The UNofficial Report On 9/11

Hey guys for QUITE a while now I have been working on a report on 9/11 (that isn't dry). I've finally finished it at right around 14 pages and 7 thousand words (with various pictures). Since It's finished I figure I might as well share it with you guys and see what you think. I'll provide a link since it's so long and the infamous wall of text turns people off quick.

The UNofficial Report On 9/11

Wow, this looks very comprehensive. I haven't read it yet, but I definitely will, and I am looking forward to it. Thanks for your time and efforts. Did you do this for fun or is this a project for something? Just curious, I guess. Thanks again!

reply to post by ChachiArcola


School. :/

It might be a little chaotic so I apologize for that.

reply to post by Se7enex


Well, I can't help but notice that you got the exact number of the alleged architects and engineers from a conspiracy website but couldn't be bothered to list the exact number victims on 9/11/2011. For information there were 2,977 victims.

reply to post by Se7enex
Double wow! What you've done is without a doubt, breathtaking. Anybody who takes the time to read this will be changed forever. Thank you for your effort, and may God be with us in this battle against the 'people of the lie'. And people here wonder why we get so incensed when debunkers spew their rhetoric?

A bandana was recovered from the Flight 93 crash site. This site left nothing
but charred aluminum, making me highly doubt a highly flammable thing like a
bandana was recovered in perfect condition.

Not only that, but escape being shredded by all the sharp pieces of metal shrapnel from the plane exploding. Not even a thread was knicked!

That's one amazing bandana!

very excited to read this!

i tried to print it out... but it either makes me DL a facebook app (which "allows it to post things on my wall" ... facebook apps like that scare me), or join scribd ... can you provide a direct DL pfd link??

Thanks!

reply to post by Se7enex


Has any one else had the problem of several pages missing in the middle of the article? It starts where the author was discussing Israeli intelligence. The screen seems to go blank. And then there is a paragraph about controlled demolition and then it goes blank again. Just curious as to what was happening with the missing pages.

reply to post by Se7enex


An obvious Star and Flag for your work here!

Thank you for putting this together, it looks interesting so far as I've only glanced at it, but I will read it all and will comment if I feel its appropriate!

reply to post by hooper


It is NOT a conspiracy website. They are presenting FACT and are verified architects. There research is completely scoentifical and there is absolutely no conspiracy belief involved in their research. And fyi the Death toll can't be assured as 100% accurate so I left it out. It doesn't matter if I provide a specific number any amount of life taken is devastating. Nowhere do I come off as damning the people who died that day so please don't assume I am.


reply to post by zerozero00


Thanks! I sure hope you do!(:

Nice effort, but Ill take it as an summary of a report no offense

reply to post by Cassius666


I wanted to make something that would help people understand why it was so fishy and try not to bore them.
No offense taken of course, if I had more time to work on it then an hour at school it would've been longer.

I always find it interesting to read the responses by the Truthers (or friends of Truthers if that name offends). I notice that hardly anyone here has actually said exactly what was right or wrong with the paper, and only immediately accepted it as truth because it seems to conform to the views already held.

I mean, I'm not trying to be off-topic or anything, but it just seems odd that you guys will scrutinize the official story supporters and supporting papers, math, and models until the cows come home. Yet, for some reason, you do not apply near the same amount of scrutiny for your own stuff.

In order to give at least a little substance to this post, I will immediately mention that those other buildings had a design completely different than the WTC or building 7.

As for the stuff on Bin Laden or what have you, I don't have much to say there. I'm of the opinion that the government probably planned or allowed 9/11 to happen, so fake Bin Ladens would not be ultimately surprising.

reply to post by Varemia


Well I didn't read it yet. She is a school girl apparently, maybe 15 years old. At 14 pages I expect it to be an summarry of the information available to her. She disclosed where she is coming from and I am sure the people who will read it, will see the report in the correct light.

With that said I am sure it is a nice paper that will get people curious about the topic.

reply to post by Varemia


While their design was different it was just the best possible thing I could compare it to. I knew that so that's why I didn't revolve my paper around it.

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia

 

While their design was different it was just the best possible thing I could compare it to. I knew that so that's why I didn't revolve my paper around it.

edit on 11-11-2011 by Se7enex because: (no reason given)

Yes, and that is a good thing. I have just run into many people who think that they are proof, so it is always a good base to cover. The effort is still quite admirable. The paper is very professional looking, and I admit that I don't know enough to argue any of the points made that are not about the collapse mechanics.

With regard to what I have read in what you wrote about the collapse, you do have somewhat of a misunderstanding when it comes to the structure of the towers, and how the fires only needed to be in the right place for collapse to occur.

Also, the "squibs" were not squibs at all, which has been proven due to the amount of dust and debris pouring out, showing that it was pressure from debris going through broken windows. There was a lot of air inside the tower, and it had to go somewhere during collapse. That direction is out.

The reason the cloud spread out so much was because in controlled demolitions, dust suppression is used, where the building is dampened with water and sprayed continuously as soon as it collapses.

Anyway, I'm about to get attacked by all the foaming Truthers, so I'll leave it at this.

reply to post by Varemia


That makes perfect sense but both the dust cloud and squib theories are supported by credited architects. You can see some of Robert Gage's videos on youtube (:

Originally posted by Se7enex
reply to post by Varemia

 

That makes perfect sense but both the dust cloud and squib theories are supported by credited architects. You can see some of Robert Gage's videos on youtube (:

And you can also look up papers by MIT professionals and NIST. While we're at it, we can address FEMA and other engineering schools who do not find evidence for demolition.

Here's a good search that has a lot of credible results:

Google Search

Enjoy reading them. They can get somewhat detailed, however, so bear with it.

And this is just a personal favorite of mine due to its simplicity (as it was used for a presentation) in addressing many issues.

www.slideshare.net...

Originally posted by Varemia
for your own stuff.

watch tv footage again, einstein. and again. and... again.
and scrutinize it. lol.

reply to post by Se7enex


You worked hard on your report, nice job.

I found most of the material to be pretty standard fare with the usual suspects mentioned; fires not collapsing skyscrapers, Mossad involvement, hijackers' backgrounds, Osama, etc. No offense intended, but it could have been written by the State department.

For a different perspective:

911 for Psychos
False Fronts for a False Flag