What would prove to you that 9/11 was not a conspiracy?

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird



you might be interested in the FOIA court case asking for the methods used for identifying the wreckage.

because, once the transponders are turned off, the control towers no longer KNOW which blip is which.

reply to post by Whodunnit


and one thing i get peeved about is people willy-nilly saying the fire could get that hot.

there is a difference between heat and temperature.

the tip of candle can reach VERY high temperature, but the heat output(kwh) is low.
and then you need a mechanism of conductance, ie. getting the heat into the steel. just beacuse a fire is 2000 degrees, does not mean some steel five ft. away will also reach 2000 degrees. you need direct contact between plasma(fire) and solid to transfer the heat efficiently. otherwisely, the atmosphere between acts as an insulator. i could turn on any of the four burners on my stove and put the pot over one of the three other burners that are off to boil water if this were not true.

the heat output of the rubble AS IT COOLED, sustained temperatures as high and/or higher than office fire temps. but there was EIGHTY STOREYS of cool building between the fires and the ground. CLEARLY the 'fires' post-collapse are UNDERNEATH the rubble.


'nuff said.

ref. www.thefreedictionary.com...

Another thing I find annoying, is people who adamantly believe that WTC 7 collapsed "because the towers fell on it."

It has been clearly documented that the fires were not "raging" in the building, and that the damage was relatively minor. There were buldings much closer that withstood far greater damage without collapsing entirely into their own footprint.



EDIT to add: It should also be noted that this exhibit is not entirely accurate either. (Gee, I wouldn't expect that from the government. )
It shows that WTC 3 was a total collapse, when in fact it was not.





[edit on 3/19/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by Whodunnit
Like the 2 FDR's?

Oh you mean the FDR from Flight 77 that questions the official story?

That has the plane at a different fligth path and the altimeter shows the plane to be over the Pentagon at time of impact? Also that the altimeters were reset?

Oh and what about the FDRs from the WTC ?

I am still wating for any reports that match the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by billybob
you might be interested in the FOIA court case asking for the methods used for identifying the wreckage.

because, once the transponders are turned off, the control towers no longer KNOW which blip is which.

People do not talk about Flight 77 being off radar for 36 minutes

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Seeing as we were tracking all the way and watching as the planes crashed, prove what we were tracking since take off and what we were watching (in person, on radar, from other planes, etc.) were not the planes.

Please, ThatsJustWeird, show me verifiable evidence that can be independently tested, that shows the two alleged planes AA11 and UA175 were the same planes that allegedly crashed in to the twin towers.

You're claiming that those two planes crashed, so you should be able to provide the evidence.

It's all about evidence, so please provide it.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
I don't have to. If a plane did in fact crash, there would be evidence. Solid and detailed evidence. I am not about to say that these planes crashed as reported, any more than I will say that aliens are visiting from us from Mars.

And again, there is plenty of evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

Simply question:
Did the planes that took off disappear in front of everyone's eyes?

Again, the onus is on you to prove that they were in fact the exact commercial airlines that were reported. A blip on a radar screen does not specifically identify any particular aircraft, nor does it even identify the type of craft.

Are you hard at reading? There was not just a blip on the radar. There was confirmation in every way possible. Including from on the planes.

You tell me, since you are so adamant about defending it.

Again, are you hard at reading?
What the ____ am I defending??
What the ____ is the official story???
What is so hard about this question?

In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the government is hiding and manipulating facts to fit an agenda

You should know by now, you should at least provide a link or something. You could be 100% correct, but tell me why I should believe you.

Lieing about physical evidence at WTC! Either he knows there was molten steel there and is lieing about it, or he is lieing about being there in the first place.

What?
If he said he didn't see any there, then how do you know he's lying?
You were there with him?
There was probably no molten steel at all. Can you verify there was molten steel?

This is not about the reliability of witnesses. This is about lieing about scientific findings that were crucial to explaining the collapse of the Twin Towers, and getting caught in that lie on video tape.

BS
The only thing you're going by with the molten steel is people claiming they saw it. If you can prove it was there and that he saw it, then you can accuse him of lying.

Are you kidding me? The NIST reports are the official version of why the Towers collapsed. No wonder you can't recognize the evidence. You don't even know what you're looking at.

I could care less which is the "official" version. If NIST wins the prize for having the official version then congrats to them. I'll continue my own research.
And LOL. I know exactly what I'm looking at. And it's not planes disappearing into thin air

Gee, only the most crucial piece of evidence explaining the collapse of the Twin Towers, and how the lead engineer is lieing about it.

So, what exactly did he lie about and could you provide credible evidence to back up your explanations. I would love to see it.

I showed you a video of the lead engineer lieing about scientific data at Ground Zero.If you think that is somehow unimportant because it was hosted on the internet, then you have descended to a realm of idiocy that is beyond my even bothering to discuss anything further with you.

BS
1. The questions that were asked to him were ridiculous. Traces of thermite as evidence of explosives??
Since when!?
They cite Dr. Jones???? Are you kidding?

2. So again, which scientific data did he lie about, and can you back that up with scientific data?

3. No, it's not just that it was hosted on the internet, it's that nothing in that video would be able to stand up in court as evidence of anything.

No, your're the one who believes that a passenger airliner, and all the fuel along with it, disappeared when it crashed in Shanksville I suppose. And that the other one vanished at the Pentagon.

What?
Where did I state that?
A plane crashed in Shanksville and a plane crashed at the Pentagon. I made no other statements saying otherwise...

Don't even bother talking to me anymore. If you were serious, you would look at the evidence

wow
I have provided you with pictures, links, documents, etc. (from valid sources)
You have provided me absolutely nothing so far despite my repeated requests. I am trying to look at this evidence you have, but how can I look at it if you don't present it??

I can understand if you really don't know some of the details about 9/11

I can GUARANTEE you I know more details about it than you. GUARANTEE.

but don't sit there and try to argue something when you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Get out of here man.
You're the one over here claiming magical planes and magical bodies. Seriously, what have you provided so far? You post a video claiming someone is lying but provide no evidence of it. What else? You provide a FBI link. Good link actually. You should actually read through it and not just the buzz words other people have highlighted. What else? Nothing right? 2 things to prove your case. Riiight.

Still waiting to have a serious discussion...

Originally posted by tezzajw
Please, ThatsJustWeird, show me verifiable evidence that can be independently tested, that shows the two alleged planes AA11 and UA175 were the same planes that allegedly crashed in to the twin towers.

You're claiming that those two planes crashed, so you should be able to provide the evidence.

It's all about evidence, so please provide it.

We have confirmation from passengers on the plane, flight 175 visually confirmed flight 11, we have the recordings and transcripts (which I provided) from the plane's cockpit as they were being hijacked. With Flight 175 we have all of the above and the transponders were never turned off so it was tracked the whole way. Also with flight 175, we have visual confirmation from Delta 2315 as it nearly collided with it. We also have thousands of witnesses on the ground and on live TV who saw the plane.

I take it now you're actually going to contribute to this thread and provide at least one piece of evidence that even hints that those weren't the planes?

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Are you hard at reading? There was not just a blip on the radar. There was confirmation in every way possible. Including from on the planes.

Confirmation in every way possible that AA11 and UA175 hit the towers? Ok, prove it.

ThatJustWeird
You should know by now, you should at least provide a link or something. You could be 100% correct, but tell me why I should believe you.

Follow your own words and take the lead. Show me the indisputable evidence that lets me see how flights AA11 and UA175 were PROVEN to have hit the towers.

You've made the statement, now support it with some links and evidence.

I take it now you're actually going to contribute to this thread and provide at least one piece of evidence that even hints that those weren't the planes?

No, not at all. I'm still waiting for you to show me evidence that those two planes hit the towers. Until you do, I don't have to provide any evidence to show that AA11 and UA175 didn't hit the towers.


[edit on 19-3-2008 by tezzajw]

reply to post by ThatsJustWeird

Did the planes that took off disappear in front of everyone's eyes?

I never said they did. Again, you make assumptions.

There was confirmation in every way possible.

Except physical evidence.

You should know by now, you should at least provide a link or something. You could be 100% correct, but tell me why I should believe you.

EDIT: Sorry wrong link. Here't the right one. video.abovetopsecret.com...

But I'll leave the other one since it gives some deep backround as to why these things are being done.

video.abovetopsecret.com...

There was probably no molten steel at all. Can you verify there was molten steel?

Are you a moron? Yes, I can verify. It was in the video I posted. But obviously you didn't even bother to look at the evidence. So you can be just hush now, because it has become balatantly clear that you have no interest in denying ignorance, only spouting disproven rhetoric.

I know exactly what I'm looking at.

Obviously not if you missed the lake of molten steel. Were you there? Do you know what the smell of burnt steel and dead bodies smells like??!!!! I can tell you first hand that that sucker burned for a long time after 9/11.

Have fun in la-la land.






[edit on 3/19/0808 by jackinthebox]

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
We have confirmation from passengers on the plane

That's not evidence that the planes which allegedly hit the towers were AA11 and UA175. All that confirms is that there are people missing from alleged flight manifests, presumed dead. Sad, indeed.

Edit: [sarcasm]Oh, yeah - wait... we have the evidence of the unburnt, undamaged passport from Satam Al Suqami, who was on AA11, which was found on the street. It was one tough passport to survive a fireball that consumed a plane and melted steel... Sure, he must have been on the plane, as we found his passport right?[/sarcasm]

flight 175 visually confirmed flight 11, we have the recordings and transcripts (which I provided) from the plane's cockpit as they were being hijacked.

That's not evidence that the planes which allegedly hit the towers were AA11 and UA175.

With Flight 175 we have all of the above and the transponders were never turned off so it was tracked the whole way.

That's not evidence that the planes which allegedly hit the towers were AA11 and UA175.

Also with flight 175, we have visual confirmation from Delta 2315 as it nearly collided with it.

That's evidence that Delta2315 might have nearly collided with the alleged UA175. How did Delta2315 know it was the real UA175? That's still not evidence that UA175 smashed in to the towers.

We also have thousands of witnesses on the ground and on live TV who saw the plane.

Yeah, you're right. They saw a plane. I agree. That's not evidence that the plane they saw was AA11 or UA175. All they did was see a plane. At least they think they saw a plane...

Watch the DVD, 911 In Plane Sight, and see the witness yelling "That's not an American Airliner". There were conflicting eyewitness reports about what type of planes were seen.

I'm still waiting for your evidence to show me that AA11 and UA175 hit the towers. All you provide is circumstanial hearsay, without any forensic evidence to show me that the alleged plane wreckage has been identified as that of AA11 or UA175.

[edit on 19-3-2008 by tezzajw]

I want to continue to thank you guys for proving me right. You guys are not at all interested in the truth (especially tezza).
I'm not even sure why tezz is on here. He thinks he's making a point or something but all he's doing is making himself look stupid.

Originally posted by tezzajw
That's not evidence that the planes which allegedly hit the towers were AA11 and UA175. All that confirms is that there are people missing from alleged flight manifests, presumed dead. Sad, indeed.

They called from the planes. The calls lasted until the plane hit the towers. The transcripts of the records are available, but of course you'll continue to ignore the evidence and talk all this BS.

That's not evidence that the planes which allegedly hit the towers were AA11 and UA175.

It confirmed fligh 11 was headed toward downtown Manhattan. We knew the speed we knew the altitude, etc. There was never a moment of some sort of lost contact. And if there was, again, are you suggesting the plane disappeared into thin air?
This is a simple question.

That's not evidence that the planes which allegedly hit the towers were AA11 and UA175.

See, you are purposely being dense.
We were able to track it as it crashed. How is this not evidence?? You're not being intelligent here.

That's evidence that Delta2315 might have nearly collided with the alleged UA175. How did Delta2315 know it was the real UA175? That's still not evidence that UA175 smashed in to the towers.

We also have thousands of witnesses on the ground and on live TV who saw the plane.

Yeah, you're right. They saw a plane. I agree. That's not evidence that the plane they saw was AA11 or UA175. All they did was see a plane. At least they think they saw a plane...

Watch the DVD, 911 In Plane Sight, and see the witness yelling "That's not an American Airliner". There were conflicting eyewitness reports about what type of planes were seen.

What a bunch of crap.
You're basing your crap on one person saying "that's not an American Airliner"???
WTF
1. The witness is almost 1000 feet below what happened.
2. Most people saw UNITED hit the tower, so of course it wasn't American.
So the one "witness" you claim said that is to be taken as gospel as evidence but the thousands of other witnesses, the transponders, the phone calls, the visually confirmation and tracking, the transmissions from the planes, etc. are not evidence?

Yeah. You're not here searching for the truth. You're here simply trying to start ****. Again, no one who takes this seriously/who is using common sense/who is being logical is questioning if those planes hit the towers.

I'm still waiting for you to show ANYTHING. Just one piece of evidence that any other plane besides the ones that were hijacked crashed into the buildings. Until then you continue to waste space in this thread.


jack

I never said they did. Again, you make assumptions.

I asked you a question. Clever way of trying to get around answering it.
Did they or did they not disappear while everyone was watching them?

Except physical evidence.

Sure there is. Besides all the plane parts that match the planes, the bodies, etc. you can ask the people on here who have had a chance to examine the FDRs.


While you're talkng about physical evidence, how about supplying me with some. Vids are cool and are, but won't be able to stand up in court and are for the most part circumstantial.

Are you a moron? Yes, I can verify. It was in the video I posted. But obviously you didn't even bother to look at the evidence. So you can be just hush now, because it has become balatantly clear that you have no interest in denying ignorance, only spouting disproven rhetoric.

So, because you saw a video with a picture for a brief second on what looked like molten steel, you're now a 100% hardcore believer?
Wow, you're that easily persuaded? How scary.
You have no idea when or where that picture was taken. It very well may have been from the WTC site, but you have no proof of that at all. You're asking me to prove stuff, but then you go around believing stuff you have no proof of whatsoever? Yeah, that makes perfect sense.
As I stated, you guys are ONLY looking for stuff that supports your theories. Even if you have no confirmation of that stuff, you'll believe it anyway. Get real man.

Obviously not if you missed the lake of molten steel. Were you there?

Actually, yes I did go there. Did you?

I can tell you first hand that that sucker burned for a long time after 9/11.

Sure it did. Do you know how much energy was released in just the fall of one of the buildings?



[edit on 19-3-2008 by ThatsJustWeird]

s266.photobucket.com...

the last photo in this slideshow shows a picture taken by a ny times photographer which was taken the morning of 12 sept 2001 when bucket brigades were just being implimented and no cranes were removing debris ...it shows one of the fifteen major support cols. diagionally cut as in a controlled demolition. the unreleased photo of which this is only a small portion shows diagional cut beams. note one of the firemen pictured here broke both of his legs on the debris pile while searching for people trapped below.

I am not going to argue with anyone over this picture do your own research. i personally had it checked out by a photo specialist who is in the army and used pentagon software to verify it as no fake.

i believe the whitish residue seen on this col is thermite. but as i said im not going to argue with anyone just posting it.

Originally posted by DOG5
the last photo in this slideshow shows a picture taken by a ny times photographer which was taken the morning of 12 sept 2001 when bucket brigades were just being implimented and no cranes were removing debris ...it shows one of the fifteen major support cols. diagionally cut as in a controlled demolition. the unreleased photo of which this is only a small portion shows diagional cut beams. note one of the firemen pictured here broke both of his legs on the debris pile while searching for people trapped below.

I am not going to argue with anyone over this picture do your own research. i personally had it checked out by a photo specialist who is in the army and used pentagon software to verify it as no fake.

i believe the whitish residue seen on this col is thermite. but as i said im not going to argue with anyone just posting it.

Ugh, I can't get the link to work on this computer so I'll see it at home. But I have seen pictures before where people claimed beams were cut by thermite or evidence of thermite.
Problem with that is....thermite doesn't cut. Thermite is an unstoppable reaction.
Controlled demolitions don't cut.
And because of it's nature (unstable, and takes white hot heat to ignite it) thermite is NOT used in controlled demolitions. Who has ever heard of such a thing? Thermite is also NOT an explosive.
There is so much wrong with the thermite theory....

If I'm not mistaken, Dr. Jones is the only one who has claimed that and I don't recall his findings being verified. Have they been?

ITS NOT THE BELIEF IN THERMITE THAT IS THE SUBJECT BUT RATHER THE DIAGIONAL CUT BEAMS SHOWN IN THIS REAL PHOTO OF THE WTC AND HOW THAT MAY BE THE PROOF THAT A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION WAS THE METHOD USED. CORDITE OR THERMITE WE WILL NEVER KNOW THAT BUT THE BEAMS ARE CUT!

IF THE LINK DOES NOT WORK SEND ME AN EMAIL
[email protected] ILL SEND YOU THE PICTURE

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
Problem with that is....thermite doesn't cut. Thermite is an unstoppable reaction.

I guess you never heard of thermite or chemical beam cutters?

The tower which was struck second suffered less damage from the plane because it was a less direct hit and most of the jet fuel was seen ignited outside the structure!yet this tower collapsed first. Just before this collapse, the firefighters were up on the burning levels and were heard saying, �Battalion seven� Ladder fifteen, we�ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.� How could two isolated pockets of fire destroy the bases of the support columns causing the buildings to implode? Paul Isaac told me, �Based on video footage of the collapse of the South Tower, the structural collapse is not consistent with the angle the building was struck.�

have a look at the World Trade Center Drawings.

1st floor core plan
img169.imageshack.us...

46th floor plan
img166.imageshack.us...

Originally posted by LORDMETAL
The tower which was struck second suffered less damage from the plane because it was a less direct hit and most of the jet fuel was seen ignited outside the structure!yet this tower collapsed first.

Yes, you are correct. the second plane hit at an angle through the side of building not causing as much damage.

The majority of jet feul was burned off outside of both towers, and what was left burned off quickly.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Official estimates put the fuel burn at no more than ten minutes. Secondary burn was supposedly fueled only by office contents, and structure materials.