Who's Was the Responsible of Sept 11 Attack?

[Ed Edwards]

alright I'll bite. Just what did he say to the authorities?

Here Elder, go Google this:

"20th hijacker" Moussaoui

There are some 59,000 hits on 20 Nov 2008. I'm sure reading a few dozen of them will suggest a plan of attack for further data mining. Reading more than one source is always wise, if one has the time.

-Ed Edwards, Surviving Victim of 9-11

 

[ray Marshall]

conspiracy theories never have proof, thats why they're theories, when in fact the actual evidences usually tell a different story then the theory.

It is always easier to say that he is a conspiracy nut. It's done all the time. Makes the little feller' look stupid.

 

[ray Marshall]

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=94564&rendTypeId=4

Scattered through the three outer rings of the Pentagon.

Where is the Word Trade Center (WTC) in that picture?
Answer: not seen, that is a picture of a place in Virginia, the WTC is in New York.

Well I think we all should know by now that the twin towers was in N.y
Actually, I was in New york city December 24-25-25, 1984 and saw the twin towers.

 

[ray Marshall]

The merits, or lack, of the Patriot Act have nothing to do with the facts of 9/11. There is no conspiracy.

So Mr. George Bush was doing the right thing to tell the two houses to vote for the Patroit act without reading a single word? VERY INTERESTING.
Otherwise I was not patriotic saying that about a conspiracy" Huh11

 

[ray Marshall]

Well I think we all should know by now that the twin towers was in N.y
Actually, I was in New york city December 24-25-25, 1984 and saw the twin towers.

I mean, in NY in 1974.

 

[Ed Edwards]

This is an interesting read/visual:

9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

 

[ray Marshall]

Well I think we all should know by now that the twin towers was in N.y
Actually, I was in New york city December 24-25-25, 1984 and saw the twin towers.

I meant to say I was in NY in 1974.

 

[annsni]

I have never witnessed a airplane crash. Only on TV. It's funny that some of the aircraft is intact. Do you think there could have been some explosives aboard the little plane?

A 757 is a little plane?

Yeah - a plane crash does leave some of the aircraft intact - those pieces that are structurally much stronger than others such as the underbelly of the plane, the tail section (often is partly or mostly intact) and large parts of the engine and landing gear.

But if you've never witnessed an airplane crash, you're really not understanding what happens. The last plane crash I was at was TWA flight 800. There were some very large pieces that were left from that crash but that crash also landed in water, thus putting out the fire on most of the debris (the fire that was left on the top of the water was a result of the fuel). But there were so many pieces that were very tiny pieces too. And that was a crash with very little fire. The only burning happened in the explosion and during the time the plane fell to the water off of Long Island.

I honestly am disgusted by those who push the idea of a conspiracy. I lost friends in the WTC and I saw the planes hit. I saw the destruction. Yeah, you saw the WTC in 1974. I live 30 miles from it and saw it frequently. I know men and women who worked in the aftermath. There was no conspiracy by anyone other than the group of terrorists who carried out the attacks and those behind them (and they were NOT the US government or any other "conspiracy theory" targets). You insult the memory of everyone who died in these attacks - and those men and women in the plane that was brought down - not being able to hit anything other than the ground in Pennsylvania. This absolutely disgusts me.

 

[Baptist Believer]

You write a good "furthermore."
Have you had any experience with dynamite charges???

Dynamite, no. Explosive charges connected to electronic detonation devices, yes.

Have you watched how they bring big buildings down for more development , lets say in Las Vegas. I do know something about using dynamite to your advantage. They use delays from the bottom up and can bring them down so smothly.

Yes, I’ve seen controlled demolition of a number of buildings. And yes, they demo them from the bottom up. However, I watched the WTC towers collapse live on television, saw them collapse in endless reruns, and have video of both towers falling on my computer’s hard drive.

If you look at the videos carefully, you’ll see that neither collapse began at the bottom. Both collapses originated at the area of impact and fire. One of the towers (I believe Tower 1) peels like a banana with the supporting outer skin (half of the supporting “arch” for each floor) falling outward… definitely not what you would want if you were doing a controlled demolition.

Some of the other 6 reasons can be arguemenal by both of us.

Really? Which ones?
- Do you care to assert that steel (or any other rigid structural materials used in the WTC construction) is NOT significantly weakened by heat long before it turns into a molten puddle?
- Do you care to give evidence that debris and human remains were not found inside the Pentagon and the field in PA despite extensive testimony, physical evidence and photographic documentation?
- Do you care to give a single example of a time when a modern commercial wide-bodied aircraft was inverted without crashing? (Just think about this, if inverting a large jet were a viable plan for disrupting a hijacking, don’t you think that some pilot would have tried it during the heyday of airline hijackings in the 1970s?)
- Do you care to make an argument that the hijackings of 9/11 DID NOT fundamentally change how governments and the public will respond to hijackers?

Another "however"
gives me more conspiracy reasons than I think you have given me. I'm just not taking their explanation for just what they have tried to brain-wash me.

I don’t know what you are talking about here, but you need to consider that the people who are trying to brain-wash you might actually be the conspiracy theorists, not the 9/11 investigators and the general public who has been paying attention and evaluating all of these arguments.

When the first plane hit the building, I thought it was by accident, but when the next plane hit the other, My wife and I talked about, "Was it planned?"

I think most people who were watching it had the same type of reaction. Except I was certain that it was planned… planned by terrorists.

The pentagon had only a damage of 13-18 feet wide. My what a nice trick to get a large plane inside a 13-18 feet wide hole!!
"

Well I think the initial hole in the Pentagon (pre-collapse) was larger than this figure that the conspiracy theorists toss around. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that figure is fundamentally correct:

- The body exterior width of a Boeing 757 is 12 feet, 4 inches. Since the vast majority of the mass of the plant is located in the body core (all of the instrumentation, flight systems beyond engines and fuel, luggage, passengers, supplies and equipment), that part of the plant will provide the most ‘punch’ at high speed and penetrate the building.
- A jet’s swept wings and tail assembly are relatively light structures that will flex and bend according to the stresses placed on them. If the plane in barreling through a reinforced wall of a building, the wings and tail assembles will tend to get pulled into the building by the sheer mass of the disintegrating core of the body of the plane.
- There is plenty of evidence, inside and out that the plane struck the building. I found this link while looking up the dimensions of the 757. (oops, I just noticed Mr. Edwards already posted a link to the same site!)

Please concede my points or provide evidence or arguments that demonstrate they are not valid.

 

[ray Marshall]

Here Elder, go Google this:

"20th hijacker" Moussaoui

There are some 59,000 hits on 20 Nov 2008. I'm sure reading a few dozen of them will suggest a plan of attack for further data mining. Reading more than one source is always wise, if one has the time.

-Ed Edwards, Surviving Victim of 9-11

Hay, not so easy now. I asked YOU what did he say?

 

[ray Marshall]

The merits, or lack, of the Patriot Act have nothing to do with the facts

Well, why did you bring up the word,"UNPARRIOTIC ACof 9/11. There is no conspiracy.[/QUOTE

Well, why did you bring up the word "UN-PATRIOTIC" for?
That is why I ask you a definite question about patriot for.

Questiono you think that george bush did a un-patriotic act by telling congress to sign the patric act without reading it." Very simple question.
I wonder what your answer to this question will be. Short and sweet.

 

[rbell]

So Mr. George Bush was doing the right thing to tell the two houses to vote for the Patroit act without reading a single word? VERY INTERESTING.
Otherwise I was not patriotic saying that about a conspiracy" Huh11

One, I never questioned your patriotism.

Two, bad legislation does not equal government conspiracy.

Three, you've been given voluminous physical and forensic evidence, and you've countered with anecdotal stories, unverified claims, and off-topic explanations. You're losing the "evidence battle" pretty badly.

Sorry, but you're not exactly winning this discussion...

 

[ray Marshall]

A 757 is a little plane?

Yeah - a plane crash does leave some of the aircraft intact - those pieces that are structurally much stronger than others such as the underbelly of the plane, the tail section (often is partly or mostly intact) and large parts of the engine and landing gear.

But if you've never witnessed an airplane crash, you're really not understanding what happens. The last plane crash I was at was TWA flight 800. There were some very large pieces that were left from that crash but that crash also landed in water, thus putting out the fire on most of the debris (the fire that was left on the top of the water was a result of the fuel). But there were so many pieces that were very tiny pieces too. And that was a crash with very little fire. The only burning happened in the explosion and during the time the plane fell to the water off of Long Island.

I honestly am disgusted by those who push the idea of a conspiracy. I lost friends in the WTC and I saw the planes hit. I saw the destruction. Yeah, you saw the WTC in 1974. I live 30 miles from it and saw it frequently. I know men and women who worked in the aftermath. There was no conspiracy by anyone other than the group of terrorists who carried out the attacks and those behind them (and they were NOT the US government or any other "conspiracy theory" targets). You insult the memory of everyone who died in these attacks - and those men and women in the plane that was brought down - not being able to hit anything other than the ground in Pennsylvania. This absolutely disgusts me.

That is something that we all will have to live with. Yes it is/was a sad and awful event, but I'm not above conspiracies. I don't know who was all included and yes, I believe they were of far east decent. May we pray that we will never see anything paralled to it again. I am sorry you lost friends. I truly am.

 

[ray Marshall]

Here Elder, go Google this:

"20th hijacker" Moussaoui

There are some 59,000 hits on 20 Nov 2008. I'm sure reading a few dozen of them will suggest a plan of attack for further data mining. Reading more than one source is always wise, if one has the time.

-Ed Edwards, Surviving Victim of 9-11

Now how in the world did you know I am an elder. Just an educated guess, I suppose??? well what do you know, you are wrong. IAM NOT AN ELDER< OR PREACHER.

 

[ray Marshall]

Dynamite, no. Explosive charges connected to electronic detonation devices, yes.


Yes, I’ve seen controlled demolition of a number of buildings. And yes, they demo them from the bottom up. However, I watched the WTC towers collapse live on television, saw them collapse in endless reruns, and have video of both towers falling on my computer’s hard drive.

If you look at the videos carefully, you’ll see that neither collapse began at the bottom. Both collapses originated at the area of impact and fire. One of the towers (I believe Tower 1) peels like a banana with the supporting outer skin (half of the supporting “arch” for each floor) falling outward… definitely not what you would want if you were doing a controlled demolition.


Really? Which ones?
- Do you care to assert that steel (or any other rigid structural materials used in the WTC construction) is NOT significantly weakened by heat long before it turns into a molten puddle?
- Do you care to give evidence that debris and human remains were not found inside the Pentagon and the field in PA despite extensive testimony, physical evidence and photographic documentation?
- Do you care to give a single example of a time when a modern commercial wide-bodied aircraft was inverted without crashing? (Just think about this, if inverting a large jet were a viable plan for disrupting a hijacking, don’t you think that some pilot would have tried it during the heyday of airline hijackings in the 1970s?)
- Do you care to make an argument that the hijackings of 9/11 DID NOT fundamentally change how governments and the public will respond to hijackers?


I don’t know what you are talking about here, but you need to consider that the people who are trying to brain-wash you might actually be the conspiracy theorists, not the 9/11 investigators and the general public who has been paying attention and evaluating all of these arguments.


I think most people who were watching it had the same type of reaction. Except I was certain that it was planned… planned by terrorists.


Well I think the initial hole in the Pentagon (pre-collapse) was larger than this figure that the conspiracy theorists toss around. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that figure is fundamentally correct:

- The body exterior width of a Boeing 757 is 12 feet, 4 inches. Since the vast majority of the mass of the plant is located in the body core (all of the instrumentation, flight systems beyond engines and fuel, luggage, passengers, supplies and equipment), that part of the plant will provide the most ‘punch’ at high speed and penetrate the building.
- A jet’s swept wings and tail assembly are relatively light structures that will flex and bend according to the stresses placed on them. If the plane in barreling through a reinforced wall of a building, the wings and tail assembles will tend to get pulled into the building by the sheer mass of the disintegrating core of the body of the plane.
- There is plenty of evidence, inside and out that the plane struck the building. I found this link while looking up the dimensions of the 757. (oops, I just noticed Mr. Edwards already posted a link to the same site!)

Please concede my points or provide evidence or arguments that demonstrate they are not valid.

Looking at the towers for many times, I even have vhs of the towers falling, surely you can't think that I havent seen the towers falling (from the top down) You must think that I didn't ever notice that. I was saying that when buildings are brought down so smoothly by explosives, they can bring them down with great presicion. I never hinted that the towers fell from the bottom up like all other buildings are rigged to fall.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Now how in the world did you know I am an elder. Just an educated guess, I suppose??? well what do you know, you are wrong. IAM NOT AN ELDER< OR PREACHER.

My definition of 'elder'

'elder' = person age 60 or older.

You are 70 years old. Therefore you are an elder. 19-year-old Mormon Missionary boys are NOT 'elder' like their name tag says. there the definition of 'elder' is:

'elder' (Mormon) - 19-year-old Mormon Missionary boys

I'm 65-yeers-old (I'm a younger elder)
You are 70-yesrs-old (You're elder elder!)

 

[Ed Edwards]

Elder Ed Edwards: // Here Elder, go Google this:

"20th hijacker" Moussaoui

There are some 59,000 hits on 20 Nov 2008. I'm sure reading a few dozen of them will suggest a plan of attack for further data mining. Reading more than one source is always wise, if one has the time.

-Ed Edwards, Surviving Victim of 9-11 //

Elder Ray Marshall:
// Hay, not so easy now. I asked YOU what did he say? //

The answer would make a good research paper for a Master's Degree. I don't intend to get any Master's Degrees. I also don't care what he said (but others might be interested) and I seriously doubt if what he had to say would be found anyway. I have done research (not at the Master's Degree level) about what the Governments of this World try to keep secret and what they tell.

 

[ray Marshall]

Elder Ed Edwards: // Here Elder, go Google this:

"20th hijacker" Moussaoui

There are some 59,000 hits on 20 Nov 2008. I'm sure reading a few dozen of them will suggest a plan of attack for further data mining. Reading more than one source is always wise, if one has the time.

-Ed Edwards, Surviving Victim of 9-11 //

Elder Ray Marshall:
// Hay, not so easy now. I asked YOU what did he say? //

The answer would make a good research paper for a Master's Degree. I don't intend to get any Master's Degrees. I also don't care what he said (but others might be interested) and I seriously doubt if what he had to say would be found anyway. I have done research (not at the Master's Degree level) about what the Governments of this World try to keep secret and what they tell.

Well you got that right concerning the government releasing any news of importants. We get lots of blab, blab, but anything they don't won't told, it will never have air time on the news channels. They are good at giving us blab, blab that is suppose to keep us scared. Lots of chatter.

 

[Ed Edwards]

On this page:

http://www.ae911truth.org/


are two contradictory 'proof's of controled demolition:
4. “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
8. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint

Did the buildings fall into their own footprint or was there a lot of 'distributed debris'?


Two contradictory 'proof's of cause of collapse:

12. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY and numerous other experts under all 3 high-rises
no "3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel "

Was there no softening steel or was their some molten steel?

 

[Ed Edwards]

Advanced Conversational Techniques

Found at:

http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html

Don't forget to come back here and find practical examples :tonofbricks: