New 9/11 photos 'prove WTC exploded from inside.' Video: Russia Today

reply to post by daddio


I'm remaining ignorant? He's lying / ignoring evidence, while proclaiming he's some god damn hero on the search for truth.

- He says the buildings didn't "collapse", they exploded mid-air
- Says we have yet to be told what initiated the collapses
- Thermite / paint chip argument
- Says they came down at free-fall speed
- Uses the stupid "A building has never been a building that collapsed from a plane hitting it, ever" line, which proves nothing. A building has never been hit by a fully fueled and loaded 747 either. With that logic, a 747 hitting a building being a first, as it never happened before, had to be faked. No planers, perhaps?

This guy was there, he lives in New York. He should have some idea of what really happened.

Does he even say he lives in NYC or was in NYC on 9/11? I could live next to a nuclear plant, it doesn't make me an expert on anything nuclear related. He looks too much like Jason Bermas...

Why couldn't there be explosives planted by extremists?

Oh I forgot, Islamic terrorism doesn't really exist

reply to post by Whyhi


Whyhi please answer two questions for me since you seem to believe the OS outright and denounce anyone else who doesn't believe it. If you don't think our government is capable of doing something like this then please explain "Operation Northwoods" & "The Gulf of Tonkin". If our government could do these things, then why not this? These are just two examples of how our government will and does lie to all of us. Please Please explain.... I have attached definitions of both in case you don't know about them.

And the 2nd question... Explain to me why building 7 fell just like the two towers that were actually hit by planes.

Definitions:

Operations Northwoods

"Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a false-flag plan that originated within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other operatives to commit genuine acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere. These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of the Operation Northwoods plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

Operation Northwoods is especially notable in that it included proposals for hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate a foreign government.

The plan stated:

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Several other proposals were included within the Operation Northwoods plan, including real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets.

Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Northwoods was signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative. Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted and the proposals included in the plan were never executed."

Gulf of Tonkin

"The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in the sinking of one of the torpedo boats.[1][2]

The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for escalating American involvement in the Vietnam War.

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded[4] that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated

[I]t is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2.[5]"

Originally posted by ugie1028
reply to post by Whyhi

 

then you support a new investigation. that's good to hear!

BTW? Have a good laugh? since when was investigating a tragedy funny?

wonder what kind of head is on your shoulders.

For the most-part in threads of this nature, I just read and not add my own two-cents. I'm emotional about this subject. So, whenever I see a "Truster" carry-on in ignorance about the evidence, or lack thereof, (which speaks volumes of evidence to me) this or that, belittling behavior towards "truthers," these threads are more real after I click "ignore" on certain individuals I get my fill of. I give stars where merited IMHO. I clicked ignore previous to this post, so that's why my input seems out of place. Sorry about any confusion.

Originally posted by ugie1028
Images:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fd282d422697.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/06734a8f4ffc.jpg[/atsimg]

These two images are *not* new. I've had them on my hard drive for years.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by truthquest]

Great post OP,S&F for ya! Now,that I have read all 5 pages on this I see that the Official Storyline supporters are still hoping no one will notice all those revisions to the governments theory they have had a decade to try and get their story straight and yet they have not.All the debunkers can do is attack the victims families and first responders and the movement as well.Those buildings were demolished by explosives just as WTC#7 was I won't get into the Pentagon and Shanksville since that would be derailing the discussion.

I keep hearing that the free fall speed thing is a lie?

Then again I keep seeing it proved it was near as damn it free fall speed?

So there's part of me wondering if the anti 9/11 truthers on here are being a bit pedantic about the words free fall speed. Do they mean it was pretty damn close to free fall speed but because it's not BANG ON free fall we are going to deny it?

Surely the question is have 3 buildings like these consistently fallen in such an in consistent way ever before and is the way they fell consistent with a building falling from structural damage. I'm aware 2 building have never been hit in this way but apparently they were designed to resist a plane impact of some sort and surely the question is not what caused the damage but the way the damage would affect the buildings ie if you damage a corner it's more like it will topple in that direction.

Sorry about the multiple use of the consistent word but it's sort of an anti pedant protection.

I personally do not have the technical understanding to know what is the case so refuse to make concrete statements as if I have, a particular problem I see on here in may types of threads ie people who really have no genuine scientific or direct personal contact with the material at hand making sweeping statements as fact yet they have really are just repeating.

Sorry, blindly repeating while trying to make yourself sound like an authority based upon someone else's research is just such a cheap shot. Hence I use the words surely instead of just saying it would have

Anyway, as I don't have the technical skills I can only listen to those that do, I have to look at why they are saying what they are and is there an angle that they could have for saying such things?

So when a large group of very indepth, in their field experts cry rubbish at government reports I listen, what reason have they got to do this, I doubt it's a political meal ticket suddenly snatched upon. Do they stand to lose personal credit in their chosen job universe as a nut job, well I think they do.

So why would these people show reams of scientific research that often contradict the official reports at a cost in time and money to themselves, lets forget the political after effects of the 9/11 attacks, lets just look at these people trying to prove numerous buildings in multiple cities collapsed in ways that contradict reports. Actual proof of plane parts not being at the a scene and then suddenly appearing, things like that.

But why do all the real hardcore scientific research to prove that they think the official line is wrong. Because they have too much free time and cash on their hands, because they enjoy playing detective a little too much, because they are hoping to make capital out of this?

Or perhaps they are just real people who can look at something in their expert field and see it's wrong, see where mistakes have been made or introduced. People who as professionals feel that honest people have been told something that is totally incorrect based upon genuine scientific fact with no outlandish theories.

When a scientist says they have found thermite who am I to say he's a liar, the question I have to ask is why has he found thermite and has he a reason to lie?

But to finish, there can be no denying that the whole 9/11 events have posed some of the most unanswered and totally bizarre situations ever known from any type of disaster, outlandish Government choices and schemes, forensic scenes totally removed and destroyed for obviously some reason.

Something did happen on 9/11, I just think we don't know exactly what yet and I hope that the real experts strive to find out the undisputed facts about the whole scenario but you have to worry when the very departments who are there to protect people refuse to hand over evidence while classifying things that should prove their story.

Why on earth would you do that...And they wonder why there are conspiracy theoirists...

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Mclaneinc]

[edit on 16-2-2010 by Mclaneinc]

9/11 debunkers always like to say that no Boeing 747 hit any building before, so here are some examples of air crashes into buildings. Of course, the speed was probably not as high as at 9/11, and only the first one is a Boeing 747, but it gives you some insight:

1992: El Al Jumbo Crashes in Amsterdam (BBC)

An Israeli Boeing 747 cargo plane has crashed in the outskirts of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, setting two blocks of flats on fire and killing dozens of people.

The El Al jumbo jet came down shortly after take-off, at 1830 local time, spilling burning fuel over a wide area in the suburb of Bijlmermeer, to the south of the city.

Amsterdam city officials say 50 flats in the nine-storey blocks were hit directly by the falling plane. Nearly 40 bodies have been recovered so far.

Here's how the B-25 bomber flew into the Empire State Building in 1945. You can find the article here:

The Crash
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

Here's another report of a military plane that crashed into a building in Iran in 2005:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - A military plane carrying dozens of journalists crashed into a Tehran apartment block and exploded on Tuesday, killing at least 116 people, officials said.

All 94 passengers and crew on the C-130 transport plane died, the Interior Ministry said. Several children, at home because schools were closed due to a smog alert in the capital, were among the dead in the building, witnesses added.

There's no mention of any buildings collapsing in any of the reports, no matter the size of the buildings or the airplanes. For example, the military plane in Iran hit a small high rise building, while the 1945 plane hit the Empire State Building, but was a small plane.

[edit on 16-2-2010 by MightyAl]

yea sure.

Those buildings did explode from the inside.
Because those jets were guess where. ding ding ding. Inside the buildings.

Except of course for number seven. That one just had two one thousand foot buildings dropped on it. I don't see why that would cause it to fall.

Look. On my personal opinion, Truthers need to forget the Idea of any explosive other than the jet and focus only on the papertrail leading to the conspirators responsible for the attacks. Whoever you feel they are.

Peace in the Middle East.
President.

reply to post by ugie1028

here is another thread u can add.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The pictures in this post are where,everyone needs to focus their energy,

files.abovetopsecret.com...

this site has great photos
www.mindsing.org...

www.mindsing.org...

this is another great pic showing cuts on beams before clean up ,I mean all we need to do is track down the guys, who took the picture and find the times and dates and it will clear everything up for sure.

www.mindsing.org...

www.mindsing.org...

www.mindsing.org...



www.slideshare.net...

this thread stoped and got ignored i wonder WhY??

There is only one answer after we can find out when the people took these pick , and that answer would be the final nail in the coffin with out a doubt,
AND they know it thats why post like these get shoved back to the back. Just read the post they ran with their tails tucked between their asses .
Why? because anyone who actually understands thermodynamics, or physics , has to be derailed to not expose the truth.

All that needs to be done ,...and i will say it again , anyone who actually understands what they are looking at in these pictures ,knows for a fact that those cuts where not made by a falling building ,and several show without a doubt ,beams laying on the ground with cuts that should never i mean never ever be found in any kinda of clean up or natural failure of a building , they are only found on sites that have been prepared by demo crews.

Find out more about these beams and you will find all your answer's to the hidden side of 9/11.

Again watch these videos and the whole picture starts to become clearer.
They even show how those cuts are made , And in the one you have to rent ,the pres, of the company even says((( to bring a hundred story building down into its own basement is like art , ))) he looked like he was having an orgasium when he was saying it lol

This one is the best ever but i cant find it so you have to rent it ,

www.allmovie.com...

powerful powerful guild ,the controlled demo guys are in.

video.google.com...#

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by president
yea sure.

Those buildings did explode from the inside.
Because those jets were guess where. ding ding ding. Inside the buildings.

Except of course for number seven. That one just had two one thousand foot buildings dropped on it. I don't see why that would cause it to fall.

Look. On my personal opinion, Truthers need to forget the Idea of any explosive other than the jet and focus only on the papertrail leading to the conspirators responsible for the attacks. Whoever you feel they are.

Peace in the Middle East.
President.

There were definitely explosives used on 9-11, because the building fell on its own footprint, regardless of what "collided" into the upper floors of the WTC!

There is no way a buiding could implode in such a fashion unless perfectly timed explosives were used on the floors/ceilings/structure beneath the impact area. If you don't believe me on this, I suggest watching a demolitions documentary which perfectly illustrates the concept.

If explosives were not used, the buidling would either (1)topple over to the weak side, if the damage was sufficient enough or (2)nothing but a raging fire, which would eventually extinguish itself after burning anything it found.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Dude. The top part of that building was thirty stories. the bottom part was seventy stories. the jet took out ten floors instantly and burned the entire center of the rest of the building.

Now. the thirty story part (top) is the equivant to a thirty story building. Every city has one. I'm not sure how much that must weigh. but if you drop a thirty story building from seven hundred feet in the air onto a seventy story building (bottom) the seventy story building is going to crumble. Everytime.

Two points.
first- the weak side of that building was the middle; blown away by a jetcrash.
second - gravity only works in one direction. straight down.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07


There were definitely explosives used on 9-11, because the building fell on its own footprint, regardless of what "collided" into the upper floors of the WTC!

But this thread posits that that is not the case. That significant amounts of the buildings fell outside of their footprint.

There is no way a buiding could implode in such a fashion unless perfectly timed explosives were used on the floors/ceilings/structure beneath the impact area.

Once again - this thread spends significant amounts of time suggesting that it didn't implode. It exploded.

Which is it?

This is getting strange now. Some years ago it was

-- 90 per cent inside the footprint, squibs, looks like CD, etc, apparently proves demolition

Now it's "you can clearly see the building exploding outwards from huge bombs, doesn't resemble CD, squibs ignored because bombs were in core".

We were told for years that the demolitions of the towers looked like classic controlled demolition. Yet none of those photos looks like that. And somehow this is still evidence of bombs?


You're debunking each other.

reply to post by Whyhi


And just FYI they were not 747's, sorry, get your information straight.

How do you know they were FULLY fueled, most airliners have as much fuel as needed for the flight path and a reserve. In case of a crash, limited fuel for the fire.

Originally posted by president
yea sure.

Except of course for number seven. That one just had two one thousand foot buildings dropped on it. I don't see why that would cause it to fall.

President.

Are you nuts, those 2 buildings were no where near 7 and they didn't even HIT building 7. Where do you get your info?

reply to post by daddio


no where near number 7?
What was it? like a block away?

whatever, those buildings registered on the rictor scale when they fell. I am only surprised that even more buildings didn't fall.

You are splitting hairs. besides, even if those buildings didn't fall, they would have been condemned and torn down. get over it.

and for the record, I don't question the theories of america's involvement or their prior knowledge.
I simply believe the phisicics of the buildings falling the way they did with nothing more than a jet explosion is probable.

Originally posted by daddio

Originally posted by president
yea sure.

Except of course for number seven. That one just had two one thousand foot buildings dropped on it. I don't see why that would cause it to fall.

President.

Are you nuts, those 2 buildings were no where near 7 and they didn't even HIT building 7. Where do you get your info?

Are you saying that WTC 7 was not damaged by falling debris from the North Tower ?

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by president
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Dude. The top part of that building was thirty stories. the bottom part was seventy stories. the jet took out ten floors instantly and burned the entire center of the rest of the building.

A jet cannot take out a steel core just by impacting it.

And jet fuel could not get hot enough to then melt or otherwise deform the structure, especially the core.

Originally posted by president
Now. the thirty story part (top) is the equivant to a thirty story building. Every city has one. I'm not sure how much that must weigh. but if you drop a thirty story building from seven hundred feet in the air onto a seventy story building (bottom) the seventy story building is going to crumble. Everytime.

Dropping 30 stories 700 feet on to the remaining 70 stories? Were those 30 stories floating in the air?

Originally posted by president
Two points.
first- the weak side of that building was the middle; blown away by a jetcrash.
second - gravity only works in one direction. straight down.

Your first point is wrong and the second assumes perfectly timed explosives were used, otherwise there would be a toppling-over effect at any given weak point.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
But this thread posits that that is not the case. That significant amounts of the buildings fell outside of their footprint.

I used the term implosion loosely. Technically it did implode but depending on what explosive charges were used that would determine the amount of debri scatter.

TNT and C4=lots of debri scatter, even if 90% of the building implodes on its own footprint, in other words straight down rather than coming down on a tilt.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Once again - this thread spends significant amounts of time suggesting that it didn't implode. It exploded.

Which is it?

This is getting strange now. Some years ago it was

-- 90 per cent inside the footprint, squibs, looks like CD, etc, apparently proves demolition

Now it's "you can clearly see the building exploding outwards from huge bombs, doesn't resemble CD, squibs ignored because bombs were in core".

We were told for years that the demolitions of the towers looked like classic controlled demolition. Yet none of those photos looks like that. And somehow this is still evidence of bombs?


You're debunking each other.

I am debunking the OS believers!

Who are you ATTEMPTING to debunk?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by president
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

A jet cannot take out a steel core just by impacting it.

And jet fuel could not get hot enough to then melt or otherwise deform the structure.


Dropping 30 stories 700 feet on to the remaining 70 stories? Were those 30 stories floating in the air?

Originally posted by president
Two points.
first- the weak side of that building was the middle; blown away by a jetcrash.
second - gravity only works in one direction. straight down.

Your first point is wrong and the second assumes perfectly timed explosives were used, otherwise there would be a toppling-over effect at any given weak point.

[edit on 18-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

-A jet cannot take out a steel core just by impact. Why not?

-jet fuel could not get hot enough to deform the core?
The fire in that building looked pretty damned hot to me. Why don't you tell me how hot fire HAS to be to affect steel then.
and then see how hot jet engines burn.

-If the weak side was not in the middle, where was the weak side?

-Oh, and those top thirty stories were attached to a building until the building got knocked out from underneath it. How long did you expect it to hang over that burning jet?