9/11- Something just occurred to me...

a reply to: Iconic

Irish: The difference in MO is what I'm getting at, not just the scale. The way everything had been pulled off extremely perfect, to better-than-SEAL levels (no crashed stealth-copters), doesn't fit the same MO as what we see nowadays with better tech, better funding, and 16 years of additional training from the same groups. We see failed attacks, and the same kinds, over and over. and not a single attempted plane hijacking since (TSA stopping them doesn't make sense because they haven't, and if they haven't, then they wouldn't just assume that they couldn't get by. 85% of the attempted smuggling on of firearms and weapons make it on to the plane, in an undercover report conducted). also, as I stated, its the same as looking at a serial, career rapist as the chief suspect in a money laundering scheme. Different MOs, different perpetrators.

I am fully aware that the OS is not the full story..

What I am implying is we were not looking for this style of attack, that makes it much more forgiving for the attackers.

As far as stopping attackers since... they know we are looking for the big splashy attacks, they know changes have been made to our defenses that would make it harder (in theory) to pull off... any military person will tell you, dont attack them where they are strongest, and since our focus is on the big and splashy... send the lone nutcase in with guns instead... still sow terror, but its easier to avoid detection.

Its kind of like Random Anti-Terror drills on a military base... they are not meant to stop anything, they are meant to make the enemy pause... to throw them off their game.

All I am saying is that parts of the official story do make sense... and we should not throw the baby out with the bath water.

a reply to: Irishhaf

The planning, the scope, size, everything about 9/11 attacks are completely a different animal than any other attack we've ever seen. Comparable really, only to Pearl Harbor, which even that is a stretch.

For one, and only one example, of how well it was apparently "planned" was that two out of two skyscrapers to EVER collapse due to a plane impact, collapsed. Three buildings collapsed into their own footprint, at near freefall speed. Two planes that were crashed in NYC were hijacked and flown for 30 minutes without a single intervention. The "plane" that impacted the Pentagon was hijacked and flown for 50 minutes

We have specific plans for these events, and yes, even before 9/11. The fact that there were certain things ALL happening within that one hour timeframe that made our response nill is very questionable, at best.

If it were planned to happen during those times, then that is yet another nail in the coffin, to the point I'm making.

The planning, the execution, the proverbial dominos falling into place doesn't add up. Doesn't equal later attacks.

It was an audacious attack that exploited a weakness by using your own planes as weapons and attacking internally while military defence was focussed on external threats. Complacency and under-estimation of how much damage a handful of extremists could do appears to be a huge factor also. They attacked significant targets that were conveniently close together like the symbol of western economy (WTC), western military (Pentagon) and going with that MO, the Shanksville plane was likely headed for either the White House or the Capitol building but fortunately didn't get that far.

originally posted by: Pilgrum
It was an audacious attack that exploited a weakness by using your own planes as weapons and attacking internally while military defence was focussed on external threats. Complacency and under-estimation of how much damage a handful of extremists could do appears to be a huge factor also. They attacked significant targets that were conveniently close together like the symbol of western economy (WTC), western military (Pentagon) and going with that MO, the Shanksville plane was likely headed for either the White House or the Capitol building but fortunately didn't get that far.

Shanksville plane, eh? Ever compare aerial photos of the shanksville crashsite to an actual planecrash? Or how about comparing them to a missle that hit the ground? One of them looks exactly similar, and it ain't the planecrash.

On another note, that "weakness" that was exploited was exactly the expoitation needed to usher in a new and unprecedented american future. One where American tax dollars would fund the biggest and most well trained army the modern world had ever seen.

Predicated upon one of the "luckiest" attacks by goat herders? Nah. I just don't believe it. Like I said a million times so far, the MO isn't there. The modus operandi is completely different to anything we've seen ISIS, ISIL, Al-Qaeda or any other islamic jihadist do.

I've been looking for anything online that talks about what I'm trying to convey, but to no avail. Which is very surprising given the amount of research this topic has...

"A modus operandi (often shortened to M.O.) is someone's habits of working, particularly in the context of business or criminal investigations, but also more generally. It is a Latin phrase, approximately translated as method or mode of operation."

"What is modus operandi in criminology?
Modus operandi, ( Latin: “operating method”, ) abbreviation Mo, in criminology, distinct pattern or manner of working that comes to be associated with a particular criminal."

So, my question simplified is; Do we see the same distinct pattern, or manner of working, that we saw in the 9/11 attacks?

My answer, is no. we don't. We only see it in our own covert operations, or perhaps in the workings of the mossad.

a reply to: Iconic

Dang Iconic, you passion is shining here.



For another poster wondering how they got all of the demolition charges into the buildings, there were theories that they were all loaded into the central elevator shafts. The shafts also had major support points that ran down the center of the building, maybe freight elevators?

Here is an article that lays out a possible scenario:

How could explosives be planted in the WTC?

The possibility of controlled demolition was not seriously considered in the Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory (NEOCT). There were workers with unfettered access to parts of the builds that were perfect for the planting of explosives, such as in the elevators shafts next to the vertical support columns, and above the ceiling panels next to the horizontal beams. There were also fireproofing renovation workers.

Dr. Niels Harrit has estimated that it would take "tons" of explosives to demolish the buildings. Demolition experts such as Tom Sullivan have said that it would be quite easy to plant them, if a group had access to the elevator shafts, next to the core columns. Workers had access to unoccupied areas by day, and in occupied areas by night, and on week ends.

Workers from the A.C.E. Elevator Company in the WTC elevator shafts from 1994 until 9/11/2001 were not even mentioned in the final reports. Neither was LVI Services, working on the asbestos removal project. Nor were the fireproofing workers.

a reply to: ClovenSky

Thanks Cloven. I must admit, it is an area in my life that I owe much of it to. 9/11 completely changed my country, and is one of the biggest reasons there's such a big divide today.


As for the demolitions; it wasn't RDX, C4, or even thermite OR thermAte.

It was nano-thermite, which is designed in -mostly- underground government labs. The stuff is NEVER created by "accident" or by smashing molecules together. So when unexploded nano-thermite was found in the dust in NYC afterwards, no explanation exists on this planet that could describe what it was doing there, besides having something to do with controlled demolition.

My image uploader isn't working, but look at the image on this page. Directly behind the firefighter, is a core beam. Cut at a 45* angle, with a telltale sign of thermitic use, at the top of the cut.

www.debunking911.com...

a reply to: Iconic

Wow ... just wow.

Thank you for sharing that photo.

A picture is worth a thousand words. I may have even seen that photo before, but out of the context of a thread like this one, I would never have been looking for the things that you just so interestingly pointed out!

a reply to: ClovenSky

aneta.org...

There were workers with unfettered access to parts of the builds that were perfect for the planting of explosives, such as in the elevators shafts next to the vertical support columns, and above the ceiling panels next to the horizontal beams. There were also fireproofing renovation workers. Dr. Niels Harrit has estimated that it would take "tons" of explosives to demolish the buildings. Demolition experts such as Tom Sullivan have said that it would be quite easy to plant them, if a group had access to the elevator shafts, next to the core columns.

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Iconic

Wow ... just wow.

Thank you for sharing that photo.

A picture is worth a thousand words. I may have even seen that photo before, but out of the context of a thread like this one, I would never have been looking for the things that you just so interestingly pointed out!

I remember the first time I had seen that photo, I was dumbfounded. It is the smoking gun. It is the red hand. It is everything. It is the clear, undeniable reasoning behind why we sold ALL of the remnants of the towers to China as scrap metal, instead of letting investigators use the metal remains as evidence in the investigations.

a reply to: Iconic

It is also amazing how fast they got the wreckage out of New York. They had to contract a lot of trucks and then ships to remove all of the evidence ... errr...debris. Didn't they ship it all to China? Why the rush?

They also broke a lot of protocol in not allowing any investigations to take place immediately after.

a reply to: ClovenSky

its a felony, I believe, to destroy evidence in a capitol investigation.

That alone is a crime that wasn't ever taken to court.

its literally staggering.

Whole airplanes have been reconstructed in giant hangars, made up of all the debris left behind when the airplane explodes when it hits the ground/mountain/water.

and yet we just sold all of the debris from a building that came down?

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: smurfy

Knowing what we know now, they were absolutely stoked to have the full support of the United States Armed Forces in Israel again. Another unquestioning supporter of the war against Islamists.

I have a copy of the 9/11 Omission report. It is "shaky" at best. at worst it is a complete, palpable lie. Completely discrediting ideas, and not even looking into others. its a travesty of an "investigation"

Well, we know what the Mossad crew do...all over the world, how ever if I was an American, I would want to know all the 'enablers' who aided and abetted them.

And who was, "Nothing informations, the building is going to collapse" you'll see him in this clip...was he a foreign military engineer?

a reply to: smurfy

I need to check this video out once I'm out of work today, Can't hear the audio or sit down long enough to watch it all..

originally posted by: Iconic

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Iconic

Wow ... just wow.

Thank you for sharing that photo.

A picture is worth a thousand words. I may have even seen that photo before, but out of the context of a thread like this one, I would never have been looking for the things that you just so interestingly pointed out!

I remember the first time I had seen that photo, I was dumbfounded. It is the smoking gun. It is the red hand. It is everything. It is the clear, undeniable reasoning behind why we sold ALL of the remnants of the towers to China as scrap metal, instead of letting investigators use the metal remains as evidence in the investigations.

Those columns were cut during the cleanup.

This video of ground zero proves that cleanup crews routinely cut columns at angles. This refutes the conspiracy industry story that the angle cuts on columns must be made by controlled demolition.

a reply to: D8Tee

Those are different columns, in that video. Those are on the exterior of the building, as you can tell by the proximity of the other buildings. The ones I was referring to, were in the center of the building, where there were stronger, bigger columns.

However, I'm not disputing angular cutting going on during cleanup. But just because that was happening, it doesn't mean angular cuts didnt happen prior.

Angular cuts perfectly explain how a freefall was physically possible to happen. Without destroying the support, it would not, and could not happen. No amount of buckling, melting, failing steel could ever reproduce the effects of a controlled demo. And controlled demo is done at a similar angle.

But, this thread wasn't really intended to be about the conspiracies of the events of 9/11 itself.

originally posted by: Iconic
a reply to: D8Tee

Because the debris is being -blown- out. Back of the envelope calculations put some huge pieces of debris moving at quite a chalked up pace. Check out some videos about it.

The base of the massive chunk lower left is, what, 20 storeys lower than the top of the right-hand corner of the building?

There is nothing but gravity pulling that debris towards the earth and it's moving considerably faster than the collapse of the building, thus easily disproving the free fall so often mentioned. It's all in the picture.

Unless the spin is that the debris was somehow ejected downwards to account for it's velocity and how could that claim raitionally be made?

a reply to: D8Tee

The debris cloud could be and is considered a pyroclastic flow, which travels faster than gravity would permit without any other force. Free fall speed is easily visible and easily calculatable when measuring the top of the building and following its trajectory downward, given distances that are known. It's not advanced math, it's back of the envelope stuff.

a reply to: D8Tee

There is nothing but gravity pulling that debris towards the earth and it's moving considerably faster than the collapse of the building, thus easily disproving the free fall so often mentioned. It's all in the picture.

Are you suggesting that the OS about the WTC is true?

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: D8Tee

There is nothing but gravity pulling that debris towards the earth and it's moving considerably faster than the collapse of the building, thus easily disproving the free fall so often mentioned. It's all in the picture.

Are you suggesting that the OS about the WTC is true?

We got a live one, here!

I think he had said something about not believing the whole thing but most of it?