9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate

[Stagger Lee]

The problem with the 911 truth "movement" mirriors that of the Disclosure Hearings- In that the truther's can't stick to the questions that Goggs has asked in this thread. Using language such as "Conspriacy" when seeking truth to 911 is similiar to giving Greer a microphone. If folks could stick to just asking the hard questions, we wouldn't now have "Conspiracy Nut" label attached to those questions today.

 

[TalkingMeatSuit]

I'm down with the "follow the money" thing.

I'd have to look up the details on it, but there was supposedly a $240 billion securities/bond fund that was used to buy up a lot of industry in Russia towards the end of the cold war that were issued on Sept 10, 1991. 10 years later it was time to collect, and the emergency powers that were enacted supposedly cleared the way to collect the money without going through the normal regulatory hoops. That's a pretty big amount of money, and a pretty big coincidence is this information is true.

There's also the famous video of Rumsfeld on 9/10/2001 on the "missing" $2.3 TRILLION from the Department of Defense. Also very fishy, considering how the IRS will make your life hell if you "misplace" money and short them a few thousand on taxes. They know everything about everything but somehow misplace a sum that we can't even fathom? A day later we were all in way too much shock over what happened to even think about this headline.

Between those 2 alone that's a lot of money, never mind the entire "profits of war" from the ensuing conflicts. Don't tell me that some of these bigshots feel guilty about the thousands and thousands of innocent lives lost overseas from all these conflicts as they count their millions. People without moral compass will certainly kill for far far less than billions / trillions. With a theoretical potential THIRTEEN DIGIT payout at stake, what's a thousand or so American lives? American lives are no more valuable than the lives of those in other countries. Why is it such a stretch to think that they'd kill a few people close to home?

There's an overabundance by way of motive here.

WTC 7 always rubbed me the wrong way too, as did the training and abilities of the alleged hijacker pilots, and how much of a joke the entire "official investigation" was.

I did think it was absolute SHIT to try and say that they found the passport of one of the highjackers in the street too. What a joke. 3 skyscrapers fell from the intensity of fire from 2 airplanes, yet a paper passport from the airplane survived and was found to be used as evidence? HAHAHA. I have a bridge I'd like to sell ya...

I'm not gonna say George W planned it, or that they used holographic plane missiles (lol) - but there's way too much fishy shit here.

 

[TalkingMeatSuit]

Re a missile hitting the Pentagon instead of an airplane:

A - Why must the hole in the Pentagon have a silhouette of airplane wings? To me it seems like they'd get ripped right off by running into a reinforced government building.

B - What's in it for the government to release the video? They gain nothing by releasing footage of one of their most important intelligence facilities being attacked.


The fact is that the few frames that we DO have show us jack. It could have been a flying saucer for all we know, and we probably won't ever know. It's the modern day JFK on steroids.

Re eye witness testimony: whether you believe the government's story or not, there's eye witness accounts that bolster both sides of the argument. Eye witnesses saying there were explosions in the basement of WTC 7 and eye witnesses saying that they didn't hear any explosions at all. At the end of the day just pick whatever ya wanna believe and have a beer, cuz this won't be settled in our lifetimes IMO.

 

[Bob Watson]

The main problem I have with all the contolled demolition crowd is the logistics of contolled demolitions...as for wtc 7 the stucture was damaged and the fires brought it downm

 

[TalkingMeatSuit]

Just to beat the dead horse a little more (I think I just saw it breath!): the official story might be crappy in some departments, but it very well could have been terrorists.

The amount of chaos in the city that day was off the charts. They tried taking the building down with a van full of explosives before.

What if they simply filled a few vans with whatever sort of explosives make a big enough boom (I know jack about this sorta thing), waited til the planes hit, then drove 'em into the basement of the buildings in the midst of all the pandemonium? There was plenty of time in between the planes hitting and the skyscrapers going down. Maybe they stuck to the original plan but just added that extra huge ass element of destruction and distraction?

And yes, our politicians and defense contractors are shady dirty people, but they very well could just be opportunists here.

Perhaps they did pull off the unthinkable for Allah. I ride the fence on this constantly.

 

[pixelsmith]

I have read it but will reread the WTC 7 section to refresh.my wife thinks the report is garbage...

good luck finding it.

 

[pixelsmith]

Re a missile hitting the Pentagon instead of an airplane:

A - Why must the hole in the Pentagon have a silhouette of airplane wings? To me it seems like they'd get ripped right off by running into a reinforced government building.

B - What's in it for the government to release the video? They gain nothing by releasing footage of one of their most important intelligence facilities being attacked.


The fact is that the few frames that we DO have show us jack. It could have been a flying saucer for all we know, and we probably won't ever know. It's the modern day JFK on steroids.

Re eye witness testimony: whether you believe the government's story or not, there's eye witness accounts that bolster both sides of the argument. Eye witnesses saying there were explosions in the basement of WTC 7 and eye witnesses saying that they didn't hear any explosions at all. At the end of the day just pick whatever ya wanna believe and have a beer, cuz this won't be settled in our lifetimes IMO.

I believe you are right.
A - The wings should be laying there right next to the two massive jet engines that ALSO didn't make a hole or imprint in the side of the building either.
B - Then why release 5 frames of the attack? If it was such an important and secure building why not shoot down the plane before it hit?

 

[TalkingMeatSuit]

I believe you are right.
A - The wings should be laying there right next to the two massive jet engines that ALSO didn't make a hole or imprint in the side of the building either.
B - Then why release 5 frames of the attack? If it was such an important and secure building why not shoot down the plane before it hit?

Just playing devil's advocate here, because if it did turn out to be a missile that wouldn't shock me at all, and as I sit here I do lean a little more towards inside job than pissed off Muslims.

A - Or the wings might have been utterly annihilated. Flying into a huge reinforced defense structure at hundreds of miles per hour with a bunch of jet fuel sounds like a good recipe for utterly shredding just about any object. Perhaps they were indeed knocked off and the kinetic motion carried the entire destroyed mass into the building. The photos that they do have allege to show an engine rotor, scraps of plane, etc. Does this mean that they blasted it with a missile, then quickly planted some random twisted scraps of airplane here and there for photos? The fact that there's not much wreckage out front isn't surprising - what should the plane have done, bounce off and back into the lawn?

B - Why do they even bother to respond to FOIA requests by sending investigators, UFO hunters, etc nothing but a bunch of pages with a little text and a lot of redaction? They keep a tight leash on anything intelligence or defense related. Perhaps they weren't even going to release anything, but after lots of nagging they just crapped out a few useless photos just to try and make people be quiet?

 

[pixelsmith]

Why not fly directly into the pentagon? why

Just playing devil's advocate here, because if it did turn out to be a missile that wouldn't shock me at all, and as I sit here I do lean a little more towards inside job than pissed off Muslims.

A - Or the wings might have been utterly annihilated. Flying into a huge reinforced defense structure at hundreds of miles per hour with a bunch of jet fuel sounds like a good recipe for utterly shredding just about any object. Perhaps they were indeed knocked off and the kinetic motion carried the entire destroyed mass into the building. The photos that they do have allege to show an engine rotor, scraps of plane, etc. Does this mean that they blasted it with a missile, then quickly planted some random twisted scraps of airplane here and there for photos? The fact that there's not much wreckage out front isn't surprising - what should the plane have done, bounce off and back into the lawn?

B - Why do they even bother to respond to FOIA requests by sending investigators, UFO hunters, etc nothing but a bunch of pages with a little text and a lot of redaction? They keep a tight leash on anything intelligence or defense related. Perhaps they weren't even going to release anything, but after lots of nagging they just crapped out a few useless photos just to try and make people be quiet?

Too bad that rotor was not from one of the 2 titanium engines. they both should be laying OUTSIDE the building because there were no entrance holes for them to enter the building. Most of the pics you see are AFTER the wall caved in. There were no 9 ton titanium engines laying there but there were soft aluminum pieces laying around with no fire damage. yes... that sounds normal.

 

[Pygar2]

The passport was no more unlikely than any other given piece of paper... and I saw a pic that looked like a snowstorm of paper on the ground.

Since this is real life, not a Roadrunner cartoon, we need not expect a nice surviving wall with an aircraft outline on it. Once the wings Transformered themselves into the fuselage, the engines were along for the ride through the wall anyway.

Oh, and let's see the wide-winged cruise missile supposedly used, one whose wings were just as wide as the real plane inexplicably not used, long enough to total streetlight poles on either side...

The reason the Pentagon is not set up to shoot down approaching aircraft, may have something to do with the fact that they are just beyond the end of a runway. If you think people gripe about the Pentagon now, consider how they'd talk if they ever did start shooting down anything in the air near them...

 

[TalkingMeatSuit]

The passport was no more unlikely than any other given piece of paper... and I saw a pic that looked like a snowstorm of paper on the ground.

Yes, I understand that when the buildings came down or were hit that debris went everywhere, but how on earth would a passport make it out of the plane that flew into the building with so much heat and intensity that it caused 3 skyscrapers to fall from a fire for the first 3 times in recorded history? It's not like the windows on the jet were rolled down and it blew out the window. Ya can't have it both ways.

 

[pixelsmith]

Since this is real life, not a Roadrunner cartoon, we need not expect a nice surviving wall with an aircraft outline on it.

You mean an aircraft outline like the one on WTC2?

 

[Pygar2]

Yes, except for the Pentagon being WWII masonry construction, and specially hardened, instead of lightness-means-cheapness Tower construction...

Passportwise- it's not as though the plane passed through intact; once the place and the building both had holes, paper and other objects could be flung quite a ways. I could understand the question if the passport had gotten out of a massive steel vault, but thrown out of a disintegrating plane? What's the problem? Debris from other crashes includes objects no stranger... kiddie toys and such.

 

[Rikki]

good luck finding it.

I'm going to help my poor husband out and those here and direct hose who care to a site that shreds the BS that is the 9/11 report
9-11 Research: The 9-11 Report

 

[Tyger]

I was teaching school in Bethesda MD when this all took place. My class was outside on the school playing fields when we heard the impact. For days the Washington Post was filled with interviews of truck drivers and car drivers who were on the highway - and saw the plane pass in front of them. This incident was exhaustively covered. There were photos and video of the site - people describing what they saw that day. After the fact people were driving by - standing on the overpasses - to see the scene. Even me - though memory is fuzzy since the facts at the time were never an issue - it was the enormity of the event, the nation's capital under martial law and the cessation of air flight. This idea that there was no plane is puzzling beyond puzzling - because there were the pictures - and I seem to recall seeing one for some reason. All those news articles must be archived - should be an easy matter to access them.

I'm trying to summon up the images: I seem to recall a huge - what? - tarpaulin kind of thing erected all around the site. For some reason I recall a plane - on the ground, very much so and I mean seriously crashed into the Pentagon. Why would I have that image if there was no intact plane? Rhetorical question. As it happens I have someone local to me by pure happenchance who was also in D.C. at the time. I'm going to ask him about this. It will take me a few days to broach this - probably by Wednesday I'll have his memory of the event.

I post vids of witnesses of evidence I even tried to produce pics of the plane that hit the pentagon. facts don't change! there is a mountain of evidence that a plane hit the pentagon! yet some insist on more..

Okay, I touched base with my friend today. Also, as a caveat, I offer the following solely as someone who was in the environs of D.C. when this event happened. People here appear far better read on the matter than I. What I offer here is just personal memories. I could also e-mail certain long-ago friends in D.C. but you have to understand that if you were there that day, there is no doubt what happened, and to question it seems insane to those who were there.

First, what I recall: a big plane hit the Pentagon. There were pictures. I saw them. I saw video. The plane drove through the outer wall and penetrated the second ring - just the nose, I'm guessing. It was not 'vaporized'. It existed intact as a recognizeable plane (worse for wear, of course). There was no fire because very little fuel (I understand from my friend).

My friend was in Virginia that morning, but he had friends who actually experienced the plane going directly over their car - I hadn't known that at the time (the man who is local to me now who was in D.C. back then was my friend back then, too). I do recall all the interviews in the Washington Post - as I mentioned. I'd forgotten that he had friends who'd been on the 95 (I think) - pretty dramatic - unforgettable. There was a plane, folks, there was a plane. A big one. People saw it.

I taught a class that had parents in the government at various levels - and he reminded me that one of those parents was in the Pentagon that morning - and had a vivid story to tell of the plane sliding in - the sheer sound - the scale - unforgettable. (How could I have forgotten that? easy, I just don't think about 9/11 much at all - and a lot of living between then and now - better memories to store and recall).

Yet why go on? On some level, I sense that the witnessing doesn't matter - and could even be viewed as my being a government 'plant' to muddy the 'facts'. I'm not. This was a real event - people lost their lives - some horrifically - in that plane. There are people who died that day - they left families. What to say? There was a plane. Parse the 'facts' however you will - however the 'facts' seem to support alternative scenarios - the reality is there was a plane, people saw it, heard it, saw it lying in ruins. There wasn't a 'little hole' in a Pentagon wall - there was a devastation to the Pentagon building on one end. That's a fact. That's the way it was.

 

[pixelsmith]

I'm going to help my poor husband out and those here and direct hose who care to a site that shreds the BS that is the 9/11 report
9-11 Research: The 9-11 Report

you would think the OFFICIAL 9/11 Commission report would mention WTC 7 right? Check out who occupied the building. WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: What Was In Building 7?

Be sure to read this in the link above:

One of the most interesting tenants was then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management, and its emergency command center on the 23rd floor. This floor received 15 million dollars worth of renovations, including independent and secure air and water supplies, and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. 2 The 1993 bombing must have been part of the rationale for the command center, which overlooked the Twin Towers, a prime terrorist target.

How curious that on the day of the attack, Guiliani and his entourage set up shop in a different headquarters, abandoning the special bunker designed precisely for such an event.

 

[pixelsmith]

Okay, I touched base with my friend today. Also, as a caveat, I offer the following solely as someone who was in the environs of D.C. when this event happened. People here appear far better read on the matter than I. What I offer here is just personal memories. I could also e-mail certain long-ago friends in D.C. but you have to understand that if you were there that day, there is no doubt what happened, and to question it seems insane to those who were there.

First, what I recall: a big plane hit the Pentagon. There were pictures. I saw them. I saw video. The plane drove through the outer wall and penetrated the second ring - just the nose, I'm guessing. It was not 'vaporized'. It existed intact as a recognizeable plane (worse for wear, of course). There was no fire because very little fuel (I understand from my friend).

My friend was in Virginia that morning, but he had friends who actually experienced the plane going directly over their car - I hadn't known that at the time (the man who is local to me now who was in D.C. back then was my friend back then, too). I do recall all the interviews in the Washington Post - as I mentioned. I'd forgotten that he had friends who'd been on the 95 (I think) - pretty dramatic - unforgettable. There was a plane, folks, there was a plane. A big one. People saw it.

I taught a class that had parents in the government at various levels - and he reminded me that one of those parents was in the Pentagon that morning - and had a vivid story to tell of the plane sliding in - the sheer sound - the scale - unforgettable. (How could I have forgotten that? easy, I just don't think about 9/11 much at all - and a lot of living between then and now - better memories to store and recall).

Yet why go on? On some level, I sense that the witnessing doesn't matter - and could even be viewed as my being a government 'plant' to muddy the 'facts'. I'm not. This was a real event - people lost their lives - some horrifically - in that plane. There are people who dies that day - they left families. What to say? There was a plane. Parse the 'facts' however you will - however the 'facts' seem to support alternative scenarios - the reality is there was a plane, people saw it, heard it, saw it lying in ruins. There wasn't a 'little hole' in a Pentagon wall - there was a devastation to the Pentagon building on one end. That's a fact. That's the way it was.

yup and you can find witnesses that say the big plane flew right on by as a missile hit the building.

 

[Tyger]

yup and you can find witnesses that say the big plane flew right on by as a missile hit the building.

So it is pointless to 'argue' this because your mind is made up. You will see anything said through the veil of your presumptions. There was a huge plane lying in ruins smashed into the Pentagon. Travel to D.C. See how close the highway is to the Pentagon. It's in coughing distance. No plane traveling that low 'passed on'. It was doomed to crash. If it passed over the heads of those on the highway that plane was going nowhere but down - it was flown into the ground.

How was it done? Amateurs have done most impossible, never-before-done actions - and made inexplicable decisions while executing said improbable actions.

 

[pixelsmith]

So it is pointless to 'argue' this because your mind is made up. You will see anything said through the veil of your presumptions. There was a huge plane lying in ruins smashed into the Pentagon. Travel to D.C. See how close the highway is to the Pentagon. It's in coughing distance. No plane traveling that low 'passed on'. It was doomed to crash. If it passed over the heads of those on the highway that plane was going nowhere but down - it was flown into the ground.

How was it done? Amateurs have done most impossible, never-before-done actions - and made inexplicable decisions while executing said improbable actions.

I see your mind is made up so enjoy believing a dude with a 99 cent box cutter and little flying experience could penetrate the redundant radar, security and defenses of the most secure building in the world. I envision our troops each armed with dozens of these box cutters.. no one could stop them!

 

[Bob Watson]

How in the heck did they miss the fact that the attack
Destroyed a 47 floor bulding the 9/11 report in in the least incompleate and crimaly missing facts.jes..my wife really found a live wire in the 9/11 mess