Blackbox - 01 - SkyCrime - Part 3 of 5

[elladomtender]

I find it quite interesting that "Mr Bomb" was called to the site day 1 of the accident. Other accidents haven't called upon a bomb expert STRAIGHT AWAY. It's like someone or certain people wanted to instill "presumptions" in all those involved from the very beginning.

[Skybolter]

R.I.P. Pan Am 103

[faffaflunkie]

The FAA's "Mr. Bomb" makes quite a supposition at 6:21 when he states that the device that brought down Pan Am 103 was "randomly placed".

[badasssucker]

My god you are so stupid.

[Slaterator]

Hi ! That what you are saying is interesting. Let me ask you a question. Do you thing it was a conspiracy in that case ?I mean what is your theory ? My theory is, that this aircraft (Pan Am 103)was blown out of the sky by a bomb. It is just questionable who placed it. I think that TWA 800 is a lot more interesting in that case because I don´t believe in a fueltank explosion. I know it has no part in this documentation. (It happend later) But I believe in a missile fired by the US accidently.

[navafsar]

what if those craters were created after impact? there are a million possibilities to what happened to the airliner.

[reky]

do you really think that you know more than these detectives? I wouldn't be surprised if it has crossed your mind

[ghpink]

Im curious. Why do you think certain peoplle look for conspiracies in places where the evidence suggests the offiacial record is the truth of the matter.

Why do you discount all the physical evidence that was collected and you cannot see, because you havent done enough research?

I am asking this because I am comparing this crash and flight 1771 to the shankvile crash on 9/11. I wanted to find a fair comparison of a crash to debunk all the conpiracy theorists about flight 93

[hrbear]

@ghpink Hmm...maybe, but if you think of some cases like Roswell or Philadelphia experiment, where the official explanations given declear that "no, impossible, it was a weather baloon, no, it's people's imagination", well...some time you feel that the official explanations given don't satisfy you. ;-(

[elladomtender]

@ghpink The difference with Flight 1771 and Flight 93 are bodies or part thereof. Flight 93 had ZERO. Zero of anything, zero bodies, zero legs, zero arms, fingers or toes. Flight 1771- rescue personnel gathered body parts in bags. If you are one that believes 9/11 was a result of Muslims with box cutters who could bring down the twin towers at a rate of 10 floors PER SECOND. Go stand in a 10 storey building and ask yourself, 'can this fall in 1 second?' Answer will be NO.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender You obviously have not checked in to 9/11 to any real depth and I suggest you do so. Coroner Wally Miller found and identified 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds. GO READ IT! It's obvious to see you haven't even done the most basic of research because this can be found almost anywhere. Please stop acting as if you know what you're talking about, because its clear you don't.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink LOL ah boy, laughing so hard right now. Thats why the coroner left the scene because there were no bodies or parts thereof! And yes thank you i have spent hours reading into EVERYTHING for and against an inside job for years. I used to believe the "official story" untill i did that. There is so much evidence to suggest its an inside job that its almost an insult to yourself for suggesting otherwise. Just that in itself speaks volumes.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender Why would you incorrectly mention that there were no pieces of bodies in Flight 93 anyways, unless you believe that a real plane didn't crash that day in Shanksville. That is what you are implying by asking that and seriously, at the minimum go read the official reports. If I believed 911 was a controlled demolition or an inside job, I wouldnt question if bodies were discovered on flight 93 crash. That is just plain stupid, so I don't know why you are even mentioning that

[ghpink]

@elladomtender ZERO OF ANYTHING RIGHT MORON? A piece of spinal cord with five vertebrae attached. 1,500 pieces of human remains totaling about 600 pounds and 34 passengers were identified. How does that equate to ZERO of Anything, in your puny little brain? :) I suggest if you want to know the real truth behind 911, just simply do some basic research, like looking at the official evidence! Its amazing how many people want to talk without actually knowing the most basic things about 911

[elladomtender]

@ghpink If you can tell me in all the scientific terms how 10 floors of the world trade center (steel reinforced concrete the size of your average neighbourhood block) fell PER SECOND....then i may believe you. Until then, shove your head back in the sand, right where the U.S govt wants it.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender It sounds as if you havent bothered to read the NIST report or any official reports. The momentum of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink No matter what you or the NIST report "suggests" LOL, the floors below offer resistance and if not stopping the floors above, at least slowing it. What you are implying is the PULVERIZED floors added extra weight, therefore speed was maintained at 10 floors per second? 10 floors per second maintained by pulverized concrete? No resistance? Both buildings damaged differently and fell the same way at the same speed. Oh my god- "Laugh out Loud".

[ghpink]

@elladomtender You act as if you know anything about engineering. What are your credentials? Regardless, I am using the NIST documents as a base, because they had brought 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia. So what are you trying to say? That the 125 people from the private sector and academia are all a part of a big conspiracy? Grow up. You obviously have not bothered to read the full report.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink And for the record- i believe independent investigations over the NIST report which is made up of hand picked researchers by the U.S govt. Bullshit bullshit bullshit. NIST report is a farce and you know it. NIST entirely ignores the voluminous evidence of molten metal at the building's base, and steel sulfidation documented by FEMA. So for NIST to completely ignore the "chance" it was a controlled demollition and not look into means the report is half baked and meaningless.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender I believe in independent research over NIST, but its clear you havent even read the NIST reports. That is not INDEPENDENT research OVER NIST, that is independent research INSTEAD of NIST. Seriously. If you want any truth you have to look at both sides and if you ignore the official version or feel its corrupt, you have already made your mind up and it makes you stupid. I know you haven't read the report, because NIST didn't ignore those issues. You just didn't actually read it

[ghpink]

@elladomtender Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse. If you actually read the NIST report, their findings DID NOT SUPPORT the “pancake theory” of collapse.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink Bulding 7 and the twin towers both had molten metal at the bases!! Completely ignored by NIST. Do you know who makes up the investigators for the 9/11 NIST enquiry? A personally appointed grp of people by G.Bush. It was headed by Bush's personal friend Frank Gayle who wrote the final report. UL were assigned to test the steel and once they found that the fire was not hot enough to 'melt' steel they changed the theory. UL manipulated the perameters in their simulations.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink The perameters were manipulated to get the result NIST was after and then the whistleblower who didnt like what he was witnessing was fired for disclosing the information. Mate- that is corrupt!!!! I have read into ALL of this for both sides. I have looked into everything, all the way back to the Govt's relationships with the Bin Ladens. Ive looked beyond the physical evidence, so much so that there is more to support an inside job than just the towers coming down!

[elladomtender]

@ghpink Then look at the Pentagon! The most heavily protected building on the plant. 16 Air Force bases in northern america and none intercepted those 4 aircraft. Washington is protected by an Air Force Identification Zone wich encompases a 50 mile radius around DC, 17 mile radius around the washington monument and an inner protected zone 3 miles around the capital. Essentially unbreachable. F16's and 18's at Andrew's Air Force base, 113th National Guard and neither responded until AFTER the hit

[elladomtender]

@ghpink And even when that fails there is the Anti-aircraft missiles. Those missiles were NOT on a training exercise that day lol, so why didnt they deploy? Ahhhh because it was most likey a military aircraft with its IFF transponder. Civillian aircraft do not have IFF transponders. $892 Billion dollars spent on defence per year and "apparently" we are supposed to believe that it all failed?? Yet throughout the year many wandering aircraft had been intercepted, but not on 9/11.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink Somehow, Muslims with box cutters were able to bring down the twin towers, WTC 7 and the pentagon without being intercepted. Oh and on the day to add to the confusion, NORAD were conducting a training exercise which was 100% the same as what was happening in real life- oh sigh!! Its so bleedingly obvious that its all a lie. From what you have said- it is clear that YOU are the one who hasnt looked past your nose.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender I have done a lot more research then you have on the matter, its perfectly clear. I didn't think reading the whole NIST report was hard and you obviously needed "NIST report for dummies" I really hope they make a movie for you, so you can understand it :) Everything you said, if you just search, there are logical explanations to them, but from your first comment, I can see you're going to live in your own little matrix world and you know what... im going to let you :)

[ghpink]

@elladomtender Instead, NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. The floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon. NIST’s findings also do not support the controlled demolition theory since there is conclusive evidence that:the collapse was initiated in the impact

[elladomtender]

@ghpink I have not read ALL of the NIST report- just their findings and you are a liar if you are suggesting you have read it all. An NO- they completely IGNORED the evidence of molten metal and thermate found at the bases. Thermate is a military patent combination of sulphur and barium nitrate. NIST ignored FEMA's findings. If you look at the videos you can see with the naked eye that the building blows outward, not inwards. Support columns were found wedged in buildings blocks away.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender You said you haven't read ALL of the NIST report, but claim you have studied both sides. Well no you haven't. You're an idiot who hasn't researched one full side of the equation. I have read ALL of the NIST report it wasn't hard and its funny you call me a liar for saying I have read it. The difference between you and I is, you think reading the full report is difficult and I think its necessary. Reading isnt that hard you know. Maybe you can wait until they make a movie on it

[elladomtender]

@ghpink Oh i see- so you have read it all and question nothing? See no holes? And see nothing that requires further investigation? Well aren't you gullable. You are still avoiding all my questions to you stating that NIST is the whole answer and nothing but. Sorry but you have your blinkers on. Like i said- this isnt just about the physical evidence. I have read a whole scope of information. Ive read into the history of people, where they came from, what they did b4 9/11. The money trail...

[ghpink]

@elladomtender Anyone who knows me, knows I question everything. Unlike you, I actually checked both sides with equal enthusiasm. That is where you are having a problem. I think a lot of things require further investigation, but I just don't get caught in stupidity, like you obviously do. When you don't research both sides, how can you ever know the truth? And skimming one side, doesn't count as researching both sides. When you ignore one side, you will never find any truths to life

[elladomtender]

@ghpink the links with Isreal, Bin Ladens. The make up of the CIA and their involvement with Al Qaeda. The links with security companies/WTC and Bush. So to sum it all up. You rely on NIST and nothing else. You have suggested nothing but NIST is the answer. You have answered nothing ive ask except to "Go read NIST". I ask about building 7 and you say "go read NIST" I said that NIST ignored evidence by FEMA and molten metal, and you said "go read NIST"

[elladomtender]

@ghpink There is bias within NIST with the likes of Frank Gayle and you say that NIST is the answer, the be all and end all. I talk about national security, how a $ 892 billion dollar defence system failed, and you say "go read NIST". So no, you are the one who needs to read wider. NIST report is a farce. To completely ignore other possible theories means its half baked. I take the findings with a grain of salt and open my mind to other possibilities. So look past your nose and past NIST.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender How would you know if there was bias in NIST. You never read the full report?? :) I have studied much more then NIST. You are putting your own research habits on me and I find that funny. I would bet my bank on the fact, I have studied everything you have studied on 911 and a lot more. There is much more to the skeptical side the NIST report (which you haven't even fully bothered to read) Anyways, we will get no where here. Good luck to you

[elladomtender]

@ghpink All you have told me to do is read NIST. You have not suggested anything else. And if you had read more than NIST then i can only take you as completely gullable and stupid. If you read deeper and wider then the official story would stink. You would have far more questions and see far more holes. If you truly believe in your heart that 9/11 is as clear cut as they say it is then i feel sorry for you. The NIST report is bias before the enquiry started because of who was appointed.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink NIST was appointed by the whithouse, hand picked by the govt. FEMA on the other hand wasnt and NIST completely ignored their suggestions. Sorry but that is bias and a farce and completley negligent. So for you so put all your eggs into NIST, telling me to read it, answering all my claims with "Go read NIST", sorry- but that doesnt cut it. There is so much more info out there than NIST and its clear, although you say otherwise, that you have not read anything but.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink Like i said, if you had read wider than you claim, then we wouldnt be having this conversation. It only takes commonsense to question the official story, and it takes intellect to see that its a farce. I am happy for you to keep putting all your faith in NIST, a half baked report full of holes. If it only investigated the 'chance' of a controlled demolition, it may just be credible! Thing is, shills like you are now in the minority, not just in the U.S but around the world.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender I questioned the official story as well. The only difference is, I took the time to read the material. I have answered all the questions you raise, for myself and I dont need to prove that 911 was a controlled demolition or was an inside job. There is way too much evidence to show that its not. I have found however that there is evidence it was used to start an illegal war in Iraq and that is what I focus on. I suggest you study the trial of: zacarias moussaoui

[elladomtender]

@ghpink There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest those who the govt claim to be involved, were involved. No one has ever been charged. Infact, following the money trail and the reasoning behind why the govt would create a false flag is far more plausable!! The govt and federal authorities are far more to blame than anyone else. And i agree totally with you about using it to start an illegal war, without 9/11- there would have been no catalyst. Now i like you! Now you are making sense.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender I think the only conspiracy here is Bush linked Bin Laden to Saddam Hussien and they entered an illegal war because of that. There were no WMDs found and even the head of the CIA believed he was duped by Bush. That is where the conspiracy ends for me. So answer this. You say there is no evidence, well then have you studied the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui who was convicted in 911? You are saying now that our court system is corrupt and all the peers who convicted him are corrupt?

[ghpink]

@elladomtender I can send you the links all privately of his conviction and the evidence found and how they found it. Its all in the public domain. How do you explain all the evidence collected? How do you explain that a jury of his peers convicted him? There is tons of evidence, and I am not too sure why you are ignoring it, other then you haven't bothered to research it and don't know its there. So I can't believe your statement? So what are you saying? They corrupted all 12 jurors?

[elladomtender]

@ghpink The U.S government can do anything mate. They can set up anything, produce any evidence, wipe people off the face off the earth. Do not ever underestimate the CIA. Stop being so daft and so naive to think that your own country cannot do this to you. History tells us they have in the past and planned to do it in the future. The thing is- even if an independent group of people wanted to investigate 9/11- they couldnt. The evidence has either been destroyed or its unavailable!

[FightWorldGovernment]

@elladomtender well said

[ghpink]

@elladomtender AND PS: i never once said NIST is the answer. I just dont discount their side, like you do. If you really want answers, then you need to spend the time and read about BOTH sides, not just the one you feel is right.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink Both towers sustained completely different impacts and completely different damage yet they fell exactly the same way in exactly the same time frame. 9/11 is an accumulation of lies. This was apparently a criminal act yet only 150 pieces of steel were selected to be examined.m The rest was hauled to China and India at a price of $120 per ton. Im sorry but that is obstructing the course of justice and a completely guilty act. Then there is building 7- a 47 storey building.

[ghpink]

@elladomtender The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass. From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (60 stories of WTC1 and 40 stories of WTC2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they too began to collapse. Its not a big secret. Go read the NIST report, it mentions the physics and calculations behind it. Not some stoner on loose change.

[elladomtender]

@ghpink P.S- dont start spamming about momentum or gravity because resistance will debunk you everytime. Count out loud for 9 seconds. Each time you count 1 second imagine 10 floors of a massive steel reinforced concrete sky scraper being pilverized. Cant happen without explosives. All you need common sense to tell you that. And if you think the U.S Govt wouldnt do this to their own....boy they really have the wool over your eyes.