FBI: 9/11 controlled demolition theory is, “backed by thorough research and analysis”

Originally posted by kwakakev
In the final week or two all the dogs where removed from the buildings, they are generally trained to smell for explosives.

Odd then that one of the sniffer dogs died on 9/11.

reply to post by torontoguy123


One of my college professors is part of the Department of Homeland Security. One thing this professor told the class is that the FBI is looking at "profit motives" for terrorism as the anthrax cases, and recent package bombings which seem to have been designed for profit. The question is who who stand to profit from mail packages or anthrax scares. The list could be so long and the interests so wide that it might be impossible to identify a central player in the scheme. However, I was applauding our FBI upon hearing this information that they have a brain and do not just accept the official version of terrorism being all led by extremist religious motivations. It is highly and likely possible that some very deep pockets are involved in this for the purpose of profit. Identifying who exactly is an investigative challenge, as we need proof of direct links between investors and terrorism is needed.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


Are you saying there was a cover-up lol. They said no witnesses and their assassin got rid of the sniffer dog.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


This post defines the truth movement....

Ask an absurd question, implying that there is a conspiracy, then sit back and let theories start flying, then pinch one to focus on...

Why did he die a year later??? Could it be the same reason firefighters are dying from inhaling hazardous air???? Or do you have some wild eyed conspiracy to spin on it?

Someone said "The pulled the dogs (THAT WERE BEING USED TO FIND BODIES) in the last weeks.....

Because at the time, there weren't any ignorant theories involving explosives yet. The "There is a conspiracy in everything", delusion, had not formed yet.)

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by solomons path

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
so have they found blasting caps or miles of wire ?

was the data collected from sensors in the building or was it collected from youtube video's ?

this is all barking up the wrong tree to me. more wasted effort looking for a fringe idea to blow your mind rather than looking for a connection between the hijakers and mossad, the hijakers and riyadh, or the hijakers and the CIA, bush and cheney or some other gov't insider

the truther movement needs to abandon CD, holograms, missiles and white jets and start following the money

sometimes I wonder if the bad guys fuel the fringe ideas to keep folks off the scent

CDs have used remote detonators for years. Hell, even firework displays have been controlled through remote detonators for years. There are youtube videos showing how to hack cell phones to use as RDs for claymore mines.

Just because you're stuck in the 1800's with blasting caps and det wires doesn't mean that's how it would have been pulled off.

Besides . . . you saying that no wiring was found in the rubble? The TTs weren't riddled with wiring for various apps?

Incredulity doesn't falsify any theory . . .

edit on 7/6/11 by solomons path because: (no reason given)

Just imagining cd triggered by wireless transmission doesn't really help at all. In the first place it is an unlikely method to select in an area with such heavy radio traffic as Manhattan (for fear of it being set off prematurely).

Secondly, you still have to have detonators but with the addition of wireless receivers and not a shred of evidence for that was found.

But all that is all peripheral anyway. Truthers have got nowhere with explaining how skyscrapers could have been rigged for cd without anyone noticing. Not to mention how they were rigged to collapse from the plane impact points.

First, it's not unlikely at all. Interference is easily overcome. Just from my own non-black-ops experience you could license a secure channel from the FCC (which my company does a lot) under the guise of something benign, like Motorola 2-way radios for a work crew. You could also encrypt the signal to prevent trace of crosstalk.

Also, by your line of thinking we should conclude that since only (what looks like) the rear exhaust of one jet engine was found two blocks away on Murray that a single engine rocket took down the towers. After all that's all the evidence we have that plane was responsible for the collapse, post facto of course.

Also, never mind that the FBI has admitted they don't have a file or record of what "plane parts" were recovered in the aftermath and no record that any evidence was found specifically identifying "evidence found" to either plane, due to the fact the FBI claims that the identity of either plane was never in question with other bureaus and the perps were never in question either, so no need to look into it. (see link to read letter) Any other plane crash, especially when terrorism or bombs have been involved, were meticulously collected and the pieces analyzed and cataloged, with serials cross checked. In Lockerbie, they still have a hanger with tagged pieces laid out. Again . . . your reasoning and ridicule would suggest that means we don't know that the planes were actually responsible for the collapse. If the FBI was just taking everyone's word for what the "evidence" meant, I highly doubt they "looked" for any evidence of explosives. By their own admission the methods, means and players were never in doubt, so there was no need to keep "records" of evidence to the crime.

Again . . . your own incredulity is not evidence for the OS . . . however, the lack of "evidence", due to the fact that the FBI had this "investigation" wrapped up by noon speaks loudly for a cover up.

FBI letter to Aiden Monaghan

I'm glad people are looking into it, but let's not forget that people screw up. All of these commissions and bureaus and investigative bodies are comprised of people that could be as equally perplexed as you or I. While they want to appear like they can protect us and keep things under control, they obviously failed this one.

I wish the evidence was more conclusive, and that our representatives and law enforcers could look us straight in the eye and say "I know exactly what happened here, from start to finish." But I don't have confidence they'll ever be able to do that.

reply to post by Alfie1

I'm sorry but I think if you rely on "Loose Change" as gospel you are deluding yourself.

Anybody who takes anything as gospel these days is deluding themselves. Anybody who is not satisfied with what they are being told needs to do their own research and investigation. With so many conflicts of interest going around these days getting to the facts about our reality is not always an easy process.

How come Sirius died in the attack ?

This is the first I have heard about a dog being stationed at the towers when it happened. This dog was guarding the basement gate, checking the cars coming into the building. From some reports there where other dogs that use to patrol the building and it is these dogs that where pulled from duty in the week or two before the attack.

This is a big, complex messy case and it is not surprising that Loose Change did not get every fact presented 100% accurate. Even if overall only 10% is accurate it still does raise some serious questions that need answers, something that can only really be achieved with a new committed, independent and internationally backed investigation.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

Odd then that one of the sniffer dogs died on 9/11.

A little. This dog was stationed in the basement on the gate checking cars coming into the building. It was not patrolling the building. It may have seemed odd as well if this dog was removed from duty with all the others.

reply to post by kwakakev

The WTC complex had been on high alert in the weeks leading up to the 9/11 attacks, which is why some of extra security personnell was stood down once normal service was resumed.

IIRC there was always sniffer dogs at the delivery ramp, due to the way the 1993 attack was carried out.

reply to post by roboe

The WTC complex had been on high alert...

Are you aware of the reason for this high alert status? Did it only affect the WTC buildings or greater New York?

As a skeptic to the official story, I would be on high alert if I was wiring a building to explode. But I am mainly interested in the facts and would like to hear them.

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

Odd then that one of the sniffer dogs died on 9/11.

A little. This dog was stationed in the basement on the gate checking cars coming into the building. It was not patrolling the building. It may have seemed odd as well if this dog was removed from duty with all the others.

So it doesn't seem odd that they removed the other dogs?

Classic conspiracy thinking. All evidence, even when wrong, bolsters the conspiracy.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

So it doesn't seem odd that they removed the other dogs?

With evidence indicating that the buildings where full of explosives it does not seam odd. The dogs would have been constantly distracted, unable to perform their usual duties and it may have desensitized their training if constantly exposed to the smell of explosives.

Classic conspiracy thinking. All evidence, even when wrong, bolsters the conspiracy.

It ain't easy putting together the jigsaw puzzle when pieces are missing and you do not know what the final picture looks like. Over the past ten years a lot of good and bad pieces have been collected to fill in the picture that the Official Story fails to describe.

reply to post by kwakakev


Please provide me with your "credible" sources, proving that there were explosives in the buildings.

Unacceptable sources
1) ATS threads
2) Truther sites - Site the original "credible source"

Were full of explosives

Really? Why are truthers so quick to lie and exaggerate the truth, to try and prove their point

reply to post by ShaunHatfield


'9/11 Blueprint for Truth' provides a great overview of many of the different facts and research that has been compiled. I am yet unable to fault it.

Google Video Link

Originally posted by kwakakev
reply to post by TrickoftheShade

 

So it doesn't seem odd that they removed the other dogs?

With evidence indicating that the buildings where full of explosives it does not seam odd. The dogs would have been constantly distracted, unable to perform their usual duties and it may have desensitized their training if constantly exposed to the smell of explosives.

You've misunderstood. Your reasoning for them not removing the sniffer dog in the basement is "it would have seemed odd".

And yet it apparently did not "seem odd" that they removed the others.

My point is that you just make up a conspiracy-based reason as soon as any evidence is presented to you, whether it's pro or con. This is not unusual these days as the poverty of 9/11 truth's arguments - and their foundation in individuals' personal psychological needs as opposed to facts - becomes more obvious. But it's hardly compelling.

reply to post by kwakakev


So how do think the alleged explosives got into the building?

Would not have been carried in from the loading dock?

reply to post by kwakakev

This is the first I have heard about a dog being stationed at the towers when it happened

For someone supposedly looking for the truth seems to be a large hole in your research

Could it be that the conspiracy sites are not interested in printing the facts - just bizarre "theories" to
make the conspiracy loons feel better.....

reply to post by TrickoftheShade


There is a lot about 9/11 case and the social reaction to it that I find odd. This part about the dogs is not one of them.

Since the 1993 car park bombing in the WTC, security was upgraded a dog permanently stationed on the delivery ramp going into this building. If this dog was to go people would ask questions as it had become a standard part of daily operations. Other dogs come and go depending on the risk assessment as decided by the company managing security. People would not find it unusual for dogs to be on patrol one day and not the next.

The WTC are massive towers and I find it unlikely that a dog stationed at one position could smell everything that was happening through out the building. As long as those wiring up the building kept some distance from the delivery ramp, there would not be a problem for them.

My point is that you just make up a conspiracy-based reason as soon as any evidence is presented to you, whether it's pro or con

I asses the pro's and con's of each argument that is presented. I know the official story has left questions remaining about what exactly happened. Considering the pretext for war this event created and subsequent decline in human rights around the world I am not satisfied being left in the dark. If that means I bump around while trying to find a way through this information maze, so be it.

reply to post by thedman

So how do think the alleged explosives got into the building? Would not have been carried in from the loading dock?

Large building like this have many entry and exit points. With the security company in on the operation any explosives could have gone straight up the delivery ramp as the dogs changed shift. When you own the security there are plenty of ways to subvert it.

reply to post by thedman

For someone supposedly looking for the truth seems to be a large hole in your research

Deny Ignorance buddy