911 The facts and the proof only.

What are the absolute facts of 911 ? What are the points that can be proven beyond any doubt? Are there any ?
If not, is this in itself proof of anything ? This is certainly a topic that still rages on the internet endlessly and very much so amoung our members here on ATS.

I don't know if a thread like this has been done before, if it has here's another one.
I think it would be interesting to have Truthers and Osers, both sides bring their absolute undeniable proofs, facts,
evidence. To this thread. I'd be full of crap to say I'm unbiased in all of this. So I'll enter into this thread the first undeniable fact that I myself as an experienced IRON WORKER know can not be refuted.

After I state my fact, I want only what you believe to be fact or evidence undeniable as you see it. Both sides will be tallyed hopefully in the end. Or maybe we just end up with another mele at the very least. But the fact I want to first bring to the table is undeniable and it may be the only one that is.

The center colums in all three buildings should have prevented anything even close to the free fall collapse we see. This from day one has told me these buildings were taken down not only because planes hit them. But because they were previously set up for demolition. This fact is undeniable and defendable against all scrutiny.
It has made me a truther from day one. I don't even see why people want to believe an obvious lie. Perhaps the OSers can explain this as well, as they present their undeniable proofs ?

The only problem I see with your fact is that none of the buildings fell at free fall acceleration.

This has been known for years.

Originally posted by HannibalEG
The only problem I see with your fact is that none of the buildings fell at free fall acceleration.

This has been known for years.

Correct he should have said "near" free fall speed but if this is your only argument then he can fix that with a minor edit.

Randyvs, I agree, what are the facts anymore? The only facts about the OS that I see are that 3 buildings collapsed in an unprecedented event killing initially over 3000 people. Everything else is seems to be a mass media fairytale. I think this was the intention by pitting the people against one another.

Two things can bring people to yelling at one another. Politics and 9/11.

reply to post by randyvs


Go to Dr Judy Wood' web site.............

All the answers are there.............

Explosives cannot turn 500 million tons of concrete into powder.

So what is your proof or evidence for your "fact"? Can you back it up with physics? Or it is a "fact" based on a gut feeling?

I think you should first create a framework of what constitutes to fact, proof or evidence before you can continue with this exercise. My guess is that your definitions differ from mine and others.

They should have never fell the way they did.

Its as if someone deliberatley cut them to make them fall that way.

People who have came out to tell the truth about what they heard, saw, or was a part of, especially early on are now dead. These people are a handful if not two.

Lots of Hollywood stars are on video stating the facts at hand...I thought they proved a good case. For the ones who have not watched it....take time to....you may learn something you had no clue about.



The Government has been really good covering up Red Flag operations. As we become more aware...they become evil entities no one wants around. They are a disgrace IF they truly had a hand at this!!! If it is ever proven I hope America revolts like the wild animals we are and take down all the high rollers and make them feel as they have made all of us feel! I am sorry but I just cannot help wanting to get even. I know what comes around goes around....I know they will get theres! It really makes me sick to think of all the things they have done while playing the "good guy". Such a disgrace!

This is proof that Building 7 was brought down by charges.

If you contend this, please explain how the networks knew about this before it happened. I could site a lot more pieces of undeniable proof, but for me this is the proverbial nail in the coffin.



Also, notice how the satellite feed begins to die in this clip? This is about 5 minutes before Building 7 collapsed. Did someone notice Building 7 was in the background and kill the feed? If so, that has huge implications as to the span of control those who orchestrated the attacks have.

If Building 7 was brought down by demolition, it MUST have been planted in advance. If you believe it was rigged to blow the day of, ask ANY demolitions expert how long it takes to prep a 47 story building for demolition. Knowing this, who can say without doubt that charges were not placed in WTC1 and 2 in advance? Couple this with evidence uncovered by Stephen E. Jones, a former professor of physics at Brigham Young University, was sent a piece of steel from the World Trade Center site and found that thermite was used in WTC1 and 2, and it's pretty hard to deny that these towers were brought down by military grade demolitions.

reply to post by Backslider


You could add this also.

reply to post by Backslider


News networks make mistakes and make false reports all the time. I would almost say they get it wrong more often than they get it right.

But just think for a moment, and imagine that you are to organize this conspiracy. Would you contact news agencies around the world informing them what to report, or would you just let them do their job they are trained to do? It does not make sense. It also does not make sense that any news network would be complicit, they would have the story of the century. It also would not make sense for the conspirators to severely risk their master plan for no apparent reason. BBC would also report the building collapse if they are not informed before hand.

Originally posted by randyvs
The center colums in all three buildings should have prevented anything even close to the free fall collapse we see. This from day one has told me these buildings were taken down not only because planes hit them. But because they were previously set up for demolition.

You are 100% correct. I worked with aluminum and steel all day, every day for years. We did anything imaginable. Cut, melt, form, you name it. Anyone that has worked with aluminum and steel already knows that those aluminum planes would have done no damage to the core columns in those towers. The only parts of a plane that could damage any core columns would be the landing gear and the engines as those are the strongest and heaviest parts of a plane.

The core columns were assembled horizontally, vertically, and diagonally into a fortress of steel columns. Even the NIST report theorized that only 6-10 core columns were severed or damaged, while 30 exterior columns were severed or damaged. That only amounts to about 15% of the building structure on the impact floors being damaged while 85% of the structure on the impact floors was undamaged, on top of the 100% undamaged structure above and below.

Of course the buildings were rigged for demolition. Every piece of evidence suggests it:

The many witnesses to timed/synchronous booms, which have only ever been heard in controlled demolitions.

The flashes reported being seen going up, down and around both towers with popping or exploding sounds associated with the flashes, which have only ever been seen and heard in controlled demolitions.

The "puffs" or ejections of dust/debris which has only ever been seen in controlled demolitions.

The pre-collapse and during-collapse explosions, which are almost always heard in controlled demolitions.

The audio/video evidence of explosions.

The little amount of time it took for each of the three buildings to collapse.


There is no doubt in my mind, whatsoever, that those buildings came down by explosives.

edit on 15-8-2011 by _BoneZ_ because: typo

Originally posted by HannibalEG
The only problem I see with your fact is that none of the buildings fell at free fall acceleration.

Actually, WTC 7 did fall at free-fall acceleration for one third of it's collapse, and the towers' collapse time was near free-fall.

Is that clear enough?

I always feel like Marge Simpson when I talk with truthers:

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Backslider

 

News networks make mistakes and make false reports all the time. I would almost say they get it wrong more often than they get it right.

But just think for a moment, and imagine that you are to organize this conspiracy. Would you contact news agencies around the world informing them what to report, or would you just let them do their job they are trained to do? It does not make sense. It also does not make sense that any news network would be complicit, they would have the story of the century. It also would not make sense for the conspirators to severely risk their master plan for no apparent reason. BBC would also report the building collapse if they are not informed before hand.

No they wouldn't. They were informed that it had collapsed and reported this as a FACT, despite the FACT that the building was clearly visible in the background!!.

ETA:- Most Broadcasters get their information from the news agencies such as Reuters or Associated Press and then send a team in to confirm. Someone fed them this information and very lazily they didn't follow up personally to confirm.

Two 1360 foot building held themselves up for 28 years. That means they withstood high winds on multiple occasions. One site said they withstood 100 mph winds on 6 occasions. I do find it curious that I haven't seen a lot more detail than that.

So handling gravity and the wind for almost three decades says quite a bit about how strong the buildings had to be and raises the question of why we don't have a lot more details about them to accomplish that feat. Like how much horizontal steel on each level in the core in feet and tons? Why no diagram?

So why didn't the physics profession shut this crap down in 2002? They will never live this down if it is settled.

psik

reply to post by _BoneZ_


So what is the prove or evidence for any of this? What proof can you show that the columns could not fail without demolitions? What proof do you have that the columns were assembled horizontally, vertically, and diagonally? What proof do you have it was rigged? What proof do you have that.. well you get the drift.

To the OP......randyvs, you are braver than most here!
This should be good .....so good I am fastening my seat belt as I type this.
I have no absolute proof to offer but I do side with the inside job theory.
Regards, Iwinder
S&F because I believe what my eyes tell me and not the TV.

reply to post by Cobaltic1978


We know for sure someone made a mistake. You can either believe that the conspirators made a mistake and accidentally reported the collapse to soon, for no apparent reason really. Or just some reporter made a mistake and reported the building collapsed after he or she heard rumors it would collapse. Either way someone made a mistake. One requires an outrageous conspiracy, the other requires a chaotic day at the office.

Either way, it is not fact or proof, not even evidence. At least not of a conspiracy. It is only evidence that a mistake was made.

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why didn't the physics profession shut this crap down in 2002?

They did, just because you dont read/comprehend structural engineering journals doesnt mean the dozens of studies didnt happen.

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

So what is the prove or evidence for any of this? What proof can you show that the columns could not fail without demolitions? What proof do you have that the columns were assembled horizontally, vertically, and diagonally? What proof do you have it was rigged? What proof do you have that.. well you get the drift.

Some people supply evidence that they are idiots.

psik

Originally posted by SirMike

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
So why didn't the physics profession shut this crap down in 2002?

They did, just because you dont read/comprehend structural engineering journals doesnt mean the dozens of studies didnt happen.

Are you talking about Bazant who demonstrates that he does not understand Newton's Third Law?

psik