The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy: 9/11 Mounting Evidence

[wildbilln864]

[newfie11]

1. Thanks for posting this

I've no doubt there is/was a coverup. I started studying what architects and engineers were saying about this. You've got professionals saying there's no way these buildings came down from the planes.
You've got commercial pilots with many hours of flight time and some with experience flying these planes saying it's not possible. The stress would have caused them to break up before hitting the towers.

The thermite has been found, examined, and only one place makes that grade, a U.S. Government lab.

It goes on and on but most people close their eyes and ears and prefer to think elements in our government would never do such a thing.

They need to check NORTHWOODS!

Thanks for posting and I hope people investigate before blowing this info off.

[William Seger]

2. " I hope people investigate before blowing this info off"

... says the guy who has bought a truckload of bullshit, apparently without investigating any of it, then pats himself on the back for being so much smarter than "most people."

[wildbilln864]

5. you're the one bought the BS!

You and the others in the no-truth brigade here. Or you're just trying unsuccessfully to peddle it actually! We now know science, physics & chenistry especially aren't your forte' so stop projecting!

[zappaman]

4. I did investigate and am now blowing this bullshit off.

[Logical]

35. LOL, OK, nt

[zeemike]

6. This is my first trip to the CS group.

I had no idea that you had an anti truther brigade here.

But that was a good documentary.

[wildbilln864]

7. Thank you zeemike.

they're not just anti truther but also anti truth if you get my meaning. Glad you enjoyed the video. There are plenty more here that you may find interesting.

[zeemike]

8. Yes I have been checking some of them out.

Got tired of politics for a while and needed more stimulating information.
But it seems to me that if you are anti truth-er you are anti truth.

But especially with the 911 thing, some people just cannot abide any suggestion that the leaders of this country would commit such a crime...and the leaders seem to know that.

[wildbilln864]

9. they've been counting on that.

but sometimes I think they're just trying t see how much we'll take. Apparently a lot. 911 was an inside job! No doubt in my mind and I am not alone! All you have to do is look at the molten steel, very high temperatures months after the collapses(thermate), The speed of the collapses and the way they collapsed clearly caused by being demolished by incendiaries and explosives. The tilt! It would have went over the side because the undamaged structure below would have resisted it and caused it to continue to tilt but instead the undamaged structure below just exploded and mushroomed out of the way so the tilted section came straight down and disintegrated as it went.

[zeemike]

10. The truth is that we all see the same thing.

And to anyone that is honest about it, there is no way those buildings could have came down like that from a fire...we all know it.
But if we admit it we admit that the entire system is corrupt and we are being led by sociopaths and some people cannot face that obvious fact...they would rather pretend that the emperor is not really naked in public than admit that they are being fooled.

[wildbilln864]

11. exactly! well said....n/t

[cpwm17]

14. Both towers collapsed from the aircraft impact zones

A tower will not tip over since the force of gravity is far greater than any of the lateral forces from the underlying structure.

The structure on one side on the towers was not designed to hold up the floors above.

Once a tower starts to collapse the integrity of the structure is gone and there also was no undamaged structure on the collapsing floors once the collapse started (once it leaned all is damaged).

No explosives were heard. They collapsed in relative silence.

[Caretha]

19. Do you believe

the reporters on the "scene" that day from our major news networks?

I doubt you have watched the video, and if you don't have the inclination or time, just go to the 2 min. mark of the video to see & hear what the media was reporting at the exact time & day on September 11, 2001 concerning explosions. Your below statement makes it seem you are either in deep denial or fundamentally unable to process what is clearly in front of your face.

No explosives were heard. They collapsed in relative silence.

[William Seger]

23. Do you believe in "cause and effect?"

Virtually all YouTube videos showing actual controlled demolitions have one thing in common: First, a loud series of explosions and then the buildings fall down. Any of the three towers would have been far larger than any CD ever performed and would require proportionally more explosives, yet nothing remotely resembling that was recorded by any video camera in Manhattan, for any of the three collapses. Instead of the distinctive sound of those high-explosives used to cut steel in actual demolitions, there's nothing but the expected rumbling.

The witnesses who heard random explosions at various times and places don't contradict that fact: Not everything that sounds like an explosion is actually an explosion when heavy stuff is falling, and not everything that explodes in a fire is an explosive.

[Caretha]

24. That response

is pretty doggone laughable.

Your reading ability is rather suspect also. cpwm17 said & I repeat -

No explosives were heard. They collapsed in relative silence

Now I got a question for you - you say:

The witnesses who heard random explosions at various times and places don't contradict that fact:

ROFLMFAO. Tell me all about how "silent explosions" sound? Explain to me how NY fire fighters - police - reporters - people in the towers - various witnesses who were there, and btw you weren't, who testified & reported that they heard explosions long before the buildings fell should be disbelieved? And, tell me why you and cpwm17 - just some random someones on the internet making it up as they go along should have an ounce of credence?

You have any credentials?

If so, list them if you want anyone to take you serious over others.

[William Seger]

25. "they heard explosions long before the buildings fell"

Exactly the point, or one of them. That's not how it works with controlled demolitions. You completely ignored my point that in controlled demolitions, you can hear the very distinctive sound of lots of cutter charges immediately before the buildings fall.

We're told by Richard Gage's "experts" that the "sudden onset" could only have been caused by a controlled demolition. Listen to any WTC collapse video you can find: that NOTHING just before the collapse is the sound of Gage's magical silent explosives.

The other point you completely ignored is that not everything that sounds like an explosion -- or even is actually an explosion -- is caused by the high-explosives necessary to cut steel, so the witness accounts don't prove anything about any controlled demolition theories.

Were you aware that nothing resembling a controlled demolition showed up on seismographs, either?

[Caretha]

26. Now that's a lie

This will be my last response to you until you do some honest responding to me.

But regarding your latest bald faced lie about seismographs ...here you go.

http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html

SEISMIC "SPIKES"

Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, New York, 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on September 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spike" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth. These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

A "sharp spike of short duration" is how seismologist Thorne Lay of Univ. of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than twenty times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Now about your none credentials ...naa, don't bother - you are a waste of time.

Bye

[William Seger]

27. Good grief. You didn't even read your own source

LOL, I guess you missed the meaning of the word "ERROR" in the title"ERROR: Seismic Spikes Preceded the Towers' Collapses":

Bollyn's assertions that "seismic waves peaked before the towers hit the ground" and that the ground-shaking energy was "many times more powerful" than the Towers' stored gravitational energy, though interwoven with quotations of scientists, are neither supported by those scientists nor an examination of the events. Consider first the sequence of the waves recorded by the Palisades station.

As the video and photographic evidence shows, the Towers exploded into expanding clouds of rubble that were about 400 feet from top to bottom by the time they reached the ground. Those rubble clouds contained virtually all of the mass of the Towers -- thousands of tons of rubble falling from as high as 1000 feet. That could certainly be expected to produce pronounced seismic waves.

In fact the seismic evidence from the Palisades station comports well with the sequence of destruction evident in photographs and videos: each Tower was consumed by a wave of destruction that started near the crash zone and moved downward as it generated an expanding cloud of rubble. It took about ten seconds for the bottom of this cloud to reach the ground and another eight seconds for its top to reach the ground. Likewise the seismic records show small disturbances lasting for about ten seconds, followed by large spikes lasting for about eight seconds.

There appears to be no basis for the claim that the large spikes preceded the "collapses", nor that the energy indicated by those spikes was more than could be accounted for by the approximately 110 megawatt-hours of gravitational energy stored in the elevated mass of each Tower. And there is strong evidence contradicting the idea that the seismic spikes indicated underground explosions including:

• There is no support in the large body of photographic and video collapse evidence for the idea of powerful explosions in the Towers' basements at the onset of the collapses. Instead the evidence shows waves of destruction proceeding methodically downward from the crash zones to the ground.
  
• Underground explosions would have produced strong P waves, but the seismic stations registered only strong S waves. P waves oscillate horizontally -- parallel to the direction of travel; whereas S waves oscillate vertically -- perpendicular to the direction of travel.
  

Now, we'll see how much intellectual honesty you have.

[AZCat]

32. Oh now the truth movement is interested in credentials?

Because every time it comes to respecting the thousands of credentialed experts who contributed to the NIST reports on the collapses that isn't the case. Somehow the conclusions of the reports invalidate those world-class credentials. Why is it different now?

[wildbilln864]

38. the truth movement is yes!

the NIST report is bull shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiT! Over 2300 chemists, architects, engineers, physicists know that! Science isn't your strong suit we know but don't let it get you down.

[wildbilln864]

28. that is totally fucking ridiculous!

"A tower will not tip over since the force of gravity is far greater than any of the lateral forces from the underlying structure."
Nonsense! They were made of the same materials exept the lower you go, the thicker and more sturdy the core columns and other framing members become! And the lower undamaged building below the impacts would be pushing against the falling section with the same force, except bigger, thus stronger!

"The structure on one side on the towers was not designed to hold up the floors above. "
More nonsense! Look at the blueprints! The floors were held up by the perimeter collumns on the outersides and the core columns on the interior surrounding the elevators!

"Once a tower starts to collapse the integrity of the structure is gone and there also was no undamaged structure on the collapsing floors once the collapse started (once it leaned all is damaged). "
Complete and utter bullshit!

"No explosives were heard. They collapsed in relative silence. "
More bullshit! You are totally unfamiliar with what you are talking about!
Many witness reported hearing multiple explosions and at least one blast was recorded!

[cpwm17]

29. The undamaged part of the towers below

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 10:31 PM - Edit history (1)

the aircraft impact zone will not cause any part of a tower to tip over. I was referring to the damaged section of the tower which couldn't tip the top of the building over.

The damaged section of a tower didn't have the strength to hold up the top section of a building long enough for the top section to tip over. The top section isn't going to suspend in mid air while it tips over. Wile E. Coyote is only in cartoons.

No explosives were heard during the collapse. That's a fact.

[wildbilln864]

30. "No explosives were heard during the collapse. That's a fact."

no that's a lie!

however most explosions were heard immediately before collapses took place. Others were drowned out by the sounds of the collapses and also due to the fact thermit was used which is not loud enough to be heard from any distance.

[cpwm17]

31. No explosives were heard in any of the recordings in any collapse

You don't need to post long videos to make your point. I posted a short one for you.

I heard no explosives in any of the recorded collapses. Some described the noise of the collapsing towers as explosive, but no explosives were recorded in any of the scenes.

[wildbilln864]

33. the video I posted proves explosives were heard...and...

thermite is fairly quiet especially when drowned out by the sounds of the buildings collapses and also the emergency sirens, people shouting etc...

[wildbilln864]

34. many people heard explosions.....

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_wtc_implosion.html

[nationalize the fed]

12. It's not just that some can't think about what might have really happened...

it's that the Bollocks Brigade here and everywhere else seem to think that condescension, petty grade school insults (usually using language that would make rappers blush) and running away from actual debate is "winning". It would be amusing if it wasn't so sad.

These little rug rats don't have anything better in the world to do but run around and barf on every thread they see- in an obscure part of a forum dedicated to the very topic of "creative speculation".

But it seems to me that if you are anti truth-er you are anti truth.

Calling someone a "truther" with intent to disparage is as Orwellian as it can possibly get. Big Brother might have won the battle but he hasn't won the war. The screaming and whining from the angry little children will no doubt get worse as more people wake up.

[zeemike]

13. Orwellian indeed.

Some people read 1984 as a cautionary tale...but some saw it as a plan.

[William Seger]

15. "and running away from actual debate"

If the hypocrisy in your entire post wasn't enough, I'm just looking down the page at all the threads you have abandoned, and all the threads where you could have jumped in if you wanted to debate, and I'm wondering where you get the chutzpah to make an accusation like that. The fact is, there don't seem to be any "truthers" left around here who care to actually debate the claims they make. If your case was anywhere near as strong as you pretend, defending them should be trivial, and it certainly wouldn't be confined to a few obscure forums. But all we get is new YouTube videos with the same recycled bullshit.

> Calling someone a "truther" with intent to disparage is as Orwellian as it can possibly get.

"Truthers" gave themselves both the name and the reputation for religiously believing highly implausible things for no good reason. But when I call someone a "truther," there's a reason I always put it in quotes.

[nationalize the fed]

16. Blah Blah

Why do YOU think the Bush/Cheney regime *resisted* an investigation into the biggest crime against the US in history? Why did it take the families of the victims to finally get one? Care to answer this time?

Sometimes you ignore questions and sometimes your blather isn't worth a reply, Billy. Why do you spend so much time in a forum that you despise?

[William Seger]

17. So, asking questions and ignoring answers is your idea of a "debate?"

Yup, I ignored your question because (A) the obvious answer is pretty obvious, and (B) zappaman had already provided that obvious answer, twice, and (C) I'm not obliged to play your game of dodging the issue at hand and derailing the thread by only pretending to have an argument about something unrelated. If you have some argument you'd like to make about Bush and Cheney's secretive behavior, then just make it, already, and we'll see if it holds water. In fact, if you have any actual arguments, it would be wonderful if you'd stop dumping YouTube videos that you can't defend and just make them.

> "... sometimes your blather isn't worth a reply"

Ah, so when you said "running away from actual debate" you were really referring to an imaginary debate in your head -- the one you would have had, except that my "blather isn't worth a reply?"

Why do I post here? One reason is that "truther" psychology is fascinating.

[nationalize the fed]

21. Just because you're terribly impressed with yourself

doesn't mean anyone else is.

Look, I'm clearly not going to change your mind about anything- I knew that months ago. Your posts are authoritarian narcissistic rants that show plenty about your "thinking" process. If only everyone was smart like you, they would all believe everything you believe. Right?

I don't have time to even read most of the pablum you throw at the Creative Speculation wall, let alone reply and waste more time. Believe it or not I have better things to do (4 websites are a lot of work).

And I have no idea what "zappaman" said because I can't see the posts. Frankly, it may be time to add another to the list. Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to post to some more open minded people. People that actually care if the US is turned upside down by a bunch of con artist criminals. Have fun and do spend lots of time here, a place you despise.

[William Seger]

22. Suit yourself

But yes, I'll probably still be "running away from actual debate" on your ignore list.

[greyl]

18. If you had evidence, you'd be talking about it. nt

[Logical]

54. And what a shock it is no one has come out and leaked any of this conspiracy. Nt

[nationalize the fed]

20. This is an excellent documentary. Thx for posting.

"Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes (and ears)?"
--Groucho Marx

[Logical]

36. You honestly are so off base that I think you will believe....

Anything! I mean absolutely anything!

[wildbilln864]

37. you really should dismount that high horse...

Last edited Thu Oct 30, 2014, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)

if I did really believe anything then I'd be fool enough to fall for that official conspiracy theory like you did! But I don't!

[Quantess]

39. How do the deniers explain WTC tower 7?

Probably going to be crickets and no response.

Anyway, I thought that was an excellent video.

[William Seger]

40. The deniers explain it as a controlled demolition

... using magical silent explosives.

[wildbilln864]

41. wrong!

the deniers explain it as some "new phenomenon" of fire causing a 47 story high rise to completely & symmetrically collapse in just 6 seconds.

[William Seger]

44. The singular purpose of the "truth movement" is to deny the "official story"

... whatever that is.

[gyroscope]

45. Some people don't believe believe in fairy tales

...but go ahead and be content in your delusions.

[Quantess]

50. You want to go there? Do you have an explanation

about why & how WTC tower 7 collapsed into itself so flawlessly, when no airplane hit it?

[William Seger]

52. So, you deny the "official story"

... even though you don't know what it is?

Neither I nor anyone else has any way of knowing if the NIST "probable cause" was the actual cause -- no videos in the building -- but I'm pretty certain that no magical explosives were involved. You want to go there?

[nationalize the fed]

53. Yet you swallow whole the "official story" even though YOU don't know what it is

Seeking the American government’s analysis of the 9/11 attacks, most people look to the 9/11 Commission Report. There is, however, another report that merits equal attention: the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.

President George W. Bush censored 28 pages of this report—an entire section said to describe the involvement of specific foreign governments in the attacks. After reading it, Congressman Thomas Massie described the experience as “disturbing” and said, “I had to stop every two or three pages and rearrange my perception of history…it’s that fundamental.”
http://28pages.org/

You want to go there?

You've been there, bought the T-shirt and claim anyone that doesn't buy the censored "official story" is dumb(er) than you. Even though you don't know what it is, and seemingly don't care a bit.

Have another glass of Kool-Aide, Billy.

[William Seger]

55. Calling bullshit on controlled demolition bullshit

... is not the same thing as "swallow(ing) whole the 'official story'," and (2) you have yet to explain why you think the 28 pages have anything to do with controlled demolition bullshit. Attack a strawman, try to change the subject, toss in a gratuitous insult, and you're finished, huh?

But okay, since you don't want to discuss controlled demolition bullshit -- and I don't blame you -- yes, I'd love to see these 28 pages. Why don't you tell me where I can read them, and I'll come back and tell you what I think. Sorta hard to discuss them without doing that, don't you think? So far, I can't even figure out what the heck you trying to say about them: You deny the "official story" yet believe that that part of the "official story" is true? And if it's true, then you believe that Saudi support of the 19 radical Islamist terrorist hijackers also supports the theory that it was a BushCo inside job, with magical explosives? What are you trying to say, exactly?

[wildbilln864]

56. obviously over your head Seger...

If you don't understand that simple office fires and jet fuel fires can't melt steel and that those towers should not have collapsed through the path of the most resistance at near freefall acceleration then it's a waste of time to even try to explain any more. I think you'll deny it regardless of anything. Else you'd have to admit you've been wrong for over ten years.

[AZCat]

57. "Path of most resistance" - that's good.

I hope this expression catches on in the "truth movement".

[wildbilln864]

58. do you not understand the meaning of it AZ?

[AZCat]

59. Oh I know what you're trying to convey.

That's what makes it so amusing to me.

[wildbilln864]

60. explain why/how it's amusing please?

and thank you in advance.

[gyroscope]

42. Except the explosions were not silent

They were heard by hundreds up to several blocks away.

Still can't hear it? Time to replace the batteries in your hearing aid.

[William Seger]

46. Oh yeah, the magical delayed-action explosives

... that bring down buildings long after they've gone off? That is an interesting *cough* theory, too. I hear they even have a type that you can put in the basement and an hour or two later, the building will collapse from the top. I'm not sure why they needed either type since they had the magic suck-bomb technology, but that's the cool thing about magic: Your only limit is your imagination.

[gyroscope]

48. What are you babbling about?

sounds like incoherent ramblings of a mad man.

but I guess you'd have to be somewhat mad to swallow the crazy official story.
trying to defend it would twist anyone's brain into a pretzel.

[William Seger]

49. "sounds like incoherent ramblings of a mad man"

Then perhaps you ought to reconsider proposing magical controlled demolitions. I had only watched the beginning of the video -- the firemen hearing the magical delayed-action explosion that you apparently believe brought down WTC 7 more than 6 hours later -- but now I see that your video implies that explosions down on the street after the buildings collapsed were also magically involved. Woo.

[Quantess]

51. You are making the guy work hard for his money.

It can't be an easy job.

[gyroscope]

43. Magical fire!

thanks to 9/11, Controlled Demolition has been rendered obsolete.

Uncontrolled Demolition can accomplish the very same feat, with just a match and can of gas.
and you don't even need the gas, lighting up some office paper should suffice.

[William Seger]

47. If you work in a building designed like WTC 7

... and it catches on fire, I strongly recommend that you try to get out within the first few hours, before the magic fire starts to destroy the magic fireproofing.