September 11, 2001 (long read)

I have read up on them.  I do not have as much of an opinion however on this group, as I do not have enough info.  I do however, know there are a few groups out there like the Bilderberg Group, and have a feeling they do not have everyone's best interest in mind

Bohemian Grove is another place where these elite groups meet.  Just learning about their ceremonies, makes me feel something is definitely odd with them. 

Dead on

I actually meant to highlight this part of the text,

in any terrorist attack you have to consider who benefitted the most...

Suppose 10 tons of molten aluminum fell from the south tower, about 1/8th of that available from the airplane. If it had been molten iron produced from thermite, 60 tons of thermite reactants would have to have been stored in Fuji Bank to produce the same volume spilling out of the south tower. The section of floor would have to hold all of that plus the aircraft.

*Amount of aluminum can be ascertained by counting the droplets and measuring their size compared to the known size of the window. It's not easy to get a good number on this. It's based on the number of slugs seen in video stills, their size relative to the window width which was about 22 inches, and the density of aluminum, assuming this was aluminum."

"The thermite wouldn't have only needed to make a clean cut like the photo above, it would have also needed to cut sideways. Not an easy feat for thermite. You see, it's a powder which burns chaotically. Maybe with some device but no working device has been proven to me to work to cut a vertical column. You can direct it with a canister but that method wouldn't work to cut a column. The canister only makes a small hole. Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage."

Hmmmm these FACTS seem to make it HIGHLY UNLIKELY that thermite was used.  Not only would an incredibly large amount of thermite need to be used (they have claimed to have found traces lol), thermite would have been very ineffective at cutting the core columns of the building.  

Another genius here made the claim that "pull it" is used in demolition as a cue to start the explosives.  WRONG!

There is a HUGE amount of evidence that proves this claim incorrect.  It is not supported by any demolition experts.  There is also quite a bit of evidence from Larry Silverstein, Dan Nigro (fire chief), and other firefighters that "pull it" referred to evacuating rescue workers.  Here is just one quote from Nigro, "For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed."  So to believe the claim that "pull it" referred to anything to do with demolition we have to believe a few things:

1)  Every demolition expert that has been consulted is incorrect and/or telling a lie

2)  The chief of the NYFD has the authority to call for a building to be blown up

3)  Multiple rescue workers are incorrect and/or telling a lie

4)  The mysterious powers behind the inside job felt an attack on the pentagon, collapse of the twin towers, and an airplane crash in PA were not enough to get public support for what they wanted to do

It all sounds very likely huh?

Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns."

So the conspiracy nuts want you to believe that falling debris fell FASTER than free fall speed.  There are many videos that show the collapse and a timer.  I agree that some of these are deceptive, on both sides.  They are also hard to judge because of the large amounts of smoke that block the view.  However, the FACT that debris falls to the ground BEFORE the building collapses is proof that the building did not fall at free fall speed. 

FLIGHT 93 PHONE CALLS

A lot of the facts about the phone calls posted here are incorrect. 

"Ultimately, 37 phone calls were made. 17 of them were successful, meaning that about 46% of the calls placed from the plane were actually successful."

It's important to note that multiple calls were NOT successful.  Many were short in duration, suggesting that the call may have been dropped. To say that these calls were executed to perfection is just plain wrong, and saying that the calls are impossible is even more wrong. 

"Successful cell phone calls were placed at 9:50 by Sandra Bradshaw, 9:49 by Marion Britton, 9:58 by Edward Felt, and 9:30, 9:37 and 9:44 by Tom Burnett. Why is this important, you may ask? The fact of the matter is that there is some question as to whether cell phone calls can be successfully made at high altitudes. 

Professor A.K. Dewdney ran four "laps" around London, Ontario airspace and only climbed to an elevation of 8,000 feet. He extrapolated his results beyond 8,000 feet up to 32,000 feet, not to mention he extrapolated his location to Pennsylvania! How do we know that the service area is the same in London, Ontario as it is in Pennsylvania?

There are a few comments about whether cell phone calls should be able to work above 30,000 feet:

"According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."

From another article...

Downs, a software salesman, learned of the terrorist attacks while on a commercial flight returning home from South America. The captain explained that "terrorist attacks on airplanes" meant they were making an emergency landing. People on board using cell phones soon discovered the true nature of the day's events.
 
"We found out from people using their phones that the World Trade Center was hit, and some unspecified area in Washington," Downs recalls.

Well isn't that interesting.  I wonder if these cell phone calls ON AN AIRPLANE were "faked" as well.

And from another article...

...we were forced to make an emergency landing in Cleveland because there were reports that a bomb or hijacking was taking place on our plane. The pilot had radioed that there was suspicious activity in the cabin since one of the passengers was speaking urgently on his cellphone and ignored repeated flight attendant requests to stop using his cell phone while in flight.

WHAT?!?!  Another cell phone on another AIRPLANE?????  Man the government sure produced a lot of fake calls on 09/11.  Oh, I almost forgot, the man on that plane was arrested when the plane landed.  Interesting.  Arrested for the government faking a phone call.

Yet another article, not from 09/11, but an airplane and a cellphone...

...The pilot indicated that he may be overflying the cloud tops. He did not file a flight plan. The pilot's wife was driving to the same location and they talked by cell phone while en route. When the pilot failed to arrive at the destination a search was started. According to radar data, the aircraft was at 15,400 feet when it started a rapid descent. Radar was lost at 11,800 feet. Witnesses reported seeing the aircraft descending near vertically out of broken clouds with the engine at full power. When the aircraft was found, the right outboard wing panel from about station 110 outboard was missing. About a month later the outer wing panel was found. Analysis of the failed structure indicated a positive overload of the wing and the horizontal stabilators. 

Wait!  He was in a plane and could actually use a cell phone?!?!?!  This happened in 1996.  So the government laid some mighty fine ground work for 09/11/01

Smido would have you believe there is less than a half percent chance those calls were made.  Interesting.  Cell phones worked on planes prior to 09/11 and also worked on planes (even ones not involved in the attacks) on that day.  You would think someone who lost a family member on 09/11 would have a little more respect for those who also suffered the same horrible fate.  He is essentially calling those killed on that day, and their families, liars.  Absolutely disgusting.

If you read my posts more clearly, instead of only reading the parts you want to read, you would notice that I never once said the famlies were lying.

Do I believe the government had them listen to cell phone calls from their families?  Yes.

Do I believe these cell phone calls were impossible to make, even after reading your absolutely ridiculous debunking theory?  Yes.

Do I believe the government, in some way, faked the cell phone calls to the families and made them believe that the calls came from their relatives aboard the flights? Yes.

Immediately after Flight 93 "crashed", the government was on the doorsteps of these famlies offering condolences while simultaneously having each and every family member sign confidentiality agreements about everything that happened regarding the cell phone calls. This was literally within an hour of the Flight 93 "crash".  These people are no longer allowed to talk about -anything- that took place regarding the dialogue of the cell phone calls, and the punishment if they break that agreement is treason. But yet the government can release any amout of dialogue they want, knowing the famlies cannot contradict it.

Now, you tell me, Mr. Lawyer-Attorney Double-Talker, does that sound kosher to you?  I've met with a lady (mother of one of the Flight 93 victims), and she gets so choked up about the thought of those cell phone calls being brought up that it would make you vomit.  And it's not the type of "choked up" that you would expect from a mother that heard from her son for the last time on that day.  It's the type of "choked up" that comes from holding in an extravagent lie for almost 10 years.  I can see it in her eyes, her body language, and her emotional connection to someone else who lost a family member that day (me).

When you go as far as I have to do the research necessary, then please come back and try to insult me and put words in my mouth.  But you have absolutely no basis for anything you've said in the above posts.  No video of falling "debris" which fell faster than the rubble.  No actual scientific evidence of cell phone calls happening over 20,000 feet (which I've provided a .0001 chance of occurance for under 3 seconds, and .000001 chance of occurance for over 5 seconds). You think you can get a quote from a random pilot/passenger/whoever that said they once flew on a plane that went over 30,000 feet and their cell phone "worked great!", and I'll instantly believe you? 

 No, sir.  Please do not insult my intelligence.

You have industry experts to say they happened?  I also have industry experts to say they're impossible.

Does that make you correct and me incorrect? Because essentially, that's what you just said, along with adding an immature 16-year old insult to justify your ignorant flamboyance

Oh, smarty:

I'm still waiting for the video of the "falling debris" at freefall speed.

It's one thing to put something into writing, but another to show a video of such evidence.  Are you having trouble with the ladder?

But Hugh, I still don't see anyone successfully disproving the freefall speed of the towers (particularly, Tower #7 which was -not- hit by a plane), or the impossibility of the cell phone calls

Just because people in this thread have used pseudoscience as well as quoted a few websites here and there, that doesn't mean that the things I've posted are inaccurate. 

If what "your side" is saying is 100% unequivically true (as you claim: the govt had -nothing- to do with 9/11), beyond a shadow of a doubt, then surely you can do much better than this to prove it?

It's strange because I used the word "latter" correctly about a dozen times in this thread, but this time I chose to spell it incorrectly.

The brain does funny things..

Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:

I won't get into a debate regarding free-fall speeds. #1 I am not an engineer and #2 the FACT is this was a unique situation, so I don't see how anyone can apply science to this situation which has so many unknowns. 

smdio, you can harp all day long that no one can disprove the buildings fell in free-fall speed ... but I'm not sure what that would prove ... unless you could duplicate the attack, with the same style plane hitting the same sized structures, carrying the exact same amount of jet fuel, and the building having been built the exact same way ... you get my point.

This is not a simple math formula. It's uniqueness needs to be acknowledged.

hmmmmmm .... I started this post with "I won't get into a debate..." 

LOL ... ok, now I'm done. Interesting debate fella's. Proceed  

Weight, steel, planes, or otherwise has nothing to do with an object falling 1362 feet to the ground below, only aided by gravity and unobstructed.  This can be calculated (and has been calculated) by using a simply math formula to determine the time it would take for an object to fall, unobstructed, 1362 feet.  The time comes out to be 9.2 seconds.

The towers fell in 9.2 seconds.

If the towers fell over 9.2 seconds, then they did not freefall.  But no one here has shown me otherwise, even though there's dozens of videos showing the towers collapsing.

That many signed a PETITION saying they want an independent investigation....not one presented any evidence that thermite was involved.

Thanks for playing, though.  More evidence you see what you want to see.  signing a petition. 

Feel free to try again, though.  Once again, I want a qualified engineer saying he is convinced that thermite was involved and presents appropriate evidence to prove it.  I only want one.

But please don't send me any more petition signers. 

PM me and I'll tell you my fathers name and the story of the South Tower that he worked on for most of his life.  I'll even send you pictures of us at the WTC.  I have dozens of them.

I will -not- however tell you anything about the women I've been in contact with, per her request

If you refuse that, kindly get the fuck out of our thread

Then I'll expect a public apology

1346 engineers putting their reputation on the line. 

Asking for an investigation equals putting your reputation on the line. 

Not one says thermite was involved and presents one shred of evidence.

Making it up as you go.