World Trade Center Dust Contains Evidence of Explosives

[Rroff]

The stumbling block for all theories imo is the flying the planes into the floors with precision...

If they were flown haphazardly into the building by real terrorists all other theores are null and void, even if the US had infiltrated a terrorist group and engineered the attacks they couldn't have guaranteed where the planes would hit and getting the relavent training and specifiying which floor would have raised too much suspicion.

Realistically making 400+ non-existant people + background or a full scale infiltration of the avionics industry to fake up non-existant flights are outside the realms of credibility even with months you couldn't manage it with enough depth to stand upto scrutiny or without too many loose ends.

Which means we have 400 odd real people and real flights, if it was a missile or remote piloted plane you'd still need a full scale infiltration to integrate the flights or people would question where they came from.

Which means that either the planes were rigged with remote avionics or piloted by suicidal, highly trained pilots who had managed to infiltrate the industry. That many suicidal pilots strains credulity beyond what I would accept.

Rigging the aircraft with sophisticated avionics wouldn't be that hard to do, would need some minor infiltration... but avoiding detection in regular maintenance inspections would be almost impossible.

Hijacking the flights and then getting the passengers to switch planes is a possibility but fitting that into the timeframe and tracking systems isn't something I've got enough time atm to examine in enough detail. Ditching the flights and crashing rigged aircraft into the targets would leave too many loose ends, if someone got a call out or the planes weren't completely destroyed enough on impact then the game would be up.

All other aspects I can expound completely possible alternative explanations, renting some floors on the towers, doctoring the supports so they would be weak enough to break the final straw with minimal force and keeping this part covert is all completely possible and infact quite trivial.

 

[RDM]

Which means that either the planes were rigged with remote avionics or piloted by suicidal, highly trained pilots who had managed to infiltrate the industry. That many suicidal pilots strains credulity beyond what I would accept.

They weren't highly trained pilots. They had enough training to do the easy part of flying, the bit where the plane is already in the air. Add a bit of navigational training and bingo, you have enough training to do your assigned task.

You don't have to do all the hard bits of flying like taking off, landing, dealing with emergencies etc.

 

[FTM]

If you think about it... you don't even really need explosives...

Assuming there was a conspiracy to bring the towers down... which I think is unlikely but still within the realm of possible...

Renting office space and doctoring the supports in the weeks or months leading upto the attack so they only needed minimal force to break the final straw during the attacks is quite easily within the realm of possible.

you couldnt do this....something like the world trade towers are so big they would move/oscillate in high winds...if you weakened a tower enough so a plane crashing into it would bring it down, then a really windy day moving the entire mass of the buliding would cause a similar failure...the engineering involved is a really fine line between safety and disaster..if you weaken the structure even something as benign as too much ice or snow let alone high winds can cause a structural failure.

 

[Mulder]

....Without backing up such claims with anything other than conjecture, then it is really in bad taste isn't it.

How are they any more qualified in any way whatsoever? They talk about all this evidence they have, yet they fail to offer anything remotely solid... It's called common sense.

How are they more qualified? These are the families of victims and victims themselves. They'll have been nothing more important in their mind in the last few years than finding out what really happened. Just look at the number of groups set up like the 9/11 family committee and the sheer number of victims who don't believe the official story, what do you think these people are basing their opinions on? If anyone has looked into it more than us its them.

Have you even looked for evidence that contradicts the official version? Or are you like so many others who have already made up their minds that its a CT therefore it must be rubbish. I'll start you off with 40 good reasons...

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

 

[oli collett]

How are they more qualified? These are the families of victims and victims themselves. They'll have been nothing more important in their mind in the last few years than finding out what really happened. Just look at the number of groups set up like the 9/11 family committee and the sheer number of victims who don't believe the official story, what do you think these people are basing their opinions on? If anyone has looked into it more than us its them.

They are clearly far too emotionally involved and are unable to look at the matter objectively. They are looking for evidence of an alternative version of events to help support the ideas that people have put into their heads, which doesn't really make them well qualified.

Have you even looked for evidence that contradicts the official version? Or are you like so many others who have already made up their minds that its a CT therefore it must be rubbish. I'll start you off with 40 good reasons...

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Erm, there's no evidence there, it is just snippets of events that happened which someone has called evidence to support the conclusion that they have drawn that the whole thing is a cover up. Take a step back and enter it from a neutral perspective and you will realise that there is nowhere near enough evidence to support these theories. I could quite easily come up with a similar list of why people would start up such sites in the first place pointing towards such conspiracies.

Seriously, stop wasting your time with this nonsense and look into some real miss-truths and wrongs. It's much more interesting, a better way to spend your time and you might even do some good.

 

[deuse]

They are clearly far too emotionally involved and are unable to look at the matter objectively. They are looking for evidence of an alternative version of events to help support the ideas that people have put into their heads, which doesn't really make them well qualified.



Erm, there's no evidence there, it is just snippets of events that happened which someone has called evidence to support the conclusion that they have drawn that the whole thing is a cover up. Take a step back and enter it from a neutral perspective and you will realise that there is nowhere near enough evidence to support these theories. I could quite easily come up with a similar list of why people would start up such sites in the first place pointing towards such conspiracies.

Seriously, stop wasting your time with this nonsense and look into some real miss-truths and wrongs. It's much more interesting, a better way to spend your time and you might even do some good.

Well I will ask you which of the 3 reports do you belive?
they are all USA Gov backed. So make your choice which one?

 

[chumpit]

The stumbling block for all theories imo is the flying the planes into the floors with precision...

Tbh, what happened later in the bush administration is the real clue that t wasnt done by the government, if they needed to go to war with Afghanistan all they needed to say is their are wmd that threaten the world....
Now watch this swing..
Then they'd be at war with them, none of this elaborate faking lots of people and remote aircraft.

 

[lynchy6789]

I swear if I read another one of these ******* idiots spouting their rubbish, I'll setup my own terrorist organisation to take them out.

They're worse than the creationists or the "we didn't goto the moon" brigade.

To the OP, hang your head in shame for even posting this.

To be fair there is more evidence suggesting that the going to the moon could have been a set up.

But the conspiracies about the two towers i don't believe however my friend strongly believes Government had something to do with it

 

[Glaucus]

To be fair there is more evidence suggesting that the going to the moon could have been a set up.

No there isn't and if you read up about it, you would find out how that is a ridiculous conspiracy.

 

[chumpit]

Only thing the government had to do with it , was the cutting of the FBI anti terrorism budget, and ignoring intelligence form both UK, France, Pakistan and Israel.

The FBI were stretched to breaking point and were asking for more money, so bush cut their budget, mixed in with the only good intelligence is American gathered intelligence mentality the yanks have. Which was then mixed with a well planned operation and poor on ground security at the air ports..

 

[chumpit]

No there isn't and if you read up about it, you would find out how that is a ridiculous conspiracy.

The only issue with the moon landing to me that needs to be cleared up is how wide is the earth protection against radiation. as in theory the astronaut would have to wear a 1/2cm thick lead suit, to stop the suns radiation, but im more than willing to believe in it.

 

[Glaucus]

The only issue with the moon landing to me that needs to be cleared up is how wide is the earth protection against radiation. as in theory the astronaut would have to wear a 1/2cm thick lead suit, to stop the suns radiation, but im more than willing to believe in it.

That's a myth, yes there is a radiation belt. But not biog or strong enough to worry about. The Russians tracked term all the way to the moon. They also placed a series of mirrors on the moon to track it's distance, which are still used today.

 

[Sankari]

They also placed a series of mirrors on the moon to track it's distance, which are still used today.

That's why it's so shiny at night.

 

[chumpit]

That's a myth, yes there is a radiation belt. But not biog or strong enough to worry about. The Russians tracked term all the way to the moon. They also placed a series of mirrors on the moon to track it's distance, which are still used today.

um not big enough or strong enough to worry about, surly unfiltered radiation of the full range passing through the human body is a significant issue?

 

[Glaucus]

um not big enough or strong enough to worry about, surly unfiltered radiation of the full range passing through the human body is a significant issue?

It's only a problem if it's a high enough dosage and how long you stay in it.

Radiation is a big problem when it comes to space travel and the Earth's magnetic field concentrates this radiation into the Van Allen belts that surround the Earth. No matter what, the Apollo crafts had to go through these belts and there was no way the Apollo crafts could afford to take all the weight of lead shielding with them. So they were bound to be exposed. The question is, just how serious would this exposure be?

What you have to realize that the radiation involved isn't the same kind or intensity as you might get from a nuclear bomb. You don't fall sick and your hair doesn't all fall out. It's been calculated that travelling at speed through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. Once you reach 100 you're going to be ill. 500 and you're probably dead. So the exposure the astronauts received is pretty mild.

It's a complete myth you would die or fall ill from the exposure.

Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, still alive and living in Iowa City, has dismissed these ideas.

 

[chumpit]

It's only a problem if it's a high enough dosage and how long you stay in it.


It's a complete myth you would die or fall ill from the exposure.

Ok cool wasn't sure about the information on the radiation levels, didn't really get into the whole gradation side of physics.
but that was the only issue i had with the moon landing, now thats cleared up lets start discussing a nother tin hat main topic, the pyramids.

 

[Rroff]

They weren't highly trained pilots. They had enough training to do the easy part of flying, the bit where the plane is already in the air. Add a bit of navigational training and bingo, you have enough training to do your assigned task.

You don't have to do all the hard bits of flying like taking off, landing, dealing with emergencies etc.

Its doubtful someone with a few hours on a simulator and some casual flying lessons would be able to accuratly hit a specific range of floors on a building like that, whereas with auto/remote pilot avionics its perfectly possible...

you couldnt do this....something like the world trade towers are so big they would move/oscillate in high winds...if you weakened a tower enough so a plane crashing into it would bring it down, then a really windy day moving the entire mass of the buliding would cause a similar failure...the engineering involved is a really fine line between safety and disaster..if you weaken the structure even something as benign as too much ice or snow let alone high winds can cause a structural failure.

Without exploring and discounting every possible technique, its still a viable explanation, with enough planning and preparation. I wasn't suggesting they weakened it enough that a plane crashing into it was enough to bring it down, I'm saying they could have had the opportunity to destabalish it in some way that the final act of bringing it down didn't require massive explosions, etc.

 

[Glaucus]

Without exploring and discounting every possible technique, its still a viable explanation, with enough planning and preparation. I wasn't suggesting they weakened it enough that a plane crashing into it was enough to bring it down, I'm saying they could have had the opportunity to destabalish it in some way that the final act of bringing it down didn't require massive explosions, etc.

But the whole reason why some people believe it was an inside job, Is because they fell more or less vertically down. weakening it in such away would not guarantee it, unless the building would naturally fall like that.

Things like the plane being auto controlled can be easily be dismissed, it would take a hell of a lot of refurbishing to do that. the pilots/engineers would notice it and when was it fitted. Planes are very busy. either they are in the air or are having services.

As I said aliens could have done it. You can't prove it wasn't. but the facts add upto the fact it was terrorists and nothing more. The likely hood of anything else especially when you start ruling out specific theorys, is so low it's pointless look at, as a scenario.

 

[Rroff]

But the whole reason why some people believe it was an inside job, Is because they fell more or less vertically down. weakening it in such away would not guarantee it, unless the building would naturally fall like that.

Thats a 1 dimensional way to look at it, theres plenty of ways to weaken it and then use a synchronised method to finally destabalish it at the right moment bringing it down on its own footprint.

Things like the plane being auto controlled can be easily be dismissed, it would take a hell of a lot of refurbishing to do that. the pilots/engineers would notice it and when was it fitted. Planes are very busy. either they are in the air or are having services.

This is the biggest sticking point for all conspiracy theories and any other theory is null and void until this is explained IMO.

I can see ways of covertly fitting the planes but no way to escape routine maintenance checks without way too many potential loose ends. But I don't think its an insurmountable problem either theres too many things I can't find info on to work it out, i.e. the movements of those planes in the days or hours leading upto the happenings on that day. As a loose example maybe those 4 planes just happened to be 4 planes that were refitted shortly before hand in a manner that allowed them to be rigged for this shortly before.

 

[RDM]

Its doubtful someone with a few hours on a simulator and some casual flying lessons would be able to accuratly hit a specific range of floors on a building like that, whereas with auto/remote pilot avionics its perfectly possible...

But they didn't need to specifically hit a range of floors, just the two largest buildings in New York. Why do you think they specifically had to hit the floors they did? Also the crashed at different points, Plane 1 93rd-99th floors, Plane 2 77th -85th floors. Both planes hitting high purely due to the nature of New York skyline.