Split Thread A full theory of 9/11

[beachnut]

I find it interesting that you would say that. You agree with my basic premise, which is that a terrorist would not attempt a difficult maneuver and would try to do it in way that had the best chance for success. I disagree on the New jersey thing, though, and that the "official" version places it over Staten Island which technically is New York. I agree with the Staten Island part and that is how I saw it and not "directly" over the bridge at the narrows but probably a quarter to a half mile into the island from Verrazano. That would line up with a line drawn perpendicular to the south wall of the south tower.

The terrorist lined up over New Jersey, and then flew over Staten Island and hit the WTC. You should use wiki to brush up on geography. Google Earth. etc.


Princeton Meadows, he flew right over Princeton Meadows on the way to the WTC. You could use evidence, eyes are not very good unless you are trained to take testimony from witnesses with aircraft.

175 passed 4 miles left of Verrazano bridge (plus more due to being airborne, but the grd track was ~4 mi left - west, or 316 degrees, or so etc). Can't use eyes, need to use multiple witnesses, and some techniques. But RADAR wins. Guess what I have?

 

[Ethnikos]

The terrorist lined up over New Jersey, and then flew over Staten Island and hit the WTC. You should use wiki to brush up on geography. Google Earth. etc.


Princeton Meadows, he flew right over Princeton Meadows on the way to the WTC. You could use evidence, eyes are not very good unless you are trained to take testimony from witnesses with aircraft.

OK, got you, further back, that's right.
It's been a couple years since I studied it that far away.
I'm not sure what to think of all that. To me the whole thing is very strange and makes little sense. I obviously do not buy the official story because I find it contradictory. That would put me in the truther camp. I believe it was Dick Cheney who ran the operation, personally. A lot of that is based on the appearance of the plane itself which was a solid light grey color and no markings at all. It did have passengers windows like a normal airliner so was not a military plane. As far as I could tell, it was flown remote controlled.

 

[tsig]

If someone wanted to investigate, they could find out if there are people working there still who were there in 2001, and find out if they went to post-traumatic counseling. I already gave the address. Check it out, don't just believe me. What I really want is someone to check it, and start a FOIA process to gain information on the account there of the Flight school and for documents with Atta's signature and then to ask for the security camera tapes.This is all stuff that can be checked and verified if someone actually cared, I am not an investigator or a lawyer who would know how to do a FOIA lawsuit.

You might have done that before you presented your story.

Liars should really keep some sort of a storyboard on hand so they don't get caught up in their own contractions.

 

[beachnut]

OK, got you, further back, that's right.
It's been a couple years since I studied it that far away.
I'm not sure what to think of all that. To me the whole thing is very strange and makes little sense. I obviously do not buy the official story because I find it contradictory. That would put me in the truther camp. I believe it was Dick Cheney who ran the operation, personally. A lot of that is based on the appearance of the plane itself which was a solid light grey color and no markings at all. It did have passengers windows like a normal airliner so was not a military plane. As far as I could tell, it was flown remote controlled.

They were not remote control, there is no remote control on those planes on 911. They were stock plane, with real people on them. 10 years, and you think it was done by Dick and you did not nothing to resolve this? Do you make up lies/delusions like this due to political bias, or what?

175 was followed from takeoff to crash. A stock, not remote control 767. Your "tell" is false.

You have delusions based on lack of knowledge and it looks like you like fantasy.

Nothing strange, the terrorists were murderers, they did without remote control.

 

[tsig]

It's subway line information. Once you find the pertinent info there, you can proceed into further research to verify what Wikipedia says.
Just for someone who would find that useful to support their own theory. My interest is mostly in where the plane came form that hit the south tower.
Now I have a certain interest in what my friend told me.You can also check the eyewitness reports of the people on the Police chopper who had the plane fly right under them. I have chatted with Carmen Taylor online and he saw practically the same thing, but she did not track it all the way. She caught something moving out of the corner of her eye, turned to look very briefly and then decided to wait for it to come close as she was getting her camera ready instead of looking at it.

My friend said your friend lies.

 

[tsig]

the sky

Go to the site, New York Archetcture, and browse to the page for Verrazano-Narrows Bridge. Quote: "On the morning of September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 175 was hijacked and flown directly over the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge en route to the World Trade Center."

Planes generally fly in the sky.

 

[Ethnikos]

175 passed 4 miles left of Verrazano bridge (plus more due to being airborne, but the grd track was ~4 mi left - west, or 316 degrees, or so etc). Can't use eyes, need to use multiple witnesses, and some techniques. But RADAR wins. Guess what I have?

Those records could be changed.
What I know is that as it was coming towards the towers, the wings did not tilt which meant it was not turning, and it could not have been coming from too close to the bridge otherwise it would have had to turn. Very far from the bridge is very high ground and the plane was flying to low so it would have had to stay clear of those hills. That only allows two miles from the bridge. Four miles practically puts you in the Kill Van Kull, unless it is measured from the center of the bridge.

 

[tsig]

I just happen to be posting on jrandi so it is convenient. The idea is to just say what I know. It is not my concern what you do with it. I posted on this thread because the question was brought up if the government was capable of keeping secrets. My answer is, yes, based on this example. Download the PDF file of the evidence admitted in the Moussaoui trial. The whereabouts of Atta is mostly ATM card use. All electronic data, no real sightings that I could see, as in photos that should have been taken whenever he used an ATM machine.

The ATM machines were in on it too!?

 

[tsig]

Which is a credit card that anyone could have been using, and a fuzzy camera shot of a monitor playing a security camera tape, at the ticket counter, which is not someone who looks like Atta to me.

Always the same mantra.

 

[tsig]

And for some reason in 10 years you haven't found anyone to spend the time to investigate this so you come to a little skeptics forum... Yeah right

There is nothing to investigate, your story is not true.

Not only that but in 10 years no one at that bank has come forward with this information. His 'friend' knew, her manager and coworkers knew but none of them said a word except to him. Riiiight.

 

[beachnut]

Those records could be changed.
What I know is that as it was coming towards the towers, the wings did not tilt which meant it was not turning, and it could not have been coming from too close to the bridge otherwise it would have had to turn. Very far from the bridge is very high ground and the plane was flying to low so it would have had to stay clear of those hills. That only allows two miles from the bridge. Four miles practically puts you in the Kill Van Kull, unless it is measured from the center of the bridge.

4 miles is as close 175 got to the center of the bridge.

The plane was in the air, not low, it hits the WTC 700 feet up or so. Low is 50 feet, or 100 feet, 700 feet is low for the city, but not low when it hit. They had to pick big targets.

Right, the terrorist lined up way out, no big turn required.

So far you are confirming the official story. good job

Dick can't shoot his friend and cover it up! Wait, he did cover it up, he took him to the hospital... That is the best Dick can do, cover up shooting his friend by taking him to the hospital. You are funny

 

[Ethnikos]

They were not remote control, there is no remote control on those planes on 911. They were stock plane, with real people on them. 10 years, and you think it was done by Dick and you did not nothing to resolve this? Do you make up lies/delusions like this due to political bias, or what?

175 was followed from takeoff to crash. A stock, not remote control 767. Your "tell" is false.

You have delusions based on lack of knowledge and it looks like you like fantasy.

Nothing strange, the terrorists were murderers, they did without remote control.

I voted for the guy twice so it is not political.
Not sure what you mean by resolve. I fairly recently have come to this conclusion and had just been working on it before.
I'm not making things up but at the time, I did not understand exactly what I was seeing and I was hoping it was not going to crash. I just saw a plane flying what looked to me, at a low vantage point, just feet above sea level, like plane flying ridiculously close to the water, of the harbor.
I was wondering where it was going and if it was going to just go up the Hudson. I'm trying to remember the background and that it looked like to place it exactly and am trying the best I can.
Anyway I have to go to bed new.

 

[The Platypus]

I only found out about it probably two and a half years ago. I know I said two years earlier so don't say you caught me. It takes a while to think about this because I am not in the habit of talking about this too much. I have and small amounts at a time, what I was allowed to. Now I have the OK to divulge more info so this is something that happened in the last two days.
From my experience over the last six months, talking to various people, there is a small interest but not someone who is willing or have the time to do a full investigation themselves. So I don't have high hopes for general acceptance, so skeptics are as good as anyone to talk about it.

I wouldn't have high hopes either, noone is going to waste time on some "full investigation" because your story is just a badly constructed lie you came up with to cover another hasty lie.

 

[Dash80]

I voted for the guy twice so it is not political.
Not sure what you mean by resolve. I fairly recently have come to this conclusion and had just been working on it before.
I'm not making things up but at the time, I did not understand exactly what I was seeing and I was hoping it was not going to crash. I just saw a plane flying what looked to me, at a low vantage point, just feet above sea level, like plane flying ridiculously close to the water, of the harbor.
I was wondering where it was going and if it was going to just go up the Hudson. I'm trying to remember the background and that it looked like to place it exactly and am trying the best I can.


Anyway I have to go to bed new.

Ok first two highlighted areas: I absolutely don't think you were even there that day, only feet above the water? ridiculously close? I'll tell you whats ridiculous... Your statements.

Third highlighted area: This doesn't make sense, try using English!

You have to go to bed? Mom doesn't like it when you're on your computer late?

 

[bill smith]

I just happen to be posting on jrandi so it is convenient. The idea is to just say what I know. It is not my concern what you do with it. I posted on this thread because the question was brought up if the government was capable of keeping secrets. My answer is, yes, based on this example. Download the PDF file of the evidence admitted in the Moussaoui trial. The whereabouts of Atta is mostly ATM card use. All electronic data, no real sightings that I could see, as in photos that should have been taken whenever he used an ATM machine.

Perhaps your friend should make a sworn video deposition in the presence of a notary public personally laying out her story in detail. This might give her a neasure of protection as well as ensuring that this story goes on the public record.

 

[jiggeryqua]

Ok first two highlighted areas: I absolutely don't think you were even there that day, only feet above the water? ridiculously close? I'll tell you whats ridiculous... Your statements.

Oh boy, the quality of debunking round here has plummeted. Is it because it's vacation time?

I just saw a plane flying what looked to me, at a low vantage point, just feet above sea level, like plane flying ridiculously close to the water, of the harbor.

Just like "it sounded like a bomb" or "it looked like a missile" doesn't mean it was a bomb or a missile. Geddit?

When your debunking is as flawed as the arguments you address, nobody wins.

[Stock Disclaimer: this is not support of the argument you address]

Third highlighted area: This doesn't make sense, try using English!
You have to go to bed? Mom doesn't like it when you're on your computer late?

It's a typo. Get over it. I'd be ashamed if I had to admit I couldn't interpret from that what was actually meant. Now, I've just come in from a 12hr night shift and guess what? I have to go to bed. When you're a grown-up, you'll understand that only children use "you're a child!" as an argument.

 

[Dash80]

Perhaps your friend should make a video deposition in the presence of a notary public personally laying out her story in detail. This might give her a neasure of protection as well as ensuring that this story goes on the public record.

Ah yes bill, because youtube videos are always taken as gospel by truthers.

 

[Oystein]

I suggest that Readers start at page 1 of this thread and read my posts until early on page 2. IThere can't be more than a dozen relatively short and quite readable posts. By then they will have a fair idea of how 9/11 was pulled off.

Alright, I finally took my time to carefully parse your prose and drama. First, let me try to repeat, in short statements, what your theory is, just to check I get it right:

Demolition of twin towers:

Plan was originally conceived when towers were designed (1962-1966), as a means to quickly bring it down vertically in the event it starts toppling laterally onto surrounding property
Original insurers demanded this (who are they?)

During construction (1966-1973):
Paint-on nano-thermite was used
>200 tons of n-t
Carried in barrels on pallets, or tanks on wheels
Pumped inside box columns: Drill hole in, use tubes
up to 88th floor
Box columns sealed after nano-thermite pumped in
Mostly at night
Done by men dressed as maintenance crews
>=40% of columns thus prepared
Sparked by wireless detonators
redundant relays all over the place

On 9/11/2001:
15-20 of the 47 core columns are melted before main collapse event
Sequence: From bottom up
Liquid steel drops through the holes of the floors where the columns were just before (building does not collapse yet: Other 60% of columns still hold it up)
Fireproofing turns into tubes channelling the liquid steel
Fireproofing also shields the bright light from thermite reaction
This „ossified“ fireproofing was seen standing >50 stories tall for many seconds after all the floors of WTC1 had collapsed to the ground

One column section below 80th floor in 2WTC didn't melt as planned and blocked melted steel from above, which then poured out of corner of building

15,000 tons of steel thus molten (does that include the molten thermite reaction products, or do these come on top?)
Most of it runs into a cavity beneath the lowest basement floor

Stays mostly liquid for at least 5 weeks
„Meteorite“ = molten steel from sub-basement mixed with partially molten concrete

Helicopter pilots in on it (has advance knowledge of UA175), being instructed to film events for later disinfo campaign


Demolition of WTC7:

It's „wired and ready to go“ with nano-thermite charges
These are under fireproofing.
It is also already weakened.
Oxygene tanks in penthouse to create super-duper-overkill fireball upon plane crash
Fires are lit by men going inside.
But fires stayed too small. Go ahead anyway.
Sequence of igniting charges can be adjusted: Was originally top-down like twin towers, was changed to bottom up on short notice
Penthouse dropped first to bury its oxygene tanks underneath the rest


Flight 77:

Possibly only a distraction to fool would-be CTers ?!?


Flight 93:

Was planned to go into 7 WTC
But didn't work out because plane got delayed.
There was a fire on the runway
93 is under remote control. This may look susoicious to airport police (how??)
93 has additional fuel
Ordering some fighter plane(s) to Pennsylvania was considered (was it done?)
93 rerouted to Cleveland, where it is taxied to a remote, secure area.
Hole in Shanksville blown by SEALs who got there by helicopter (from where? Was this contingency plan in place from the beginning? Was there such a contingency plan for each of the 4 planes? Or maybe even several such contingency plans?)
Debris scattered manually

Cover-up:
„Pentagon“ (i.e. The DOD aministration) has trained thousands of people to deny CTs.
CTers on the other hand are manipulated and play into the hands of real conspiracy by creating a distraction
To do this, many clues are planted


Perpetrators:
George Bush
Dick Cheney
Donald Rumsfeld
Andrew Card
The Secret Service (which?)
Crew of an E-4 command-and-control military plane
Thousands with Pentagon connection
The pilots of the NYPD helicopters
Many unnamed who rigged the towers and controlled events​

Bill, before we go into any detail, can you please check:

• Is this your full theory of the events of 9/11, as requested, from beginning to end?
• Did I tell it right? Please correct any errors or misunderstandings contained in my rendering, and add any significant elements of the story as told this far that I missed!

 

[dafydd]

You might have done that before you presented your story.

Liars should really keep some sort of a storyboard on hand so they don't get caught up in their own contractions.

Mum used to say that a good liar needs a good memory. Twoofers make terrible liars.

 

[bill smith]

Well done Oystein.Not a bad synopsis.

I believe that the original demolition plan for the building (as described) was in position from the date of construction. It's original purpose was simply to allow the building to be brought down cheaply in it's own footprint at the end of it's life.

The insurers would have insisted on a more immediate way to bring down the building such as secure access hatches at strategic structural points of the building .Here standard explosives could be inserted and plugged into a prewired electronic demolition system as required. The same thing as is said to be done with important bridges and the like. Then the building could be brought down under short notice in the event of an evolving threat of it toppling over..

I believe that the already existing thermitic demolition system was used in the destruction of the Towers on 9/11, probably with certain modifications.. The thermite was pumped in as I say, day or night, office workers or no office workers, and nothing to be seen.. The power-down of WTC2 for 36 hours the weekend before 9/11 may have been to add the final touches to the empty building.

Simple gravity would cause the liquid steel to drop straight down through the holes where the columns underneath had been. It would end it's journey in one or other of the cavities specially prepared below the lowers.The now glassy fireproofing would have shielded the heat signature and the fierce light. I Think the portland cement component of the fireproofing only went up as far as the 36th floor. Most of the still-standing columns were about that height I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&feature=related

At the 80th-odd floor there was a blockage causing some of the liquified steel coming from the floors above to break the fireproofing sheath and flow across the floor where some of it was recorded spilling from the window of the 81st floor.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tz8fvp7eDNE

The oxygen tanks are what I would likely do if I was a perp in this situation so I included that in my dialogue between conspirators.

In WTC7 the wireless detonators could be programmed to fire in any desired sequence at the push of a few buttons.

Leaving out your 'Thousands with Pentagon connection' really not that many fully briefed people at all would have to be involved in frontline operations.

I may have other things to add as we go along.

Readers should read the first page-and-a-bit of this thread to come up to speed on the debate. Link provided below.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=215696