9/11 Fact Sheet
Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.
1. Isn't 9/11 a partisan political issue, where extremists in one party are simply trying to smear the other party for political gain?
No, credible people from across the spectrum question 9/11 (Internet Explorer required). See also this website.
2. Isn't it disrepectful to the victims of 9/11 and their families to question the events of that day?
No. Many of the families of the victims question the official story and are demanding that the truth be disclosed.
3. Isn't it clear that Mulsims carried out 9/11, and the war on terror is a clash of civilizations and religions? Therefore, isn't 9/11 skepticism harmful to our faith?
Actually, 9/11 truth is a vital issue for all people of faith. That is why prominent Christian theoligians state that 9/11 was an inside job, and prominent Jewish scholars and rabbis say that uncovering the truth of 9/11 has the power to bring positive, lasting change to our nation and to our world.
4. Isn't this kind of thinking really a psychological problem? And isn't it promoted by anti-semites?
Not at all. Some very prominent psychologists question the government's version of 9/11, as do many people of Jewish faith. See also this petition.
5. Aren't conspiracy theories anti-American, and isn't all the questioning of 9/11 part of what's wrong with America today?
Questioning our government is part of what it means to be a patriot and to love your country.
6. Doesn't questioning 9/11 distract from much more important issues facing America today?
On the contrary, it is one of the very most important issues facing our country, and is closely connected with other problems we face.
7. But the government would NEVER hurt its own people. At least not intentionally.
Actually, the U.S. government -- and many other Western governments -- have done so before. Initially, the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually approved a plan to carry out terrorist attacks and kill U.S. citizens and blame it on Cuba, as a justification for invading Cuba. And a government informant has stated that he tried to stop the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, but that the FBI intentionally let the bombing happen. There are many other examples of other governments killing their own people for political gain, and the U.S. government doing killing its own as well.
As additional examples of the U.S. government letting U.S. citizens die based upon deceptions, many people breathed in highly toxic dust near ground zero, after the government knowingly misrepresented the risk, going as far as discouraging first responders from wearing masks. The U.S. government also misled the American people into the Iraqi war, causing thousands of American deaths.
8. Terrorists crashing planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly unexpected in 2001, wasn't it?
9. But there is always confusion in any battle situation. Wasn't it the "fog of war" which prevented a successful response to the 9/11 attacks?
It was not the fog of war. Instead, it was the multiple war games, including hijack exercises involving real planes, and the injection of fake radar blips onto air traffic controller's screens which prevented the good people in the military from stopping the attacks from succeeding against their targets in New York and at the Pentagon.
10. Wouldn't a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people have been necessary to carry out 9/11, and wouldn't someone have spilled the beans by now if there really was a conspiracy?
Not necessarily. In fact, a small handful of people could have pulled it off.
11. Let's get back to the government's failure to stopping or intercepting the attacks. If the U.S. government wasn't perfect in stoping the 9/11 attacks, wasn't it due to a series of innocent mistakes or -- at the very worst -- incompetence?
Initially, the incompetence argument doesn't really pan out, and appearances may be deceiving. And there are many examples of the U.S. faking intelligence in order to promote its political goals.
Moreover, the government has not acted like it is trying to close vulnerabilities or fix problems which supposedly were unforeseeable before 9/11. Why wouldn't such vulnerabilities be corrected if they were the real cause of 9/11?
And there has been a clear government cover-up of the facts of 9/11. Why would the government work so hard to cover up the true facts of 9/11, going so far as to repeatedly misrepresent the facts and change its story, if incompetence was the only problem with the official story?
And, apparently, fake evidence was planted to implicate certain people for 9/11. Why would fake evidence be needed if the offical was true? Do innocent people plant fake evidence?
12. Didn't a government agency come clean about their mistaken timeline, solving the whole 9/11 "conspiracy" once and for all?
Norad's newest "confession" is just the latest of multiple, completely conflicting versions of what happened on 9/11 (also listen to this interview).
Moreover, the latest statements by the military simply attempt to scapegoat one government agency, since the previous attempts to blame other agencies made no sense.
13. Isn't talk about "demolition" of the Twin Towers just a crazy theory by a couple of nutty people?
In fact, a lot of credible eyewitness testimony supports this theory, and more and more credible experts are discussing this theory every day.
14. But no one could have planted all of tons of explosives needed to bring down the Twin Towers without people noticing, right?
No, that is not true.
15. If rogue elements within the U.S. government did cause 9/11, why would they have used bombs to bring down the Twin Towers, when crashing planes into the buildings would have been sufficient to act as a "Pearl Harbor" type justification for war?
Apparently, for its shock and awe effect, which made for a very overwhelmed, afraid, and thus compliant population.
16. I've heard claims made by the so-called "9/11 Truth Movement" which have turned out to be false. Doesn't that invalidate the whole 9/11 thing?
No, for two reasons. First, there are so many lines of evidence which overwhelmingly prove that 9/11 was an inside job, that even if one or two theories are disproven, the basic thesis still stands.
Moreover, there are some people who are simply sloppy in their thinking, and who throw out unfounded theories which do not stand up to scrutiny. In addition, there are, unfortunately, disruptive people who are working hard to make crazy claims to intentionally discredit the movement. This is a traditional tactic for undermining those who question the government.
- Login to post comments
Just a comment.
After reading through the posts & comments, I have to say. These lars & abg characters are a great addition. I commend whomever decided to get a couple of simpletons to post their tripe & prove how moronic the official story & its supporters are.
Kudos.
True
These guys inject some much needed comic relief into this blog. I can't wait to see what these half-wits come up with next.
Actually reality bites you hard
I interject facts and you haven't refuted either me or the other guy.
Here's a fact that no one can debunk:
New Analysis of Explosives at WTC Towers
No explosives, no "9/11 was an inside job.
This Washington guy repeatedly commits logical fallacies and avoids providing evidence that the towers were brought down by explosives or that the governement DID commit anything to cause the attacks or knew they were going to happen.
As always, it leaves you less-than-half wits flapping in the wind to our great amusement, strom.
I love this nugget from Implosion World
"Many unprecedented things happened on 9/11. To draw any specific correlation between how many buildings were destroyed and the reason for their collapse runs counter to logic and common sense." (p. 10 of your flimsy Implosion World hit peice)
Actually, this is how you court jesters approach every single anomally which occurred before, during, and after 9/11. "Don't make correlations, because it's just stupid to do so." Yet, the doofball writing the above paper relies on all kinds of correlations and assumptions. And, he dismisses evidence which is obtained from numerous sources.
For instance, the Implosion World representative, instead of tackling head on the multitude of witness testimonies concerning explosions, he dismisses them outright, because they don't mesh with his theories. He also dismisses the many claims of molten steel at Ground Zero, and does not address photograhic evidence and thermal satellite images showing the extreme temperatures at the building sites.
He also gives absolutely no insight into Building 7.
The guy is a loser. His paper was directed at people like yourself, who already live in a dream world. He knows his arguments don't hold water. He damn well knows that without controlled demolition, even if the towers possibly could have fallen, they would not have fallen at even close to free fall speeds.
I bet he looks at those videos of Building 7, and secretly thinks to himself , "That was a flawless, textbook implosion."
You're dreaming
You have nothing to back up your claims accept for a bunch of amateur conspiracists who've alredy been debunked.
Incredible that you would expect us to believe unqualified people instead of qualified experts. But that is the nature of the illness of pathological denial. Just dismiss everything that doesn't fit your desperate conclusions.
Your claim that by just looking at a video that looks like an implosion only makes a laughing stock of your claims, particulalry since the videos clearly show that it took around 14 seconds for wtc 7 to collapse.
You need to wake up and come out of your dream world, strom.
Wake up and come out of your dream world, abg.
It's quite arguable, as evidence abounds... that YOU are the one holding onto a rather desperate, and particularly dangerous conclusion; That the U.S. Government is in the service of, and within answerability to, the American people.
The danger is when people blindly trust in an untrustworthy protector, compounding danger with danger when that same "protector" is drunk on power and its illusion of control.
14 seconds?
Seriously, stop watching the video in slo-mo. Even assuming that the building fell in the time that you state (which is an amazing stretch), 14 seconds is extremely fast, and it's brevity highlights the indisputable fact that resistance was removed from the path of the falling structure. Demolition explains this well.
Really though, why don't you just go hang out on Conspiracy Smasher's blog, where you'll at least find a little comraderie and support for you're laughable arguments. Otherwise, your weak explanations will just continue to fall apart like wet toilet paper in the illuminating light of truth and fact.
More like 13 seconds
An analysis of this conclusive CBS video shows that the total collapse time is closer to 13 seconds than 14 seconds.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4AYBbvtnSp4
It is obvious from the penthouse collapses that internal collapses were taking place well before the building failure.
As for it being extremely fast, all buildings fall very fast, because of gravity. When the support provided by the internal structure was finally exceeded the building collapsed at the speed of gravity.
But 13 seconds is recorded as the collapse time for WTC 7 since it is the total time of the collapse. BTW, the theory that explosives brought the building down has been conclusively shown to be false.
It's pretty obvious you are
It's pretty obvious you are a shrill. You'd think the government could produce a better psuedo-poster, but you are proof that they can't. The whole 'crazy' bit is getting old. The Bush Admin is in deep shit, no amount of psuedo-posting can save their asses now.
Ok, I've read through this
Ok, I've read through this report. How convenient it must be to simply dismiss all the witness testimonies that doesn't support their own debunking, yet come up with anonymous sources that do.
1.Have they made the seismographic data available?
2. They assume the towers would have to be rigged with explosives between the time of impact and collapse.
3. They admit to not having an adequate explanation to what happened to WTC7.
troll
troll
Not so fast my friend
Jim Hoffman has issued a first draft of his rebuttal to Blanchard here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html
If NIST can do a fact sheet,
so can we.
a small handful
Christopher Pyle, professor of constitutional law at Mt Holyoake College in Massachusetts: “It's too huge a project and would require far too many people to keep it a secret afterwards.”
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23365839-details/Fury+as+academics+claim+911+was+'inside+job'/article.do
Pyle’s argument is fallacious and contrary to the precedence set by various criminal organizations, spy networks, assassination squads and even organized religion. The total number of whistleblowers in criminal organizations [e.g., the Italian or J*wish Mafia] has never exceeded a few throughout the many decades despite all of the atrocities committed by such organizations against the society.
Not to mention that he's a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW TEACHER
My Con Law teacher is an expert at First Amendment rights, the Civil Rights Movement, and pre-eminent domain issues. But I highly doubt he is qualified to make arguments concerning how many operatives it would take to pull off a technically complex covert operation, or whether those involved were capable of keeping a secret.
Further, as a trained legal professional, he could effectively argue either side of the issue. That doesn't make him right.
This weiner just wanted his name in the article.
a small handful
The best way to counter the ridiculous "it would require too many people" malarky is simply this:
"If it would require too many people, then how did a few 'Islamic Fanatics' and one boss man (Osama Bin Missing) pull it off? Are you suggesting that the only way to keep an operation of this magnitude secret is to plan it from the privacy of an Afghani (sp?) cave, as opposed to a good ol' American, oak-panelled office?"
Stops debunkers in their dumb-ass tracks. You'll get the "but, but, but,..." response every time.
QED
Nice work,
but I suggest offering a highly compartmentalized (aka small group) insider explanation doesn't fit with the rest of 'fact sheet' Q and A.
It simply isn't a fact, it's conjecture even if well thought out conjecture. The tendency to derive second, third, etc, derivative conclusions like this is potentially damaging. All of the arguments can be won using facts, even dispassionate facts!
Time estimate
How long would it take for a team of
a) 10 experts
b) 20 experts
c) 50 experts
d) 100 experts
to wire up each of the Twin Towers and prepare them for the demolition?
Why not just....?
Why bother? Why not just pour some gas on the floor of every high-rise and bring them all down?
They say you need to wire the whole building if you're using thermate, but why not just use a little kerosene on the top floor instead? Apparently that's all that's needed.......
Fucking bastards.
War Games Plus One
Again, the mention of the war games is excellent. It's the topic that the regime and debunkers most want to avoid.
IMPORTANT: At the time many of the descriptions of the war games were written (including the link cited here), we knew about five war games. In fact, since then another has been discovered, and there may have been even more. So make that SIX war games, which further bolsters our case that THIS is what allowed the "hijacked" aircraft to proceed unmolested.
Yes, to which some people
Yes, to which some people answer: "They knew about the drills, hence have choosen that day. That does not proove a conspiracy".
Paralyzing Air Defenses
That alone doesn't PROVE anything, except that no military commander in his right mind would allow so many drills to be carried out simultaneously. Air defenses were in fact paralyzed by the drills. And the shredding of the tape of testimony by air traffic controllers is all the more damning.
Flip-Floppers
Some "guys" claim to hate the government when they think the income tax is the only thing keeping them from dating Swedish bikini bimbos and driving Hummers. Then they turn around and give the government a long slow Monica Lewinsky when it's carrying guns and killing brown people. Don't bother them with evidence, physics, or logic--it's all about their own dicks and egos and their celebrity worship of thugs with more money and power than they have. It's all about proving their obedience to authority. Reality is whatever they're told it is by that authority, whether it's the boss, the church, or Dick Cheney. Life's simpler that way.
To quote Mark Twain: "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig." And while it might be fun to annoy the pig, there are better uses of our time and energy.
Trillions of Dollars
I bring up the missing trillions with people a lot, to try and give them a perspective on the amount of bribes that could have been handed out during all of this... It seems people have a hard time actually comprehending a 'trillion dollars' (much less three), it's difficult to understand where that money came from, and it's also damn hard to imagine what they could have spent it on. I would guess that I'm one of those people...
Anyway, for some reason I was thinking about Contact, and that whole scene (er chapter) where they talk about how much the machine cost, and how the US could justify building a second one for twice the cost. The final price tag for each one was a third of a trillion, or $600 billion total. I think that was also around the original NASA price estimate for a mission to Mars, which freaked out Congress and killed even the slightest chance of it ever happening. I can't think of anything else equivalently expensive, much less something five times as costly (fictional or not).
Of course it's easy for money to disappear 'electronically' these days, so for all we know it got churned though corporate stock games and shoveled off-shore (perhaps partially through computers destroyed minutes later in the WTC). But it's also kinda cool to speculate what kind of crazy shit they could have built... Like underground superfortresses with crazy government agencies we don't even know exist (bigger and deeper and more evil than the ones that already exist), that kinda stuff. Maybe they built Cheney a new heart that runs on antimatter or something. Or dark matter, more likely... Any other ideas?
See this story
http://digg.com/world_news/2300000000000_Dollars
2,300,000,000,000 is the amount of Dollars STILL misssing. I haven't heard of any investigations or any news updates from the main stream media since about five years. 2.3 trillion Dollars is 8000 Dollars for every human being in the U. S.! You can bribe 2.3 million people by giving them one million bucks EACH. It is the 2.3 times the yearly U.S. budget!
Rumsfeld admitted that he (the DoD) can't account for 2.3 trillion Dollars one day before 9/11. And this is just an "estimation" - we know what this means.
What 2 Trillion Dollars Looks Like....
Here is an illustration of a man, standing next to his car, parked next to a pile of 315 billion one dollar bills:
http://www.crunchweb.net/87billion/
I had nothing to do with the creation of the above. However, a while back (before I heard the new figure of 3 trillion) I extended the above illustration to make the pile 2 trillion dollars (for my own edification):
http://www.freewebs.com/alexcarson/2trillion.JPG
If more peole saw this, maybe we'd have a national uproar and get some answers.
After all that beating around the bush...nothing
G Washington,
I hope you realize that you need to provide evidence of explosive demolition to make any concept of 9/11 being an inside job a reality.
The question is precisely that you haven't and can't.
No explosives, no "9/11 was an inside job." Not even your hero Jon Gold can do provide evidence.
New Analysis of Explosives at WTC Towers
lars
Can you please explain to me why the 911 committee said that the people that funded 911 were irrevelant when almost all conspiracy convictions are made through tracking the money?
He can't
He can't explain why it's acceptable that the Bush Administration vetted each and every chapter of the report before its' release. He can't explain why a man who's self described expertise, creating "public myths", was put in charge of the commission. He can't explain why it is acceptable for the President and Vice President of the United States to testify behind closed doors, not under oath, with no recordings, and not without each other. He can't explain why it was acceptable to send Richard Armitage in place of Condoleezza Rice. He can't explain why the perjury that Condi took part in during her testimony is acceptable. He can't explain why limiting both the financing and the time to investigate the murder of 3000 people is acceptable. He can't explain why omissions about Sibel Edmonds, the Wargames, Robert Wright, Building 7, Pakistani involvement, Norman Mineta's testimony, etc... are acceptable. He can't explain why it is acceptable for NORAD to give us 7 stories about their response that morning. He can't explain why the 9/11 Report cited Cheney's arrival at the PEOC by 9:58 when all best accounts have him there at 9:10.
There are a lot of things "lars" can't explain. So instead he calls us names, and lies about us.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
You've been called on it: present evidence
Your behavior continues to give you away Jon Gold. You sit there and make insinuations yet when asked to back up your claim that 9/11 was an inside job, you can't and you won't.
What are you afraid of?
I think we know. You can't refute the facts and you don't have any evidence to back you up. You can't explain what evidence there is to back you up.
Evidence
WHERE is the evidence that the 19 "hijackers" did 9/11??? There is no evidence whatsoever. Instead, we have a lot of people in our own government covering up the whole story behind 9/11, destroying evidence and behaving _highly_ suspicious.
One question for you: why do you oppose the idea to have a more sophisticated and independent investigation? Do you have any reason for that?
Sure I can.
The Bush Regime came into office with an agenda. That agenda included the invasion of Iraq. Not 10 days after Bush's inauguration, he asked his principals to find a way to invade Iraq. He then appointed Cheney in charge of the Energy Task Force, where it was discussed, with Oil Executives, how best to use Iraq's oil. Also, the Bush Regime planned for the invasion of Afghanistan as well. Prior to 9/11.
They would not have been able to do either invasion had it not been for 9/11.
As ex 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland said, "They had a plan to go to war, and when 9/11 happened that's what they did; they went to war."
The fact that 9/11 gave them the ability to fulfill their agenda makes them suspect #1 behind the attacks of 9/11.
The facts back up that assertion.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Are you going to argue with Tony Blair?
"To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11"
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
What about George W. Bush?
"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Click...
Here.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Hey...
"You have run away from your responsibility."
Debunk me already.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
You debunked yourself
Why don't you present any evidence, Jon Gold?
abg
?
Are you confused too?
Aere you confused by logical fallacies too? Do you know what it means to actually present "evidence"?
Evidence
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ev-i-duhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -denced, -denc‧ing. –noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. –verb (used with object)
4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters. —Idiom
6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.
Tell me where I went wrong.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
What's the matter, Jon Gold?
You still haven't provided any evidence after repeatedly being asked to.
Amazing.
See my two posts from yesterday about logical fallacies, read them carefully, then make an effort to provide evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
It's amazing that you still refuse to do so.
Here ya go...
Evidence
Please explain to me where the fallacy is in my logic.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
abg already did
He already explained your post-hoc fallacy. Do you still have a hard time understanding simple logic, Jon Gold?
Of course you do. You keep running away from your mistakes.
Now why would you rely on a propaganda film instead of linking to expert data on how 9/11 was an inside job and explain why no one believes you except paranoid conpiracy buffs just as scared as you are?
Actually...
As I showed you, over half of the country thinks as I do.
You have yet to show me which point I made which was wrong, but if you're looking for more evidence, here you go.
Click Here
This was created by an Administration with something to hide, and given that we have discovered so much that links this Administration to 9/11, it has become a piece of evidence against them.
Also, tell me which part of that movie is untrue.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
"As I showed you, over half
"As I showed you, over half of the country thinks as I do."
We're not interested in polls
"You have yet to show me which point I made which was wrong, but if you're looking for more evidence, here you go."
post hoc ergo prompter hoc
"This was created by an Administration with something to hide, and given that we have discovered so much that links this Administration to 9/11, it has become a piece of evidence against them."
Yet we still wait for you to provide the physical evidence demonstrating the towers were felled by explosives, the one lynch pin in your whole "theory" that renders your suspicions nothing more than hot air.
In your own words, please provide evidence that 9/11 was an inside job or admit that you can't prove it.
It's really VERY simple. Physical evidence, definitive, irrefutable. If you can't provide it, admit it like a man, stop being a weasel, and retract your claim.
You're an idiot...
"the one lynch pin"
Didn't dz already explain to you that "Controlled Demolition" is NOT the "lynch pin" that shows complicity on the part of our Government.
Unless of course, you think it is, in which case, I would say, what are you, a "Conspiracy Theorist?"
__________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
lars
Personally I’m not sure much of any of this can be proved, especially if there is no independent access to the evidence. To disprove the Truthers theories, it would have to be independent, by definition. So I need to move past the WTC and get to the real question about 911.
Who paid for 911?
I am sure you agree that the people that paid for 911 should be captured. In fact a concerted effort should be started. Can you please explain to me why the 911 committee said that the people that funded 911 are irrelevant when almost all conspiracy convictions are made through tracking the money?
Netanyahu
dont forget Netanyahu:On the day of the attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"
You must be scared that you can't provide evidence
Hasn't anyone taught you how to provide evidence instead of committing silly logical fallacies, Jon Gold? You're just confirming what everyone says, that you have no evidence and can't support your claims.
Aren't you the least bit embarrased by your silliness?
post hoc ergo propter hoc
You need to learn some about logic and reasoning. You've committed a post-hoc fallacy again.
It remains amazing that you can't come up with any physical evidence that 9/11 was an inside job and any evidence of explosives.
Talk about long-winded nonsense. We want evidence not logical fallacies.
abg
Are you going to have a discourse with me? Can you address my physical evidence?
Evidence
It remains amazing that you can't come up with any physical evidence that 19 Arab hijackers pulled off 9/11.
Here's some irrefutable physical evidence:
Watch all videos of its collapse here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
and note that in ALL the videos, none of the visible walls exhibit ANY trauma as they collapse smoothly and almost vertically into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a FACT that is ONLY explainable by CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any significant indication that the bottom edge of each wall is "hammering" itself into the ground. The columns essentially had NO structural integrity before/during their precipitous fall, and this is NOT possible without the aid of some outside force (read: demolition charges of some kind, the exact nature of which is still to be determined).
An animation of the construction of WTC 7 can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8
Note the large number of floor trusses connecting the inner vertical columns to the outer vertical columns. Now observe in the videos above that the "penthouse" collapses first, and that we see no indication of the floor trusses "pulling" the outside walls inward. If the floor trusses were still connected to the steel columns (and there's no reason they wouldn't be, without the help of demolition charges of some description), the collapsing penthouse would result in the floor trusses "pulling inward" on the outside columns. They did not, and the only way to explain this is that the floor trusses were "pre-disconnected" from the outside columns by some external force (again, demolition charges of some kind).
Start dancing, abg.
I'll ask you again, abg
Here's the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Debunk it. What are you afraid of?
There's nothing there
WHERE is the physical evidence of explosives? As you must know, there is none.
Now, stop evading the point please.
I am not talking about
I am not talking about explosives. I am talking about the case for 9/11 being an inside job based on means, motive and opportunity, which you are evading. It's obvious you have no intention of engaging in honest debate and are here merely to distract and annoy. So, buh-bye, troll. You'll here no more from me.
Note to others: There is a saying out there, "Don't feed the trolls," which I think is generally a good idea, although I prefer to follow a slightly modified version, "Don't feed the trolls anything but broccoli." If they spit it out and keep screaming about physical evidence, like abg above, I move along. That's my take on it. I wish more people would try that rather than just feeding the trolls exactly what they want. Feed them their vegetables or let the little bastards starve!
Uh....
BCS,
Do you rememeber the part where "explosive demolition" is the necessary end product of all 9/11 conspiracy theories you believe?
Perhaps you'd better review all those conspiracy sites and get back to us with physical evidence of explosives.
Exactly what conspiracy
Exactly what conspiracy theories do I believe, lars? Do tell, since you seem to know so much about what I think and believe. Nobody, nowhere, not even you, has the authority to claim that "explosive demolition is the end product of all 9/11 conspiracy theories."
Perhaps you better review the evidence I linked to and see that it has nothing to do with "explosive demolition." But, of course, you won't because you are a troll. Buh-bye.
Here's the evidence for
Here's the evidence for controlled demolition of WTC 7:
Watch all videos of its collapse here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
and note that in ALL the videos, none of the visible walls exhibit ANY trauma as they collapse smoothly and almost vertically into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a FACT that is ONLY explainable by CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any significant indication that the bottom edge of each wall is "hammering" itself into the ground. The columns essentially had NO structural integrity before/during their precipitous fall, and this is NOT possible without the aid of some outside force (read: demolition charges of some kind, the exact nature of which is still to be determined).
An animation of the construction of WTC 7 can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8
Note the large number of floor trusses connecting the inner vertical columns to the outer vertical columns. Now observe in the videos above that the "penthouse" collapses first, and that we see no indication of the floor trusses "pulling" the outside walls inward. If the floor trusses were still connected to the steel columns (and there's no reason they wouldn't be, without the help of demolition charges of some description), the collapsing penthouse would result in the floor trusses "pulling inward" on the outside columns. They did not, and the only way to explain this is that the floor trusses were "pre-disconnected" from the outside columns by some external force (again, demolition charges of some kind).
An incredible amount of
An incredible amount of evidence abounds pointing the responsible finger to the Bush team. Yet no evidence points to 19 cave dwelling Arabs. Why don't you give us some proof?
It's your duty
You are compelled to back up your claim of explosives with evidence. You have none and refuse to present any.
Everything follows from the claim of explosive demolition. You can't play games like Jon Gold does and make insinuations instead of presenting evidence.
That is why the 9/11 Truth Movement is a dismal failure. You just can't screw up the courage to come up with a shred of evidence, you believe every crackpot 9/11 conspiracists, and you dismiss allk of the evidence which proves you're nuts.
The world knows it.
it seems somewhat dishonest
it seems somewhat dishonest or illogical to state that 'everything follows from the claim of explosive demolition'. had you been around a year or two ago i think you would have realized that CD came along well after a majority of other 9/11 research and skepticism.
to suggest that CD is the lynch pin of 9/11 government involvement is just a method of framing the debate, and not a statement of fact, but rather a statement of your perceptions.
take CD off the table, forget about it, there is still more than enough evidence out there to justify a criminal investigation into this administration regarding 9/11. it is you that chooses to make CD the primary focus of discussion as I have never seen you chime in on any other topic discussions.
furthermore, there are plenty of us that do not advocate the 'inside job' meme.
It's reality
You forget that it is the 9/11 Truth Movement's claim that explosive demolition is the lynchpin of the whole conspiracy movement.
Without it, 9/11 cannot logically be an inside job, but that is the stated conclusion of 9/11 conspiracists and whom I am arguing against. Nor has any credible evidence been presented that Bush had anything to do with it.
What you have is a mass of fallacious arguments, based on logical errors, erroneous data, a deliberate ignoring of firm physical evidence against your claims, and a reliance on amateurs who repeat known debunked data. How can anyone here be blind to how you are all being used because you won't question ANYONE who makes 9/11 conspiracy claims?
In the meantime, you all ignore the realities of the world:
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.
Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week by Knopf. samharris.org.
September 18, 2006
"At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.
"Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities."
...
"Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are."
Well if you're convinced I'm a liberal....
...that might be on account of the hill-top of racism you sit upon.
I don't have enemies in the Muslim world, in-fact I have some wonderful friends there (you might want to give HomeLand Security a ring and TIP them off that I just said I have friends in the Muslim world).
What we're all struggling with (those of us excluded from effecting Policy carried out in our very names, by diffuse and Hold-Harmless creeps) is not some lack of economic opportunities... but the inequitable manipulation of them.
Pyroclastic Flows
Will you explain the pyroclastic flows abg? It is the only hard evidence outside of Newton's Laws that you also refuse to talk about. Crap why am I feeding the troll? Oh Well. LOL
Because that's some tasty
Because that's some tasty and nutritious broccoli... with carrots no less, thankyouverymuch.
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Here's the evidence for
Here's the evidence for controlled demolition of WTC 7:
Watch all videos of its collapse here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
and note that in ALL the videos, none of the visible walls exhibit ANY trauma as they collapse smoothly and almost vertically into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a FACT that is ONLY explainable by CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any significant indication that the bottom edge of each wall is "hammering" itself into the ground. The columns essentially had NO structural integrity before/during their precipitous fall, and this is NOT possible without the aid of some outside force (read: demolition charges of some kind, the exact nature of which is still to be determined).
An animation of the construction of WTC 7 can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8
Note the large number of floor trusses connecting the inner vertical columns to the outer vertical columns. Now observe in the videos above that the "penthouse" collapses first, and that we see no indication of the floor trusses "pulling" the outside walls inward. If the floor trusses were still connected to the steel columns (and there's no reason they wouldn't be, without the help of demolition charges of some description), the collapsing penthouse would result in the floor trusses "pulling inward" on the outside columns. They did not, and the only way to explain this is that the floor trusses were "pre-disconnected" from the outside columns by some external force (again, demolition charges of some kind).
abg
The puffs of smoke coming from the towers and wtc7 may not be proof, but they look like explosives. That is concrete evidence and proof that it looks like explosions. Don't you agree?
So what?
Who cares if they "look like" explosions?
Just because you don't like the logical explanations and you can't come up with physical evidence of explosives doesn't mean anyone should care or waste resources trying to despeartely prove something for which there's not a scrap of evidence.
Good
Good, then you agree that they look like explosives. That is concrete physical evidence. There is no doubt by anyone that the puffs look like explosives. I'm sure you agree. That is more than a scrap of evidence. it is proof that it looks like explosives. There are plenty of video showing the puffs. The videos are proof beyond any resonable doubt. Video evident is physical evidence in any court of law. You know that. So you must admit that there is physical evidence showing evidence of explosives. Right?
lars and abg are trolls.
lars and abg are trolls. Ignore them, they are not here to learn anything, only to confuse. IGNORE them.
Or feed them broccoli!
Wargames. Wargames. Wargames.
That's really cool logic
Wow!
I saw the sun rise in the east his morning, travel through the sky all day, and set in the west this evening.
That's physical evidence that we should have an independent investigation to prove that the government's conspiracy claim that the earth orbits the sun is FALSE!!
God, I love this!
Here's the evidence for
Here's the evidence for controlled demolition of WTC 7:
Watch all videos of its collapse here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
and note that in ALL the videos, none of the visible walls exhibit ANY trauma as they collapse smoothly and almost vertically into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a FACT that is ONLY explainable by CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any significant indication that the bottom edge of each wall is "hammering" itself into the ground. The columns essentially had NO structural integrity before/during their precipitous fall, and this is NOT possible without the aid of some outside force (read: demolition charges of some kind, the exact nature of which is still to be determined).
An animation of the construction of WTC 7 can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8
Note the large number of floor trusses connecting the inner vertical columns to the outer vertical columns. Now observe in the videos above that the "penthouse" collapses first, and that we see no indication of the floor trusses "pulling" the outside walls inward. If the floor trusses were still connected to the steel columns (and there's no reason they wouldn't be, without the help of demolition charges of some description), the collapsing penthouse would result in the floor trusses "pulling inward" on the outside columns. They did not, and the only way to explain this is that the floor trusses were "pre-disconnected" from the outside columns by some external force (again, demolition charges of some kind).
Here's the evidence for
Here's the evidence for controlled demolition of WTC 7:
Watch all videos of its collapse here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
and note that in ALL the videos, none of the visible walls exhibit ANY trauma as they collapse smoothly and almost vertically into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a FACT that is ONLY explainable by CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any significant indication that the bottom edge of each wall is "hammering" itself into the ground. The columns essentially had NO structural integrity before/during their precipitous fall, and this is NOT possible without the aid of some outside force (read: demolition charges of some kind, the exact nature of which is still to be determined).
An animation of the construction of WTC 7 can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8
Note the large number of floor trusses connecting the inner vertical columns to the outer vertical columns. Now observe in the videos above that the "penthouse" collapses first, and that we see no indication of the floor trusses "pulling" the outside walls inward. If the floor trusses were still connected to the steel columns (and there's no reason they wouldn't be, without the help of demolition charges of some description), the collapsing penthouse would result in the floor trusses "pulling inward" on the outside columns. They did not, and the only way to explain this is that the floor trusses were "pre-disconnected" from the outside columns by some external force (again, demolition charges of some kind).
STOP WASTING TIME
These trolls (like all trolls) obviously only have one purpose, and that is to provoke people and waste the time and energy of truthers. Whether they are shills or not, we should just IGNORE THEM.
Indeed
abg and the rest only waste mind and time and we all know that the mind is a terrible thing. LOL
Right...
Yes, your mind is a terrible thing.
I prefer my mind because I won't let a bunch of 9/11 conspiracy frauds steel it.
That means you.
Patterns, patterns and some more patterns..
Patterns, and patterns with patterns over here and patterns over there. Patterns for Lars, patterns for abg. Patterns for Nico, patterns for CB_B. Patterns patterns patterns.
You gents would be better off just picking up a gun and trying to get a merc J.O.B. if you really believe it what you attempt to represent in words .... you suck at information warfare.
Piissst.... We wont rat you out if you're just here trying to tip your masters hand because you really don't believe in all this silliness he's making you push. Just be careful... don't let him see the dailies from our web-sites, books and films... he'll know the gig is up and you'll be out of a cubic job, and on the street looking for scraps.
Patterns and more patterns.... gives you away every time. What controllers and manipulators have always lacked and not soon to acquire... is creativity and improvisation. The points here about 9/11 truth may be repeated often and even contain the periodic flaking LIE (thank you very much), but never in the same wrapper and bow. You gents on the other hand... keep trying to sell the same cheap trinkets, wadded in the same cheap cardboard. It probably still works on a lot of WalMart Americans.... but many of them are loosing interest in you crap wares too.
You can keep trying to change your internet handles... but your patterns stand out like crap bronze statues in the town square. Everybody knows it's there.... but we only occasionally look... sometime we rip it down. Watch out, Sholl.
e
"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.
Another whining nutter
You've more thah adequately demonstrated that you can't bring up any evidence to refute the facts or support your nonsensical claims.
No wonder you can't write an intelligent post but can only whine that life is unfair to you.
Where did I say "life is unfair"?
Life has offered me aplenty..... so much so... that I'll place it all on the line, for the chance of kicking true nutters like yourself.... square in the nuts.
It's quite simple: Fanatical hijackers could not commandeer four jet-liners, fly about willy-nilly, crash their tin darts filled with lamp oil, symmetrically drop three building through their asymmetrical Kamikaze attacks... and foil Pentagon air-space after circling overhead.
I need not provide ANY evidence to explain what really happened, for the U.S. Government has simply proven its willingness to LIE with one hand in my pocket, and the other stroking my dick. No more, thank you.
Life is quite fair.... it's the bastardization of government that ALWAYS redistributes "fairness" unfairly. It's people like you who are ALWAYS proven wrong when you insist this kind of status quo can be maintained.
Hopeless
Did you actually think about what you just wrote? Do you actually think you could possible be taken seriously?
Did you ever get to high school?
abg
Can you please explain to me why the 911 committee said that the people that funded 911 were irrevelant when almost all conspiracy convictions are made through tracking the money?
there is no point in
there is no point in addressing abg for discussion of anything non CD related, see the following for future reference:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2991#comment-70392
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3011#comment-70695
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
That's too funny.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
abg
Is this true? Will you not address my physical evidence? The money trail is physical evidence. Can you please explain to me why the 911 committee said that the people that funded 911 were irrevelant when almost all conspiracy convictions are made through tracking the money? Please respond, even if you don't answer the question.
I'm still waiting
It's up to you to refute the existing physical evidence and provide concrete evidence of explosives. I can wait.
IGNORE the trolls, please.
IGNORE the trolls, please.
HA! and just like that, the
HA! and just like that, the wannabe comedian is gone.
How much do they pay you guys
You are everywhere lars, abg and so on. If its good money I might be interested in playing the devils advocate all day. I mean really, day and night you guys are here, maybe you should get out and enjoy some sun or something. Do they let you out?
Here's the evidence for
Here's the evidence for controlled demolition of WTC 7:
Watch all videos of its collapse here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
and note that in ALL the videos, none of the visible walls exhibit ANY trauma as they collapse smoothly and almost vertically into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a FACT that is ONLY explainable by CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any significant indication that the bottom edge of each wall is "hammering" itself into the ground. The columns essentially had NO structural integrity before/during their precipitous fall, and this is NOT possible without the aid of some outside force (read: demolition charges of some kind, the exact nature of which is still to be determined).
An animation of the construction of WTC 7 can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8
Note the large number of floor trusses connecting the inner vertical columns to the outer vertical columns. Now observe in the videos above that the "penthouse" collapses first, and that we see no indication of the floor trusses "pulling" the outside walls inward. If the floor trusses were still connected to the steel columns (and there's no reason they wouldn't be, without the help of demolition charges of some description), the collapsing penthouse would result in the floor trusses "pulling inward" on the outside columns. They did not, and the only way to explain this is that the floor trusses were "pre-disconnected" from the outside columns by some external force (again, demolition charges of some kind).
Funny
I find it ironic that people like lars are even here. Shouldn't they be blogging at Popular Mechanics? They would really feel at home there.
test
test
I'm at home
I'm at home educationg you on the reality of the physical world. You'll thank me one day for warning you how people like Jones and Fetzer are using you.
Oh really
The only person I have and will continue to be guided by is Sir Isaac Newton, when science declares his laws invalid I will believe you abg. LOL
i believe these's a lot of
i believe these's a lot of evidence for controled demolishion, concrete turned to dust, molten steel in the sub-basements, evidence of hot spots above the tempratures which can be achieved by jet fuel as well as eyewitness reports of explosions prior to the first plane hitting the north tower and prior to the collaspes and photographic evidence taken in the following days, which show little sign of eveidence of proceding building collaspes like in mexico city, mexico and kobi, japan. pulverized concrete is the best evidence of explosives being used at the WTC. as for proof by scientific testing, i believe that calls up an even more interesting problem, just who's wonderful idea was it to sell all the steel before it was tested? who allowed it? and why?
No, that doesn't work
Explosives do not produce molten metal. Eyewitnesses never reported seeing explosives. The concrete was only partially pulverized as there was pleanty of large chunks of concrete. in the debris. No evidence of explosives has ever been found. There is plenty of steel, over a thousand pieces at Kennedy Airport STILL, and used by a conspiracy film posted here in another thread and filmed to "prove" there were explosives used.
What is really strange is why you all are so fixated on continually posting false data and stuff that was easily debunked long ago. Why do you feel the need to protect lies?
Here's an education on the
Here's an education on the controlled demolition of WTC 7 for you, abg:
Watch all videos of its collapse here:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
and note that in ALL the videos, none of the visible walls exhibit ANY trauma as they collapse smoothly and almost vertically into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a FACT that is ONLY explainable by CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any significant indication that the bottom edge of each wall is "hammering" itself into the ground. The columns essentially had NO structural integrity before/during their precipitous fall, and this is NOT possible without the aid of some outside force (read: demolition charges of some kind, the exact nature of which is still to be determined).
An animation of the construction of WTC 7 can be found here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-yuQeeYkq8
Note the large number of floor trusses connecting the inner vertical columns to the outer vertical columns. Now observe in the videos above that the "penthouse" collapses first, and that we see no indication of the floor trusses "pulling" the outside walls inward. If the floor trusses were still connected to the steel columns (and there's no reason they wouldn't be, without the help of demolition charges of some description), the collapsing penthouse would result in the floor trusses "pulling inward" on the outside columns. They did not, and the only way to explain this is that the floor trusses were "pre-disconnected" from the outside columns by some external force (again, demolition charges of some kind).
George Washington apparently works for the lying govt
Why would any supposedly-honest 911 truther ever insinuate that "terrorists" flew "planes" into the WTC and Pentagon?
How much is the govt paying you, George?
is that you blimpy? the
is that you blimpy?
the government said terrorists flew the planes, not GW. he uses mainstream sources to show that this idea was nothing new, and destroys their official stance of 'noone could imagine'. one of the best ways to destroy the official story is to shoot holes through everything they claim.
you are the dishonest one for attacking another 9/11 skeptic and trying to sew mistrust and division. now go back to your holograms.
Ignoring Physical Evidence
You don’t have to be a physicist or a structural engineer to figure out what happened with those buildings. All it takes is a basic understanding of the Laws of Motion and momentum and the properties of fire, heat and heat transfer. This isn’t rocket science, they teach these things in high school. They are universal and are taken into account when we manufacture many of the things we rely on in our society.
Popular Mechanics pushes the idea that the heat from the fuel was enough to weaken the support columns, this is total BS! For one thing the temperature to weaken steel is much greater than what can be produced from a open air fuel fire. If it were true that you could weaken steel with open air fire what would be the need for oxygen in the cutting torches that industries need to cut steel? They need this because open air fires do not burn hot enough to weaken steel. Also, the fuel mostly burned outside of the buildings, this is visible in the photo’s taken. What did burn inside the buildings was very localized. To weaken the inner supporting columns so they all gave at exactly the same time would require not only more fire at a higher temperature but it also would have had to have not been localized. The fire would have had to been all over and somehow it would have had to of had an outside source (similar to what a cutting torch uses) to increase it’s temperature (which didn’t happen and is visible by the color of the flames). If you’ve ever been in a foundry or worked with a cutting torch you have an idea of the temperature necessary and the length of time necessary to weaken steel. We’re talking 47 inner support columns for each tower giving at the same time, not possible by open air fire.
The proof that 9/11 was an 'inside job' is not that the buildings collapsed, it is that all of the major structural components of these buildings collapsed at exactly the same instant. The east, west, north and south sides of all three buildings collapsed at once in perfect synchronization. The perfectly symmetrical descent of the three buildings is a sure sign these collapses were controlled, especially considering the non-symmetrical impact damage and fires.
This is the "physical evidence" of what happened.
Not to mention the amount of energy necessary to completely pulverize all the concrete and steel on each and every floor at exactly the same rate and at near free-fall speed. Kinetic energy from the impact floor giving would not provide enough energy to do this. That energy came from somewhere and the "Official" story does not provide for it. The trolls keep asking for evidence, where's the phyical and scientific evidence that explains where the energy came from in the "Official" story? It doesn't exist.