Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastr

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

pp.7-31 (25)

Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007

Abstract

We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite
Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/co...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

MORE DETAILS:

"Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:"

http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761

Phuck You

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sook

Phuck You

---

Sorry, the joke is on you and the mental pygmies.

You lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

Sorry, the joke is on you and the mental pygmies.

You lose.

---

I actually agree with your theory by the way. The biggest joke of all though is Israel convincing the tools in this country that their interests coincide with ours as they molest our image around the world.

Rust and aluminum? Yeah, that could only come from thermite.

http://www.bakabanashi.com/icons/rollbarf3hz.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Rust and aluminum? Yeah, that could only come from thermite.

http://www.bakabanashi.com/icons/rollbarf3hz.gif

---

Holyshit i love that GIF. Thanks bud, i will save it.

No doubt in my mind Dumper would go out of his way to comment as soon as possible. He would rip his chode open rick rickertt style if the 9/11 commission report were disproved.

I would be surprised, to say the least. Nonetheless, twoofers are still currently failing, so I'm not too concerned about its actually happeneing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sook

I actually agree with your theory by the way. The biggest joke of all though is Israel convincing the tools in this country that their interests coincide with ours as they molest our image around the world.

---

:rolleyes x 1000000000

ChodeChomper is always asking for proof of explosives during 9/11 and when someone finally post some he calls it a lie?

Why bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Rust and aluminum? Yeah, that could only come from thermite.

http://www.bakabanashi.com/icons/rollbarf3hz.gif

---

Yep, show how really dumb these conspiracy theorists really are.

Lets see... Iron oxide is rust... Doesn't steel rust under one of several conditions, including being expose to oxygen and heat.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was a steel building. I guess these guys think it was made of titanium.

What is the primary metal that airplanes are made of? Isn't it aluminum?

Apparently, the likes of Galileo don't know these elemental truths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by France B-boy

ChodeChomper is always asking for proof of explosives during 9/11 and when someone finally post some he calls it a lie?

Why bother?

---

Don't you get it?

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would expect iron oxide and aluminum to be found together in the aftermath. It's expected when you combime aluminum, steel, and heat!

Absolutely ZERO proof of thermite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

What is the primary metal that airplanes are made of? Isn't it aluminum?

---

The cladding on the facade of the towers was also aluminum.

Quote:

---

Apparently, the likes of Galileo don't know these elemental truths.

---

Nice pun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Don't you get it?

Anyone with an ounce of intelligence would expect iron oxide and aluminum to be found together in the aftermath. It's expected when you combime aluminum, steel, and heat!

Absolutely ZERO proof of thermite.

---

Game, set, match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan

Game, set, match.

---

Quote:

---

Active Thermitic Material Discovered...

---

If it were "active", wouldn't that mean it was still burning?

Guys, you can go pick up the gravel in your back yard and find "thermitic material" in it.

By the way, Galileo, what exactly is your theory of what happened on 9/11? A jumbo jet loaded with fuel is more than sufficient to cause the building to collapse exactly the way it did. What's the need for anything extra?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Obstructed_View

Guys, you can go pick up the gravel in your back yard and find "thermitic material" in it.

By the way, Galileo, what exactly is your theory of what happened on 9/11? A jumbo jet loaded with fuel is more than sufficient to cause the building to collapse exactly the way it did. What's the need for anything extra?

---

maybe the hijackers brough super thermite or supern thermate onto the planes, along with their box-cutters?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

maybe the hijackers brough super thermite or supern thermate onto the planes, along with their box-cutters?

---

Possible. Maybe they sneaked it in their laptop bags. Surely a 150 ton airplane travelling 600 miles an hour, twenty thousand gallons of burning jet fuel and several acres of office equipment burning for two hours couldn't have brought down the building by themselves.

Scientists find active 'super-thermite' in WTC dust

A team of nine scientists have released a startling new report on the events of 9/11, using data from dust gathered in the days and weeks after the towers came down. They discovered that scattered throughout the dust samples were red and gray chips of 'active thermitic material', or an un-reacted pyrotechnic explosive.

Thermite is used in steel welding, fireworks shows, and hand grenades. It is the combination of a metal powder and a metal oxide which produce a reaction known for extremely high temperatures focused in a very small area for a short period of time. The 'active thermitic material' discovered in the World Trade Center dust was a combination of elemental aluminum and iron oxide, and is a form of thermite known as 'nano-structured super-thermite'.

“These observations reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG[Ultra-fine grain] aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to form pyrotechnics or explosives. Commercially available thermite behaves as an incendiary when ignited, but when the ingredients are ultra-fine grain and are intimately mixed, this 'nano-thermite' reacts very rapidly, even explosively, and is sometimes referred to as 'super-thermite',” the report explains.

The full article in The Open Chemical Physics Journal can be found here.

Some of the authors of the paper have lost their jobs at universities and chemistry labs for their outspoken breakdown of what happened at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Kevin Ryan lost his job as a lab director after writing a letter to the National Institute for Standards and Technology(NIST was conducting an investigation into 9/11 at the time) challenging the common theory that burning jet fuel weakened the steel supports holding up the 110-story skyscrapers. Ryan claims that the owner of his laboratory subsidiary "was the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings,” according to the South Bend Tribune. Dr. Steven E. Jones, a physicist at Brigham Young University, presented a paper in 2005 discussing alternative theories to the commonly accepted 'jet fuel' reasoning. In September 2006 he was placed on paid administrative leave and his paper was removed from the BYU database.

Jones has told Visibility911.com, "In short, the paper explodes the official story that 'no evidence' exists for explosive/pyrotechnic materials in the WTC buildings."

It remains to be seen if this study will encourage further investigation into the events of 9/11, or if anyone will come forth with a legitimate reason as to why nano-structured super-thermite can be found in dust produced by the collapse of the World Trade Centers.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Scient..._WTC_0404.html

Wake Up and Smell the Aluminothermic Nanocomposite Explosives

As Documentation of Thermitic Materials
in the WTC Twin Towers Grows,
Official Story Backers Ignore, Deny, Evade, and Dissemble

by
Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, April 3, 2009

Introduction

The obliteration of the Twin Towers was the centerpiece of the event that launched the 'War on Terror'. Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history that killed thousands of people -- civilians -- in one day. Given the collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled demolitions. Early candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan would proceed apace.

By 2003 the United States had two occupations, and an international reputation as a rogue state all resting on a shaky-at-best collapse theory whose principle alternative hypothesis -- controlled demolition with pre-planted pyrotechnics -- had not even been tested by the straightforward forensic analysis of debris for residues of such materials.

By early 2009, the residue testing that NIST refused to do had been done by independent researchers, and published in a chemistry journal. Small bi-layered chips, found consistently in dust samples, have layers of red nano-engineered material that is clearly aluminothermic: it has sub-micron-diameter particles of largely of elemental aluminum, and smaller crystalline grains of primarily Fe2O3. On ignition, the chips produce temperatures above the melting point of iron, leaving tiny iron droplets matching the residues of commercial thermite pyrotechnics.

The publication of these results should be astounding to anyone who uncritically accepted the collapse explanations in TV documentaries and never looked seriously at any of the several bodies of evidence for controlled demolition.

The NIST investigation, having posted its Final Report with its absurd Building 7 joint-breaking-thermal-expansion theory in late 2008 and FAQ by Christmas, closed its doors before the independent researchers published their findings of active aluminothermic materials in WTC dust in a mainstream scientific journal; but not before they publicized findings of aluminothermic residues in the same dust samples; and not before they extracted from NIST a series of public statements, in press conferences and in written responses to requests for corrections (RFCs), about the conduct of their inquiry into the cause of the skyscrapers' total destruction.

ABEL: ... what about that letter where NIST said it didn’t look for evidence of explosives?

NEUMAN: Right, because there was no evidence of that.

ABEL: But how can you know there’s no evidence if you don’t look for it first?

NEUMAN: If you’re looking for something that isn’t there, you’re wasting your time....

--Conversation between a reporter and a NIST spokesperson. source

As a result, NIST spokespersons are on the record saying they did not test for pyrotechnics, and offering rationale for failing to test. Those rationale -- or rationalizations -- summarized toward the end of this essay, include the assertion that testing for pyrotechnics "would not necessarily have been conclusive". That is partially true: failing to find pyrotechnic residues wouldn't rule out demolition, since demolition might have been implemented using an untraceable fuel such as hydrogen gas. But finding abundant and distributed pyrotechnic explosive residues would conclusively favor demolition -- particularly given the persuasive deductive arguments showing that the features of the buildings' destruction are incompatable with a purely gravity-driven collapse.

The following timeline is narrowly focused on the emergence of public evidence indicating the use of aluminothermic pyrotechnics -- ranging from incendiaries to high-explosives -- in the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7, and on the response of official investigations -- particular NIST's -- to that evidence.

Contents

Introduction
Timeline

READ MORE

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/t..._timeline.html

Gee, if it comes out that the world trade towers were constructed without welding, this could be a huge story! :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by France B-boy

ChodeChomper is always asking for proof of explosives during 9/11 and when someone finally post some he calls it a lie?

Why bother?

---

:lmao

RickRickerrter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

---

holy shit

funniest political forum thread ever

"Scientists find evidence of welding in steel skyscrapers."

fuck yeah, bill clinton. preach it.

New Scientific Study: Smoking Gun Evidence of 9/11 Explosives in WTC Dust

by Josh Mitteldorf

www.opednews.com

A new article in the Open Chemical Physics Journal details chemical evidence from the 9/11 dust of thermite cutting charges.

One of the strongest pieces of evidence that the Government's account of 9/11 is flawed has always been the way in which the Twin Towers fell. They fell straight down, not to the side.

Therre was the sound of explosions in the basement reported by firefighters. And most crucially: the speed of the fall was so rapid that there could not have been any resistance.

In other words, the "legs" of the building must have been pulled out from underneath long before the weight of the falling top part came crashing down upon them. In fact, the buildings fell in "free-fall" time, the same time it would have taken a baseball dropped from the top of the buildings to hit the ground.

Physicists and engineers point out thata building cannot fall straight down 'by accident'. The way the buildings fell was characteristic of controlled demolition, in which carefully-timed cutter charges sever the supporting members at just the right times to make the building fall inward and not topple to the side. The science of controlled demolition involves some very critical timing, and even small mistakes can lead to the building falling over sideways instead of straight down.

Direct evidence in the past for controlled demolition has included photos of neatly-severed beams in the demolition clean-up. The beams did not appear to be twisted or melted, but rather cut in neat, diagonal straight lines.

Neatly-severed beams at WTC demolition site

Also compelling is the fact that a third WTC tower, known as Building 7, came down in the same fashion, falling straight down in free-fall time, landing in its own footprint. Building 7 came down late in the afternoon, hours after the Twin Towers, and Building 7 was never hit by an airplane. Building 7 was nowhere mentioned in the official report of the 9/11 Commission, and there are (besides controlled demolition) there are no 'official' theories how it fell so suddenly and symmetrically.

In this context, the new journal article provides corroboratory evidence that dust collected locally the afternoon of 9/11 and the following day contains microscopic traces of thermite.

Thermite is a very hot-burning mixture of finely-powdered aluminum and finally powdered iron oxide. As hot as an oxy-acetylene torch, it is used to melt iron beams and cut through them. Fires burning paper, building materials, or even jet fuel do not burn nearly hot enough to melt steel. The authors note that the particles were milled to an extremely fine dust and intermingled so that they burn much hotter and more rapidly even than conventional thermite.

Josh Mitteldorf, a senior editor at OpEdNews, was educated to be an astrophysicist, and has branched out from there to mathematical modeling in a variety of areas. He has taught mathematics, statistics, and physics at several universities.

Comments:

http://www.opednews.com/articles/New...90404-371.html

Study: Scientists Discover Active Thermitic Material in WTC Dust

Berkeley, CA, April 3, 2009 -- A new study by independent scientists and researchers suggests the cause behind the catastrophic destruction of World Trade Center Towers on September 11th can be seen in the dust itself: active thermitic material, a highly engineered explosive.

The study, published today in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."

The study's finding lends new support to the demolition theory put forth by critics of the official reports.

At a time when the American public is finding it difficult to understand the full story behind the current economic crisis, findings of a demolition raise new questions about how the 'War on Terror' -- an enormous source of recent American spending -- was started.

Officials with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), charged with establishing the cause of the buildings' destruction, have stated that they "did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel," and that thermite, "or another incendiary compound," would be too difficult to have placed in the buildings without notice.

NIST has stated that such difficulties make demolition unlikely. They concluded that aircraft impacts and the subsequent fires led to the building failures.

Dr. Steven Jones, physicist and author on the paper, says that NIST has refused to test the dust for thermite, super-thermite, or any other accelerant or explosive.

"We've repeatedly asked them to follow standard investigative procedure, to perform these tests and release the results. They haven't."

Jones says such tests may be required by fire protection codes.

Kevin Ryan, chemist and co-author on the paper, explained why he thinks NIST is wrong.

"What we've discovered is not conventional thermite -- which is what NIST continues to refer to -- but a highly engineered thermitic material, or 'super thermite', probably designed for just this type of application."

Pre-planned demolition, supporters say, is the 'best-fit' model for the many unusual and unexplained characteristics of the building failures, such as the speed and symmetry of the collapses, and the extreme pulverization of the materials leading to clouds of micron-sized dust particles, described in one insurance report as behaving similar to a "volcanic eruption".

"One of the unusual features that piqued my interest," Jones said, "was the pools of molten metal seen in all three rubble piles, WTC 1, 2 & 7."

NIST officials have published a response stating that the condition of the steel was "irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse."

Jones, formerly a Professor of Physics with Brigham Young University and known for his work in muon-catalyzed fusion, published in Nature, Scientific American, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry, began researching the 9/11/01 attacks in 2005.

Jones discovered the curious thermitic material in 2007, when he ran a magnet over a dust sample given to him by a Manhattan resident survivor of the attack, and found that some particles were attracted to the magnet.

"That was very odd to me," he said.

Those particles turned out to be iron-rich microspheres, partially described in a 2001 USGS study of the dust.

But to fully analyze, describe and report on the thermitic material would take longer.

Jones was joined in that effort by several others including Dr. Niels Harrit, a chemistry professor with the University of Copenhagen for over 30 years and author of numerous research papers in journals such as Nano Letters, the Journal of the American Chemistry Society, and the Journal of Physical Chemistry A.

Harrit says that he is frequently asked why he researches the September 11th attack. and says has two answers.

"First, I am opposed to crime, and second, when my 6 grandchildren ask me, 'Grandfather, which side were you on?' I will be able to answer them, 'I was on your side'."

Co-author Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, a materials scientist and Director of the TEM (Transmition Electron Microscopy) laboratory at BYU, says he hopes the paper will "change the way the 9/11 truth movement is viewed by the mainstream public and media."

And chemist and co-author Kevin Ryan, a former Underwriters Laboratories manager, challenged the NIST report in public statements in 2004, and was consequently fired.

"This finding really goes beyond anything that has previously been shown," says Jones.

"We had to use sophisticated tools to analyze the dust because this isn't just a typical explosive, RDX or CD4 or something -- this is a highly engineered material not readily available to just anyone."

In a 2006 interview with Deseret News, Jones noted that commercial explosives must contain tag elements for traceability, but that no law requires tagging of advanced forms of thermitics.

In 2008, several of these authors published three articles challenging the official reports in US scientific journals, The Open Civil Engineering Journal, The Environmentalist, and The Journal of Engineering Mechanics Dozens of other papers making similar challenges have been published in the sister publication of the Scholars group, The Journal of 9/11 Studies

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization of over 700 independent researchers analyzing the September 11, 2001 attacks with a strong emphasis on the scientific method.

For information: http://www.stj911.com or
Contact: [email protected]

Phone: 510-769-5109

# # #

http://stj911.org/press_releases/Act...cMaterial.html

Quote:

---

there are no 'official' theories how it fell so suddenly and symmetrically.

---

See, here's where so called "truthers" cut themselves off at the knees by flat-out lying. Of course there is an official theory about how WTC7 fell.

If you guys stopped lying, you might have some credibility, but then again you wouldn't have anything to post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

See, here's where so called "truthers" cut themselves off at the knees by flat-out lying. Of course there is an official theory about how WTC7 fell.

If you guys stopped lying, you might have some credibility, but then again you wouldn't have anything to post.

---

Do you believe the US government has ever, or is capable of, doing something like this to accomplish US policy?

Just answer the question. Do you believe it's possible for governments to allow situations to happen so that they can pass policies they want to pass?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Do you believe the US government has ever, or is capable of, doing something like this to accomplish US policy?

Just answer the question. Do you believe it's possible for governments to allow situations to happen so that they can pass policies they want to pass?

---

In a very general sense ("governments" -- "like this" -- "capable of"), sure.

There is zero evidence this is the case for 9/11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Do you believe the US government has ever, or is capable of, doing something like this to accomplish US policy?

Just answer the question. Do you believe it's possible for governments to allow situations to happen so that they can pass policies they want to pass?

---

Of course it's possible. It's possible that Taro Aso could be playing poker tomorrow with Kim-Jong Il. Stating something is possible does not validate your argument what-so-ever, at all, in any way.

It has been done before here in the USA and it has been done countless times around the world.

I for one, am NOT a 9/11 'inside job' guy. I personally believe Osama Bin Laden DID attack.

but here is the twist. Bush knew about it before hand and LET IT HAPPEN.

That's what I believe. Same thing FDR did in WW2 with Pearl harbor. Provoke the enemy, let the enemy attack us, then claim self-defense and instill all your policies that the country will happily accept.

Osama Bin Laden DID attack us, but Bush govt allowed it to happen so they could do what they wanted. The signs are all there. That's what really happened, imo.

Here is a nice bit of information for you :

1) During the morning of September 11, 2001, the US was running military exercises simulating a terrorist attack using planes. Operation VIGILANT GUARDIAN was an exercise run by NORAD and the military during the week of Sept. 11, 2001. We have numerous accounts and records that while the REAL planes were hijacked, military personnel in NORAD thought "This is just part of the exercise?" and didn't believe it was a real hijacking. This is the perfect way to create confusion to ensure success for Osama Bin Laden

Most of our air defense was performing this exercise and didn't believe the hijackers were real until it was too late.


2) The 1990 "Internal Look" exercise simulated Iraq's invasion of Kuwait at the exact moment that Iraq invaded Kuwait (Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense).

3) OPERATION NORTHWOODS - was a false-flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.

-----------------------

4) In WW2, President FDR allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor to have an excuse to get into the war and save Europe. We have mountains of evidence of this. Internal memo's, the President of Peru warning us, the fact that FDR intentionally sent all of our old WW1 ships over to Pearl Harbor and saved all of our new ships, the fact that he ordered Admiral Richardson to berth in Hawaii which caused Admiral Richardson to TWICE disobey him because he knew the fleet had no protection, the fact that FDR was given an 8 point 'situational analysis' which detailed 8 situations that would force Japan into war -which FDR EXECUTED ALL 8 TO PROVOKE THE JAPANESE, etc...



This is not new. What the "Inside Job" people are doing is getting it confused. Osama Bin Laden DID attack us. What happened was Bush and his bastard regime let it happen so they could invade Iraq and pass their policies.

1) Bush went 'on vacation' during the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

2) Bush was given a memo "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack the United States using hijacked airplanes" A FEW DAYS BEFORE SEPT. 11 !!!

3) On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush was reading books to children. After the first plane hit, one of Bush's men whispered into the President's ear "Sir, America is under attack"

What did Bush do? He sat there for another 7 minutes. Why do you think he did this? Easy. To allow the rest of the planes to hit.

If I come to you, and I say "Your house is under attack" while you are working at your job, do you sit there quietly? Nope, you will get up and yell "WHAT?!?!?"

But here we have PRESIDENT Bush. We could be in a nuclear war for all he knows. It could have been a nuclear attack, anything. and he just sits there.

Isn't it obvious?

Inside job people got it wrong.

It wasn't an inside job. It was Osama Bin Laden that attacked us.

The conspiracy part is that Bush and his cronies knew about it and allowed it to happen so they could invade Iraq and pass their policies.

Weapons of Mass destruction, lol.


This is an old strategy for world leaders, it's not new.

There is no evidence for that either. Bush and company were willfully ignorant of the terrorist threat, not hoping AQ would launch 9/11 attacks so they could fuck up the occupation of Iraq.

did you read my post?

I just gave you a few situations where the US government has done this or tried to do this before.


and I gave you the signs that Bush knew what was going on and let it happen.

I didn't even mention other things Bush did, like ignore Richard Clarke counter-terrorism expert, who kept pleading with Bush about the imminent danger.


It's quite obvious what happened. It's been done by world leaders for centuries. Provoke the enemy, let them attack, then claim self-defense and go to war and instill your policies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

did you read my post?

I just gave you a few situations where the US government has done this or tried to do this before.


and I gave you the signs that Bush knew what was going on and let it happen.

---

Yeah, Northwoods is a great example since we went to war with Cuba.

There was testimony that the military exercises actually enhanced the military's ability to respond to the attacks. Guess you never heard of that.


As for Bush's sitting there -- a few minutes wasn't going to make any difference. Due to the communication difficulties between civilian and military aviation authorities and the general confusion of the day, even when planes were sent up (that were always available and not part of any exercise) they didn't know where to go.

ChumpDumper

Your dismissals are non-satisfactory. Not the least bit convincing. Looks more like absolute denial and refusal to admit the possibility, on your part.


Such ridiculous examples like this :

MiamiHeat : The US govt has done or tried to do some of X things before

ChumpDumper : Yeah that example sux since we never went to war with cuba!


Laugh out loud.

Here is the testimony I mentioned above, an exchange between Congressman Tim Roemer and Air Force General and NORAD commander Ralph E. Eberhart:


MR. ROEMER: General Eberhart, a question about our training posture on the day of 9/11. On page five of our Staff Statement, the FAA says at 8:38 in the morning, "Hi, Boston Center, TMU, we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York and we need you guys to -- we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there. Help us out." NEADS says, "Is this real world or an exercise?"

My question is, you were postured for an exercise against the former Soviet Union. Did that help or hurt? Did that help in terms of were more people prepared? Did you have more people ready? Were more fighters fueled with more fuel? Or did this hurt in terms of people thinking, "No, there's no possibility that this is real world; we're engaged in an exercise," and delay things? Or did it have both impacts?

GEN. EBERHART: Sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews -- they have to be airborne in 15 minutes. And that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.

The situation that you're referring to, I think, at most cost us 30 seconds -- 30 seconds.

MR. ROEMER: That's what we have recorded. I just wondered if there was more of that down the line.

GEN. EBERHART: No, it became painfully clear, Commissioner, that this was not an exercise.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/a...2004-06-17.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Your dismissals are non-satisfactory. Not the least bit convincing. Looks more like absolute denial and refusal to admit the possibility, on your part.

---

I admitted the possibility above, so quit beating up that straw man. I even entertained the possibility in the past.

The more I learned about 9/11 though, the less probable that theory turned out to be.

Sorry, I've seen your argument before -- I dug up the above quote from a post of mine in another 9/11 thread. It's really easy to dismiss this theory given the actual facts.

At one time on 9/11, as many as 22 aircraft appeared to be hijacked. Suddenly, the virtue, now verging on necessity, of switching off the transponders becomes evident. With loss of transponder signals the planes became bogies, and discriminating real from simulated hijackings became next to impossible.

-------------

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...?currentPage=2

---------------------

In order to find a hijacked airliner—or any airplane—military controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the neads controllers were at a loss.

"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack."

-----------------------------------


But of course, having all of this confusion HELPED them! Sureeee. I mean, it can all be one huge coincidence, but look at all the other signs. Look at what Bush and company did after the fact. Look at the whole picture.


One thing we can agree on is that the US did not actually do the dirty work.

IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, isn't this what you would do? Have the military plan these exercises on the same days of the attacks?

now, look at what Bush and company had to gain.

Cheney was CEO and Chairman of the Board at Haliburton until Bush tapped him on the shoulder to run with him in 2000. Guess who got really rich and stood to profit from a war with Iraq? Guess which company got many no-bid contracts?

Guess who had a history of wanting a war with Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

At one time on 9/11, as many as 22 aircraft appeared to be hijacked. Suddenly, the virtue, now verging on necessity, of switching off the transponders becomes evident. With loss of transponder signals the planes became bogies, and discriminating real from simulated hijackings became next to impossible.

-------------

"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...?currentPage=2

---

From the same article:

08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

08:37:56
WATSON: What?
DOOLEY: Whoa!
WATSON: What was that?
ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.

So the confusion of the tests is resolved with a simple question and answer -- an exchange that takes a few seconds.

Quote:

---

In order to find a hijacked airliner—or any airplane—military controllers need either the plane's beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane's exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the neads controllers were at a loss.

"You would see thousands of green blips on your scope," Nasypany told me, "and now you have to pick and choose. Which is the bad guy out there? Which is the hijacked aircraft? And without that information from F.A.A., it's a needle in a haystack."

---

What does that have to do with Bush's letting it happen? Nothing at all.

But of course, having all of this confusion HELPED them! Sureeee. I mean, it can all be one huge coincidence, but look at all the other signs. Look at what Bush and company did after the fact. Look at the whole picture.

Quote:

---

IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, isn't this what you would do? Have the military plan these exercises on the same days of the attacks?

---

Too bad the exercises that morning had nothing to do with the planes that actually respond to east coast hijackings. Again, i've looked into this and can quote my own response from an earlier thread:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

And NEADS, which responds to hijackings in that area, was not running an exercise since the hijackings occurred before their participation was to begin. Oops, why couldn't those pesky hired suicide hijackers have taken a later flight and screw up all the plans? What was their hurry to kill themselves?

---

So, IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, wouldn't you make sure the actual fighters charged with intercepting hijacked planes in the US northeast wouldn't be available to, you know, intercept the hijacked planes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

now, look at what Bush and company had to gain.

Cheney was CEO and Chairman of the Board at Haliburton until Bush tapped him on the shoulder to run with him in 2000. Guess who got really rich and stood to profit from a war with Iraq? Guess which company got many no-bid contracts?

Guess who had a history of wanting a war with Iraq?

---

So a vice-president allowed an attack from Afghanistan to start a war with Iraq so he could build showers that electrocute US soldiers.

1) On the morning of the attack, a large-scale military training exercise called Global Guardian was "in full swing." Global Guardian is an annual exercise involving Stratcom (the US Strategic Command), the US Space Command, and NORAD. 5

There is evidence that the date of the 2001 Global Guardian exercise was changed to correspond with the the terrorist attack. NBC News military analyst William Arkin, in his book Code Names, gives the date of the exercise as October 22-31, 2001. 6 Also, a military newspaper, the Space Observer, reported in an article dated 3/23/01 that the exercise was scheduled for October of that year.

Stratcon directed the exercise, which included all the US strategic forces, from Offutt Air Force Base.

2) The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) "provides our nation its eyes and ears in space." It operates a system of reconnaissance satellites to provide real-time monitoring of objects in the skies. On 9/11/01 the NRO headquarters in Chantilly, VA, were evacuated as part of a "plane into building" drill. The scenario involved a small corporate jet crashing into one of the campus' four towers

3) Conducted from September 9-11, this exercise redeployed jets that normally patrolled the northeast sector to northern Canada and Alaska. It echoed a Russian exercise scheduled from September 10-14 in which long-range bombers were dispatched to their northern territory.

Only 8 fighters were left to patrol the skies in that area due to the exercise.

I understand it's hard to believe anyone would allow Bin Laden to attack us, but Bush and Cheney are just the men to do it.

FDR did it in WW2, we planned to do it but never actually did it in 1962, etc.

Again:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

And NEADS, which responds to hijackings in that area, was not running an exercise since the hijackings occurred before their participation was to begin. Oops, why couldn't those pesky hired suicide hijackers have taken a later flight and screw up all the plans? What was their hurry to kill themselves?

---

So, IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, wouldn't you make sure the actual fighters charged with intercepting hijacked planes in the US northeast wouldn't be available to, you know, intercept the hijacked planes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

I understand it's hard to believe anyone would allow Bin Laden to attack us, but Bush and Cheney are just the men to do it.

---

I understand many people want to believe they let it happen or made it happen, but that doesn't make it true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Again:



So, IF YOU WANTED to ensure that Obama Bin Laden succeeds, wouldn't you make sure the actual fighters charged with intercepting hijacked planes in the US northeast wouldn't be available to, you know, intercept the hijacked planes?

---

You aren't reading my posts.

I responded to this already

3) Conducted from September 9-11, this exercise redeployed jets that normally patrolled the northeast sector to northern Canada and Alaska. It echoed a Russian exercise scheduled from September 10-14 in which long-range bombers were dispatched to their northern territory.

Only 8 fighters were left to patrol the skies in that area due to the exercise.

Here is more lying and coverup :

“ WE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS”
Acting air defense commander General Richard Myers later said: "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."

But they had.

Just 11 months before - between October 24 and 26, 2000 - NORAD had trained “for a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon".

On 911 - as Flight 77 took off from Dulles International - the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office operating all U.S. spy satellites was about to conduct an emergency drill in which a simulated plane from Dulles International dives into their building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

You aren't reading my posts.

I responded to this already

3) Conducted from September 9-11, this exercise redeployed jets that normally patrolled the northeast sector to northern Canada and Alaska. It echoed a Russian exercise scheduled from September 10-14 in which long-range bombers were dispatched to their northern territory.

Only 8 fighters were left to patrol the skies in that area due to the exercise.

---

You aren't reading my posts.

There were fighters available.

Fighters were dispatched to intercept hijacked planes, but they didn't know where to go.

Why pretend they weren't?

Are you ok? Go drink some coffee. Reading comprehension is falling.

It's becoming difficult to understand exactly what you are trying to prove.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Here is more lying and coverup :

“ WE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS”
Acting air defense commander General Richard Myers later said: "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."

But they had.

Just 11 months before - between October 24 and 26, 2000 - NORAD had trained “for a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon".

On 911 - as Flight 77 took off from Dulles International - the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office operating all U.S. spy satellites was about to conduct an emergency drill in which a simulated plane from Dulles International dives into their building.

---

More cherry picking and lying.

A plane had crashed into the White House in 1994. Of course people thought about planes crashing into other federal buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Are you ok? Go drink some coffee. Reading comprehension is falling.

It's becoming difficult to understand exactly what you are trying to prove.

---

It's clear to see what you are lying about.

So we agree on something?

Are you calling me a liar or Air defense commander General Richard Myers?

stop trolling please

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

So we agree on something?

Are you calling me a liar or Air defense commander General Richard Myers?

stop trolling please

---

I am calling you a liar.

Stop lying please.

So I am lying that General Richard Myers said

"You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this." when asked about 9/11 ?

?

stop trolling.... go play a video game if you are bored. there are lots of fun ones.

MH using the same tactics as in the God thread. He comes up with lose pieces of info and passes them as facts. Then he ties everything up with a very thin thread and says "Viola! An evident conspiracy is going on here . . . ".

dam hard times for chumpdumper

guess he'll just ask someone to post what really happened on 9/11

then claim victory

What part did I try to pass off as fact, smeagol?

I am pretty sure you won't respond. You just throw mud and run away without supporting your claims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

stop trolling please

---

You are a fucking moron. CD has been responding to every 9/11 thrread fr the last five years. He is no troll and he certainly does not troll these kind of threads.

You are again using the same tactics you used in the God thread when yo accused Joe of trolling.

I had forgotten what an enormous douche you are.

Thanks for reminding me . . .

smeagol has a lot invested in his 9/11 faith, hes foreign and because he loves his own country so much he had to move up here and drop knowledge

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

So I am lying that General Richard Myers said

"You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."

?

---

Let's see some context.

"I didn't know what to believe at the time," he said. "We had these events, and then subsequently the airplane went down in Pennsylvania. We were trying to tie this together."

NORAD had by this time put fighter jets in the air in case other hijacked planes posed threats. "It was initially pretty confusing," Myers said. "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=44621

Did anybody think of four planes being hijacked at once and hitting targets in different cities?

You are cherry picking here -- or just regurgitating the cherry picking of some truther site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

dam hard times for chumpdumper

guess he'll just ask someone to post what really happened on 9/11

then claim victory

---

Hey pussy, how's it going?

Never had the balls to tell us what really happened on 9/11, huh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

smeagol has a lot invested in his 9/11 faith, hes foreign and because he loves his own country so much he had to move up here and drop knowledge

---

I moved back to Argentina in 2007. Get on with the program . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Let's see some context.

"I didn't know what to believe at the time," he said. "We had these events, and then subsequently the airplane went down in Pennsylvania. We were trying to tie this together."

NORAD had by this time put fighter jets in the air in case other hijacked planes posed threats. "It was initially pretty confusing," Myers said. "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/news....aspx?id=44621

Did anybody think of four planes being hijacked at once and hitting targets in different cities?

You are cherry picking here -- or just regurgitating the cherry picking of some truther site.

---

Looks like you are the one cherry picking.

They HAD thought about hijacked planes crashing into buildings.

They even thought about hijacked planes crashing into government buildings like the Pentagon.

They even had EXERCISES TO PRACTICE them.

So to you, because they never thought of -4- hijacked at one time, that means everything is ok?

Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

So they could have practiced 4 hijacked planes crashing into Disney world at 9pm, but because the hijackers used 5 planes instead of 4 while crashing into Disney at 9pm, they 'never thought of this' ?

Seriously, you are not being honest in this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

What part did I try to pass off as fact, smeagol?

I am pretty sure you won't respond. You just throw mud and run away without supporting your claims.

---

Yep, I was right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Looks like you are the one cherry picking.

They HAD thought about hijacked planes crashing into buildings.

They even thought about hijacked planes crashing into government buildings like the Pentagon.

They even had EXERCISES TO PRACTICE them.

So to you, because they never thought of -4- hijacked at one time, that means everything is ok?

---

No, it means they never thought of 4 hijacked at one time, so at the time, the General said he was trying to figure out what was happeneing. Why do you have trouble understanding this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Here is more lying and coverup :

“ WE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS”
Acting air defense commander General Richard Myers later said: "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."

But they had.

Just 11 months before - between October 24 and 26, 2000 - NORAD had trained “for a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon".

On 911 - as Flight 77 took off from Dulles International - the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office operating all U.S. spy satellites was about to conduct an emergency drill in which a simulated plane from Dulles International dives into their building.

---

Just because you cut and paste crap from websites such as William Thomas' does not make this statement true . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Yep, I was right.

---

You were wrong . . . just like in that other thread . . .

yeah its not like williamthomas.com is the 9/11 Commission

Seriously, why would Myers lie to Armed Forces Radio that the military never ever ever ever thought a plane might crash into a federal building when it already happened seven years earlier?

You are being willfully stupid to believe this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Inside job people got it wrong.

It wasn't an inside job. It was Osama Bin Laden that attacked us.

The conspiracy part is that Bush and his cronies knew about it and allowed it to happen so they could invade Iraq and pass their policies.

Weapons of Mass destruction, lol.


This is an old strategy for world leaders, it's not new.

---

And you think you've proved this with the "infamous seven minute wait"? :lmao

Oh, I forgot, you are the one who believes Chrstianity is the refined version of the Sun God worshiping . . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mookie2001

yeah its not like williamthomas.com is the 9/11 Commission

---

What really happened on 9/11?

At least MH has a theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

No, it means they never thought of 4 hijacked at one time, so at the time, the General said he was trying to figure out what was happeneing. Why do you have trouble understanding this?

---

The day of 9/11 had up to 22 simulated hijackings

What do you mean they never thought of 4 at one time?

He is just trying to save his ass like everyone else. Nobody wants to be blamed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

The day of 9/11 had up to 22 simulated hijackings

What do you mean they never thought of 4 at one time?

---

They thought of 22 simultaneous hijackings?

Prove it.

All smeagol does is throw mud like a little child and never support any claims.

Welcome to ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

He is just trying to save his ass like everyone else. Nobody wants to be blamed.

---

So why would he say anything at all? There would be no reason to if all he wanted to do was save his ass. You are saying he purposely incriminated himself.

Why would he purposely incriminate himself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

All smeagol does is throw mud like a little child and never support any claims.

Welcome to ignore.

---

As opposed to your claims, which are all substantiated. :lol

Look dude, again, you tie unconnected events and try to pass them as doctrine.

No different than any of the other loonies out there who call themselves Truthers.

When you are so out there that even Bill Mahr calls you a loon, well, you should rethink your strategy . . .

smeagol, chumpdumper has been posting in 9/11 threads for five years, but in each post he pretty much says "Hey, theres this 700 page report out there, backed by a shitload of money, that provides a logical and scientific basis for the towers falling, and until you provide that kind of evidence to support your theory, I claim ownage over you."

Then he blabs on about girders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

smeagol, chumpdumper has been posting in 9/11 threads for five years, but in each post he pretty much says "Hey, theres this 700 page report out there, backed by a shitload of money, that provides a logical and scientific basis for the towers falling, and until you provide that kind of evidence to support your theory, I claim ownage over you."

---

What theory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

What theory?

---

Wow, you're so good at playing chumpdumper.

See, when you post that, you aren't asking "What theory has anyone mentioned in this forum?" because people have told you shit from the start of what they think happened. What you are really asking is

"What theory can you provide me that is as dense and detailed as the 9/11 commission report, because until you post a detailed theory that is comparable to this report, I'm claiming strict ownage rights over you"

Which is totally totally gay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

Wow, you're so good at playing chumpdumper.

See, when you post that, you aren't asking "What theory has anyone mentioned in this forum?" because people have told you shit from the start of what they think happened. What you are really asking is

"What theory can you provide me that is as dense and detailed as the 9/11 commission report, because until you post a detailed theory that is comparable to this report, I'm claiming strict ownage rights over you"

Which is totally totally gay.

---

Honestly, only one person has even tried to post an actual theory, and that was Galileo's "three individuals pulled off 9/11 by themselves" theory.

As you might imagine, he didn't elaborate much on it.

I can bump the alternative theory thread and you can see how many takers I had. That might be fun.

Actually yes go ahead and bump it, because I include myself among others who list ideas of what happened that don't conform strictly to the 9/11 commission report. But seeing as how you're chumpdumper, you will wait for someone else to acknowledge them, then post a question or statement that pretty much says "But this isn't as detailed as the 9/11 commission report, I call bull shit, and I am right because the 9/11 commission report is flawless and free of error"

But don't expect me to post in it, because we'll start a near infinite loop of your CDisms all over again.

Have you ever personally posted what you thought happened on 9/11?

I'd like to see a link to it.

Most of the little theorlets posted on this board are pretty easily discounted by actual facts. It's not my fault truthers get so butthurt when they are challenged or proven wrong. Now all you're saying is you are preemptively butthurt, so you won't post what you think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Have you ever personally posted what you thought happened on 9/11?

I'd like to see a link to it.

Most of the little theorlets posted on this board are pretty easily discounted by actual facts. It's not my fault truthers get so butthurt when they are challenged or proven wrong. Now all you're saying is you are preemptively butthurt, so you won't post what you think.

---

Yes I did. Many times, before you created a trap of a thread that is your "alternative" theory thread as well, because you said this exact thing in that thread, to goad me into your infinite CD loops. And my personal opinion of what happened is in that thread. You took every sentence I posted, and posted some version of "But that isn't as airtight as the 9/11 commission report" in response, and like i said, infinite loop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

Yes I did. Many times.

---

Where?

I don't remember anything more than a few abstractions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

but here is the twist. Bush knew about it before hand and LET IT HAPPEN.

That's what I believe. Same thing FDR did in WW2 with Pearl harbor. Provoke the enemy, let the enemy attack us, then claim self-defense and instill all your policies that the country will happily accept.

---

You can listen to the propaganda all you want. The way I see it, the previous administartion said they knew and gave president Bush the information. If it was such credible information, why didn't they do anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

1) During the morning of September 11, 2001, the US was running military exercises simulating a terrorist attack using planes. Operation VIGILANT GUARDIAN was an exercise run by NORAD and the military during the week of Sept. 11, 2001. We have numerous accounts and records that while the REAL planes were hijacked, military personnel in NORAD thought "This is just part of the exercise?" and didn't believe it was a real hijacking. This is the perfect way to create confusion to ensure success for Osama Bin Laden

---

Or maybe one of the several rats that kept leaking secrets out told Obama that exercise was happening and would be a good day.

Make up everything you want, and look the fool. No proof. Just conjecture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

3) OPERATION NORTHWOODS - was a false-flag conspiracy plan, proposed within the United States government in 1962. The plan called for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Castro-led Cuba. One plan was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Cuba.

Operation Northwoods was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and signed by then-Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer, and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets. Operation Northwoods was part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project (Operation Mongoose) anti-Castro initiative. It was never officially accepted or executed.

---

Duh... No shit.

Think this wasn't hashed over years ago? That doesn't mean such a plot was crafted today, and Northwood wasn't planned with casualties, but a swap of planes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

4) In WW2, President FDR allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor to have an excuse to get into the war and save Europe. We have mountains of evidence of this. Internal memo's, the President of Peru warning us, the fact that FDR intentionally sent all of our old WW1 ships over to Pearl Harbor and saved all of our new ships, the fact that he ordered Admiral Richardson to berth in Hawaii which caused Admiral Richardson to TWICE disobey him because he knew the fleet had no protection, the fact that FDR was given an 8 point 'situational analysis' which detailed 8 situations that would force Japan into war -which FDR EXECUTED ALL 8 TO PROVOKE THE JAPANESE, etc...

---

Conjecture, no proof. Now I agree the intelligence they had was poorly used, but that doesn't mean there was a sinister plot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

1) Bush went 'on vacation' during the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

---

What? Then why was he at the school?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

2) Bush was given a memo "Osama Bin Laden determined to attack the United States using hijacked airplanes" A FEW DAYS BEFORE SEPT. 11 !!!

---

With what credibility level? Far less I bet than the credibility of Saddam having weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

3) On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush was reading books to children. After the first plane hit, one of Bush's men whispered into the President's ear "Sir, America is under attack"

---

Bullshit. Would you please get the facts strait. That was after the second plane hit. The first was undetermined why it hit. The second showed a pattern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

What did Bush do? He sat there for another 7 minutes. Why do you think he did this? Easy. To allow the rest of the planes to hit.

---

That time line is also false. Please stop quoting Michael Moron. He's a proven "Big Fat Liar." You should watch Fahrenhype 9-11. The teacher/principle tells what happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

If I come to you, and I say "Your house is under attack" while you are working at your job, do you sit there quietly? Nope, you will get up and yell "WHAT?!?!?"

---

What's he going to do? Isn't it best to ponder the situation for a few minutes before reacting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

But here we have PRESIDENT Bush. We could be in a nuclear war for all he knows. It could have been a nuclear attack, anything. and he just sits there.

Isn't it obvious?

---

That you're a fool? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

It's quite obvious what happened. It's been done by world leaders for centuries. Provoke the enemy, let them attack, then claim self-defense and go to war and instill your policies.

---

You know, one thing about the heart of America that you clearly lack is that we have a burden of proof. You would have been a great 18th century Englishman, being jury, judge, and executioner. Now I could agree that such things can happen, but there simple is no credible evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

“ WE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THIS”
Acting air defense commander General Richard Myers later said: "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this."

But they had.

Just 11 months before - between October 24 and 26, 2000 - NORAD had trained “for a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon".

---

Wow. So they never though of a professional pilot hitting a building like that, or that terrorists would do it with large jets. That's a far cry different that a passenger plane, which a steel or concrete building would smash like a bug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

All smeagol does is throw mud like a little child and never support any claims.

Welcome to ignore.

---

Actually, Smeagol usually doesn't say something without some rather good thoughts around it. Chump, Smeagol, and I often don't agree, but neither are fools. I would say they are both far above average intelligence, and actually do more fact checking than most people. Obviously more than you, by the material you source.

Unexploded Nanothermite Found In WTC Dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE_tuWKsBko

Here are the three best 9/11 Movies on the WTC (in order of complexity):

September 11 Revisited: Were Explosives Used?

by Dustin Mugford

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...r+11+revisited

9/11 Mysteries

by Sophia

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ysteries&emb=1

Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic

by Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, and Kevin Ryan

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...collapse&emb=1

These films, of course, were made before this new scientific paper was published. The new paper is consistent with these films.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

"What theory can you provide me that is as dense and detailed as the 9/11 commission report, because until you post a detailed theory that is comparable to this report, I'm claiming strict ownage rights over you"

Which is totally totally gay.

---

actually, one dude tried to claim ownage over CD because he was an engineering student.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

Actually yes go ahead and bump it, because I include myself among others who list ideas of what happened that don't conform strictly to the 9/11 commission report.

---

what are your list of ideas of what happened?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

Here are the three best 9/11 Movies on the WTC (in order of complexity):

September 11 Revisited: Were Explosives Used?

by Dustin Mugford

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...r+11+revisited

9/11 Mysteries

by Sophia

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ysteries&emb=1

Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic

by Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, and Kevin Ryan

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...collapse&emb=1

These films, of course, were made before this new scientific paper was published. The new paper is consistent with these films.

---

who planted the explosives? when were they planted? why did they need to use airplanes? who triggered the detonation device(s)? from where? why are you still using Steven Jones as a reliable source?

Best 9/11 Movies

9/11: Press For Truth

by the Jersey Girls

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

by John Albanese

Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut

by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe

Loose Change Final Cut

by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe

Zeitgeist

[warning - contains controversial material]

http://www.barrettforcongress.us/lib...tm#9/11_Movies

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cant_Be_Faded

smeagol, chumpdumper has been posting in 9/11 threads for five years, but in each post he pretty much says "Hey, theres this 700 page report out there, backed by a shitload of money, that provides a logical and scientific basis for the towers falling, and until you provide that kind of evidence to support your theory, I claim ownage over you."

Then he blabs on about girders.

---

Has Chump finally met his match?

:corn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galileo

Best 9/11 Movies

9/11: Press For Truth

by the Jersey Girls

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime

by John Albanese

Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut

by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe

Loose Change Final Cut

by Dylan Avery, Jason Bermas, and Korey Rowe

Zeitgeist

[warning - contains controversial material]

http://www.barrettforcongress.us/lib...tm#9/11_Movies

---

:tu

Quote:

---

thermite
noun
(chemistry) a mixture of aluminium metal and ferric oxide; used in incendiary devices

---

So let me see if I get this right:

A building made out of aluminum and iron collapses, and the geniuses in the 9-11 movment find aluminum and iron dust in the debris?

:lmao

Seriously though.

Read the whole paper.

The authors attribute the dust to "super-thermite" or "nano-thermite", that is thermite that has been powderized or put into a gel-suspension. The supposition is that such a material was sprayed all over the building.

The FAIL is that the authors have taken a fairly quiet exothermic reaction, and then shoehorned their data to change normal thermite into a conventional explosive.

One of the graphs in the paper indicates that the amount of energy in the chips they examined had more energy per gram than HMX, a commercially available high-explosive.

So we are left with:

Quote:

---

Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.

---

The 9-11 guys have taken the first steps towards using some actual science.

Honest skeptical questions:

Did the study consider alternate means of formation of the redish chips they studied, and compared those alternate means of formation to what was observed?

The confounding thing about their theory is that the formation of thermitic compounds in an aluminum and steel builiding during a conventional fire would be expected.

To be able to conclusively prove their theory, they would have to show that the chips they observed could NOT have been formed by other means, and MUST have been ONLY formed by unexploded "nano-thermite".

There is no evidence that this normal control-type examination was done. That makes it bad science, as I am sure someone else will point out.

Lastly, the problem remains for the "explosive" theory:

Since this paper posits really energetic explosives being used, this implies debris speeds in the range of thousands of feet per second.

Why was glass and small debris not scattered for miles around?
--The towers' upper floors were high enough off of the ground for the glass and small debris on those floors to have been propelled upwards of 2+ miles. Give me ONE instance of such debris hitting any one of the millions of people within that radius who came out to watch.

If this really was massively energetic explosives, why was this not clearly heard for tens of miles?
--I was within two blocks of a VERY small building demolition, and it was deafening, and extremely distinct. If two 100+ story buildings were demolished it would have to have been MUCH louder.


I do give you guys kudos for actually trying the science route, even if the paper had its flaws.

I think the truth movement gained ground today!