9/11 is NOT a Conspiracy!

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

It is to late to have an official investigation they would have needed the metals and other stuff from the building which is long gone at this time.Should it have been done? 100% yes. But as I have said I have a lot of experience with fires and even some experience with jet fuel fires so I don’t find much of what happened hard to believe it can happen. Fire is some scary stuff the way it burns and moves is shocking I have been at fires in buildings where you take it down in the room but due to spacing in between walls and ceilings you lose the building.

The explosives I find it hard to believe that anyone could have put them in the building. If they did they would have had to do it on the upper floors and all of the floors had business in them so someone would have noticed.

They have also had many test into the type of thing that has happened some of the top schools in the world have said that the floors falling on top of each other with the conditions is very possible. You also have to ad to the fact that the design of the Towers was to have to weight placed on certain beams. When they went to build the towers the beams were also designed to have asbestos on them to make them fire proof but we all know what happened to asbestos so they were not able to handle the heat they should have been able to.

The designer and the builder both have come forward and said that with the conditions that were present they were expecting the buildings to fall not as fast as they came down but they would have come down.

As for that top general saying its hard to believe what has been said to the public. I find that hard to believe that he is in intelligence. If he was it would have hushed not to long after that video was posted if it was a conspiracy.

Would I like my questions answered Hell Yeah. But I do believe that if it was a Conspiracy that the FDNY, NYPD and the FBI would not have lost so many people that day someone would have held back and there was noone holding them back.

182

[quote]Slayers wrote:
It is to late to have an official investigation they would have needed the metals and other stuff from the building which is long gone at this time.Should it have been done? 100% yes. But as I have said I have a lot of experience with fires and even some experience with jet fuel fires so I don’t find much of what happened hard to believe it can happen. Fire is some scary stuff the way it burns and moves is shocking I have been at fires in buildings where you take it down in the room but due to spacing in between walls and ceilings you lose the building.

The explosives I find it hard to believe that anyone could have put them in the building. If they did they would have had to do it on the upper floors and all of the floors had business in them so someone would have noticed.

They have also had many test into the type of thing that has happened some of the top schools in the world have said that the floors falling on top of each other with the conditions is very possible. You also have to ad to the fact that the design of the Towers was to have to weight placed on certain beams. When they went to build the towers the beams were also designed to have asbestos on them to make them fire proof but we all know what happened to asbestos so they were not able to handle the heat they should have been able to.

The designer and the builder both have come forward and said that with the conditions that were present they were expecting the buildings to fall not as fast as they came down but they would have come down.

As for that top general saying its hard to believe what has been said to the public. I find that hard to believe that he is in intelligence. If he was it would have hushed not to long after that video was posted if it was a conspiracy.

Would I like my questions answered Hell Yeah. But I do believe that if it was a Conspiracy that the FDNY, NYPD and the FBI would not have lost so many people that day someone would have held back and there was noone holding them back. [/quote]

True, in the OKC bombing there were no ATF agents in the building that day. rumor has it they were warned off. To me it is strange that not a single guy was in early, etc.

But a lot of cops and firefighters died 9/11. I have talked to others in the firefighter profession, others on Tactical forums where there are demolition experts and other people in the know. And they don’t buy the conspiracy talk.

The popular Mechanics article did a great job explaining things. Talking about how someone says something wrong due to the stress and it is taken for Gospel and a cover up later.

How metal weakens due to fire and so on. To me the standard story makes a lot more sense than the Alex Jones stuff, and I am not a government kind of lackey. I distrust the feds, but I don’t think they’re spinning a yarn here.

183

As I said all I can do is present the facts as they are and if you choose to ignore the fact that a top Intelligence General doesn’t buy the official 9/11 story and that at 9/11 there was an explosion recorded that produces the exact same sound as a controlled demolition explosion, that is up to you. However I’m not going to let this thread die as there is a lot more info coming in every day making my case stronger. It doesn’t matter what you think personally just look at the info presented critically and it doesn’t add up, if you don’t believe the official explanation 100% or close to it, then there needs to be another investigation to find out what really happened.

184

Nik:

Your problem is that you want “facts” that fit your conclusions; and any “facts” that don’t fit those already passionately held conclusions is some type of cover-up.

Your conclusions?

  1. The buildings were brought down by carefully placed explosives because of the “presence”? of a) small, demolition explosions on video and b) the “controlled demolition-like” implosion of the buildings.

Do you have ANY idea how much planning, FOUNDATION AND BASE EXCAVATION, and careful placement and timing that it takes to bring down an old, unoccupied, gutted building in the fashion that you suggest? It takes months of careful planning and placement, with excavation and weakening of the main supports and beams. And somehow, in someway, this was done convertly in THREE, busy, fully functioning buildings?

  1. One of the airplanes was actually fitted with an explosive POD that could have only been placed by the military. And the most hard to swollow;

  2. The Pentagon Bombing was actually part of a covert Military Coup against not “The Bush Hunta”…but against the military itself???

Look, nik. Like Tom, I’m FAR from being a Government Sheeple who believes everything the Government says…far from it. But throwing out “facts” with no motives; no idea how, when, where and how these things were done stretches all credibility.

I’m listening and watching. But most likely…like is the case with most of these things… we will get closer to the “truth” from the private sector, NOT from another Government sponsored investigation.

Mufasa

185

[quote]tom63 wrote:
9/11 Conspiracy Theory Debunking | World Trade Center Myths Here’s some of the these guys are crazy and why side.[/quote]

The PM article has been debunked 1000 times, I won’t bother. I only want to point out something I learned that I don’t see many people mention about it. I am willing to bet you did not look into it, or you would know already and would not have cited it as a reputable source.

The credited author for that article is Ben Chertoff, he is first cousin to Michael Chertoff - that Michael Chertoff.

I am not saying it’s a conspiracy, just another one of those crazy coincidences…seems to be a lot of them, doesn’t it?

186

Here are a few facts for you:

  1. 9/11 was a conspiracy. If you do not believe it was a conspiracy, then you believe one person flew 3 planes on that day, defying physics, time and space.

  2. Emma E. Booker Elementary - The Sarasota Herald Tribune announced Bush’s visit to Booker Elementary on September 8th, giving the 9-11 planners three days to include Bush as a target for a diving jetliner. Nobody could have safely assumed he was not a target.
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/feral_press_9-10.gif
    Bush Presses Education Agenda in Florida - ABC News

  3. The Booker Elementary video shows the Secret Service did not rush in to remove the President to a secure location, or at least to the safety of the armored Presidential Limousine. That’s their job. That’s what they do in the case of a real surprise attack with many unknowns. They don’t do anything else. but the Secret Service did nothing.

  4. The video was originally posted for download on the school’s web site. It was later removed. I posit that it was realized the video contains proof of Bush’s foreknowledge of the attacks, the obvious inaction of the Secret Service and top White House staff, while the country was “under attack” from foreign “terrorists.”

  5. If the events of 9-11 were truly a surprise to the United States Government then there is no way the Secret Service could have known there wasn’t a hijacked or stolen plane heading towards Booker Elementary School that very second.

  6. Full video of Bush at Booker Elementary School:
    http://www.911blogger.com/node/17458

  7. Not a single secret service agent was held accountable for their malfeasance at Booker Elementary.

  8. No one has been charged with the crimes on 9/11, and no one has been convicted of the crimes on 9/11. I ask why investigations into the crime have not continued.

  9. For over a year Bush resisted against an independent 9/11 investigation/commission.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/15/attack/main509096.shtml
    http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/
    Cheney Urges Daschle Not to Have 9/11 Inquiry

I am done with facts for the night. Good evening to everyone.

187

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Nik:

Your problem is that you want “facts” that fit your conclusions; and any “facts” that don’t fit those already passionately held conclusions is some type of cover-up.

Your conclusions?

  1. The buildings were brought down by carefully placed explosives because of the “presence”? of a) small, demolition explosions on video and b) the “controlled demolition-like” implosion of the buildings.

Do you have ANY idea how much planning, FOUNDATION AND BASE EXCAVATION, and careful placement and timing that it takes to bring down an old, unoccupied, gutted building in the fashion that you suggest? It takes months of careful planning and placement, with excavation and weakening of the main supports and beams. And somehow, in someway, this was done convertly in THREE, busy, fully functioning buildings?

  1. One of the airplanes was actually fitted with an explosive POD that could have only been placed by the military. And the most hard to swollow;

  2. The Pentagon Bombing was actually part of a covert Military Coup against not “The Bush Hunta”…but against the military itself???

Look, nik. Like Tom, I’m FAR from being a Government Sheeple who believes everything the Government says…far from it. But throwing out “facts” with no motives; no idea how, when, where and how these things were done stretches all credibility.

I’m listening and watching. But most likely…like is the case with most of these things… we will get closer to the “truth” from the private sector, NOT from another Government sponsored investigation.

Mufasa[/quote]

I honestly have no idea where you got 2 and 3 as I have never said those points, however the motive was to invade Afghanistan. The US government has used other false flag events to invade other countries, just look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident which lead to the Vietnam war. The point is that I don’t trust anything that the US government says, as they have lied before and they will continue to do so.

189

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I never understand why it’s hard to believe that a jet hitting a building going very fucking fast and loaded up with fuel could take down a tall building.

It’s so funny, but this shit is so sad. As a guy that knows firefighters who worked pulling the rubble out, and the dead bodies, and knew people that died in it… you conspiracy fucks just amaze me.[/quote]

The term " conspiracy theory " makes me vibrate. Somewhere along the way, anyone theorizing a collusion of thought by a group of self interested individuals, will be labelled a “conspiracy theorist”. This is the same as calling that individual a delusional crazy person. Why?

A sidebar to the “conspiracy theorist” label is that the labeller needs no factual basis for refuting the theory, resulting in end of discussion. My position is, that when I hear someone throw the Conspiracy Theory label out there, I know the discussion will be short lived as experience has warned me that those individuals do not have anything to offer to the discussion, other than a few parroted bumper sticker phrases.

Is it not possible that conspiracies are quite prevalent throughout history and are equally possible today? I have a theory, that whenever there is a large enough amount of money and or power involved in a situation, people will conspire to control that situation. Seems logical to me.

A theory is an idea of/about a notion. A theory is something that once evidenced, no longer becomes a theory but instead it then becomes a probability. Now, many people laugh at the theories that are out there and really, some are imaginative. However, once factual evidence emerges, theories no longer ARE theories but instead become possibilities that need to be proved. Take for instance, Emma E. Booker Elementary. A host of evidence points to questionable actions OF the President on that day. This is not based in theory. FACTS DO NOT LIE.

190

So you are going to say that since Bush sat in a class for 5-10 mins after he was told a plane was high jacked in NY that he knows about it?

Well lets think about that for a min there plane is in NY president is in FL. Last time I flew from NY to FL it took 2 hours so why rush him out of the building if there is only 1 plane at that time which was what both the Secret Service and Military had been told about then it would seem that he has 1hr 50min before he needs to be rushed to safety.

Can 3 planes be flown by 1 pilot? Well in the times of computers and other things yes the military does missile testing all the time with Drones which are older jets being controlled by a pilot in some building miles away from it and they can control more then one drone.

There is a great show on History Chanel right now called Life After People. They had schools and experts look into what is going to happen to the tall standing building in America when no one is going do the maintence on them and they all say that with with metal getting weaker and the weight on upper floors growing from rain and other things that they will collapse on to each other. That is what happened at the Towers weak steal from fires and weight from water collapsed the floors and they were built to only handle certain weight when it is doubled they fail.

191

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I never understand why it’s hard to believe that a jet hitting a building going very fucking fast and loaded up with fuel could take down a tall building.

It’s so funny, but this shit is so sad. As a guy that knows firefighters who worked pulling the rubble out, and the dead bodies, and knew people that died in it… you conspiracy fucks just amaze me.[/quote]

I just yesterday asked one of the smartest guys I know with metal materials science etc. about this. I know I pissed him off a little, since he to lost freinds. But he gave me a great explanation.

Basically, it is what you said. Suddenly tons of jet fuel ignites , the sudden blast furnace effect, like a Bessemer furnace, will cause the metal to weaken, that with the overall weight will cause a sudden collapse.

It’s not rocket science, but I was told this by an actual rocket scientist. As in chief materials science for a rocket company. He now makes some of the best knives anywhere and probably knows more about metal etc. than anyone I know.

He also pointed out that there were sudden, collapsing buildings in the LA earthquakes, but the loons missed that incident.

To some it up, large jet weighing over 100,000 tons crashes into a building with 50,000 gallons of jet fuel, and bad thing will happen.

192

[quote]nik133 wrote:
As I said all I can do is present the facts as they are and if you choose to ignore the fact that a top Intelligence General doesn’t buy the official 9/11 story and that at 9/11 there was an explosion recorded that produces the exact same sound as a controlled demolition explosion, that is up to you. However I’m not going to let this thread die as there is a lot more info coming in every day making my case stronger. It doesn’t matter what you think personally just look at the info presented critically and it doesn’t add up, if you don’t believe the official explanation 100% or close to it, then there needs to be another investigation to find out what really happened.[/quote]

And you will see that I talked to a guy who works with metal, was chief materials scientist for a rocket company,ie, a rocket scientist, and he said it’s not possible that the events stated happened that way, they did happen that way.

He has friends that are actual SEAls etc. guys that work with bombs. He works with metal. Developed one fantastic weapons lube. the stuff will protect metal at 500 degrees and for some time at 600. It will prevent corrosion in boiling seawater for 30 minutes.

He’s a smart fellow, and thinks this conspiracy stuff is silly. And as Mufasa said, you and your friends are finding snippets to prove your point, but poo pooing experts that say you are wrong.

193

[quote]tom63 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I never understand why it’s hard to believe that a jet hitting a building going very fucking fast and loaded up with fuel could take down a tall building.

It’s so funny, but this shit is so sad. As a guy that knows firefighters who worked pulling the rubble out, and the dead bodies, and knew people that died in it… you conspiracy fucks just amaze me.

I just yesterday asked one of the smartest guys I know with metal materials science etc. about this. I know I pissed him off a little, since he to lost freinds. But he gave me a great explanation.

Basically, it is what you said. Suddenly tons of jet fuel ignites , the sudden blast furnace effect, like a Bessemer furnace, will cause the metal to weaken, that with the overall weight will cause a sudden collapse.

It’s not rocket science, but I was told this by an actual rocket scientist. As in chief materials science for a rocket company. He now makes some of the best knives anywhere and probably knows more about metal etc. than anyone I know.

He also pointed out that there were sudden, collapsing buildings in the LA earthquakes, but the loons missed that incident.

To some it up, large jet weighing over 100,000 tons crashes into a building with 50,000 gallons of jet fuel, and bad thing will happen.[/quote]

Tom, why are you ignoring me? Building 7 please? No airplanes, no jet fuel, yet still a total collapse? And an earthquake? Did you really just suggest that because an earthquake can topple a building, then we should believe a fire can also? They aren’t even similar.

V

194

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I never understand why it’s hard to believe that a jet hitting a building going very fucking fast and loaded up with fuel could take down a tall building.

It’s so funny, but this shit is so sad. As a guy that knows firefighters who worked pulling the rubble out, and the dead bodies, and knew people that died in it… you conspiracy fucks just amaze me.[/quote]

I hate repeating myself like this but you all need to stop parroting, Airplane + Jetfuel + Building = Collapse. Because then I have to parrot that building 7 was not hit by a plane, it was not filled with jetfuel, in fact it was 100 Ft away from the towers. Buildings that were closer to the towers didn’t collapse from fire, but building 7 did. It also was in freefall.

Nobody is explaining this to me, and you can make all the points in the world you want, but if you can’t tell me WHY and HOW building 7 collapsed, then we have a single building that was demolished on 9-11, and if the government demolishes 1 building, guess what that means folks.

V

195

There is no discussion here, all you have is the people who believe the government about 9/11 (since they have never lied before), who go around and around in circles, meanwhile the people who don’t believe the official 9/11 story continually bring up new facts that are ignored. I will pose to you a question, since clearly all of you that believe the official story have all these expert friends who can explain these things:

  1. Why were the terrorist’s bandanas and passports found, yet the black boxes not recovered? How is it possible for paper and string to survive a fire and not a box made out of the strongest material?

  2. WTC 7? Don’t talk to me about fires burning inside because you clearly have a building that I posted a picture of with a much worse fire raging that did not collapse?

  3. Why do we only have a few shots of what is suppose to be a plane hitting the Pentagon, when it is the most widely CCTV monitored building in the world? Why did the FBI minutes after the crash confiscate tapes from hotels nearby that would prove what truly hit the Pentagon? How can the US not secure and make sure that the Pentagon was not hit when it occured almost an hour after the first plane hit the towers?

  4. Why is the exact same sound produced at a demolition video where a bridge is blown up and it is echoed at 9/11? What is that sound?

I look forward to hearing from you guys and your experts!

196

I’m curious…

What was supposed to have hit the Pentagon?

Mufasa

197

[quote]nik133 wrote:
There is no discussion here, all you have is the people who believe the government about 9/11 (since they have never lied before), who go around and around in circles, meanwhile the people who don’t believe the official 9/11 story continually bring up new facts that are ignored. I will pose to you a question, since clearly all of you that believe the official story have all these expert friends who can explain these things:

  1. Why were the terrorist’s bandanas and passports found, yet the black boxes not recovered? How is it possible for paper and string to survive a fire and not a box made out of the strongest material?

  2. WTC 7? Don’t talk to me about fires burning inside because you clearly have a building that I posted a picture of with a much worse fire raging that did not collapse?

  3. Why do we only have a few shots of what is suppose to be a plane hitting the Pentagon, when it is the most widely CCTV monitored building in the world? Why did the FBI minutes after the crash confiscate tapes from hotels nearby that would prove what truly hit the Pentagon? How can the US not secure and make sure that the Pentagon was not hit when it occured almost an hour after the first plane hit the towers?

  4. Why is the exact same sound produced at a demolition video where a bridge is blown up and it is echoed at 9/11? What is that sound?

I look forward to hearing from you guys and your experts! [/quote]

#1 I have never seen any report other then the page you posted saying that they had found any clothing from the planes at WTC. If they have said it I will give you that that would be a smoking gun and I would also question it too. But I find it hard to believe to you could tell me after thousands of people were around the Towers that it was from someone on 1 of the planes.

#2 building #7 was on fire since after the second crash and had burned unchecked the hole time due to man power issues. When the towers came down there was damage to building #7 at the support structures making them weak. There were no FDNY personal allowed to do anything with building #7 they had a feeling it was going to come down and did not want to risk anything so they just let it go.

#3 You are correct there are tons of camera’s at Pentagon but must are pointed where they would think that cars or people would enter the grounds. Never at anytime did anyone even think that it was possible for a plane to come crashing in to the building. So there are hole in the security as there is in any security.

#4 What sounds are you talking about a video from you tube? All of the firefighters I have talked to say at no point did they hear anything that sounded like demo. There were sounds of the floors coming down and windows being blown out from the air pressure changes but not demo.

If you want to question my experience with Demo I have been in fires at construction sites where blast caps were stored and they make a hell of a noise when they get hot and go off. So the sounds that were heard at the towers were not blast from a demo job.

Also if it was demo why where the people putting in the explosives never seen doing it?
Why did they plant them on upper floors not knowing how it would come down?

I am not hear to argue points with people there are great things to read about it that might swing you one way or another but sometimes some of the reading is just way to far in left field.

198

[quote]Slayers wrote:
nik133 wrote:
There is no discussion here, all you have is the people who believe the government about 9/11 (since they have never lied before), who go around and around in circles, meanwhile the people who don’t believe the official 9/11 story continually bring up new facts that are ignored. I will pose to you a question, since clearly all of you that believe the official story have all these expert friends who can explain these things:

  1. Why were the terrorist’s bandanas and passports found, yet the black boxes not recovered? How is it possible for paper and string to survive a fire and not a box made out of the strongest material?

  2. WTC 7? Don’t talk to me about fires burning inside because you clearly have a building that I posted a picture of with a much worse fire raging that did not collapse?

  3. Why do we only have a few shots of what is suppose to be a plane hitting the Pentagon, when it is the most widely CCTV monitored building in the world? Why did the FBI minutes after the crash confiscate tapes from hotels nearby that would prove what truly hit the Pentagon? How can the US not secure and make sure that the Pentagon was not hit when it occured almost an hour after the first plane hit the towers?

  4. Why is the exact same sound produced at a demolition video where a bridge is blown up and it is echoed at 9/11? What is that sound?

I look forward to hearing from you guys and your experts!

#1 I have never seen any report other then the page you posted saying that they had found any clothing from the planes at WTC. If they have said it I will give you that that would be a smoking gun and I would also question it too. But I find it hard to believe to you could tell me after thousands of people were around the Towers that it was from someone on 1 of the planes.

#2 building #7 was on fire since after the second crash and had burned unchecked the hole time due to man power issues. When the towers came down there was damage to building #7 at the support structures making them weak. There were no FDNY personal allowed to do anything with building #7 they had a feeling it was going to come down and did not want to risk anything so they just let it go.

#3 You are correct there are tons of camera’s at Pentagon but must are pointed where they would think that cars or people would enter the grounds. Never at anytime did anyone even think that it was possible for a plane to come crashing in to the building. So there are hole in the security as there is in any security.

#4 What sounds are you talking about a video from you tube? All of the firefighters I have talked to say at no point did they hear anything that sounded like demo. There were sounds of the floors coming down and windows being blown out from the air pressure changes but not demo.

If you want to question my experience with Demo I have been in fires at construction sites where blast caps were stored and they make a hell of a noise when they get hot and go off. So the sounds that were heard at the towers were not blast from a demo job.

Also if it was demo why where the people putting in the explosives never seen doing it?
Why did they plant them on upper floors not knowing how it would come down?

I am not hear to argue points with people there are great things to read about it that might swing you one way or another but sometimes some of the reading is just way to far in left field. [/quote]

Banadana and passport here: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Explosion sound of 9/11 side by side with demolition sound right here: Lowry Bridge Demolition - YouTube

There were thousands of reports from firefighters, police and news members if you just youtube secondary explosions 9/11, you will find plenty of videos stating that there was secondary explosions.

Did you know that 6 weeks before the attack Larry Silverstein signed a 3.2 billion dollar lease on the entire WTC complex for 99 years, included in the lease is a 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism? Did you know that on september 6th 2001 3150 put options (A bet that the stock will fall) on United Airline which is more then 4x the daily average of Put Options on UA?

Did you know that over 27000 Put Options were placed on Boeing on September 7th, more then 5x the daily average? Did you know that on September 10th 2001 4500 put options were placed on American Airlines almost 11x the daily average? So as you can see many people profited just from the attacks that took place on 9/11, not even talking about the wars that took place afterwards.

Mufasa I’m glad you are so curious, maybe we could get another investigation to get some real answers :). Vegita if I were you I would just ignore Fighting because clearly he can’t make a point without resorting to name calling and swearing, it isn’t even worth it to give him a dignify his close minded way of thinking with a response.

As for Mufasa, Slayer and Tom, thanks for participating in this discussion civilly with an open mind!

201

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Vegita wrote:

I hate repeating myself like this but you all need to stop parroting, Airplane + Jetfuel + Building = Collapse. Because then I have to parrot that building 7 was not hit by a plane, it was not filled with jetfuel, in fact it was 100 Ft away from the towers. Buildings that were closer to the towers didn’t collapse from fire, but building 7 did. It also was in freefall.

Nobody is explaining this to me, and you can make all the points in the world you want, but if you can’t tell me WHY and HOW building 7 collapsed, then we have a single building that was demolished on 9-11, and if the government demolishes 1 building, guess what that means folks.

V

Have you ever been around a building the size of the WTC when it collapses? Do you know how it makes the ground shake? Similar maybe to an earthquake?

Who’s to say your building 7 didn’t have issues with it’s structural integrity? They don’t build buildings in NYC like they do in LA- there’s not earthquakes, the ground don’t shake.

Taking a building that was not meant to withstand such a shock, and then placing it at the epicenter of something like that, could make it come down. Especially if there were already issues with the structure, which its very possible there could have been.[/quote]

Now this is one of the best arguments I have heard for the collapse of building 7. However, HUGE casinos in las vegas are knocked down all the time, and while they might not be as tall, some of them are certainly as massive or nearly as massive, as far as the total force hitting the ground. Also the demolitions in Vegas are controlled and they come down at freefall, so no energy is absorbed by the structure itself, it is all hitting the ground.

The towers, Supposedly were absorbing the impact all the way which was causing the steel to take the energy and then fail, so all the force of the towers falling wasn’t transferred to the ground, it was absorbed by the structure underneat it. Another thing I think is that the energy was not imparted upon the ground in one instant, which may have caused significant earth tremors. Instead it was transferred over a period of time, which would be more unlikley to cause noticable, building effecting tremors.

In fact here is the seismic data from the 9-11 attacks. I’ll cut out a peice for you too.

http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

“The collapse of the WTC towers generated large seismic waves observed in five states and up to 428 km away. The North Tower collapse was the larger seismic source and had a magnitude ML 2.3 (Kim et al., 2001).”

Now while this may seem like your smoking gun. A 2.3 isn’t a very large earthquake at all. It wouldn’t even stop traffic in california and it certainly would bring a building down or contribute to it’s demise.

V

202

[quote]nik133 wrote:
Banadana and passport here: http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Explosion sound of 9/11 side by side with demolition sound right here: Lowry Bridge Demolition - YouTube

There were thousands of reports from firefighters, police and news members if you just youtube secondary explosions 9/11, you will find plenty of videos stating that there was secondary explosions.

Did you know that 6 weeks before the attack Larry Silverstein signed a 3.2 billion dollar lease on the entire WTC complex for 99 years, included in the lease is a 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism? Did you know that on september 6th 2001 3150 put options (A bet that the stock will fall) on United Airline which is more then 4x the daily average of Put Options on UA?

Did you know that over 27000 Put Options were placed on Boeing on September 7th, more then 5x the daily average? Did you know that on September 10th 2001 4500 put options were placed on American Airlines almost 11x the daily average? So as you can see many people profited just from the attacks that took place on 9/11, not even talking about the wars that took place afterwards.

Mufasa I’m glad you are so curious, maybe we could get another investigation to get some real answers :). Vegita if I were you I would just ignore Fighting because clearly he can’t make a point without resorting to name calling and swearing, it isn’t even worth it to give him a dignify his close minded way of thinking with a response.

As for Mufasa, Slayer and Tom, thanks for participating in this discussion civilly with an open mind![/quote]

You might want to read that site again the Bananda was found at the site of flight 93 in PA which they had also found body’s and clothing.

The passport has been rebunked already in the 9/11 hearings. The 9/11 hearings had found that that passport was tampered with to make it look the way it did.

That site also talks about some tests they did with samples they got from the site and what they found on the samples. That is also hard to believe since the first sample was said as coming from a person walking the streets after the first building came down.

That is kinda hard when the police had evacuated everyone for 2-3 blocks so to get that sample is not going to happen. The other samples are not really said where they came from but why are they sent to Denmark? Why not done at 1 of the thousands or schools or labs in the US?

As for Silverman well lets see in the 90’s they were bombed so maybe at the point he signed the new contract was when he was able to sign it. And they said they would one day bring down the WTC so why not get the insurance you own the lease for 99 years thats alot of years to hope it never gets attacked again.

203

Here is reports taking from firefighters about building #7

Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: …on the north and east side of 7 it didnâ??t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didnâ??t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, weâ??ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/boyle.html

Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did.

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden
Division 1 - 33 years

…also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 oâ??clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 oâ??clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?

Hayden: No, not right away, and thatâ??s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didnâ??t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html