How 9/11 was done

[dtugg]

For 15 pages in this thread we have been discussing 'my' little theory about how 9/11 was done. You have not been able to shoot it into pieces, although you understandably keep saying that there is no proof for it.

Your theory has been shot to pieces. Aside from having zero evidence, it is not even possible. You have succeeding convincing nobody, nor will you ever. Don't you find it disturbing that your main source is a infamous Holocaust denier? Or do you think that was all made up too?

Now, let's turn the tables and see what you guys have to offer to back your story up. This weekend I saw this video for the second time. [

In my opinion it is the best video about the destruction of the WTC I have seen so far.

Richard Gage is a moronic fraud and regarded as a joke around here. He goes around dropping cardboard boxes to prove that the WTC towers collapsed due to a controlled demolition. I am not joking. Does this make sense to you?

16:30 - Dan Rather says that for the 3rd time today a building was deliberately destroyed by dynamite.

So? He was wrong. It is not as if he is an expert on anything that happened that day.

20:00 - the fire fighter about explosions

Explosions do not equal explosives. There are many things that can cause loud noises described as explosions and many things that can cause explosions that are not explosives.

39:20 - the WTC twin towers were worthless aging dinosaurs.

This is a lie. They were not worthless, it was completely leased. They may have been a little old but there other large skyscrapers in NYC that are much older like the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building. Nobody is planning to murder thousands of people to bring them down.

41:00 - cost to tear WTC down estimated somewhere between 5-15 billion; WTC were 'condemned structures'; financial gain Silverstein: paid 3.2 billion, got 4.6, on his way to 7 billion.

Two more lies. The twin towers were not condemned. Silverstien also lost a lot of money because of 9/11. The site was under insured; it is going to cost more money to rebuild than he got in insurance. He actually had to give up rights to part of the site (the Freedom Tower) back to the Port Authority because he does not have enough money. He also has payed rent to them for buildings that no longer exist. In case you didn't know Silverstein didn't actually own the WTC (except for WTC7), he was leasing it.

45:00 - WTC was designed to withstand Boeing impact

This is true. Although they were designed to withstand impacts from a slow moving 707 lost in the fog. However, they did withstand impacts from a much faster moving 767. They would have stayed standing indefinitely if not for the huge fires which were not figured into the design mostly because it would have been impossible to model them back them. This is coming straight from the man that built the towers, Leslie Robinson.

56:00 - orange flashes as proof of explosives

No they are not. If they had been accompanied by extremely load bangs, than perhaps. But they weren't

1:04:00 - all core columns can be accessed through elevator shaft (hence easy to plant explosives)

I've never seen any evidence for that. Just because Richard Gage says so doesn't make it true. He is, after all an extremely stupid fraud. Even if so, that does mean that it actually happened.

1:05:00 - many/all columns found under the rubble were of 30 feet length... ready for shipment (hence the haste to get rid of and secrecy about this evidence).

Richard Gage saying so doesn't make it true. He is, after all an extremely stupid fraud.

1:05:45 - wireless detonation

Richard Gage saying so doesn't make it true. He is, after all an extremely stupid fraud. Even if possible, that doesn't mean it happened.

1:08:40 - impossible collapse pattern

Richard Gage saying so doesn't make it true. He is, after all an extremely stupid fraud.

1:17:30 - squibs

The twoof movement invented this term. What it really was is air being forced out windows by the buildings collapsing.

1:20:30 - Where is the debris? The pancakes? WTC was fully pulverised.

There was debris all over the place, it took them a long time to clear it up. The amount of explosives required to "fully pulverize" the WTC would be huge and there would be no doubt of what happened.

1:24:20 - the openly lying NIST shill.
1:26:08 - molten iron visible.

He wasn't lying There is no evidence of molten steel or steel. Molten metal perhaps, but that was probably aluminum which was also abundance and has a much lower melting point then steel. There is no way to tell what metal it was just by looking at it, people that said it was molten steel were speculating and wrong.

It was a reconfirmation for the fact that WTC has been blown up by controlled demolition. The story you have seen on t.v. and are defending fanatically here has no credibility whatsoever. Invest 2 hours in carefully studying this video and you'll know that the official conspiracy theory cannot be true and that we have to deal with an inside job.

I've watched Richard Gage's video before. I've seen his "evidence." All it has done for me is confirm that he, and the rest of the twoof movement are nothing more than extremely stupid frauds.

 

[ktesibios]

And once yet again, an "upgraded version of the autopilot", or indeed any version of the autopilot at all, is 110% irrelevant to the subject of a remote takeover of a 75 or 767, because in those airplanes the pilot's controls have a direct mechanical connection to the devices that control the hydraulic actuators that actually move the control surfaces. This has been explained to you over and over. You can yammer on about whatever electronic components or R&D efforts you like and your "remote-controlled planes" fantasy is still dead.

You claim that the columns breaking into 30-foot sections is evidence of explosive demolition. Did you know that the columns were fabricated in 30-foot sections so that they could be transported to the construction site by truck? They broke at the joints. There is nothing surprising nor suspicious about this.

If you hunt around the forum you'll find photographs posted by Kookbreaker of the debris from the demolition of the Philadelphia Civic Center, which clearly show the characteristic signs left on steel when it's cut by shaped charges, along with some of the other (very diagnostic) debris left by a controlled demolition. The WTC site cleanup was worked by hundreds of hardhats with experience in clearing controlled demolition sites. There are no reports of any of these knowledgeable people encountering steel bearing the signs of explosive cutting, which they could be expected to recognize, nor are there any photographs showing such diagnostic signs.

The recovered steel was processed by 52 evidence recovery teams including approximately 400 people. It was also examined by an ASCE team of engineers to select samples that would be useful in analyzing the collapses. The ERTs recovered bits of human beings and small personal effects. Telltale leftovers from an explosive demolition, like pieces of detcord or the metal angles backing shaped charges, would not be likely to escape notice, nor would the engineers who selected steel samples have been likely to overlook the characteristic cuts made by shaped charges.

Reports of such findings are nonexistent. For that matter, any positive, specific evidence of controlled demolition is also nonexistent. All there is are the uniformed speculations of amateur Hardy Boys wannabees peering at poor-quality videos on Youtube.

In the same vein, you have thus far presented nothing that even bears the slightest resemblance to positive evidence, instead feeding us a steady stream of handwaving, ignorant speculation and scurrilous accusations against your chosen hate-object.

It would be best for you to stop trying to tell us it's broccoli. I say it's spinach and I say the Hell with it.

 

[kookbreaker]

A

If you hunt around the forum you'll find photographs posted by Kookbreaker of the debris from the demolition of the Philadelphia Civic Center, which clearly show the characteristic signs left on steel when it's cut by shaped charges, along with some of the other (very diagnostic) debris left by a controlled demolition.

I'll save him some trouble. HEre is the pic I use:

These are pics of copper pieces banded around the charges to keep them in place. You can see the colors of the pieces that have been exposed to the high blast of the charges.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Dear 9/11 investigator,

If, in your mind, you have decided that on September 11, 2001, an inside job had been perpetrated on America by Israel or Americans themselves, then you will not be receptive to any evidence that refutes your belief of this.
You do not acknowledge the evidence that overshadow your claims of conspiracy. The evidence you claim has been put forth here previously and consequently debunked many times over.

The problem here is how narrow-minded you've become toward your claims. This belief of an inside job is so strong that you are trying to convince people how right you are instead of actually comprehending the countering evidence presented to you.

Your evidence is full of errors and fraudulent at the least, rendering it totally useless.
Try reading the counter-evidence with an open mind.

 

[Ivan The Song Boy]

911 Investigator, you said:

"Planes get air born. After some time the pilot observes that his entire control panel is disabled and that the airplane has changed course; he tries frantically to regain control of his aircraft, does not succeed. Obviously he does NOT inform his passengers in order not to cause panic. "

Now, do you have any idea what would have to be done to a Boeing 767 to allow it to be remotely flown? I know this has been pointed out already, but my goodness, you keep on about it!

There is simply no way you could do this without hanging huge amounts of equipment IN the cockpit. How would the pilots not see this? What, are you hanging receivers that are to collect signals that will in turn actuate the NEW servo based heading Potentiometer that has been installed? What are you going to do about the disconnect/override protection that is installed so when a pilot makes a large input, the autopilot shuts off?

What's with this "chip" business? 767's are not fly by wire aircraft. They have computers in them, but as pointed out earlier, the flight controls are directly connected via hydraulics systems.Three of them.

I could go on and on about the problems with this and I'm only an aviation enthusiast. Imagine what our resident Mech' could do to this.

It's madness.

Ivan.............

Why did the crew not contact Center?

 

[Dr Adequate]

For 15 pages in this thread we have been discussing 'my' little theory about how 9/11 was done. You have not been able to shoot it into pieces, although you understandably keep saying that there is no proof for it.

You say that this is "understandable", but I am not sure that you do understand it.

Earth to 9/11-investigator ... that is how you shoot a story down. That's how I'd shoot down a guy who claimed that pigs have wings or that fairies live at the bottom of his garden. How else?

Now, let's turn the tables and see what you guys have to offer to back your story up.

See my posts above. In brief, we have documentary evidence, eyewitness acounts, DNA evidence, other forensic scientific evidence; evidence of means, motive, and opportunity; and repeated uncoerced public claims of responsibility.

In my opinion it is the best video about the destruction of the WTC I have seen so far.

And yet it appears to be the same-old-same-old.

"Squibs"? Really? What is this, 2003? "Fully pulverized"? Ooh, shades of the Judy Wood Death Rays. "Molten iron"?

It's like an anthology of stupid.

You haven't even tried to fit it into your own hypothesis. How does this "fully pulverized" and "molten iron" fit in with your ideas about how the towers were brought down? These are not characteristics of controlled demolitions.

Invest 2 hours in carefully studying this video and you'll know that the official conspiracy theory cannot be true and that we have to deal with an inside job.

Either that or you'll realize that not every video posted on the internet is entirely accurate.

 

[Dr Adequate]

This is the recurring questons my opponents keep asking, implicitly suggesting that they themselves do possess proof of their OCT, which is not the case.

Let's put it this way...

Suppose you are participating in one of those television games shows where you have to guess a hidden word. On the basis of your efforts in the show you got to the point that you reached this pattern:

D*BU*K**

You need 4 more letters to know the solution. In theory there are 26*26*26*26 = some 400,000 solutions to the problem. In practice however you can deduce from the context that the second letter almost certainly must be an 'E'. The fourth letter can only be a C, F, L, M, N, R, S.
With this knowledge in your brain you scan the possibilities and after half a minute or so you will find the most likely solution:

DEBUNKER

Quite so. Now suppose someone comes up to me and tells me that I'm wrong and that the word isn't DEBUNKER. "How so?" I ask, expecting him to supply another word that fits the given letters.

"Well," he explains, "the first letter is actually a T. But a conspiracy of evil Jews has made it look like a D. When you thought the game show host said the third letter was an R, that was voice-morphing, and if he hadn't been kidnapped and replaced by a Mossad agent, he'd have said U. You think the fourth letter is a U --- see how cunning They are? --- because you've been brainwashed into believing in the existence of vowels by the mainstream media. But I saw a video on YouTube saying that it's a T, and any sane person without an agenda will unquestioningly accept the video. And that K? It's an E, and I'm going to assert this as a fact in every other sentence but I'm never going to tell you why. But it could be."

"So," he continues, "you can't prove that the word isn't actually T*UT*E**, and then simple logic suggests the one word which fits, namely TRUTHERS."

Can you see something wrong with this mode of reasoning?

It is much the same with solving 9/11. The '9/11 solution space' seems almost infinite but on closer review it is not. Most sane people without an agenda who give 9/11 a closer inspection come to the conclusion that the OCT does not add up (more on that in a follow-up post).

Most of them? Really? Did you do a survey or did you make that up?

It starts with the controlled demolition of the WTC.

It starts with something Truthers made up.

This is not good.

Once you accept this the Arabs are almost certainly out.

By the contrapositive, the evidence that Arabs were into it up to their eyeballs casts doubt on the whole controlled demolition thing.

Next observation: dancing Israelis who turned out to be Mossad agents. --> Israeli involvement. This is affirmed with the involvement of Silverstein, also by the Israeli security firms who did the departure airports and WTC, by Zakheim's role, the Odigo story, etc., etc.

Being Jewish is not evidence of a crime and so does not in itself "affirm" Jewish complicity.

Remember that you are addressing an audience that does not blame the Jews merely as a knee-jerk reaction. I do not find it remotely sinister that some of the people with a tangential relationship with the events of 9/11 were Jewish. If you wished, you could turn up equally many links with people with the initial B. This is of no interest to someone not already engaged on a witchhunt.

You'll have to stick to real evidence.

Next deduction: if there were no Arab suicide pilots ...

... a conjecture for which you have no evidence except that it fits the story you're making up ...

... but American or Israeli inside job than it must be remote control.

And this conjecture leads you to a conclusion which is a technical impossibility, but that's no problem for you is it?

Next deduction: there were said to be phone calls from the airplanes that stated that the planes were hijacked by Arabs with box cutters. This how the blame was laid with the Arabs. We have already accepted that there were no Arabs, so the phone calls had to be fake. The only way we can explain these phone calls is with voice morphing.

This is where I started laughing out loud.

From the proposition that I have eight legs, I can deduce that I'm hallucinating.

The technology was available.

We've shown that this is not true.

My whole story is a consequence of 2 observations:

1. controlled demolition of WTC ...

Do you know what "observation" means?

---

Let's have another parable, it's fun. You are shown a join-the-dots picture of bin Laden. The picture has been slightly splashed with a few drops of ink. To these you add a few dots that weren't in the puzzle that you were given but that you claim (without proof) have been Tip-exed out by Mossad and ought to be there. This gives you half-a-dozen dots, out of hundreds, that you can join together to form something that, if viewed at a strange angle, upside-down, and in a dim light, looks something like a Star of David. All the other dots, you claim (without proof) were faked by Mossad.

When people question your methodology, you show them a pile of other join-the-dots puzzles that you've "solved" the same way, and announce that for those with eyes to see, every join-the-dots puzzle represents a Star of David.

 

[ktesibios]

I'll save him some trouble. HEre is the pic I use:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g157/kookbreaker/CopperDepositweb.jpg

Thanks for reposting those, kookbreaker. I'd just like to point out a couple of salient features in the upper photo:

Notice that the cut edges of the flanges of that wide-flange column are colored like a penny. I think that this is due to metal from the copper liner of the shaped charge being deposited on the steel.

Also, the yellow snarl in the bottom left corner is a fragment of detonating cord. If I remember your other Civic Center photos correctly, that stuff was all over the place.

These are things which would not have gone unnoticed or unremarked by the crews working on clearing the site, nor by the people who searched the removed debris for evidence, human remains, etc.

Being Jewish is not evidence of a crime and so does not in itself "affirm" Jewish complicity.

Remember that you are addressing an audience that does not blame the Jews merely as a knee-jerk reaction. I do not find it remotely sinister that some of the people with a tangential relationship with the events of 9/11 were Jewish. If you wished, you could turn up equally many links with people with the initial B. This is of no interest to someone not already engaged on a witchhunt.

If you look closely enough, you'll probably discover that some people who were connected in some way to 9/11 were practitioners of philately or numismatics...

and we all know about those people.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here is a link that I just found:

Boeing Fitting Aircraft With Illegal Parts?
Chip that was illegally installed in 2000 could have been utilized to execute 9/11 attacks

According to the Associated Press, from 2000 to 2003 Boeing shipped 94 airliners oversees, mainly to China, that contained the chip, a device used for "military applications," stated the report.

According to the Seattle Times, "The QRS-11 chip, made by a unit of BEI Technologies in Concord, Calif., is just over 1-½ inches in diameter and weighs about 2 ounces. It sells for between $1,000 and $2,000. Described as "a gyro on a chip," it is used to help control the flight of missiles and aircraft."

It may be bad form to reply twice to the same post, but in the interests of emphasising the "E" in "JREF" I thought it might be instructive to discuss the precise logical fallacy being employed here. The article states that the QRS-11 chip is used in the guidance systems of missiles, and draws the inference that its installation in an airliner can therefore transform the airliner into a guided missile. It sounds like a simple affirming the consequent fallacy (missiles contain turn rate sensors, therefore anything containing a turn rate sensor is a missile), but it has aspects of the fallacy of composition as well (the QRS-11 has a subset of the abilities of a guided missile, therefore a whole system containing a QRS-11 has the complete properties of a guided missile).

Is that valid, or am I over-analysing for the purpose of ridicule? Either is acceptable.

Dave

 

[GStan]

<snip>

If you look closely enough, you'll probably discover that some people who were connected in some way to 9/11 were practitioners of philately or numismatics...
and we all know about those people.

...learned two new words today....gracias KT

 

[Ivan The Song Boy]

It may be bad form to reply twice to the same post, but in the interests of emphasising the "E" in "JREF" I thought it might be instructive to discuss the precise logical fallacy being employed here. The article states that the QRS-11 chip is used in the guidance systems of missiles, and draws the inference that its installation in an airliner can therefore transform the airliner into a guided missile. It sounds like a simple affirming the consequent fallacy (missiles contain turn rate sensors, therefore anything containing a turn rate sensor is a missile), but it has aspects of the fallacy of composition as well (the QRS-11 has a subset of the abilities of a guided missile, therefore a whole system containing a QRS-11 has the complete properties of a guided missile).

Is that valid, or am I over-analysing for the purpose of ridicule? Either is acceptable.

Dave

This is completely valid. It's a chip. It would be only part {although a very important part} of a set of devices that would/could be used for a number of applications. It can replace Gyro's in an aircraft if used along with certain other devices to make a "system"

The D-string on my guitar can be used to strangle a person, OR it can be used on a guitar as a device among many other devices to make up a system, called a Guitar...

The more I read here, the more afraid I am. These "truth" people are really something else. I has no idea how freaked out they had become. Also in some cases I'm seeing signs of mental illness. All joking aside. Yikes.

Ivan................

 

[Wolrab]

It would be only part {although a very important part} of a set of devices that would/could be used for a number of applications.

Ivan................

If you had other parts, made of different substances, put in a different order, and scaled up, you could model the twin towers. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Either that or you'll realize that not every video posted on the internet is entirely accurate.

Your answer sounds as meek as your non-reply to the issue of the dancing Israelis... of course is not every video posted on the internet 'entirely accurate'. But this particular video is. Remember this is a club of highly competent architects and engineers who have nothing to gain from their anti-government stance. Well, not in the short run that is.

Alright, I make it very easy for you... look at this picture:

Now, what do you see? Pancaking? You're kidding right?

What millions of thoughtful normal mortals see is that concrete is sprayed far away from the building. And that my friend is impossible with mere gravitational implosion of the building. The spraying of concrete is caused by huge explosions.

And with the recognition of these explosions the lame government story of Arabs causing the destruction of the Twin Towers can go where it belongs: in the dustbin.

And with it goes the case for the debunkers: pancaked into oblivion.

P.S. Dr. Adequate, if you want to receive mail you need to clean out your mailbox; it is full.

 

[dtugg]

Your answer sounds as meek as your non-reply to the issue of the dancing Israelis... of course is not every video posted on the internet 'entirely accurate'. But this particular video is. Remember this is a club of highly competent architects and engineers who have nothing to gain from their anti-government stance. Well, not in the short run that is.

Do "highly competent" architects and engineers go around dropping cardboard boxes to "prove" that the WTC collapsed due to a controlled demolition. Yes or no.

And of course, I already explained why the points you found important in the stupid video are BS.

And Richard Gage does have something to gain. He is making money by selling his snake oil. He is selling DVDs, "evidence" cards, t-shirts, bumper stickers, ect. right on his website. He is a fraud.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Controlled demolition I was witness to two weeks ago (this is not my video). It was a 9 story hotel with a different layout than the towers (rectangular, not square), but it was utterly unlike what I witnessed on TV the morning of 9/11.
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=uJyVTFA4-6w&feature=related

 

[dtugg]

Sorry for the two posts in a row. Do you have any idea how powerful explosives would be pulverize concrete and send huge pieces of steel hundreds of feet away? Very powerful. And to be that powerful, they would have to be extremely loud. There is no way around it. They would have been picked up by every video camera trained at the towers, heard by people for miles away, and picked up by seismographs. This did not happen. There were no explosives at the WTC.

 

[332nd]

What millions of thoughtful normal mortals see is that concrete is sprayed far away from the building. And that my friend is impossible with mere gravitational implosion of the building. The spraying of concrete is caused by huge explosions.

Yet these "Huge explosions" that "spray concrete" far from the building are not heard on video of the collapse... Odd.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Do "highly competent" architects and engineers go around dropping cardboard boxes to "prove" that the WTC collapsed due to a controlled demolition. Yes or no.

And of course, I already explained why the points you found important in the stupid video are BS.

And Richard Gage does have something to gain. He is making money by selling his snake oil. He is selling DVDs, "evidence" cards, t-shirts, bumper stickers, ect. right on his website. He is a fraud.

OK, you made it clear that you do not like Richard Gage, and I can very well understand why.

The video lasts 2 hours. I reduced its message to one photo.

You are ignoring its content which is devastating for your case.

Comments please.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

OK, you made it clear that you do not like Richard Gage, and I can very well understand why.

The video lasts 2 hours. I reduced its message to one photo.

You are ignoring its content which is devastating for your case.

Comments please.

The air inside the building's gotta go somewhere. Given that down was not an option being that it was a rapidly compressing mass of building materials, it followed the least resistance - up and out.

Congratulations. You once again appear to be arranging the facts to suit your theory.

 

[240-185]

The video lasts 2 hours. I reduced its message to one photo.
You are ignoring its content which is devastating for your case.

I see a collapsing tower from its top. What's wrong with it?