigation it would be even worse than the last one.  Second, Not that FEMA is all that credible (at least to me) but they weren't even aloud into ground zero.  Third,  If you were a president that cared about your people (not an illiterate crazy religious guy) i should think that you would have wanted to have the area search for more evidence.  Fourth,  I think that the FDNY is exeptionally credible considering they were there!  And they have reported all sorts of reasons why bombs could have been used (don't you think a fire fighter in one of the biggest cities in the world would know what he is talking about?) anyway if anything i gave ya some food for thought...

[seabhcan]

What are we arguing about here?

Eddy155 accepts that there is evidence, but that it isn't enough. Enough for what?

[jbrid1138]

(snip) not proof of anything.
EDDY155
_______________
Well, there you have it, yes it is too -- proof that you're not tuned in fully.  You may very well have started this string but forum friend this is an open forum and you need to be reminded that there is lots of proof, but not anyone willing to properly evaluate and do something with that proof.  The same proof you want, of course, as do the rest of us.  You're not alone in your search for the truth, it just appears that you've chosen to follow the official story version of events which would surely call into question these two excellent (tooting my own horn, I realize) examples.

So Mineta's testimony is  (what did you call it again?) -- oh yeah -- ambiguous and needs clarification.  That must be WHY the 9/11 Commission decided not to use it or make any reference to it in their most thorough investigation of the facts as they wanted them presented.  All that ambiguous testimony about an airplane (??) being 50 miles, out, 30 miles out, etc -- that's ambiguous, you say.  What's is not ambiguous after all you've said in your awake state is your stated easy dismissal of the same.  Read the material provided you in the link.  Learn and open your mind to the real truth.

You might question why no one has been identified 'proof positively' involved from the inside as regards 9/11; is that why you've taken the stand that you used to believe but you don't any longer?  Maybe this is why no one has been positively associated and punished accordingly:

Stanley Hilton Lawsuit --
(first this --)
http://911review.org/Wiki/StanleyHiltonLawsuit.shtml
***extract***
Stanley G. Hilton has filed a class action lawsuit in Federal court in Northern california against high officials in the current Bush administration (including the federal government, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Mueller, Tenet, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft), for complicity in aiding and abetting and facilitating the Sep. 11, 2001 attacks.

(but then this happened --)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hilton
***extract***
The case was thrown out of federal court over two years later, the judge ruling that US citizens do not have any right to sue a sitting President, based on the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity.

And you so easily dismiss Bush sitting and reading calling it 'weird and suspicious' but seem to ignore the Secret Service who allow such weird and suspicious behavior.  That's magnifying the denial isn't it (?) -- excusing away their (the SS) behavior, or lack of it by not rushing their charge away to a safe(r) place, away from a location they had validated beforehand but beforehand was before knowing about 9/11 and the attack then unfolding, away from a location that had been well-announced in the days prior, removing their man from a possible developing 'bad situation' considering who their charge was (is) and the many innocents that were also in possible (?) harm's way and/or possible (?) direct harm coming from the crowd that remained surrounding their charge.  How about that?  How about all the other things that followed?  How about our President even later stating he 'saw' the first attack take place, saying this on two separate occasions and yet making his point very clear // i.e., How could he possibly have?

 http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/liar.htm
(and video reference)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

[seabhcan]

[snip] This idea that the 911 Commission was rotten, I don’t buy it.

The 9/11 Commission's executive director was Philip D. Zelikow:

Zelikow joined the National Security Council in the George Herbert Walker Bush administration, at the same time as Condoleezza Rice. Zelikow left the NSC in 1991 and went to Harvard, where from 1991 to 1998, he was Associate Professor of Public Policy and co-director of Harvard’s Intelligence and Policy Program.

Philip Zelikow has co-authored many books. He wrote a book with Ernest May on The Kennedy Tapes, and another with Joseph Nye and David C. King on Why People Don’t Trust Government. He wrote Germany Unified and Europe Transformed with Condoleezza Rice.

He was an insider.

You should also read what the victims family groups had to say about Zelikow, and watch 9/11 Press For Truth.

On Thomas Kean: (Chairman)

While leading Drew University, Kean also continued to expand his role as a national political leader, forging close working relationships with the administrations of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (with whom he had worked closely in the National Governors Association) and George W. Bush, who saw Kean as an important national political ally.

On Lee H. Hamilton: (vice-Chairman)

As chair of the Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran, Hamilton chose not to investigate President Ronald Reagan or President George H. W. Bush, stating that he did not think it would be "good for the country" to put the public through another impeachment trial.

On Fred F. Fielding :

He served as Associate Counsel for President Richard Nixon from 1970 to 1972, where he was the deputy to John Dean during the Watergate scandal. He was the Counsel to the President for President Ronald Reagan from 1981 to 1986.

[Sonja]

 Listen Eddy,
I see through you. You are just an aggravation. You would not accept ANY Evidence if it was right in front of your face, and there is plenty of evidence, but no 'PROOF' per say. People like you are just  purposely ignorant of the fact that putting together the 'pieces' of the puzzle is what critical thinking means and how one comes to logical conclusions. It is not up to anyone here to prove anything to you, because there are millions of pieces of information to view which can take years- so go do the research man!
Its not up to anyone to spoon feed you (since you became an adult), especially when it is obvious you dont really want to accept any part of what you are being told.

[jbrid1138]

To EDDY155 --

You're right about that spelling (damn typos) // it happens to the best of us.  I wonder if there are any spelling errors in the Bible?  Just a wild thought, not really seeking an answer for that.

A special thanks to SEABHCAN --you beat me to it, that Zelikow reference.  I'm looking at page xiii of my copy of The 9/11 Commission Report and I see his name listed at the top of the list there as 'Executive Director' // Now imagine that folks.  A 'biased' 567 page report.  What will they think of next?  Don't need to answer that either.

 ** Edited to add:
Bush Opposes 9/11 Query Panel
May 23, 2002
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
(CBS News) President Bush took a few minutes during his trip to Europe Thursday to voice his opposition to establishing a special commission to probe how the government dealt with terror warnings before Sept. 11.
_______________
Bush initially denied any Commission looking into 9/11 --  Now that's super-duper important, folks.

[seabhcan]

The 9/11 report is garbage. The whole of chapter 2 tries to explain Muslim anger against the US as being down to those silly muslims expecting free health care and education, and just irrationally blaming America because they're too lazy and poor to get it.

Seriously - I read the whole damn thing - and the circular arguments in the NIST report. Garbage.

[jbrid1138]

Some of you out there might not agree with Congressman Kucinich and him running for position as our next President, but take a quick look and see what he has to say about our government allowing 9/11 (and other matters) to happen.  Now why would they do that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUD4MG7kw44

And here's something else too, when the 9/11 Commission finally did get its start, yes by no stretch of the imagination was it then under-funded by Bush but it was also proposed that Mr. Henry Kissinger be in charge // that was quickly jumped on by interested parties as being the WRONG thing to do:

http://www.onlinejournal.org/Special_Reports/062904Chin/062904chin.html
(and video reference)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcxjJDlbnC4
_______________
** Edited to add:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11_Commission
***extract***
Claims that the investigation lacked adequate funds
". . .Whereas the investigation of the Challenger disaster received $50 million, Bush promised only $3 million for the investigation of the much more deadly and complex disaster of 9/11. He then initially resisted when the commission asked for an additional $8 million."

from David Ray Griffin's The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. p.284

[The Decadent Traveller]

The problem with peer-reviewing is that the scientists who do the reviewing are funded by the US government and tend not to bite the hand that feeds them.

This is why a lot of scientists funded by the government have said we have a man made global warming problem and a lot of scientists, equally qualified, who aren't funded by the US government are saying the complete opposite.

[jbrid1138]

(snip) A new investigation should be set up, but given unlimited time and money (within reason). Taking the last investigation as a starting point it could see what is in doubt in the last report, or what has not yet been adressed. They could also learn leesons from the last Commission about how to get access to information more quickly and easily which was one of the problems.

These are my conclusions on the '911 Truth' subject, what are yours?
EDDY155
_______________
I hate to bring typos (see above) to your attention (yet you did seem to later state the same invalidated any further reliability test).  Sorry for doing this.  But we all make mistakes, you and me. 

Just as those folks that did (PULLED) 9/11 and then have tried their best to cover it up. 

My conclusion (since you asked) is that 9/11 was an inside job.  And that nothing has been done by this government to properly address and fix that matter like it rightfully should be.

I will not make excuses for any of them that are in reality traitors to our United States of America and to our Constitution.  Until such time as they start making sense, I choose not to believe anything they say. 

**edited to add: 
typo / I did it again.     

[jbrid1138]

did I miss something?
_______________
Duh -- Yes you missed something.  Apparently ALL of the evidence I've been sending your way --  getting hung up on a little typo seems a common enough happening in these forums.  My suggestion is look beyond the finger slip and think of the concept being relayed the best it can.  Sometimes a lot is lost in the written word, I know that, and reason I provided  video related links for your (and others) education.

Your comments regarding a new investigation are pretty much agreed with (by me and many others, I might add) however your claim to have been once awake but are no more worried me a bit.  Confused me.  I took it to be a bit of psyops on your part as a means of gaining a lever in the discussion // it just doesn't work however falling  back on something that lame.  Perhaps you are a well-intentioned poster and I should leave it at that.  Think I will.  You have a nice day.  Take the time and review those links, I provided -- they're important to understanding the inner workings of why we're where we are today.  

typo

[Biggs]

@Eddy155

The NIST report you quote is full of holes and can be picked apart quite easily. For starters, the simulations they ran initially did not lead to any collapse of he towers, so what they did was simply change their parameters used, such as energy in, structural strength and so on. Once they had done this FIVE TIMES they found that in their simulations now the towers collapsed.

So they took what they knew to be the case from the buildings architects and observed impacts etc and then had to keep amending it until the planes and fires brought down the towers. In other words from what they knew about amount of fuel, burning temperature of fuel, office furniture, the strength of the steel DID NOT CAUSE COLLAPSE, so they simply amended these data points until they found the towers had collapsed.

Further, they did not AT ALL look into how the towers fell all into their own footprints and why they did so at 1.1 times freefall (gravity = g). They ended their model at the point of collapse and did not both to run the simulation through the actual process of collapse, even though it was the first 3 times in history that steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire or impacts.

Add this to the neocons Zelikow being put in charge of the 9-11 Commission (despite family protests), the steel shipped away, the clear traces of thermite found, the pools of molten steel found in the basement (jet fuel fires cannot melt steel at all , and certainly does not leave molten pools still burning a month later), add the numerous witnesses speaking of explosions, the debris thrown hundreds of feet laterally and even vertically, add the steel all shipped off the China, the steel beams observed with classic thermite 'cuts' diagonally across the beams, the FACT that a pancake collapse would be far slower than what did occur, the many squibs coming out of the building (as occurs in controlled demolition).


Next you can add the standdown orders given by Cheney, all the exercises that day some of which played out the exact same scenario as allegedly occurred (planes attacks on WTC and Pentagon) and all of these creating hundreds of false blips of radar screens which confused military operators who coudl perhaps have caused the planes to be shot down.

Add in Silverstein taking out terrorism insurance a month beforehand (not bad way to make $7billion if you have no soul), the warnings issued that morning and the previous evening to various people, the missing gold bullion, the WTC 7 collapse despite suffering no damage (whereas WTC 5 and 6 were spanked by the collapsing towers and never came close to collapse themselves despite being gutted and having thousands of tons of rubble hit them at more than 100mph.

This is just a preliminary list.

Come on, how can you think it all occurred the way it was stated by the government and NIST?

(oh I forget that a Bush family member owns the firm that ran the security operation in WTC before the attacks, and FEMA were in place because they were running a drill of a major WTC attack due to start on Tuesday but the real attacks happened before their drill so they were all on hand)

I mean these guys made all the first responders go into the area without protection and forced EPA to announce the air was safe (even though tests on the ground showed otherwise), now it is estimated that 50,000 yes thats right FIFTY THOUSAND are sick, mull that number in your mind FIFTY THOUSAND, many of whom are dying of strange cancers.

Come on Ed, what more do you want?

Everything above can be backed up with LOADS and LOADS of evidence, I am not going to here because I do not have the time, but really pal please do some research.

Start by Googling
Loose Change 9-11
9-11 in Plane Site
9-11 Octopus
9-11 The Ultimate Con
when you have watched these come back and we will recommend 4 more films to watch, there are lots - all packed full of evidence.

[jbrid1138]

Let's see now:

Cheney (and another -- a young man) both display knowledge of an incoming airplane and somekind (?) of plan (orders) as how to deal with that airplane.  There's plenty of time to react, after all we are told (by Minetta) that the man makes three entrances as in 50 miles out, 30 miles out, 10 miles out -- do the orders still stand?  But as we all know today looking back -- whatever those orders were that were to remain standing // nothing happened // nothing -- other than an airplane not being shot down as it entered a 'no fly zone' airspace in or near the Pentagon, a rather imposing looking building, one housing the heart of our military leadership, one sitting right smack in the center of our nation's capital.  Nothing happened after all that announcement about an airplane.  And so as not to confuse issue here, Mr. Norman Minetta clearly is asked (by the 9/11 Commision months later) and states that the airplane in discussion then was the airplane in-bound towards the eventual target, i.e., the Pentagon.  The later flight, Flight 93, was not yet on the radar screen, if you'll pardon the pun here.

And by the way, as obviously important as this point is about an in-bound airplane // It's not found 'fit' to be included in the final 9/11 report.  Huh?

Back to what I was saying, we know Flight 93 was on the screen; many minutes had passed by the time that Flight 93 turned into the issue it would later become.  Nearly two hours had elapsed since the very first hijacking took place until Flight 93 bit the dust.  Even many questions persist to this day about how it bit the dust, considering that very well documented 8-mile debris zone.  But the point is -- nearly TWO HOURS had elapsed; and the person basically in charge that day was our VP, the same guy earlier discussing (but certainly not in any details) an in-bound airplane.  TWO HOURS when it takes a military fighter jet (F14 / F16) travelling between 1500 - 1800 mph to be anywhere within the Continental United States within 10 MINUTES or so.  That's approximately 10 minutes vs. 2 hours of non-action on the part of our defense department.  What kind of defense is that?  

A good one, a great one, but one that obviously had no direction, no true orders to do anything to intercept and/or stop the hijacked airplanes running loose in the skies over our land.

Nope!  You don't believe that.  Too far fetched as is to accept anything short of an admission of complicity in this regard.

Andrews Air Force Base sits within 8 or 10 miles from Washington, DC and that Pentagon we all know about.  And the heck of it is that particular air base has as its principal mission (responsibility) to protect our nation's capital (being so close and all, and oh yes, having some of those F14 / F16 for that purpose that I mention also).  They should have taken to skies almost immediately into 9/11, after the clock first started ticking since everyone else seemed to be aware of what was happening.  Even our President sitting way down in Florida had heard about it, and at that particular time in the sequence of events, the Pentagon was a good hour away from being hit, shall we say.  And all that about the Secret Service just standing around watching our President read with the many children and their parents at his feet.  Excuse me but does anybody think maybe we ought to get the President out of this place, to a place that wasn't advertised days in advance already -- uh, under the circumstances -- think we ought to maybe take some precautions?  Isn't that what our job demands for us to do?  -- Protect the President.  Maybe we'll just watch awhile longer, don't want to upset anyone -- considering.  

Considering what?

And then months later (make that a year) (and that's a long time, considering people wanted answers, and they still do today) our President saw no real purpose in investigating 9/11 at all -- for one of the worse, if not the worse, crimes that had ever happened to our land.  No reason to investigate (??) // not until basically forced to do so.  And being forced (that year later) he tried up front, right quick, to stack the deck (with Kissinger) and succeeded later with Zelikow and all the right people from 'inside' our government to provide that wanted (obviously not by him) look-see investigation.   The investigation was biased from the beginning.  Think about what that means -- And the funds he allocated to making damn sure this was (wasn't?) properly done was a slap in the face on top of everything else.  Not because it was too little but BECAUSE they made sure that not much was spent on doing a good and proper investigation as those things MUST surely do cost a few $$.  Keeping it neat and trim, money should have been no option, considering.

Kind of a summary of what all I submitted earlier.

typo
    

[Biggs]

Biggs-

Those films aren’t ‘packed full of evidence’ they're shit mostly.

You really need to justify such a statement, have you actually watched any of them??? which parts of which films did you think were shit? I will not expend my time on you if you are just a dickwad troll.

[seabhcan]

Why are you pasteing this stuff here? We've all read it before.

[OneShotKi11]

Eddy... don't get overwhelmed with the evidence... or try to over complicate the matter... study WTC 7 - that completely proves inside involvement.

Do you think a 47 story building... can turn into a pile of rubble in under 7 seconds due to fire?  Think about it... the building wasn't hit by a plane... who cares how much debris damage it had... the building was still standing with no visible signs of collapse.... it wasn't slowly crumbling or falling down... the roof started caving in... and as soon as the corners of the roof started moving downward.... THE ENTIRE BUILDING WAS TURNED INTO A PILE OF RUBBLE IN UNDER 7 SECONDS!  Not half of the building... or part of the building... EVERY SINGLE FLOOR was reduced to a pile of rubble... and this happened in the span of 7 seconds.... 7 SECONDS!!!!

I really don't know how people see it any other way... that's an impossible collapse without the aid of planted devices taking out the support of the building.

I know its remarkable isn't it? All we have is a working hypothesis from NIST. Most unsatisfactory. Now they tell us we must wait until the end of the year for their report. That is if they don't delay it again!

Still statements like:

'that's an impossible collapse without the aid of planted devices taking out the support of the building.'

This is wrong, the support of the building had been severely damaged. Why it didn't collapse immediately I don't know.
As for its complete collapse I don't know this either. Nobody does. But do you seriously dispute NISTS hypothesis that I linked to earlier?
 
jbrid

Kucinich has only said exactly what I did in my opening post!

Eddy i must ask.....

Where is your evidence that the supports where severely damaged? I have seen several photos of WTC7 and not a sigle one on them could show me supports where severely damaged. To me it seems you looked at the photo, seen the gapping hole and damage to the side of the building, and then was told that that photo shows damage to the Supports. Please in any photo you can show me a picture of many severely damaged supports. Dont question what we believe if you have even less evidence to support what you are spewing out. I might be wrong and there could be a photo that shows atleast 8 damaged supports, maybe they show more. Heck do you even know what the supports of a building would look like?

I am an IronWorker for local 361 Brooklyn NY so please dont comeback with any unprovoked attacks on any knowledge i might have on the supports of buildings and such.

Like i said you clearly dont have evidence to support your Claim, even more so then controlled Demolition!

[Biggs]

Can I ask you one thing Eddie? what do you think happened at the Pentagon, i.e. what hit the pentagon?

[jbrid1138]

To EDDY155 --

I find that all very interesting, but I must ask you // Why did you provide so much info at once, what exactly am I supposed to gather from all that otherwise already KNOWN information?  If there is something you seriously think I need to see -- please do show me, but other than that all you have done is confuse the living daylights out of me.  Sorry, but I have to reply in that fashion because I don't see your point in doing this. 

If you are trying to say that there was discussion going on between FAA and NORAD and NMCC -- I will agree with you on that.  But nothing of the sorts that explains why there was no suitable air defense that day.  Even the Pentagon in trying to explain their failures changed their story to Congress on three separate occasions (if I'm not mistaken in this, and I believe I'm right).  Nothing has ever been presented that clearly explains this away other than no suitable air defense (or ground to air in the case of the Pentagon) was ever deployed in a timely fashion.  All that stuff about going in the wrong way, and military games and such, and confusion on top of confusion --

The FAA have as I have come to understand it certain rules and regulations that they follow in reporting airline hijackings // apparently those were not followed on this particular day.  67 times in the months leading up to 9/11, the military kicked in gear and sent fighter jets to inctercept questionable aircraft // not to shoot any of them down, only to check and see why they were acting a bit odd.  Didn't happen like that on 9/11 -- the ones acting a bit odd in all this wasn't only the hijacked aircraft, it was the people whose job it was to defend this nation -- all of them. 

That has to be worth some concern, don't you think.  And no one was ever punished for such failures, not that I understand.  What I understand to be the case was certain 'people' were rewarded for these failures.  Now what the hell does that mean to you? 

Either you're with us or you're with the terrorist.  Familiar words that perhaps you should seriously consider.  Not that they were intended exactly in the fashion I have presented them back to you however.

[OneShotKi11]

Eddy please answer my previous post! I need to know exactly what evidence you have of the supports being knocked out in WTC7. I seen the photographs but i dont see several damages supports!

My whole question can be found about 3 to 4 post above this one! If you have the evidence please let me see it!!!

[seabhcan]

Why are you pasteing this stuff here? We've all read it before.

Just to illustrate that, rather than ‘standing down’, there was a rapid response but an awful lot of confusion,. There were nearly a dozen confused reports from panicked air traffic controllers, planes intercepting each other. But the response time was rapid. You're dealing with the busiest airspace in the world, reacting to an unprecedented event, multiple hijackings in a matter of minutes, with the aim of turning the planes into missiles.

It was unprecedented, but not un-anticipated. Remember that an identical plan was foiled in 1995 involving 10 aircraft, and these scenarios had been explicitedly trained for. The airtraffic controllers were panicked, but it was the military's job to track and intercept the plane. It is nonsense to say that just because the transponders were off, that they couldn't be tracked.

The eastern seaboard is blanketed by radar. Anything bigger than a kite can be tracked 100's km from Washington and New York. What was going on? Its just not credible that the air force *couldn't* (not *didn't*) track and intercept the planes. They do this all the time.

I don't doubt that the recordings are real. It is clear that the guys on the front line *didn't* have the needed information. The commission report would have you believe they just *couldn't* access it because those cleaver terrorists outwitted the US defences by simply turning off the transponders. Amazing that the military never thought of that and planned for it isn't it!

Well, the reason they *didn't* have the info, is not that they *couldn't* have it, its because someone saw to it that they *wouldn't* have it, and then that person managed to stop the 9/11 commission asking this obvious question.

That's what is meant when they say that the military 'stood down'

[jbrid1138]

Yes, you know what ONESHOTKi11 has a darn good point -- what proof do you have of multiple supports being damaged at the WTC7.  Remembering that the WTC7 sat nearly a football field away from the closest tower, and the towers fell straight down (except for those steel members that weighed tons that were thrown outwards many feet into other nearby buildings, sticking out like pin cushions -- something that has never made a lick of sense to anyone) how could support beams, beams that sit deep inside the building and basically hold it up, how could they have been damaged to such an extent that you seem to think it logical that it would also fall straight down?

What proof is there of such a claim?  Here, look at the building again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmL9F-TSIes

[jbrid1138]

Might as well throw this out there -- the BBC reporting that WTC7 had collapsed before it actually did, 20 minutes before it actually did.  No steel-framed high rise building had ever before in man's history collapsed due to fire -- and yet the BBC had this amazing thing to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

** edited to add:
I mean WTC5 and WTC6 were beat up, badly damaged from the falling debris, still on fire, and yet BBC chose what appears to be in all the video an otherwise sound building still in good shape (what we see in the video it sure seems sound) as a fallen building.  Go figure.

PS -- those other buildings I mention // they had to be 'pulled' down, weeks later.

[Sonja]

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/

If you do this research and still come back here talking no evidence, then there is no hope for you, might as well resign yourself to disbelief for life and move on, and stop wasting space here.

Ever heard a saying, you cant teach a pig to sing, it frustrates you and annoys the pig?

[OneShotKi11]

Who was it that was able show proof of all the supports at WTC7 being damaged. I would love to see this so that i can finally put this argument to rest. I yet to this date have no clue how experts that have no visual of the inside of the building or any of the support columns where able to say they were severely damaged!

Otherwise they are doing what the Truthers are doing and just making wild assumptions. Even more so then the Truthers because atleast Truthers are making assumptions based on what they can see. You people who make the claim that the supports were all knocked out by debris have absolutely ZERO evidence of such claims.

[TroyStone]

I consider myself to be anti-NWO. I recognise that throughout history the US and other nations have carried out or allowed terror attacks. Terrorstorm shows just a few examples of this.

I've been interested in the subject for a couple of years. I've taken part in numerous online debates that have crawled through all the physical evidence, and supposed evidence for an 'inside job'. None of it stands up to real analysis or close scrutiny.

Are you serious? if you trluy spent a couple of years looking into it, and have not fiqured it out we can't help you. but if you spent all that time in chatrooms i understand. you need to watch "911 mysteries demolitions" free on google video. read and watch everything Steven Jones has brought fourth. countless structural engineers, metallurgy experts, demolition experts, rescue workers witness accounts, bombs going off before the impact, wtc 7(never hit by plane), watch the american scholars symposium,. just type in '911 inside job' in a search engine for gods sake.
ask yourself this; ARE THE LAWS OF PHYISICS A CONSPIRACY THEORY?

[jbrid1138]

(quote)
The problem with the truther assumption about WTC7 is that they don't base it on what they HEAR.  How is it that all of these explosives were virtually silent?
_____________
There is no problem with the 'truther' assumption about WTC7 // saying that you obviously place yourself on the opposite side of the argument I suppose; that makes you a debunker doesn't it.

Let's not forget how fast the building fell down, I'm sure explosions were more or less disguised among all the rumble that was heard.  Besides who besides you said no one heard explosions at the WTC7?  There was sure lots of testimony at the towers (many from firemen inside the towers, plus others) but you probably wouldn't want to discuss that now would you -- bet not.

And let's not forget that since it was known in advance that the WTC7 was coming down the people in the vicinity were ordered away, to stand far back.  This itself might account for some questions as regards the sounds of explosions at this particular building assuming it is a problem.  Don't think it is, the building fell in a perfect controlled demolition and that required explosive devices.  That's how it's done.  Period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4
(and this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-6qkbxd0&mode=related&search=WTC7
(and this)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=58582387431741404&q=wtc+7

[jbrid1138]

(quote)
Are you saying that for WTC7 to collapse as it did would have been impossible without the use of explosives?
_______________
And to you I ask // can you give us another example wherein a building fell exactly as this one did and it was not assisted along without explosives?  Waiting . . .