New 911 Evidence Solves Unanswered Questions

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


Your many posts here betray your claim that you trust no one.

Indeed, you trust men like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and a host of others who concocted the nonsensical story you consistently defend here. You trust authorities and nobody else. When they tell you certain cell phone calls were made from airliners, you believe it, and you either do not know or do not care that those phone calls were impossible with cellphone technology in 2001.

What does that have to do with:

When it comes to the truth movement, why do you echo the truth movement’s lies. And yes, they are lies. The same falsehoods debunked over and over the past 16 years plus.

What are you going to do now? Back to the same old play book? Pick some poor first responder, and falsely parade them around as suffering from radiation poisoning stemming from a fantasy nuclear bomb using misquotes and innuendo?


Your on going and current postings of falsehoods?

You brought up the matter of trust, not I.

Why do you trust men with strong reputations for mendacity? Why do you trust perjurers? Why do you trust the findings of a commission whose heads are on record saying the commission was set up to fail?

a reply to: Salander

Why do you trust men with strong reputations for mendacity? Why do you trust perjurers? Why do you trust the findings of a commission whose heads are on record saying the commission was set up to fail?

Because after 17 years the truth movement has come up with nothing to change the basic findings that plane impacts started
the collapse process.

a reply to: samkent


After 5 or 6 years it was apparent that yes, the commission was set up to fail. After 5 or 6 years it was clearly apparent to anybody that was an independent thinker that the official story was a hoax, that the facts available did not support the official story.

After 17 years, it is clear that the only people who still believe that bit of nonsense either have a vested interest in the story or are off the scale gullible.

a reply to: Salander

After 5 or 6 years it was apparent that yes, the commission was set up to fail.

The old change the topic ploy.

What does that have to with your fantasy the WTC was brought down by mini nukes. Your fantasy of nuclear reactions kept the WTC rubble smoldering for months. A release of radiation that would be greater than the reactor at fukushima, radiation that would have killed anyone working the pile in hours, and causing severe illness and death where ever the WTC rubble was taken, and contradicts your fantasy of mini nukes.

And don’t forget you falsely parading first responders suffering from illnesses stemming from chemical toxicity as victims of radiation poisoning.

originally posted by: Salander

Why do you trust the findings of a commission whose heads are on record saying the commission was set up to fail?

They are also on record saying this:

"What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."

books.google.com... that+would+coalesce+within+and+around+the+9/11+Commission+over+the+coming+twenty+months+to+enable+our+success.%22&source=bl&ots=v0orL86gjQ&sig=eaSMPaS 1ziPmCP6V9YtzXcmMKVs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi27uK03pjWAhUr_4MKHYWnD1sQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=%22What%20we%20could%20not%20have%20anticipated%20were%20the %20remarkable%20people%20and%20circumstances%20that%20would%20coalesce%20within%20and%20around%20the%209%2F11%20Commission%20over%20the%20coming%20twe nty%20months%20to%20enable%20our%20success.%22&f=false

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: samkent


After 5 or 6 years it was apparent that yes, the commission was set up to fail. After 5 or 6 years it was clearly apparent to anybody that was an independent thinker that the official story was a hoax, that the facts available did not support the official story.

After 17 years, it is clear that the only people who still believe that bit of nonsense either have a vested interest in the story or are off the scale gullible.

Quote who here is trying to absolve the commission of wrong doing. Any more false arguments.

Your the one that keeps bring up the commission in response to people pointing out there is no physical, video, audio, and seismic evidence of planted charges at the WTC.

Your response to people pointing out the absurdity of:

Richard Gage / AE fizzle no flash bombs that caused lateral ejection with no splintered steel, and no audible signature of a detonation capable of hurling pieces of structure about? His lie the towers had to fall through the path of greatest resistance.

Harrit / Jones unethically peer reviewed thermite paper. Trying to state paint chips were active thermite with no actual test performed to prove thermite.

The fantasy of impossible holograms? With claims of missiles or lasers not supported by the physical evidence at all.

Claims of mini nukes with no evidence of detentions with the energy to cut steel columns. Absolutely no evidence of radiation or contamination from a nuclear detonation.

Or good old Dr. Wood, who debunked all other CD theories to push her fantasy of dustification?

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

They assumed that the steel failed, from the extremely high temperatures of fires.

See lots of rants by you based on falsehoods?

Can you quote they?

You have no idea what their analysis of steel is about, do you?

Read it, and you'll (hopefully) understand the problem.


I'll gladly address your posts, afterwards...

Eventually you cannot cite an example of what you are talking about? Can you point to something specific? Or you just here to spin innuendo to create false arguments.

And for your fantasy of holograms of jets, you never explained how enough shape charges where staged on the outside of the towers to blow the perimeter columns inward, cut core columns, expel jet wreckage on the opposite side, and required 8000 gallons of staged fuel in each tower to cause the fire balls.

It's a fantasy that planes can sink right into steel high-rises, and leave nothing but a perfect outline on the wall, like Wile E. Coyote goes through objects in cartoons!

A real 757/767 plane is essentially a thin aluminum shell, with engines. It is not designed, or built, to ram into buildings, like a tank. Nor can planes slice through steel like it was balsa wood. I can't remember how many times I heard the media describe how these planes had 'become projectiles'. 'Projectiles' drive through steel like a hot knife through butter. That's why they described the planes as 'missiles'. Impressions of a plane as a missile, which slices through steel like balsa wood.


Look at any other image of a plane hitting a building. They don't slice right through buildings. From past examples, it seems they can't ever drive right through a wood-framed house!

Watch the clip again, of plane impact. The wings hit the wall at an angle, spanning about 4-5 floors. Now, look at the wings, as they punch into the wall. The best part is hidden from sight - which is lucky for them, because they'd have a hard time explaining how aluminum wings can turn into giant saw-blades!

4-5 thick slabs of concrete flooring and various steel supports (trusses, etc.) are behind that wall.

Think about it - aluminum wings were able to slice right through 4-5 massive slabs of concrete, at the same time - as if they were giant rip-saws, or something!

What is the fantasy here?

Do you accept that this is possible with a real plane, or do you accept that it is not possible?

So you didn't even read the NIST steel analysis, and just want me to quote from it?...

Here's the report..

ws680.nist.gov...

It mentions 236 pieces of steel collected as evidence. It mentions that fire/impact damaged steel was to be collected, primarily, along with the bolts, etc. You'll find it mentioned throughout the report - search for, and collect, any of the steel that was fire-affected/damaged, or any steel with impact damage.

They are supposed to be investigating every possible cause of collapses, which is why every possible piece of evidence is important to have, for ANY crime investigation. No matter how much evidence is there, or how long it takes to study, and sort through, it can't be excused, or dismissed, or shipped to Asia, beforehand.

They knew what caused the collapses, before they even started to investigate it!

Imagine a murder investigation that sees a bullet hole in a body, and immediately concludes the cause of death was a gun. They didn't look at the giant gash on his leg, or his foam-caked lips, or how bluish his face was.

The point is that an investigation cannot begin with a pre-determined conclusion, which only looks for evidence that might confirm, or support, their conclusion.


So, it was 'already known' to be caused by fire/impact damage, beforehand, so they only looked for evidence that could support, and confirm, what they have already concluded.

Like the bullet. Not the knife slash, which hit an artery, and drained a quart of blood. Not the foamy lips, and blue face, which indicate he was poisoned as well. It is not relevant to study. Because they have a bullet hole.



Anyone knows an investigation looks at ALL of the evidence from a crime scene. It cannot pick and choose evidence based on what they have already concluded. Even if it assumed to be caused by fire/impact damage alone, that will taint the investigation, beforehand. They will naturally want to confirm their previous assumptions are correct. And may never be aware of other, stronger evidence, that supports something else.

Same as a bullet hole may indicate a gun killed a man, but it cannot be known for sure, until all the evidence is studied. An autopsy is done, which reveals poison killed him. And the bullet was a cover up, afterwards.


So asking ;Where is the evidence of a CD?', is the same as asking 'Where is the evidence the man was poisoned?'


The question to you is... 'Where is all of the evidence from the collapses?'


The people who said it was fire and impact damage had all the evidence, right? Ask them why they didn't look for evidence of a CD....

a reply to: turbonium1

It's a fantasy that planes can sink right into steel high-rises, and leave nothing but a perfect outline on the wall, like Wile E. Coyote goes through objects in cartoons!

One, they where not perfect shapes of a jet.

Two, how would you even mount explosives on the outside of the towers to create your “perfect” shape. Why would they be mounted on the outside to create a “perfect shake”? Explosives that had to only blow inward, cut columns, cut core columns, simulate a fire ball equivalent to a jet with 8000 gallons hitting the tower at high speed, ejected wreckage out exit homes, and be strong enough to create seismic waves detectable 25 miles away. Without an once of evidence they were there and staged.

A real 757/767 plane is essentially a thin aluminum shell, with engines. It is not designed, or built, to ram into buildings, like a tank.

Three: Using your logic, a jet should not break apart when it hits water? Or a water jet should not be able to cut through steel plate? To cut something, you only need velocity and mass.

What do you not understand the wings have to be strong enough to carry thousands of gallons of fuel. 8000 gallons of fuel equals 50,000 lbs. Are you saying 50,000 pounds hitting a columns at 500 mph is not going to take out columns? The weight of the jet was over 200,000 pounds. An air from that has to handle the load of passengers and cargo, stress on the wings of flight and fuel storage, an air frame that handles the stain from the jet engines, an air frame that supports the landing gear and takes the repeated abuse of landing.

Watch the clip again, of plane impact. The wings hit the wall at an angle, spanning about 4-5 floors. N

Four: What do expect from hand held low resolution video equipment from the late 90’s, very early 2000’s? The jets where traveling fast enough, they moved about 15 feet between frames. The video only captures 25 frames a second. Then add in the camera trying to compensate from bright blue sky to the the relatively dark tower on exposure. The effects are only going to get grainy and more pronounced if when enlarged.

Five: Then the shear impossible of daytime holograms. And the shear amount of projectors and speakers it would take to make the high speed image through a city on some sort of screen? Or moving projection device moving through the city at 500 mph?

Funny you want to be credible when you pick the most impossible and easily debunked conspiracy fantasy.

a reply to: turbonium1

Ok. I will play the game. With reports the buildings were bulging/buckling/leaning before collapse, from the videos of collapse, from the videos and pictures of the rubble, from the audio of the collapse, from the seismic date, from the identified and documented columns, the recovered jet wreckage, the Identifying of passagers by DNA, metallurgical analysis of the steel, and the hand gathering of human remains, personal belongings, and evidence; what clue would point them towards planted explosives brought down the towers?

Sounds like you wanted the fabrication of planted explosives at the WTC.......

originally posted by: neutronflux

a reply to: turbonium1

Three: Using your logic, a jet should not break apart when it hits water? Or a water jet should not be able to cut through steel plate? To cut something, you only need velocity and mass.

What do you not understand the wings have to be strong enough to carry thousands of gallons of fuel. 8000 gallons of fuel equals 50,000 lbs. Are you saying 50,000 pounds hitting a columns at 500 mph is not going to take out columns? The weight of the jet was over 200,000 pounds. An air from that has to handle the load of passengers and cargo, stress on the wings of flight and fuel storage, an air frame that handles the stain from the jet engines, an air frame that supports the landing gear and takes the repeated abuse of landing.

What would happen if each wing from a 757 hit two concrete slabs, with the same thickness of one floor, at the same angle, then?

According to your argument, the wings would slice right through the slabs, right?

Show me wings that cut through concrete, or anything close to it. Would you like to see wings that have hit buildings, which did NOT slice through the walls? That's what has happened before, all the time. Show me one that supports your argument, at least. Talk is meaningless.

Show me anything that slices through a thick slab of steel, like that.


Circular saws cut concrete. Jacks break concrete. But nothing can cut through concrete like an aluminum wing can!!

originally posted by: turbonium1
Show me anything that slices through a thick slab of steel, like that.


Circular saws cut concrete. Jacks break concrete. But nothing can cut through concrete like an aluminum wing can!!

One, you are confusing momentum vs durability. The wings and jet did break apart on impact.

Two, how does a soft lead bullet penetrate steel plate.

Three, what was a jet weighing over 200,000 pounds, with 50,000 pounds of fuel just in the wings, traveling 500 mph supposed to do? Bounce off?

Four, sorry you don’t understand energy and momentum.

Five, you didn’t answer:
how would you even mount explosives on the outside of the towers to create your “perfect” shape. Why would they be mounted on the outside to create a “perfect shake”? Explosives that had to only blow inward, cut columns, cut core columns, simulate a fire ball equivalent to a jet with 8000 gallons hitting the tower at high speed, ejected wreckage out exit homes, and be strong enough to create seismic waves detectable 25 miles away. Without an once of evidence they were there and staged.

And you ignored:
Ok. I will play the game. With reports the buildings were bulging/buckling/leaning before collapse, from the videos of collapse, from the videos and pictures of the rubble, from the audio of the collapse, from the seismic date, from the identified and documented columns, the recovered jet wreckage, the Identifying of passagers by DNA, metallurgical analysis of the steel, and the hand gathering of human remains, personal belongings, and evidence; what clue would point them towards planted explosives brought down the towers?

Sounds like you wanted the fabrication of planted explosives at the WTC....

And you have no credible arguments. Sad.

a reply to: turbonium1

Show me wings that cut through concrete, or anything close to it.

Now you are arguing to the point of being silly.
I doubt you will get anyone to agree with you that concrete is impenetrable to high speed objects.
You blindly ignore history and the given circumstances of 911.

I'm not going to be bothered with informing you point by point as it has been brought up time and time again.
There comes a point where you quit trying to help the homeless, the addicted and other people with deficiency's.

a reply to: turbonium1

A real 757/767 plane is essentially a thin aluminum shell, with engines. It is not designed, or built, to ram into buildings, like a tank. Nor can planes slice through steel like it was balsa wood. I can't remember how many times I heard the media describe how these planes had 'become projectiles'. 'Projectiles' drive through steel like a hot knife through butter. That's why they described the planes as 'missiles'. Impressions of a plane as a missile, which slices through steel like balsa wood.

Explain numb nutz how a lightweight fighter can penetrate side of steel ship ……

USS HINSDALE ( APA 120)

upload.wikimedia.org...


USS STERRETT (DD 407)

www.researcheratlarge.com/Ships/DD407/h98062.jpg

OR a WW II Bomber a solid 11 inch thick masonry wall

upload.wikimedia.org...

One of the motors punched all the way through the building coming out other side to land on roof 1 1/2 block away

Don't seem to be aware of aircraft construction - while skin is quite thin , have number of heavy substantial components

Keel beam - runs length of aircraft provides support to cabin and cargo bays, heaviest strongest piece on aircraft

Jet engines weigh 5 tons each, composed of high strength high temperature alloys

Wing ribs and spars

Fuel - at that speed fuel acts like a solid battering ram

originally posted by: waypastvne

originally posted by: Salander

Why do you trust the findings of a commission whose heads are on record saying the commission was set up to fail?

They are also on record saying this:

"What we could not have anticipated were the remarkable people and circumstances that would coalesce within and around the 9/11 Commission over the coming twenty months to enable our success."

books.google.com... that+would+coalesce+within+and+around+the+9/11+Commission+over+the+coming+twenty+months+to+enable+our+success.%22&source=bl&ots=v0orL86gjQ&sig=eaSMPaS 1ziPmCP6V9YtzXcmMKVs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi27uK03pjWAhUr_4MKHYWnD1sQ6AEIKjAB#v=onepage&q=%22What%20we%20could%20not%20have%20anticipated%20were%20the %20remarkable%20people%20and%20circumstances%20that%20would%20coalesce%20within%20and%20around%20the%209%2F11%20Commission%20over%20the%20coming%20twe nty%20months%20to%20enable%20our%20success.%22&f=false

Thank you for the bit o' Google propaganda, but I read it myself, when it first came out, before Google revised facts, again.

a reply to: Salander

Any proof of nuclear weapons at at the WTC yet.

originally posted by: Salander

before Google revised facts, again.

Another unsubstantiated claim ...... Cool.

a reply to: neutronflux


There is ample proof of nuclear events at WTC.

But if one chooses to deny the evidence, there is not much that can be done.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: neutronflux


There is ample proof of nuclear events at WTC.

9/11 happened in Manhattan. The nuclear bomb was called the Manhattan Project.



If thats not ample proof, I don't know what is.