How did Atta's passport actually survive?

a reply to: wmd_2008


Neither you, NF, nor the Commission can prove any element of the official story. Bullet points or not, the facts and evidence do not support the story.

It is YOUR claim (it's no argument when there is no proof) that fails, and it failed many years ago.

63 times the commission stated "we found no evidence" related to various elements of the official story.

It's not your fault that I am very skeptical of stories that cannot be proved, and it's not my fault that you are so gullible.

Make a compelling case if you feel so strongly. So far you've been unable to.

a reply to: wmd_2008


Neither you, NF, nor the Commission can prove any element of the official story. Bullet points or not, the facts and evidence do not support the story.

It is YOUR claim (it's no argument when there is no proof) that fails, and it failed many years ago.

63 times the commission stated "we found no evidence" related to various elements of the official story.

It's not your fault that I am very skeptical of stories that cannot be proved, and it's not my fault that you are so gullible.

Make a compelling case if you feel so strongly. So far you've been unable to.

a reply to: wmd_2008


Neither you, NF, nor the Commission can prove any element of the official story. Bullet points or not, the facts and evidence do not support the story.

It is YOUR claim (it's no argument when there is no proof) that fails, and it failed many years ago.

63 times the commission stated "we found no evidence" related to various elements of the official story.

It's not your fault that I am very skeptical of stories that cannot be proved, and it's not my fault that you are so gullible.

Make a compelling case if you feel so strongly. So far you've been unable to.

Sorry for the multiple posts.

a reply to: Salander

Then cite a theory more credible than the WTC had deficient fire insulation, and did not have a traditional concrete core that saved other buildings in the past. Then the jet impacts cut outer and inner vertical columns. The only columns that held up the floor trusses. Only at the ends of floor trusses longer than normal building practice. With no mid support. Again, a building using less concrete than normal practice. The fires spread faster at an intensity not anticipated by building designers. The fires caused the steel to lose up to 60 percent of its ability to resist strain. The heat caused the floor trusses to try to expand. Being boxed in by remaining columns, the floor trusses still whole were forced to droop down. When the floor trusses cooled, they contracted. The contracting columns pulled in the columns in near silence at areas in relationship to the jet impacts. Impacts that would have knocked of fire insulation, and would have made any system of planted explosives usesless. The columns first bowed then buckeled. Again, in near silence. The buckling lead to collapse.

The mechanism is captured in the linked to thread below in a video clip.

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/
www.metabunk.org...

Now you state a more credible theory to supersede inward bowing causing buckling lead to collapse.

a reply to: neutronflux


Another theory? You need another theory?

In analyzing any event, especially an event involving strange statements from known liars, one need not come armed with "another theory" to understand that one has been deceived.

If you must, another theory is that powerful men in government used Vigilant Guardian to get the ball rolling that day, FAA radars were spoofed, the buildings involved were prepared with various charges, a bunch of impossible cell phone calls were staged, and, well, you know the rest of the story. We ended up in a war on terror that has been very profitable and is still plundering the treasury today.

a reply to: Salander

What theory should I find more credible than contracting floor trusses caused the bowing of vertical columns resulting in buckling? The initiation of in areas of the jet impacts that made it impossible for any CD system to survive.

The video evidence provided in the linked to thread below?

the-pre-collapse-inward-bowing-of-wtc2.t4760/

www.metabunk.org...

Funny I want to talk about the moment of collapse, the physical evidence, the video evidence, and the audible evidence?

You want to rant, and you ignore the video evidence, the physical evidence, audible evidence of the towers’ collapse?

a reply to: neutronflux


It's funny you like to get immersed in some trivia, but avoid other trivia like the plague.

You are all excited about floor trusses and bowing members, but do not like to discuss how and why the county coroner or anybody else could find an airliner in that field that day.

I'm more into the big picture, not irrelevant trivia. The big picture shows a magnificent deception and cover-up uncovered many years ago.

a reply to: Salander

The starting point for CD concerning the towers was based on a lies. They did not fall at the rate of free fall. The towers did not fall through the path of greatest resistance. Thermite is not the only thing that could cause iron microspheres in a city contaminated by welding and burning coal. There is no seismic evidence of detonations with the power to cut steel. No video or audio evidence of explosions with the power to cut steel. The pictures posted of the cut WTC columns was from cleanup crews, not thermite. The chips in the WTC dust are primer and paint, not unreacted thermite that burns in an inert atmosphere. The WTC was treated as a crime scene that was a toxic soup that needed removed for the health of the city. The rubble and steel was inspected before release, and to say otherwise is based on misinformed gossip.

The truth movement’s arguments seems to have real credibility issues.

Now, can you argue a theory with credibility that I should find more credible than impact/ fire / thermal stress damage lead to inward bowing leading to vertical column buckling triggering collapse? Actual proof the towers were brought down by planted charges?

What plane?

That is the question!

a reply to: serpo

How about this plane ?

American 11 into North Tower

www.youtube.com...

Or this shot from web cam - tripped every 3 seconds American 11 into North Tower

www.youtube.com...

As for United 175 unto South Tower

Take your pick as there are dozens of shots

www.youtube.com...

AA11 did not strike the North Tower, and UA175 did not strike the South Tower. Some aircraft did, but not those 2 airliners.

Hard to say what hit the North Tower, but a drone 767, modified, hit the South Tower.

Atta’s passport did not survive anything, because it was never in a plane. It was placed on the ground after the crash. It was false evidence planted to point toward hijackers.

originally posted by: Salander
AA11 did not strike the North Tower, and UA175 did not strike the South Tower. Some aircraft did, but not those 2 airliners.

Hard to say what hit the North Tower, but a drone 767, modified, hit the South Tower.

See your still pushing the same fringe truth movement lies.

Then why did radar tack the jets to the towers? And did not track the jets anywhere else? What happen to the crews and passengers. How did the passengers’ and crews’ remains and DNA end up at the towers. What happened to the loved ones that boarded those flights and did not return home?

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Atta’s passport did not survive anything, because it was never in a plane. It was placed on the ground after the crash. It was false evidence planted to point toward hijackers.

The passport was not the only personal items that were recovered from the crashed jets. Along with passengers and crews DNA and remains.

He must of dropped it out of the window just before he expertly flew into the tower.
Im suprised it was not found with Bin Laden's sketch book and plans of what was supposed to happen.
How could tell by his passport he was guilty of anything?
The details on his passport must of said his date of birth, Then date of death 9/11,
His Visa to get into the U.S to learn to fly but not not land was not suspicious.
Field Mcconnell a veteran pilot also says that those Boeing planes had a device on board that would allow the plane to be flown and landed safely like a drone. And the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot device can not be switched off by anybody on the plane.
Apparently they were put on planes well before 9/11

a reply to: 11SK1180

a reply to: 11SK1180

The USAF has been operating drone aircraft for 50 years or more. Anything with a "Q" designation is a drone. For example, QF-4 is an F-4 drone.

a reply to: 11SK1180

Field Mcconnell a veteran pilot also says that those Boeing planes had a device on board that would allow the plane to be flown and landed safely like a drone. And the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot device can not be switched off by anybody on the plane.

You mean like this …….??

www.youtube.com...

The 767 had no automatic landing device

a reply to: firerescue

It's not an automatic landing device. It enables someone on the ground to take over the controls to land. It turns the aircraft into a drone.