9/11: Blueprint for Truth. The Scientifically Disproven Official Story.

There is no 100% irrefutable evidence. If there was, people would be kicking the government hacks out of office and grabbing control away from the imposters. But this hasn't happened because the 'evidence' that truthers point to isn't evidence at all - it's suppositional!

Some people would rather turn to the needlessly complex conspiracy theories for explanation. Simpler explanations just aren't desirable to them. There're probably lots of reasons for this. Some of them are anti-american, sure, but I suspect many are just anti-war or prone to flights of fancy or too smart for their own good (ever seen an engineer fuss over a minor detail before?).

And, you know, even if WTC 1&2 and 7 were brought down through a controlled demolition, that doesn't mean OBL or terrorists of his kind were not involved. Don't get distracted.

I wish I could grab the truthers and shake the nonsense out of them but I know I can't.

reply to post by Gazrok

Additionally, why use the planes at all? If it really was a controlled demolition, why not simply use that and blame terrorists? Why cripple an industry that you're then going to have to bail out, and deal a hell of a blow to your own economy? That's where the government gets a pass....they simply don't have the motive. Sure, you can point to the patriot act, etc., but the same thing could have been achieved without the planes.

I think the planes were a part of the psychological devastation. Just seeing the buildings crumble unannounced doesn't really compare to all eyes in the nation being glued to the TVs, watching the videos of the planes crashing into them over and over again, seeing the smoke pouring from the towers, and then when everybodys watching they crumble to the earth.

I think the planes have a much more powerful effect.

reply to post by jonnywhite

There is no 100% irrefutable evidence. If there was, people would be kicking the government hacks out of office and grabbing control away from the imposters. But this hasn't happened because the 'evidence' that truthers point to isn't evidence at all - it's suppositional!

I think the evidence presented within this thread is more than enough to prove the official story as false. The scientific method is currently the best way to seperate fact from fiction.

Some people would rather turn to the complex conspiracy theories.

I don't think people say "Oh, cool! Our government killed thousands of it's own citizens, this is awesome! I'm gonna tell everyone because it's great!"

There're probably lots of reasons for this. Some of them are anti-american, sure, but I suspect many are just anti-war or prone to flights of fancy or too smart for their own good (ever seen an engineer fuss over a minor detail before?).

Yeah I don't think so. Calling truthers unamerican might sound good coming from a MSM reporters mouth, but here that doesn't fly.

People look at the facts, and come to a logical conclusion. That doesn't make them unamerican. Allowing the government to override the Constitution as a result of this terrorist attack whose explanation is provably inaccurate is the unamerican thing.

And, you know, even if WTC 1&2 and 7 were brought down through a kind of controlled demolition, that doesn't mean OBL or terrorists of his kind were not involved. It's just a smoke screen.

I wish I could grab the truthers and shake the nonsense out of them but I know I can't.

Start by explaining how the scientific method isn't applicable to government organizations and then you might get somewhere.

reply to post by jibajaba


Obviously you're not hugely bright.

Propane CAN burn very hot, but in a grill it does NOT.

It's alll about the mixture of oxygen and fuel.

More boneheaded Truther BS.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I haven't read through the whole thread, only the OP, but I did send a link to your thread with a short explanation to all of my friends that are not yet convinced the Official Story is false. Thank you for your well-written thread and material. Maybe it will convince a few more!!

Here is what I sent:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are dozens of similar buildings, fires, impacts, construction, and none of them collapsed. There are dozens of collapses, and none of them pulverized concrete. There are dozens of controlled demolitions, and they exactly mimic the WTC.

Read this thread, see the pics, watch the videos, and you will know for certain that the WTC did not fall from Airplanes and Fires.

Also, keep in mind, I have read the NIST report in its entirety, and their own report proves that the steel was not warped, the design performed better than expected, and the fires never reached greater than 600 degrees F, and not for extended periods. The NIST report corroborates what most engineers I have spoken to believe, and that is the WTC fell from some other explosive force, not the Airplane impacts and fires.

Many, many videos show “squibs” going off throughout the building, and survivors and firefighters alike report seeing and hearing these explosions on multiple floors.

They brought them down on purpose, and if they are lying about that, then what else might they be lying about?

Al Qaeda publicly criticized the attack, and never took credit for it. Bin Laden was never wanted in conjunction with the attack, he was only being sought for an Embassy bombing, not 9/11. The greatest Terrorist Attack in history, and no terrorist organization took credit for it? It just doesn’t make any sense.

The Black Boxes from the planes were never recovered, and neither were the massive engines, yet somehow the Paper Passports, and cheap boxcutters survived and were miraculously found in the tons and tons of rubble to be used as evidence?

There was no debris at the point of impact into the Pentagon. Workers actually walked out of the hole in the building immediately after the supposed impact. There was no crashed airplane lying in their way? The hole was perfectly round, with no debris, until a few hours later when the roof collapsed into the hole.

The hole was in the most strongly fortified area of the Pentagon, and that is why the damage was limited. The attacks on the WTC came before the busiest hours, otherwise the death tolls would have been many times higher, the Airplanes were sparsely filled with occupants. It seems the whole event was done to minimize loss of life? Does that sound like something terrorists would conspire to do?

Just some thinking points for those that don’t yet question the official story.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I have seen all the evidence, including a lot of the made-up evidence you like to post, and none of it is conclusive.

None of it.

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious

I have seen all the evidence, including a lot of the made-up evidence you like to post, and none of it is conclusive.

None of it.

Then get to debunking big guy.

Can you describe a better way to reach a conclusion than the scientific method?

reply to post by captainnotsoobvious


Lol not enough getting beaten on your own fail thread that you have to come here to get a bit more beating? You already proven you cant grasp even the simplest things, what are you doing in a thread with the word "scientifically" on its title? It should be lie a big nono sign for you. So kerosene fires can burn much hotter, you choose to avoid mentioning that they can do so only in a oxygen rich "controlled" environment. Really, showing your ignorance more and more is just making us feel better.

reply to post by getreadyalready


such rubbish.

If you sent me something so silly I'd suspect you weren't very clever.

There's no groundswell of engineers saying that explosions destroyed the buildings. None. 1/10th of 1% of engineers isn't a meaningful number.

On top of all of that, "similar buildings" is meaningless as evidence as are building not hit by planes.

What a silly thing to do... I imagine you'll have a few less friends in a day or so... you woulda lost me.

reply to post by Saltarello


In fact I said the exact opposite thing. I pointed out that Propane in grills doesn't burn as hot as propane can.

Nice try.

Warning YOU TUBE ALert captainnotsoobvious



[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d4fc969db31.jpg[/atsimg]

Is this the person you are talking about ! ?

Louie D. Cacchioli

This is
Joe Casaliggi Fire Fighter of Engine 7 and also

he did some Acting in the mid 90s as some claim!

(IMDB)
Joseph Casaliggi
www.imdb.com...

(CBS)
911 Ten Years Later
Joseph Casaliggi Engine 161
www.cbs.com...

NY times WTC Task Force Interview with Firefighter Joe Casaliggi (PDF)
www.nytimes.com...

Some Observations from the Firefighters of Engine 7
www.plaguepuppy.net...


911 Firefighter Interview_Collapsed to Dust.mov


I have Posted Joe at one Time Before ! but i dont recall Louie D. Cacchioli

Originally posted by lkpuede
this is another conspiracy i want to believe but makes no sense upon close examination.

the conspiracy theory can be boiled down thusly:

Bush/Clinton/Bush/New World Order planned the downing of the WTC buildings in order to start a war in the Middle East. They planted bombs in the WTC buildings and then hired the men who would fly the planes into the buildings. once the men did so, the buildings would be collapsed.

but for what? there has to be some motivation for killing thousands of your own citizens and destroying the most iconic buildings in your country.

considering that The United States alone has some of the largest reserves of (untapped) oil in the world, is friends with Saudi Arabia, who has some of the largest oil reserves in the world, receives by far the most of it's oil in use not from the Middle East, but from Canada, and Mexico, and now is friends with Brazil, who has been found to have some the largest oil fields in the world...there must be some reason.

Didn't the US government get the sympathy of the people and their go signal as well to attack Iraq without much proof of WMD in Iraq's possession? Those thousands of people killed on that day galvanized the American people to go after the "terrorists" in the Middle East. That is the motivation for killing thousands of your own citizens.

It's amazing how people defend the MSM BS. It is quite obvious that 9/11 is a sensitive issue, due to the aggressive behavior of ATS members mimicking MSM

Originally posted by jonnywhite
There is no 100% irrefutable evidence. If there was, people would be kicking the government hacks out of office and grabbing control away from the imposters. But this hasn't happened because the 'evidence' that truthers point to isn't evidence at all - it's suppositional!

Some people would rather turn to the needlessly complex conspiracy theories for explanation. Simpler explanations just aren't desirable to them. There're probably lots of reasons for this. Some of them are anti-american, sure, but I suspect many are just anti-war or prone to flights of fancy or too smart for their own good (ever seen an engineer fuss over a minor detail before?).

And, you know, even if WTC 1&2 and 7 were brought down through a controlled demolition, that doesn't mean OBL or terrorists of his kind were not involved. Don't get distracted.

I wish I could grab the truthers and shake the nonsense out of them but I know I can't.

edit on 12-9-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

Then, there are those who mindlessly accept everything the TV tells them is reality. I have a hard time believing people from an 'Al Qaeda' or OBL would be capable of rigging up the twin towers and building 7 given the amount of time and planning that goes into destroying a structure like that. Not to mention building 7 houses the CIA, FBI, DHS, NSA, etc. No way 'Al'Qaeda' pulls that off. Something like that could only be done from those within the establishment. To say truthers information is not evidence is just stupid, given the information organizations like ae911truth bring forward.

reply to post by TupacShakur


I'm not scientist and just with my observation and my good sense, i know the 2 towers and the WTC 7 has been demolished by explosion. A 12 years old children can make the same conclusion. So money and time spent to proof these building has been exploded, when cheap good sense and observation can do the job.

Remove all story about who did it, why etc... and just analyse the facts: This is controlled demolition. Period.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade

Just curious, were any of the buildings burning in the OP impacted by a fully fueled large jetliner at high speed?

Is it really a fair comparison?

The examples of skyscrapers that were on fire were primarily used to compare the fire within WTC7 to those that have never brought down a high-rise building.

I am in no way any expert, but just looking at the damage that day, to both towers, several floors destroyed, or partially destroyed alone and combined with (not melting) but weakening of the steel from the fires, along with the incredible weight and mass above the damage, it was only a matter of time before it all collapsed from the beginning... Once enough weight collapsed from the floors above the damage, there was no stopping the complete collapse.

You can think that, fine with me. I'm just saying look at all of the evidence in the OP, listen to the experts, consider the validity of the scientific method, and make an educated decision.

What I will never understand, is why people were told to go back inside, when it should have been apparent to officials at the time that the fires could spread, and the tower could collapse.

I think that's the thing, they weren't sure that it would collapse. In fact I remember a phone call made from somebody up in the towers, and they said the fires were burning out. Plus doesn't thick black smoke mean the fire is running out of fuel and cooling down?

PAY ATTENTION

At the top of this page it says, very clearly

9/11 Conspiracies: This forum is dedicated to the discussion and speculation of cover-ups, scandals, and other conspiracies surrounding the events of 9/11/2001. Participants should be aware that this forum is under close staff scrutiny due to general rudeness by some. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

If you cannot debate the issues in a civil manner, and instead feel the need to resort to name calling and pointless attacks then simply do not bother posting.

Originally posted by Merlin Lawndart
I know NIST even reported building 7 came down at free fall speed for the first 8 stories. That means the building went from motionless to free fall instantly.

No, they didn't.

12.5.3: In Stage 1, the descent was slow and the acceleration was less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face, as seen in Figure 12–62. By 1.75 s, the north face had descended approximately 7 ft.

www.nist.gov...

Originally posted by captainnotsoobvious
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

such rubbish.

If you sent me something so silly I'd suspect you weren't very clever.

There's no groundswell of engineers saying that explosions destroyed the buildings. None. 1/10th of 1% of engineers isn't a meaningful number.

On top of all of that, "similar buildings" is meaningless as evidence as are building not hit by planes.

What a silly thing to do... I imagine you'll have a few less friends in a day or so... you woulda lost me.

Not trying to be funny, or disparaging, but losing a close-minded friend that refuses to examine facts would be acceptable to me. Luckily, I don't have many of those.

The engineers I spoke of in my email, are the engineers I personally know and have spoken to. My schooling is in Chemical Engineering, and I have many friends in the field, and they mostly agree that it wasn't the fires and impact that caused the demolition. They aren't jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, they are just stating the known fact that kerosene does not melt steel.

My email was very brief, but the OP was not. The email was to draw attention to the OP here, and to the existing research that abounds. Hopefully, it will get a few people interested enough to dig a little deeper, that was the intention.

Of course, some will just swallow the medicine that the MSM gives them, and never give it a second thought. To each their own, but I don't typically associate with those types. My friends and acquaintenances are usually a little more interesting and intelligent.