Stopping the 9/11 Nonsense

Posts: 8244

*Work in Progress*

The purpose of this thread isn't to uphold any official report or cover up a false flag operation. Any so called 9/11 truthers that get upset over this should be considered dangerous or enemies to the cause of the 9/11 truth movement. Some of us are simply tired of hearing disinformation parroted 5 years after it's been debunked or reasonably explained away. It is more important to kill the disinformation than to find new evidence of foul play.

Quicklinks:

1) Towers were Imploded/ Controlled Demolitions
2) Fighter Jets Ordered to Stand Down
3) Pull It
4) Steel Couldn't Melt
5) No Steel Structure
6) Squibs
7) Pentagon Hole is too Small for a Plane
8) No Evidence of a Plane on the Pentagon Lawn
9) Shape Charges

Towers were Imploded/ Controlled Demolitions

Last edited by madthumbs on Sun Jun 03, 2007 6:01 pm; edited 4 times in total

Posts: 8244

Fighter Jets Ordered to Stand Down

From:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

Quote:

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

Posts: 8244

From:
http://www.opposingdigits.com/alex/

Alex
on Silverstein's: "Pull it"

	Quote:
	'We know that the term 'pull it' means to bring the building down by means of explosives because in the same documentary a cleanup worker (in December 2001) refers to the demolition of WTC Building 6 when he says, "...we're getting ready to pull the building six."'

From:

	Code:
	http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

Now here he bases this definition of "pull it" solely on them
using it on Building Six (where he also leaves out that they were
pulling down the remains with cables). This I downloaded from his site
and re-hosted it: http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/pull-it2_lo.wmv

Posts: 8244

Steel Couldn't Melt

Theorists think that because burning Jet Fuel can't melt Structural Steel that the buildings shouldn't have collapsed.

Jet fuel burns between 800F° and 1500°F, while steel melts around 2750°F. Steel loses near 50 percent of its strength around 1100°F. As the heat goes up from there, the strength drops fast. Burning carpets, furniture, paper, drapes, could have caused areas to hit 1830°F.

Posts: 8244

"No Steel Structure" -People are putting their own spin on the rest of the wording.

Here's the Madrid Building in Spain. It was steel and concrete which should be able to hold up better than just steel:

As you can see there is a partial collapse.

Here's another example of structural steel failing from fire generated heat after the fact:

Download flv

	Quote:
	An interchange connecting highways to the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge collapsed at 3:45am Sunday,April 29 2007, after a tractor trailer hauling 8,600 gallons of gasoline caught fire. (BRIDGE, COLLAPSE, BAY AREA, CALIFORNIA)

Posts: 8244

Squibs

These images of dust being ejected from the buildings is proved as proof of demolitions. The official story contends what's coined by engineers as a pancake collapse which would cause air pressure to rise as floors fell. The pressure would build up and find the paths of least resistance. They could be squibs from explosives, but they're not conclusive evidence.

Posts: 8244

Pentagon Hole is too small for a plane

Exit Hole in C-ring:

The walls including windows (where the jet entered) were designed to be blast resistant. The hole here was 12 ft. wide and was probably made by the landing gear.

Would a jet always just go through a wall?

Last edited by madthumbs on Sun Jun 03, 2007 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posts: 8244

No evidence of plane on pentagon lawn

Posts: 8244

Shape Charges

Here's an image that's claimed to be evidence of the use of shape charges:

But notice the welding slag on it.

Posts: 100

Some of the debunkers have valid points. But that doesn't mean that al Qaeda did 9/11. It could mean that our theories about exactly what happened need to be refined and junk thrown out. I agree with a lot with what the debunkers say on their sites. This might sound funny to some but facts are facts and there are a whole slew of theories about 9/11 that conflict with each other, e.g. cell phone calls or no cell phone calls? I take the side of the debunkers that there were cell phone calls. I don't buy the elaborate theory that the conspirators had some unheard-of technology to fake the cell phone calls including the ability to mimic human voices exactly.

Some of the information that the conspiracy theorists have put forward are correct but have been presented poorly, like the "No steel skyscraper has been known to collapse due to fire". It should be "No steel skyscraper has been known to collapse and crumble into fine dust (0.09 micron-fine) from fire without first undergoing extensive carbonization." See Madrid skyscraper ablaze and black and charred after the fire burned out. Look at WTC towers: fire only on half-a-dozen floors at the most and fires practically all burned out by the time they collapse and disintegrate into dust particles.

And the steel beams in the collapsed structure just warped from the heat, they didn't explode and disintegrate into fine dust (average size 0.3 to 30 micron in some WTC samples) and create a huge dust cloud. Neither were steel beams spat out laterally in the collapses of the bridge or of the Madrid skyscraper.

Thermite implodes, doesn't explode when used in demolition. Prof Jones theories that say that WTC 1 and 2 imploded the same as WTC 7 are so full of holes it ain't funny. Conventional explosives destroy thermite, so if thermite had been used, it would have had to be placed far away from the RDX they used. Also thermite doesn't burn steel unless it's placed in close proximity to it - that's why it exists in paint form. I doubt the conspirators did this - painted the thermite on or that they cut away to the steel beams and placed the thermite close to them - it would have been too noticeable.

Re the temp of the fires: even NIST and the Underwriters Laboratory scientists say that the jet fuel could not have produced fires of high enough temp to melt and destroy steel completely. They say most office fires burn out by themselves in 24-hours.

Molten steel burned for 3 months. Something with the potential to release huge amounts of energy, enough to disintegrate steel-reinforced concrete to particles of an average size of 3 to 30 microns (in some samples) and cause molten pools of steel to burn for 3 months had to be used on 9/11.

Consider the energy requirements (I got this from a Physics forum):

36 months of energy from a small-scale hydroelectric plant such as the Goodyear one in Ohio - needed to create concrete particles that are 3 microns in size.

And we have to realize that the smallest particle of concrete measured was 0.9 micron. How much energy is required to produce that?

Not 2 plane tanks worth of jet fuel.

Energy requirements and energy released from a gravity collapse do not match.

The (oxy-acetylene-)cut steel beams have always bothered me when they have been shown as proof that thermite was used in 9/11. Now that the second picture reveals workers cutting the beams, it should get let to rest that rumor ....... but some die-hards still insist on the thermite theory and refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary.

Some of the 9/11 'truthers' are just as bigoted as those who insist that there is nothing suspicious about the whole 9/11 event. Instead of altering their theories about what happened, they steadfastly stick to them and start doing ad hominem to attack those who point these things out. The real perps are laughing when they see what goes on, I bet.

BTW, I think that picture of WTC 7 where the bottom part is eaten away by a 'fire' is a phony. I've only seen this on debunking sites along with a picture of WTC 7 with smoke obscuring it. The line of smoke is almost vertical and ends precisely at the border of the building. There's no fire where the building has disintegrated. Clues these photos are faked.

Posts: 23

Madthumbs

I always respect your views, and I agree there is some disinfo within the truth movement, however it is still LARGELY being kept quiet.

Now having said that I also don't think your 9 points are very well made.
Obviously they were not "controlled" demolitions, but there is no doubt that the "collapse" seems far too symmetrical, far too soon after the impact to time of collapse, far too violent and far too convenient to be realistically looked at as an actual collapse.

You mention how a basic fundamental principle is that objects tend to travel via path of least resistance. Well, lets look at the point of impact and the manner in which the collapse occurred: Towers were hit towards the top. The unstable section is all above where the damage was made by the planes due to gravity obviously. Below the damage area, the building would be for the most part quite stable. If in fact there was any way that the top section was heavy enough to collapse past where the damage point was, it would find the path of least resistance. Now what would that be? Falling straight down, story by story pancaking each one down to floor 1...or would it be more likely that if the top section did start to fall, it would fall off one side or the other?

If you look at the videos of the collapse closely, you can see how when initially the fall begins, it is quite clear that the top section is beginning to fall off to one side, and it is brought back in on itself. This is a sign of explosives, or to be more to the point, a NON-NATURAL collapse. An engineered collapse. The funny thing is, many of the videos you find are all showing the collapses from such an angle that you cant see the initial sway of the towers.
The best view of this initial sway is if you look at the collapse of the tower with the antenna. The antenna is perpendicular to the roof and makes for a much easier visual aid to see the exact angle of the fall and how it initially falls off as if to fall off the side, and then is brought back so as to fall straight down.

And steel structures CAN in fact be weakened by fire, but lets be honest and factor in all the things that matter...A heat of 3000 degrees at the 80th floor of a building is probably as dangerous as a 1500 degree heat at the 6th floor simply because there is more stress the closer you get to the bottom. Another obvious thing is that a fire that lasts 2 days is going to oxidize and weaken ANYTHING in that time. Fires at the top floors of the towers which lasted for an hour...at best...obviously wouldn't have caused so much trouble. But then we find out that there were fire fighters on those top floors and said they saw only small pockets of fires. And no the squibs are not DEFINITIVE proof of controlled demo, but lets be real...we see plenty of evidence that squibs were present many floors below the current level of collapse at the exact same time as we see them near the collapse. This is possibly because of malfunctions in timing and some went off early, or perhaps they were designed to go off just before the level of collapse reached them to pre-weaken the structure or something...and now this is in the realm of theory. I admit I have no idea why that anomaly is present for sure, but if in fact the squibs were due to simply physical pressure exiting the structure via least resistance, why are they only in isolated areas? You would expect them to be clumped together, but instead we see them only at certain points of the building, again, an indicator that there was possibly an effort to place charges at certain spots.

Here's what I think...I think since 9/11 we have a new group of people who have become "awakened" and have watched a few videos and did a little "research" and now they basically parrot the stuff they were exposed to without using their own logic. And I agree they do seem quite drone-like and quite brain dead at times, but I don't think that the majority of the points they parrot are wrong. It is annoying to hear people parrot on about 9/11 and then talk about "bush needs to be impeached" or "we need Jesus", not understanding that bush was as responsible for 9/11 as the red button is responsible for launching a missile. Most of the people who have recently been exposed to 9/11 truth info, are in the initial stages of questioning the world, and are in an unfortunate situation where they are thrown right in the mix. They don't have the convenience of slowly coming to realize the truth in bits and pieces and connect the dots a bit more thoroughly. You can't really blame them for their odd ignorance, but I admit, it's a bit annoying. But I still think that the more important issues are not whether or not a certain type of explosive was used or not, or what caused the collapse. What caused the collapse is some greedy and cruel men, and they weren't middle eastern terrorists...and thats the most important thing to understand in my opinion.

Anyway, keep on keeping on friend.
all the best

Posts: 8244

	debus wrote:
	BTW, I think that picture of WTC 7 where the bottom part is eaten away by a 'fire' is a phony. I've only seen this on debunking sites along with a picture of WTC 7 with smoke obscuring it. The line of smoke is almost vertical and ends precisely at the border of the building. There's no fire where the building has disintegrated. Clues these photos are faked.

It's merely one part of one building that was allegedly damaged as an example and it didn't look like fire damage to me. Weren't there many surrounding buildings that were damaged? I'll try to look into it and update if it's fake.

	paradigm667 wrote:
	Now having said that I also don't think your 9 points are very well made.

I'm not into over-explaining, and when I started the project, it was late and I figured I could update. Notice the *work in progress* note. I didn't post this as a webpage, and was hoping people would contribute modules to it in the thread that I could put in the quicklinks.

	Quote:
	I always respect your views, and I agree there is some disinfo within the truth movement, however it is still LARGELY being kept quiet.

I don't see it that way. It appears to me that most people have already heard about the conspiracy theories (mostly lies), and if not; they're going to hear nonsense that's easily discredited that will send them back to their disbelief.

	Quote:
	Obviously they were not "controlled" demolitions, but there is no doubt that the "collapse" seems far too symmetrical, far too soon after the impact to time of collapse, far too violent and far too convenient to be realistically looked at as an actual collapse.

I covered this in the intro: "The purpose of this thread isn't to uphold any official report"

Quote:

You mention how a basic fundamental principle is that objects tend to travel via path of least resistance. Well, lets look at the point of impact and the manner in which the collapse occurred: Towers were hit towards the top. The unstable section is all above where the damage was made by the planes due to gravity obviously. Below the damage area, the building would be for the most part quite stable. If in fact there was any way that the top section was heavy enough to collapse past where the damage point was, it would find the path of least resistance. Now what would that be? Falling straight down, story by story pancaking each one down to floor 1...or would it be more likely that if the top section did start to fall, it would fall off one side or the other?

This project is for stopping the nonsense, not explaining what really happened.

	Quote:
	not understanding that bush was as responsible for 9/11 as the red button is responsible for launching a missile.

The day it happened, I was telling people that Bush was involved, but I don't recall ever saying he was responsible. The leaders you see are the ones that took a bite to join a group that would give them social and economic advantages. To join; they have to reveal secrets or do something they could be blackmailed for, and those secrets are held over them the rest of their lives. Being involved in a cover-up and being the benefactor, of a crime are two different positions. They're both criminals, but focus should never be on the guy / guys set up to take the fall especially when it could be a red herring. We don't know how stupid Bush may well be, and what his influences are. Why do people keep pushing to impeach after all this time? - Because they don't want to face the reality that revolution is the only real answer.

Posts: 8244

Posts: 1

	Quote:
	This project is for stopping the nonsense, not explaining what really happened.

If you explain what happened, all nonsense will automatically dissapear. Do you care more about nonsense than truth?

Posts: 8244

Lucifer wrote:

	Quote:
	This project is for stopping the nonsense, not explaining what really happened.

If you explain what happened, all nonsense will automatically dissapear. Do you care more about nonsense than truth?

I haven't seen anything that's 100% convincing and tells the whole story. Eliminating the nonsense gets us closer to it there.