Difficult Facts for 9/11 Skeptics to Deny

Originally posted by 11Bravo

But doesnt the FBI have an obligation to find out exactly who was the real person behind the stolen identity?
They (FBI) dont care and refuse to update their official list of hijackers.

just a devils advocate/shot in the dark type thing but, they COULD claim "its out of their jurisdiction" as they would have originated overseas and being dead its hard to question them...reaching i know but hey, it IS a conspiracy site and i am floating that as a hypothesis not a fact....so yeah.

to the actual question, yes, i agree with that statement/question 100%, we SHOULD be hot on the trail and it is curious as to why we're not.

The main 'alternative theory' out there that just doesnt stand up to real scrutiny is the 'official' theory.

i can respect where you come from on that but given the choice between the official story and the multiple guess choice of: mini nukes, the NWO, thermite, controlled demo, fake 'live' images or death beams from space, muslem terrorists seems just a little simpler.

All the 'who did it' and 'how did they do that' questions are pointless.

i mean this with all due respect but isnt that a bit of a double standard? i mean the problem most people have with the official story is that it DOESNT answer these questions effectivly so in the absense of an answer that does "fit" in most peoples minds they go wandering and come home with space beams, holograms, mininukes, black ops teams willing to kill their own countrymen etc...so shouldnt the alternative theories be held to the same standard?

There is more then enough evidence to prove to a grand jury that at the very least 9/11 was allowed to happen.

while i cant totally disagree with you, of all of the theories its the most plausable to me, that we allowed it to happen either by intent or by neglegance, but if it was enough for a grand jury....in a sue happy country like ours why hasnt it happened yet?

That is treason, pure and simple.

treason at worst, gross negligence and incompetance at best...but ill lean more towards the treason along wtih you...someone needs a can of whoopass opened on them...just before the rope tightens.

It doesnt matter what hit the pentagon, or how 'they' brought down the towers, and endless speculation in these areas just allows more time to pass between the criminal act and the prosecution.

i see your point about the time factor but i disagree about the particulars. it IS necessary to prove HOW it was done, and that goes both ways. if it was terrorists, the govt needs to give us our moneys worth and explain how it all happened in a way that actually does fit the evidence. but by the same standard, anyone trying to disprove the official story by using an alternative theory needs to be able to explain their own theory in a way that makes sense.

but thats not to say that anyone who disagrees with any theory, govt or alternative, HAS to be able to explain it all. i can lay out what i feel is a good case as to why it wasnt high explosives, but that doesnt mean i can explain what it was, im simply eliminating one possibility and narrowing down the field of research. (did that make any sense?)

If 'they' can keep us all guessing and pointing fingers for a few more years then it really wont matter what we uncover or are able to prove, because the criminals will have already burned down our house (USA) and left us beaten and broken

all i can say to that is i pray youre wrong....but i fear you could be right on some level.

for what it is worth i am a mason that works in Pre-cast with mostly iron workers we build stadiums, buildings,bridges,parking garages,and prisons and i have to say i have seen with my own eyes steel bend with too much weight on it and i have always joked about if one floor gave we would all die just cause of the weight of the concrete floor hitting the floor below would cause a chain reaction killing everyone...the bigger you are the harder you fall!!

[edit on 15-6-2007 by KLSyesca]

Since I am a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Skeptic (i.e. I think most of the official story is dead on). I guess I will have to reply to this one.

*The official report states that burning jet fuel melted the steel at WTC 1 & 2 and in under two hours weakened their structures enough to come crashing down at free-fall speed.

Not sure what "official" report that is from but the statement is full of errors. The steel did not melt, it merely softened enough that it lost its integrity. That happens at a temperature well within that of a jet fuel fire. As for the free fall falsehood..

www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

The big problem is, large chunks of the top of the towers hit the street several seconds before the rest of the towers. Unless of course you believe that those chunks fell FASTER than free fall speed......

Other steel buildings have burned for over 20 hours without any significant structural damage.

And which of those buildings had a fully fueled jetliner slam into them at 300+MPH?? NONE.

-The Empire State building stood after being hit by a B-52 Bomber.

It was a B-25 that was one-twentieth the weight of a 757 and about one-fifthieth of the momentum of the jets that hit the towers. In addition the Empire State Building was constructed much different than the towers, and in several respects much sturdier. So this isnt even comparing apples to oranges...more like apples to..i dont know...Corvettes....

Investigators discovered Thermite, a demolition material, in the rubble.

No, they didnt. Some half informed yoyo conducted tests on a piece of steel that some other yoyo said they got from a friend who got it from a friend who was at Ground Zero.

Also molten metal burned at the base for three weeks (an impossible feat for jet fuel).

Not an impossible feat for an underground fire being fed oxygen.

www.911myths.com...

There are countless eyewitnesses claiming to hear multiple bombs go off and firefighters describing a chain reaction of bombs layering down from the top in rapid succession.

No, but there are TONS of misquoted witnesses.

Marvin Bush was head of security for the WTC, where two weeks prior to 9/11 all bomb-sniffing dogs had been called off.

BZZZZT wrong answer. John O'Neill was head of security for the WTC on 9/11/01. Marvin Bush was on the board of directors of Securacom, a company that DID have responsibilites in regards to security at the WTC. However, Marvin Bush had NOTHING to do with the actual running of the security. In addition there is this:

Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000

www.physics911.ca...:_Security,_Secrecy,_and_a_Bush_Brother

In other words Marvin left the Securacom Board in June 2000. Before his brother was even elected President of the United States.

As for the dogs...
David Lim, Police Officer, Port Authority made this statement to the 9/11 Commission....

I am a Police Officer in the employ of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. I have been such for the greater part of the last 23 years. On Sept. 11th, 2001, our Police Department suffered the greatest single day loss in Law Enforcement history @ the World Trade Center. 37 Officers from every rank (Superintendent to Police Officer) as well as my partner, explosive detector K-9 Sirius were killed in the attack. Many would ask what the PAPD was doing in the World Trade Center. A little known fact was that we were always there. Since the Port Authority owned the buildings, we (the Police) were responsible for the public safety therein...

In other words, here is testimony that the Port Authority handled part of the safety issues for the WTC AND testimony that at least on K-9 was killed that day. In other words, there were still police dogs there.

Larry Silverstein, the owner of WTC 1, 2, and 7 (who made 7 billion dollars from the insurance policy he took out months before specifically covering acts of terrorism) is quoted as saying he decided to “pull-it,” a demolition term for imploding a building, just before it came down.

Lets look at this one shall we....

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding.

www.forbes.com...

www.ny1.com...
www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Larry-Silverstein-WTC6dec04.htm
www.time.com...
www.manhattan-institute.org...

select.nytimes.com...

Not only had Silverstein insured for too small an amount, he’d also failed to complete policy negotiations before the attacks occurred. As a result he’s been involved with legal fights with the insurers for years, and can only claim $4.6 billion instead of the $7 billion (with even that subject to appeal as of January 2007) he might have got if they’d all agreed to the same document. Does any of this really sound like the actions of a man who knew what would happen on 9/11?

www.911myths.com...

*Where flight 93 supposedly crashed there was absolutely no plane wreckage found (no engines, no indestructible landing gear, nothing).

Oh really?

www.rcfp.org...
www.rcfp.org...
www.rcfp.org...

Will continue.....

Even more.....

www.rcfp.org...
www.rcfp.org...

*At the Pentagon there was only one small piece of plane wreckage found (no engines, no wings, no landing gear).

Once again, oh really?

www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...

Text-The hole in the pentagon was not big enough for the plane’s engines let alone the planes wings to have impacted.

Try reading this...

fire.nist.gov...

*None of the 4 planes’ titanium black boxes were found, yet one of the supposed hijacker’s passports was found having floated down to the street.

Well since I already posted links to pics of the voice and data recorder from one of the jets........

Of course, these recorders are not indestructable....

www.911myths.com...

-Video evidence shows a “pod” or massive non-symmetrical object underneath one of the planes, not found on any commercial airliner, but common on some military planes.

Throughly debunked many times on ATS....

*The FAA and NORAD stood down and did not send interceptors for an hour

Sorry but neither the FAA nor NORAD stood down that day, nor do they stand down ANY day....

www.911myths.com...

7 of the 19 supposed hijackers are still alive.

No, 7 people with similar names to those of the hijackers are alive.

www.911myths.com...

When Bush was told twice about the planes crashing into the WTC, he calmly remained seated reading “My Pet Goat” for 8 minutes with some school children.

Well okay, so this one is mostly true. What did you want him to do, jump up, scream OH NO and scare the heck out of the kids? Or maybe knowing that his staff would be busy making phone calls and gathering info, not to mention the Secret Service would be ensuring that nothing had gone wrong with its routes away from the school, he decided that the kids deserved a few more minutes of relative innocence. By the way, if you want to look it up, the principal of that school (a DEMOCRAT) insists that the President did the right thing that day.

11 times the usual amount of put-options were placed on United and American airlines stock the week of 9/11.

www.911myths.com...

Insight reported that there were repeated spikes in put options on American Airlines during the year before Sept. 11 (June 19 with 2,951 puts, June 15 with 1,144 puts, April 16 with 1,019 and Jan. 8 with 1,315 puts). In the same period, United Airlines had slightly more action (Aug. 8 with 1,678 puts, July 20 with 2,995, April 6 with 8,212 and March 13 with 8,072).

Any other "difficult" facts????

Rofl Swampfox, what on Earth has convinced you that this site you keep copying and pasting has any more credibility than anyone of us here? It was put up by an Internet message board "debunker" to offer his particular collection of bull to everyone.

Its clear from looking at the footage, especially with the second hit, which hit at an off angle, most of the jet fuel was exploded outside of the building.

911exposed.org...

911exposed.org...

Explain this.

And how does heated jet fuel burning at 1800 degrees melt structural steel with a melting point of over 3000 degrees? Explain this as well.

There were people caught on camera in the gaping holes where the impact was, you can see them.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Now if it was so hot in there that it melted steel, but this person here, and others, could withstand the intense heat?

Point final, jet fuel and heat did NOT bring down those buildings, all you have to do is look at it logically.

For all you people interested in a real analysis of the event, not some government white wash report akin to the Warren commission report, here is a good site for you, which explores the official story, points out its inconsistencies, and provides us with the likely scenario, a scenario the government clearly outlined in PNAC, and planned before with Operation Northwoods.

www.serendipity.li...


[edit on 16-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Explain this.

And how does heated jet fuel burning at 1800 degrees melt structural steel with a melting point of over 3000 degrees? Explain this as well.

There were people caught on camera in the gaping holes where the impact was, you can see them.

There are already about 4 different posts in this short thread that point out that the steel didn't need to melt to cause a collapse.

Structural steelwork is designed to carry a nominal load plus a percentage as a safety factor.

Steel weakens when it's heated and can be bent easily at less than 1000 degrees (you know, the blacksmith thing).

Steel was first made in crude blast furnaces thousands of years ago, where the temp never reached more than 1200 degrees.

And finally, building codes require structural steel to have fireproof insulation which was stripped off the WTC buildings by the impact of huge ass airplanes.

If fires can't get hot enough to damage structural steel, why would they need to be fireproofed?

Rofl Swampfox, what on Earth has convinced you that this site you keep copying and pasting has any more credibility than anyone of us here? It was put up by an Internet message board "debunker" to offer his particular collection of bull to everyone.

His particular collection of bull? Time magazine is bull? Forbes? Engineering studies? Sworn statements? Video? All bull huh? Almost everything on that site is backed up by sources. Not to mention, there are quite a few links in my posts from OTHER sites.

For all you people interested in a real analysis of the event, not some government white wash report akin to the Warren commission report, here is a good site for you, which explores the official story, points out its inconsistencies, and provides us with the likely scenario, a scenario the government clearly outlined in PNAC, and planned before with Operation Northwoods.

No, the serendipity website rehashes a bunch of internet rumors and completely debunked garbage.

Adding my 2 cents.

1. According to NIST amd FEMA the buildings withstood the planes impacts. Most of the jet fuel was burned off (outside) the buildings and what was left burned off quickly.

2. No steel building in history has ever collapsed due to fires.
www.pleasanthillsfire.org...

Excepting the three 9-11 collapses, no fire, however severe, has ever caused a steel framed high-rise building to collapse. Following are examples of high-rise fires that were far more severe than those in WTC 1 and 2, and Building 7. In these precedents, the fires consumed multiple floors, produced extensive window breakage, exhibited large areas of emergent flames, and went on for several hours. The fires in the WTC towers did none of these things.

3. Why did flight 93 leave 2 distinct debris fields so far away from the crash site ?
i114.photobucket.com...

Every one of those questions have already been answered .. Just a few examples -

1 - No it didn't .. It said that in combination with the crash it " weakened "
it enough to collaspe .

2. witnesses hearing " bombs " going off heard lots of secondary blasts .
from fuel tanks to falling debris .

3.The shanksville coroner was miss quoted , he said it was " like " there
were no body's .

4. There were tons of wreckage at the pentagon ..Google pics of pentagon.

6.""*Multiple eyewitnesses claim that the planes that hit the WTC looked like military planes."" - - - i honestly can't believe you even said that ..

As usual , any question asked , can readily be answered .. It's really like
beating a dead horse in these threads anymore .. Sad really ..
There may be smoke in regard to some of the questions about 911 ,
but absolutly no fire ..

Originally posted by gen.disaray
Every one of those questions have already been answered .. Just a few examples -

1 - No it didn't .. It said that in combination with the crash it " weakened "
it enough to collaspe .

2. witnesses hearing " bombs " going off heard lots of secondary blasts .
from fuel tanks to falling debris .

3.The shanksville coroner was miss quoted , he said it was " like " there
were no body's .

4. There were tons of wreckage at the pentagon ..Google pics of pentagon.

6.""*Multiple eyewitnesses claim that the planes that hit the WTC looked like military planes."" - - - i honestly can't believe you even said that ..

1. Report on planes impacts.
www.firehouse.com...

The report confirmed the emerging consensus that the twin towers could have withstood the impact of the hijacked airliners but eventually succumbed to the inferno that weakened the buildings' steel framework.

2. Report on jet fuel
www.firehouse.com...

A large quantity of the approximately 10,000 gallons of fuel in each plane was quickly consumed in massive fireballs that caused limited structural damage.

3. DNA report.
www.nist.gov...

Due to the nature of the World Trade Center disaster, it quickly became evident that traditional methods for performing DNA typing were not likely to be fully successful in identifying all of the recovered remains. Traditional DNA ID methods depend on the presence of long, intact segments of DNA in order to accurately type the sample. The DNA in many of the samples recovered in this situation were so fragmented that these standard methods were ineffective.

4. There are pics of parts but no proof they came from flight 77.

sorry , kinda got mixed up there ..

[edit on 16-6-2007 by gen.disaray]

Well, explain to me the how it was debunked, and show me the proof, please. Its easy to dismiss something because it doesnt fit your belief system, its another thing to actually look at it, examine all the facts on both sides, and come up with a conclusion.

Did you see the picture with the woman standing in the gaping hole....its not hot in there, people who were on the floors survived, totally impossible for a human to survive at even 200 degrees....

Structural steel has a melting point of 3000 degrees, look it up. And even if heat did melt the steel, that wouldnt explain the freefall of the buildings, landing right in its own footprint.

I dont see peoples motive in trying to prove this ridiculous official story. After all thats happened, you can still somehow defend this corrupt Establishment and its boldfaced lies.... truly lies in the realm of total ignorance.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Originally posted by freight tomsen
As you can see some of your difficult facts can be argued against rather quickly, however you make some good points here

*The 9/11 Commission report mentions nothing about World Trade Center 7. Never being hit by a plane and containing only two isolated fires, WTC 7 came down in 6 seconds.

Ahh yes the 911 Commission report, thats all it really is just a report. Not really an investigation in to how everything happened, just a sort of white wash job to keep the law suits at a minimum.


*Where flight 93 supposedly crashed there was absolutely no plane wreckage found (no engines, no indestructible landing gear, nothing).

Ya thats what it looks to me too, just a hole in the ground where an airplane(757) supposedly went nose in after passengers tried to regain control of their destinies.


*At the Pentagon there was only one small piece of plane wreckage found (no engines, no wings, no landing gear).

Now was that small piece of plane actually identified as coming from flight 77?

-The FBI confiscated all video tape pointed at the Pentagon within 10 minutes of the crash and publicly released only 5 frames showing an explosion but no plane.

Boy with all the confusion and people getting injured and killed, it nice to know some people kept their heads about national security by getting that evidence as fast as humanly possible.

*Multiple eyewitnesses claim that the planes that hit the WTC looked like military planes.

Who the hell said they saw military planes hit the WTC?

*The FAA and NORAD stood down and did not send interceptors for an hour

Where did you get this information?

-When Bush was told twice about the planes crashing into the WTC, he calmly remained seated reading “My Pet Goat” for 8 minutes with some school children.

This is one of the biggest problems I have with the time line that day, commander in chief my ass.

PS- I did not vote for nor will I vote for Clinton



[edit on 6/16/2007 by infinityoreilly]

Originally posted by LightWorker13
Well, explain to me the how it was debunked, and show me the proof, please. Its easy to dismiss something because it doesnt fit your belief system, its another thing to actually look at it, examine all the facts on both sides, and come up with a conclusion.

Did you see the picture with the woman standing in the gaping hole....its not hot in there, people who were on the floors survived, totally impossible for a human to survive at even 200 degrees....

Structural steel has a melting point of 3000 degrees, look it up. And even if heat did melt the steel, that wouldnt explain the freefall of the buildings, landing right in its own footprint.

I dont see peoples motive in trying to prove this ridiculous official story. After all thats happened, you can still somehow defend this corrupt Establishment and its boldfaced lies.... truly lies in the realm of total ignorance.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

The fires were on the inside of the building not on the outside which has the wind to dissipate the heat. Why do you think the people were standing out on the ledges rather than walking down? If there was no fire, why wouldn't they just walk out? And if there were no hot temperatures, why did so many leap to their deaths? Are you suggesting that maybe they were jsut too lazy to walk down and thought that they could land safely after an 80 story jump?

And the steel didn't melt. It weakened. And the buildings didn't fall at freefall speeds either, the debris outside the buildings did. And they didn't fall in their own footprints either. It's only a riddiculous story when you don't know the facts correctly. If what you were saying was true, then yes it would be absurd.

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
There are already about 4 different posts in this short thread that point out that the steel didn't need to melt to cause a collapse.

While this is factually true, video evidence shows plenty of yellow hot dripping steel. Liquid steel. Those temperatures came from somewhere and it wasn't jet fuel.

Originally posted by snoopy
The fires were on the inside of the building not on the outside which has the wind to dissipate the heat. Why do you think the people were standing out on the ledges rather than walking down?

But where are the big infernos that the official story refers too ? If their were big infernos like the official story states you would have seen it on the outside of the building.

This is a building with an inferno, and had major structural damage. By the way it did not collapse.

i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

Their have been several other steel buildings that have had bigger fires and more structural damage then any of the WTC buildings and have not collapsed.

*snip*

Even houses made out of wood usually dont collapse on itself when there is a fire burning in it! Nevermind towering skyscrapers made of reinforced fireproof structural steel!

You people say you debunked everything, what about bomb squads in the buildings reported by witness's, even Marvin Bush in charge of security for the WTC knew about it, and his contract was up on September 11 how conveniant.

Why would they need a Bush to be in charge of security? Because if you dont have one of your guys running security, you cant put bombs to take the buildings down to blame on your creation Al Queda to have an excuse to increase control and profit and racheting up the NWO. Get it straight!

Wake up from your American dream, and join reality. America is sinking into the grave, and the very people responsible for it are the people responsible for the attacks.

[edit on 16-6-2007 by LightWorker13]

Please stay on topic, without the commentary towards fellow members.

[edit on 6/16/07 by niteboy82]

Well if the shoe fits, Ill put it on, and theres no need to censor, I didnt say a "bad word".

I still wanna hear people explain how the skyscraper in Madrid, Spain can have half its floors totally engulfed in flames, for 26 hours, and it stood intact....yet the twin towers, in just a few hours, can be completely demolished.

www.news24.com...

www.whatreallyhappened.com...