Mossad did 9/11. Period.

[dyingsun]

So, who made the 2004 Tsunami happen ? I'm actually disgusted at the lack of contempt for human life, see ya.

 

[cottonzway]

And your peer reviewed scientific analysis that supports this statement can be found where?

Since you asked.

http://www.math.missouri.edu/~rich/911/JonesWTC911Dust.pdf



---------- Post added at 03:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 AM ----------

A year ago or so I would have had a long reply to this. The topic itself has taken it's toll on me to an extent. I still deeply care about it, but just don't have the energy to fight with people again and again on this.

I'll give something USEFUL to the debate (IMO) if people wish to look it up. Not about physics, planes, Jews, Freemasons, reptoids, space beams, or whatever.

I would say that what these 5 people have to share in terms of the events of 9/11 is quite important:

-Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer
-Lt. Col. Steven Butler
-Sibel Edmonds (FBI translator)
-Robert Wright (FBI field agent, Chicago)
-Collen Rawley (FBI field agent, Phoenix)

I'm going to guess after 7 pages of debate, nobody looked this up?

*sigh*

 

[cottonzway]

Wow, you don't come off like a total douche or anything, Lance.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Now now children! Let's play nice. I prefer to resist the close thread urge.

 

[cottonzway]

Now now children! Let's play nice. I prefer to resist the close thread urge.

That's fine Gene. Lance has no interest in addressing the points I made in this thread before and will just result into strawman arguements. I don't have any interest in debating with him after his first reply as it shows he doesn't have any real interest in the topic IMO.

---------- Post added at 04:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 AM ----------

But the Truthers on this thread have not made one honest effort to communicate.

That is totally dishonest.

I made a post on the first page here that attempted to do that. It also had NOTHING to do with buildings, physics, and airplanes. Not a single person said anything about it.

 

[pixelsmith]

Ok Lance, one theory at a time. Where would you like to start?

 

[Kuzza]

1. The buildings were designed for aircraft crashing into them. Thomas Eagar an MIT professor of materials engineering says " The impact of the planes would not have been significant, because the number of columns lost in the initial impact was not large and the loads shifted to the remaining columns"
2. It has also been proven that steel when heated acts as a conductor of heat. Even if the fire reached temp of 1300 F like in the official story that does not mean the steel would reach that temp.
You have to remember the planes only took out 6 stories.
Like i said before to make the buildings come down there would have to have been multiple impacts to the buildings.
This is not an assumption this is proven fact.

Then theres building 7 which was not hit by any planes.

"There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission didn’t even mention it, and F.E.M.A. actually stated they DIDN’T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT." Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)

Lance you asked me before if I was a firefighter and the answer is no I'm not but Anton Vodvarka is and he was there.

 

[Jose Collado]

Like i said before to make the buildings come down there would have to have been multiple impacts to the buildings.
This is not an assumption this is proven fact.

That's an assumption.

Then theres building 7 which was not hit by any planes.

"There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the “smoking gun”. Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare.

Here's something interesting VIEW PDF

 

[Kuzza]

and indeed did for a good while, saving many people)

56 mins is not a good while.

those design specs did not take into account the resulting fire and the weakening of the steel after crucial fire protection was blasted off of it. It was the fire that bought down the building.

Yeah but only on 6 floors. How does that bring a 110 story building down at free fall speed?

I don't even know how to respond to your second point or if it is a point at all. There WERE fires

I never said there were not fires. But never in our history before or after 9/11 has fire ever brought down a steel structured building. Especially not at free fall speed.

ALL of the fire fighters that were there directly dispute the Truther theories

Firefighter Edward Cachia who was there said " It actually gave at a lower floor, not where the plane hit... we thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives because it went boom, boom, boom, boom then the tower came down.

Auxiliary Fireman Lt Paul Issac said " There were definitely bombs in those buildings, many other fireman know there were bombs but are afraid to admit because they will lose their jobs. The higher ups forbid discussion of this fact"

Firefighter Tim Burke said " There is a secondary device because of the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth FF 911 Truth
Why dont you tell these fireman that. It carries no weight lance because its untrue.

That's an assumption

Jose its not an assumption Thomas Eagar clearly states that the number of columns lost in the impact was not significant because the loads were shifted to the remaining columns.



This is the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

In Caracus a 50 story building was engulfed for 17 hours, it gutted the top 20 floors and yet it did not collapse. So how does a building that that has fires on 6 floors and burns for only 50 mins bring down the whole thing at free fall speed.

If the planes can't bring down the building like i have already said then it is highly unlikely that fires can based on examples we have seen in the past.

Someone said before that you can't tell people the truth even though it is staring them right in the face. How true this statement is.

Dyingsun also said that people who want the truth have no compassion for the victims. What a stupid comment.

Unfortunately we are never going to see eye to eye. But this is freedom of speech isn't it, Thank God Bush never took that away as well.

 

[Kuzza]

In the 9/11 commission report it clearly states: At 9:58.59 the south tower collapsed in ten seconds.
Lance you argue about 1 second here and two seconds there but it doesn't matter it was free fall we all watched it.

You use the commission report when you need it and argue with it when it doesn't suit your argument.

It is sad I agree.

 

[cottonzway]

Ok, will make an attempt to be more civil (even knowing my own failings).

I read cottonzways' 1st post and (to me) it seemed to say:

Here are some names I think mean something. Look em up.

I was not inclined to do so, thinking that any points could have been made right there in the post.

I then read in other posts (from other folks) the same old tired Truther chestnuts that have long been discredited and I posted evidence that I feel smartly demolishes them.

I was accused without detail of posting Strawman arguments. I would love to hear an elaboration of that. I was also accused of being a douchebag which I need no further evidence of at this time

Lance

The whole point of NOT leaving a lot of info and simply names is for YOU OR WHOMEVER choose to look it up to not have MY views on it cramed down your throat. It's as honest attempt to give people a reason to see why I have my questions on 9/11. If people care enough, they will look and I don't think they can reasonably say after looking those names and how they were involved with information prior to 9/11 and had intelligence to try and stop it.

Any attempt to have this kind of debate or to share info and say "Look it up for yourself, your own sources, and see how you feel about it afterwards." always seems to fail because people have these built in mechanisms to frame the debate in this manner of controlled demo vs. structural fire/damage at the WTC complex. What if all the people who claim it was a controlled demo are indeed wrong? Does that have ANY impact on information in regards to intellligence about people were watching the hijackers, tried to stop them, but were stopped from doing so by their supervisors? No it does not and it doesn't change many other topics about the whole event that have NOTHING to do with planes or buildings.

I challenge you to look up those names and you may see why I at least have my questions. There info means we simply need a new investigation to the matter and the rest of the banter is wasted rhetoric on both sides IMO.

 

[Kieran]

Believe in rumour's all ye what. But the evidence doesn't lie. With the large commercial airliners having rammed straight at the two Twin Towers at a tremendous speed. This obviously weakened the steel structures on impact and with the gallons of Jet fuel being released, the fire that was engulfing all the the office equipment, papers, and so on, this created a hotter fire and almost certainly reached the temperature that would cause the steel to lose strength. The Steel never needed to melt just lose integrity.

The towers were not brought down by controlled demolitions. A silly theory from silly people. To plant demolitions in one public building is high risk, but to plant demolitions in three public building's without anyone seeing anything. I just don't believe, it is possible. You probably see this kind of thing in a Hollywood blockbuster, but in the real world it doesn't happen.

I'm of the believe, floor after floor of both Twin Towers towers collapsed one after another due to reasons i outline above. Least i forget, The extra weight of both Airliners didn't help and both planes were carrying the personal baggage of the passengers. These are all extra factors to consider to why both Towers collapsed. Some people here are just delusional, just face the facts that there isn't much in the way of a conspiracy here.

---------- Post added at 12:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 AM ----------

56 mins is not a good while.



Yeah but only on 6 floors. How does that bring a 110 story building down at free fall speed?



I never said there were not fires. But never in our history before or after 9/11 has fire ever brought down a steel structured building. Especially not at free fall speed.



Firefighter Edward Cachia who was there said " It actually gave at a lower floor, not where the plane hit... we thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives because it went boom, boom, boom, boom then the tower came down.

Auxiliary Fireman Lt Paul Issac said " There were definitely bombs in those buildings, many other fireman know there were bombs but are afraid to admit because they will lose their jobs. The higher ups forbid discussion of this fact"

Firefighter Tim Burke said " There is a secondary device because of the way the building popped. I thought it was an explosion.

Fire Fighters For 9-11 Truth FF 911 Truth
Why dont you tell these fireman that. It carries no weight lance because its untrue.



Jose its not an assumption Thomas Eagar clearly states that the number of columns lost in the impact was not significant because the loads were shifted to the remaining columns.



This is the Beijing Mandarin Oriental Hotel Fire. The nearly completed 520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight. Despite the fact that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.

In Caracus a 50 story building was engulfed for 17 hours, it gutted the top 20 floors and yet it did not collapse. So how does a building that that has fires on 6 floors and burns for only 50 mins bring down the whole thing at free fall speed.

If the planes can't bring down the building like i have already said then it is highly unlikely that fires can based on examples we have seen in the past.

Someone said before that you can't tell people the truth even though it is staring them right in the face. How true this statement is.

Dyingsun also said that people who want the truth have no compassion for the victims. What a stupid comment.

Unfortunately we are never going to see eye to eye. But this is freedom of speech isn't it, Thank God Bush never took that away as well.

See the Problem with your theory is, the Towers collapsed from Top to Bottom. People who wire buildings for demolishing, don't start from the top they start from the bottom. And there is no way in Hell a Demolition charge or explosive could've resisted the fire. So everything else you have theorised is simply irrelevant, since your argument is obviously flawed for starters.

When two large American airliners go into buildings and don't come out. Expect odd things to happen to a building when this occurs. The other instances of building fire are not important due the fact it was fire caused within the building. With the Twin towers what happened was completely different there is no reference point for this type of event to look to.

 

[Kuzza]

To plant demolitions in one public building is high risk, but to plant demolitions in three public building's without anyone seeing anything. I just don't believe, it is possible. You probably see this kind of thing in a Hollywood blockbuster, but in the real world it doesn't happen.

See the thing is irishseekers there were plenty of people who went on the record to say that for months leading up to 9/11 there were all sorts of activity going on in the buildings. Construction work was heard and seen by plenty of witnesses. Also from witnesses who worked in the buildings they said there were an unprecedented number of fire drills which evacuated certain areas of the buildings at certain times.

This obviously weakened the steel structures on impact and with the gallons of Jet fuel being released, the fire that was engulfing all the the office equipment, papers, and so on, this created a hotter fire and almost certainly reached the temperature that would cause the steel to lose strength. The Steel never needed to melt just lose integrity.

I already explained in a previous post that MIT professor of materials engineering Thomas Eagar stated that "The impact of the planes would NOT have been significant because the number of columns lost in the initial impact was not large enough and the loads were shifted to the remaining columns"

I would also like to add that Hyman Brown construction manager of the twin towers said "These buildings were OVER designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, bombings and AIRCRAFT HITTING THEM"

To say that these people did not take into account that fuel would be in these planes is absurd. This leaves the plane mixed with jet fuel theory irrelevant.
So it comes down to a fire theory and I can't stress enough that never before or after 9/11 has any steel structured building anywhere in the world ever collapsed. At free fall speed mind you.

Ok now irishseekers, lancemoody and jose we are never going to see eye to eye, thats cool with me you have your opinions Im not going to call you childish names like you have to some of us.
For me this is over now.

9/11 was horrific to all the people that died and all their families my deepest sympathies go out to them. For asking the questions I am it doesn't make me insensitive.

Goodbye.

 

[Kieran]

See the thing is irishseekers there were plenty of people who went on the record to say that for months leading up to 9/11 there were all sorts of activity going on in the buildings. Construction work was heard and seen by plenty of witnesses. Also from witnesses who worked in the buildings they said there were an unprecedented number of fire drills which evacuated certain areas of the buildings at certain times.



I already explained in a previous post that MIT professor of materials engineering Thomas Eagar stated that "The impact of the planes would NOT have been significant because the number of columns lost in the initial impact was not large enough and the loads were shifted to the remaining columns"

I would also like to add that Hyman Brown construction manager of the twin towers said "These buildings were OVER designed to withstand almost anything including hurricanes, bombings and AIRCRAFT HITTING THEM"

To say that these people did not take into account that fuel would be in these planes is absurd. This leaves the plane mixed with jet fuel theory irrelevant.
So it comes down to a fire theory and I can't stress enough that never before or after 9/11 has any steel structured building anywhere in the world ever collapsed. At free fall speed mind you.

Ok now irishseekers, lancemoody and jose we are never going to see eye to eye, thats cool with me you have your opinions Im not going to call you childish names like you have to some of us.
For me this is over now.

9/11 was horrific to all the people that died and all their families my deepest sympathies go out to them. For asking the questions I am it doesn't make me insensitive.

Goodbye.

See the problem Kuzza, your putting out ideas to fit your case without giving evidence to back it up. Like so what; if there was construction work going and maintenance work happening weeks before the attacks. Companies who have a large number of employees do Fire drills on a regular basis. What could have happened here is; that certain department heads of companies decided to do fire drills for there particular area of the building weeks before the attacks.

While other departments heads of different companies stayed in there offices after being notified/ by call a fire drill would happen. Thousands of people streaming out building's is a nightmare to control and then you've to account for anyone to make sure everyone got out safely.

Mini fire drills cause less disruption to business and prevent the clogging up of escape routes. I've a problem with the theory that you alluding to; that someone or some people planted explosives or demolition charges and could've around this time slipped past security and done the deed and left.

Kuzza, i explained it to you already, there was no demolition charges planted, because there is no demolition or explosive in the known world that can withstand a fire that was close to or above 1200C in Temperature.
Since the towers came crashing down from top to bottom. The charges would have to placed at the top first and worked all the way down. The top twenty floors would have to planted with demolitions and some of this charges would have to placed within the top six floors considering what the video evidence show's a collapse from the top.

Demolition's would have gone off Kuzza due to the intensity of the Fire within the towers. Even the signal or electronic device that was used to trigger the Demolitions and the wiring, would've become useless and more than likely effected the whole process of setting off the demolitions.

The whole thing works as one, shutting of the signal at critical points. Then the other points become ineffective. Anyway below the Six floors there was no evidence that i could see. That would confirm a controlled demolition. There was no caving of the floors below the fire or explosive blow out/ windows at any corner of the floors below just before the towers came down. You would expect to see movement or shaking of the whole exterior of the building. If Demolitions were set off but in reality there was no sign of this. What happened is the top floors collapsed on each other one after another. The middle and bottom portion of the building were peaceful until there was rumble and the top floors gave way and the two buildings came crushing down.

Steel loses half strength at 1100c/ there is a myth it would take 1500c. That is a bogus claim. The Fire inside the top floors was reaching temperatures closer to or above 1500c. Sufficient heat enough for the steel to lose strength. There was no effective damping of this fires/ by water that usually quells other fires in other buildings. 9/11 was different the fireman and rescue workers were hampered in doing their work and getting their equipment up there fast enough. It was a rescue job trying to save lives, but when the towers collapsed this brave men lost their lives long with the people they were trying to rescue.

You'll get an idea of what fire can do when an large Airliner crashes into a building were the exterior wall is reinforced with layers of concrete, steel, and kevlar. The Pentagon was a low building and had a longer width then the Twin towers.

A portion of the Pentagon wall still collapsed due to the intensity of the fire. The steel didn't protect this portion of the wall from collapsing. The fire was Indeed spreading to other locations of the Pentagon. But Firemen were able to fight this fire because it was a building lower to the ground. The Twin Towers was a different scenario and i explained that already above. So the myth of steel can't fail is crazy and the pentagon is further proof that steel only needs to lose strength before failing. How do people think steel is even made with Fire of course.

Kuzza, you demolition theory is bogus. This means your argument is flawed. Have you an alternative theory to what could have brought down the Towers? I'm Sorry if i you think i was calling you names. But believing in something does require evidence. The evidence you've presented goes against what the actually real evidence suggest's.

 

[pixelsmith]

Irishseeker read the blueprints for the WTC towers. The official theory is NOT possible. You very clearly know NOTHING about the construction of the towers. ZIP NADA ZERO.
thanks for playing though!

 

[trainedobserver]

Having studied the whole 911 business until I was sick of it I came to this conclusion.

You either believe that through some convergence of events that three steel frames buildings collapsed due to fire for the first and last time in history or you don't. You either have a problem with the withholding of numerous and clear videos of something striking the Pentagon or you don't.

It is practically religious in nature. Either fires destroyed three steel framed buildings for the first time on that day or something else happened. You either believe there is some security reason for withholding the numerous videos of the Pentagon strike that day or you don't. You believe the official story or you don't. I for one cannot believe it for reasons I really don't care to argue with anyone. I have no idea what really happened that day but I know it was not properly investigated and we have yet to be told the complete truth.

One of the most thought provoking films on 911 is a art film (and thus a bit hard to sit through for some) called "Who Killed John O'Neil?"

 

[Kieran]

Irishseeker read the blueprints for the WTC towers. The official theory is NOT possible. You very clearly know NOTHING about the construction of the towers. ZIP NADA ZERO.
thanks for playing though!

Pixel my arguments are logical. If you can't accept facts that is your problem. I have nothing against you or others who believe in this, but your so blind that you can't see that Demolition's couldn't have brought down the Towers.

 

[pixelsmith]

You'll get an idea of what fire can do when an large Airliner crashes into a building were the exterior wall is reinforced with layers of concrete, steel, and kevlar. The Pentagon was a low building and had a longer width then the Twin towers.

LMAO!!! yup, a 757 after getting past redundant radar systems and missile defense weapons, performed an impossible maneuver (for someone who couldnt land a cessna anyway) then flew inches off the ground (impossible because there would be no lift) then folded its wings and 9 ton titanium engines back and then inside itself and squeezed thru a 16 ft diameter hole while leaving no wing or engine marks on the wall. Riiiight.

How does a slow moving jet get past dual radar systems? There is an Air Force base about 15 miles away, why were Jets not scrambled?
Why fly around the building in order to crash into the other side where construction was being done? The flight path 77 was on would have taken directly into the Pentagon with no need for a daring maneuver. Could it be because Cheney was on that side giving orders? Check Norman Minetas testimony concerning a stand down order.
The official story for all 9/11 events does NOT hold water. Several of the 9/11 commissioners say they were gagged and the investigation was corrupt.

Back to to the WTC Towers, how is it Bush SAW the first plane hit the WTC tower? He said twice he saw it on TV before he went to read to children. No one saw the first plane hit until a day later. If the plane did indeed explode and weakened the steel enough to cause a complete collapse, we would have seen a huge pile of floors stacked up on one another with the 40+ central core columns standing in the middle. It is impossible for 4 inch thick steel columns to collapse within themselves. They didnt tip over, so they had to somehow magically drop straight down and disappear.

Sorry so brief but I have tons to do right now.

---------- Post added at 03:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------

Pixel my arguments are logical. If you can't accept facts that is your problem. I have nothing against you or others who believe in this, but your so blind that you can't see that Demolition's couldn't have brought down the Towers.

Only in your mind dude. Have you even looked at the blueprints?

 

[Kieran]

LMAO!!! yup, a 757 after getting past redundant radar systems and missile defense weapons, performed an impossible maneuver (for someone who couldnt land a cessna anyway) then flew inches off the ground (impossible because there would be no lift) then folded its wings and 9 ton titanium engines back and then inside itself and squeezed thru a 16 ft diameter hole while leaving no wing or engine marks on the wall. Riiiight.

How does a slow moving jet get past dual radar systems? There is an Air Force base about 15 miles away, why were Jets not scrambled?
Why fly around the building in order to crash into the other side where construction was being done? The flight path 77 was on would have taken directly into the Pentagon with no need for a daring maneuver. Could it be because Cheney was on that side giving orders? Check Norman Minetas testimony concerning a stand down order.
The official story for all 9/11 events does NOT hold water. Several of the 9/11 commissioners say they were gagged and the investigation was corrupt.

Back to to the WTC Towers, how is it Bush SAW the first plane hit the WTC tower? He said twice he saw it on TV before he went to read to children. No one saw the first plane hit until a day later. If the plane did indeed explode and weakened the steel enough to cause a complete collapse, we would have seen a huge pile of floors stacked up on one another with the 40+ central core columns standing in the middle. It is impossible for 4 inch thick steel columns to collapse within themselves. They didnt tip over, so they had to somehow magically drop straight down and disappear.

Sorry so brief but I have tons to do right now.

---------- Post added at 03:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:25 PM ----------



Only in your mind dude. Have you even looked at the blueprints?

For the betterment of my sanity. I'm not going to reply any more to this thread. You can't win an argument with you Pixel. Sixty years from today, i bet you still be talking about the same thing.

 

[pixelsmith]

Fight or flight. You can't answer a few questions so you run away. I have many more questions for you. I have worked with forging steel, I have worked with reading blueprints, I have studied this since 9/11. I have answers to any questions you may have. Yet... when you are challenged, you flee.

That you would run away so quickly when challenged pretty much sums up your knowledge on the events on 9/11. ZIP NADA NOTHING.

---------- Post added at 04:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------

Irishseekers tucked tail and ran. Ok who is next? Lance, Jose, Paul?

Steel structured buildings can not fall into the path of most resistance unless forced that way. If fires weakened these very tall towers, you would have seen an asymmetrical collapse. These were very solid structures. A very simple analogy for you guys would be a bon fire. Ever see one instantly collapse? No. They crumble one way, then another way, and slowly burn up, and a bon fire does not have logs bolted to each other with redundant cross bracing with core columns, exterior columns and such. These towers were subjected to similar heat of a hard wood bon fire and should have collapsed in a similar fashion. No fires completely engulfed a whole floor so the heat could not have been evenly distributed. The towers should have tipped to one side if anything, and not have fallen in a symmetrical fashion. You can plainly see the black smoke billowing out of the top. This is a sign of a cold fire. Not near enough to cause the WHOLE building to fall at nearly free fall speed. In fact the only way it didnt fall at free fall was wind resistance. The failure of these buildings should not have happened at all, and for sure not into their own neat footprint.