9/11

Omackeral

bear1 wrote: »

No idea, but this surely to God can't be the evidence of a plane hitting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNngyhZQrk

you will need to skip the blah blah and go to 0.23.

So you find it more believable that 60 odd souls just vanished from existence never to be heard from again? How many people would need to be in on that? Are they all in a witness protection programme? Did they cut ties with all families and friends forever? Are they living on an island somewhere? These are the kind of things I find fault with when people come out with things like this.

bear1

Omackeral wrote: »

So you find it more believable that 60 odd souls just vanished from existence never to be heard from again? How many people would need to be in on that? Are they all in a witness protection programme? Did they cut ties with all families and friends forever? These are the kind of things I find fault with when people come out with things like this.

I'll repeat it, I do not know.
But you can't look at that video, released by the Feds themselves and say yeah definite plane.
Maybe it is and I simply can't see it.
Just to add, I'm not disagreeing with your questions as they are questions I have myself when people say the plane that hit the ground never happened and the plane actually landed in some airport.
But that video in particular casts doubt in my mind as what actually hit the pentagon.

Omackeral

The video is blurry, I'll grant you that. It's only a couple of frames and it's hard to decipher anything clear from it. However, I'd be inclined to go with the number of witnesses who say they saw the plane, the air traffic control records, the fuselage on the lawn and the whole factor of the passengers and crew never showing up again.

Hulk Hands

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The widely established version of events is overwhelmingly supported by facts, evidence, footage, audio and testimony

There are no substantiated or credible alternative theories

It isn't like there are two separate theories supported by experts, there is no alternative theory

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth? Thousands of verified experts who are calling false? Funnily enough I'm on the same side of the argument as you on that one, as they're calling the whole event false flag which is less plausible than the official theory imo. They only got involved however due to the inaccuracies and contradictions in the government backed NIST report you keep posting as gospel. Nice deflection on Tehran btw, the building which collapsed in stages and left an indentifiable structure, comptely different from WTC7.

Dohnjoe

Omackeral wrote: »

The video is blurry, I'll grant you that. It's only a couple of frames and it's hard to decipher anything clear from it. However, I'd be inclined to go with the number of witnesses who say they saw the plane, the air traffic control records, the fuselage on the lawn and the whole factor of the passengers and crew never showing up again.

and the complete and utter lack of any other credible explanation

bear1

Omackeral wrote: »

The video is blurry, I'll grant you that. It's only a couple of frames and it's hard to decipher anything clear from it. However, I'd be inclined to go with the number of witnesses who say they saw the plane, the air traffic control records, the fuselage on the lawn and the whole factor of the passengers and crew never showing up again.

Granted but you will also find people in New York who say the plane that hit the 2nd WTC wasn't an airliner.
To be fair, the whole conspiracy in itself would be just impossible to keep secret but it wouldn't be unheard of that the US government are quite good at stretching their imaginations.
Case in point would be Operation Northwoods.

EDIT: I'd probably be able to agree more that the Government knew in advance of the impending attacks and let them happen in order for a reason to go to the ME than to say the entire Government came up with the false flag.
4 planes, 7 buildings and countless dead.. no mean feat.

Omackeral

I think it's Occam's Razor here. The general consensus is that four passenger planes crashed in the US on Sept 11 2001, two in NYC and one each at the Pentagon and near Shanksville. I'd accept that and most other people would too. There are shady elements and it's all very complex in the aftermath but on the level, I think the general explanation of four planes fatally crashing with loss of life is accurate.

Sam Kade

Deleted User wrote: »

WTC 7 is an odd one, most certainly. Don't forget the fact that the BBC reported it collapsed minutes before the actual event.

Also a government official said after that they pulled building 7 meaning they purposely demolished it. If that doesn't ring alarm bells you'd want to have your head in the clouds.

Dohnjoe

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth? Thousands of verified experts who are calling false?

They aren't verified or recognised. A group of people on the internet can call themselves anything they want.

Nice deflection on Tehran btw, the building which collapsed in stages and left an indentifiable structure, comptely different from WTC7.

Your theory is that WTC 7 was destroyed on purpose for "safety reasons"? how? can you explain that please

If the answer includes silent pre-planted explosives, "they told foreign journalists about it" and a misunderstanding of the word "pull" in firefighting and NO credible evidence, then you'll understand if people dismiss it

bear1

Omackeral wrote: »

I think it's Occam's Razor here. The general consensus is that four passenger planes crashed in the US on Sept 11 2001, two in NYC and one each at the Pentagon and near Shanksville. I'd accept that and most other people would too. There are shady elements and it's all very complex in the aftermath but on the level, I think the general explanation of four planes fatally crashing with loss of life is accurate.

Agreed.
As you point out, there are a hell of a lot of questions raised with what was/is going on behind it all and if the Government in some shape or form was indirectly/directly connected.

Dohnjoe

Sam Kade wrote: »

Also a government official said after that they pulled building 7 meaning they purposely demolished it. If that doesn't ring alarm bells you'd want to have your head in the clouds.

Nah they said to "pull" as in pull out the firefighters

Hulk Hands

They are all verified, each one with their jobs stated on the website, links to the universities they lecture in etc, many of them prestigious schools. You are actually just shouting everything down with an "they're all idiots argument" without offering evidence to back up your claims bar the official report which had so many holes that it started the whole conspiracy theory in the first place

Sam Kade

For all the believers, what's your take on making phone calls from the planes using mobile phones when no technology existed back then?

Omackeral

When you say believers, what exactly are you getting at? Believers in what?

Hulk Hands

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Your theory is that WTC 7 was destroyed on purpose for "safety reasons"? how? can you explain that please

If the answer includes silent pre-planted explosives, "they told foreign journalists about it" and a misunderstanding of the word "pull" in firefighting and NO credible evidence, then you'll understand if people dismiss it

I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know what happened that day for certain. That theory is the most likely in my head, based on what I've read regarding the structure, the speed of collapse, and how the tower visually fell. I find that more plausible than the official theory, although that could certainly be true also.

I'd doubt the explosives were pre planted. Could a demolition team not assemble explosives in multiple hours, once a decision was made on the future of the building, after the first two towers fell? It makes more sense to me than a building collapsing at free fall speed (again, NIST's words) into it's own footprint due to uncontrolled fires

endacl

Manic Moran wrote: »

I'm in the US Army and as you can see from the location, am typing from the US.

Fair play. Stay safe.

seamus

Sam Kade wrote: »

For all the believers, what's your take on making phone calls from the planes using mobile phones when no technology existed back then?

The cell phone was invented in 1973. Air-to-ground telephone services were commonplace in the US since the 1980s.

What technology do you think didn't exist in 2001?

Ultimate Seduction

Watched a documentary last night where airline pilots saying it would be almost impossible for an experienced professional pilot to get a commercial plane to hit the Pentagon. The plane would have had to be driving on the ground rather than flying.

Hijackers only experience was in simulators and would never have been able to pull it off..

Sam Kade

Omackeral wrote: »

When you say believers, what exactly are you getting at? Believers in what?

Really? The official story told by the American government.

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The widely established version of events is overwhelmingly supported by facts, evidence, footage, audio and testimony

There are no substantiated or credible alternative theories

It isn't like there are two separate theories supported by experts, there is no alternative theory

You continue always to ignore the evidence collected over the years. You only hear the evidence that supports your view.

There is alternative bodies but you have decided they not worth listening to. Even though we know it's established, they are professionals, working real jobs as Architects and Engineers. The Skeptic movement has never offered a reasonable explanation why they would believe there was a conspiracy, if there was none to be had? What is to be gained, by lying and supporting this?

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Earlier reports indicated the building fell due to fire. The NIST report was the new exhaustive report. As far as I am aware there are no recognised bodies calling for another report

NIST did not even investigate WTC7 till 2008. Forced to do so as the public demanded it a new inquiry.

NIST explanation is the steel beams and girders thermally expanded ( due to fires) and this started the collapse. For everything to work as they stated, the steel beam/girder must have 'no shear studs' at Column 44/ 79 where the collapse initiated. Shear studs connect the girders to the floor slabs. Without the studs there was nothing stopping the floors from buckling.

However the truth movement found this out

John J. Salvarinas, was the project manager for Frankel Steel Limited (one of the two steel fabricators) during the construction of WTC7, in 1986 he released a report and it had diagrams showing 30 shear studs placed along each girder including the girder at floor 13/ column 79..

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

You find the reasons for why they dismissed Salvarinas report in the link above! NIST still to this day has never come forward with an alternative diagram that has no studs on the girders. They claim they saw technical drawings, but they have not yet released the drawings for public viewing.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

A steel framed building fell due to fire earlier this year in Tehran

How many steel buildings have not collapsed and the building was on fire! The best example the Skeptic has got is a building in Iran. We know building codes and the standards are not as strong in the Middle east. Up till 9/11 and even afterwards still there is no building which was structurally made of steel, has collapsed in Europe or the United States, due to a fire.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You mean the report supported by the truther group by a professor and two assistants - one that already provided a conclusion as one of it's forewords? I wouldn't hold my breath on that report being anywhere near reliable or objective

By the way, it's the same truther group that concluded the building collapse in Tehran as an "inside job"

Are you now saying the University of Alaska Fairbanks is not up to your standards?

Cheerful Spring

Sam Kade wrote: »

For all the believers, what's your take on making phone calls from the planes using mobile phones when no technology existed back then?

The technology existed, but depending on height/altitude of the plane, the mobile service may not connect the caller to the receiver on the other side.. American Airlines planes in 2001 had seat phones, but there is a debate were they still in operation. The company had ordered all back seats phones to be removed from service in 2001. Did they by Sep 11 2001 get around to it?

Pentagon Flight
Moussaoui's trial in 2006 the FBI said 2 calls were made by Renee May a Stewardess ( all mobile) Another 4 calls were to unknown numbers ( alleged to be back seat phone calls) These calls are alleged to have been placed by Barbara Olson ( cnn journalist) to her husband office. Her husband was Ted Olson ( Solicitor General for the United States at the time) There is lot of debate could she have had made those calls from the plane? Pilots, people working for American airline have said the seats phones were not working. So it just another puzzling aspect of 9/11

Dohnjoe

Hulk Hands wrote: »

I'd doubt the explosives were pre planted. Could a demolition team not assemble explosives in multiple hours, once a decision was made on the future of the building, after the first two towers fell? It makes more sense to me than a building collapsing at free fall speed (again, NIST's words) into it's own footprint due to uncontrolled fires

The building collapsed in stages (over a total period of around 16 seconds I believe), the internals failed first with much of the facade falling shortly after

Youtube is swamped with crank videos, often using very selective or cropped pieces of footage, but explanations with details of the full fall are there

Dohnjoe

Ultimate Seduction wrote: »

Watched a documentary last night where airline pilots saying it would be almost impossible for an experienced professional pilot to get a commercial plane to hit the Pentagon. The plane would have had to be driving on the ground rather than flying.

Hijackers only experience was in simulators and would never have been able to pull it off..

Which documentary? go to any real aviation or pilot forum and you'll find the maneuver is explained as quite doable, especially if practiced on a simulator

Dohnjoe

Sam Kade wrote: »

Really? The official story told by the American government.

The established version of events has been established by witnesses, journalists, emergency services, air traffic control towers, investigators, experts, police, military, government officials, FBI and many others

The only full alternative theory I've come across was by one woman who wrote a book about the towers being "dustified" by secret energy weapons

Up to you which you want to accept

Academic

It's a shame that what was intended to be a thread asking people when and how they learned of 9/11 has no become yet another conspiracy theory thread.

There is, of course, a separate forum devoted to conspiracy theories.

Cheerful Spring

Hulk Hands wrote: »

I'm not arrogant enough to assume I know what happened that day for certain. That theory is the most likely in my head, based on what I've read regarding the structure, the speed of collapse, and how the tower visually fell. I find that more plausible than the official theory, although that could certainly be true also.

I'd doubt the explosives were pre planted. Could a demolition team not assemble explosives in multiple hours, once a decision was made on the future of the building, after the first two towers fell? It makes more sense to me than a building collapsing at free fall speed (again, NIST's words) into it's own footprint due to uncontrolled fires

There is numerous people who have come forward who worked at the towers that have said the South Tower lost power for 36 hours the weekend before 9/11 and people were going in and out of the building all day. Elevators and security cameras all went offline. I not saying demolitions got planted, but there was a window of opportunity to place a bomb/demolitions within this building.

I'm less sure what caused the collapse of the Twin Towers. WTC7 is more suspicious to me.

Cheerful Spring

This one of the people who worked there confirmed a power shutdown.

Dohnjoe

Academic wrote: »

It's a shame that what was intended to be a thread asking people when and how they learned of 9/11 has no become yet another conspiracy theory thread.

There is, of course, a separate forum devoted to conspiracy theories.

Hopefully a mod can enforce this

Cheerful Spring

Dohnjoe wrote: »

The established version of events has been established by witnesses, journalists, emergency services, air traffic control towers, investigators, experts, police, military, government officials, FBI and many others

The only full alternative theory I've come across was by one woman who wrote a book about the towers being "dustified" by secret energy weapons

Up to you which you want to accept

No serious person would claim there was no hijackers, planes or planes hitting buildings on 9/11. But you saw everything on TV what do you really know about the events leading up to before this attack?

Omackeral

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There is numerous people who have come forward who worked at the towers that have said the South Tower lost power for 36 hours the weekend before 9/11 and people were going in and out of the building all day. Elevators and security cameras all went offline. I not saying demolitions got planted, but there was a window of opportunity to place a bomb/demolitions within this building.

Great. And how about the North Tower.

Cheerful Spring

Sam Kade wrote: »

Really? The official story told by the American government.

The same people who dismiss all this will ignore the White House deliberately falsified Iraqi war evidence to go to war in 2003. The very same people manipulated the public and media, back then.

Lets never forget Richard Nixon was behind the Watergate scandal. What about the Gulf of Tonkin? A genuine false flag event that started the Vietnam war. And the President was aware of this.

Operation Northwoods, a CIA plan to crash planes into buildings and blame it on the Cubans.

The Project for the New American Century, is the most damning document there is for a conspiracy. The neocons outlined in 1998: the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl
Harbor”

Cheerful Spring

Omackeral wrote: »

Great. And how about the North Tower.

The witnesses only worked in the South Tower, but they same power shutdown may have happened in the North Tower? Nobody has came forward to tell their story. It's strange the power shutdown would be on very weekend before 9/11, if true and i see no reason why the people working there would lie?

seamus

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There is numerous people who have come forward who worked at the towers that have said the South Tower lost power for 36 hours the weekend before 9/11 and people were going in and out of the building all day. Elevators and security cameras all went offline. I not saying demolitions got planted, but there was a window of opportunity to place a bomb/demolitions within this building.

I'm less sure what caused the collapse of the Twin Towers. WTC7 is more suspicious to me.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

There was no complete power outage. These were huge buildings running 24/7 operations with thousands of visitors even on the weekend.

Yet somehow the theorists could only find one, maybe two people to corroborate the story of a complete power outage.

That's like saying that every road in Galway was closed for an entire weekend and then only having one person who can back up the story.

Omackeral

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The witnesses only worked in the South Tower, but they same power shutdown may have happened in the North Tower? Nobody has came forward to tell their story. It's strange the power shutdown would be on very weekend before 9/11, if true and i see no reason why the people working there would lie?

coincidence



[koh-in-si-duh ns]



1. a striking occurrence of two or more events at one time apparently by mere chance: Our meeting in Venice was pure coincidence.


2. the condition or fact of coinciding.

3. an instance of this.

Omackeral

And if the North Tower was powered down, I think one of the 10's of 1000's that worked in it might have remarked upon it to one person at one time or another. Odds tell ya that. Anyway, into looney territory with that line of thinking.

Cheerful Spring

seamus wrote: »

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

There was no complete power outage. These were huge buildings running 24/7 operations with thousands of visitors even on the weekend.

Yet somehow the theorists could only find one, maybe two people to corroborate the story of a complete power outage.

That's like saying that every road in Galway was closed for an entire weekend and then only having one person who can back up the story.

Two Eyewitnesses who we know for a fact worked there both confirm a power shutdown. What evidence has 911 myth got a ticket send anonymously to a blog? Do you know how easy it is to fake a white paper ticket with the right computer technology.

Power shutdown does not mean the building closed down for the weekend, i believe the towers had stairways to the top of the building, so if there was people in the building touring, they can still get around by walking.

FatherTed

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

There is numerous people who have come forward who worked at the towers that have said the South Tower lost power for 36 hours the weekend before 9/11 and people were going in and out of the building all day. Elevators and security cameras all went offline. I not saying demolitions got planted, but there was a window of opportunity to place a bomb/demolitions within this building.

I'm less sure what caused the collapse of the Twin Towers. WTC7 is more suspicious to me.

If there was a loss of power in the South Tower, planned or not that weekend, how were the observation deck and elevators open?

Cheerful Spring

Omackeral wrote: »

And if the North Tower was powered down, I think one of the 10's of 1000's that worked in it might have remarked upon it to one person at one time or another. Odds tell ya that. Anyway, into looney territory with that line of thinking.

Weekend the staff levels would be low. And only people affected by the power shutdown would notice. Who know's those people, with this information could have died on 9/11. Only 2 men have came forward with information about a power shutdown for the South Tower. Maybe 1 or 2 people again at most potentially knew or willing to speak about it, but for whatever reason have yet to come forward? Or maybe the power shutdown never happened or occurred weeks before 9/11?

Benjamin Buttons

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Two Eyewitnesses who we know for a fact worked there both confirm a power shutdown. What evidence has 911 myth got a ticket send anonymously to a blog? Do you know how easy it is to fake a white paper ticket with the right computer technology.

Power shutdown does not mean the building closed down for the weekend, i believe the towers had stairways to the top of the building, so if there was people in the building touring, they can still get around by walking.

It was the Lizard Illuminati what did it....FACT.

FatherTed

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Two Eyewitnesses who we know for a fact worked there both confirm a power shutdown. What evidence has 911 myth got a ticket send anonymously to a blog? Do you know how easy it is to fake a white paper ticket with the right computer technology.

Power shutdown does not mean the building closed down for the weekend, i believe the towers had stairways to the top of the building, so if there was people in the building touring, they can still get around by walking.

So now the tourists walked UP the 110 floors to the Observation Desk?

Cheerful Spring

FatherTed wrote: »

If there was a loss of power in the South Tower, planned or not that weekend, how were the observation deck and elevators open?

Elevators working? I heard differently from the two eyewitnesses but if you have information post it.

Cheerful Spring

FatherTed wrote: »

So now the tourists walked UP the 110 floors to the Observation Desk?

The only evidence for this is a World trade center ticket slip given to someone who owned a blog, this is no longer searchable online. This ticket can be easily faked, can be just someone messing about to debunk? And on the ticket it don't say North or South Tower, so could be a ticket for the North Tower.

seamus

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Weekend the staff levels would be low. And only people affected by the power shutdown would notice. Who know's those people, with this information could have died on 9/11. Only 2 men have came forward with information about a power shutdown for the South Tower. Maybe 1 or 2 people again at most potentially knew or willing to speak about it, but for whatever reason have yet to come forward? Or maybe the power shutdown never happened or occurred weeks before 9/11?

They weren't turning off the Siptu building. These were half a kilometre tall with 110 floors. You don't just flip a switch in a box at the front door and tell people to use the stairs.

There would have been power switched off to at least one floor most weekends for maintenance work.

As usual, the conspiracy relies on ignoring the sheer scale of logistics required to carry out and maintain the conspiracy.

A far more believeable theory would be two or 3 intelligence agents paying 20 young Saudi men money to hijack planes and fly them into strategic targets. Anything beyond that requires far too many people for it to work.

Cheerful Spring

seamus wrote: »

They weren't turning off the Siptu building. These were half a kilometre tall with 110 floors. You don't just flip a switch in a box at the front door and tell people to use the stairs.

There would have been power switched off to at least one floor most weekends for maintenance work.

As usual, the conspiracy relies on ignoring the sheer scale of logistics required to carry out and maintain the conspiracy.

A far more believeable theory would be two or 3 intelligence agents paying 20 young Saudi men money to hijack planes and fly them into strategic targets. Anything beyond that requires far too many people for it to work.

Did you even look at this ticket?

Which tower is it North or South?

Omackeral

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

Did you even look at this ticket?

Which tower is it North or South?

Well there's only one observation deck so what do you think?

Cheerful Spring

Benjamin Buttons wrote: »

It was the Lizard Illuminati what did it....FACT.

I open to both sides got it right about the Twin Towers.. I just highlighting the differences..

WTC7 the evidence is the building got brought down by demolition or some device. I not ruling it out the building was collapsed after the planes hit the Twin Towers, and people came in brought the building down, and the cover up is still in place for insurance and legal reasons.

Omackeral

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The only evidence for this is a World trade center ticket slip given to someone who owned a blog, this is no longer searchable online. This ticket can be easily faked, can be just someone messing about to debunk? And on the ticket it don't say North or South Tower, so could be a ticket for the North Tower.

Except the Observation Deck was on the South Tower, so no it couldn't be for the North. For a chap so eager to tell people to ''do some research'' you missed this pretty major and obvious flaw.

nacho libre

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

The same people who dismiss all this will ignore the White House deliberately falsified Iraqi war evidence to go to war in 2003. The very same people manipulated the public and media, back then.

Lets never forget Richard Nixon was behind the Watergate scandal. What about the Gulf of Tonkin? A genuine false flag event that started the Vietnam war. And the President was aware of this.

Operation Northwoods, a CIA plan to crash planes into buildings and blame it on the Cubans.

The Project for the New American Century, is the most damning document there is for a conspiracy. The neocons outlined in 1998: the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl
Harbor”

Kennedy vetoed the generals on Operation Northwood, but it does show there are people in the corridors of power who do contemplate such vile acts with a view to blaming others.

I personally don't believe 9-11 was a conspiracy, due to the fact someone would talk. How could you ensure they didn't. As a large cabal would of people would have to be in on it.

It maybe that the Atta and his crew were being controlled by rogue elements within the intelligence services, without them knowing who they were really working for( As Louie in the film Munich says: "Oh believe me you don't who you are working for", but then you would like to imagine good people in the same organisation would be utterly opposed to such action and that these people would be exposed.

With this in mind we don't hear much from Richard Perle anymore. He was one of the architects of the PNAC doctrine you mentioned, but again for everyone one of him, there would be individuals in power who would not tolerate some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl
Harbor occurring.

Cheerful Spring

Omackeral wrote: »

Except the Observation Deck was on the South Tower, so no it couldn't be for the North. For a chap so eager to tell people to ''do some research'' you missed this pretty major and obvious flaw.

You got a picture of a white ticket that can easily be faked with a computer. Nobody has seen, or looked over this ticket to verify it's authenticity. Even the blog is no longer online
This what i get when i click the link
http://www.roundededge.com/

Before i post i decided to looked over what the second eyewitness said.

Former employee of Fiduciary Trust, named Gary Corbett, confirmed statements made by Forbes during a 2010 interview on the Reality Report. However, Corbett also pointed out that people who claimed to be part of “guided tours” were making their way into “secured areas” during the power down — areas of Fiduciary Trust that held gold and other valuables for JP Morgan

Omackeral

Cheerful Spring wrote: »

You got a picture of a white ticket that can easily be faked with a computer. Nobody has seen, or looked over this ticket to verify it's authenticity. Even the blog is no longer online
This what i get when i click the link

Simply googling September 10 2001 Twin Towers ticket will bring up these. But yes, of course they're fake. Everything's fake except aliens and those pulsating skies you saw that one time.