9/11 documentary now

[aguero93:20]

FBI agent Dan Coleman says he "was given the passport by Marty Mann, an NYPD detective. Someone handed it to Marty in the street and ran off.
We looked at the name and rang headquarters and found that the holder was one of the suspected terrorists"
What Mr Coleman fails to explain was how they did this while the telephone exchange in question was on fire and out of order.

I know it was 2001 but I really doubt that the New York emergency services were confined to using payphones.

 

[2sheikhs]

I know it was 2001 but I really doubt that the New York emergency services were confined to using payphones.

No mate .
He said they rang from one office to another. Not a payphone. The lines he was talking about went through exchange number 212.

 

[purplenose]

People evacuating the North Tower spoke of luggage and even an airline seat in the fountain area that day.

Same goes for the bullshit spouted about a missile hitting the Pentagon.

Completely ignoring the aircraft being seen by hundreds of people in traffic jams on the freeway that morning.

An aircraft seen by hundreds, in the vicinity of Washington! Surely not.... Who would have ever thought that.

Now when it comes to aviation stories the public generally dont make great witnesses, If you drive round Manchester you will see hundreds of aircraft flying around, most who see them have no idea what those aircraft are or if they are where they should be.

If one of Putins TU160s flew over Manchester loaded with instant sunshine at 1000ft in broad daylight on a Friday afternoon 99.99% who saw it would not have the slightest idea, that it wasnt just another plane load of holiday makers coming back from Ibiza.

As for the hole in the Pentagon wall, as I said earlier in the thread, the required approach could not have been flown by a rookie pilot, and nobody in their right mind would try, they would have utilised a shallow dive into the entre of the complex to maximise damage. However America have numerous aircraft and ships that could very easilly make that hole with a missile launched from just a few miles away or from many hundreds of miles away.

 

[Paul_Powers_Tash]

I don't know anything for certain however having read quite a lot about it and about many conspiracies, there isn't a single conspiracy that is more plausible than what the investigation found. That doesn't mean every tiny detail can be explained fully but just because a complete explanation isn't available for everything doesn't mean there's got to be a conspiracy. Most conspiracy theory proponents focus on the improbabilities of certain facts that they use to justify their version but they won't provide a feasible alternative explanation. For example just saying it was a controlled demolition in no way explains how such a huge undertaking was done without anyone noticing. Also saying it was done to provide a motive for going to war defies previous history where the yanks have often intervened abroad militarily with little to no justification. That's why I think it's all bullshit.

Hmmm. The elephant in the room is Building 7. How can you argue against a controlled demolition of the twin towers when that is exactly what happened to Building 7 that day. As you say how did that conduct such a huge undertaking without anyone noticing? Personally I have no idea but building 7 proves that they are capable of doing such a thing should they have chosen to.

The controlled demolition of Building 7 isn't a conspiracy theory ask Larry Silverstiein. The logic then follows why were they able to "pull it"?

 

[Dubai Blue]

Hmmm. The elephant in the room is Building 7. How can you argue against a controlled demolition of the twin towers when that is exactly what happened to Building 7 that day. As you say how did that conduct such a huge undertaking without anyone noticing? Personally I have no idea but building 7 proves that they are capable of doing such a thing should they have chosen to.

The controlled demolition of Building 7 isn't a conspiracy theory ask Larry Silverstiein. The logic then follows why were they able to "pull it"?

The official explanation for WTC 7 is extremely dubious, I certainly agree with that. But I think it's more likely that Silverstein was talking about the fire suppression operation when he said the decision was made to "pull it".

There's just no way he went on TV and decided "Fuck it, I'm going to tell the whole world we demolished building 7." It doesn't make any sense for him to admit to that (even if it had really happened)

 

[Paul_Powers_Tash]

The official explanation for WTC 7 is extremely dubious, I certainly agree with that. But I think it's more likely that Silverstein was talking about the fire suppression operation when he said the decision was made to "pull it".

There's just no way he went on TV and decided "Fuck it, I'm going to tell the whole world we demolished building 7." It doesn't make any sense for him to admit to that (even if it had really happened)

I think he screwed up when he said it. There is a large body of testimony from firefighters at the scene who couldn't understand why they were told not to put out a relatively straightforward fire in Building 7. Instead, they were told to retreat behind a safety perimeter around Building 7. That sounds suspiciously like foreknowledge to me. Finally ,did anyone see the BBC news feature about the fall of Building 7, with Building 7 still standing in the background?

 

[west didsblue]

I think he screwed up when he said it. There is a large body of testimony from firefighters at the scene who couldn't understand why they were told not to put out a relatively straightforward fire in Building 7. Instead, they were told to retreat behind a safety perimeter around Building 7. That sounds suspiciously like foreknowledge to me. Finally ,did anyone see the BBC news feature about the fall of Building 7, with Building 7 still standing in the background?

They were told to retreat due to the fear that it would collapse after sustaining a large amount of structural damage and fires that had been burning all day. Following the collapse of WTC1&2 it was several hours before the remaining firefighters that hadn't been killed were in a position to tackle the fire in WTC7. By then structural experts were saying it could collapse which got misreported by the BBC. As for this large body of testimony, where have you seen that?
What makes you think "pull it" means to set off some explosives and why would the building owner give that order rather than someone from the fictitious demolition team. "Pull it" clearly meant pull back any crew who were tackling it due to the fear of collapse.

 

[mat]

On a tangent. Well played Jon Stewart for getting justice for first responders on that tragic day.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jon-stewart-sept-11-responders_us_567ab1e5e4b06fa6887f7bd8


WASHINGTON — It was Sept. 16, just a few days after the 14th anniversary of the World Trade Center attacks. Over the previous five months, sick and dying 9/11 responders had visited lawmakers’ offices on Capitol Hill hundreds of times, trying to get the Zadroga Act renewed. They arrived in wheelchairs, lugging oxygen tanks or inhalers, and stayed in the sorts of hotels where they once found crime scene chalk still marking the floor. Each day, they covered as many as 13 miles in the corridors of power as they begged legislators not to leave them, their families and their fellow responders without the resources to deal with their illnesses.

The responders knew it would be a tough battle when they began it in April. It had, after all, taken them 128 trips to the Hill to get the original James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act passed in 2010.

During that struggle, John Feal, a construction worker who lost half his left foot to an 8,000-pound chunk of steel on The Pile that had been the World Trade Center, threatened to make the 230-mile trip from New York City to Washington, D.C., on his bloody stump to get lawmakers’ attention. Little did he know that he and his fellow responders would end up logging many more miles than that inside the Capitol, and that then-“Daily Show” host Jon Stewart would be so appalled by the situation that he would devote his entire final broadcast of 2010 to their plight. That’s why people like former police officer Kenny Anderson turned out this year, with his lung capacity at 30 percent. It’s why former firefighter Ray Pfeifer stepped up with stage 4 cancer that had cost him bones in his leg and rib cage

 

[jay_mcfc]

WTC 7 is the elephant in the room in all of this but for those that are convinced it was a demolition job, watch a video on YouTube about debunking WTC 7. It's pretty convincing that it may not have been a demolition. Basically, conspiracies only ever show the building from the north and west side where it looks like it's in a relatively good condition. However, the South side, where the damage was caused from the collapse of the towers, was a mess. There was one corner where the damage affected about 20 floors and when you see it you will understand why it collapsed. Also, the building was a much more open structure without the steel beams running through the inside of the building, hence the collapsing within itself.

In terms of the fire, again it looks a lot worse from the south side and it was blazing for 7/8 hours quite high up in the building. On the debunk video there are videos and photos that show just how bad the fire was.

 

[2sheikhs]

So basically, we're expected to assume that metallurgists and chemists that are teaching in universities are either lying or completely wrong when they say that the dust samples contained high levels of thermite. That structural engineers that also give lectures in seats of learning insist that the official version that one corner support pillar weakening would cause a building to go into freefall on it's own footprint is nonsense are also wrong?
It would be career suicide.
A politician, a government agent or a head of a company wouldn't be subjected to the same consequences
Especially if they had assurances that they'd never have to prove their case in a public court of law. Nobody, however high profile they are, despite all the accusations they've made, has been prosecuted. A court has to be presented with evidence for and against. For some reason, they don't have an appetite for that.