40 'Smoking Guns' Collectively Proving That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

reply to post by pccat


LMAO.

He will be here soon.

And I'm sure will bring his same old quote about his FOIA request and e-mails to websites.

reply to post by re22666


Let's start with #1 shall we?

1. The failure of standard operating procedures (SOP) to intercept Flight 11.

DRG claims that the SOP was broken on September 11 and surprisingly, he is actually right.

Please read the following:

So, here's option A, doing it "properly":

Boston ARTCC detects AA11 has been hijacked.
Boston ARTCC notifies ATCSCC.
ATCSCC notifies FAA HQ.
FAA HQ requests escort from NMCC.
NMCC requests confirmation of escort assets from NORAD.
NORAD requests confirmation of escort assets from CONR.
CONR requests confirmation of escort assets from NEADS.
NEADS confirms escort assets to CONR.
CONR confirms escort assets to NORAD.
NORAD confirms escort assets to NMCC.
NMCC approves escort.
NMCC seeks escort approval from Secretary of Defense.
Secretary of Defense approves escort.
NMCC orders NORAD to conduct escort.
NORAD orders NEADS to conduct escort.
NEADS scramble fighters.
NMCC notifies FAA HQ that NEADS will conduct escort.
FAA HQ notifies ATCSCC that NEADS will conduct escort.
ATCSCC notifies Boston ARTCC that NEADS will conduct escort.
Boston ARTCC notifies NEADS of hijack aircraft's position and guides NEADS aircraft into position.

And here's how it went on 9/11:

Boston ARTCC detects AA11 has been hijacked.
Boston ARTCC notifies NEADS of hijacking.
NEADS notifies CONR of hijacking.
CONR approves escort service.
NEADS scrambles aircraft.

The above procedures was posted by Andrew Burfield (gumboot) in this post while discussing the actual happenings with the actual controller that first alerted NEADS about Flight 11.

As you can see, the standard procedures were broken but they do not favor what conspiracy theorists want to believe.

If you would like, I can provide several links to Andrew Burfield's work that has links to all of the documents that lay out the standard operating procedure. They are extensive and require a lot of reading so don't expect a two-minute truther style youtube video that provides instant gratification.



[edit on 13-7-2008 by Boone 870]

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


Hmmmm...maybe he is on vacation? Or MAYBE the dungeon gang at Langley finally tracked him down for his activities on ATS........

reply to post by re22666


Okay to make it easier for you....go to my profile on here and then look through the lists of my posts...find the subjects that interest you...and then read the posts.

And I will freely admit, some of the 40 cannot be debunked..but then thats because they are too stupid for words. I mean, me pointing out the gross stupidity of having an automatic missile battery at the Pentagon, which is also in the approach/departure of Reagan National.....is never going to make sense to the nutjobs.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by re22666

 

Okay to make it easier for you....go to my profile on here and then look through the lists of my posts...find the subjects that interest you...and then read the posts.

And I will freely admit, some of the 40 cannot be debunked..but then thats because they are too stupid for words. I mean, me pointing out the gross stupidity of having an automatic missile battery at the Pentagon, which is also in the approach/departure of Reagan National.....is never going to make sense to the nutjobs.

The only nutjob is someone who doesn't believe the Pentagon would be defended.

reply to post by GoldenFleece

The only nutjob is someone who doesn't believe the Pentagon would be defended.

Other than a personal belief, can you provide any evidence that the Pentagon had antiaircraft defenses?

reply to post by ThroatYogurt



so yogurt, can you please explain to me what the speed of the planes has to do with it? the official story is that the buildings complete and total collapse into its footprint was the result of steel weakend by the fires from the jet fuel. How does the speed of the planes have anything to do with that. are you suggesting that at 300mph the planes would have bounced off and therefore not been able to explode within the building perimeter? the speed of the planes has everything to do with the damage done at the impact site. unfortunately, according to the official report, that is not why the buildings fell. so lofting along lost in fog or flying full speed. the official story is that they buildings could have handled the impact just fine had the jet fuel not burned down below weakening the steel. so where does the speed of the planes come in? and further more, please, please show me all this falling debris and these huge fires that brought down WT7. it makes sense, being rained upon by so much crap from falling buildings. unfortunately, NOONE has shown any example of the kind of damage that would have brought down 7. if you have that evidence, i am all ears. i am not going to spend my life here arguing with you about it though.

Originally posted by re22666
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

are you suggesting that at 300mph the planes would have bounced off and therefore not been able to explode within the building perimeter?

the speed of the planes has everything to do with the damage done at the impact site.

unfortunately, according to the official report, that is not why the buildings fell. so lofting along lost in fog or flying full speed. the official story is that they buildings could have handled the impact just fine had the jet fuel not burned down below weakening the steel. so where does the speed of the planes come in? and further more, please, please show me all this falling debris and these huge fires that brought down WT7. it makes sense, being rained upon by so much crap from falling buildings. unfortunately, NOONE has shown any example of the kind of damage that would have brought down 7. if you have that evidence, i am all ears. i am not going to spend my life here arguing with you about it though.

Stop the straw man crap. 3/4 of your post is just that.

-Please show me the difference in the kinetic energy between a plane on approach to a landing vs. a plane intentionally flown into a building.


-Then, please show me what NIST states are the causes of the global collapse. (hint: there are three)

Oh while your at it, please show me what testing methods were available at the time of the design of the WTC towers. (fire proofing etc)

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt

Originally posted by re22666
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

are you suggesting that at 300mph the planes would have bounced off and therefore not been able to explode within the building perimeter?

the speed of the planes has everything to do with the damage done at the impact site.

unfortunately, according to the official report, that is not why the buildings fell. so lofting along lost in fog or flying full speed. the official story is that they buildings could have handled the impact just fine had the jet fuel not burned down below weakening the steel. so where does the speed of the planes come in? and further more, please, please show me all this falling debris and these huge fires that brought down WT7. it makes sense, being rained upon by so much crap from falling buildings. unfortunately, NOONE has shown any example of the kind of damage that would have brought down 7. if you have that evidence, i am all ears. i am not going to spend my life here arguing with you about it though.

Stop the straw man crap. 3/4 of your post is just that.

-Please show me the difference in the kinetic energy between a plane on approach to a landing vs. a plane intentionally flown into a building.


-Then, please show me what NIST states are the causes of the global collapse. (hint: there are three)

Oh while your at it, please show me what testing methods were available at the time of the design of the WTC towers. (fire proofing etc)

see this is easy. you call mine straw men? how about this. show me how all three buildings fell. do not repeat empty things about structural integrity, i mean specifically, exactly what was damaged and how on impact and then how exactly did that result in complete symmetrical collapse into its foot print. i am sorry if i have trouble believine that something with no chance whatsoever of ever happening, happens 3 times in one day. so if you can clear it up for me. and dont so go read the nist report, that clears up nothing. no government report has actually cleared up anything. this is what i hear - that man died because he was shot.
-but he was shot in the arm, so how did that kill him
- he was shot, with a bullet, he died, what is hard to understand
-he was shot in the arm, what happend then physiologically that lead to cessation of life
- argggh, you truthers have nothing but straw men and rumors, do some research...

see i still dont have my answer.

look, im not saying anything about an inside job, no planes, really any of the truth or 'truth' claims. i am simply saying 1-the story is not bullet proof. far from it. it just does not all add up. when you take every "official" report on the events of that day, leading up to what happend that day, and the reactions to that day, they just do not add up. i am sorry if the truthers can be shot down left and right or whatever but the official story doesnt stand up either.
and i am only asking 2- what exactly was the mechanism that lead to all 3 buildings falling completely symmetrically into their own footprint. why was there no resistance offered from any portion of any building during the collapse. all three were perfect free falls STRAIGHT down. nothing that has been stated so far explains that. there are circles about fires and damage but no report or article or any claim from a random poster explains just exactly what burned where, how that burned that way, and how that happened perfectly evenly across the entire base of each building and every section reached the same point of failure simultaniously.
is that too much for you yogurt?

reply to post by ThroatYogurt

where are the pictures of the debris on the lawn after inpact. i see pictures, of stuff, from what looks like a plane crash, mostly taking with no location perspective, tagged, moved, displayed. you can see on the live news reports that none of these things are there as first responders arrive. you can see the tiny hole. where in your picture is the damage from a plane crash. i still see a small hole and a long line of what a dark crack? that is the wing of a plane? i seriously never bought that it was not a plane. i didnt get the missle story. but your evidence is pushing me more that way, especially since i have all the news footage from that day and can clearly see a small hole and no debris from the very FIRST cameras on scene. besides the pentagon cameras but im sure the government is holding them for good reason. care to tell us what that might be?

the people that believe 9/11 was an inside job.. are the same ones.. that believe the holocaust never happened... we never went to the moon... aliens are abducting people by the millions, etc..etc.. its just a waste of breath trying to talk reason to these people.

Originally posted by philjwolf
the people that believe 9/11 was an inside job.. are the same ones.. that believe the holocaust never happened... we never went to the moon... aliens are abducting people by the millions, etc..etc.. its just a waste of breath trying to talk reason to these people.

nope, there are also people that care nothing about those other things, watched what happend, knows the government lied about at least one thing, so why not more, and understands physics too well to believe that what happend was simply the result of what we saw.

i never said it was an inside job, but i believe the government lied, maybe just to cover its behind, dont care, it lied.

what we saw, cannot happen, it is impossible the way it has been presented to us.

we never went to the moon?

Originally posted by re22666
reply to post by ThroatYogurt

 

so yogurt, can you please explain to me what the speed of the planes has to do with it? the official story is that the buildings complete and total collapse into its footprint was the result of steel weakend by the fires from the jet fuel. How does the speed of the planes have anything to do with that. are you suggesting that at 300mph the planes would have bounced off and therefore not been able to explode within the building perimeter? the speed of the planes has everything to do with the damage done at the impact site. unfortunately, according to the official report, that is not why the buildings fell. so lofting along lost in fog or flying full speed. the official story is that they buildings could have handled the impact just fine had the jet fuel not burned down below weakening the steel. so where does the speed of the planes come in? and further more, please, please show me all this falling debris and these huge fires that brought down WT7. it makes sense, being rained upon by so much crap from falling buildings. unfortunately, NOONE has shown any example of the kind of damage that would have brought down 7. if you have that evidence, i am all ears. i am not going to spend my life here arguing with you about it though.

And your biggest problem is that you are sticking to lies. NONE of the buildings "fell into their footprints" each of the three buildings damaged the buildings around them. Buildings that fall into their footprints do not damage surrounding buildings.

I could post numerous accounts of firemen, police officers and other on-site people that day that would talk about the severe damage WTC 7 suffered when WTC 1 collapsed into it, but it wouldnt do any good.

Originally posted by philjwolf
the people that believe 9/11 was an inside job.. are the same ones.. that believe the holocaust never happened... we never went to the moon... aliens are abducting people by the millions, etc..etc.. its just a waste of breath trying to talk reason to these people.

Please don't mischaracterize people who can see beyond a corrupt, murderous government that's incapable of telling the truth.

Besides being unfair, this is called a "straw man" argument.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
-Then, please show me what NIST states are the causes of the global collapse. (hint: there are three)

Its jsut too bad that NIST is the only agency that states in the final report that both plane impact and fire casued the collapse (even though their own model stated that neither the plane impacts or fire casued the collapse)

Other agencies disagree with NIST in the casue of the collapse, most state the fire alone was the casue.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


and noone shows their work. none of the given explanations add up and none of them actually hold up under any kind of scrutiny. i would have gotten a c on any lab in 9th grade handed in, missing as much of the work to show how i came to my solution as any 'official' anything so far.

reply to post by philjwolf


My God, I've heard some pretty ridiculous things in my time, but this takes the cake. And, just to prove your theory wrong, I believe the holocaust did happen, I also believe the government was complicit in allowing the attack on 9/11.

There, your theory is officially debunked.

Originally posted by re22666
none of the given explanations add up and none of them actually hold up under any kind of scrutiny.

Please show me evidence that debates the following explanation that states that the fire was the principal cause of the collapse.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by re22666
none of the given explanations add up and none of them actually hold up under any kind of scrutiny.

Please show me evidence that debates the following explanation that states that the fire was the principal cause of the collapse.

www.tms.org...

The early news reports noted how well the towers withstood the initial impact of the aircraft; however, when one recognizes that the buildings had more than 1,000 times the mass of the aircraft and had been designed to resist steady wind loads of 30 times the weight of the aircraft, this ability to withstand the initial impact is hardly surprising. Furthermore, since there was no significant wind on September 11, the outer perimeter columns were only stressed before the impact to around 1/3 of their 200 MPa design allowable.

The only individual metal component of the aircraft that is comparable in strength to the box perimeter columns of the WTC is the keel beam at the bottom of the aircraft fuselage. While the aircraft impact undoubtedly destroyed several columns in the WTC perimeter wall, the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure. Of equal or even greater significance during this initial impact was the explosion when 90,000 L gallons of jet fuel, comprising nearly 1/3 of the aircraft’s weight, ignited. The ensuing fire was clearly the principal cause of the collapse.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by ULTIMA1]

i believe i already addressed this. anyone who has even a fundamental understanding of physics knows this answer is FAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from complete in any way. clearly the fires were the cause of the collapse???? ok how? how is that clear? how did fires cause the perfectly symetrical free fall collapse straight down? thats all i am asking for. i keep saying that you give empty answers and then you laugh all over yourself when you think you have one upped me with...another empty answer. clearly fires did it is not an answer. tell me how the fires caused what happend to happen. please.