Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[DeathDart]

Where are the recordings?

How strange that Rotten Rudy, a prosecutor who should have known better, made his priority steel removal rather than conducting a proper investigation.

I also stick to a minimum 2 year period for removing the steel AND doing a proper investigation. The result of a proper investigation could have retrieved 60-80% of the steel from the impacted floors. This would have prevented the last 10 years of conspiracy theories. Talk about lost productivity.

And since shrub is gone now, where are all the security camera recordings? If they had contained something that did support the “REAL” story they might still exist.

If the security recordings completely contradicted the “REAL” story, then they have been destroyed.

At the end of the Indiana Jones movie the Ark of the Covenant is a box mixed in with thousands of other boxes. I guess they have the recordings in a box, with one of those don't open for 50 years stickers on it.

Open it now! Are the recordings in the box? What do they show?

 

[DeathDart]

Why can't we see the recordings and judge for our selves?

Or would this taint the jury pool, needed for the trials of the shrub and his minions?

 

[DeathDart]

Take a number, we wouldn't want a angry mob, would we?

The again we could just end up putting on weight from watching a bunch of boring security videos where we can check off everybody that was supposed to be there. It would be disturbing to the families, but that is not a sufficient reason to keep them secret.

 

[Brainster]

What was the device used to house these explosives that can survive?

They put it inside a black box.

 

[Dog Town]

Cool story bro!

 

[tmd2_1]

Hi,

This is my first post, and I will certainly try not to break any rules, if I do I apologize in advance, and will change anything that needs to be. I found your question while searching and found it very interesting. I believe I can answer or at least have plausible explanations. I will start with the 2nd of your questions. The most likely scenario for what happened that day, would be something to the affect...that the upper echelon of the Bush administration planned what happened at the pentagon. Having war game scenarios and test hijackings etc...this way it would confuse those who might normally intercept such a hijacking. Hence Norman Mineta's testimony. The Zionist/elites...whatever you want to call them...had something much more sinister in mind...they wanted carte blanche, a blank check to do what they wanted in the middle east ...restrict civil liberties etc... They took advantage of what they knew would be a very confusing time for those who would normally intercept the plane and struck. In regards to how it was "screwed" up...it was really quite the opposite. I believe the 4th plane was headed for building 7...the two towers had to fall to get a clear shot at it. But our fighters were able to scramble and the plane was shot down. I think even those who admittedly support the official story have some doubts as to whether that plane was shot down or not. Obviously Larry Silverstein would be apart of the plot to take the towers down...while using the pentagon in essence as "cover". The first question you have...I'm not sure if this is a suitable answer, but could not the explosives have been planted below the impact zone? Even if they were at the impact zone it would only cause a greater explosion, and perhaps the building to drop earlier..I'm sure exactly when the building dropped really was not that important. As far as proving it could survive a plane impact. I'm not sure I could do that... I would need lots of time and money to conduct experiments, to anything I could come up..I have not found any that someone else did. But as stated previously I'm not sure that it is necessary, thermite cutter charges are the most likely thing to have been used, and it would not matter if some went off early.

 

[The Platypus]

Hi,

This is my first post, and I will certainly try not to break any rules, if I do I apologize in advance, and will change anything that needs to be. I found your question while searching and found it very interesting. I believe I can answer or at least have plausible explanations. I will start with the 2nd of your questions. The most likely scenario for what happened that day, would be something to the affect...that the upper echelon of the Bush administration planned what happened at the pentagon. Having war game scenarios and test hijackings etc...this way it would confuse those who might normally intercept such a hijacking. Hence Normal Mineta's testimony. The Zionist/elites...whatever you want to call them...had something much more sinister in mind...they wanted carte blanche, a blank check to do what they wanted in the middle east ...restrict civil liberties etc... They took advantage of what they knew would be a very confusing time for those who would normally intercept the plane and struck. In regards to how it was "screwed" up...it was really quite the opposite. I believe the 4th plane was headed for building 7...the two towers had to fall to get a clear shot at it. But our fighters were able to scramble and the plane was shot down. I think even those who admittedly support the official story have some doubts as to whether that plane was shot down or not. Obviously Larry Silverstein would be apart of the plot to take the towers down...while using the pentagon in essence as "cover". The first question you have...I'm not sure if this is a suitable answer, but could not the explosives have been planted below the impact zone? Even if they were at the impact zone it would only cause a greater explosion, and perhaps the building to drop earlier..I'm sure exactly when the building dropped really was not that important. As far as proving it could survive a plane impact. I'm not sure I could do that... I would need lots of time and money to conduct experiments, to anything I could come up..I have not found any that someone else did. But as stated previously I'm not sure that it is necessary, thermite cutter charges are the most likely thing to have been used, and it would not matter if some went off early.

So says which particular conspiracy kook website you believe in?

 

[tmd2_1]

I'm not sure I follow you entirely? He asked for a plausible reason to connect everything that happened that day, and I thought I gave him one? If I didn't answer his question I apologize.

 

[The Platypus]

He didn't ask for a "plausible reason", even though i'd hardly call what you wrote plausible.... he said prove it, he also said, assumptions are not proof and that's all you gave, and a big pile of it at that.

 

[TSR]

I'm not sure I follow you entirely? He asked for a plausible reason to connect everything that happened that day, and I thought I gave him one? If I didn't answer his question I apologize.

.
Ummm. No. Quoting the OP:
.

All you have to do is PROVE explosives can survive the impact of the aircraft and subsequent fire.

<...>

Assumptions are not proof. Secret government documents aren't proof. Proof is proof.

What was the device used to house these explosives that can survive?

If no "truther" can prove that explosives can survive the impact and fires, then how do you propose they were used at all?

And if you can't prove they were used, then wouldn't this whole "CD" nonsense be for naught?

How many people were involved?

Who was in charge of what building? WTC 1? WTC 2? The Pentagon?

Explain how a government so powerful can screw up one of the crashes!

Explain how "they" got the explosives in there!

Tie Larry Silverstein to the Pentagon crash.

.
He did not ask for a "plausible reason", he asked for proof.

Proof of some very specific things, none of which was even attempted by your post.

Got any -- what was that word, again?

Oh, yeah: proof.
.

 

[tmd2_1]

Yes I said I could not prove explosive devises could survive a plane impact and fire. But thought I gave justification as to why it may not matter. There are many problems with "proving" such a thing...one would need to know at the least what type of explosives in particular he was referring to. Then simply put you need to run experiments, no matter how great your "proof" is it won't really matter if experiments/testing does not back it up. As far as his second question I'm sorry if I mis-understood...this is what I was giving a plausible explanation to. Of course I can not prove this..I did not think he wanted it to be proven, there is no way to do that, but simply a plausible way to connect the dots. Which I tried to provide.

 

[NoahFence]

Hi,

This is my first post, and I will certainly try not to break any rules, if I do I apologize in advance, and will change anything that needs to be. I found your question while searching and found it very interesting. I believe I can answer or at least have plausible explanations. I will start with the 2nd of your questions. The most likely scenario for what happened that day, would be something to the affect...that the upper echelon of the Bush administration planned what happened at the pentagon. Having war game scenarios and test hijackings etc...this way it would confuse those who might normally intercept such a hijacking. Hence Norman Mineta's testimony. The Zionist/elites...whatever you want to call them...had something much more sinister in mind...they wanted carte blanche, a blank check to do what they wanted in the middle east ...restrict civil liberties etc... They took advantage of what they knew would be a very confusing time for those who would normally intercept the plane and struck. In regards to how it was "screwed" up...it was really quite the opposite. I believe the 4th plane was headed for building 7...the two towers had to fall to get a clear shot at it. But our fighters were able to scramble and the plane was shot down. I think even those who admittedly support the official story have some doubts as to whether that plane was shot down or not. Obviously Larry Silverstein would be apart of the plot to take the towers down...while using the pentagon in essence as "cover". The first question you have...I'm not sure if this is a suitable answer, but could not the explosives have been planted below the impact zone? Even if they were at the impact zone it would only cause a greater explosion, and perhaps the building to drop earlier..I'm sure exactly when the building dropped really was not that important. As far as proving it could survive a plane impact. I'm not sure I could do that... I would need lots of time and money to conduct experiments, to anything I could come up..I have not found any that someone else did. But as stated previously I'm not sure that it is necessary, thermite cutter charges are the most likely thing to have been used, and it would not matter if some went off early.

Not surprisingly, my money seems quite safe.

 

[NoahFence]

But thought I gave justification as to why it may not matter.

How can it not matter? It's the entire premise of the thread!

There are many problems with "proving" such a thing...one would need to know at the least what type of explosives in particular he was referring to.

That's where the idiots er...truthers come in. YOU tell ME what kind of explosives can survive that. As far as I'm aware, there are none.

Then simply put you need to run experiments, no matter how great your "proof" is it won't really matter if experiments/testing does not back it up.

Now you're getting it. Copy and paste that statement to every truther website out there, would ya? And link 'em to this challenge. Extra credit if you can get Gage to respond. I hear he loves the money.

Of course I can not prove this..I did not think he wanted it to be proven

For what it's worth, I can see how the original post may have been a bit cryptic.

Original Post!
All you have to do is PROVE explosives can survive the impact

....or not.

 

[tmd2_1]

Ok...and I say this not in an arrogant way...but as a way of discussion. What is so inaccurate or not plausible about what I suggested? Perhaps I can elaborate...and perhaps you can help me see problems with my logic? If someone presents to me a good argument, and has logic to back them up...I have no trouble changing my views. This is about everything in general...not just 9/11. I would hope every one is that way. So please let me know what is so illogical about my thoughts?

 

[TSR]

If you want to talk about your thoughts, start a thread for that purpose. *This* thread is about proof, which since you do not have means you have nothing to contribute in *this* thread.

 

[tmd2_1]

Let me state that, when I said "it does not matter" I was referring to the fact that it may not matter if the explosives were housed in anything. The explosives could be below the impact zone....or even if they were at the impact zone it would cause a greater explosion or cause the building to fall earlier, none of which is that important...no I can not "prove" this. As far as his second question he did not specifically ask for proof. How could anyone provide such a thing?
I'll say in general "proving" anything is rather difficult and by in large depends on what your audience accepts as "proof" I could say prove to me the official story, one would have a hard time doing that...I mean how do you prove every aspect of it? Then of course there is what I would accept as proof or not....you could have mountains of good evidence, but I could simply reject it all. As a sillier example...I would have an easier time proving a magician is really pulling a rabbit out of his hat (that comes from no where that is) to a 3 year old...then I would to an MIT professor. There are certain mathematical (and other) proofs of course...but when it comes to issues such as this...I believe it really just depends on what one will accept as proof.

 

[SkepticOfLies]

The explosives could be below the impact zone....

The impact zone wasn't identified until after it happened, the explosives would have been placed before hand. Are you implying that the government knew exactly where the impact zone was going to be? They were that good?

or even if they were at the impact zone it would cause a greater explosion

So you are saying they would risk getting caught rigging a building with explosives in a fully operational building, more than they already were, just to get some extra "effect" that didn't even take the building down directly after anyway?

How could anyone provide such a thing?

Just provide proof that it was possible, that shouldn't be too hard, if it is possible. You don't have to prove any aspect as truth, just prove it can even happen.

I believe it really just depends on what one will accept as proof.

No, if it's possible it will be accepted.

Get it?

 

[tmd2_1]

What I am suggesting is not that they put it there for "extra" effect. Simply that it would not matter and the result would only be extra effect. I stated I can not prove any explosives can take the impact of a plane and the resulting fires. I would suggest this is only proven by experiment. I am glad you brought up the question of the "planting" of explosives. First and foremost...even if there were was no CD that does not mean the official story is 100% correct, it simply could have been an unexpected result. Secondly ask yourself...how often people are doing "maintenance" and "construction" around the buildings you work and live in? Does anyone really like go up and try and get a close up inspection? Even if you did and saw something who would believe you? You would need some pretty hard evidence to convince people. In regards to the pinpoint accuracy of the impact zone...yes I would say they are very good. We've all seen videos of missiles (I am not suggesting what hit the buildings was anything other then planes by the way) with pin point accuracy. Planes could easily be loaded with the same guidance/tracking systems. Am I saying this happened? Not necessarily, simply stating that yes...there are extremely sophisticated systems that would make this very much possible.

 

[Animal]

At the end of the Indiana Jones movie the Ark of the Covenant is a box mixed in with thousands of other boxes. I guess they have the recordings in a box, with one of those don't open for 50 years stickers on it.

Troof by Hollywood......almost as good as troof by youtube.

 

[SkepticOfLies]

What I am suggesting is not that they put it there for "extra" effect. Simply that it would not matter and the result would only be extra effect.

So you are saying they would do a full rigging and not just the least amount they could get away with?

I stated I can not prove any explosives can take the impact of a plane and the resulting fires.

You may have to improvise on the impact, but you can prove that explosives surviving the impact, could at least survive the resulting fire, why not?
Look up what the best fire proofing material is and how hot the buildings got. Research explosive charges and if there is anyway to apply this fireproofing to the charges without sabotaging the demolition. Do this using calculations, and sources for your claims as well. I'm not sure how well this will work out for you, I'm just letting you know are being really cowardly about this, when you could have impressed someone by now.

I am glad you brought up the question of the "planting" of explosives. First and foremost...even if there were was no CD that does not mean the official story is 100% correct,

This isn't an official story thread, this is a thread to challenge truthers to see if they can prove something regarding controlled demolition. Do you see where you are going off track here?