Need help with evidence of Official Claim

[The Kooger]

I have been looking online for a list of actual evidence to prove the official version of 911. All I can find are goofy things like a passport from one of the hijackers found in the rubble of WTC and Atta's suit-cases left behind holding his will and plans for the attack. I'm looking for the real evidence that supports what we were told. Isn't there a list of those who helped the 19 hijackers and a list of evidence showing how they helped the hijackers pull it off, and how they were punished. Or was it just Osama and 19 dudes? Any help would be great. Thanks.

It would seem to me that there MUST BE some great list of evidence that is sooooo obvious that makes all these secondary possibilities (conspiracy theories) so laughable and not necessary to discuss.

Can anyone help me?

 

[Thunder]

yes. look up the evidence for the moussoui trial. it has a plethera of evidence. or just read the damn 9-11 commission.

 

[~enigma~]

I have been looking online for a list of actual evidence to prove the official version of 911. All I can find are goofy things like a passport from one of the hijackers found in the rubble of WTC and Atta's suit-cases left behind holding his will and plans for the attack. I'm looking for the real evidence that supports what we were told. Isn't there a list of those who helped the 19 hijackers and a list of evidence showing how they helped the hijackers pull it off, and how they were punished. Or was it just Osama and 19 dudes? Any help would be great. Thanks.

It would seem to me that there MUST BE some great list of evidence that is sooooo obvious that makes all these secondary possibilities (conspiracy theories) so laughable and not necessary to discuss.

Can anyone help me?

YAre you a woowoo in disguise?

 

[Architect]

I always thought that the planes hitting the towers constituted pretty good evidence myself......but hey, what would the Scottish Courts known about terrorist attacks on aircraft, eh?

 

[WildCat]

The 9/11 Commission report has all you need to know. It's extensively footnoted. If that's not good enough for you nothing will be.

 

[Matilda]

You can find the 9/11 Commission report here:

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

And the NIST report covers what happened to the WTC (why it collapsed) which is something the conspiracy theorists witter on about a lot:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

 

[The Kooger]

Yeah, i've seen those.

Does the NIST report explain what happens to the towers AND building 7 after initial collapse? That would be proof that explosives weren't used. Like explain what is physically happening each second of collapse. That might help. Does anyone have a copy of the NIST report that can be read during the videos of the collapses as they are happening to explain what is going on?

Also, I've leafed through the 911 commission report several times and don't really see anything, Am I missing something?


And being called a Troll is fine, I can name call too.

 

[Matilda]

Yeah, i've seen those.

Yeah, but have you read them?

Does the NIST report explain what happens to the towers AND building 7 after initial collapse?

They wanted to find out what caused the collapse. Once they began to collapse they fell down. I'm not quite sure what you expect them to say about it.

That would be proof that explosives weren't used.

Why would they need to prove that? It's for those who assert explosives were used to prove their case. But NIST does address the issue, and says it found no evidence for controlled demolition.

Like explain what is physically happening each second of collapse.

The buildings are falling down.

That might help.

Help what and who?

Does anyone have a copy of the NIST report that can be read during the videos of the collapses as they are happening to explain what is going on?

Whut?
You could print it off.

Also, I've leafed through the 911 commission report several times and don't really see anything, Am I missing something?

The squiggly black lines? (Letters and words)

And being called a Troll is fine, I can name call too.

Good for you!

 

[Thunder]

Here is all the evidence from the Moussoaoi trial.

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

 

[The Doc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu6pZ6BPSuo
Sections 2,3 and 4 can be found on the right of the video.

NIST investigated the collapse initiation to find out what caused the building to collapse. Not to satisfy a bunch of conspiracy theorists. NIST shows us that explosives were not used to initiate collapse of any of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11. Why would explosives be used to "finish" the job if they didn't start it? What if the building didn't collapse? All those undetonated charges...

Read the NIST FAQ
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

You can't expect us to take you seriously if you just "leafed" through the commission report quickly. Do some damn research and read the thing.

 

[Alt+F4]

Are looking for information if the 19 hijackers are connected to OBL or information on if it was 19 hijackers at all?

 

[maccy]

Kooger,

Nobody owes you anything. Unless your movement persuades the world that there was an inside job, nothing will change. You've had five years, how much longer will it take to come up with a convincing argument backed by the evidence?

You can whine about NIST not modelling the whole collapse all you like, it won't convince anybody. You think this proves something - bully for you, you're just showing your ignorance.

The world is happy with an explanation for the collapse initiation. To all but the dense, ignorant, deluded or pathologically obtuse it obvious the the collapse proceeds from the initiation. You don't like this? I don't care.

If you want to claim that the Commission report doesn't have sufficient evidence, go ahead. Why should anybody here waste their time trying to argue with you pig-headed delusions? You don't matter if all your going to do is whine about how the story doesn't make sense to you. Without a convincing argument for a conspiracy, all these cries of "I'm not convinced!" are just pathetic and meaningless.

If you want to make a positive claim, please do. Otherwise why should we bother with your insignificant discontent?

As far as I can see the excellent debunking work done here and on various other websites has shown up the nonsense that passes for the claims of the truth movement. It's important because the truth movement is a con and nobody likes a con artist. There's plenty of useful information to counter the lies now.

But honestly, I've lost patience with people who demand that we cure them of their stupidity and insist that if they can't see it, the various official accounts must be wrong.

 

[Brainster]

Yeah, i've seen those.

Does the NIST report explain what happens to the towers AND building 7 after initial collapse? That would be proof that explosives weren't used.

From the last NIST status report on the WTC 7 study:

Investigation of hypothetical blast scenarios
Evaluation of thermite as a possible blast substance
Awarded contract for evaluation of hypothetical blast scenarios

Like explain what is physically happening each second of collapse. That might help.

I doubt it.

Does anyone have a copy of the NIST report that can be read during the videos of the collapses as they are happening to explain what is going on?

Yes. Here. Might take you a little longer than watching the video though.

Also, I've leafed through the 911 commission report several times and don't really see anything, Am I missing something?

I'm thinking something like a full standard deviation?

 

[A W Smith]

when large scale investigations are done it is pointless to continue on past the initiating event. Would you expect to see a crush zone study done of the tragic high speed train accident in Germany? The one that derailed and hit the bridge at top speed killing scores? No. The study ended when a wheel defect caused the derailment at high speed. Thats all we need to know. We don't need to know why the train didn't re-rail itself.

 

[Pardalis]

NIST shows us that explosives were not used to initiate collapse of any of the buildings that collapsed on 9/11.

Even that doesn't satisfy the Troofers. Today I spent an hour trying to argue with physics students that all structural engeneers in the world agree with the NIST's findings and yet they still cling to their beliefs.

 

[Matilda]

You've proved nothing. Thanks for your stupid smart people answers.

You asked for official evidence for 9/11 and were given it. Those are what the links are. How was that too smart for you?

Perhaps it would help you if you narrowed things down a little. You asked for all the evidence, nothing specific, so that's what we gave you. But if you have a specific question about the official account of 9/11 you might get answers you find helpful.

Or you could take the time to educate yourself by reading those reports.

 

[Mr.D]

You've proved nothing.

Not our job to prove anything. We did point out where to find all the "evidence of Official Claim" that you want though.

Thanks for your stupid smart people answers.

Ask some actual questions and you might get some answers. So far about all you've done is point out that you've not even read the documents that composes the "Official Claim"

 

[Matilda]

I got no evidence.

How do you define evidence? What was it that you were looking for that you didn't get?

Some links to the report and the NIST thing.

Yes, because you asked for the official evidence for 9/11. As I said, if you want something more specific, you should probably ask a more specific question.

Thats OK, i'll finish the 911 commission report this weekend.

That's a good idea. I mean, how can you evaluate what conspiracy theorists tell you if you haven't read what the official account really is?

Thanks for nothing.

Anytime.

OH, and I was called names.

Troll you mean? It's a description of someone exhibiting a certain type of behaviour. You've done nothing to dispel that impression.

 

[Thunder]

The links we showed you have evidence. If you dont consider official evidence to be evidence...that you are not here to actually get any questions answered. Why would you come here if you reject everything we try to tell you? What kind of person does something like that?

 

[WildCat]

You've proved nothing. Thanks for your stupid smart people answers.

That's gonna be my new sig at the end of the month! Why oh why did I maske that avatar/sig bet?