AA 77 - verification of No On-Board satellite plane-phone.
In 2006 American Airlines was contacted by Pilots of 911 truth, and was asked if the Boeing 757 on Sep 11th had on-board plane-phones?
Chad W. Kinder, Customer Relations, American Airlines said: "That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757." Which was later reconfirmed again in 2007.
Why did the US illegally issue visas to the hijackers, bring them in for air training at Florida and Cali air bases? Why were they living together with FBI agents, why did Bush block Able Danger from stopping them before 9/11. Why did Cheney setup unprecedented stand down orders and war game exercises on 911 also preventing the events from being stopped? Why did they manufacture evidence ahead of time, and use it after 911 to fill in the holes in the planning of allowing the attacks to happen?
Why did our government have pre-manufactured evidence leading up to the attacks, while preventing norad from acting? Another one is the passport found at ground zero, it has no burn marks and was used in the 06 trial. You are telling me a passport fly out of the hijackers pocket at the plane hit the building, through the fire in the plane, fire in the building, fireball outside the building to the ground? Let alone to the ground with NO burn marks.I have the GOV sourced evidence on their website
For instance, In the FBI's '06 Moussaoui trial the FBI openly had to admit the Cell phone calls from the hijacked planes could not have physically had any signal - which multiple university tests after 911 confirmed. They said they do not know the authenticity of the cell phone calls - so where did they get them, wouldn't they have been from the cellphone companies if they calls actually connected? Furthermore AA 77 DID NOT have onboard plane phones however the FBI said calls were made from them
We will cover both ends but you have copped out on many of my questions or actually looking at the sources or evidence you then went on to discuss. You just made up in your head what it would have been about. The opposite of scientific
The pentagon also has Anti Air missile defense systems that will shoot down any aircraft without a military transponder (no commerce planes have those). Cheney shut down the auto defense, and prevent Norad from intercepting, each of the 3 times he was asked. why?
Cheney signed stand down orders (I have the gov source) in Jun '01, first time in history that Norad was overruled by having to get permission from DOD officials to follow standard protocol.
The 911 hearings clearly show that Cheney was in the Bunker and was openly informed 3 times that a plane was heading towards the pentagon, "do the stand down orders still stand?" He was told 50 miles away, 30, 10 miles. Cheney was asked 3 times if they could shoot it down, and told them orders still stood.
It is you who purposely chooses to avoid looking at the evidence you are discussing, just so you can continue to make up idea of what you think it would be or not in your head, rather than discussing the actual evidence like anyone who graduated high school would...
It is well public knowledge that 2 steel girders from the WTC structure melted completely into each other forming a giant cross. Again, it doesn't matter if you purposely bury your head, the facts stand. Molten Steel Temps!
The evidence of US Government Complicity in 9/11 is publicly available and verifiable. Here are the 4 Best videos on the subject. They together will prove without a doubt US government complicity.
1) Zero - Nobel Prize Winner's Doc (Start here) @ watch?v=ofXKiXNDDYA
2) 911 Connect the Dots is a great 18 min video @ watch?v=HfmliaqIRBE
3) Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth - All Science and Physics @ watch?v=b74naeawdCs
4) 911 Press for Truth (By 911 Victim families) @ watch?v=PSVgnsIJH4Y
The 9/11 Commission NOW reveals that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The sources and details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
DID YOU KNOW? Out of the 6 supposed hijackers, who weren’t found alive in other countries. 4 of them were given their Visas by top US Gov Officials. There is an interview with Michael Springman - 'Chief of Visa Selection at US General Consulate in Jeddah 87-89' who gave the "terrorists" their visas. He admits how they did not meet standard protocol, but the US gov pushed them through anyways to get the terrorists in to the US for air training. His Interview @ watch?v=F9-IISF4ckg (at 4:30)
These specifications are made under the assumption that the airliner would be moving at low speed with low fuel lost in fog trying to make it to an airport. Not a fully loaded airliner moving at high speed.
@thecandidate0607 what do you mean moving at low speed? give me a break, THE PREMISE behind the collapse is FIRE, who cares what speed it's at, so stick to that. The question is, would speed have a factor in the fires that supposedly brought it down, and that answer is NO. In both instances you would have fires throught out, and in both cases the building was over-designed to withstand such impacts!
@syborius You are going off the assumption made by the building manager that died in the attacks. Leslie Robertson, one of the people who helped designed the building, the guy who WOULD know, said that they made those assumption based on a plane with low fuel lost in fog trying to get into JFK or some other airport. Not a fully loaded plane going over 500 miles per hour. I believe with a litte more concrete the building would have survived but it had no concrete encased core or perimeter.
* Undeniable - 100% Proof of Molten Steel and Explosives. @ watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
Neither fires nor a collapse could create molten steel. Even NIST admitted that the temperatures needed to create molten metal and merge steel together - could not have happened due to the official explanation of the collapse
Debunkers skip what they cannot explain:
A straight forward video of NIST discussing this, and the irrefutable evidence of Molten Steel. I hope you actually check into both sides of the debate
"Neither fires nor a collapse could create molten steel. Even NIST admitted that the temperatures needed to create molten metal and merge steel together - could not have happened due to the official explanation of the collapse"
Setting aside that every truther and their dogs have given this same categorical response, how exactly does a controlled demolition produce these results? Since pools of molten MATERIAL, which is not necessarily steel, arent found in demolition sites either.
Neither fires nor a collapse could create molten steel. Even NIST admitted that the temperatures needed to create molten metal and merge steel together - could not have happened due to the official explanation of the collapse
Debunkers skip what they cannot explain:
A straight forward video of NIST discussing this, and the irrefutable evidence of Molten Steel. I hope you actually check into both sides of the debate
Your statement relies on the assumption that the substance you are referring to was in fact steel. There has been no recovered evidence that suggest molten steel was present in the debris and anything you have or cite is just speculative. Merry Christmas.
Well I have evidence of a couple things. For one, I have evidence that you don't even completely watch the sources you come and comment on. If you did watch the full video below you would see multiple pure examples. One is the meteorite looking molded creation of steel melted into concrete. Or the 2 steel beams that were melted into each other at ground zero. They were 2 separate beams that melted into a cross, It's still on display at ground zero, you can check it out like I did
Well then Mr. Wizard here is a newsflash for you CONCRETE DOESNT MELT. And just because you saw something in a youtube video doesnt mean that it was collected and tested and verified that it was infact melted steel. It would be nice for facts to be so easily presented as turning on youtube and seeing something and declaring it fact but in the real world people expect better results.
Again you are completely pathetic. You still haven't even looked at the actual evidence we are discussing or the specific. As you did before, your only tactic is to make up things in your head as to what you would think would or did happen. Rather than dealing with actual evidence and important things like CONTEXT of a debate. The video clearly shows 2 Steel girders melted together into a cross. Whether they are steel is not up in the air, and they are still at Ground Zero.
Again you are absolutely pathetic. You think you are scientific by refusing to look at the evidence you then try to discuss. You have no exposure to the material you are discussing, but your still talk about it like you saw the evidence, which shows how dishonest you are to yourself and others. All to avoid a Q?
Again, they were 2 Steel girders from the WTC towers that melted together forming a cross. It was steel from the WTC itself! And it's still on display at ground zero
Listen retard, a youtube video isnt evidence and if there was some massive conspiracy by whoever to take down the towers then why keep crucial pieces of evidence out on display proving such facts. Get a life you pathetic piece of crap.
What a great argument you have there. Over 220+ CIA, FBI, and US Counter terrorism agents openly whistle-blew on 9/11 being a cover up and inside job. All of their testimonies are publicly available on legit US Gov Websites. So your only argument is that 220+ FBI, CIA etc are just "retarded" what a smart rebuttal you have.
Read CIA/FBI members testimonies @ PatriotsQuestion911.(com)
@Bi0hazardx So to establish credibility you throw out some statistic from an obviously biased internet source. Good work! As for your abrupt topic diversion, wtc 7 was built over the coned substation. the majority of the upper structure was supported with 3 major cantilever trusses and very few columns that supported many floors. Couple that with firefighter eyewitness accounts of 25% of the building structure being scooped out with visual and audible structural fatigue.
No again, you have shown us you use the worst possible scientific method to go about inquiry and discovery. You don't even look at the evidence you are discussing or claiming to have "any" familurarity with it. All you have is some assumption you have made in your head prior to looking at it, that concerns why you will never look at it.
But in reality it isn't some truther biased website, It's a collection of full testimonies (not edited) of FBI, CIA, US CT agents hosted on gov websites!
Google "Single Point of Failure - magazine magazine"
That was my source a peer reviewed article by a qualified professional. Dig in buddy. I would also like to think that my degree and the last 10 years as a construction professional have helped further this knowledge.
But you dont take debates or being accurate about things seriously enough to concern yourself with things like -Looking at the evidence we are discussing! How can you time and time again miss such a basic principle of any debate or argument. I have no respect for a half psychic based approach, where you concoct in your head what "it would be or not" prior to having any exposure the actual material, the actual context. The thing that gives any method integrity. Why is this void in your analysis?
Refer to my post and citation before you cop out and say what you just said, which was the truther equivalent of "Well, you just don't know what you're talking about."
My point is that there are so many well documented and verifiable reasons why the US Gov absolutely had complicity in the attacks. Once all the different pieces of evidence come together, you would have to confound yourself multiple time to hold that stance that the US gov didn't have advanced knowledge, set up many of the procedures that allowed this to happen. For instance how did terrorists in a cave, get NORAD to stand down by passing the Mil Orders? How could they? Cheney did that.
I understand where you are coming from but in the same respect you could draw the same conclusion for many different angles.
The government wants people to buy nicorette gum because of smoking bans, or the government wants people to die because they dont fund stem cell research. But where your point is leaning could also point to a conspiracy of mere neglect where the government knew of some sort of attack and didnt act to prevent it which i will grant you is plausible.
I apologize, a client called had to take it. Yes, there is so much more evidence leading to advance knowledge and allowing the attacks to happen, that is well confirmed. I mean Cheney carried it out openly, no terrorist could do what only cheney could. This is was a clear discover I had a while back, and the deeper I went into other aspects it because impossible that it was only Allowed, but it wouldn't have happened without the war games, stand down orders, cover ups after.
Well if you go with the advance knowledge theory and you know there will be an attack anyway, why go to the trouble of pulling off what I would say is the largest controlled demolition in history of 2 110 story buildings and wtc7 involving more people and further expanding the complexity of a coverup. I wont argue against the advance knowledge theory because I will admit its plausible and any evidence against it is hearsay or speculation anyway.
Well, the foreknowledge is not hearsay. Cheney planned the war games / dismantling of norad only on 911 this was unprecedented historically - only done once on that day. The stand down orders were only setup 3 months before 911. But regardless he was asked to shoot down the pentagon plane and told them to allow it to hit - while in the bunker. Which is neglect of current knowledge. The Allow it to happen hypothesis is well documented by the 911 hearings alone.
I get what your saying, but it is by definition speculation of Dick Cheney's intent. Using the same logic Dick Cheney meant to shoot his lawyer in the face because he loaded his shotgun. I get what you are saying and I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, I am just saying that without a confession by Cheney or Bush all these things are speculative, which granted, is never going to happen....except for the controlled demolition stuff that is all incorrect.
The Stand down orders, I have them printed out in my hand. Definitely not voiced hearsay/speculative, they are the actual orders taken from DOD website, I'll gladly provide the url.
The actions of Cheney on 911 in the bunker are well backed up by multiple testimonies during the 911 hearings. The head of transportation was working with cheney directly when he was asked 3 times and told them to follow the stand down orders knowing it would hit. Yes no bush confession coming =]
No, you have a printed out piece of paper on your hand citing the testimony of Norman Mineta. This is testimony that is not corroborated by any other individual making it "hearsay". It doesnt take away from the testimony but in a court of law is worthless.
Actually I have the actual DOD stand down initiatives and orders. Of course I also have the transcript of Mineta - but that isn't the actual stand down order that forced Norad to stand down without cheney approval. Which cheney carried out and denied the shoot down process, even knowing it would hit our DOD building! He had real time knowledge and 3 warnings were he was asked if they could follow procedure to protect the DOD headquarters.. Cheney disable the anti air turrets
Then you have a stand down order, which is fine, but the actions and statements of Dick Cheney are still evidence that is hearsay. The only evidence of Cheney's neglect is Mineta's uncorroborated statement. Which could easily be discredited by saying Mineta passed the blame on to Cheney to save his own skin...doesnt mean thats what happened but just like the theory itself...its plausible.
That is why the post below, isn't up for speculation. The 911 commission made claims that were impossible and false. There was no on-board plane phones on AA 77, why did the GOV lie and create records for calls made on it - that are a fallacy?
Have you research Able Danger. They were an FBI division that research bin laden. John Oniel and other FBI members discovered the Atta hijacker sleeper cell in the US half a year before 911.Bush blocked the FBI members from pursuing stopping or apprehending Atta and the hijackers who were being trained at US Naval bases in Venice, FL. Bush even threatened arrest against the FBI agents, making sure they were untouched. 2 hijackers lived with an FBI agent in cali, who opened up their bank accounts
AA 77 - verification of No On-Board satellite plane-phone.
In 2006 American Airlines was contacted by Pilots of 911 truth, and was asked if the Boeing 757 on Sep 11th had on-board plane-phones?
Chad W. Kinder, Customer Relations, American Airlines said: "That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757." Which was later reconfirmed again in 2007.
Google "Barbara Olson's Alleged Call from AA 77:". David Ray Griffith, himself, acknowledges that AA 77 did have plane phones. The statement made by Mr. Kinder was made after 2004 when at & t suspended telephone service from american airline flights.
I've read it, that was in 2004-2005. However the response from Chad W Kinder was in 2006, who represents American Airlines, who said that the Boeing 757s in 2001 did not have On-board phone, which supports the original conclusion.
You are right that it is not certain, and I guess this one issue is up in the air.
Well then there is a problem with two truthers stories. While one person has AA 77 with phones you claim there isnt.
One thing I find kind of funny is that while truthers often say that cell phones dont work at 36000 feet the site above top secret in an effort to question the aeronautical stability of aa 77, claims that aa 77 was travelling at about 700 feet which is low enough to allow cell phone calls. So in the process of proving one theory they debunked another.
I will openly admit when certain arguments aren't that strong. After looking deeper into that specific issue it isn't resolved by any means, and isn't a strong element to use as such. There are definitely discrepancies, The husband of the wife who called from AA 77 - said that he had to accept a Toll-Free call and pay the charge. This would not happen on any Cell phone and would only take place on the on-board phone. AA said boeing 757 didn't have them, but others say they did
But to go further if you read the posts that are at the top. Why did the US gov manufacture fake phone calls, they later had to admit were not authentic? Why did they say a passanger made an onboard-plane-phone call, when AA 77 didn't even have airplane phones?
They also said that Atta packed a bag of incriminating evidence about himself and others and brought it on his suicide mission. But somehow left it at logan.Who exposes their own network with an orgy of evidence on their suicide mission
This is also speculation, just because the technology exists during the event doesn't mean that its what necessarily happened. Without a government employee stating that he or she helped to manufacture these phone calls it wont hold up in court. In the court of public opinion obviously it wages a toll but it will never move beyond that without a person stating to have participated in such actions.
It was scientifically proven by multiple universities that it was absolutely impossible to establish an outward signal at all, let alone a single ring or established connection to talk. But I have the statements of the 911 commission showing the onboard plane phone call from AA 77. AA 77 did not have onboard plane phones, why did they lie to the American public about calls that couldn't have been placed. Why are they manufacturing evidence- like they did going into Iraq?
It should also be noted that the hijackers flew lower than an average flight to help avoid radar detection. And forgive my assumptions but could you cite where you got the info that the hijacked flights did not have plane phones. That aside if they were going to manufacture evidence about 9-11 in order to get into Iraq then why not plant evidence in Iraq in order to avoid the embarrasment?
Michael Springman - 'Chief of Visa Selection at US General Consulate in Jeddah 87-89' Admits how he issued illegal and invalidated visas for 4 of the 6 hijackers who were not found alive after 9/11. He said the Visas's didn't follow standard protocol, but the US gov pushed them through anyways to get the terrorists in to the US for air training. His Interview @ watch?v=F9-IISF4ckg (at 4:30)
@Bi0hazardx But my stance on controlled demolition remains firm just based on what I have learned working with a demolition firm for the last 7 out of the 10 years I have been a project engineer. Its a shitload of work requiring an army of people for even a small structure. and for nobody on that crew to have talked or the work to go unnoticed is absolutely insane to fathom.
Also my last two posts went to the (Top Section). I will reply to you in the future to keep in down in the comments section. Please explain why Cheney passed orders preventing Norad from acting, setup war game exercises only on 911-that had 30+ extra planes on Norads radar that were all crashing into the WTC. This made it impossible for our defense to know which were real. He also sent all but 6 of our east air defense to Canada in northern vigilance wargame. (I have sources)
@Bi0hazardx So you post a response and then 1 minute later post "waiting for your response" As if to make it appear I was stalling??? Sorry Im not the fastest typer in the world but I would think that formulating an intelligent response might take longer than 60 seconds.
@Bi0hazardx Could you also explain what explosive was powerful enough to implode the building at free fall speed while not making any seismic or audible evidence of an explosion, while keeping in mind that thermite will not cut horizontally without the help of a heat vectoring apparatus that is not easily concealed.
@thecandidate0607 then please explain the mechanism in which the lower floors of WTC 7 were removed in fractions of a second prior to the upper floors hitting resistance? Especially when all of the potential energy of the building was already turned into kinetic energy to achieve the free fall acceleration admitted by NIST. Thus, leaving no energy from the falling building to cause any damage to the building below, which again did not provide any resistance as the building fell at free-fall
@syborius Plus if fire is steel is so impervious to fire then why do they bother fireproofing the buildings in the first place? Plus look into other office fires and find out how much thermal output a burning piece of plastic has, you might be surprised.
@thecandidate0607 you are a well trained bullshitter, aren't you? Do you sleep well at night knowing this?
Firefighter: "Ladder One-Five, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor -- we've got two isolated pockets of fire..."
Text: Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor... Two isolated pockets of fire.
Shows how much you know about fire, as they deal with fires on a floor to floor basis and since they were at the base of the damage and heat travels up what do you think the next few floors looked like idiot.
@thecandidate0607 The point is that the fires were minimal by the time the fire fighters got to the impact floors. The transmissions prove this, and that discounts the official story that fire spread throughout, and went up and down the shaft. The 911 commission was nothing more than a fairytale concocted by Phillip Zelikow. All info. went through him, and guess what his degree is in...In the creation of myths! That's all that 911 was, one big psy-op myth.
@syborius This argument is purely speculative, so dont pass yourself off as some world class debater when you are bringing shaky arguments to the table.
@thecandidate0607 trust me my little friend, I am the last person you want to debate 911 with. the truth will run you over, and the rest of the shills soon enough.
@syborius LOL, Listen as much fun as recycling another truther debate with you would be. I DO have a life and have to study for my finals this week. So that I can graduate next month. So as much as I would like to hear your theories on why fire isnt so friggin hot and steel is so damn impervious I would much rather just leave you to your nerdiness, while I go have an actual life.
This has been flagged as spam show
Well now we know that's wrong
XxTomx69X 5 months ago
AA 77 - verification of No On-Board satellite plane-phone.
In 2006 American Airlines was contacted by Pilots of 911 truth, and was asked if the Boeing 757 on Sep 11th had on-board plane-phones?
Chad W. Kinder, Customer Relations, American Airlines said: "That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757." Which was later reconfirmed again in 2007.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
Why did the US illegally issue visas to the hijackers, bring them in for air training at Florida and Cali air bases? Why were they living together with FBI agents, why did Bush block Able Danger from stopping them before 9/11. Why did Cheney setup unprecedented stand down orders and war game exercises on 911 also preventing the events from being stopped? Why did they manufacture evidence ahead of time, and use it after 911 to fill in the holes in the planning of allowing the attacks to happen?
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
Why did our government have pre-manufactured evidence leading up to the attacks, while preventing norad from acting? Another one is the passport found at ground zero, it has no burn marks and was used in the 06 trial. You are telling me a passport fly out of the hijackers pocket at the plane hit the building, through the fire in the plane, fire in the building, fireball outside the building to the ground? Let alone to the ground with NO burn marks.I have the GOV sourced evidence on their website
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
For instance, In the FBI's '06 Moussaoui trial the FBI openly had to admit the Cell phone calls from the hijacked planes could not have physically had any signal - which multiple university tests after 911 confirmed. They said they do not know the authenticity of the cell phone calls - so where did they get them, wouldn't they have been from the cellphone companies if they calls actually connected? Furthermore AA 77 DID NOT have onboard plane phones however the FBI said calls were made from them
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
We will cover both ends but you have copped out on many of my questions or actually looking at the sources or evidence you then went on to discuss. You just made up in your head what it would have been about. The opposite of scientific
The pentagon also has Anti Air missile defense systems that will shoot down any aircraft without a military transponder (no commerce planes have those). Cheney shut down the auto defense, and prevent Norad from intercepting, each of the 3 times he was asked. why?
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
Cheney signed stand down orders (I have the gov source) in Jun '01, first time in history that Norad was overruled by having to get permission from DOD officials to follow standard protocol.
The 911 hearings clearly show that Cheney was in the Bunker and was openly informed 3 times that a plane was heading towards the pentagon, "do the stand down orders still stand?" He was told 50 miles away, 30, 10 miles. Cheney was asked 3 times if they could shoot it down, and told them orders still stood.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
Let's discuss some of the areas of 911 you haven't been into as well.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
It could with stand a 707 the planes where 747 and also it was for a plane with much less fuel inside.
ncdhfujdf 1 year ago
TheCan
It is you who purposely chooses to avoid looking at the evidence you are discussing, just so you can continue to make up idea of what you think it would be or not in your head, rather than discussing the actual evidence like anyone who graduated high school would...
It is well public knowledge that 2 steel girders from the WTC structure melted completely into each other forming a giant cross. Again, it doesn't matter if you purposely bury your head, the facts stand. Molten Steel Temps!
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
The evidence of US Government Complicity in 9/11 is publicly available and verifiable. Here are the 4 Best videos on the subject. They together will prove without a doubt US government complicity.
1) Zero - Nobel Prize Winner's Doc (Start here) @ watch?v=ofXKiXNDDYA
2) 911 Connect the Dots is a great 18 min video @ watch?v=HfmliaqIRBE
3) Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth - All Science and Physics @ watch?v=b74naeawdCs
4) 911 Press for Truth (By 911 Victim families) @ watch?v=PSVgnsIJH4Y
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
The 9/11 Commission NOW reveals that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The sources and details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.
Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
DID YOU KNOW? Out of the 6 supposed hijackers, who weren’t found alive in other countries. 4 of them were given their Visas by top US Gov Officials. There is an interview with Michael Springman - 'Chief of Visa Selection at US General Consulate in Jeddah 87-89' who gave the "terrorists" their visas. He admits how they did not meet standard protocol, but the US gov pushed them through anyways to get the terrorists in to the US for air training. His Interview @ watch?v=F9-IISF4ckg (at 4:30)
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
These specifications are made under the assumption that the airliner would be moving at low speed with low fuel lost in fog trying to make it to an airport. Not a fully loaded airliner moving at high speed.
thecandidate0607 2 years ago
@thecandidate0607
He clearly sates "fully loaded 707"
He clearly states "multiple impacts" indicating it could withstand full speed impacts if it can withstand multiple jets crashing into it.
cancanbiker 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607 what do you mean moving at low speed? give me a break, THE PREMISE behind the collapse is FIRE, who cares what speed it's at, so stick to that. The question is, would speed have a factor in the fires that supposedly brought it down, and that answer is NO. In both instances you would have fires throught out, and in both cases the building was over-designed to withstand such impacts!
syborius 1 year ago
@syborius You are going off the assumption made by the building manager that died in the attacks. Leslie Robertson, one of the people who helped designed the building, the guy who WOULD know, said that they made those assumption based on a plane with low fuel lost in fog trying to get into JFK or some other airport. Not a fully loaded plane going over 500 miles per hour. I believe with a litte more concrete the building would have survived but it had no concrete encased core or perimeter.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
* Undeniable - 100% Proof of Molten Steel and Explosives. @ watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
Neither fires nor a collapse could create molten steel. Even NIST admitted that the temperatures needed to create molten metal and merge steel together - could not have happened due to the official explanation of the collapse
Debunkers skip what they cannot explain:
A straight forward video of NIST discussing this, and the irrefutable evidence of Molten Steel. I hope you actually check into both sides of the debate
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx If you say so...
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
"Neither fires nor a collapse could create molten steel. Even NIST admitted that the temperatures needed to create molten metal and merge steel together - could not have happened due to the official explanation of the collapse"
Setting aside that every truther and their dogs have given this same categorical response, how exactly does a controlled demolition produce these results? Since pools of molten MATERIAL, which is not necessarily steel, arent found in demolition sites either.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
* Undeniable - 100% Proof of Molten Steel and Explosives. @ watch?v=8YaFGSPErKU
Neither fires nor a collapse could create molten steel. Even NIST admitted that the temperatures needed to create molten metal and merge steel together - could not have happened due to the official explanation of the collapse
Debunkers skip what they cannot explain:
A straight forward video of NIST discussing this, and the irrefutable evidence of Molten Steel. I hope you actually check into both sides of the debate
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
Your statement relies on the assumption that the substance you are referring to was in fact steel. There has been no recovered evidence that suggest molten steel was present in the debris and anything you have or cite is just speculative. Merry Christmas.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate
Well I have evidence of a couple things. For one, I have evidence that you don't even completely watch the sources you come and comment on. If you did watch the full video below you would see multiple pure examples. One is the meteorite looking molded creation of steel melted into concrete. Or the 2 steel beams that were melted into each other at ground zero. They were 2 separate beams that melted into a cross, It's still on display at ground zero, you can check it out like I did
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
Well then Mr. Wizard here is a newsflash for you CONCRETE DOESNT MELT. And just because you saw something in a youtube video doesnt mean that it was collected and tested and verified that it was infact melted steel. It would be nice for facts to be so easily presented as turning on youtube and seeing something and declaring it fact but in the real world people expect better results.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
Again you are completely pathetic. You still haven't even looked at the actual evidence we are discussing or the specific. As you did before, your only tactic is to make up things in your head as to what you would think would or did happen. Rather than dealing with actual evidence and important things like CONTEXT of a debate. The video clearly shows 2 Steel girders melted together into a cross. Whether they are steel is not up in the air, and they are still at Ground Zero.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
Again you are absolutely pathetic. You think you are scientific by refusing to look at the evidence you then try to discuss. You have no exposure to the material you are discussing, but your still talk about it like you saw the evidence, which shows how dishonest you are to yourself and others. All to avoid a Q?
Again, they were 2 Steel girders from the WTC towers that melted together forming a cross. It was steel from the WTC itself! And it's still on display at ground zero
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
Listen retard, a youtube video isnt evidence and if there was some massive conspiracy by whoever to take down the towers then why keep crucial pieces of evidence out on display proving such facts. Get a life you pathetic piece of crap.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
What a great argument you have there. Over 220+ CIA, FBI, and US Counter terrorism agents openly whistle-blew on 9/11 being a cover up and inside job. All of their testimonies are publicly available on legit US Gov Websites. So your only argument is that 220+ FBI, CIA etc are just "retarded" what a smart rebuttal you have.
Read CIA/FBI members testimonies @ PatriotsQuestion911.(com)
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx So to establish credibility you throw out some statistic from an obviously biased internet source. Good work! As for your abrupt topic diversion, wtc 7 was built over the coned substation. the majority of the upper structure was supported with 3 major cantilever trusses and very few columns that supported many floors. Couple that with firefighter eyewitness accounts of 25% of the building structure being scooped out with visual and audible structural fatigue.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@can
No again, you have shown us you use the worst possible scientific method to go about inquiry and discovery. You don't even look at the evidence you are discussing or claiming to have "any" familurarity with it. All you have is some assumption you have made in your head prior to looking at it, that concerns why you will never look at it.
But in reality it isn't some truther biased website, It's a collection of full testimonies (not edited) of FBI, CIA, US CT agents hosted on gov websites!
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
Google "Single Point of Failure - magazine magazine"
That was my source a peer reviewed article by a qualified professional. Dig in buddy. I would also like to think that my degree and the last 10 years as a construction professional have helped further this knowledge.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
But you dont take debates or being accurate about things seriously enough to concern yourself with things like -Looking at the evidence we are discussing! How can you time and time again miss such a basic principle of any debate or argument. I have no respect for a half psychic based approach, where you concoct in your head what "it would be or not" prior to having any exposure the actual material, the actual context. The thing that gives any method integrity. Why is this void in your analysis?
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
Refer to my post and citation before you cop out and say what you just said, which was the truther equivalent of "Well, you just don't know what you're talking about."
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@an
My point is that there are so many well documented and verifiable reasons why the US Gov absolutely had complicity in the attacks. Once all the different pieces of evidence come together, you would have to confound yourself multiple time to hold that stance that the US gov didn't have advanced knowledge, set up many of the procedures that allowed this to happen. For instance how did terrorists in a cave, get NORAD to stand down by passing the Mil Orders? How could they? Cheney did that.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
I understand where you are coming from but in the same respect you could draw the same conclusion for many different angles.
The government wants people to buy nicorette gum because of smoking bans, or the government wants people to die because they dont fund stem cell research. But where your point is leaning could also point to a conspiracy of mere neglect where the government knew of some sort of attack and didnt act to prevent it which i will grant you is plausible.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
I apologize, a client called had to take it. Yes, there is so much more evidence leading to advance knowledge and allowing the attacks to happen, that is well confirmed. I mean Cheney carried it out openly, no terrorist could do what only cheney could. This is was a clear discover I had a while back, and the deeper I went into other aspects it because impossible that it was only Allowed, but it wouldn't have happened without the war games, stand down orders, cover ups after.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
Well if you go with the advance knowledge theory and you know there will be an attack anyway, why go to the trouble of pulling off what I would say is the largest controlled demolition in history of 2 110 story buildings and wtc7 involving more people and further expanding the complexity of a coverup. I wont argue against the advance knowledge theory because I will admit its plausible and any evidence against it is hearsay or speculation anyway.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
Well, the foreknowledge is not hearsay. Cheney planned the war games / dismantling of norad only on 911 this was unprecedented historically - only done once on that day. The stand down orders were only setup 3 months before 911. But regardless he was asked to shoot down the pentagon plane and told them to allow it to hit - while in the bunker. Which is neglect of current knowledge. The Allow it to happen hypothesis is well documented by the 911 hearings alone.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
I get what your saying, but it is by definition speculation of Dick Cheney's intent. Using the same logic Dick Cheney meant to shoot his lawyer in the face because he loaded his shotgun. I get what you are saying and I am not saying you are necessarily wrong, I am just saying that without a confession by Cheney or Bush all these things are speculative, which granted, is never going to happen....except for the controlled demolition stuff that is all incorrect.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
The Stand down orders, I have them printed out in my hand. Definitely not voiced hearsay/speculative, they are the actual orders taken from DOD website, I'll gladly provide the url.
The actions of Cheney on 911 in the bunker are well backed up by multiple testimonies during the 911 hearings. The head of transportation was working with cheney directly when he was asked 3 times and told them to follow the stand down orders knowing it would hit. Yes no bush confession coming =]
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
No, you have a printed out piece of paper on your hand citing the testimony of Norman Mineta. This is testimony that is not corroborated by any other individual making it "hearsay". It doesnt take away from the testimony but in a court of law is worthless.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
Actually I have the actual DOD stand down initiatives and orders. Of course I also have the transcript of Mineta - but that isn't the actual stand down order that forced Norad to stand down without cheney approval. Which cheney carried out and denied the shoot down process, even knowing it would hit our DOD building! He had real time knowledge and 3 warnings were he was asked if they could follow procedure to protect the DOD headquarters.. Cheney disable the anti air turrets
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
Then you have a stand down order, which is fine, but the actions and statements of Dick Cheney are still evidence that is hearsay. The only evidence of Cheney's neglect is Mineta's uncorroborated statement. Which could easily be discredited by saying Mineta passed the blame on to Cheney to save his own skin...doesnt mean thats what happened but just like the theory itself...its plausible.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
That is why the post below, isn't up for speculation. The 911 commission made claims that were impossible and false. There was no on-board plane phones on AA 77, why did the GOV lie and create records for calls made on it - that are a fallacy?
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
Have you research Able Danger. They were an FBI division that research bin laden. John Oniel and other FBI members discovered the Atta hijacker sleeper cell in the US half a year before 911.Bush blocked the FBI members from pursuing stopping or apprehending Atta and the hijackers who were being trained at US Naval bases in Venice, FL. Bush even threatened arrest against the FBI agents, making sure they were untouched. 2 hijackers lived with an FBI agent in cali, who opened up their bank accounts
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
Send me the link.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
Sure. I'll have to private message it. So I can actually use real URL links.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
Sent
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
got it thanks.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
AA 77 - verification of No On-Board satellite plane-phone.
In 2006 American Airlines was contacted by Pilots of 911 truth, and was asked if the Boeing 757 on Sep 11th had on-board plane-phones?
Chad W. Kinder, Customer Relations, American Airlines said: "That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757." Which was later reconfirmed again in 2007.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
bbl
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
Google "Barbara Olson's Alleged Call from AA 77:". David Ray Griffith, himself, acknowledges that AA 77 did have plane phones. The statement made by Mr. Kinder was made after 2004 when at & t suspended telephone service from american airline flights.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
I've read it, that was in 2004-2005. However the response from Chad W Kinder was in 2006, who represents American Airlines, who said that the Boeing 757s in 2001 did not have On-board phone, which supports the original conclusion.
You are right that it is not certain, and I guess this one issue is up in the air.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
Well then there is a problem with two truthers stories. While one person has AA 77 with phones you claim there isnt.
One thing I find kind of funny is that while truthers often say that cell phones dont work at 36000 feet the site above top secret in an effort to question the aeronautical stability of aa 77, claims that aa 77 was travelling at about 700 feet which is low enough to allow cell phone calls. So in the process of proving one theory they debunked another.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate
I will openly admit when certain arguments aren't that strong. After looking deeper into that specific issue it isn't resolved by any means, and isn't a strong element to use as such. There are definitely discrepancies, The husband of the wife who called from AA 77 - said that he had to accept a Toll-Free call and pay the charge. This would not happen on any Cell phone and would only take place on the on-board phone. AA said boeing 757 didn't have them, but others say they did
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
But to go further if you read the posts that are at the top. Why did the US gov manufacture fake phone calls, they later had to admit were not authentic? Why did they say a passanger made an onboard-plane-phone call, when AA 77 didn't even have airplane phones?
They also said that Atta packed a bag of incriminating evidence about himself and others and brought it on his suicide mission. But somehow left it at logan.Who exposes their own network with an orgy of evidence on their suicide mission
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
This is also speculation, just because the technology exists during the event doesn't mean that its what necessarily happened. Without a government employee stating that he or she helped to manufacture these phone calls it wont hold up in court. In the court of public opinion obviously it wages a toll but it will never move beyond that without a person stating to have participated in such actions.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
It was scientifically proven by multiple universities that it was absolutely impossible to establish an outward signal at all, let alone a single ring or established connection to talk. But I have the statements of the 911 commission showing the onboard plane phone call from AA 77. AA 77 did not have onboard plane phones, why did they lie to the American public about calls that couldn't have been placed. Why are they manufacturing evidence- like they did going into Iraq?
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx
It should also be noted that the hijackers flew lower than an average flight to help avoid radar detection. And forgive my assumptions but could you cite where you got the info that the hijacked flights did not have plane phones. That aside if they were going to manufacture evidence about 9-11 in order to get into Iraq then why not plant evidence in Iraq in order to avoid the embarrasment?
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
Michael Springman - 'Chief of Visa Selection at US General Consulate in Jeddah 87-89' Admits how he issued illegal and invalidated visas for 4 of the 6 hijackers who were not found alive after 9/11. He said the Visas's didn't follow standard protocol, but the US gov pushed them through anyways to get the terrorists in to the US for air training. His Interview @ watch?v=F9-IISF4ckg (at 4:30)
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
also the two Uploader's comments at the top are new replies to you. Sorry it keeps moving them all around.
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx But my stance on controlled demolition remains firm just based on what I have learned working with a demolition firm for the last 7 out of the 10 years I have been a project engineer. Its a shitload of work requiring an army of people for even a small structure. and for nobody on that crew to have talked or the work to go unnoticed is absolutely insane to fathom.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
Also my last two posts went to the (Top Section). I will reply to you in the future to keep in down in the comments section. Please explain why Cheney passed orders preventing Norad from acting, setup war game exercises only on 911-that had 30+ extra planes on Norads radar that were all crashing into the WTC. This made it impossible for our defense to know which were real. He also sent all but 6 of our east air defense to Canada in northern vigilance wargame. (I have sources)
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607
Waiting for your response.....
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx So you post a response and then 1 minute later post "waiting for your response" As if to make it appear I was stalling??? Sorry Im not the fastest typer in the world but I would think that formulating an intelligent response might take longer than 60 seconds.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@Bi0hazardx Could you also explain what explosive was powerful enough to implode the building at free fall speed while not making any seismic or audible evidence of an explosion, while keeping in mind that thermite will not cut horizontally without the help of a heat vectoring apparatus that is not easily concealed.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607 then please explain the mechanism in which the lower floors of WTC 7 were removed in fractions of a second prior to the upper floors hitting resistance? Especially when all of the potential energy of the building was already turned into kinetic energy to achieve the free fall acceleration admitted by NIST. Thus, leaving no energy from the falling building to cause any damage to the building below, which again did not provide any resistance as the building fell at free-fall
Bi0hazardx 1 year ago
@syborius Plus if fire is steel is so impervious to fire then why do they bother fireproofing the buildings in the first place? Plus look into other office fires and find out how much thermal output a burning piece of plastic has, you might be surprised.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607 you are a well trained bullshitter, aren't you? Do you sleep well at night knowing this?
Firefighter: "Ladder One-Five, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor -- we've got two isolated pockets of fire..."
Text: Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor... Two isolated pockets of fire.
syborius 1 year ago
@syborius
Shows how much you know about fire, as they deal with fires on a floor to floor basis and since they were at the base of the damage and heat travels up what do you think the next few floors looked like idiot.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607 The point is that the fires were minimal by the time the fire fighters got to the impact floors. The transmissions prove this, and that discounts the official story that fire spread throughout, and went up and down the shaft. The 911 commission was nothing more than a fairytale concocted by Phillip Zelikow. All info. went through him, and guess what his degree is in...In the creation of myths! That's all that 911 was, one big psy-op myth.
syborius 1 year ago
@syborius This argument is purely speculative, so dont pass yourself off as some world class debater when you are bringing shaky arguments to the table.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago
@thecandidate0607 trust me my little friend, I am the last person you want to debate 911 with. the truth will run you over, and the rest of the shills soon enough.
syborius 1 year ago
@syborius LOL, Listen as much fun as recycling another truther debate with you would be. I DO have a life and have to study for my finals this week. So that I can graduate next month. So as much as I would like to hear your theories on why fire isnt so friggin hot and steel is so damn impervious I would much rather just leave you to your nerdiness, while I go have an actual life.
thecandidate0607 1 year ago