9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

I believe between this thread

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and the links and references on this page

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Yep - the second link has video links that hopefully work.

P.S. ONE LAST TIME, I'm going to say this, and if you don't get it straight I'm going to assume it is because you don't want to get it straight (because it will be the third time). My FACT that I listed is that he SAID THIS...I do not make any claim to whether he is telling the truth, completely out of his mind, delusional, on meds, or anything else. I simply state that this repeated statement by him creates an inconsistency that needs to be explained.

Hope that clears it up.

reply to post by Valhall


Valhall,

Here's one I believe. I can't hear it at work but I think this is one of them.

www.youtube.com...

Edit: Beat me to it.

[edit on 1/29/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Valhall
My FACT that I listed is that he SAID THIS...I do not make any claim to whether he is telling the truth, completely out of his mind, delusional, on meds, or anything else. I simply state that this repeated statement by him creates an inconsistency that needs to be explained.

Don't forget that both instances were pretty much exact verbatum. Usually when that happens, it shows a pre-meditated story....i.e. lie.

Now, I also will not speculate but it sure does seem like it was well scripted.

reply to post by IvanZana


Ivan you are relentless.
Thanks for the photo, if anything looked suspicious it was that.

A backhoe and some creativity could have probably made a more convincing plane crash hole. That minor scarring is absurd.

- Lee

Originally posted by Valhall

P.S. ONE LAST TIME, I'm going to say this, and if you don't get it straight I'm going to assume it is because you don't want to get it straight (because it will be the third time). My FACT that I listed is that he SAID THIS...I do not make any claim to whether he is telling the truth, completely out of his mind, delusional, on meds, or anything else. I simply state that this repeated statement by him creates an inconsistency that needs to be explained.

Hope that clears it up.

I realize you think it is a fact, because you got it from someone else saying it was "a fact" that George W. Bush said it. However, hearsay is never fact until proved to be fact. Unless, anyone is there to see and hear George W. Bush say anything, there is no witnessing done. That is why surveillance people tape record their covert people, and never simply take their word for it. Hearsay always becomes he said/she said.

What I just did was actually objectively evaluate to determine what is possible fact and what is potential fiction. I spent over 2 years doing that before I took a side on what did high probablity occur on 9/11/2001. And I am still digging and comparing to properly analyze and evaluate the highest potential. That means I had to also in-depth study the sciences behind what those claiming happened on 9/11/2001 vs what actually did happen.

As I asked someone else, if one does not know as much or more than the person claiming facts, how does one know if one is not being deceived, by the one claiming to have "facts" but no facts? Without that pertinent knowledge, how can people be realistically objective? Life too often gets in the way of being objective in order to remain objective. That is a fact not fiction.

Zero evidence? What if much of this "evidence" or burdens of proof were actually destroyed in WTC-7?

In any event, those closest to Bush have become skeptical- and these are people who know: Wednesday, June 15, 2005
WorldNetDaily: Bush economist doubts 9-11 story

WorldNetDaily: Bush economist doubts 9-11 story: "Morgan Reynolds, former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, says the official story about the collapse of the Twin Towers is 'bogus' and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed them and adjacent Building No. 7. "

All of this nonsense for gathering "evidence" is completely moot. The deception is painful to see- and even worse are the continuing lies of the debunkers to truthers.

It doesn't really matter anyway- because nothing can stop what is coming. Nothing- no man or living creature will able to stop it. I have to admit that at one point I certainly felt the people could united and stop it. Sadly everyday another person is bought and sold then turns slowly into an automaton who's voice echoes the parasitic rantings of delusional men. Anyone who points this insanity out will be thought of as a dissident, terrorist, conspiracy loon- even though all evidence points to rome- the followers will refuse to believe otherwise- even if its right in front of their faces.

Originally posted by OrionStars

I realize you think it is a fact, because you got it from someone else saying it was "a fact" that George W. Bush said it.

Actually I got it from watching him and hearing him say it. I rarely take any one else's word for something. I usually have to see the evidence myself.

So, Bush said it (twice), and his statements create an inconsistency. That's a FACT, not fiction.

reply to post by 1nelove



I think that is a great idea, and I have seen people try to lay out the information. However, on a site like this with various opinions conversations usually go go go..... Its hard to have everything laid out, but if people want to be more organzied they will be

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by OrionStars

I realize you think it is a fact, because you got it from someone else saying it was "a fact" that George W. Bush said it.

Actually I got it from watching him and hearing him say it. I rarely take any one else's word for something. I usually have to see the evidence myself.

So, Bush said it (twice), and his statements create an inconsistency. That's a FACT, not fiction.

I will take your word for that since I did not hear or see him say it. However, I became aware the WH press secretary had it posted on the WH website.

You saw and heard, on TV, W say it, and agree he is not being factual when all is considered. At least, that is what I understand you are now stating. Yes, you are being objective in that case.

However, that is not the way your post read with a list, after which you boldly wrote "It's a fact.", after each statement on your list of citations, which I do not recall being referenced. Perhaps, they were your own paraphrasing?

Regardless, of paraphrasing or not, that was my objection to your presentation at the time. I did not interpret the presentation as objectively done.

reply to post by OrionStars


Orion,

Not to be rude, but instead of posting two pages of verbiage, why don't you just Google "Bush WTC First Plane" or such like, and watch the videos? I've seen them more times than I want to, they really do exist, and Bush really did say what Valhall posted, twice in fact.

Seriously, if you don't believe something that basic (and frankly, in 9/11 lore this is not far below "My Pet Goat"), then do your own research--it's not that hard, and it takes less time than writing out 2 or 3 of your long responses--and you will learn something along the way and not clog the board with extraneous posts.

Originally posted by gottago
reply to post by OrionStars

 

Gottago,

I will now qualify my point in running through that simple little exercise in deductive reasoning. When calling something a fact, it should be a fact not partial fact or mere opinion. Partial facts and mear opinion always distort any discussion or presentation. People claiming "facts", not facts, are the reason so many unnecessary arguments to argue take place in these discussions.

It was never about what W said or did not say. If people did not see or hear anything W said, it is not a fact for them. It is only a fact for those who state they saw and heard W say it. Communication stops and confusion sets in, when people claim to have "facts" they cannot actually cannot or refuse to validate.

Originally posted by jenmckin
I never bought the "hologram" thing. That is just silly to me.

I think what bothered me the most was the testimony from the former Director of the FTC saying in his testimony (which was apparently ignored) during the 9/11 Commission interviews.

When he tells them he was standing there with the Vice President and someone was keeping him informed. They came in the room and told him when it was 50 miles out, 40, 30, 20. And finally said, "10 miles out sir, do the orders still stand" The FTC Director says that Cheyney turned around and said (paraphrasing) "Did you hear anything to the contrary?"

That certainly helped convince me at the very least that they knew it was going to happen.

Please allow me the opportunity to explain to you what has been (purposly) left out:

This is one of those truther arguments that on the surface sounds very incriminating. The bright light of context changes the entire meaning.

Vice President Cheney was referring to the standing orders to shoot down the plane approaching the capital. This has been mischaracterized as proof he was referring to an order to do nothing to prevent the attacks.

The testimony cited is correct. The context of what they were talking about is not, and that's the ever-important detail. The committee was asking if the administration was really willing to shoot down a civilian airliner, if hijacked. When the director was asked for what proof he had of this willingness to shoot down a civilian airliner, if hijacked, he offered the testimony you site.

He was NOT implying or suggesting the order as to allow the attacks to happen.

This kind of nonsense is why the truth movement is its own worst enemy, IMO.

reply to post by OrionStars


Edid here since something prevents me from editing my original posts instead:

This ".......they cannot actually cannot....." should read "......they cannot actually prove....." and "mear" should read "mere".

In terms of the science of the collapses, I will be the first to admit i can not prove that it was controlled demoloition, mainly due to the fact that there has never been an example of progressive collapse in history to compare the twin towers to (that alone acts as a good indication that there is something odd with the official story). However there is absolutely no way to explain the collapse of WT7 within the laws of physics, and so i am inclined to believe that the twin towers were also brought down in controlled demolition. After careful consideration from various discussions in fora online, i have concluded the following;

1) The collapses started far too suddenly, and were nearly motionless up until they began to collapse. Steel when heated does not work like that, the whole top section should have started gradually as the steel slowly buckled and sagged, not spontaneously dived symetrically down through itself.

2) The speed of the initial collapse is far too fast. To fall at freefall speed there would be required no resistance to the motion at all from the structure below, and since the structure below, and above, the impact zone was largely undamaged, there definitely should have been some resistive force, yet it starts at freefall speed.

3) Theres no way that all those clouds could have been created at that early stage of the collapse. There’s not enough energy input to create that amount of dust that early because the only energy available to the official account is the gravitational energy. It actually takes quite a considerable amount of energy to create that amount of dust. The actual speeds involved should not be enough to significantly break concrete, or fireproofing, at all; yet the building completely disappears into this cloud at a very early stage.

4) The top section of the towers is seen to rotate, and before it vanished into the cloud of dust it was seen at as much as 27 degrees. If it had been obeying the laws of physics the resistance of the building below should have made it continue this rotational motion and fall far outside the building, thus leaving some of the structure below standing as there should not be anything falling on it. Instead there seems to be no resistance from the undamaged structure below, and it continues straight down. I addressed some of this in another post; www.abovetopsecret.com...

5) The hot spots that were seen by various witnesses at ground zero. And some firefighters saw 'molten metal' flowing in the foundations of the towers. There is no way a chemical reaction of that strength could stay that hot without very significnat energy input.

6) For the collapse to start symetrically, and at the speed it did, all of the core columns would have to fail at the same time. Not only that, but all support columns would have to have lost ALL of their strength – from floor to ceiling – at a single instant in time.
Moreover, even neglecting the different strengths of steel at different temperatures, it is astronomically impossible that approximately 250 steel columns would fail SIMULTANEOUSLY, and COMPLETELY in a fire.


But there is ONE way that all of the columns could have lost strength simultaneously. It's called controlled demolition. And I will stick to that view unless someone can show otherwise.

From what I can see neither side has definitively proved their point, there are plenty of papers that claim they have scientific proof of demoloition, just as there are plenty that claim to refute such ideas, but each side finds flaws in each others arguments. But from where i'm standing, my opinion is that the collapses of all three of the towers defy basic laws of physics.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by ZeuZZ]

Controlled demolition progressive collapses:

www.youtube.com...

Nature’s progressive collapses:

www.ngdc.noaa.gov...

It was obvious to me WTC 7 fell according to conventional controlled demolition progressive collapses, and not nature‘s progressive collapses. WTC 1 and 2 did not resemble either nature or conventional controlled demolition use. Many international people, if not all, very probably saw, on video over and over again, the exact way they dropped.

Therefore, since WTC 1 and 2 distinctly did not appear to progressively fall accorded to conventional controlled demolition or nature, it is high probablity directly due to something else, abnormally unnaturally (at least here on earth) dropping them so rapidly, in such small molecular sized granules, all the way down to above and below ground level.

Originally posted by OrionStars
I realize the above is off topic. However, I would be interested in learning how one person gangs up on two or more other people. Gang means more than one person not one person.

Yes, i was curious about that myself.

Has anyone posted the listings of warnings that the government had prior to 9/11 ?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


YES! from this page : killtown.911review.org...

here you go:
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE / PREPARATION

1999 - NORAD starts conducting exercises in which airplanes are hijacked and crashed into targets which include the WTC and Pentagon (USA Today), April '01 - NORAD requested a war games event of having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline and fly it into the Pentagon. (Boston Globe)

2000 - CNN has employed active duty military psyops personnel. (WorldNetDaily)

Oct '00 - Pentagon conducts emergency training exercises of a mock passenger plane crash into the Pentagon. (Army)

June '01 - Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts because of a 'threat assessment'. (CBS)

June '01 - Terrorist act exercise involving an explosion is conducted near the Pentagon to test first team's 'external response.' (Military District of Washington)

June '01 - NORAD conducts Amalgam Virgo 01, an exercise involving a cruise missile attack scenario in which their presentation manual has a photo of Osama bin Laden on the cover and a picture of an explosion in a skyscraper inside. (Global Security); June '02 - NORAD conducts Amalgam Virgo 02, an exercise involving a domestic commercial airliner-hijacking scenario planned before 9/11. (Defense Link)

June '01 - U.S. conducts senior-level bio-terrorist war game 'Operation Dark Winter' which includes scripted TV news clips that name possible culprits of the simulated attack; Iraq and terrorists groups based in Afghanistan. (MIPT)

July '01 - Twin 400 ft gas tanks near WTC are imploded by Controlled Demolition Inc. who will later do clean-up at Ground Zero. (Queens Gazette, Phillyblast)

Aug '01 - Raytheon and US Air Force successfully land pilot-less Boeing 727 using military GPS landing system that enables ground control to take control of hijacked plane. (Der Spiegel, Raytheon)

Aug 30 - Dept of Transportation conducts exercise involving high-jacked plane and a cell phone from it among other aspects of the scenario that one participants describes as being 'very strange' when the actual event happened on 9/11. (MTI)

Sept '01 - 25,000 British troops ensemble in Oman near Afghanistan for 'Operation Swift Sword' and will help US in attacking OBL. (BBC, Telegraph)

Sept 3 - Author Salman Rushdie given US air ban. (Ananova)

Sept 4 - An Israeli owned shipping company moves out of the WTC. (Virginian-Pilot, Real Estate Weekly)

Sept 5 - US pulls the plug on Muslim websites. (Guardian, BBC)

Sept 7 - Jeb Bush puts the Florida National Guard on alert (WorldNetDaily, MyFlorida.com), Sept 10-11 - President Bush is in FL, state that controversially handed him 2000 presidency (Telegraph), 9/11 - Jeb Bush declares state of emergency in FL immediately after 2nd tower fell (WorldNetDaily), At least 15 of the 19 hijackers have Florida ties. (Augusta Chronicle)

Sept 8 - Marine Aviation group moves further away from where explosion at the Pentagon will happen. (Leatherneck)

Sept 8 - Mock drill at Buffalo Niagara Airport simulated terrorists blowing up an aircraft containing 82 passengers and some of the participants will help at Ground Zero after 9/11. (Univ Buffalo, Highland Hose Volunteer Fire)

Sept 10 - FEMA rescuer Tom Kenney says he was deployed to NYC late Monday night before going into action Tuesday morning, the day of the attacks. (CBS video)

Sept 10 - Group of top Pentagon officials canceled travel plans for next morning because of 'security concerns'. (Newsweek)

Sept 10 - San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives travel warning 8 hours before attacks. (SF Chronicle)

Sept 10 - A rookie is asked to temporarily take command of the National Military Command Center inside Pentagon for Sept. 11. (9/11 Commission)

9/11 - Fort Belvoir near the Pentagon was conducting an exercise to test the security at the base in case of a terrorist attack. (Connection Newspapers)

9/11 - An airport emergency operations exercise is being conducted at Fort Myer, a mile from the Pentagon. (MDW, DC Military)

9/11 - Employees at Israeli instant messaging company Odigo received text message warnings about attacks 2 hours prior. (Haaretz, Washington Post)

9/11 - Donald Rumsfeld predicts terrorist attack in US 2 minutes before 1st WTC plane crash (Fayetteville Observer), later predicts Pentagon crash minutes prior. (Telegraph)

9/11 - White House staff given Cipro, a full month before first cases of anthrax reported. (Washington Post)

9/11 - President Bush's cousin escaped death from the WTC thanks to a 'schedule change' the night before. (Ananova)

9/11 - Fiduciary Trust, located in the south WTC, had scheduled an emergency drill for the day. (NY Times)

9/11 - Larry Silverstein is absent from his office on the North Tower's 88th floor because of a 'doctors appointment' along with his two kids who are 'running late'. (NY Magazine, NY Observer)

Sept 12 - FEMA was scheduled to participate in an attack drill in NYC. (9/11 Panel, NYC.gov)

Oddly enough, in a video one poster embedded in one of these discussions, Michael Walter, USA Today, stated he saw a plane with fold-out wings entering the Pentagon wall. Commercial jetliners do not have fold-out wings. Why would he mention something which does not exist on commercial jetliners?

Yet, some posters falsely accuse the author, of the Killtown site, of lying. The author is not lying. The author has compiled data from other sources, and given the links to those sources.

Some posters arguments need be directed at the sources, not the Killtown website author. That list appears to be a large number of sources. That should keep some people busy from a while, if they choose to accept the task of making their arguments, with the sources, where arguments rightfully need be directed. Rather than directing false accusations and arguments at the author of Killtown.

Originally posted by OrionStars
Concrete acts as an oven on steel? Exactly in what way does that happen?

Since you have a background in construction, you should know the answer to this question. Please post the answer for those who are not familiar with construction and construction material. Thanks.