What 9/11 evidence unsealed in court reveals years after the attacks

[hadit]

Here's some 20+ year old news you don't want to read: regarding the North Tower, the first one struck, about a dozen witnesses called NYPD to report that an airplane had just struck the North Tower. About half of them told the police it was a smaller aircraft, perhaps a commuter or corporate jet.

That just means that they only had a scant second or so to see the plane impact and got a distorted idea of what it really was.

Regarding the second strike, the one at the South Tower, that one was recorded by many cameras as of course crowds had gathered. Those videos showed that the airplane had some unusual fairings at the wing-fuselage point, which means it was not a stock 767. That means it was not UA175 even though it had a United paint job.

The conclusion for the critical thinker is that neither AA11 nor UA175 struck the towers that day.

What are they now?

Regarding the Pentagon, the first reporter on the scene stated clearly he could see no aircraft debris there, and that was before the front wall collapsed. Experiments with flight simulators showed that the "official maneuver" was impossible in a transport category aircraft.

I hope you're not confused by the aeronautical terms I've used here.

Post the experiments for analysis. We need to know what simulators were used and who used them.

 

[PeterPilot]

That just means that they only had a scant second or so to see the plane impact and got a distorted idea of what it really was.

What are they now?

Post the experiments for analysis. We need to know what simulators were used and who used them.

Educate yourself sir. If you were a curious person you would already have done so, assuming you were alive in 2001. If you were not an adult in that year, then I understand.

 

[hadit]

Educate yourself sir. If you were a curious person you would already have done so, assuming you were alive in 2001. If you were not an adult in that year, then I understand.

Nope, you made the assertion, you back it up. Let us see your sources, if you're so confident in them.

I will tell you right now, I've seen this dodge many times when someone states something and is challenged on it. It doesn't work.

 

[PeterPilot]

Nope, you made the assertion, you back it up. Let us see your sources, if you're so confident in them.

I will tell you right now, I've seen this dodge many times when someone states something and is challenged on it. It doesn't work.

I'm not dodging a thing. I know what the facts are, both from the aeronautical perspective and the architectural engineering perspective, and the facts all contradict the official narrative that you accept without question. I have no obligation to educate you on facts that your closed mind will reject.

 

[hadit]

I'm not dodging a thing. I know what the facts are, both from the aeronautical perspective and the architectural engineering perspective, and the facts all contradict the official narrative that you accept without question. I have no obligation to educate you on facts that your closed mind will reject.

All I want is your sources. If you're so confident that they are correct, you should be willing to post them for analysis. The fact that you are not willing to post them tells me that you know they are not very credible.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I'm not dodging a thing. I know what the facts are, both from the aeronautical perspective and the architectural engineering perspective, and the facts all contradict the official narrative that you accept without question. I have no obligation to educate you on facts that your closed mind will reject.

I see you're still trying to push this crap.

 

[PeterPilot]

I see you're still trying to push this crap.

I see you are deeply in denial of reality, that you're very gullible and abysmally ignorant of facts. 15 years ago that would have put you in the majority, but today many people now realize they've been deceived.

 

[PeterPilot]

All I want is your sources. If you're so confident that they are correct, you should be willing to post them for analysis. The fact that you are not willing to post them tells me that you know they are not very credible.

Fair enough. Read books by Christopher Bollyn. He has a website. Read books by David Ray Griffin. Read "Crossing The Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. Check out the website of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Then get back to me.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

I see you are deeply in denial of reality, that you're very gullible and abysmally ignorant of facts. 15 years ago that would have put you in the majority, but today many people now realize they've been deceived.

So all the eyewitnesses that saw a plane slam into the Pentagon, are all lying.

 

[hadit]

Fair enough. Read books by Christopher Bollyn. He has a website. Read books by David Ray Griffin. Read "Crossing The Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. Check out the website of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Then get back to me.

Thank you, that's what I was looking for. When you have a handful of voices countering a narrative, you have to look at their credentials to see several things. Are they credible? Do they have expertise in the fields they're talking about? Do they have a motive to say something other than the truth?

Christopher Bollyn - writer and investigative journalist. Okay, fine so far. He, however, wants to blame 911 on Israel, which does not make sense as it was Muslims who pulled off the attack. I don't give him a whole lot of credibility because of that. It's far too convenient to blame the all-mighty Jews for everything.

David Ray Griffin - He is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology. He might write a compelling story, but he's not an expert in the field.

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth - Yes, there are some architects and engineers who think the buildings were demolished, but there are many, many more who do not, and these guys have two very important questions I have yet to see a semi-credible answer for, namely, HOW? How were the buildings wired for demolition, given how incredibly complex such an undertaking is (especially for buildings the size of the WTC), how incredibly invasive to the inhabitants of the buildings it would be for them to be tearing up walls, floors and ceilings to get to the critical points and plant the explosives, then leave them sit connected to their wires for however long until they were detonated, all without anyone seeing or hearing ANYTHING at all? Remember that the WTC buildings started collapsing from the point of impact, which means that they would have had to wire the charges specifically to that point and made sure the initial explosions took place right there to avoid someone saying, "Hey, how come the airplane hit way up there and the collapse started way down here?"

Also, no one found any evidence of explosives in the debris pile, which was under scrutiny by hundreds physically onsite, and millions via TV cameras, and no one said, "Hey, what's this blasting cap doing here?" Remember that a single tiny fragment of paper was enough to identify the cause of the Lockerbie plane destruction, so don't tell me every single piece of evidence was so completely destroyed that no one could find anything.

 

[PeterPilot]

Thank you, that's what I was looking for. When you have a handful of voices countering a narrative, you have to look at their credentials to see several things. Are they credible? Do they have expertise in the fields they're talking about? Do they have a motive to say something other than the truth?

Christopher Bollyn - writer and investigative journalist. Okay, fine so far. He, however, wants to blame 911 on Israel, which does not make sense as it was Muslims who pulled off the attack. I don't give him a whole lot of credibility because of that. It's far too convenient to blame the all-mighty Jews for everything.

David Ray Griffin - He is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology. He might write a compelling story, but he's not an expert in the field.

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth - Yes, there are some architects and engineers who think the buildings were demolished, but there are many, many more who do not, and these guys have two very important questions I have yet to see a semi-credible answer for, namely, HOW? How were the buildings wired for demolition, given how incredibly complex such an undertaking is (especially for buildings the size of the WTC), how incredibly invasive to the inhabitants of the buildings it would be for them to be tearing up walls, floors and ceilings to get to the critical points and plant the explosives, then leave them sit connected to their wires for however long until they were detonated, all without anyone seeing or hearing ANYTHING at all? Remember that the WTC buildings started collapsing from the point of impact, which means that they would have had to wire the charges specifically to that point and made sure the initial explosions took place right there to avoid someone saying, "Hey, how come the airplane hit way up there and the collapse started way down here?"

Also, no one found any evidence of explosives in the debris pile, which was under scrutiny by hundreds physically onsite, and millions via TV cameras, and no one said, "Hey, what's this blasting cap doing here?" Remember that a single tiny fragment of paper was enough to identify the cause of the Lockerbie plane destruction, so don't tell me every single piece of evidence was so completely destroyed that no one could find anything.

I appreciate your honest reply.

Did you know that Bollyn is married to an Israeli woman? Did you know that for his acts of political incorrectness he was actually beat up by cops in his own front yard where he lived in Illinois? I know you haven't yet read his work, but you are correct that he shows the countless Israeli connections, just one of which is an article from the Jerusalem Post detailing the Israeli company called Transtech Control Ltd, a company that specializes in Airfield Management.

You believe that Muslins pulled off the attack only because that has been drilled into the collective mind. Close investigation of facts show that the airplanes that hit the WTC were drone aircaft, that neither AA11 nor UA175 were present. The idea that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 airplanes cannot be proved. Not by you and not by the 911 Commission.

David Griffin is a professor, but he is also a critical thinker, and at the moment it appears you are NOT a critical thinker, but maybe you can change my mind on that point.

You are unaware of all facts at WTC, and apparently you are fairly well ignorant regarding explosives. You are not aware that the USGS actually collected data at WTC, and so did US satellites take pictures of the damage from space. AVIRIS I think is the name of the satellites used, and those analyses showed that nuclear fission had taken place there that day. That by residual chemical analyses. The satellite images show temps at WTC extremely high "hot spots", I think over1800 degrees, impossible with jet fuel fires.

In short, you have attacked the messengers in each case, carefully avoided providing any proof of truth of your claims, and simply repeated worn out official narrative excerpts proved false 20 years ago. Good start Hadit, but a display of general lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

 

[PeterPilot]

So all the eyewitnesses that saw a plane slam into the Pentagon, are all lying.

No honey, they are not lying, they were simply fooled by sleight-of-hand, as one encounters with magicians.

They did see aircraft crash into the towers, but the planes they saw were NOT American 11 and United 175.

More, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon, so American 77 was not there. United 93 was NOT in that field in Shanksville, even though you and others believe there was.

When everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts. That's what CIA Casey said in 1981. Food for thought.

 

[hadit]

I appreciate your honest reply.

Did you know that Bollyn is married to an Israeli woman? Did you know that for his acts of political incorrectness he was actually beat up by cops in his own front yard where he lived in Illinois? I know you haven't yet read his work, but you are correct that he shows the countless Israeli connections, just one of which is an article from the Jerusalem Post detailing the Israeli company called Transtech Control Ltd, a company that specializes in Airfield Management.

The conspiracists want Israel involved (they love trying to tie Israel into everything). Okay, to play that game then, what benefit does Israel get from attacking New York? There has to be a good reason to go through all the trouble of hiring and training Muslims to obey Israeli commands.

You believe that Muslins pulled off the attack only because that has been drilled into the collective mind. Close investigation of facts show that the airplanes that hit the WTC were drone aircaft, that neither AA11 nor UA175 were present. The idea that 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 airplanes cannot be proved. Not by you and not by the 911 Commission.

When a conspiracy theory grows, it gets ever harder to sustain because new theories have to be invented to cover inconvenient truths. We saw the airliners impact the towers. Not drones, airliners. The conspiracy theory asserts that they were drones without any attempt to then say where the airliners went. If they did not impact the towers, where are they and their passengers? Where is Barbara Olsen? If you make extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary evidence. Now, a lot of times a conspiracy theory grows because those believing it just can't accept that something as simple as high jacking some planes could cause so much devastation. They don't want to believe we are so vulnerable. Reality, however, is that sometimes a low-tech attack can be very effective precisely because no one expects it.

David Griffin is a professor, but he is also a critical thinker, and at the moment it appears you are NOT a critical thinker, but maybe you can change my mind on that point.

When someone wants to speak authoritatively on a subject, I expect him/her to have some credentials in the field.

You are unaware of all facts at WTC, and apparently you are fairly well ignorant regarding explosives. You are not aware that the USGS actually collected data at WTC, and so did US satellites take pictures of the damage from space. AVIRIS I think is the name of the satellites used, and those analyses showed that nuclear fission had taken place there that day. That by residual chemical analyses. The satellite images show temps at WTC extremely high "hot spots", I think over1800 degrees, impossible with jet fuel fires.

And here's where it leaves the realm of the possible. There is no way nuclear fission could have taken place that day in that location without anyone noticing anything at all. Again, I will ask the inconvenient questions. Fissile nuclear material gives off radiation. What you are claiming requires someone to have literally placed a nuclear bomb in the WTC at some point in the past without ANYONE noticing ANYTHING. One of the fallouts of the nuclear age is that we monitor our cities for just that, someone managing to sneak a nuclear device, either a bomb or a dirty bomb, into a city and kill a lot of people. There is no way a nuke could have been planted in the WTC without someone noticing.

In short, you have attacked the messengers in each case, carefully avoided providing any proof of truth of your claims, and simply repeated worn out official narrative excerpts proved false 20 years ago. Good start Hadit, but a display of general lack of knowledge of the subject matter.

Except no one has proven the official narrative wrong. All they have done is made unsupportable claims that fall apart at first inspection. I have asked these questions multiple times and will continue to do so until someone can give me solid answers:

1. How did the buildings get wired for demolition with NO ONE seeing or hearing ANYTHING? It's not a trivial exercise to place explosives at the correct points to bring down a very large building, and those points are covered by walls, floors and ceilings. Those buildings were very heavily used around the clock, and no one has come forward to say they saw or heard anything unusual. Big red flag for the theory there.

2. It takes a lot of explosives to properly bring down buildings the size of the WTC and explosives do not magically and completely destroy themselves. Those debris piles were gone over by thousands of people and TV cameras were on them for weeks. NO ONE found ANYTHING unusual like unexploded blasting caps or anything of the sort. The Lockerbie plane bombing was solved by a tiny fragment of paper from the bomb, and there would have been some kind of evidence had someone placed all the explosives required to bring down the towers.

If you're going to claim explosives brought down the buildings, you're going to have to explain those. It's not enough to just insist they did.

 

[hadit]

No honey, they are not lying, they were simply fooled by sleight-of-hand, as one encounters with magicians.

They did see aircraft crash into the towers, but the planes they saw were NOT American 11 and United 175.

More, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon, so American 77 was not there. United 93 was NOT in that field in Shanksville, even though you and others believe there was.

When everything the American people believe is false, we will know the success of our misinformation efforts. That's what CIA Casey said in 1981. Food for thought.

So where are they and their passengers? You do realize, don't you, that it would be simpler to just high jack the planes and fly them to their destinations than it would be to make them disappear (to where?) and replace them with drones that looked exactly like them (How did the drone manufacturers know it was going to be those planes and not others?), then fly the drones into the buildings. Where is Barbara Olsen? I don't believe you will even attempt to answer that one.

These are the things that make conspiracy theories fall apart. Note, moreover, that the true believer is not going to be swayed by logic and reason. Either they will come up with something even wilder to explain it away or just ignore contrary evidence.

 

[sparky]

The evidence points to Islamists,

so did the "28 pages".....specifically the house of saud.....

The retired FBI special agent still doesn't know how it's possible that the video wasn't disseminated.

or better, how all the Saudi evidence somehow result in a preemptive invasion of a country not even remotely involved in 9/11

~S~

 

[PeterPilot]

hadit

You're a broken record sir, repeating the same old garbage the media has been repeating incessantly for 24 years.

Large amounts of facts and evidence show Israeli involvement, but you are threatened by the truth and unable to face it. Adios.

 

[hadit]

hadit

You're a broken record sir, repeating the same old garbage the media has been repeating incessantly for 24 years.

Large amounts of facts and evidence show Israeli involvement, but you are threatened by the truth and unable to face it. Adios.

And, as expected, no attempt to address the inconvenient questions. When you do that, you'll gain a little credibility, a little.

 

[PeterPilot]

And, as expected, no attempt to address the inconvenient questions. When you do that, you'll gain a little credibility, a little.

From men like you I seek nothing. Closed minds are nothing to associate with.

 

[hadit]

From men like you I seek nothing. Closed minds are nothing to associate with.

Nor do you attempt to even address the gaping holes in your wild theories, just leave the arena thinking you dodged a bullet.

 

[Zebra]

The evidence points to Islamists, and as I look around the world and see other terrorist events that they have perpetrated, as well as other attacks here in the U.S., such as WTC '93, there is no reason to think otherwise.

Conspiracists, never acknowledge the evidence right in front of them.

well said!