9/11 documentary about the HOAX - Numberous, damning points and pieces of evidence!!! Watch

ryan750
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#61
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#61
http://www.911truthtotnes.com/
0
quote
reply
Snowygrouch
Badges: 0
#62
Report 12 years ago
#62
All,
Hi there, I'm an Oxford Brookes student and this is my first post so be gentle with me:p:

I`ve been researching 9/11 full time for 6 months and held a talk at my uni which included former MI5 counter terrorism officer Annie Machon speaking. The turnout was 180 and a show of hands post-talk revealed 3 people still thought we were nuts.

Loose Change is not bad but contains many errors and one or two real tonge in cheek moments.

HOWEVER, Ryans view is one I share after having spent about 1000 hours reasearching.

If you are in doubt just read an article published in the Washington Post a few weeks ago in which almost all the former members of the 9/11 commission stated they believed that NORAD, the FAA and the Pentagon had ALL LIED to them in their testimony. the Chairman Thomas H. Kean actually resigned in discust because of what he described as official obstruction to his investigation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080101300.html

What ever you belive the US gov had been covering up and destroying evidence on a massive scale ever since 9.11

For my intro to 9.11 evidence read my BLOG on the pre-9.11 intelligence.

http://nineelevenfacts.blogspot.com/

or go to Scholars for 9.11 Truth which is formed of hundreds of academics worldwide who do not believe the official story.

http://www.st911.org/

In it you will find peer reviewed acadmenic papers on explosives found in WTC debris and many others.

Recently President Bush`s Chief Economist of Labour MORGAN REYNOLDS PhD resigned and stated he believes 9/11 was an inside job. His words NOT mine.

http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/205461.shtml

Look at the data for yourselves before you mock is my advice.

Calum
0
quote
reply
ryan750
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#63
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#63
(Original post by caw123)
Sorry, but the onlt thing Loose Change gets right about 9/11 is the date.

The WTC did not collapse in 8.4 seconds.

Watch the footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr_FIFcoVTo

The top starts to drop 13 seconds into the video. 8 seconds later, little or no debris has hit the ground and the building is still higher than the 50 storey buildings around it. The building is completely covered in dust 13 seconds into the collapse. The main collapse finishes around 18 seconds after it began. The last piece of structure dissapears behind the dust cloud 46 seconds into the vid, 33 seconds into the collapse. You are wrong, plain and simple.

Stop apologising for terrorist scum. You could tell us so many more points.......and every one of them would be rebuked.
Thats blatantly a slow mo video - your arguments are pittifully weak and unbacked up.
0
quote
reply
ryan750
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#64
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#64
(Original post by caw123)
But then again, jets don't usually crash at full speed into skyscrapers, which collapse into other buildings, starting fires that are unfought for 7 hours and fed by diesel fuel tanks.

You have presented a logical fallacy by suggesting that because it has never happened before, it is impossible.
My statement did apply to the two towers but also to building 7 which DIDN'T GET HIT BY AN AIRPLANE.
0
quote
reply
ryan750
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#65
Once again profesh - how does your burning jet fuel account for huge loads of molten steel found beneath the two towers after they had been cleared. Furthermore - what the hell was molten steel doing found beneath building 7?? An explanation would be the ongoing reaction between the steel and thermate, allowing the steel to stay molten all that time. Your explanation please?

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html (something a little more science based)

If you can't think of a reason for this - don't you think someone should be employed by the american government to find out the reason??
0
quote
reply
ryan750
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#66
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#66
(Original post by bunthulhu)
Thanks for the link Profesh, I think that's the most scientific evidence I've seen so far for either side of the argument
There ya go ashley - something a little more science based which is actually written by a scientist. :p:

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
0
quote
reply
Montrose
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#67
Report 12 years ago
#67
Okay, I know this will lower the standard of debate a little as I have no scientific facts, and nor am I interested in them to be honest. If this was a Government project, there would have been a whistle blower at some point. Something this complex and big to organise would have seen someone with serious evidence jump ship. Anyway.

If there were explosives inside the building, why slam a plane into the side of it? Surely they could have just said the building was infiltrated and exploded from within?
0
quote
reply
Snowygrouch
Badges: 0
#68
Report 12 years ago
#68
Hi Alex,
First of all neither myself NOR anyone who is sensibly exploring this claims to secretly know all the ins-and-outs of who-what-where-when.
If I did know I`d probably have an "accident" tomorrow.
Our point is simply this:

1: The US gov and its associated institutions LIED to the Commission. This is documented FACT (see washinton post link above).

2: The US gov has tried to prevent ANY investigation since day 1. FACT, ask the family members who struggled for 2 years or so just to even get an investiation started at all.

3: 9/11 Has been used by the current administration as a pre-requisite for 2 major wars, countless new laws cutting freedom of speech and much worse. (an investigative journaist called Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press who was delving into 9/11 has been beaten by police in front of his children last week, we recieved an email from a friend of his Kenyon Gibson whom I know personally the day after it happened)

http://www.americanfreepress.net/

Or another investiagtor Michael C. Ruppert has fled america for his life just last week.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...glarized.shtml

4: Most of the current members of the US administration were a member of a political think tank called The Project for a New American Century which in 1997 published a document called "rebuilding americas defenses".

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf


In which they called for the immidiate occupation of Iraq and the military domination of the middle east. They also called for massive increases in defence spending.
In it they said (and I quote).

"America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces"

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, islikely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Oddly enough within ONE YEAR of Bush coming to power most of the members of this think tank were made his cabinet. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfwoitz and C.Rice were ALL authors of that report.

Even more odd is that within ONE YEAR they got their new pearl harbour. Within hours of 9/11 Rice stated that "perhaps we should look at doing something with Iraq too?"

Since then Defence spending has been hiked to half A TRILLION dollars per year, most of the countries the report advocated as "the axis of evil" HAD been invaded, American corporations had bought rights to Iraqi oil infrastructure and just as it mentions in the paper soon Iran and Syria will be invaded (if they can get away with it---what do you think the recent nonsence on the news has been preparing public opinion for?)

Either that or its all just a bizarre coincidence that ALL the top members of the Bush administration got the conditions set for ALL the wishes they wrote about in 1997 within ONE YEAR of coming to power.

I`m sure its just all a bizarre coincidence though:p:

Calum

As for whistleblowers, well who do you Call Bushes Cheif Labour Ecomonist, who do you call the former German Intelligence minister Andreas Von Buelow, former MI5 officers David Shayler and Annie Machon, fomer cheif of the Star wars program under TWO US presidents Dr Robert Bowman.

This list is long.

You can see an exellent interview with Morgan Reynolds PhD here:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...44278&hl=en-GB

As for whistleblowers who were actually INVOLVED in it you had better read up on the Manhatan Project (when "the bomb" was designed in WW2) this involved THOUSANDS of engineers and scientists and was sucessfully kept totally under wraps for a very long time.

If you want to discuss this properly I suggest you join me and over 700 other at http://WWW.NINEELEVEN.CO.UK which is a very lively UK forum for 9.11 truth. There is even a critics corner where you can **** us of to your hearts content.
0
quote
reply
caw123
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#69
Report 12 years ago
#69
(Original post by ryan750)
Thats blatantly a slow mo video - your arguments are pittifully weak and unbacked up.
No, it really isn't. Here is the raw footage to prove it is genuine.

If still believe the WTC collapse in 8.4 seconds, provide video evidence. You can't.
0
quote
reply
caw123
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#70
Report 12 years ago
#70
(Original post by ryan750)
An independant physicist recieved a sample of steel from the WTC memorial and had it analysed. It revealed thermate which is an incendiary that can cut through steel. What would thermate be doing on steel in the WTC? This is just a question - all that is asked for is a full independant inquiry to find out the answer. There is a scientific paper being published right now that details the findings of this sample.

Why was there molten steel found at the bottom of not only the two towers after several weeks of clearing rubble - but also at the bottom of building 7. How does molten steel stay molten for weeks under rubble? This would require something like the thermate to keep the reaction between the steel going, keeping it molten.
Actually the physicist(Steven Jones) found traces of sulfur. Sulfur which is present in abundance in office buildings, paritcularly in gypsum drywall.

He did not find ANY of the main substances of thermate, such as barium nitrate, which composes 25%. Why didn't he find any barium oxides left over from these thermate reactions? Why did he only find a substance which makes up 2% of thermate and is found in materials that are all over office buildings?

Molten steel? Unconfirmed. Witnesses saw molten metal. Molten aluminum is the most logical explanation, as that melts at ~600C, and was found all over the buildings, particularly in the twins where the entire facade was aluminum. Any thermate reactions set off on 9/11 would probably be over that same day, the steel would have cooled and solidified. Why did none of the thousands of labourers at ground zero find any evidence of controlled demolition?
0
quote
reply
Inspiron
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#71
Report 12 years ago
#71
Hmm... someone should really tell Oliver Stone... quickly before his movie is seen by too many people! Instead he should replace the planes with shady looking American security types lacing the walls of the WTC with explosives or whatever you nutters are going on about.
0
quote
reply
Snowygrouch
Badges: 0
#72
Report 12 years ago
#72
I dont like to butt in as this is directed to Ryan but a source of dozens of clips is

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem1/

I time the collapses at about 10 seconds.

I`ts very hard to tell EXACTLY as the dust obscures the lower half.

Regardless in my and many other opinins the fact they collapsed straight down in AROUND 10 seconds is blatant of some form of demolition in action. Certainly not gravity alone.

What must be remembered is that around 75/80% of the buildings are BELOW the plane impact. Ergo even if the top section DID fail you have less than 20% of the weight pushing on a TOTALLY INTACT 80%+ portion of building below it. That is the absurdity of the situation.

(BTW the top sections weigh much less because if you read the NIST reports the structural members on the WTC are tapered. Thinner at the top (1inch wall thickness) because there is nothing pushing on the top but much beefier at the bottom (around 4inch wall). Thus adding futher weight to the fact that the base of the building was much stronger than the top)

Not to mention the fact that structural steel buildings are all designed with a safety factor of between 5 and 10. This means all members are capable of withstanding between 500 and 1000% the standard maximum anticipated service load.

When the UNDAMAGED 80% of the buildings were decimated in around 10 seconds this standard overdesign apparently just didn`t matter if you believe the official report.

Not to mention building 7 which is irrefutably controlled demolition. (again see webisite above for copious clips)

Calum

As for ST911 two of their best papers are written by
1: A professor of Physics
2: A professor of Mechanical Engineering
0
quote
reply
caw123
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#73
Report 12 years ago
#73
(Original post by Snowygrouch)
All,
Hi there, I'm an Oxford Brookes student and this is my first post so be gentle with me:p:

I`ve been researching 9/11 full time for 6 months and held a talk at my uni which included former MI5 counter terrorism officer Annie Machon speaking. The turnout was 180 and a show of hands post-talk revealed 3 people still thought we were nuts.

Loose Change is not bad but contains many errors and one or two real tonge in cheek moments.

Welcome.

I believe Loose Change amounts to nothing more than propaganda, personally, but we are all entitled to an opinion.

(Original post by Snowygrouch)
If you are in doubt just read an article published in the Washington Post a few weeks ago in which almost all the former members of the 9/11 commission stated they believed that NORAD, the FAA and the Pentagon had ALL LIED to them in their testimony. the Chairman Thomas H. Kean actually resigned in discust because of what he described as official obstruction to his investigation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...080101300.html
Hanlon's razor. If they lied, was it to cover up imcompetence or cover up a conspriracy?

(Original post by Snowygrouch)
What ever you belive the US gov had been covering up and destroying evidence on a massive scale ever since 9.11

For my intro to 9.11 evidence read my BLOG on the pre-9.11 intelligence.

http://nineelevenfacts.blogspot.com/

or go to Scholars for 9.11 Truth which is formed of hundreds of academics worldwide who do not believe the official story.

http://www.st911.org/

In it you will find peer reviewed acadmenic papers on explosives found in WTC debris and many others.
Nice blog.

ST911 are a band of nutters, and nothing more. How many of them are structural engineers? Few if any. Most of them seem to have degrees in English and Philosphy. I don't think these people should be lecturing people on the subject of skyscraper collapse.


(Original post by Snowygrouch)
Recently President Bush`s Chief Economist of Labour MORGAN REYNOLDS PhD resigned and stated he believes 9/11 was an inside job. His words NOT mine.

http://milwaukee.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/205461.shtml

Look at the data for yourselves before you mock is my advice.

Calum
Now that's a neutral article, eh? Morgan Reynolds thinks that no planes hit the WTC towers. This brings his entire judgement into question. Maybe he just has an axe to grind.
0
quote
reply
caw123
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#74
Report 12 years ago
#74
(Original post by Snowygrouch)
1: The US gov and its associated institutions LIED to the Commission. This is documented FACT (see washinton post link above).

2: The US gov has tried to prevent ANY investigation since day 1. FACT, ask the family members who struggled for 2 years or so just to even get an investiation started at all.

3: 9/11 Has been used by the current administration as a pre-requisite for 2 major wars, countless new laws cutting freedom of speech and much worse. (an investigative journaist called Christopher Bollyn of American Free Press who was delving into 9/11 has been beaten by police in front of his children last week, we recieved an email from a friend of his Kenyon Gibson whom I know personally the day after it happened)

http://www.americanfreepress.net/
1) It is not documented fact, it is a suspicion held by a dozen people. Even if it is true, it is far more plausible that they are covering up their own incompetence.

2) There have been tens of thousands of pages of reports published about 9/11, that took years to put together. Did you expect them to materialise over night? What evidence do you have of the government preventing investigations?

3) Two mucked up wars, yes. If the Iraq war was planned well in advance, why not plant some WMD to justify it and avoid the backlash from almost every civilised nation?

American Free Press? That is a neo nazi publication. It is run by CT nuts and holocaust deniers. Why was Bollyn beaten?[/quote]


(Original post by Snowygrouch)
4: Most of the current members of the US administration were a member of a political think tank called The Project for a New American Century which in 1997 published a document called "rebuilding americas defenses".

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf


In which they called for the immidiate occupation of Iraq and the military domination of the middle east. They also called for massive increases in defence spending.
In it they said (and I quote).

"America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of U.S. military forces"

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, islikely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Oddly enough within ONE YEAR of Bush coming to power most of the members of this think tank were made his cabinet. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfwoitz and C.Rice were ALL authors of that report.

Even more odd is that within ONE YEAR they got their new pearl harbour. Within hours of 9/11 Rice stated that "perhaps we should look at doing something with Iraq too?"

Since then Defence spending has been hiked to half A TRILLION dollars per year, most of the countries the report advocated as "the axis of evil" HAD been invaded, American corporations had bought rights to Iraqi oil infrastructure and just as it mentions in the paper soon Iran and Syria will be invaded (if they can get away with it---what do you think the recent nonsence on the news has been preparing public opinion for?)

Either that or its all just a bizarre coincidence that ALL the top members of the Bush administration got the conditions set for ALL the wishes they wrote about in 1997 within ONE YEAR of coming to power.

I`m sure its just all a bizarre coincidence though:p:

Calum
http://www.911myths.com/html/new_pearl_harbour.html

PNAC document explained.


(Original post by SnowygrouchAs for whistleblowers, well who do you Call Bushes Cheif Labour Ecomonist, who do you call the former German Intelligence minister Andreas Von Buelow, former MI5 officers David Shayler and Annie Machon, fomer cheif of the Star wars program under TWO US presidents Dr Robert Bowman.

This list is long.

You can see an exellent interview with Morgan Reynolds PhD here:

[url
)

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8180123292618944278&hl=en-GB[/url]
I'd say none of them would have been involved. They might have an opinion on it, but just because they have held government positions (in erm, Germany and the UK) doesn't make them whistleblowers.[/quote]

(Original post by SnowygrouchAs for whistleblowers who were actually INVOLVED in it you had better read up on the Manhatan Project (when "the bomb" was designed in WW2) this involved THOUSANDS of engineers and scientists and was sucessfully kept [B)
totally[/B] under wraps for a very long time.
The people involved all lived in compounds. It was the 40s. There was no CCTV, no mobile phones, no internet, the people didn't know what they were building. And they were kept under wraps until the end of WW2, which is hardly a 'very long time'.
0
quote
reply
Inspiron
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#75
Report 12 years ago
#75
Hey, by the way, did any of you conspiracy nutters notice this:

(Original post by Inspiron)
Hmm... someone should really tell Oliver Stone... quickly before his movie is seen by too many people! Instead he should replace the planes with shady looking American security types lacing the walls of the WTC with explosives or whatever you nutters are going on about.
Scary huh? I was obviously concealing that message in my words!
0
quote
reply
caw123
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#76
Report 12 years ago
#76
(Original post by Snowygrouch)
I dont like to butt in as this is directed to Ryan but a source of dozens of clips is

http://www.terrorize.dk/911/wtc1dem1/

I time the collapses at about 10 seconds.

I`ts very hard to tell EXACTLY as the dust obscures the lower half.

Regardless in my and many other opinins the fact they collapsed straight down in AROUND 10 seconds is blatant of some form of demolition in action. Certainly not gravity alone.
Well I time the collapses at closer to 20 seconds. And including the collapse of remaining parts of the building that stood for a short time, upto 35 seconds.

(Original post by Snowygrouch)
What must be remembered is that around 75/80% of the buildings are BELOW the plane impact. Ergo even if the top section DID fail you have less than 20% of the weight pushing on a TOTALLY INTACT 80%+ portion of building below it. That is the absurdity of the situation.

(BTW the top sections weigh much less because if you read the NIST reports the structural members on the WTC are tapered. Thinner at the top (1inch wall thickness) because there is nothing pushing on the top but much beefier at the bottom (around 4inch wall). Thus adding futher weight to the fact that the base of the building was much stronger than the top)
Do you understand the difference between a static load and live/dynamic one? The difference between potential and kinetic energy? Well you need to in order to understand how the top sections were able to collapse the rest of the buildings.

You are wrong in one assertion there. You would not have 20% of the tower falling onto the bottom 80% in unison, but the top 20% falling onto the floor below which would be taking all of the kinetic energy of the top section on it's own. Once that fails, it is added to the mass which gains speed/mass as it goes down onto the next floor, and the next. The forces were enormous.

Experiment with the difference between a static and live load in your own home. Put a brick on an empty coke can, it supports it easily. Now drop the brick from a metre onto the can. A live load exerts far more energy than a static one, simple physics.

(Original post by Snowygrouch)
Not to mention the fact that structural steel buildings are all designed with a safety factor of between 5 and 10. This means all members are capable of withstanding between 500 and 1000% the standard maximum anticipated service load.

When the UNDAMAGED 80% of the buildings were decimated in around 10 seconds this standard overdesign apparently just didn`t matter if you believe the official report.

Not to mention building 7 which is irrefutably controlled demolition. (again see webisite above for copious clips)

Calum

As for ST911 two of their best papers are written by
1: A professor of Physics
2: A professor of Mechanical Engineering

Utterly irrelevant. They were designed with a safety factor for a static load, not a dynamic one, no building is designed to withstand 20 storeys of structure falling onto it.

ST911.

1) A professor of physics who thinks finding a substance neglible in thermate reactions but abundant in office buildings, while finding none of the far more obvious components, is proof.
2) Do you mean Judy Wood? She thinks that skyscrapers are comparable to trees, and is an expert in the mechanical engineering of dentures, not buildings.
0
quote
reply
ryan750
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#77
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#77
The incomplete, weak and speculative arguments against the conspiracy cannot address the huge questions: Building 7, the pentagon damage, flight 93's missing wreckage, MARVIN BUSH'S contract as HEAD OF SECURITY at the WTC ending SEPTEMBER 11th, the decision to remove bomb- detecting dogs 5 days before sept 11th, the thousands of testimonies by eye- witnesses at the events, the hundreds of gag orders placed on witnesses and firefighters, the fake usama bin laden confession tape (usama is left handed so why is he writing with his right hand in the tape - plus it looks nothing like him).

I think much of the evidence for the alternative event's explanation has been highlighted here. That is all that is necessary to direct people to the questions that haven't been addressed so that they can make their own minds up.
0
quote
reply
ryan750
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#78
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#78
(Original post by caw123)
Actually the physicist(Steven Jones) found traces of sulfur. Sulfur which is present in abundance in office buildings, paritcularly in gypsum drywall.

He did not find ANY of the main substances of thermate, such as barium nitrate, which composes 25%. Why didn't he find any barium oxides left over from these thermate reactions? Why did he only find a substance which makes up 2% of thermate and is found in materials that are all over office buildings?

Molten steel? Unconfirmed. Witnesses saw molten metal. Molten aluminum is the most logical explanation, as that melts at ~600C, and was found all over the buildings, particularly in the twins where the entire facade was aluminum. Any thermate reactions set off on 9/11 would probably be over that same day, the steel would have cooled and solidified. Why did none of the thousands of labourers at ground zero find any evidence of controlled demolition?
You obviously haven't read the paper i put up in a previous post:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Aluminium is ruled out because molten aluminuim is silvery in colour. The metal we see is solid with molten metal dripping from it and around it - it is a yellowish orange colour. Aluminium can only be molten before it incandesces, aka glows. So the most likely explanation is that the metal is iron and/or steel that has been heated from a thermate reaction and has kept hot from ongoing exothermic reactions and heat loss minimised by a reasonably insulated environment under so much material.

The peer reviewed paper makes many, many points that require further investigation to get a clearer picture of what went on that day. If people try to contest this evidence then they clearly have no sanity or common sense.
0
quote
reply
caw123
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#79
Report 12 years ago
#79
(Original post by ryan750)
You obviously haven't read the paper i put up in a previous post:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

Aluminium is ruled out because molten aluminuim is silvery in colour. The metal we see is solid with molten metal dripping from it and around it - it is a yellowish orange colour. Aluminium can only be molten before it incandesces, aka glows. So the most likely explanation is that the metal is iron and/or steel that has been heated from a thermate reaction and has kept hot from ongoing exothermic reactions and heat loss minimised by a reasonably insulated environment under so much material.

The peer reviewed paper makes many, many points that require further investigation to get a clearer picture of what went on that day. If people try to contest this evidence then they clearly have no sanity or common sense.
I was responding to your claim that: ''An independant physicist recieved a sample of steel from the WTC memorial and had it analysed. It revealed thermate which is an incendiary that can cut through steel.'', not the molten metal seen at ground zero.

And you've contradicted yourself a bit. You say 'The metal we see is solid with molten metal dripping from it and around it'. The colour indicates a temperature of around 1000C, at this temperature Aluminum would be a yellow puddle, and Steel would be as we see there. Molten steel is white, so the most logical deduction is merely that it is red hot steel, and not a molten metal of any kind.
Now, the fires at ground zero burned for 99 days, under an enormous pile of combustible material, temperatures of 1000C are not surprising. House fires can get hotter than that.

And his paper makes a mockery of the term 'peer review' as they were from ST911, and none of them are structural engineers, and they all believed in a 9/11 conspiracy prior to reading it. You might as well get a taxi driver to 'peer review' a paper on the Pioneer anomaly.
0
quote
reply
caw123
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#80
Report 12 years ago
#80
(Original post by ryan750)
The incomplete, weak and speculative arguments against the conspiracy cannot address the huge questions: Building 7, the pentagon damage, flight 93's missing wreckage, MARVIN BUSH'S contract as HEAD OF SECURITY at the WTC ending SEPTEMBER 11th, the decision to remove bomb- detecting dogs 5 days before sept 11th, the thousands of testimonies by eye- witnesses at the events, the hundreds of gag orders placed on witnesses and firefighters, the fake usama bin laden confession tape (usama is left handed so why is he writing with his right hand in the tape - plus it looks nothing like him).

I think much of the evidence for the alternative event's explanation has been highlighted here. That is all that is necessary to direct people to the questions that haven't been addressed so that they can make their own minds up.
You are wrong on every single point.

These 'incomplete, weak and speculative arguments' just happen to be agreed upon by all the experts in the relevant fields.

Building 7 - A building smashed by debris from the twin towers, which had a fire burn unfought for 7 hours, fuelled by diesel fuel tanks, pictures showing smoke pouring from almost every floor, firefighters thought it would collapse after seeing that it was leaning.

The Pentagon Damage - Which is entirely concordant with a 757 crashing into the building?

Flight 93 debris - Missing? Apparently they found 95% of the plane, mainly in fragmented pieces you could hold in your hand. And they also found some intact pieces of the engines and fuselage.

Marvin Bush - He was not 'head of security' at the WTC, but one of the directors on the board(not the CEO) of one of many companies providing electronic security in the buildings. His company also had contracts in many other cities. The job ended in June 2000, not on 9/11.

Sources:
He was a director of the Sterling, Virginia company Securacom, also known as Stratesec, from 1993 until fiscal year 2000.

In 1996 Marvin Bush had 53,000 shares in the company's stock he bought at 52 cents a share. In 1997 the stock sold for $8.50 a share. Marvin Bush was no longer listed as a shareholder by the end of 2000.
Marvin Bush was reelected to the Stratesec board of directors annually from 1993 through 1999. His last reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000."
Bomb sniffing dogs - Extra ones were put on rota in the weeks before 9/11 because of phone threats of an attack, they found nothing and were taken away when the threats stopped. The extra ones were removed. There was always a bomb sniffing dog on the premises, this one died on 9/11.

Witnesses - What? Like the 85 people who saw a plane hit the Pentagon that you seem to ignore?

Gag orders - Do you seriously think they would be able to maintain gag orders on hundreds of people? If I were a NYC firefighter or witness, and had credible evidence of an inside job, I know a gag order wouldn't keep me quiet for a second. Why aren't these hundreds revealing the truth, do they have no conscience?

Osamas writing - He writes with his right hand sometimes when he is left handed? Have you researched this at all? It is part of Islamic culture to use the left hand for sanitary acts and the right hand for eating, writing and handling the Quaran.


All of your claims can be discredited with a google search.
Please find some credible evidence before you accuse people of mass murder and apologise for terrorists.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (232)
27.46%
No (613)
72.54%

Watched Threads

View All