General Betting
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
06 May 11
19:03
Joined:
Date Joined:
21 Jul 07
I know we have some sharp minds on here so wondered if some one could check this out.The chances of 7/7 Drill and Attack Coinciding ?
http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/probability_drill_attack_coinciding.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/London_attack/probability_drill_attack_coinciding.htm
Show More
Amazing coincidence? 
I'm not one for believing the offical line
I'm not one for believing the offical line
Amazing coincidence?
I'm not one for believing the offical line
I'm not one for believing the offical line
They say you can prove anything with statistics, but to be honest you can badly attempt to disprove more through a poor understanding of probabilities...
"Coincidence" and in particular "amazing coincidence" is normally better understood as a manifestation of confirmation bias. Our brains are hard-wired to spot patterns and to remark at as being unusual when patterns we weren't expecting emerge. We see patterns where there aren't any. We scream about patterns we "see" that are nonsense, because that's evolution and defence mechanisms at work. Confirmation bias explains a lot about conspiracy theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
So where is it at play in the example you posted? The odds being chosen are selective and then being incorrectly multiplied up as wholly independent events, which is flawed, and this makes it "seem" more unlikely.
For example, the figures stated imply that all hours of the day have both an equal chance of being subject to a terror attack and equal chance of having a drill being run. That's flawed: terrorist attacks will be targeted at rush hours when the network is at its busiest, and drills will start near the beginning of the day in order to ease securing personnel at normal day rates, etc.
He's also assumed that terrorist attacks will only happen once every five years and drills will also happen once every five years. At the beginning of 2005 I would imagine most security service staff would have not even given you even money on an attack within 12 months. I expect drills to practice for terrorist attacks probably happen more than 2-3 times per year.
Odds of a morning being subject to a terrorist attack in 2005? 1 in 364. Odds of a morning in 2005 being start of a drill? 3 in 364. Odds of them coinciding? About 500/1.
So his figures are vastly inflated. Worse he then takes the figures and cubes them because there were 3 attacks and drills being run in 3 stations. This only makes sense if all the attacks and all the drills were independent of each other and in no way connected. Of course they weren't: it was a single terrorist attack, with 3 targets (and so no multiplication or addition is necessary), and it was a single drill being run by London authorities, not three drills being run by three separate groups that happened to be on the same day.
True odds then are way shorter. Depending on what (fairer) numbers you use, and you avoid multiplying them, it comes out around 250-500 to 1. The vast majority of the time it isn't going to happen, but it's going to happen way, way more than those figures predict.
For all we know, the attackers were aware of the drill, and wanted to make use of the confusion having an attack on the same day would produce in the emergency services. If that was the case, the odds were nearer 1.01...
ALWAYS question probabilities that are cited by conspiracy theorists, especially if they're multiplying them up to make them impressively large. HTH...
"Coincidence" and in particular "amazing coincidence" is normally better understood as a manifestation of confirmation bias. Our brains are hard-wired to spot patterns and to remark at as being unusual when patterns we weren't expecting emerge. We see patterns where there aren't any. We scream about patterns we "see" that are nonsense, because that's evolution and defence mechanisms at work. Confirmation bias explains a lot about conspiracy theories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
So where is it at play in the example you posted? The odds being chosen are selective and then being incorrectly multiplied up as wholly independent events, which is flawed, and this makes it "seem" more unlikely.
For example, the figures stated imply that all hours of the day have both an equal chance of being subject to a terror attack and equal chance of having a drill being run. That's flawed: terrorist attacks will be targeted at rush hours when the network is at its busiest, and drills will start near the beginning of the day in order to ease securing personnel at normal day rates, etc.
He's also assumed that terrorist attacks will only happen once every five years and drills will also happen once every five years. At the beginning of 2005 I would imagine most security service staff would have not even given you even money on an attack within 12 months. I expect drills to practice for terrorist attacks probably happen more than 2-3 times per year.
Odds of a morning being subject to a terrorist attack in 2005? 1 in 364. Odds of a morning in 2005 being start of a drill? 3 in 364. Odds of them coinciding? About 500/1.
So his figures are vastly inflated. Worse he then takes the figures and cubes them because there were 3 attacks and drills being run in 3 stations. This only makes sense if all the attacks and all the drills were independent of each other and in no way connected. Of course they weren't: it was a single terrorist attack, with 3 targets (and so no multiplication or addition is necessary), and it was a single drill being run by London authorities, not three drills being run by three separate groups that happened to be on the same day.
True odds then are way shorter. Depending on what (fairer) numbers you use, and you avoid multiplying them, it comes out around 250-500 to 1. The vast majority of the time it isn't going to happen, but it's going to happen way, way more than those figures predict.
For all we know, the attackers were aware of the drill, and wanted to make use of the confusion having an attack on the same day would produce in the emergency services. If that was the case, the odds were nearer 1.01...
ALWAYS question probabilities that are cited by conspiracy theorists, especially if they're multiplying them up to make them impressively large. HTH...
cheers totga ,while I agree with much of what you and much of it makes sense, there was also a drill that coincided with the 9/11 attack.What are the chances of 9/11 and 7/7 coinciding with drills?As you say there are some imponderables like could the terrorist have none about the drills.Doubtful I would of thought these things are top secret.And we don't even know how often they run drills.
There are 274 tube stations... visor consultants a private company run by an ex chief of the metropolitan Police, Peter Power, were doing exercises. Here are the interviews he gave on the day of 7/7 atrocities :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc > on telly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbUQiYOGjU >BBC5 RADIO
Just listen. They were doing drills almost precisely the same as the attacks that happened at the 3 tube stations, at the same time .
Come on , the same thing happened on 9/11 with NORAD doing drills that hijacked aircraft were going to be flown into prominent buildings and landmarks.
This is on record, and is why the fighter pilots were unable to track down the hijacked aircraft because of so many 'ghost planes' on the radar screen, and also due to confusion as to whether they were in exercise mode or this was the real deal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc > on telly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEbUQiYOGjU >BBC5 RADIO
Just listen. They were doing drills almost precisely the same as the attacks that happened at the 3 tube stations, at the same time .
Come on , the same thing happened on 9/11 with NORAD doing drills that hijacked aircraft were going to be flown into prominent buildings and landmarks.
This is on record, and is why the fighter pilots were unable to track down the hijacked aircraft because of so many 'ghost planes' on the radar screen, and also due to confusion as to whether they were in exercise mode or this was the real deal.
Come on , the same thing happened on 9/11 with NORAD doing drills that hijacked aircraft were going to be flown into prominent buildings and landmarks.
At first glance this does look very suspicious ,but think about how many terrorist attacks there have been over the last 40 years.Some are going to coincide with drills.2 in the last 40 out of how many attacks, hundreds or thousands.To calculate the odds you would have to know how often they have drills, we don't have this information.it is like a place having a fire drill and then a real fire happens at the same time,I'm sure this has happened, but would you think it was a conspiracy or just a coincidence?
This is on record, and is why the fighter pilots were unable to track down the hijacked aircraft because of so many 'ghost planes'
There was many planes in the air, there was a lot of confusion, some were not responding, but turned out to have not been hijacked.
on the radar screen, and also due to confusion as to whether they were in exercise mode or this was the real deal
They just asked is this exercise or real deal. they were told no this is not an exercise, no confusion there.
At first glance this does look very suspicious ,but think about how many terrorist attacks there have been over the last 40 years.Some are going to coincide with drills.2 in the last 40 out of how many attacks, hundreds or thousands.To calculate the odds you would have to know how often they have drills, we don't have this information.it is like a place having a fire drill and then a real fire happens at the same time,I'm sure this has happened, but would you think it was a conspiracy or just a coincidence?
This is on record, and is why the fighter pilots were unable to track down the hijacked aircraft because of so many 'ghost planes'
There was many planes in the air, there was a lot of confusion, some were not responding, but turned out to have not been hijacked.
on the radar screen, and also due to confusion as to whether they were in exercise mode or this was the real deal
They just asked is this exercise or real deal. they were told no this is not an exercise, no confusion there.
Sunset,
You are just waaaaaaaaaaaay too trusting.
Since 9/11 there has been precisely 1 day of bombings in the UK and on the same day as these drills? Come on.
You are just waaaaaaaaaaaay too trusting.
Since 9/11 there has been precisely 1 day of bombings in the UK and on the same day as these drills? Come on.
too trusting, conspiracy believers are far too trusting of conspiracy blog sites and videos on youtube.There have been other terrorist attacks around the world both before and after 9/11, only 2 coincided with drills.
IMHO the worst thing about the internet* is the huge growth in conspiracy nutjobs. People read something on a crackpot site or watch a YouTube video and suddenly there an expert that knows all sorts of inside info that nobody else can figure out
* apart fromn losing lots of money on Betfair, obv.
* apart fromn losing lots of money on Betfair, obv.
I just picked a random number from 1-100 20 times and got the sequence:
65
53
24
89
14
34
18
58
37
24
28
53
78
13
20
87
95
71
34
90
The chance of this exact sequence occuring is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Coincidence? YOU DECIDE!
65
53
24
89
14
34
18
58
37
24
28
53
78
13
20
87
95
71
34
90
The chance of this exact sequence occuring is 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
Coincidence? YOU DECIDE!
I just had a phone call from Aunt Mabel to meet me at the tube station as she was coming over, she hung up and left before I could ask which station.Didn't even know where she was coming from.
Uncle Morris done the same 5 minutes later and then a long-lost friend Barry called and said to meet him at the tube. He forgot to say which tube before hanging up the phone.I had not heard from him for years and did not know where he was currently living.
Undeterred by this I sent wifey to Finchley Road& Frognal.
Son number 1 was sent to Ludgate circus whilst I just went over to Edgware road.
As I arrived I met Barry, texted wifey and she said she had just met Aunt Mabel, and before I could even call son number 1 ,he phoned to say he was just taxiing home with Uncle Morris.
On the way home we stopped the car for fizzy drinks and all happened to meet in the same supermarket too.
Uncle Morris done the same 5 minutes later and then a long-lost friend Barry called and said to meet him at the tube. He forgot to say which tube before hanging up the phone.I had not heard from him for years and did not know where he was currently living.
Undeterred by this I sent wifey to Finchley Road& Frognal.
Son number 1 was sent to Ludgate circus whilst I just went over to Edgware road.
As I arrived I met Barry, texted wifey and she said she had just met Aunt Mabel, and before I could even call son number 1 ,he phoned to say he was just taxiing home with Uncle Morris.
On the way home we stopped the car for fizzy drinks and all happened to meet in the same supermarket too.
There's so much "truth" on t'internet anyone can find evidence to support whatever they want to believe.
I suspect it was aliens wot dunnit, with terrestrial support from the Masons (the Grandpa in my pocket family on Ceebeebies).
I suspect it was aliens wot dunnit, with terrestrial support from the Masons (the Grandpa in my pocket family on Ceebeebies).
it doesn't hurt the phrase the question slightly differently.
when the terrorist attack occurred on the 7/7, what was the probability that a drill would be taking place.
when the terrorist attack occurred on the 7/7, what was the probability that a drill would be taking place.
it's not that drills were taking place; this is reasonable and we know they conduct drills from time to time.
But they were at the exact 3 stations of 274 for the same scenario as occurred .Peter Power of visor consultants who were doing the exercises tells you this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGE9FiuM06o radio 5 live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc tv
But they were at the exact 3 stations of 274 for the same scenario as occurred .Peter Power of visor consultants who were doing the exercises tells you this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGE9FiuM06o radio 5 live
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKvkhe3rqtc tv
after further reading, they weren't drills for emergency services, it was a walk through exercise for 4 crisis managers at the private company Reed Elsevier. this increases the likelihood of any one of these walk through exercises for a private company occuring during a period of hightened terror alert much higher. maybe one in ten, possibly one in five.
the 3/274 probability is hugely misleading. the three bombs went off a train leaving liverpool street, a train leaving Kings Cross and a train travelling between the major interchange of Edgware Road and Paddington.
With a view to creating as many casualties as possible, Victoria, Waterloo, Euston, Charing X and London Bridge are the probably the only other feasible stations to select; Mill Hill East, Morden and Croxley aren't going to be in the running.
Given that the attacks should be localised to maximise the confusion and traffic problems and to simultaenously minimise the availability of emergency services, localising the attacks has a more devasting outcome thus further reducing the combinations.
Given that Reed Elsevier is based in Chancery Lane, they were presumably working off a similar premise which had the most impact to their business.
the 3/274 probability is hugely misleading. the three bombs went off a train leaving liverpool street, a train leaving Kings Cross and a train travelling between the major interchange of Edgware Road and Paddington.
With a view to creating as many casualties as possible, Victoria, Waterloo, Euston, Charing X and London Bridge are the probably the only other feasible stations to select; Mill Hill East, Morden and Croxley aren't going to be in the running.
Given that the attacks should be localised to maximise the confusion and traffic problems and to simultaenously minimise the availability of emergency services, localising the attacks has a more devasting outcome thus further reducing the combinations.
Given that Reed Elsevier is based in Chancery Lane, they were presumably working off a similar premise which had the most impact to their business.
when tavistock bus explosion happened near the British medical association was this coincidence or planned? What are the chances of it exploding right out side ?
unlikely that it would have been planned given that the bus was not on its normal route. i would imagine the original plan would have been to explode it on Euston Road.
Maybe there were no bombs and it was all filmed in a studio.
Maybe New York doesn't even exist!
Maybe New York doesn't even exist!
I'm beginning to think the world doesn't exist.the skeptics like to be skeptical about anything they don't want to believe.
the skeptics like to be skeptical about anything they don't want to believe.
d style the point I'm trying to make is that strange things happen,coincidences if you like the bus exploding right out side where doctors are having a meeting.yet the conspiracy people don't see that as being planned.
it's funny how sunset christo is already labelling anyone who questions official version of events as 'conspiracy' people.
I discussed this with Christo on another thread that people always resort to handy slogans and labelling. The truth is the truth and your c0cky ,know-it-all manner probably means you do not have it.
I do not claim to have it either but I do know when I am being asked to swallow something of a highly dubious nature.
We all know the connotations of that term ''conspiracy/ conspiracy theory'', it is a slogan designed by the controllers for people to use, as if the slogan itself explains it then. Yes ,there are people who design these new hip phrases which are fed through television and the like until we are all parroting the same stuff.
I was talking to a woman once about 9/11, and I had some points to raise. As soon as it became apparent we were not on the same page ,she said :'' but that's a conspiracy theory''.
I knew then to shut up, and I know now not to discuss this further with the likes of Sunset Christo who already knows everything can be explained by his crazy book of 1001 coincidences. What a great bible !
I discussed this with Christo on another thread that people always resort to handy slogans and labelling. The truth is the truth and your c0cky ,know-it-all manner probably means you do not have it.
I do not claim to have it either but I do know when I am being asked to swallow something of a highly dubious nature.
We all know the connotations of that term ''conspiracy/ conspiracy theory'', it is a slogan designed by the controllers for people to use, as if the slogan itself explains it then. Yes ,there are people who design these new hip phrases which are fed through television and the like until we are all parroting the same stuff.
I was talking to a woman once about 9/11, and I had some points to raise. As soon as it became apparent we were not on the same page ,she said :'' but that's a conspiracy theory''.
I knew then to shut up, and I know now not to discuss this further with the likes of Sunset Christo who already knows everything can be explained by his crazy book of 1001 coincidences. What a great bible !
kefir-man wrote it's funny how sunset christo is already labelling anyone who questions official version of events as 'conspiracy' people.
What do you want me to call you,most people call you nutters, but I'm not rude like them.
I discussed this with Christo on another thread that people always resort to handy slogans and labelling. The truth is the truth and your c0cky ,know-it-all manner probably means you do not have it.
I'm not c0cky,I'm confident about what I believe.And i don't claim to know it all,far from it,but until you come up with some solid evidence i will continue to believe the official version because that is what the evidence points to.
I do not claim to have it either but I do know when I am being asked to swallow something of a highly dubious nature.
What are you talking about now,Bin laden dieing or 7/7?
We all know the connotations of that term ''conspiracy/ conspiracy theory'', it is a slogan designed by the controllers for people to use, as if the slogan itself explains it then. Yes ,there are people who design these new hip phrases which are fed through television and the like until we are all parroting the same stuff.
Every one gets a label so we all know who is being talked about.
I was talking to a woman once about 9/11, and I had some points to raise. As soon as it became apparent we were not on the same page ,she said :'' but that's a conspiracy theory''.
I knew then to shut up, and I know now not to discuss this further with the likes of Sunset Christo who already knows everything can be explained by his crazy book of 1001 coincidences. What a great bible
I have never claimed to know everything, you are putting words in my mouth.crazy book of 1001 coincidences?waht are you on about? i never mentioned any such book.I mentioned a book called 1001 rediculous ways to die,but that is not a Bible. are you on drugs?
What do you want me to call you,most people call you nutters, but I'm not rude like them.
I discussed this with Christo on another thread that people always resort to handy slogans and labelling. The truth is the truth and your c0cky ,know-it-all manner probably means you do not have it.
I'm not c0cky,I'm confident about what I believe.And i don't claim to know it all,far from it,but until you come up with some solid evidence i will continue to believe the official version because that is what the evidence points to.
I do not claim to have it either but I do know when I am being asked to swallow something of a highly dubious nature.
What are you talking about now,Bin laden dieing or 7/7?
We all know the connotations of that term ''conspiracy/ conspiracy theory'', it is a slogan designed by the controllers for people to use, as if the slogan itself explains it then. Yes ,there are people who design these new hip phrases which are fed through television and the like until we are all parroting the same stuff.
Every one gets a label so we all know who is being talked about.
I was talking to a woman once about 9/11, and I had some points to raise. As soon as it became apparent we were not on the same page ,she said :'' but that's a conspiracy theory''.
I knew then to shut up, and I know now not to discuss this further with the likes of Sunset Christo who already knows everything can be explained by his crazy book of 1001 coincidences. What a great bible
I have never claimed to know everything, you are putting words in my mouth.crazy book of 1001 coincidences?waht are you on about? i never mentioned any such book.I mentioned a book called 1001 rediculous ways to die,but that is not a Bible. are you on drugs?
I never once mentioned myself as being a 'conspiracy theorist' ...but you are happy to misquote me, so what's your beef ?
No I do not take drugs, including among that alcohol...do you ?
Maybe as you have me handily labelled as 'conspiracy people', I can categorise you as a coincidence theorist now so people reading this can know who is being talked about.
As for 7/7 ,there is lots of evidence to suggest the official story is flawed and even a downright lie, in my view. May I suggest you view the J7 JULY 7th TRUTH CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, and at least then you will have been privy to the same information as I have been privy to (information which does not claim to know what DID happen, ie conspiracy thories, but rather challenges officially released information as highly flawed and even possibly lies).
After all, we have all heard the official line, so it does no harm to spend an hour listening to the unofficial line, does it , and even analysing the official story to see if there are incongruencies.
I am not one of those 'conspiracy people' into aliens, bigfoot, ufo's etc etc...I am more interested in things that are tangible and can be practically looked at with a view to finding out if possible the actual truth of the matter.
If after viewing this site you still feel the same way, at least you will have a more thorough view of us 'conspiracy kooks'.
Cheers and good luck
No I do not take drugs, including among that alcohol...do you ?
Maybe as you have me handily labelled as 'conspiracy people', I can categorise you as a coincidence theorist now so people reading this can know who is being talked about.
As for 7/7 ,there is lots of evidence to suggest the official story is flawed and even a downright lie, in my view. May I suggest you view the J7 JULY 7th TRUTH CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, and at least then you will have been privy to the same information as I have been privy to (information which does not claim to know what DID happen, ie conspiracy thories, but rather challenges officially released information as highly flawed and even possibly lies).
After all, we have all heard the official line, so it does no harm to spend an hour listening to the unofficial line, does it , and even analysing the official story to see if there are incongruencies.
I am not one of those 'conspiracy people' into aliens, bigfoot, ufo's etc etc...I am more interested in things that are tangible and can be practically looked at with a view to finding out if possible the actual truth of the matter.
If after viewing this site you still feel the same way, at least you will have a more thorough view of us 'conspiracy kooks'.
Cheers and good luck
kefir -man wrote I never once mentioned myself as being a 'conspiracy theorist' ...but you are happy to misquote me, so what's your beef ?
You could have fooled me judging by your posts, keep banging on about drills on 7/7 being suspicious.I have no beef with you.
No I do not take drugs, including among that alcohol...do you ?
No.
Maybe as you have me handily labelled as 'conspiracy people', I can categorise you as a coincidence theorist now so people reading this can know who is being talked about.
Know really because I don't know if i believe in coincidence or not.
As for 7/7 ,there is lots of evidence to suggest the official story is flawed and even a downright lie, in my view.
But this doesn't make you a conspiracy believer,loltell me then what is your definition of a conspiracy believer?
May I suggest you view the J7 JULY 7th TRUTH CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, and at least then you will have been privy to the same information as I have been privy to (information which does not claim to know what DID happen, ie conspiracy thories, but rather challenges officially released information as highly flawed and even possibly lies).
I will take a look.
After all, we have all heard the official line, so it does no harm to spend an hour listening to the unofficial line, does it , and even analysing the official story to see if there are incongruencies.
I have spent a lot of time listening to the unofficial line about 9/11,not so much 7/7.
I am not one of those 'conspiracy people' into aliens, bigfoot, ufo's etc etc
never said you was.
...I am more interested in things that are tangible and can be practically looked at with a view to finding out if possible the actual truth of the matter.
The above subjects can be practically looked at with a view to finding out if possible the actual truth of the matter as well.
If after viewing this site you still feel the same way, at least you will have a more thorough view of us 'conspiracy kooks'.
Cheers and good luck
You could have fooled me judging by your posts, keep banging on about drills on 7/7 being suspicious.I have no beef with you.
No I do not take drugs, including among that alcohol...do you ?
No.
Maybe as you have me handily labelled as 'conspiracy people', I can categorise you as a coincidence theorist now so people reading this can know who is being talked about.
Know really because I don't know if i believe in coincidence or not.
As for 7/7 ,there is lots of evidence to suggest the official story is flawed and even a downright lie, in my view.
But this doesn't make you a conspiracy believer,lol
tell me then what is your definition of a conspiracy believer?May I suggest you view the J7 JULY 7th TRUTH CAMPAIGN WEBSITE, and at least then you will have been privy to the same information as I have been privy to (information which does not claim to know what DID happen, ie conspiracy thories, but rather challenges officially released information as highly flawed and even possibly lies).
I will take a look.
After all, we have all heard the official line, so it does no harm to spend an hour listening to the unofficial line, does it , and even analysing the official story to see if there are incongruencies.
I have spent a lot of time listening to the unofficial line about 9/11,not so much 7/7.
I am not one of those 'conspiracy people' into aliens, bigfoot, ufo's etc etc
never said you was.
...I am more interested in things that are tangible and can be practically looked at with a view to finding out if possible the actual truth of the matter.
The above subjects can be practically looked at with a view to finding out if possible the actual truth of the matter as well.
If after viewing this site you still feel the same way, at least you will have a more thorough view of us 'conspiracy kooks'.
Cheers and good luck
kefir-man I've had a look at the J7 JULY 7th TRUTH CAMPAIGN WEBSITE.It just seems to rample on.What do you think is the hard evidence that makes you doubt the official version.
bullet points would be nice.
bullet points would be nice.
Where is the hard evidence that backs up the official conspiracy theory Sunset Christo ?
Bullet points please. I have read the official conspiracy theory and there is nothing there that would stand in a court of law to convict those men.
Bullet points please. I have read the official conspiracy theory and there is nothing there that would stand in a court of law to convict those men.
oh the old I'll ignore your question, but ask you a question ploy.
I will answer your question,but if you don't answer mine I will have to draw the conclusion that you are wasting my time.
9/11 commision report.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Pages 215-254.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf
Hijacked aircraft[edit] American Airlines Flight 11Main article: American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).[7]
Two flight attendants called the American Airlines reservation desk during the hijacking. Betty Ong reported that "the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B."[8] Flight attendant Amy Sweeney called a flight services manager at Logan Airport in Boston and described them as Middle Eastern.[8] She gave the staff the seat numbers and they pulled up the ticket and credit card information of the hijackers, identifying Mohamed Atta.[9]
Mohamed Atta was heard speaking over the air traffic control system, broadcasting messages he intended for the passengers.[10]
“ We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport.
Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.
Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves.
”
[edit] United Airlines Flight 175Main article: United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (United Arab Emirati), Fayez Banihammad (United Arab Emirati), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).[7]
A United Airlines mechanic was called by a flight attendant who stated the crew had been murdered and the plane hijacked.[11]
[edit] American Airlines Flight 77Main article: American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).[7]
Two hijackers, Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed were identified by clerks as having bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 from Advance Travel Service in Totowa, New Jersey with $1,842.25 in cash.[8] Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, used a cell phone to call her mother in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. Unlike the other flights, there was no report of stabbings or bomb threats. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, it is possible that pilots were not killed and were sent to the rear of the plane.[12] Passenger Barbara Olson called her husband, Theodore Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, stating the flight had been hijacked and the hijackers had knives and box cutters.[13] Two of the passengers had been on the FBI's terrorist-alert list: Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.
[14]
[edit] United Airlines Flight 93Main article: United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).[7]
Passenger Jeremy Glick stated that the hijackers were Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, and carrying knives.[15][16]
Hijacker Ziad Jarrah also mistakenly broadcast messages intended for passengers over the air traffic control system:
“ Ladies and gentlemen. This is the captain. Please sit down. Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit.
[...]
Uh, this is the captain. Would like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb aboard and are going back to the airport, and to have our demands met. Please remain quiet.[17]
”
Jarrah is also heard on the cockpit voice recorder.[18] In addition, DNA samples submitted by his girlfriend were matched to remains recovered in Shanksville.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
I will answer your question,but if you don't answer mine I will have to draw the conclusion that you are wasting my time.
9/11 commision report.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Pages 215-254.
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2002/DCI_18_June_testimony_new.pdf
Hijacked aircraft[edit] American Airlines Flight 11Main article: American Airlines Flight 11
Hijackers: Mohamed Atta (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).[7]
Two flight attendants called the American Airlines reservation desk during the hijacking. Betty Ong reported that "the four hijackers had come from first-class seats: 2A, 2B, 9A, and 9B."[8] Flight attendant Amy Sweeney called a flight services manager at Logan Airport in Boston and described them as Middle Eastern.[8] She gave the staff the seat numbers and they pulled up the ticket and credit card information of the hijackers, identifying Mohamed Atta.[9]
Mohamed Atta was heard speaking over the air traffic control system, broadcasting messages he intended for the passengers.[10]
“ We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay. We are returning to the airport.
Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.
Nobody move please. We are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves.
”
[edit] United Airlines Flight 175Main article: United Airlines Flight 175
Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (United Arab Emirati), Fayez Banihammad (United Arab Emirati), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).[7]
A United Airlines mechanic was called by a flight attendant who stated the crew had been murdered and the plane hijacked.[11]
[edit] American Airlines Flight 77Main article: American Airlines Flight 77
Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).[7]
Two hijackers, Hani Hanjour and Majed Moqed were identified by clerks as having bought single, first-class tickets for Flight 77 from Advance Travel Service in Totowa, New Jersey with $1,842.25 in cash.[8] Renee May, a flight attendant on Flight 77, used a cell phone to call her mother in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals who had moved them to the rear of the plane. Unlike the other flights, there was no report of stabbings or bomb threats. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, it is possible that pilots were not killed and were sent to the rear of the plane.[12] Passenger Barbara Olson called her husband, Theodore Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, stating the flight had been hijacked and the hijackers had knives and box cutters.[13] Two of the passengers had been on the FBI's terrorist-alert list: Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.
[14]
[edit] United Airlines Flight 93Main article: United Airlines Flight 93
Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).[7]
Passenger Jeremy Glick stated that the hijackers were Arabic-looking, wearing red headbands, and carrying knives.[15][16]
Hijacker Ziad Jarrah also mistakenly broadcast messages intended for passengers over the air traffic control system:
“ Ladies and gentlemen. This is the captain. Please sit down. Keep remaining sitting. We have a bomb on board. So sit.
[...]
Uh, this is the captain. Would like you all to remain seated. There is a bomb aboard and are going back to the airport, and to have our demands met. Please remain quiet.[17]
”
Jarrah is also heard on the cockpit voice recorder.[18] In addition, DNA samples submitted by his girlfriend were matched to remains recovered in Shanksville.[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
Sunset, I have seen too many times where these dialogues end up going..no-one ever gives an inch and anything I present you will probably have crossed at some point before and already reached your own viewpoint.
That's fine by me, you are an adult I presume , and I am too long in the tooth to try too hard to convince anyone of anything.
I am totally unconvinced by the stories presented to us regarding both 9/11 and 7/7. Personally I have studied this stuff a few years ago and saw an overwhelming amount of unanswered stuff, and let's face it not everything can be just blown off as tin-foil-hat-wearing bunkum.
I have witnessed experts in their fields question the building collapses, including WTC7 , I have seen demolition experts upon being shown the footage say with certainty that they are witnessing a controlled demolition ;and the total bafflement &surprise on their faces when told by the interviewer that'' no, the fire caused it to fall''. I have read about seasoned pilots who claim most of the manouvers performed were next-to-impossible , I have heard about suppressed firemen reports at the Trade Centres who were hearing multiple charges and/or bombs going off ,and the janitor of the twin towers reports the same. In fact he reports loud explosions from near the basement moments before the first strike higher up.
I have heard the BBC report (Jane Standley...still up on You Tube) a half hour early that WTC7 had fallen, whilst it was still standing behind the woman reporter.
There is more I could waffle on about but none of this will sway you, and yet what are we to make of these witness reports ?
I mean you can't just pick and choose the witnesses' reports to fit the version you like best ...can you ? And disregard others that don't rubber stamp the official story...? And there is a ton of this kind of stuff.
I have heard Larry Silverstein, the complex' new landlord, saying his piece that they basically ''decided to pull it'' a demolition term regarding WTC7 ..bear in mind it takes weeks if not longer to rig up the explosives for a safe demolition of a building especially of one that size.
I gave you a website to look at regarding similar unanswered stuff about 7/7/2005 and you found it to be too rambling...OK fair enough. But anything I have to add you'd probably find too rambling also.
So you are welcome to your view of being convinced despite a mountain of conflicting reports...
The website I linked you to does not claim to know what happened on 7/7...what they are campaigning for is an independent inquiry, because a closer look at the story reveals things that do not stand up (such as the train they allegedly caught being CANCELLED that morning ! There were follow up trains but all were officially running plenty late enough for the men to have been at the tube stations according to the official conspiracy theory).
As yet there is nothing that would stand in a court of law to convict the men who are alleged to have carried out the atrocities.
So we have to believe the official story, which is shown upon reasonable inspection to be riddled with holes.
An independent inquiry was blocked by Blair. The same in Usa regarding 9/11 ,in fact the metal struts were illegally shipped off to China pretty quick which goes against their own law about moving evidence from the scene of a crime..
Anyway, enough from me on this...research some more or keep your same view ; I do not really mind.
That's fine by me, you are an adult I presume , and I am too long in the tooth to try too hard to convince anyone of anything.
I am totally unconvinced by the stories presented to us regarding both 9/11 and 7/7. Personally I have studied this stuff a few years ago and saw an overwhelming amount of unanswered stuff, and let's face it not everything can be just blown off as tin-foil-hat-wearing bunkum.
I have witnessed experts in their fields question the building collapses, including WTC7 , I have seen demolition experts upon being shown the footage say with certainty that they are witnessing a controlled demolition ;and the total bafflement &surprise on their faces when told by the interviewer that'' no, the fire caused it to fall''. I have read about seasoned pilots who claim most of the manouvers performed were next-to-impossible , I have heard about suppressed firemen reports at the Trade Centres who were hearing multiple charges and/or bombs going off ,and the janitor of the twin towers reports the same. In fact he reports loud explosions from near the basement moments before the first strike higher up.
I have heard the BBC report (Jane Standley...still up on You Tube) a half hour early that WTC7 had fallen, whilst it was still standing behind the woman reporter.
There is more I could waffle on about but none of this will sway you, and yet what are we to make of these witness reports ?
I mean you can't just pick and choose the witnesses' reports to fit the version you like best ...can you ? And disregard others that don't rubber stamp the official story...? And there is a ton of this kind of stuff.
I have heard Larry Silverstein, the complex' new landlord, saying his piece that they basically ''decided to pull it'' a demolition term regarding WTC7 ..bear in mind it takes weeks if not longer to rig up the explosives for a safe demolition of a building especially of one that size.
I gave you a website to look at regarding similar unanswered stuff about 7/7/2005 and you found it to be too rambling...OK fair enough. But anything I have to add you'd probably find too rambling also.
So you are welcome to your view of being convinced despite a mountain of conflicting reports...
The website I linked you to does not claim to know what happened on 7/7...what they are campaigning for is an independent inquiry, because a closer look at the story reveals things that do not stand up (such as the train they allegedly caught being CANCELLED that morning ! There were follow up trains but all were officially running plenty late enough for the men to have been at the tube stations according to the official conspiracy theory).
As yet there is nothing that would stand in a court of law to convict the men who are alleged to have carried out the atrocities.
So we have to believe the official story, which is shown upon reasonable inspection to be riddled with holes.
An independent inquiry was blocked by Blair. The same in Usa regarding 9/11 ,in fact the metal struts were illegally shipped off to China pretty quick which goes against their own law about moving evidence from the scene of a crime..
Anyway, enough from me on this...research some more or keep your same view ; I do not really mind.
b]Sunset, I have seen too many times where these dialogues end up going..no-one ever gives an inch and anything I present you will probably have crossed at some point before and already reached your own viewpoint.
That's fine by me, you are an adult I presume , and I am too long in the tooth to try too hard to convince anyone of anything.
I am totally unconvinced by the stories presented to us regarding both 9/11 and 7/7.[/b]
Stories backed up by evidence.
Personally I have studied this stuff a few years ago and saw an overwhelming amount of unanswered stuff,
Same here(we had a discussion on chit chat last year that last months) and the conclusion I came to was that 95% of the evidence popinted to the oficial version.
and let's face it not everything can be just blown off as tin-foil-hat-wearing bunkum.
I have witnessed experts in their fields question the building collapses, including WTC7 ,
yes some do and many more don't.
I have seen demolition experts upon being shown the footage say with certainty that they are witnessing a controlled demolition
A controlled demolition with out the sound of explosions,hmmm.never seen the so called experts explain that one though.
;and the total bafflement &surprise on their faces when told by the interviewer that'' no, the fire caused it to fall''.
For the millionth time it wasn't just the fires it was the damage,sheesh.
I have read about seasoned pilots who claim most of the manouvers performed were next-to-impossible ,
So they think the videos of the planes crashing into the twin Towers was fake? Thats what I would ask them.
I have heard about suppressed firemen reports at the Trade Centres who were hearing multiple charges and/or bombs going off
.
That was the building collapsing and also the lifts going down.
,and the janitor of the twin towers reports the same. In fact he reports loud explosions from near the basement moments before the first strike higher up.
That was the lifts crashing down
I have heard the BBC report (Jane Standley...still up on You Tube) a half hour early that WTC7 had fallen, whilst it was still standing behind the woman reporter.
There was a lot of confusion that day,they had been expecting the building to fall for hours because of the damage. Initial press reports are often wrong at first.
There is more I could waffle on about but none of this will sway you, and yet what are we to make of these witness reports ?
No because there is a rational answer for just about anything they you think points to conspiracy.
I mean you can't just pick and choose the witnesses' reports to fit the version you like best ...can you ?
See above,witnesses can be mistaken about what they think they heard.
And disregard others that don't rubber stamp the official story...?
I don't disregard them I have given you an explanation for them.
And there is a ton of this kind of stuff.
yes and I have seen 95% of it debunked.
I have heard Larry Silverstein, the complex' new landlord, saying his piece that they basically ''decided to pull it'' a demolition term regarding WTC7
he was talking about pulling out the fire crews,he has explained this himself.
..bear in mind it takes weeks if not longer to rig up the explosives for a safe demolition of a building especially of one that size.
yes and no one even saw them do it,give me a break.if you could produce just one witness who saw them rigging up the explosives for a safe demolition may be I would believe you.how many people are in this conspiracy and every one has kept silent.nothing leaked to wikileaks about WT7 being ****.
I gave you a website to look at regarding similar unanswered stuff about 7/7/2005 and you found it to be too rambling...OK fair enough. But anything I have to add you'd probably find too rambling also.
So you are welcome to your view of being convinced despite a mountain of conflicting reports...
see above I have just answered you point by point explaining why I'm not convinced.As for conflicting reports this is what you would expect from eye witness testimony, happens all the time, but when it's a big event like 9/11 it's seen as evidence for conspiracy.
The website I linked you to does not claim to know what happened on 7/7...what they are campaigning for is an independent inquiry,
This would be a good idea, but when it comes to the same conclusion as the official version, it will be rejected by the CT's.
because a closer look at the story reveals things that do not stand up (such as the train they allegedly caught being CANCELLED that morning ! There were follow up trains but all were officially running plenty late enough for the men to have been at the tube stations according to the official conspiracy theory).
What is your source for this?
As yet there is nothing that would stand in a court of law to convict the men who are alleged to have carried out the atrocities.
You said this about the 9/11 terrorists and I gave you evidence proving their involvement and you ignored it. That is the difference between me and you I don't ignore evidence either for or against conspiracy to do so would be intellectually dishonest.
So we have to believe the official story, which is shown upon reasonable inspection to be riddled with holes.
No it's not as i have just shown by my point by point rebuttal.
An independent inquiry was blocked by Blair. The same in Usa regarding 9/11 ,in fact the metal struts were illegally shipped off to China pretty quick which goes against their own law about moving evidence from the scene of a crime..
So you think they should have just left the crime scene untouched?For how long?What do you think happens to a car when it's used in a crime,eventually it gets crushed.why would they need all the steel, they didn't need it all,that would be daft.
Anyway, enough from me on this...research some more or keep your same view ; I do not really mind.
That's fine by me, you are an adult I presume , and I am too long in the tooth to try too hard to convince anyone of anything.
I am totally unconvinced by the stories presented to us regarding both 9/11 and 7/7.[/b]
Stories backed up by evidence.
Personally I have studied this stuff a few years ago and saw an overwhelming amount of unanswered stuff,
Same here(we had a discussion on chit chat last year that last months) and the conclusion I came to was that 95% of the evidence popinted to the oficial version.
and let's face it not everything can be just blown off as tin-foil-hat-wearing bunkum.
I have witnessed experts in their fields question the building collapses, including WTC7 ,
yes some do and many more don't.
I have seen demolition experts upon being shown the footage say with certainty that they are witnessing a controlled demolition
A controlled demolition with out the sound of explosions,hmmm.never seen the so called experts explain that one though.
;and the total bafflement &surprise on their faces when told by the interviewer that'' no, the fire caused it to fall''.
For the millionth time it wasn't just the fires it was the damage,sheesh.
I have read about seasoned pilots who claim most of the manouvers performed were next-to-impossible ,
So they think the videos of the planes crashing into the twin Towers was fake? Thats what I would ask them.
I have heard about suppressed firemen reports at the Trade Centres who were hearing multiple charges and/or bombs going off
.
That was the building collapsing and also the lifts going down.
,and the janitor of the twin towers reports the same. In fact he reports loud explosions from near the basement moments before the first strike higher up.
That was the lifts crashing down
I have heard the BBC report (Jane Standley...still up on You Tube) a half hour early that WTC7 had fallen, whilst it was still standing behind the woman reporter.
There was a lot of confusion that day,they had been expecting the building to fall for hours because of the damage. Initial press reports are often wrong at first.
There is more I could waffle on about but none of this will sway you, and yet what are we to make of these witness reports ?
No because there is a rational answer for just about anything they you think points to conspiracy.
I mean you can't just pick and choose the witnesses' reports to fit the version you like best ...can you ?
See above,witnesses can be mistaken about what they think they heard.
And disregard others that don't rubber stamp the official story...?
I don't disregard them I have given you an explanation for them.
And there is a ton of this kind of stuff.
yes and I have seen 95% of it debunked.
I have heard Larry Silverstein, the complex' new landlord, saying his piece that they basically ''decided to pull it'' a demolition term regarding WTC7
he was talking about pulling out the fire crews,he has explained this himself.
..bear in mind it takes weeks if not longer to rig up the explosives for a safe demolition of a building especially of one that size.
yes and no one even saw them do it,give me a break.if you could produce just one witness who saw them rigging up the explosives for a safe demolition may be I would believe you.how many people are in this conspiracy and every one has kept silent.nothing leaked to wikileaks about WT7 being ****.
I gave you a website to look at regarding similar unanswered stuff about 7/7/2005 and you found it to be too rambling...OK fair enough. But anything I have to add you'd probably find too rambling also.
So you are welcome to your view of being convinced despite a mountain of conflicting reports...
see above I have just answered you point by point explaining why I'm not convinced.As for conflicting reports this is what you would expect from eye witness testimony, happens all the time, but when it's a big event like 9/11 it's seen as evidence for conspiracy.
The website I linked you to does not claim to know what happened on 7/7...what they are campaigning for is an independent inquiry,
This would be a good idea, but when it comes to the same conclusion as the official version, it will be rejected by the CT's.
because a closer look at the story reveals things that do not stand up (such as the train they allegedly caught being CANCELLED that morning ! There were follow up trains but all were officially running plenty late enough for the men to have been at the tube stations according to the official conspiracy theory).
What is your source for this?
As yet there is nothing that would stand in a court of law to convict the men who are alleged to have carried out the atrocities.
You said this about the 9/11 terrorists and I gave you evidence proving their involvement and you ignored it. That is the difference between me and you I don't ignore evidence either for or against conspiracy to do so would be intellectually dishonest.
So we have to believe the official story, which is shown upon reasonable inspection to be riddled with holes.
No it's not as i have just shown by my point by point rebuttal.
An independent inquiry was blocked by Blair. The same in Usa regarding 9/11 ,in fact the metal struts were illegally shipped off to China pretty quick which goes against their own law about moving evidence from the scene of a crime..
So you think they should have just left the crime scene untouched?For how long?What do you think happens to a car when it's used in a crime,eventually it gets crushed.why would they need all the steel, they didn't need it all,that would be daft.
Anyway, enough from me on this...research some more or keep your same view ; I do not really mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc demolition expert video regarding WTC7
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-0740-cancellation-confirmation.html >the same site you couldn't be bothered with earlier, the cancelled trains stuff. Or just google 7/7 trains cancelled..
William Rodriquez - WTC Head Janitor for 20 years ,his testimony.
He heard massive explosion BEFORE the first plane struck. Then moments later the noise higher up of the plane impacting...he tells you what he heard that day. Listen....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka8muGhlciA&feature=related
and .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9lkeniJLDw
Firemen ,talking about explosives :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLt9AYYwliM
More on the demolitions/ buildings falling/ firemen, this is really pretty persuasive regarding the fire-fighters' testimonies, I urge you to watch this mini documentary of 2 parts, 10 mins each part.
There are links provided by the video if you want to read the fire-mens' testimonies. Only about 2% of the testimonies support the official conspiracy theory.
The overwhelming number support controlled demolition and explosives being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHwWhqarRdk&feature=related >part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCw6Ps1ekMY&feature=related >part 2
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-0740-cancellation-confirmation.html >the same site you couldn't be bothered with earlier, the cancelled trains stuff. Or just google 7/7 trains cancelled..
William Rodriquez - WTC Head Janitor for 20 years ,his testimony.
He heard massive explosion BEFORE the first plane struck. Then moments later the noise higher up of the plane impacting...he tells you what he heard that day. Listen....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka8muGhlciA&feature=related
and .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9lkeniJLDw
Firemen ,talking about explosives :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLt9AYYwliM
More on the demolitions/ buildings falling/ firemen, this is really pretty persuasive regarding the fire-fighters' testimonies, I urge you to watch this mini documentary of 2 parts, 10 mins each part.
There are links provided by the video if you want to read the fire-mens' testimonies. Only about 2% of the testimonies support the official conspiracy theory.
The overwhelming number support controlled demolition and explosives being used.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHwWhqarRdk&feature=related >part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCw6Ps1ekMY&feature=related >part 2
kefir man wrote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=877gr6xtQIc demolition expert video regarding WTC7
I've seen this before. I would have asked the expert why the demolotion charges couldn't be heard and also if you watch the video carefully you will see that the top left(most damaged part) of the building falls a few seconds before the rest of the building.
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-0740-cancellation-confirmation.html
I will look into this, but even if the train was cancelled they could have got the latter train,and the kings croos trains could of been running late.Are you trying to say these 4 were not involved, if not where are they now,been bumped off by the government no doub't.
>the same site you couldn't be bothered with earlier, the cancelled trains stuff. Or just google 7/7 trains cancelled..
I could be bothered with it, I didn't read all of it though.i have other things to do.
William Rodriquez - WTC Head Janitor for 20 years ,his testimony.
He heard massive explosion BEFORE the first plane struck. Then moments later the noise higher up of the plane impacting...he tells you what he heard that day. Listen....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka8muGhlciA&feature=related
and .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9lkeniJLDw
yes he lost the court case to Bush. The so called evidence was thrown out by an INDEPENDANT court.Says it all really.
Though Rodriguez' October 2004 lawsuit Rodriguez v. Bush alleges that bombs were planted in the sub-basement and the Twin Towers brought down by controlled demolition, no claim is made there that Rodriguez witnessed any explosives or incendiary devices himself.[5] Nor are any of Rodriguez' claimed 14 corroborating witnesses named or quoted, though the Complaint quotes dozens of others. Of the 27 witnesses Rodriguez claims he offered to the 9/11 Commission, which witnesses the Commission allegedly refused to interview and not one of them was quoted or identified in the lawsuit. None of the fifteen persons alleged in the first paragraph of the suit to have been "single-handedly rescued" by Rodriguez were identified either
The matter was transferred to the Southern District of New York on May 2, 2005.[52]
In January 2006, Rodriguez swore and filed a 51 page affidavit in opposition to a motion to dismiss, which reiterated and expanded upon his conspiracy allegations.[53]
On June 26, 2006, the court dismissed Rodriguez's claims against the USA, DHS, and FEMA, and gave Rodriguez until July 7, 2006 to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants.[54]
Rodriguez failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of his claims against all of the remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez
Firemen ,talking about explosives :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLt9AYYwliM
I've seen all this before and it's all been debunked before.what they heard was probably the building collapsing and the lifts crashing down.
More on the demolitions/ buildings falling/ firemen, this is really pretty persuasive regarding the fire-fighters' testimonies, I urge you to watch this mini documentary of 2 parts, 10 mins each part.
There are links provided by the video if you want to read the fire-mens' testimonies. Only about 2% of the testimonies support the official conspiracy theory.
The overwhelming number support controlled demolition and explosives being used.
I think you will find it's the other way around thats why the Rodriquez case was dismissed, lack of evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHwWhqarRdk&feature=related >part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCw6Ps1ekMY&feature=related >part 2
The explosions were probably the building collapsing and the lifts crashing down.the building was collapsing before it completely failed. When it came down it reached a tipping point were it can't support its own weight any more because of the weakened steel.controlled explosions don't look like the twin towers collapse. Controlled explosions start from the bottom,not 3 quarters the way up. The twin towers peeled like a banana,nothing like a controlled demolition.
I've seen this before. I would have asked the expert why the demolotion charges couldn't be heard and also if you watch the video carefully you will see that the top left(most damaged part) of the building falls a few seconds before the rest of the building.
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-0740-cancellation-confirmation.html
I will look into this, but even if the train was cancelled they could have got the latter train,and the kings croos trains could of been running late.Are you trying to say these 4 were not involved, if not where are they now,been bumped off by the government no doub't.
>the same site you couldn't be bothered with earlier, the cancelled trains stuff. Or just google 7/7 trains cancelled..
I could be bothered with it, I didn't read all of it though.i have other things to do.
William Rodriquez - WTC Head Janitor for 20 years ,his testimony.
He heard massive explosion BEFORE the first plane struck. Then moments later the noise higher up of the plane impacting...he tells you what he heard that day. Listen....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka8muGhlciA&feature=related
and .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9lkeniJLDw
yes he lost the court case to Bush. The so called evidence was thrown out by an INDEPENDANT court.Says it all really.
Though Rodriguez' October 2004 lawsuit Rodriguez v. Bush alleges that bombs were planted in the sub-basement and the Twin Towers brought down by controlled demolition, no claim is made there that Rodriguez witnessed any explosives or incendiary devices himself.[5] Nor are any of Rodriguez' claimed 14 corroborating witnesses named or quoted, though the Complaint quotes dozens of others. Of the 27 witnesses Rodriguez claims he offered to the 9/11 Commission, which witnesses the Commission allegedly refused to interview and not one of them was quoted or identified in the lawsuit. None of the fifteen persons alleged in the first paragraph of the suit to have been "single-handedly rescued" by Rodriguez were identified either
The matter was transferred to the Southern District of New York on May 2, 2005.[52]
In January 2006, Rodriguez swore and filed a 51 page affidavit in opposition to a motion to dismiss, which reiterated and expanded upon his conspiracy allegations.[53]
On June 26, 2006, the court dismissed Rodriguez's claims against the USA, DHS, and FEMA, and gave Rodriguez until July 7, 2006 to show cause why his lawsuit should not be dismissed with respect to the other 153 defendants.[54]
Rodriguez failed to do so, and the court dismissed all of his claims against all of the remaining 153 defendants on July 17, 2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Rodriguez
Firemen ,talking about explosives :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLt9AYYwliM
I've seen all this before and it's all been debunked before.what they heard was probably the building collapsing and the lifts crashing down.
More on the demolitions/ buildings falling/ firemen, this is really pretty persuasive regarding the fire-fighters' testimonies, I urge you to watch this mini documentary of 2 parts, 10 mins each part.
There are links provided by the video if you want to read the fire-mens' testimonies. Only about 2% of the testimonies support the official conspiracy theory.
The overwhelming number support controlled demolition and explosives being used.
I think you will find it's the other way around thats why the Rodriquez case was dismissed, lack of evidence.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHwWhqarRdk&feature=related >part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCw6Ps1ekMY&feature=related >part 2
The explosions were probably the building collapsing and the lifts crashing down.the building was collapsing before it completely failed. When it came down it reached a tipping point were it can't support its own weight any more because of the weakened steel.controlled explosions don't look like the twin towers collapse. Controlled explosions start from the bottom,not 3 quarters the way up. The twin towers peeled like a banana,nothing like a controlled demolition.
I hope others reading this thread will visit the links. In spite of Christo's insistence, I am sure many of you see what I see.
On one of those videos I linked you can hear the 'pop pop, pop' just as the building begins to collapse.
These are experienced fire-fighters and only a very small percentage of them gave testimonies that backed the pancake theory (at freefall speed as near as dammit).Many of them were reporting the explosions and
On one of those videos I linked you can hear the 'pop pop, pop' just as the building begins to collapse.
These are experienced fire-fighters and only a very small percentage of them gave testimonies that backed the pancake theory (at freefall speed as near as dammit).Many of them were reporting the explosions and
I've seen this before. I would have asked the expert why the demolotion charges couldn't be heard and also if you watch the video carefully you will see that the top left(most damaged part) of the building falls a few seconds before the rest of the building.
but he is an expert Christo. You are not. I trust his take on it above yours.
I will look into this, but even if the train was cancelled they could have got the latter train,and the kings croos trains could of been running late.Are you trying to say these 4 were not involved, if not where are they now,been bumped off by the government no doub't.
Why not look into this ? The link is there for crying out loud.. You will see that according to the timetables, even a later train they would have not made the tubes according to the official conspiracy theory.
You said about the Gov't bumping them off, not me.I am making no inferences here...
I could be bothered with it, I didn't read all of it though.i have other things to do
Ok so you could be bothered with it but just not enough to read it all.
Controlled explosions start from the bottom,not 3 quarters the way up. The twin towers peeled like a banana,nothing like a controlled demolition.
Listen to the expert ,that is what he asserts ; that WTC7 did indeed get taken out from the bottom. You know that building, WTC7 , the one that wasn't even hit by a plane ,and any fires from debris and damage in WTC7 were blowing black smoke and therefore not anywhere near red hot.
I've seen all this before and it's all been debunked before.what they heard was probably the building collapsing and the lifts crashing down.
But they are experts .You are not, they reported explosions and explosive devices going off.
I do not think you visited all my links at all. You are just staying with the official conspiracy theory.
Fine by me.
Buildings don't collapse like a peeled banana into their own footprint.. In fact these buildings were designed to withstand multiple plane impacts, so said the buildings designer.
None of the fifteen persons alleged in the first paragraph of the suit to have been "single-handedly rescued" by Rodriguez were identified either
But he was a key witness...why would he lie ?
Do we only give witnesses credibility when their tale backs up the official story then ?
but he is an expert Christo. You are not. I trust his take on it above yours.
I will look into this, but even if the train was cancelled they could have got the latter train,and the kings croos trains could of been running late.Are you trying to say these 4 were not involved, if not where are they now,been bumped off by the government no doub't.
Why not look into this ? The link is there for crying out loud.. You will see that according to the timetables, even a later train they would have not made the tubes according to the official conspiracy theory.
You said about the Gov't bumping them off, not me.I am making no inferences here...
I could be bothered with it, I didn't read all of it though.i have other things to do
Ok so you could be bothered with it but just not enough to read it all.
Controlled explosions start from the bottom,not 3 quarters the way up. The twin towers peeled like a banana,nothing like a controlled demolition.
Listen to the expert ,that is what he asserts ; that WTC7 did indeed get taken out from the bottom. You know that building, WTC7 , the one that wasn't even hit by a plane ,and any fires from debris and damage in WTC7 were blowing black smoke and therefore not anywhere near red hot.
I've seen all this before and it's all been debunked before.what they heard was probably the building collapsing and the lifts crashing down.
But they are experts .You are not, they reported explosions and explosive devices going off.
I do not think you visited all my links at all. You are just staying with the official conspiracy theory.
Fine by me.
Buildings don't collapse like a peeled banana into their own footprint.. In fact these buildings were designed to withstand multiple plane impacts, so said the buildings designer.
None of the fifteen persons alleged in the first paragraph of the suit to have been "single-handedly rescued" by Rodriguez were identified either
But he was a key witness...why would he lie ?
Do we only give witnesses credibility when their tale backs up the official story then ?
kefor-man wrote I hope others reading this thread will visit the links. In spite of Christo's insistence, I am sure many of you see what I see.
On one of those videos I linked you can hear the 'pop pop, pop' just as the building begins to collapse.
Thats the building pancacking.One floor coming down on top of the other.You think that isn't going to make a noise?
These are experienced fire-fighters and only a very small percentage of them gave testimonies that backed the pancake theory (at freefall speed as near as dammit).Many of them were reporting the explosions and
I've just explained the so called explosion, you of course ignored what I said.
On one of those videos I linked you can hear the 'pop pop, pop' just as the building begins to collapse.
Thats the building pancacking.One floor coming down on top of the other.You think that isn't going to make a noise?
These are experienced fire-fighters and only a very small percentage of them gave testimonies that backed the pancake theory (at freefall speed as near as dammit).Many of them were reporting the explosions and
I've just explained the so called explosion, you of course ignored what I said.
kefir-man wrote I've seen this before. I would have asked the expert why the demolotion charges couldn't be heard and also if you watch the video carefully you will see that the top left(most damaged part) of the building falls a few seconds before the rest of the building.
but he is an expert Christo. You are not. I trust his take on it above yours.
I'm not asking you to take on it above his,but don't ignore what the vast majority of experts say about it as well.
For example
Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Popular Mechanics and the mainstream media have rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories.[8][9] The civil engineering establishment generally accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
You pick one expert that knows little about the evidence and ignore all the others that have looked at the evidence and compiled reports.Nice cherry picking.
I will look into this, but even if the train was cancelled they could have got the latter train,and the kings croos trains could of been running late.Are you trying to say these 4 were not involved, if not where are they now,been bumped off by the government no doub't.
Why not look into this ?
I said I will looked into it.
The link is there for crying out loud.
I have read the link, but unlike you I don't take things at face value, you might be gullible ,but I'm not.
. You will see that according to the timetables, even a later train they would have not made the tubes according to the official conspiracy theory.
Like I said the tubes could have been running late.
You said about the Gov't bumping them off, not me.I am making no inferences here...
it was a joke, I was taking the piss, you have to account for what happened to them though.You are just making more questions than answers. Occam's razor applies here.
I could be bothered with it, I didn't read all of it though.i have other things to do
Ok so you could be bothered with it but just not enough to read it all.
correct I have spent more time than the vast majority reading conspiracy stuff.90% of it doesn't check out and is easily debunked, for those that have some common sense.
Controlled explosions start from the bottom,not 3 quarters the way up. The twin towers peeled like a banana,nothing like a controlled demolition.
Listen to the expert ,that is what he asserts
I don't claim to be an expert, but I have seen controlled demolitions and they don't look anything like the twin towers, WT7 looks more like a controlled demolition.
; that WTC7 did indeed get taken out from the bottom.
Like i said if you watch the video carefully you will see that part of it falls a few seconds before the rest,this was the part that was most damaged by the twin towers falling. You of course ignored this because it soughts your agenda.
You know that building, WTC7 , the one that wasn't even hit by a plane ,and any fires from debris and damage in WTC7 were blowing black smoke and therefore not anywhere near red hot.
it was hit by the twin towers though abd had been burning all day and the fire fighters couldn't tackle it because lack of water.Please prove that black smoke means that the fire is not red hot?
I've seen all this before and it's all been debunked before.what they heard was probably the building collapsing and the lifts crashing down.
But they are experts .You are not, they reported explosions and explosive devices going off.
Like I said you ignore the experts(who are the vast majority) that disagree with you.
I do not think you visited all my links at all.
You have no evidence for this and if you think I'm lying than there is little point in us conversing.
You are just staying with the official conspiracy theory.
Fine by me.
yes because that is where the evidence points.
Buildings don't collapse like a peeled banana into their own footprint.
the twin towers did not collapse into their own footprint,that is why the buidlings around them got destroyed and badly damaged.
. In fact these buildings were designed to withstand multiple plane impacts, so said the buildings designer.
ye the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable as well, I guess thats still floating around somewhere as well, may be the same place as the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorists are.
None of the fifteen persons alleged in the first paragraph of the suit to have been "single-handedly rescued" by Rodriguez were identified either
But he was a key witness...why would he lie ?
Making money from public speaking,because he likes the attention.the Judge didn't believe him.The judge asked him to present his evidence, he didn't.
Do we only give witnesses credibility when their tale backs up the official story then ?
When it is corrobarated by other witnesses and physical evidence.This trumps a lone witness ,yes.
but he is an expert Christo. You are not. I trust his take on it above yours.
I'm not asking you to take on it above his,but don't ignore what the vast majority of experts say about it as well.
For example
Published reports and articles by the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Popular Mechanics and the mainstream media have rejected the 9/11 conspiracy theories.[8][9] The civil engineering establishment generally accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, rather than controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
You pick one expert that knows little about the evidence and ignore all the others that have looked at the evidence and compiled reports.Nice cherry picking.
I will look into this, but even if the train was cancelled they could have got the latter train,and the kings croos trains could of been running late.Are you trying to say these 4 were not involved, if not where are they now,been bumped off by the government no doub't.
Why not look into this ?
I said I will looked into it.
The link is there for crying out loud.
I have read the link, but unlike you I don't take things at face value, you might be gullible ,but I'm not.
. You will see that according to the timetables, even a later train they would have not made the tubes according to the official conspiracy theory.
Like I said the tubes could have been running late.
You said about the Gov't bumping them off, not me.I am making no inferences here...
it was a joke, I was taking the piss, you have to account for what happened to them though.You are just making more questions than answers. Occam's razor applies here.
I could be bothered with it, I didn't read all of it though.i have other things to do
Ok so you could be bothered with it but just not enough to read it all.
correct I have spent more time than the vast majority reading conspiracy stuff.90% of it doesn't check out and is easily debunked, for those that have some common sense.
Controlled explosions start from the bottom,not 3 quarters the way up. The twin towers peeled like a banana,nothing like a controlled demolition.
Listen to the expert ,that is what he asserts
I don't claim to be an expert, but I have seen controlled demolitions and they don't look anything like the twin towers, WT7 looks more like a controlled demolition.
; that WTC7 did indeed get taken out from the bottom.
Like i said if you watch the video carefully you will see that part of it falls a few seconds before the rest,this was the part that was most damaged by the twin towers falling. You of course ignored this because it soughts your agenda.
You know that building, WTC7 , the one that wasn't even hit by a plane ,and any fires from debris and damage in WTC7 were blowing black smoke and therefore not anywhere near red hot.
it was hit by the twin towers though abd had been burning all day and the fire fighters couldn't tackle it because lack of water.Please prove that black smoke means that the fire is not red hot?
I've seen all this before and it's all been debunked before.what they heard was probably the building collapsing and the lifts crashing down.
But they are experts .You are not, they reported explosions and explosive devices going off.
Like I said you ignore the experts(who are the vast majority) that disagree with you.
I do not think you visited all my links at all.
You have no evidence for this and if you think I'm lying than there is little point in us conversing.
You are just staying with the official conspiracy theory.
Fine by me.
yes because that is where the evidence points.
Buildings don't collapse like a peeled banana into their own footprint.
the twin towers did not collapse into their own footprint,that is why the buidlings around them got destroyed and badly damaged.
. In fact these buildings were designed to withstand multiple plane impacts, so said the buildings designer.
ye the Titanic was designed to be unsinkable as well, I guess thats still floating around somewhere as well, may be the same place as the 9/11 and 7/7 terrorists are.
None of the fifteen persons alleged in the first paragraph of the suit to have been "single-handedly rescued" by Rodriguez were identified either
But he was a key witness...why would he lie ?
Making money from public speaking,because he likes the attention.the Judge didn't believe him.The judge asked him to present his evidence, he didn't.
Do we only give witnesses credibility when their tale backs up the official story then ?
When it is corrobarated by other witnesses and physical evidence.This trumps a lone witness ,yes.
To maintain such a dogmatic position in the wake of evidence is peculiar.
You don't have to refute everything. Any event in history is viewed and recorded from multiple perspectives and to nail your colours to one particular version be it official or conspiritorial, and allow no shades of grey to filtrate your personal analysis is both naive, belligerent, smug, ignorant and ultimately futile.
Also akin to many uber-religious thinkers.
You don't have to refute everything. Any event in history is viewed and recorded from multiple perspectives and to nail your colours to one particular version be it official or conspiritorial, and allow no shades of grey to filtrate your personal analysis is both naive, belligerent, smug, ignorant and ultimately futile.
Also akin to many uber-religious thinkers.
Copied and pasted from this site : http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html > architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. There are a mass of these people who are signing a petition for truly independent investigation ,including among them 1,501 architectural and engineering professionals.
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1)Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2)Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3)Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4)Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5)Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6)Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7)Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8)1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9)Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10)Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11)Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12)Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13)Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1)Slow onset with large visible deformations
2)Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3)Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4)High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.
Very interesting short video discussing how 4 ton steel girders could be found as much as 600ft from the base of the North tower after its collapse. What forces were at work to give such massive structures high horizontal velocities? If anything besides gravity was at work, pandora's box is opened up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang
A further site : people with demolition expertise questioning 9/11
http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/
I encourage anyone to read these interviews by guys who are basically adamant the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. These are experts in their field.
Sunset , I do not have an agenda. Buildings do not pancake at almost free-fall speeds. And Nist do admit freefall in WTC7 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA >3 parts
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1)Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2)Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3)Extremely rapid onset of destruction
4)Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
5)Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6)Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7)Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8)1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
9)Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10)Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11)Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
12)Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
13)Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1)Slow onset with large visible deformations
2)Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3)Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4)High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.
Very interesting short video discussing how 4 ton steel girders could be found as much as 600ft from the base of the North tower after its collapse. What forces were at work to give such massive structures high horizontal velocities? If anything besides gravity was at work, pandora's box is opened up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang
A further site : people with demolition expertise questioning 9/11
http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/
I encourage anyone to read these interviews by guys who are basically adamant the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. These are experts in their field.
Sunset , I do not have an agenda. Buildings do not pancake at almost free-fall speeds. And Nist do admit freefall in WTC7 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA >3 parts
To maintain such a dogmatic position in the wake of evidence is peculiar.
You don't have to refute everything. Any event in history is viewed and recorded from multiple perspectives and to nail your colours to one particular version be it official or conspiritorial, and allow no shades of grey to filtrate your personal analysis is both naive, belligerent, smug, ignorant and ultimately futile.
Also akin to many uber-religious thinkers
Who are you talking to me or Kefir-man?
You don't have to refute everything. Any event in history is viewed and recorded from multiple perspectives and to nail your colours to one particular version be it official or conspiritorial, and allow no shades of grey to filtrate your personal analysis is both naive, belligerent, smug, ignorant and ultimately futile.
Also akin to many uber-religious thinkers
Who are you talking to me or Kefir-man?
b]Copied and pasted from this site : http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html > architects and engineers for 9/11 truth. There are a mass of these people who are signing a petition for truly independent investigation ,including among them 1,501 architectural and engineering professionals[/b].
I know all about this, you of course ignore what I copied + pasted from wiki.Here it is again and don't ignore it this time.This is what the experts say and who am I to disagree.
Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[36][37] The mainstream of the scientific and engineering community has rejected the position taken by the group. In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site, 7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility
In 2008, Zdeněk P. Bažant, Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, published with three coauthors a paper to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable. They found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit.[49] A spokesman for NIST said that any sightings of molten metal, including metal seen pouring from the South tower, were likely molten aluminum from the airplane, an explanation disputed by Richard Gage who stated that the colour of the molten metal rules out aluminum.[50] "Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down," said NIST spokesperson Michael Newman
The community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST.[57] The appearance of a controlled demolition can be explained by an interior failure of the building, which is suggested by the sequence of the collapse of 7 WTC that shows roof elements sinking into the building while the façade remained intact.[58]
After the publication of the results of NIST's inquiry into the collapse of 7 WTC, Richard Gage called a news conference,[59] and leaders of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth dismissed NIST's investigation as flawed. When told of the claims, Shyam Sunder, lead investigator from NIST, responded: "I am really not a psychologist. Our job was to come up with the best science."[37] A spokesperson for NIST said the agency's computer models were highly reliable in assessing the amount of fireproofing dislodged, a factor that would not be present in other steel buildings cited by Gage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1)Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2)Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3)Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Debunked, see above.
4)Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Like I keep saying, this is the building falling apart.Explosions or loud bangs have been heard before when other buildings have collapsed,Sampoong Department Store for example.
Five hours before the collapse, the first of several loud bangs was heard emanating from the top floors, as the vibration of the air conditioning caused the cracks in the slabs to widen further. Amid customer reports of vibration, the air conditioning was turned off, but the cracks in the floors had already widened to 10 cm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse
Also don't forget that this building was not hit with a jumbo jet and had no fire,but still collapsed with witnesses saying they heard loud bangs(explosions).it fell in 20seconds,free fall speed.
5)Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6)Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7)Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8)1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Same as I say it peeled like a banana.They didn't fall into their own footprint like in a demolition.
9)Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10)Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11)Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
How do you know it was molten steel, it was never tested.
12)Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
This has never been independently tested.
13)Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
What evidence was this? there was no evidence of charges found and no fire men ever saw any one setting charges or any wires or charges in the rubble.
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1)Slow onset with large visible deformations
What is this supposed to mean?
2)Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Like I keep saying part of WT7 did fall firstthe part that was most damaged by the twin towers..Stop ignoring my points and the evidence.
3)Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
What evidence would you expect?
4)High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.
Like I keep saying the twin towers were hit by jumbo jets travelling at hundreds of miles an hour. Lots of kinetic energy,is it going in yet.WT7 was damaged by the twin towers collapse and the fires were not tackled because of lack of water. Comparing it to other building fires is like comparing apples+oranges.
Very interesting short video discussing how 4 ton steel girders could be found as much as 600ft from the base of the North tower after its collapse. What forces were at work to give such massive structures high horizontal velocities? If anything besides gravity was at work, pandora's box is opened up.
I thought you people assert that they fell into their own footprint as they would have done if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.Talk about contradicting your self.the 4 ton girder evidence actually verifies my position that the twin towers peeled like a banana and damaged the WT7.This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang
A further site : people with demolition expertise questioning 9/11
http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/
I encourage anyone to read these interviews by guys who are basically adamant the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. These are experts in their field.
And you ignore the other experts(the vast majority) that contradict them,you are being intellectually dishonest. You only listen to a small minority that you think support your case.
Sunset , I do not have an agenda.
yes, you do otherwise you wouldn't keep proselytizing your conpiracy theory.And ignoring my points that debunk what you are asserting, stop ignoring the evidence.
Buildings do not pancake at almost free-fall speeds.
yes they do, the Sampoong building for example.Including loud explosions, sound familiar?
And Nist do admit freefall in WTC7 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA >3 parts
I know all about this, you of course ignore what I copied + pasted from wiki.Here it is again and don't ignore it this time.This is what the experts say and who am I to disagree.
Investigations by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have concluded that the buildings collapsed as a result of the impacts of the planes and of the fires that resulted from them.[36][37] The mainstream of the scientific and engineering community has rejected the position taken by the group. In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site, 7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility
In 2008, Zdeněk P. Bažant, Professor of Civil Engineering and Materials Science at Northwestern University, published with three coauthors a paper to examine whether allegations of controlled demolition might be scientifically justifiable. They found that the available video records are not consistent with the free fall hypothesis, that the size of the concrete particles is consistent with comminution caused by impact, and that the high velocity of compressed air explains why material from the towers were ejected to a distance of several hundred meters from the tower. The authors conclude that the allegations of controlled demolition do not have any scientific merit.[49] A spokesman for NIST said that any sightings of molten metal, including metal seen pouring from the South tower, were likely molten aluminum from the airplane, an explanation disputed by Richard Gage who stated that the colour of the molten metal rules out aluminum.[50] "Basically, gravity and the utter force of the upper floors forced the towers down," said NIST spokesperson Michael Newman
The community of experts in structural mechanics and structural engineering generally supports the explanation of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings provided by the investigation conducted by NIST.[57] The appearance of a controlled demolition can be explained by an interior failure of the building, which is suggested by the sequence of the collapse of 7 WTC that shows roof elements sinking into the building while the façade remained intact.[58]
After the publication of the results of NIST's inquiry into the collapse of 7 WTC, Richard Gage called a news conference,[59] and leaders of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth dismissed NIST's investigation as flawed. When told of the claims, Shyam Sunder, lead investigator from NIST, responded: "I am really not a psychologist. Our job was to come up with the best science."[37] A spokesperson for NIST said the agency's computer models were highly reliable in assessing the amount of fireproofing dislodged, a factor that would not be present in other steel buildings cited by Gage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth
The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
1)Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
2)Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
3)Extremely rapid onset of destruction
Debunked, see above.
4)Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
Like I keep saying, this is the building falling apart.Explosions or loud bangs have been heard before when other buildings have collapsed,Sampoong Department Store for example.
Five hours before the collapse, the first of several loud bangs was heard emanating from the top floors, as the vibration of the air conditioning caused the cracks in the slabs to widen further. Amid customer reports of vibration, the air conditioning was turned off, but the cracks in the floors had already widened to 10 cm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampoong_Department_Store_collapse
Also don't forget that this building was not hit with a jumbo jet and had no fire,but still collapsed with witnesses saying they heard loud bangs(explosions).it fell in 20seconds,free fall speed.
5)Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
6)Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
7)Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
8)1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
Same as I say it peeled like a banana.They didn't fall into their own footprint like in a demolition.
9)Isolated explosive ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front
10)Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
11)Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
How do you know it was molten steel, it was never tested.
12)Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
This has never been independently tested.
13)Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
What evidence was this? there was no evidence of charges found and no fire men ever saw any one setting charges or any wires or charges in the rubble.
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
1)Slow onset with large visible deformations
What is this supposed to mean?
2)Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
Like I keep saying part of WT7 did fall firstthe part that was most damaged by the twin towers..Stop ignoring my points and the evidence.
3)Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
What evidence would you expect?
4)High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer-lasting fires have never collapsed.
Like I keep saying the twin towers were hit by jumbo jets travelling at hundreds of miles an hour. Lots of kinetic energy,is it going in yet.WT7 was damaged by the twin towers collapse and the fires were not tackled because of lack of water. Comparing it to other building fires is like comparing apples+oranges.
Very interesting short video discussing how 4 ton steel girders could be found as much as 600ft from the base of the North tower after its collapse. What forces were at work to give such massive structures high horizontal velocities? If anything besides gravity was at work, pandora's box is opened up.
I thought you people assert that they fell into their own footprint as they would have done if they had been brought down by controlled demolition.Talk about contradicting your self.the 4 ton girder evidence actually verifies my position that the twin towers peeled like a banana and damaged the WT7.This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUKLOlIhang
A further site : people with demolition expertise questioning 9/11
http://demolitionexpertsquestion911.blogspot.com/
I encourage anyone to read these interviews by guys who are basically adamant the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. These are experts in their field.
And you ignore the other experts(the vast majority) that contradict them,you are being intellectually dishonest. You only listen to a small minority that you think support your case.
Sunset , I do not have an agenda.
yes, you do otherwise you wouldn't keep proselytizing your conpiracy theory.And ignoring my points that debunk what you are asserting, stop ignoring the evidence.
Buildings do not pancake at almost free-fall speeds.
yes they do, the Sampoong building for example.Including loud explosions, sound familiar?
And Nist do admit freefall in WTC7 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA >3 parts
Buildings do not pancake at almost free-fall speeds. And Nist do admit freefall in WTC7 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA >3 parts
I have never denied this.The Sampoong building fell at near free fall speed, what of it.
I have never denied this.The Sampoong building fell at near free fall speed, what of it.
So let's get this straight. I am supposed to believe the official conspiracy theory based on NIST reports and such that you keep posting.
It goes something like this :
On September 11th 2001, a criminal mastermind Bin Laden, whose family had/ has close ties with the Bush family et el, orchestrated hijacking of planes in American airspace.
The hijackers used box cutters and took over the planes. There was no passenger resistance except for the Shanksville crashed plane.
The passengers would have been told ''relax ,and all will be fine, we are returning to the airport, blah, blah''.
NORAD &FAA who had very well practised drills for this kind of thing could not on this day thwart the planes, mainly because they were actually carrying out almost identical exercises to what actually occurred and were confused.
Around about an hour after the planes crashed into the twin towers, the fires had weakened the steel sufficiently enough for them to completely fail,(including the 47 strong steel core),and the building pancake- collapsed at about free-fall speed, followed soon after by the other one.
The comminution (I read your link !)caused massive girders to be thrown up to 600 foot away as the building fell.
So although it fell at apparently free-fall speed, there was still sufficient comminution to eject the several tons in weight girders over 600 ft.
The building was ground to dust which indicates resistance taking place and yet managed to fall at about free-fall speed despite this.
Also in the destruction many of the girders were neatly severed diagonally as if a depth charge had been placed, but never mind that, it can all be explained away.
The Pentagon, which has loads of cameras around it, was flown into by a skimmer plane, the type which does not scorch the grass in doing so. No adequate footage was released although many angles were subsequently shown of the twin towers being flown into and their soon-after collapse.
Reports came in pretty quickly that it was felt to be AlQaida and this was quickly backed up because one of the hijackers passports flew out to the streets below and managed to evade the destruction of the initial impact/ explosion. This was found by intelligence services.
The official conspiracy theory in a kind of nutshell...no doubt I have missed parts of it. But that's it , yes ?
As for WTC7 ,the official conspiracy states that debris from the twin towers had struck it which caused damage and fires and this building also failed and fell later in the day.
How am I doing ?
It goes something like this :
On September 11th 2001, a criminal mastermind Bin Laden, whose family had/ has close ties with the Bush family et el, orchestrated hijacking of planes in American airspace.
The hijackers used box cutters and took over the planes. There was no passenger resistance except for the Shanksville crashed plane.
The passengers would have been told ''relax ,and all will be fine, we are returning to the airport, blah, blah''.
NORAD &FAA who had very well practised drills for this kind of thing could not on this day thwart the planes, mainly because they were actually carrying out almost identical exercises to what actually occurred and were confused.
Around about an hour after the planes crashed into the twin towers, the fires had weakened the steel sufficiently enough for them to completely fail,(including the 47 strong steel core),and the building pancake- collapsed at about free-fall speed, followed soon after by the other one.
The comminution (I read your link !)caused massive girders to be thrown up to 600 foot away as the building fell.
So although it fell at apparently free-fall speed, there was still sufficient comminution to eject the several tons in weight girders over 600 ft.
The building was ground to dust which indicates resistance taking place and yet managed to fall at about free-fall speed despite this.
Also in the destruction many of the girders were neatly severed diagonally as if a depth charge had been placed, but never mind that, it can all be explained away.
The Pentagon, which has loads of cameras around it, was flown into by a skimmer plane, the type which does not scorch the grass in doing so. No adequate footage was released although many angles were subsequently shown of the twin towers being flown into and their soon-after collapse.
Reports came in pretty quickly that it was felt to be AlQaida and this was quickly backed up because one of the hijackers passports flew out to the streets below and managed to evade the destruction of the initial impact/ explosion. This was found by intelligence services.
The official conspiracy theory in a kind of nutshell...no doubt I have missed parts of it. But that's it , yes ?
As for WTC7 ,the official conspiracy states that debris from the twin towers had struck it which caused damage and fires and this building also failed and fell later in the day.
How am I doing ?
I will take a little time out to digest these last few rounds we have had and review what we have both written and gone through.
I do not think I will come round to the official view based on anything thrown up as yet, but I will try again to look at the whole thing again at some point from start to finish. I do not have a biased view, and I am only seeking the truth.
The problem is there are experts on both sides of the issue no matter how you slice it, nothing has really been debunked one way or another ..but that's my current view, and I accept I could be wrong..
But I don't think I am.
I do not think I will come round to the official view based on anything thrown up as yet, but I will try again to look at the whole thing again at some point from start to finish. I do not have a biased view, and I am only seeking the truth.
The problem is there are experts on both sides of the issue no matter how you slice it, nothing has really been debunked one way or another ..but that's my current view, and I accept I could be wrong..
But I don't think I am.
kefir-man wrote I will take a little time out to digest these last few rounds we have had and review what we have both written and gone through.
probably best.
I do not think I will come round to the official view based on anything thrown up as yet, but I will try again to look at the whole thing again at some point from start to finish. I do not have a biased view, and I am only seeking the truth.
yes, so am I ,so we should come to the same conclusions.
The problem is there are experts on both sides of the issue no matter how you slice it, nothing has really been debunked one way or another ..but that's my current view, and I accept I could be wrong..
But I don't think I am.
I would like the experts that are on your side to debunk this video, then I will believe them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8yfNLSp_Pw
probably best.
I do not think I will come round to the official view based on anything thrown up as yet, but I will try again to look at the whole thing again at some point from start to finish. I do not have a biased view, and I am only seeking the truth.
yes, so am I ,so we should come to the same conclusions.
The problem is there are experts on both sides of the issue no matter how you slice it, nothing has really been debunked one way or another ..but that's my current view, and I accept I could be wrong..
But I don't think I am.
I would like the experts that are on your side to debunk this video, then I will believe them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8yfNLSp_Pw
Two good "alternative" documentaries on 77 can be watched here:
http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/ludicrous-diversion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6Vfnn3YZXw
I recommend any open-minded sceptics to watch these with a notepad and pen to note down any questions, good/bad points, things to follow up, etc. They both include a lot of info.
The July Seventh Campaign's main page about Peter Power, Visor Consultants etc is here:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html
They present a comprehensive, sober and rational analysis of Power and the drills, as they do with the whole subject.
http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/ludicrous-diversion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6Vfnn3YZXw
I recommend any open-minded sceptics to watch these with a notepad and pen to note down any questions, good/bad points, things to follow up, etc. They both include a lot of info.
The July Seventh Campaign's main page about Peter Power, Visor Consultants etc is here:
http://julyseventh.co.uk/july-7-terror-rehearsal.html
They present a comprehensive, sober and rational analysis of Power and the drills, as they do with the whole subject.
I'll take a look slarty, I always have an open mind.
* not drills but desk-based "exercise" (there was no real-life drill, as such)
Just to add to my post of May 25, the maker of the second film (Seeds of Deconstruction) is interviewed here:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql59RPRL4v0&feature=player_embedded
It's not a bad interview and it covers some of the problems and inconsistencies in the Government's narrative of what happened on 77. The sound quality is poor in places but it does improve.
I'm genuinely interested in others' views of these films, especally those who currently believe the official narrative but who may not have been aware of the various anomalies.
For anyone who wants to reseach further this site is excellent:
.
www.julyseventh.co.uk
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql59RPRL4v0&feature=player_embedded
It's not a bad interview and it covers some of the problems and inconsistencies in the Government's narrative of what happened on 77. The sound quality is poor in places but it does improve.
I'm genuinely interested in others' views of these films, especally those who currently believe the official narrative but who may not have been aware of the various anomalies.
For anyone who wants to reseach further this site is excellent:
.
www.julyseventh.co.uk
This site raises numerous good questions about the recent inquests:
.
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/
.
http://77inquests.blogspot.com/
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539