• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911[W:152:689]********

If we wait for years maybe Camlock will finally present some science and facts that support his theory. He might even tell us what his theory is.

Harrit et al - proof of nanothermite in WTC dust.

RJLee - Proof of a unique WTC event dust signature with 6% of the dust iron microspheres whereas normal office dust has 0.04%. Iron microspheres are a by product of thermitic reaction.

FEMA - molten/vaporized WTC steel.

Let's discuss these, zyzygy.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911[W:152]

Can anyone explain why camlok is still editing people's quotes by inserting his replies into them instead of using the quote function correctly?

Are you ready to provide some evidence for the USGOCT, gamolon, or are you waiting for Willie Pete?
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911[W:152]

Still no evidence put forward that would support even any part of the USGOCT. How is it that people can believe in such a monstrous lie? Not one tiny speck of evidence can be advanced for this craziest of crazy fictions.
 
Goebbels was pretty perceptive about human nature. :cool:
 
Seventy one pages, 705 posts and nobody has produced any evidence for OBL's involvement in 9/11.

The USGOCT is a totally empty, devoid of evidence piece of arrant nonsense.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

Back in the early days of Pilots For 911 Truth they had a few seconds of a parking lot video posted there. Some years later that video was expunged from the internet, but I watched it many times trying to determine which airplane it showed. It was far too short to tell what it was exactly, but it was an airplane of some sort.

It was a parking lot camera showing in the foreground any vehicle that passed into the parking lot, just as any other parking lot camera would show. As those cameras are usually, it was a wide angle lens. In the back ground was the north facing side of the North Tower. Lasting only maybe 2 seconds max, it clearly showed the strike, and it fairly well corroborated the phone calls to NYPD by concerned citizens that it was a smaller aircraft, perhaps commuter or corporate jet. Certainly too small for a 767, and certainly not what was on Naudet's forgery, some kind of aircraft struck the north tower.

And that it was eventually removed from the internet fits right in with all the other facts that contradict the official story.

SO what your claiming is that the US government planted a bomb in the building, flew a light aircraft into the building, triggering the bomb at the same time, and then somehow photoshopped a jetliner onto numerous video footage owned by private citizens to pretend the light aircraft didn't hit the WTC.

That is pointlessly convoluted. Why didn't they just fly a jetliner into the WTC, or just detonate a bomb from the inside without bringing any aeroplanes into the debate.
 
Seventy one pages, 705 posts and nobody has produced any evidence for OBL's involvement in 9/11.

The USGOCT is a totally empty, devoid of evidence piece of arrant nonsense.

Plenty of people have posted videos of OBL claiming responsibility. The fact that you dismiss any evidence of his involvement as fake means you are not prepared to listen.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

SO what your claiming is that the US government planted a bomb in the building, flew a light aircraft into the building, triggering the bomb at the same time, and then somehow photoshopped a jetliner onto numerous video footage owned by private citizens to pretend the light aircraft didn't hit the WTC.

That is pointlessly convoluted. Why didn't they just fly a jetliner into the WTC, or just detonate a bomb from the inside without bringing any aeroplanes into the debate.

No sir, I am not claiming what you said in your first sentence. I know you're in a tough spot defending the official story, but please attribute to me what I have actually claimed. I have not claimed what you said I have.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

No sir, I am not claiming what you said in your first sentence. I know you're in a tough spot defending the official story, but please attribute to me what I have actually claimed. I have not claimed what you said I have.

OK, forget the bomb. But you are claiming that they flew a light aircraft into the WTC (you mentioned a carpark cctv), but there is video footage from members of the public showing a an airliner flying into the building. How did the government get hold of this footage and photoshop it without the owners of the video knowing? And how did they make hundreds or thousands of people in NY who saw it happening in front of their eyes believe it was an airliner? And how did a light aircraft create the explosion in the WTC if there was no bomb in the building?
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

OK, forget the bomb. But you are claiming that they flew a light aircraft into the WTC (you mentioned a carpark cctv), but there is video footage from members of the public showing a an airliner flying into the building. How did the government get hold of this footage and photoshop it without the owners of the video knowing? And how did they make hundreds or thousands of people in NY who saw it happening in front of their eyes believe it was an airliner? And how did a light aircraft create the explosion in the WTC if there was no bomb in the building?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I appreciate that you remembered at least part of what I actually did post before.

10 years ago I viewed a short series of frames that was online from a fixed camera with a wide-angle lens that was in a fixed location at a ground level parking lot in Manhattan. In the foreground was the vehicles passing by the camera into or out of the parking lot. In the back ground was the north facing side of the North Tower of WTC.

What was briefly recorded was an aircraft approaching from the north and striking the tower. In real time, maybe 3 seconds worth. It was very clear what happened, but because it was so short in duration it was difficult to say exactly what sort of aircraft it was, but it was straight and level, that is, not maneuvering. It was light in color. It appeared to be a smaller aircraft, definitely smaller than 767, but possibly a 737 or a commuter or corporate type aircraft.

This general view was corroborated by those several individuals who had called in to NYPD to report the incident. Several if not all of those callers described it as being a commuter or corporate type jet.

I have never claimed it was photo-shopped. I have said that after a few months that piece was removed from the internet. It was no longer available for view at the place I had been viewing it. I am no expert on computers, but what had been there was no longer there.

The only thing it proved was that indeed, an aircraft struck the North Tower, AND it proved that the notorious Naudet video was a hoax.

I hope this helps.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and I appreciate that you remembered at least part of what I actually did post before.

10 years ago I viewed a short series of frames that was online from a fixed camera with a wide-angle lens that was in a fixed location at a ground level parking lot in Manhattan. In the foreground was the vehicles passing by the camera into or out of the parking lot. In the back ground was the north facing side of the North Tower of WTC.

What was briefly recorded was an aircraft approaching from the north and striking the tower. In real time, maybe 3 seconds worth. It was very clear what happened, but because it was so short in duration it was difficult to say exactly what sort of aircraft it was, but it was straight and level, that is, not maneuvering. It was light in color. It appeared to be a smaller aircraft, definitely smaller than 767, but possibly a 737 or a commuter or corporate type aircraft.

This general view was corroborated by those several individuals who had called in to NYPD to report the incident. Several if not all of those callers described it as being a commuter or corporate type jet.

I have never claimed it was photo-shopped. I have said that after a few months that piece was removed from the internet. It was no longer available for view at the place I had been viewing it. I am no expert on computers, but what had been there was no longer there.

The only thing it proved was that indeed, an aircraft struck the North Tower, AND it proved that the notorious Naudet video was a hoax.

I hope this helps.

Why would they fly a smaller plane into the tower and then fake a video showing a bigger plane? It would be a lot simpler and less chance of being found out if they just flew a large plane into the building. The small plane doesn't appear to serve any purpose in the plot.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

Why would they fly a smaller plane into the tower and then fake a video showing a bigger plane? It would be a lot simpler and less chance of being found out if they just flew a large plane into the building. The small plane doesn't appear to serve any purpose in the plot.

You are expecting a truther 911 "theory" to make sense?
 
Plenty of people have posted videos of OBL claiming responsibility. The fact that you dismiss any evidence of his involvement as fake means you are not prepared to listen.

The videos are not of OBL. And fool can see that. The fake in the USA fake OBL video writes with his right hand. OBL is left handed. Oooopppps, the USGOCT boys screwed up again.

Can you explain how OBL's 19 Arab hijackers managed to melt/vaporize WTC structural steel? You do know that jet fuel and office furnishings cannot reach temperatures to do that. 1000 degrees F short of melting steel and 3,500 degrees F short of vaporizing steel.

Can you explain how the plane that the USGOCT alleges hit WTC 2 had a jet engine in it that was never put in the 767-200 series United Airlines planes. The USGOCT says that UA175, a 767-222 hit WTC 2 but WRONG ENGINE. Oooooopppppps, the the USGOCT boys screwed up again.

Can you explain how Todd Beamer's own private cell phone could have made some 19 calls after Todd Beamer allegedly was turned into microscopic particles when UA93 "crashed" at Shanksville.

Really, USGOCT conspiracy theorists will believe any old nonsense the US government feeds them. A lifetime of brainwashing has sure paid off for the Bush/Cheney cabal.
 
Last edited:
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

You are expecting a truther 911 "theory" to make sense?

The seismic record shows that there were huge subterranean explosions on 9/11, before the first "plane" hit WTC1, zyzygy.

I'm sure that you will want to discuss this.

Yet Another Line of Evidence Shows Demolition

André Rousseau is a Doctor of Geophysics and Geology, a former researcher in the French National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS), who has published 50 papers on the relationships between the characteristics of progressive mechanical waves and geology.

Dr. Rousseau is an expert on measurement of acoustic waves.

Rousseau says that the seismic waves measured on September 11th proves that the 3 buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. Specifically, in a new scientific article published by the Journal of 9/11 Studies, Rosseau writes:

The seismic signals propagating from New York on September 11, 2001, recorded at Palisades (34 km) and published by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO), have here been subjected to a new critical study concerning their sources. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate that the nature of the waves, their velocities, frequencies, and magnitudes invalidate the official explanations which imply as sources the percussion of the twin towers by planes and the collapses of the three buildings, WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.


Seismic Evidence Implies Controlled Demolition on 9/11 | Washington's Blog
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

SO what your claiming is that the US government planted a bomb in the building,

Anybody saying that would be 100% right, A.

US government/US military scientist, developed in the 1990s NANOthermite was found in WTC dust. OBL and his 19 merry men were not able to acquire or plant that nanothermite, which excludes OBL and his 19 merry men from even being involved.

The nanothermite melted and vaporized WTC structural steel, which is something that OBL and his 19 merry men could not have done which excludes OBL and his 19 merry men from even being involved.
 
The videos are not of OBL. And fool can see that. The fake in the USA fake OBL video writes with his right hand. OBL is left handed. Oooopppps, the USGOCT boys screwed up again.

Sure, the US government can pull off the most complex black flag op in the world, deceiving the entire planet (except you), but they screw up over something like left handedness.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

Anybody saying that would be 100% right, A.

US government/US military scientist, developed in the 1990s NANOthermite was found in WTC dust. OBL and his 19 merry men were not able to acquire or plant that nanothermite, which excludes OBL and his 19 merry men from even being involved.

The nanothermite melted and vaporized WTC structural steel, which is something that OBL and his 19 merry men could not have done which excludes OBL and his 19 merry men from even being involved.

So why not just detonate the bomb and claim OBL planted a bomb? Why unnecessarily bring planes into the picture, making the conspiracy more complex and therefore more likely to be found out?
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

You are expecting a truther 911 "theory" to make sense?

I'm just having fun.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

Why would they fly a smaller plane into the tower and then fake a video showing a bigger plane? It would be a lot simpler and less chance of being found out if they just flew a large plane into the building. The small plane doesn't appear to serve any purpose in the plot.

They did that so that the public would believe the story. The details you mention are part of the story--arab hijackers with box cutters commandeering and hijacking airline flights. Thus the impossible cell phone calls.

The towers had to come down, and the story was created and the visual effects planned and executed. Just as the story and timeline of the collapse of WTC7 was created, the reality was that the story of the building's collapse went on TV before the actual collapse took place. Ooops.

It was extremely well planned and executed, but there were mistakes made.

The official story does not acknowledge the small craft, thus the need for Naudet film, and the suppression of the frames I saw.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

So why not just detonate the bomb and claim OBL planted a bomb? Why unnecessarily bring planes into the picture, making the conspiracy more complex and therefore more likely to be found out?

His vaporized steel nonsense has been debunked.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

So why not just detonate the bomb and claim OBL planted a bomb? Why unnecessarily bring planes into the picture, making the conspiracy more complex and therefore more likely to be found out?

The airplane crashes served several purposes most likely. One of them was the fantastic visuals the second one provided. Psychological trauma and fear-mongering. Excellent propaganda techniques from masters of propaganda.
 
Sure, the US government can pull off the most complex black flag op in the world, deceiving the entire planet (except you), but they screw up over something like left handedness.

They actually didn't pull 9/11 off, it is only that USians are the most gullible folks on the planet. There is no evidence for the USGOCT and there is much that is totally impossible in the US government story. When you are told things that are impossible, that can't happen why would you still believe?

Molten/vaporized WTC structural steel was found and described by a US government agency, FEMA. This molten/vaporized WTC structural steel is an impossibility for the USGOCT.

There is nothing to be found in the US government story, there is no mechanism, fuel source in the US government story to account for this molten/vaporized WTC structural steel.

End of story for the USGOCT. It is a fable, a fantasy, a huge lie, and note this, Aristaeus, the murder of 2,900 people in the blown up WTC towers.
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

His vaporized steel nonsense has been debunked.

As always, no evidence from you, zyzygy.

zyzygy is lying, outright lying as the following evidence shows. See especially the bolded portion, [bolded is mine].

The evidence of molten steel or iron cannot be called “irrelevant,” given the fact that the building fires, as NIST pointed out, cannot explain it. The only explanation NIST suggested was that, if there was molten steel or iron, it would have been “due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile.” But NIST claimed that the buildings were brought down by building fires, which at most could have reached 1,000°C (1,832°F.) So the idea that burning debris from these buildings could have reached anywhere close to the temperature needed to melt structural steel (1,482°C, 2,700°F), [11] without the help of explosive or incendiary material, is implausible.

...


I-A. The 2002 FEMA Report
New York Times journalist James Glanz, writing near the end of 2001 about the collapse of WTC 7, reported that some engineers said that a “combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down,” but that this “would not explain,” according to Dr. Barnett, “steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures. [13]

Glanz was referring to Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI). Early in 2002, Barnett and two WPI colleagues published an analysis of a section of steel from one of the Twin Towers, along with sections from WTC 7, as an appendix to FEMA’s 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study. [14] Their discoveries were also reported in a WPI article entitled “The ‘Deep Mystery’ of Melted Steel,” which said:

teel – which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit [1538°C] – may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon – called a eutectic reaction – occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.”

Stating that the New York Times called these findings “perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,” the article added:

“A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges – which are curled like a paper scroll – have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes – some larger than a silver dollar – let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending – but not holes.” [15]


Point TT-6: The Claim That There Was No Molten Steel or Iron in the WTC Buildings | Consensus 911
 
Re: FBI says OBL has nothing to do with 911

They did that so that the public would believe the story. The details you mention are part of the story--arab hijackers with box cutters commandeering and hijacking airline flights. Thus the impossible cell phone calls.

The towers had to come down, and the story was created and the visual effects planned and executed. Just as the story and timeline of the collapse of WTC7 was created, the reality was that the story of the building's collapse went on TV before the actual collapse took place. Ooops.

It was extremely well planned and executed, but there were mistakes made.

The official story does not acknowledge the small craft, thus the need for Naudet film, and the suppression of the frames I saw.

Why not just fly a bigger plane into the tower? Why fly a small plane into a building with thousands of witnesses and then fake footage to pretend a bigger plane crashed? Why not just crash a bigger plane? Why bother with a small plane in the first place?
 
Back
Top Bottom