Comprehensive list of holes in the official 9.11.01 story; or, how Controlled demolitions brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7
219 2015-07-28 by unicornghost6969
I've been banned by flytape. Cheers fellow conspiracy-minded souls.
-------------------------------------------------------THE AIRPORTS
19 alleged terrorists (to be referred just as terrorists from now on) were able to avoid hundreds of airport CCTVs, except 3. Of those 3, one of the recordings (which will be named Dulles from now on) that was only released in 2004 poses a serious problem:
At least until the date of the 9/11, all of the CCTVs available (including the Pentagons') only recorded at 1-5FPS and had timestamps while the Dulles was recording at +12FPS(if I am not mistaken) and has no timestamp.
The airports, which the terrorists used, have hundreds of CCTVs that cover the entrances and all of the public areas, yet only 1 camera from 2 airports (Dulles and Portland, Maine) were able to capture 6 of the 19 terrorists. The airplane victims were also never captured by the airport CCTVs. In contrast, here is the constant tracking via CCTV of the navy yard shooting using all the CCTVs that captured the shooter outside and inside the building. Somehow the Logan airport failed to record a single victim and/or terrorist.
--------------------------------------------------------THE HIJACKS
Every pilot and co-pilot is instructed with transponder squawk codes, one of them -7500- is the code for hijacking and it takes 3s to input and send. Despite having 4 pilots and 4 co-pilots, not one of them sent out the 3s squawk as they were instructed to. The alleged Flight11's FDR shows that the airplane was too high to have struck the lamp posts. Todd Beamer, one of Flight93's passenger, described the hijack occuring as he was speaking (at 9:43 AM) when in fact this event had already happened ~20 minutes earlier.
--------------------------------------------------------THE CRASHES
-------------------------THE PENTAGON-------------------------------
Only 2 cameras recorded an object crashing into the Pentagon, one recorded only a flash. The 2 cameras that recorded the object show a white smoke coming from the object that the Flight77 could not have produced:
Engine damage from lamp-posts impact: Not possible, airplane engine smoke produces a thin and dark smoke
Fuel leaking from tank damage or engine damage: Not possible, it didn't catch fire when the airplane exploded, the lawn has no jetfuel burn marks.
Contrails: Not possible seen that the humidity levels were not enough, corroborated by the lack of those on both airplanes that crashed into the twin towers
Condensation: Not possible, same reason as contrails
Rocket/missile-like smoke: Strongly resembles the smoke produced by missiles/rockets and might explain why Pentagon personnel stated that they noticed the smell of cordite
These 2 cameras have all frames perfectly synchronized -including the moment of the high speed explosion- except the one where the object enters the frame. According to the cameras, the airplane existed in 2 different places in the same moment of time.
-------------------------THE PENNSYLVANIA---------------------------
Despite the entire airplane allegedly plunged into the ground, one of the engines jumped to a considerable distance from the crash site. This engine was attached to the same airplane as the other one, diving at the same speed as the other one and hitting the same ground as the other one, yet one of the engines was buried and the other landed far away for no reason.
The engine that was buried under the ground was compressed along it's length under ~3 and half feet of dirt. This engine had a clam shell of considerable proportions, but for some reason not one part of that shell is present in the previously linked photo of the engine.
There were debris found at such a distance from the impact point of the airplane that it could not have been covered from its explosion, this path of debris suggests that the airplane was actually flying on the opposite direction and not the one officially told. This also fits Val MacClatchey's testimony of the plane path.
Val MacClatchey's famous photo poses a serious problem, it displays a mushroom cloud that is consistent with an explosion and not with a jet crash. When an airplane crashes it produces a long column of smoke, not just a mushroom cloud. The lack of typical airplane crash aftermath smoke has also been confirmed by another witness.
In contrast with Flight 93, here is an airplane crash of a Boeing 737-200 of 17,November 2013 that nose dived in 70º and still had plenty of easily identifiable airplane parts and both engines were found in the same location.
Here you can see more airplane crashes comparisons with Flight 93 and see how unique Flight 93 was. http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html
----------------------------------------------------------THE CALLS
There are 2 calls that contradict the offical version of events; the before mentioned Todd Beamer call and Jeremy Glick's.
Todd Beamer:
Flight 93 hijack occured at 9:28
Todd Beamer's call describes the hijack about to happen at 9:43
Flight 93 crashed at 10:03
Todd Beamer's call made with an airphone last for 3925 seconds. It last 45 minutes after the plane had already crashed.
Lisa Jefferson also confirms that the call was not lost: "We didn’t lose a connection because there’s a different sound that you use. It’s a squealing sound when you lose a connection. I never lost connection, but it just went silent."
Jeremy Glick:
Call starts at 9:37
Flight 93 crashes at 10:03
Call lasts for 7565 seconds, placing the end of the call at 11:41. It last for 1 hour and ~38 minutes after the plane had already crashed.
These calls were made from the airplane's airphone destined to two different interfaces: One was to the GTE's assistant landline telephone, the other was to a cellphone.
These calls could not have remained connected by a system mistake because airphones charge per time, the system was built to only count the time the client is connected in order to avoid overcharging him by allowing calls to "stay connected" when they were not. The fact that they also disconnected at different times rules out any possible system fault which, if possible, would at best disconnect both calls at the same time since they would have "disconnected" at the same time, the time of the crash.
The ACARS data also corroborates the above, seen that the only possible explanation for the calls to remain connected after the airplane crashed is that the airplane from where the calls came from never crashed in the first place.
--------------------------------------------THE TOWERS' COLLAPSES
-------------------------SOUTH TOWER--------------------------------
The section above the airplane impact zone tilted and then fell vertically, violating Newton's First Law of Motion in which a body in motion (rotation in this case) tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. In this case this was the expected movement of the top if it was simply collapsing.
Despite the fact that the top section tilted and was only ~30%(33floors) of the building it was still capable of destroying the remaining ~69%(76 floors) completely, directly violating Newton's third law.
-------------------------NORTH TOWER--------------------------------
A problem with this collapse is that despite the fact that the top section fell vertically and almost symetrically, it can be clearly identified a concentrated destruction almost as fast as the debris fall occuring on the right face of the building.
Sharing the exact same result as the South Tower, the North tower also violates Newton's third law by an even larger margin. The top section was only 15.45%(17 floors) destroying the intact 93% 83% (92 floors).
According to NIST, WTC1 fell only 28% longer than pure free-fall:
"The upper section of the building then collapsed onto the floors below, within 12s, the collapse of WTC 1 had left nothing but rubble."
If it was free fall it would have been 9.32s without air resistance, meaning that -according to NIST- all floors provided a resistance that add up to 2.77s (12s - 9.32s).
Below the collapse area there were 95 floors.
2.77s / 95 floors = each floor being destroyed in 0.029s
29/1000ths of a second.
According to NIST, each floor -composed by concrete and steel- was being destroyed as fast as the impact between a stick and a cue ball.
Despite the top being only ~16% of the building (weaker and lighter), the result was still a perfect vertical gravity assisted downfall destruction of the remaining 93% 83% perfectly intact structure (stronger as well) defying yet again another law of physics -Newton's third law- in which a smaller and weaker body cannot destroy a bigger and stronger body.
For example: for every floor of the 93% 83% destroyed another floor of the 16% has to be destroyed. If Newton's third law had been respected, the building would be standing with ~75 floors, not 0.
A better explanation of the laws of physics violation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=2329
-------------------------TOWER SEVEN--------------------------------
Building 7 was hit by the debris from one of the collapses which caused fires and facade damage, one easily identified top to bottom gash.
Despite the presence of large quantities of smoke, there was never discovered any floor completely engulfed by fire, only partial fires and only on a few floors. The presence of soot in the windows are the indicator of fires that were already extinct.
The only fires that last long enough and could be responsible for the building to collapse were only on 3 floors and they were only partial small fires.
For a better comparison on the dimensions of WTC7's small office fires, here you have an example of normal office fires (or just plain office fires) and extreme office fires (or infernos).
By the time that the collapse initiated there were no more fires near the vicinity of the section that was appointed as the collapse failure initiation. This means that the building started the collapse for a reason other than fire.
Despite public belief, the building did in fact collapse with sudden onset of free-fall (18 visible stories in 3.9s), there were no stages. A better explanation is provided below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPwwcXF_V0c&t=4536
There was also a loud explosion that occurred right before the penthouse collapse. That explosion cannot possibly be from any structure "snapping" or "failing" because you would hear in that same video the rest of the building collapse as well, which you do not. If you cannot hear the entire building collapse then that explosion couldn't possibly be from a column failing.
In contrast with the WTC7 building, here you can see the other buildings that were hit with exponentially bigger forces (hit directly by the towers' debris), some which under larger fires and did not globally collapse:
WTC3, WTC4, WTC5, WTC6, Deutsche bank building
And here are buildings that suffered extreme office fires and did not turn into a pile of ruble:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html
To end this list I would like to make a question which isn't meant to seek an answer but purely to make you ponder:
If you weren't aware of which buildings collapsed that day; Which one of these two buildings would you say turned into a pile of rubble: WTC5 or WTC7?
PS: For any debunker that tries to answer/debunk the question even though I clearly stated that I am not looking for an answer but to make people ponder:
Remember that NIST has already stated that the structural damage was irrelevant and that the building would still have collapsed without any damage:http://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/21ubl5/people_trying_to_debunk_911/cggtw3u.
The argument of pointing out how much smoke there was on the other side is also irrelevant for 1 reason: smoke is not fire. For both pictures I only show the actual fires in both buildings and not the smoke coming out from either one.
A huge thanks to a former redditor for this comprehensive list.
75 comments
46 HangOn2UrEgo 2015-07-28
This is far from comprehensive. The major conspiracy theory subjects have so much direct evidence and so many suspicious coincidences (e.g. JFK, 9/11), it's understandably hard to keep track of all of them.
/r/conspiracy should round up the hard evidence of every major conspiracy subject (with the best sources, aswell as acknowledements and responces to attempted rubuttals) into individual threads, and link them in the sidebar. Conspiracy research is a notoriously scattered ordeal, reddit has a perfect layout for fixing that problem.
21 TylerBalius 2015-07-28
This. Mods, please make this happen. It would take me months to find all the links just posted here, and that is a major reason I am not as educated as I would like to be about things like this.
2 axolotl_peyotl 2015-07-28
Sounds interesting!
3 conzorz 2015-07-28
Reminds me of the documentary of the month a while back, JFK to 911 Everything Is A Rich Man's Trick. Great watch.
2 Superstring4you 2015-07-28
This is a great idea. We could list some common questions. Provide ways to fact check pictures and state ments. We could asign volunteers small chucks and then assign someone to check it. This post would be a good rough draft to start fact checking.
1 unicornghost6969 2015-07-28
What would you like me to add?
5 HangOn2UrEgo 2015-07-28
For one thing, it's missing all of the thermite evidence presented by ae911truth.
5 unicornghost6969 2015-07-28
The method of controlled demolition is not important to understanding controlled demolitions brought down 3 buildings.
Anything else?
Edit: to /u/biloshambles, the murder weapons were explosives. The type of explosives don't matter.
4 annias 2015-07-28
well, I mean the melted pools of metal that remained for some time are pretty significant
2 [deleted] 2015-07-28
That's like saying the murder weapon is not important in a murder trial.
1 Ibawl 2015-07-28
I have been wishing for something similar to this for a while. There are so many good sources for conspiracies, why is there no sidebar with all of that info? I think it would stop a lot of the noob questions about "favorite conspiracies" or "actual conspiracies" that are posted daily.
-2 spays_marine 2015-07-28
This is a bad idea and will be abused.
Let's not forget that we're demanding a new investigation to get to the truth, we're not trying to convince others of a certain theory. I don't want to be lumped together with others into a set of idea's, nor do I want any of them to be "set in stone" and advertised as the truth. Provide sources, sure, but let people decide for themselves what is telling evidence and what is not.
Debunkers always try to paint us off as a group of people all believing the same "whacky" theory, and this will essentially prove them right.
I don't want to spread what I believe as truth, nor do I swallow up everything that passes through here. I want to entertain ideas, form my own conclusions, and have other people go through the same process.
If /r/conspiracy as a subreddit starts advertising "facts", then it's no longer an amalgamation of free spirits, thinkers, shills and freaks, but a corporation trying to sell a product.
Don't do it!
2 untumulted 2015-07-28
We can demand the sun, moon and stars, but we're still getting jack shit.
We should determine what qualifies as acceptable in serious theories and build them, branch them, review and then maybe we can get somewhere.
Remember Sun Tzu:
The easiest way to defeat an enemy is to frustrate their plans. By only allowing single snippet threads, we are frustrating ourselves.
0 spays_marine 2015-07-28
You will allow "them" to frustrate "our plans" a lot easier if you go through with this. It's the perfect set up for a divide and conquer tactic. Create a unified set of ideas in a group as diverse as /r/conspiracy by setting it up as some sort of manifesto and then just drive a wedge in it. Nothing good can come from this. It will also act as a chilling effect because "it's in the sidebar/sticky anyway and everything has been said".
Your argument is a nice slogan, but I don't see how it applies here, nothing functionally is stopping us now from providing posts with evidence. In fact, that happens daily. And it's exactly as it should be. If a handful of people (read a mod and someone who agrees with him) will decide what is or isn't the truth, this place will revolt within 2 months of the idea being brought into action.
Let's not go down the route of having truth picked from the top down please, that's exactly what we're against. Well, it's what I'm against at least.
2 untumulted 2015-07-28
Disorganization is unity.
2 HangOn2UrEgo 2015-07-28
There isn't going to be a new investigation. All we can hope for is further study of the possible thermite in the WTC dust.
11 PhrygianMode 2015-07-28
Great list. Thank you.
0 unicornghost6969 2015-07-28
Thanks for all the work you do for the movement.
7 DrMantisTobogan9784 2015-07-28
the biggest thing that bothers me about people who try to inform other people about 9/11 is that they always feel they need to have it solved and offer a "what really happened..." thats not how you inform people of something like this. nobody wants to be told that what they think is black is actually white. doing so will immediately be met with dismissiveness. whenever i talk about 9/11 i say ive no clue what the hell happened, but i sure as hell dont believe the official story, and here's why. you dont need to tell people what happened, just start by trying to get them to see a different line of thinking, they need to figure it out on there own.
1 Lynucs 2015-07-28
You got one thing right, "no clue what the hell happened." Only the people involved know, that's it. Why waste time and energy on trying to figuring it out? There is no way to know what really happened even if there is video, I can make a spaceship look real, lol. You will never be able to please everyone, there will always be somebody wanting it to be more until the end of time. Just live and die, because none of us will know anything ever happened when we're 6 feet under.
0 ConvertsToMetric 2015-07-28
Mouseover to view the metric conversion for this comment
6 agreedis 2015-07-28
Very comprehensive, thank you.
5 nlourb_zdv_khuh 2015-07-28
Didn't even include the FACT that jet fuel can't melt steel beams.
6 grkirchhoff 2015-07-28
I hate how that has become a joke.
-4 MonsantosPaidShill 2015-07-28
It also didn't include the fact that melting the structure of the building is not necessary to make it collapse. Burning jet fuel has a high enough temperature to weaken the steel beams.
7 zeropoint357 2015-07-28
Missing the entire point. Which is that beams did indeed melt.
1 Lynucs 2015-07-28
So how did raw steel get made into beams in the first place if heat can't melt them into shape?
5 Surelythisisntaclone 2015-07-28
Having gone through flight school I noticed a problem in one of your arguments.
Squawk 7500 was created after 9/11. Before the attacks, there was no code for highjacking.Edit: My flight instructor was wrong. Although he had some of it right, the definition was changed after 9/11. The redditor below linked me to a pdf from the International Civil Aviation Organization which describes the use of squawk 7500. It is described as
If I was a pilot in that situation, I'm not sure that I would be thinking about whether these people are subjecting my aircraft to unlawful interference, nor would I probably remember which code it was for. For that reason, the definition of squawk 7500 was changed.
I know quoting my aviation teacher shouldn't hold much credit, but I do remember him complaining about the FAA forcing this to be taught. He says that during his training, the only reason they learned about squawks was for communicating with an ATC when approaching an airport.
Thank you for teaching me something new u/SovereignMan. If it wasn't for your research, I would have probably never known this!
9 SovereignMan 2015-07-28
Not true.
ICAO Doc 4444 - Air Traffic Management, Fourteenth Edition, Procedures for Air Navigation Services, International Civil Aviation Organization, (Dated January 11, 2001) (PDF)
Edit: It appears the date is actually November 1, 2001. It shows 1/11/2001 at the bottom of each page so I apparently misinterpreted it. I'm currently looking for the thirteenth edition but without success so far.
Edit 2: Okay. I found the Thirteenth Edition (PDF) dated 1996 and it also includes the 7500 code just like the Fourteenth Edition. So squawk 7500 was being used prior to 9/11/01.
-6 TheRehabKid 2015-07-28
Shhh....thorough research isn't needed to make a "comprehensive" list of "holes" around here.
7 conzorz 2015-07-28
We accept that the mainstream media lied us into every war up to, and including, Iraq having WMDs. But surely this time they're telling the truth.
Fool me once...
6 SovereignMan 2015-07-28
Is this thorough enough for you?
ICAO Doc 4444 - Procedures For Air Navigation Services - Rules Of The Air And Air Traffic Services, International Civil Aviation Organization, (PDF) Dated November 7, 1996. Code 7500 was most certainly in effect prior to 2001.
1 PhrygianMode 2015-07-28
Shhh....he can't respond with his foot in his mouth.
4 eskanonen 2015-07-28
You should be careful with your use of Newton's Third Law
Newton's 3rd Law is simply that for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction force. While I do agree it doesn't make sense that the top portion of the tower was able to completely obliterate everything below it at close to free fall speeds, having something like Newton's 3rd Law defined incorrectly makes people take your argument less seriously.
2 -Tom- 2015-07-28
Right, if anything only the supports immediately below the falling mass need to fight back, which the Newtons 3rd Law bit falls apart against.
1 Lynucs 2015-07-28
Right, a friend filled a balloon with water and then took a little stick pin at stuck it in one small spot and the entire balloon burst, how the hell can something so small destroy something so much bigger than it. I don't believe that crap, no way a little needle can do that much damage, pure crap... there must be something else!
1 -Tom- 2015-07-28
....What?
1 Lynucs 2015-07-28
What = went over your head, lol.
3 DronePuppet 2015-07-28
The biggest one is "government failed" to do their job! I'm thinking they failed for a reason.
4 conzorz 2015-07-28
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee
3 Apersonofinterest666 2015-07-28
Under Calls, you left out Barbara Olson's alleged phone calls to her husband Solicitor General Ted Olson. Olson claimed that his wife called him from Flight 77 that struck the Pentagon. First he said that she called him from her cell phone, then he said she called him from the seat back phone. When phone logs were released, they found that Barbara Olson never called him. Her call was especially important because it was used to establish the narrative that there were Muslim Hijackers who used box cutters to take over the plane and they had moved everyone to the back of the plane.
http://www.consensus911.org/point-pc-2/
This call is also important because Ted Olson is the Solicitor General of the United States and it has been proven beyond a doubt that he lied about receiving that phone call. He should be subpoenaed and made to testify under oath. Also significant is that Ted Olson represented George Bush at the Supreme Court for the 2000 Presidential Election. In an unprecedented and illegal action, the Supreme Court stopped the Florida Recount and declared George Bush the winner of the election. If Al Gore had won the election, would 9/11 have still happened?
4 SovereignMan 2015-07-28
Yes. Different puppet but same puppet masters.
2 -o-o-o 2015-07-28
they're making a list and checking it twice as long as you are on it things will never be nice NSA is coming to town. They see you when your sleeping they know when your awake they know how much you're spending if its more than what you make. You better not post,you better not try getting the truth out and I am telling you why. Bush and Cheney brought those buildings down
1 bmoconspir 2015-07-28
I'm sure NSA and Bush/Cheney are up in arms about some "truther"
2 Morlok8k 2015-07-28
Don't forget the explosion that vaporized the insides of WTC6...
1 Don117 2015-07-28
This post is going on the saved list OP. I wish I had 1000 printouts of this to post around the Pitt
0 unicornghost6969 2015-07-28
Thanks for the kind words. This is another user's submission, I only reposted it.
Use it however you can to spread the truth!
Cheers brother!!
1 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
I see nothing in there that is evidence that controlled demolitions brought down WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. Some speculation about a mushroom cloud and building falling straight down. No evidence.
You guys are making an extraordinary claim. You should have some pretty solid evidence. Leftover explosives. A guy saying "I helped do it and here are some pictures I took as we put the explosives in". A bunch of guys saying "we did it and here are documents showing how we did it". Something like that.
9 Quantumhead 2015-07-28
I see nothing in your post which is true.
4 aydoaris 2015-07-28
That's what makes the WTC7 argument so compelling. How does a building that suffered minimal damage collapse?
1 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
Burned for 7 hours.
But the fact is that you are giving no solid evidence that WTC7 was brought down by explosives. You are just saying you don't believe the govt explanation. That is not proof; that is not evidence. It's a bit like the people who think that, if they can poke holes in the theory of Evolution, that must mean they've proved that God exists.
3 thing_on_a_string 2015-07-28
Who cares, the fact is that WTC7 was not brought down by burning office papers.
Building codes were NEVER changed after 9/11 to fit the WTC7 scenario.
-4 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
You just keep denying, saying "no". You don't present any evidence showing explosives.
NIST says nothing unexplainable about the WTC7 collapse: "The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building." from http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm
NIST definitely DID recommend building code changes as a result of 9/11: http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc_100108.cfm Some of them seem to be WTC7-related, such as "Greater reliability of sprinklers ..."
2 aydoaris 2015-07-28
Not only are buildings designed to resist fires for prolonged periods of time, but there is no way the building's floors would pancake like that, not to mention fall at that speed. I'm not claiming to know what happened or how it happened, but all I know is that building didn't fall the way it did from a one or two floor office fire.
5 Apersonofinterest666 2015-07-28
Not to mention 8 stories of absolute free fall. Every single connection on 8 floors had to fail simultaneously for this to occur. We're talking hundreds of connections here. As if "poof" gone. free fall is the same as falling through empty air. It's just not possible. Also, they claim that the impact of the planes knocked the fire proofing off of the steel beams of WTC 1&2 enabling the fire to melt the steel beams. The fireproofing was still in place on WTC7 so the temperature of the fire would have to exceed that needed to melt steel because it would have to also burn off the fire proofing.
-1 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
Somehow many, many experts, in and out of govt, looked at the same event and didn't see the problems you are speculating about. Insurance companies looked at those events. I imagine the WTC collapses are examined frequently as cases in building engineering and civil engineering classes around the world.
3 thing_on_a_string 2015-07-28
And fought like tigers to avoid paying out. I believe theres still legal battles going on over WTC7.
-2 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
Yup, my point exactly. If there was any credible evidence, any credible experts, saying it was an explosives job, the insurance companies would be trumpeting that to the skies, in court and in the media. Instead, they argued about whether all three buildings were one "incident" or not, so one deductible versus three deductibles, stuff like that.
3 [deleted] 2015-07-28
That's the first you want to do after killing 3000 people and committing insurance fraud and insider trading for billions and high treason. "Yeah, umm, we did it."
-2 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
If you have no evidence, you shouldn't make the claim.
3 thing_on_a_string 2015-07-28
We have evidence that the official story is bullshit.
-2 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
You have speculation, "questions", innuendo.
Sure, the govt case isn't flawless, the govt investigation wasn't perfect. In any large event, there always will be unanswered questions, things that could/should have been investigated more, conflicting eyewitness accounts, unknown things, etc.
3 reputable_opinion 2015-07-28
DSC of the thermate in the dust samples, iron microspheres and hot spots 1800F, fires that lasted for months, they are all evidence. also witness statements of explosives, and molten metal, like you were in a foundry.
-1 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
What is this ?
How is a long-lasting fire evidence of explosives ? We have coal-mine fires that have burned for decades, yet were not started with explosives. Buildings routinely are demolished with explosives, yet don't burn for days or months, don't burn at all.
What is this ? I'm unaware of anyone saying they saw explosives in place in the buildings.
3 reputable_opinion 2015-07-28
Differential scanning calorimetry - basically it heat up a substance and measures the energy involved in combustion. the DSC shows very high performance thermitic material at low temperature - consistent with SEM and elemental analysis - not to mention the iron spheres produced by combustion.
these fires were 1800F.. even measure from space. how hot are those coal mine fires?
witness statements of explosions, and even those on tape.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw
BOOOM.. but don't bother looking for explosives.. the most likely cause ought not be officially investigated right? consistent with shit like the Phoenix memo.. keep playing dumb.
Molten metal. Described by first responders, eutectic steel with severe sulfidation and corrosion.. fires yeah, lol.
-3 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
Thanks for explanation of "DSC".
It's my understanding that the only samples tested were those found by civilians on nearby streets, not anything from the site itself. And no controls (from other NYC streets) were tested for comparison. And another lab disagrees with the results (although first lab wouldn't share its samples). Very tenuous.
"Hot fire" does not equal "fire for months". And you're not answering my statement about building demolition with explosives never causing long-term fire, usually not ANY fire.
"witness statements of explosions" is not "witness statements of explosives". So some people heard booms, so what ? When large buildings collapse, there are some booms.
No one took samples of that molten metal to see what it was. And it wouldn't be evidence of explosives anyway, it would be evidence of an accelerant or something.
"Most likely cause" seems to be airplanes hitting buildings, causing massive fires of jet fuel and building contents. It's been investigated. You are speculating, trying to justify a conclusion you want to be true, yet you have no good evidence.
1 reputable_opinion 2015-07-28
are you saying that those samples were spiked with highly energetic thermate?
again, no airplane hit WTC7 and it collapsed at free fall acceleration for over 8 stories. classic demolition.
-1 billdietrich1 2015-07-28
I'm saying only one lab is making that claim, and they're not sharing their samples, and their samples were collected from outside the site, and I believe they didn't compare to "control" samples collected from other parts of Manhattan. If their conclusion didn't fit with your desired conclusion, you'd reject their evidence out of hand.
WTC7 burned for 7 hours. Most experts seem to find the "free fall" claim wrong or irrelevant or something. And "similar to behavior from demolition" (if true) is not same as "was caused by demolition". You need some strong evidence. You don't have it.
1 conzorz 2015-07-28
To add: Suspicious circumstances about 9/11.
1 kaydpea 2015-07-28
If the military came out tomorrow and said "we did 9/11" nothing would change, nothing. It's time to move on to pressing issues that have influence today.
5 pilihpmi 2015-07-28
WTF ... would change nothing ? really ? - You're insane. I, for one, will stop paying taxes - already pissed I'm paying to kill brown people for these lyingfuckingmurdering assholes running our system. We know the 911 story is bullshit and we don't stop beating our drum till they admit or give in. So I will continue to do my little part - by being a shitty citizen to these asshole war mongering pricks.
3 joinedforthis 2015-07-28
You sound like a fucking nutcase mate.
3 CaptainCanuck705 2015-07-28
Nutcase has a point tho. Corruption deserves corrosion of society
1 kaydpea 2015-07-28
You'll just go to prison for not paying taxes. What they did as a response to 9/11 is worse than if they perpetrated the events. It wouldn't be the worst thing that a government has done, people focus on this pursuit as a means to justify countless hours, you're really trying to convince yourself. Your time would be better spent in areas they don't have plausible den I ability though. This, even if true, will never be admitted to.
1 [deleted] 2015-07-28
[deleted]
1 thing_on_a_string 2015-07-28
The alleged hijackers have a history in the US, some at civilian flights schools, some at military schools by name and location, some evidence of hovering on the fringes of the October 2001 Anthrax attacks... which opens up a massive cans of worms.
Niece/aunt connected to Atta's Florida landlady, died from anthrax in October/November 2001...
Which opens up a massive cans of worms, or should if anybody is awake.
-6 TheRehabKid 2015-07-28
Shhh....thorough research isn't needed to make a "comprehensive" list of "holes" around here.
9 SovereignMan 2015-07-28
Not true.
ICAO Doc 4444 - Air Traffic Management, Fourteenth Edition, Procedures for Air Navigation Services, International Civil Aviation Organization, (Dated January 11, 2001) (PDF)
Edit: It appears the date is actually November 1, 2001. It shows 1/11/2001 at the bottom of each page so I apparently misinterpreted it. I'm currently looking for the thirteenth edition but without success so far.
Edit 2: Okay. I found the Thirteenth Edition (PDF) dated 1996 and it also includes the 7500 code just like the Fourteenth Edition. So squawk 7500 was being used prior to 9/11/01.
0 spays_marine 2015-07-28
You will allow "them" to frustrate "our plans" a lot easier if you go through with this. It's the perfect set up for a divide and conquer tactic. Create a unified set of ideas in a group as diverse as /r/conspiracy by setting it up as some sort of manifesto and then just drive a wedge in it. Nothing good can come from this. It will also act as a chilling effect because "it's in the sidebar/sticky anyway and everything has been said".
Your argument is a nice slogan, but I don't see how it applies here, nothing functionally is stopping us now from providing posts with evidence. In fact, that happens daily. And it's exactly as it should be. If a handful of people (read a mod and someone who agrees with him) will decide what is or isn't the truth, this place will revolt within 2 months of the idea being brought into action.
Let's not go down the route of having truth picked from the top down please, that's exactly what we're against. Well, it's what I'm against at least.
5 pilihpmi 2015-07-28
WTF ... would change nothing ? really ? - You're insane. I, for one, will stop paying taxes - already pissed I'm paying to kill brown people for these lyingfuckingmurdering assholes running our system. We know the 911 story is bullshit and we don't stop beating our drum till they admit or give in. So I will continue to do my little part - by being a shitty citizen to these asshole war mongering pricks.