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

[TroyStone]

 there is also one called 911 witnesses, a guy was filming across the river, a common place to take pictures and film of the city, you can clearly hear the explosions and see the dust rise BEFORE the first plane hit. later in the film a cop walks up and says no video filming in this area.
also, you might have heard the witness accounts of people running out of the basement with skin dripping off. look up "last survivor Willy Rodriguez"

[TroyStone]

how can you consider yourself anti-nwo without even understanding the centerpiece for all of their evil?

[TroyStone]

to answer your moronic question YES. a building can't fall in a so called "pancake" collapse at that speed and accuracy. without placed explosives it would have looked a little different. it would still be there!

[TroyStone]

what do you mean by physical evidence? if youre talking about explosive residue, thermite and such,  all of the remains were cleaned up quick and proper no one was allowed to get near it. Giuliani did as he was told and cleaned the whole 911 attacks up and shipped the bulk of the metal out of the country. there were no rescue efforts because there was no loss of life in 7. We were lucky to get the small pieces from building 1 and 2.

[Biggs]

Your theory makes sense, my problem is this:
How was it that the explosives in WTC7 made no noise, left no physical evidence, and caused no readings on local seismographs?

a) they did make noise, there are tapes of it and plenty of eyewitnesses who said they heard explosions.
b) the evidence was all shipped off to China
c) I am only aware of explosions evidence from WTC 1 and 2 on seismographs, but needless to say after a few days the seismologists changed their data, presumably after a visit from men in suits.

As Eddie seems unwilling to answer my questions. Sevon, what do you think hit the pentagon on 9-11?

[TroyStone]

ok.  so people died. just learned something.
if there were more tv time for building 7 we might have a shot of sliced beams etc.
and where does this silent collapse come from? and of course it shook the ground. where did you get this data?

[TroyStone]

your'e confused about the pentagon strike?

[TroyStone]

the parts found were from a different aircraft, the hole does not match, the witnesses who saw a plane are not working for us. have you seen the video they released?, no plane

[Biggs]

The people who were there said it was a plane, and since the flight 77 FDR & plane wreckage was found in/around the Pentagon, it would appear that the witness accounts are substantiated.

Then how do you explain the hole in the pentagon being only 16 feet by twelve feet? how do you explain an aluminium nose cone puncturing 3 rings of the pentagon, all that reinforced concrete, 6 sets of 3 feet thick reinforced concrete?

What plane wreckage was found exactly? they did not show any pictures of wreckage that was found, other than some odd looking pieces with left out nice and neatly on an undamaged lawn?

how do you attest for the fact that the lawn was completely undamaged in front of the pentagon on that day?

[Biggs]

tape of explosions on WTC7 collapse

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

if these were faked as you attest, why the sudden reaction from those in the vicinity as can be seen clearly on the tape?

Video of NO PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTJ5suTe0OQ

[TroyStone]

come on man, you really think those people saw a plane? a full size jet could not impact at ground level without scraping the lawn. again, the parts were from different aircraft.

[TroyStone]

the most dowloaded movie of all time on the internet "loosechange" it covers this pretty well.

[TroyStone]

it was a guided missile. ok, do some research, don't waste all of your time in forums.

[Biggs]

Is it your contention that the aluminum plane could not pierce through concrete if going fast enough?

Yes exactly, now you are cottoning on, clearly hollow aluminium cannot penetrate 18 feet of reinforced concrete, not in a million years. Newtons 3rd law explains it fine, the concrete is much much stronger (at 3 feet per wall, reinforced) so the aluminium nose cone might penetrate one or even two but has no chance OF ANY KIND of penetrating SIX walls i.e. 18 feet of reinforced concrete.

Not even close.

[Biggs]

Ohk.  How many witnesses saw a guided missile?

And if a plane would have hit the lawn, why wouldn't a guided missile have hit the lawn?

there are plenty of witnesses, some are on the videos you and Eddie seem to refuse to watch, but you really are missing the point if you think these witnesses can go around and shout about it without their lives being utterly ruined or ended by the secret services.

And your comments in a guided missile are just plain dumb, clearly a guided missile can fly a few feet off the ground and not tear up a lawn because they are guided by satellite and not humans and they are small, like 15 feet long and 3 feet wide. A plane allegedly flown by a pilot who could not pass flight school in a Cessna which is 150 feet long cannot fly a few feet off the ground. it is not possible , especially after a 270 degree turn which would have ripped the plane apart anyway.

And as for your earlier comment on the WTC 7 explosion, you only heard on explosion, however, the people in the video reacted, so it did occur. So how does your 'theory' explain this explosion.

And it is entirely consistent with controlled demo, it is really common to take out some major support columns before commencement of the primary demolition sequence. They often do it hours beforehand so they do not have to do it at the time of the CD so that all the people watching get it in one major series of booms and do not have to sit around for 5 minutes beforehand whilst initial charges are used to take out certain major supports and hence allow a clean pull into the buildings footprint

And with regard to your denial that the pentagon video I posted shows clearly THERE WAS NO PLANE AT THE PENTAGON, in what way does that video leave any room for doubt?

Where in that video could a plane fit? A large passenger jet?

Oh yes and you have failed to answer my question as to why the hole in the side of the pentagon was only 16t feet by 12 feet? I can assure you that the alleged plane that hit was very much larger than this.

IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FIT A PLANE INTO A HOLE 16 FEET BY 12 FEET

[OneShotKi11]

Is it your contention that the aluminum plane could not pierce through concrete if going fast enough?

Yes exactly, now you are cottoning on, clearly hollow aluminium cannot penetrate 18 feet of reinforced concrete, not in a million years. Newtons 3rd law explains it fine, the concrete is much much stronger (at 3 feet per wall, reinforced) so the aluminium nose cone might penetrate one or even two but has no chance OF ANY KIND of penetrating SIX walls i.e. 18 feet of reinforced concrete.

Not even close.

Seems logical.  Show me the calculations you used to determine that the plane could go through 2 walls but not 6.
Water can cut through stone...it's not just about the hardness of the material, but about how fast it is traveling.

Clearly you are not understanding what happened at the pentagon. Yes water can cut through stone as well as steel. What he is saying is that there is noway the nose of the plane could have remained intact the entire time it punched through 6 walls of concrete.  The nose of the plane remaining entirely intact after slamming into these walls is the only way it would have been able to knock out the same size hole on its exit as it did on its entrance. Notice the entrance hole is the same size as the exit hole at the pentagon. I am not saying that i agree with what he thinks happened but i am just trying to clarify his argument for you to understand it a little better!

Same size entry hole, same size exit hole. Which means the plane stayed intact all the way through the crash secnario!!!

[Sonja]

Its interesting about the seismic data for WTC 7, Im going to look into that further.
Sevon, Wtc 7 was in no way silent, in fact a previous to collapse boom can be heard on the tape from a guy who filmed across the bay, adjusted for sound delay.
Also, look at the pictures of OK city, I mean the entire front of the building was blown off and it didnt collapse. The symmetrical collapse is very very odd, I mean, any film they have on damaged buildings never fall this way.
Sorry gotta go.

[Biggs]

Seems logical.  Show me the calculations you used to determine that the plane could go through 2 walls but not 6.
Water can cut through stone...it's not just about the hardness of the material, but about how fast it is traveling.

Now you are just trolling, HOLLOW ALUMINIUM CANNOT PIERCE 18 FEET OF REINFORCED CONCRETE, it is called Newtons 3rd law, once the hollow aluminium hits it is met with an equal and opposite force from the reinforced concrete, the softer material loses.

Aluminium (thin hollow nose cone) will lose every time to reinforced thick concrete because it cannot handle anything like as much pressure per square inch, because it is thin hollow aluminium and not very very thick reinforced concrete.

Further, the plane was only travelling at 500 mph and has a much much lower density than water in industrial processes being used to cut stone at very very high pressures (water in much more dense than hollow aluminium tubes) - if you cannot work that out your physics will not be good enough to understand calculations anyway, so I will not spend the next half hour digging some up for you.

And still you have not answered, why such a small hole in the pentagon??

[Biggs]

[.  How many witnesses saw a guided missile?

1) So again, how many witnesses say they saw a guided missile.

2) So it's pilot skill that makes it impossible? 
Failiing flight school in a cessna doesn't mean you can't fly it.  He rented a cessna on more than one occasion...kinda hard to do if you can't fly it.

3) Their reaction doesn't prove the source of the noise.  I don't know what caused that noise any more than you do.


4) So how many of these explosions were there?  It would take more than 1 to bring that building down wouldn't it?


5) It doesn't show a guided missile either.

6) If the whole plane fit through that hole, there wouldn't have been any wreckage on the lawn.

7) I'm done on here for the night.

Sevon flees now that his arguments look just plain dumb
Anyway, for the record, arguments 1 to 7 -

1) I do not know how many witnesses there were, and I do not know how many are still alive, this is not some free country, these guys would have secret service all over them if they speak out, people really do get killed over such things, it is not just fantasy.

2) the maneouvre is impossible, it is not a case of being able to fly or not fly, you cannot fly a boeing passenger jet a few feet off the ground at anytime, but especially not after a 270 degree turn

3) so what source was the loud explosion coming from the are of WTC7 that the people in the video all reacted too? any suggestions?

4) Yes it would take more than one explosion to bring down the building, the explosion in question was just a prelim explosion, the actual sequence of demolition is hundreds or thousands all set off milliseconds apart by computer and cannot be heard individually but create merely a very fast 1 second rumble before the buildings starts to fall.

5) You would be able to see a guided missile on that video, it is from too far away, however, you would see a large plane and there is no large plane in the video.

6) the large plane did not fit through a tiny hole because  it is impossible, so your argument there in invalid

7) and troll goes home for the night now he knows he has lost

[jbrid1138]

Elsewhere in prisonplanet.com (another link) you'll find a video testimony of a fireman that survived the 9/11 attack.  This man tells a very moving, interesting story -- you've got to respect people like that, that went to help others and saw many die around him and yet managed to flee to safety himself. I know that since I began this search for 9/11 truths, I have come to understand that many firemen reported explosions inside the towers, that one such fireman was called before the Commission only to walk out on them because he considered their investigation into matters a joke. The real joke in all this is 9/11 was an inside job and those that pulled it off are the only ones laughing. Eventually when called to explain themselves that's when they'll stop the laughing.

Now another poster in this string asked me earlier if the WTC7 could have fallen as it did without the assist of explosives?  I know what they were after, they are obviously a debunker wanting to prove the 'official story' version in all of this as 'the shining light' as 'the truth' -- the only thing is it's a lie, i.e., the 'official story' verison of 9/11 is a lie.  Any fool can see this for what it was if only they'd step back and stop, look, and listen.  The same things you'd do before crossing the street, blindly.  Wake up, fools.

But back to that question -- of course a building could collapse without the assist of explosives.  But not display ALL of the elements that was displayed at the WTC site without them being used.  I'll look back at another posting I did somewhere inside this string and repeat those elements for the interested few among us (they are very well organized thought out observations provided by David Ray Griffin as he listed them in one of his outstanding books on the subject of 9/11) -- but I'm not avoiding the direct question here, just sitting ground work for the 'fool' that asked it // of course a building can fall down, an earthquake might bring one down.  Poor workmanship might be another example of a building collapse without the aid of explosives -- I even saw one of those type once, the wind caught it just right and over it went.  But even then -- over it went (a house) -- didn't resemble the controlled demolition we see in WTC7.  And come to think of it, no earthquake happened that day in or around the vicinity of NYC now did it. 

Somewhere in that same 'fools' postings came a point regarding scientific recordings of the rumblings left by the building // to that I can only remind the 'fool' that there were such recordings provided that match the collapse of the two towers, capturing the major explosions that were timed to bring them straight down also.  Sure there's a load of evidence for all this but the ones still asleep can't see it for what it is // they go off on tangents of trying their best to prove the 'official story' version in all of this mess but the TRUTH is simple -- they just like to make it complicated.  They (the debunkers) say we do that, but it's them.  The stand down of military fighter jets, the actions of the President and his Secret Service guards that day, the obvious demolition of the WTC site, all the prior knowledge stuff, the stuff about Bush not wanting the crime of the century investigated until forced to do so and then allocating 3 million dollars to this endeavor when the Challenger explosion was granted nearly 50 million // those are all simple examples of cover up and corruption and a crime, it has nothing to do with 19-Arabs. 

My suggestion is stop all this nonsense questioning and pay attention to this video:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/326880/9_11_01_proofs_of_the_twin_towers_demolistion_war_debt_fre/

** edited to add:
I said I'd provide information regarding elements of a controlled demolition -- almost forgot to do that (sorry):

Comments from David Ray Griffin // I won't go into listing his impressive credentials only to share with you some of his intelligence:  Here goes:

 -- page 39 of his book "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11'  in part says that the collapses had at least eleven features that would be expected if, and only if, explosives were used.  I will briefly describe these eleven features.

Sudden Onset
Straight Down
Almost Free-Fall Speed
Total Collapse
Sliced Steel
Pulverization of Concrete and Other Materials
Dust Clouds
Horizontal Ejections
Demolition Rings
Molten Steel
Sounds Produced by Explosions
_______________
For the sake of brevity I omitted the author's detailed comments under each of the above eleven headings.  Read the book and learn more.

-- page 44 (same book) FIVE MORE RELEVANT FACTS
The official theory about the collapse of the towers, I have suggested, is rendered extremely implausible by two main facts.  First, aside from the alleged exception of 9/11, steel-framed high-rise buildings have never been caused to collapse by fire; all such collapses have been produced by carefully placed explosives.  Second, the collapses of the Twin Towers manifested at least eleven typical features of controlled demolitions.  The probabllity that any of these features would occur in the absence of explosives is extremely low.  The probability that all eleven of them would occur is essentially zero.
***extract**
Removal of the Steel
North Tower Antenna Drop
South Tower Tipping and Disintegration
WTC Security
Foreknowledge of the Collapse of the South Tower
_______________
Again, for the sake of brevity, I have not gone into the details provided by the author under each of the five headings listed above.  Read the book.

[jbrid1138]

EDDY155 --

Good to see you back today.  But that stuff you say about TRUTH (what I said earlier) of course it's simple // it's the lie that always takes on a life of its own with twists and turns and basically the stuff that movies are made of.  Lies.  Not asking you to start hating movies, that's not why I mention it with lies, it's just that the truth is almost always the simple less attractive, less complicated road.  Yes NORAD and FAA and NMCC all acted a bit odd that day.  At least we agree on that tiny part, I would hope.

Acted a bit odd because the simple truth of it is they lied in their actions // 67 times the one year leading up to 9/11 those same folks kicked into action and sent fighter jets to the rescue (just to check and see what was up/wrong with a target aircraft) 67 times and yet on 9/11 the lie is they couldn't get their act together.  If I'm not mistaken the year leading up to the 67 intercepts there were over 140 or so // so these guys know what and how and when -- they just want all of us to think that on 9/11 things were a bit different 'because' -- it's that 'because' where the lie takes off and becomes a life all of its own, and the more one challenges this lie the more complicated the answer (from them, of course).  The simple truth is they allowed those hijacked airlines to travel to targets (preplanned).  That's the simple truth; the WHY of it gets us all tangled up in that lie because the WHY won't make honest to goodness sense to a rational thinking human being either. 

I would hope you consider yourself rational. 

[jbrid1138]

Absolutely darn good point.  I can't wait the answer to that, the suspense is killing me.  Smile.

[seabhcan]

Its not really right what your saying though. If the ‘TRUTH’ as you call it is simple, proper evidence and verification shouldn’t keep messing it up and complicating your story.

For example –

The ‘NORAD stood down’ claim-

You lot..‘NORAD stood down’
Me…’No it didn’t, look here is what happened according to the evidence.(page 4)’
You lot… ‘Well that evidence is some conspiracy I reckon… NORAD STOOD DOWN!’ etc.

No, Eddy - what you provided was the tapes of the civilian air traffic controllers. NORAD is a military organisation. There is no hard evidence that they lifted a finger on 9/11. They claim after the fact that they tried, but those clever terrorist turned off the transponders leaving them untrackable. This is nonsense.

To prove its nonsense, consider this: If the russians had attacked how would norad have tracked them? What if the Russian planes didn't have transponders? Would north America have been defenceless?

NORAD's radars can track planes even if they don't have transponders

[jbrid1138]

See how simple all that stuff being said is // uncomplicated TRUTHS.

[OneShotKi11]

COULD WE PLEASE STOP WITH THE NONSENSE TROLL AND JREF CLAIMS.

This conversation has been for the most part civil, and even though it is two opposing parties debating EDDY to me in noway has come at us in any offensive manner or threatening way. He makes valid points and is seemingly here for a valid debate. The JRef nonsense more often then not ruins good intellectual conversation, and gets topics that seem to be filling me in on alot of important information i didnt already know locked.

If it gets way out of hand then by all means throw the term around and get the thread locked, but until then lets keep the name calling down PLEASE.

[seabhcan]

I agree. Eddy seems like an honest guy who wants to be convinced, one way or the other.

We should never get tired of explaining ourselves and presenting the logical case.

[seabhcan]

Also, every plane in US airspace must file an official flight plan before take off. As soon as these planes left that planned route they would be detected - transponders or not.

[jbrid1138]

Yes, I agree.  Let me join with you 'truthers' (to use a word the debunkers seem to think we take to be an insult -- we are truthers) and say that regardless of who it is that might disagree with our opinions as long as things don't get nasty // let them disagree. 

Others are reading and seeing both sides of an argument.  That could prove beneficial to them in their own research and awakening.

Something else I wanted to say here, something that seemed to fit, yes I remember -- this:
Bush Debate --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3EHDMP14BU&NR=1

typo

[jbrid1138]

Here's something of interest for those out there truly seeking 'evidence' in this terrible happening --

(speaking of crashed airplanes; actually that's what the 'official story' would say happened to them after they were hijacked and flown many air miles to their target destination by actually truly unskilled persons who magically displayed highly-developed piloting skills and a remarkable sense of direction from many miles high into our sky and over an otherwise foreign landscape stretching far-and-wide, way below):

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson

[jbrid1138]

Here's to EDDY155 and to SEVON --You guys are both what others (and me thinking it too) have been saying about you.  You guys are trolls.  There is no logic with you other than what you perceive it to be.  Just 'wading through it' -- what a joke.  I think we're all being forced (if we are to respond to you in further detail) actually 'standing in it' // knee deep in it (all the bullsh*t you spew back at the sound arguments we present).  What did you have to do EDDY155, return to home base to seek guidance on how to answer our simple truths?  Believe you did just that.

Many firemen (fool -- you figure out who it is I'm addressing) have reported the sounds of explosions // many reporting the sounds from the grave considering what happened to them -- other witness testimony from outside heard the sound(s) of what they considered to be explosions and some even witnessed flashes running around the building right prior to their collapse.  Wonder what all that was -- not a real question to you two // You'd be spewing back nonsense telling us that the people couldn't prove they were explosions because they didn't get their heads blown off -- well, some did.  Some got far worse than that even, some were blown into bone fragments so tiny that they were sent to the tops of nearby buildings and not discovered until years later.  Explosions, fool, just as we see happening in the many videos of the collapse of the twin towers.  Supporting the terrorist with their idiotic take on what it is they would have us believe MAKES YOU A TERRORIST ALSO if we are to believe our President's words.   Think about that, terrorist.

The guilty flock together like the birds of a feather.  You're the guys that ask us to prove it when the proof is right before your eyes just as it is before our eyes also.  You're either with us or your with the terrorist.

[jbrid1138]

William Rodgriguez --
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7762

[jbrid1138]

Phillip Morelli --
Mike Pecoraro --
(first hand accounts)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/281104undergroundexplosions.htm

[jbrid1138]

Lou Cacchioli --
Lou http://www.global-conspiracies.com/ny_fireman_lou_cacchioli_upset_that_911_commision_tried_to_twist_my_words.htm

[jbrid1138]

Video of Molten Metal at WTC --
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/338140/molten_steel_at_wtcs/

[jbrid1138]

Explosions at the WTC --
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html

[jbrid1138]

Audio releases // for years they fought to have these released -- Here they are:
http://www.archive.org/details/911_fdny_dispatches

[jbrid1138]

Additional Testimony From 9/11 Survivors --
http://www.ny1.com/pages/RRR/911special_survivors.html

[seabhcan]

"What would you consider as evidence that there was NOT a Controlled Demolition of WTC 1, 2 or 7?"

Great question Savon.  For starters... the collapse of WTC 7 would have to refrain from violating THE MOST BASIC LAWS OF PHYSICS!

That's all?  You believe that the collapse violates the laws of physics, and based on that alone you conclude that it was a CD?

If you were shown that the collapse did NOT violate the laws of physics, you would conclude that it was not a CD.  Is that correct?  Or are there other things you would require in addition?

Certainly this is a point for me. The collapse was very strange, and none of the official theories can explain why there was molten steel in the ruins. If someone can present a collapse theory which explains all the observed features, that would satisfy me.

But at the moment, my 10 years as a physicist tell me something is very wrong with the official theory, the NIST report is unscientific, and Stephen Jones' theory is more credable.

[jbrid1138]

9/11 was an inside job, the evidence supports it:

A FEW EXAMPLES WORTHY OF MENTION:
-- Prior knowledge by certain government officials yet business continued as usual.
-- An inability (?) to send military fighter jets to intercept any of the alleged 4 hijacked airplanes, when intercept was (and is) a thoroughly practiced routine because of the understood importance involved in doing the same.
-- NO defense made by the Pentagon to defend the Pentagon // separate issue from above.
-- The documented inaction of the Secret Service in doing their job that day to remove the President to a safer, unannounced location obviously operating with the knowledge that neither they, nor he, nor any of the other in attendance were in harm's way.
-- The reluctance of our President to investigate the happenings of 9/11 and then when he finally caved in, under extreme pressure, granted an extremely small and equally reluctant amount of money to thoroughly support a complete investigation.
-- An inordinate amount of otherwise pertinent information either omitted or distorted when it came to releasing the Commission's final report on the matter.
-- The refusal to release known video tapes of the Pentagon strike which would obviously either support or refute the claims of many on both sides of the argument.
-- The close association of family members to the President working as WTC and airport security personnel in view of the many questions and the nature of the same // and these folks were never mentioned in that aforementioned final report.
-- The outcrop of sustained and organized crazies ready to support and defend a story so full of fabrications and lies.
-- The government at the highest levels using the 9/11 attacks as reason to excite our nation to war against otherwise innocents.
-- No aggressive or compassionate action taken by appropriate authority to fully and completely address the many questions that persist over these many years.
--  The man himself advising the world to not allow outrageous conspiracy theories when the 'official story' is so blatantly outrageous all by itself.

(and this bit of incompetence addressed both ways)
--  You're doing a hell of a job Brownie.  

[Aqua Teen Hunger Force]

Such a silly subject title, its not even worth a response except that it is a joke that anyone still believes the "official story""

oh yeah,
thats so funny....................................................................
I FORGOT TO LAUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SO HERE~
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!