9/11 Conspiracy Theorists still subjected to ridicule

originally posted by: Salander

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander

Preparation went on for months, and power was off for a few hours? So, I am sure you can present someone who remembers having their offices torn apart for weeks while demolition charges were installed right? Oh, right. They prepared for months and then went in, ripped off drywall, planted all the charges, repaired, taped, sanded and repainted the walls in a few hours.

No sir, that's not what I'm saying.

I am saying that the charges themselves were placed and arranged in the months before.

Then, on the weekend before, the charges and detonating system were "armed" . Obviously there was an electrical component involved, and the reason for the weekend shutdown was to allow the system to be armed properly.

Impossible you know nothing about demolitions there is a reason they use lead lines. Because when using PDX and dynamite you need ignitors. Lead lines work by heating up much like a toaster. At the end it's wrapped by a flammable substance. Depending on which one and how much you use you can set timing for a blast.

Now there is no possible way you could rig a building to explode with people still working there. You have to remove structural supports. Drill holes build kicker plates to shift steel beamS. Now as far as the world trade center. There is only a hand full of demolition experts in the world that would have been able to take that building down. I'd say 3 or less and if any one of them was involved we would know.

And here you might want to see this this is a 20 story building they set up for demolition. You really don't think someone would have noticed?

originally posted by: dragonridr
Now as far as the world trade center. There is only a hand full of demolition experts in the world that would have been able to take that building down. I'd say 3 or less and if any one of them was involved we would know.

Why are you acting like it would be so difficult to bring these buildings down? The South Tower fell less than an hour after it was hit.

It seems to me that OSers want it both ways. "The towers came down easily because of a fuel fire, but they could not have come down from explosives because that would have required all kinds of work to strategically place explosives and weaken the structural steel beams."

You can't have it both ways.

a reply to: Salander

I am saying that the charges themselves were placed and arranged in the months before.[/qtuoe]

That never happened because there were no secondary explosions when the aircraft struck the Twin Towers. If explosives remained attached to the steel columns and detonated, they would have sent signals down through the steel columns and into the ground where they would have been detected by seismic monitors, yet you such signals were detected. The seismic monitors detected the impacts and the collapse of the buildings, but no demo detonations, which is understandable considering that no demo explosions are heard nor seen on video as the WTC buildings collapsed and explosives make a lot of noise. In addition, no evidence of explosive hardware was ever found in the rubble.

You have to understand that this is not Hollywood stuff.

edit on 16-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: skyeagle409

Present scientific evidence that proves me wrong and I don't want to hear that the sound of an explosion is evidence of demo explosives because that won't fly either in light of the fact that people who reportedly heard explosions later attributed the explosions they heard to things that had nothing do with explosives..

Oh so because according to you "some" people changed their minds later down the road ? So that must mean the ones that DIDN'T must be wrong. One would think whatever is fresher in ones memory would be more accurate. If you tell someone something long enough such as ... they didnt see what they thought they saw or hear what they thought they heard they will probably draw another conclusion.

Your science is basically they heard WTC fart instead of an explosion.

And

I know a guy that knows a guy that says .... Blah!

That is not helping your cause here. So far you have ignored all scientific evidence posted by members that does not fit your narrative. You have been debunked on top of it. You can keep calling apples oranges but they are still apples.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Oh so because according to you "some" people changed their minds later down the road ?

Let's take a look here and hear it from one of the world's top demolition expert who has been involved in over a thousand building demolitions.

BTW, he confirmed that none of his seismic monitors in the area detected demo explosions on 9/11, which is confirmed by the fact that there are no demo explosions seen nor heard as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed.

a reply to: EA006

Dick Cheney's Stand Down Order to NORAD as Vice President to THIS DAY has Never been Explained to the Point of Believability . If those Planes were Acknowledged as a Threat , which NORAD at First Thought , and Shot Down BEFORE they even got in Eyesight of the Twin Towers , 9/11 Would have NEVER HAPPENED . Also , in Hindsight , Recent Evidence of Saudi Arabia and Israel's Involvement in the Events of that Day Confirm the Possibility of 9/11 being a Conspiratorial Event . The Official Story will One Day Go Down in American History as the " Greatest Lie " Ever Told .

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Umm, there was absolutely no stand down order that day. That, is a blatant lie pushed by people who don't have the first clue about the subject.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Umm, there was absolutely no stand down order that day. That, is a blatant lie pushed by people who don't have the first clue about the subject.

Oh Really ? Rewritng American History are we ? PROVE IT > .......

a reply to: cardinalfan0596



Are you going on Record here and saying that Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta is a LIAR ?




" To understand the significance of Norman Mineta’s testimony, it is necessary to
understand how this testimony contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report. These
contradictions prove that the United States Military was aware of the plane approaching
the Pentagon and had the capabilities to intercept and shoot down the hostile aircraft. "







www.journalof911studies.com...

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Dick Cheney's Stand Down Order to NORAD as Vice President to THIS DAY has Never been Explained to the Point of Believability .

As someone who had connections with an air defense unit in Alaska, (477th Fighter Group, 302nd Fighter Squadron) we don't stand down our defense at any time.

If those Planes were Acknowledged as a Threat , which NORAD at First Thought , and Shot Down BEFORE they even got in Eyesight of the Twin Towers , 9/11 Would have NEVER HAPPENED .

How do you determine whether an airliner is a threat or not? Our aircraft were intercepting aircraft but they were not authorized to shoot down civil aircraft, just steer them away from the affected zones.

9/11 10th Anniversary: F-15 pilot Dan Nash recalls response

Controllers from the Northeast Air Defense Sector would spot an aircraft on their radar and ask the pilots to investigate and steer it away from Manhattan’s airspace. Over a four-hour period, Nash and Duffy repeated the process for between 50 and 100 aircraft.

When the South Tower of the trade center fell at 9:59 a.m., Nash was flying east over Kennedy, escorting a small civilian airliner to a safe landing. “When we turned around,” he recalled, “Manhattan was covered with what I thought was smoke. But it was the dust from the collapsed tower.”

The pilots were over the North Tower when it collapsed at 10:28 a.m. From an altitude of 6,000 feet, according to Vittner’s report, Duffy watched the tower implode. Nash wasn’t looking down at the time; he only saw the aftermath. The plume of smoke and ash, he estimated, rose 5,000 feet above streets below.

www.masslive....t..._dan_nash.html

Our air defenses at the time was not qeared to intercept civilian airliners within the borders of the United States. Case in point where a Lear Jet was stolen in Virginia and flown to Denver, Colorado with inteception.

Death Ends 1,600-Mile Flight Of Learjet Stolen by Mechanic

DENVER, May 25— A flight mechanic who did not have a pilot's license stole a private jet in Virginia early today and flew it 1,600 miles to Denver, where he shot himself to death as the authorities closed in, officials said.

www.nytimes.com...

He was not intercepted in the air. Even though the Air Force received the shoot down order, there were commanders who refused to forward the orders to their pilots for fear of the consequences should they shoot down the wrong airliner.

In interviews with us, NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance.

...the Langley pilots did not know the threat they were facing, did not know where United 93 was located, and did not have shoot-down authorization before United 93 crashed.

www.npr.org...


9-11 Fighter Pilot: We Wouldn't Have Shot Down Hijackers

The pilot of one of two U.S. military jets that were scrambled on 9-11 moments after kamikaze hijacker Mohamed Atta slammed American Airlines Flight 11 into Tower One of the World Trade Center said Wednesday that he wouldn't have been able to stop the attack even if he intercepted the plane.

"If we had intercepted American 11, we probably would have watched it crash," the pilot, identified only by his military codename "Nasty," told the Cape Cod Times. "We didn't have the authority to (shoot it down)."


As part of the 102nd Fighter Wing flying out of Otis Air National Guard Base on Cape Cod, "Nasty" and his partner, codenamed "Duff," were scrambled at 8:46 a.m. as news of Flight 11's hijacking reached the base.

"We didn't suspect they would use kamikaze tactics that morning," the pilot told the Times. "We weren't ready for that type of an attack, to quickly shoot down one of our own airplanes."
At the time, military pilots had no such standing orders. Absent a presidential directive they had no authority to blow a commercial airliner out of the sky.


113th Wing, Andrews AFB

"We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise...

Chief of Safety for the 113th Wing, Andrews AFB.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit You really should reread his testimony. And compare it to a map of Washington DC. For Secretary Mineta's timeline to work, he would have needed a Star Trek transporter to get from where he was to the White House situation room using his timeline. The "order still stands" that Mineta refers to, is that the DCANG was to bring down Flight 93 if it appeared over DC.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

mm, there was absolutely no stand down order that day. That, is a blatant lie pushed by people who don't have the first clue about the subject.

To give you some insight about our air defenses and civil aircraft within our borders, can you explain why this aircraft was not intercepted and shot down?

CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE OVERVIEW; Unimpeded, Intruder Crashes Plane Into White House

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12— Shortly before 2 A.M. today, a small red-and-white plane flew low over 17th Street in the heart of the capital's downtown, banked left in a U-turn near the Washington Monument, and headed straight toward the President's bedroom in the White House.

No one tried to stop it.

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

mm, there was absolutely no stand down order that day. That, is a blatant lie pushed by people who don't have the first clue about the subject.

To give you some insight about our air defenses and civil aircraft within our borders, can you explain why this aircraft was not intercepted and shot down?

CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE OVERVIEW; Unimpeded, Intruder Crashes Plane Into White House

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12— Shortly before 2 A.M. today, a small red-and-white plane flew low over 17th Street in the heart of the capital's downtown, banked left in a U-turn near the Washington Monument, and headed straight toward the President's bedroom in the White House.

No one tried to stop it.

www.nytimes.com...

VERY interesting story. Apparently it happened on 9/11/1994?

As someone who believes that 9/11 was TEN YEARS in the planning, this story just reaffirms that belief. That NYT article sets off all kinds of alarms.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

s someone who believes that 9/11 was TEN YEARS in the planning, this story just reaffirms that belief. That NYT article sets off all kinds of alarms.

Thank you for bringing it to my attention.

Years of planning by the terrorist. Let's not forget the Bojinka Plot and two very important names associated with that plot; Ramzi Yousef, one of the terrorist who bombed WTC1 in 1993, and his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11.

Phase II: Airline bombing plot

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

United States airlines had been chosen instead of Asian airlines so as to maximize the shock toward Americans. The flights targeted were listed under operatives with codenames: "Zyed", "Majbos", "Markoa", "Mirqas" and "Obaid". Obaid, who was really Abdul Hakim Murad, was to hit United Flight 80, and then he was to go back to Singapore on another United flight which he would bomb.

The explosions were to be timed by the operatives before they disembarked from the plane. The aircraft would have exploded over the Pacific Ocean and the South China Sea almost simultaneously. If this plan worked, several thousand passengers would have perished, and air travel would likely have been shut down worldwide. The U.S. government estimated the prospective death toll to be about 4,000 if the plot had been executed. (For comparison, about 3,000 were killed during the September 11 attacks in the United States.


Phase III: CIA plane crash plot

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

en.wikipedia.org...:_CIA_plane_crash_plot

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Joneselius

Explain that.......

When Silverstein said; "pull it" he was referring to firefighters, not explosives. The term: 'Pull it" does not apply to demo explosives in the world of demolition and Silverstein had not such authority to order demolition of his building anyway.

The decision to clear a safe area about WTC7 was made by Fire Chief Daniel Nigro

Daniel Nigro: Chief of Department FDNY

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

In other words, the Truth Movement took the words; "Pull it" out of context when they did not pertain to explosive demolition.

I suppose the billions he got in insurance money and the amount it would have cost him not to "pull it" in repairs and maintenance was all coincidental then.. Yep..
It wasn't just a "truth movement" who saw those words, and knew what was meant. "Pull it" doesn't have a whole lot of squirming room when it comes to context. Saying these words were taken out of context by a bunch of people that are just imagining a conspiracy having happened there with all the other damning evidence is truly reaching for the stars.

The bigger the lies, the worse the liar's skills at lying are. Or, the believability of a lie is inversely proportional to the size of the lie.

Was your post just meant as satire? It looks like satire, since believing it would take a whole lot more Mojo.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I suppose the billions he got in insurance money and the amount it would have cost him not to "pull it" in repairs and maintenance was all coincidental then.. Yep..

Actually, Silverstein did not get want he wanted and even lost a court battle. He wanted over $7 billion and got only $4.1 billion.

Silverstein Loses Battle Over 9/11 Payouts

Developer Sought Billions of Dollars From Airlines for Rebuilding of World Trade Center

A federal judge on Thursday rejected developer Larry Silverstein's bid to recover billions of dollars from two airlines whose planes were used in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a significant setback in his nearly decadelong fight for more money to rebuild the World Trade Center.

After a four-day bench trial in Lower Manhattan this week, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that an investment group led by Mr. Silverstein had already received all the compensation for which it is eligible: the $4.1 billion paid by property insurers in 2004.

www.wsj.com...

I mght add that Silverstein had no authority to order the demolition of his building and the term: "Pull" does not apply to explosive demolition. Ask any demolition expert. Silverstein was referring to the pull out of firefighters, not for the demolition of WTC7.

As the facts have it, it was NYFD Chief Daniel Nigro, who ordered the area cleared around WTC7, not Silverstein.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: dragonridr
Now as far as the world trade center. There is only a hand full of demolition experts in the world that would have been able to take that building down. I'd say 3 or less and if any one of them was involved we would know.

Why are you acting like it would be so difficult to bring these buildings down? The South Tower fell less than an hour after it was hit.

It seems to me that OSers want it both ways. "The towers came down easily because of a fuel fire, but they could not have come down from explosives because that would have required all kinds of work to strategically place explosives and weaken the structural steel beams."

You can't have it both ways.

Agreed, a fuel fire that just happened as a circumstance of a plane crash can bring a building down as good or better than one brought down by demolition experts without all that planning and labor and expertise.

Awesome new method of demolition at a fraction of the engineering and planning time...

Also, a better "black box" is to put a little note pad in the standard passport cover and include that in all pilot's uniforms..

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Agreed, a fuel fire that just happened as a circumstance of a plane crash can bring a building down as good or better than one brought down by demolition experts without all that planning and labor and expertise.

Awesome new method of demolition at a fraction of the engineering and planning time..

Fire got the ball rolling, but fire is not precise enough to be used to demolish steel frame buildings. That was evident when buildings surrounding WTC1 and WTC2 were heavily damaged by falling debris. In other words, the WTC buildings did not collapse within their footprints. and the fact that debris can be seen outpacing and striking the ground while the collapse of the WTC buildings are still in progress many stories above ground level proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the WTC buildings did not collapse at free fall speed.

Also, a better "black box" is to put a little note pad in the standard passport cover and include that in all pilot's uniforms..

You might have something there considering that passports and paper products have been known to survive fiery airplane crashes.

Photo: Passport and Dollar Bill Survive Fiery Airline Crash in Nepal

Photo: Paper Products Survive Fiery Crash of PSA 1771

I might also add that in the world of aviation, radar data and ATC communication tapes are often used in conjunction with black box data to verify incidents as they occurred.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Even if true, those things don't mean that demolition wasn't also a part of what happened. A mix of both would make it more convincing as being an attack, and many witnesses testifying about things that shouldn't have happened or would not have happened if the official story were true. There are too many other things evidenced as having also happened that make the official story mostly fabricated, and everything that is convenient to the official story, is focused on more by the officials telling their story, which is also a red flag in itself.
The official story has evidence that is still classified as well, and that means cover up, and it means guilt revealing..
Too many things to list that incriminate the official story as being fabricated en mass.

The truth never needed so much BS to make it be true, as the "truth" officials are telling.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: skyeagle409

Even if true, those things don't mean that demolition wasn't also a part of what happened. A mix of both would make it more convincing as being an attack, and many witnesses testifying about things that shouldn't have happened or would not have happened if the official story were true. There are too many other things evidenced as having also happened that make the official story mostly fabricated, and everything that is convenient to the official story, is focused on more by the officials telling their story, which is also a red flag in itself.
The official story has evidence that is still classified as well, and that means cover up, and it means guilt revealing..
Too many things to list that incriminate the official story as being fabricated en mass.

The truth never needed so much BS to make it be true, as the "truth" officials are telling.

Your logic amazes me. First you doing think a 747 slamming into a building needed help bringing it down. Engineers all over the world study what happened that day. And in fact changed the way buildings are designed today. But you know more then all those who actually design buildimgs.

Then you say they are hiding things and it proves their guilt. Isn't that funny you don't know if there is anything not being released because of course it's being hidden from you. But not knowing if anything is being kept secret and what it is you some how use that as proof for your conspiracy. It's like say I g I know Santa claus exists because I've never seen him. Wow really?