How Many people, at a Minimum, would it take to carry 9/11 Inside job?

Struck by what?

 

substituted gubmint planes ... it's all about the theatrics ... get with the program Gam ... sheesh ...

 

Hey shinebox...

You never answered this question satisfactorily.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=23&p=1066982872#post1066982872

You only tap danced around it. Please answer it.

 

Definitely not sure on the north tower, but many who saw it happen and called NYPD reported it as a smaller, perhaps executive jet.

South tower, some sort of drone 757.

 

AAL11 and UAL175 were tracked by radar from take off to impact. Spotted by dozens of aircraft the entire way in, and air traffic controllers, and people on the ground.

 

Aside from the Principals of the Conspiracy who would remain well-insulated, I could have done it with 5 people, plus the 100-odd Israelis illegally working at Urban Moving Systems.

Specifically, I would need:

1 person to approach someone in the Pakistani ISI who was an al-Qaeda sympathizer having contacts with Mohamed Atta.
1 person to get Roger Maltbie to shut down all FBI investigations into possible terrorists active in the US
1 person to force the Chicago-based realty group to reject their winning bid of the World Trade Center lease so Silverstein could take control.
1 person to recruit a second group of terrorists to attack the targets in Washington, DC.
1 person to influence the US Consulate at Jedda (SA) to approve the visa applications for the second group of terrorists to attack Washington, DC.

That's all it would have taken.

Some people obviously don't understand the nature of conspiracies.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

I'd start with the Dancing Israelis.

You can rule out nuclear devices.

Do you understand that the plutonium core will turn from a solid to a plasma during neutron fission reaching in excess of 7 Million °F?

The buildings on the surrounding blocks would have been vaporized or instantly ignited in a conflagration.

 

The Toronto Sun and a few other media footnoted in Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert reported the presence of injects in the FAA radar. The first exchange between NEADS and FAA referenced "real life or exercise". The radar was spoofed, an easy thing to do.

Let's cut the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) CJ. When was the last time you saw another jet cruising along through your visual area and said to yourself, 'Oh yeah, there goes Delta 1989, or TWA800".

These were staged events and everybody knows it. Many of those who called in to NYPD regarding the strike at the north tower clearly said it was a smaller aircraft, NOT an airliner. There were conflicting stories published in the Boston Globe regarding the widespread confusion as to which gate was used for AA11 and UA175.

The official story is confused and inaccurate in every possible way.

 

Yes, in general terms I do understand your comment regarding plasma and temps in the nuclear reaction, and that is the reason that molten steel was present for 3 months in the basement area of WTC. Thank you for bringing that up. Molten metal created hotspots visible from space. That is why our AVIRIS system, Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer was flown over WTC on 16, 18, 22 and 23 September by JPL and NASA. It too showed those hotspots. Further, in Prager's book from which the AVIRIS data came, he documents that a 2 man USGS crew collected samples at 35 locations within a 1 KM radius on 17 and 18 September. It had rained on 14 September, but the USGS guys found at least 1 sample on one of the WTC girders in which Thorium was found at a rate 6 times the lowest level detected in those samples.

Yes, and I'm also aware, as Prager states the obvious, that nuclear research has been wide open since we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Great strides have been made, including small scale nuclear devices. What they called when I was in the Army, 'tactical nuclear weapons.'

Thanks for bringing that up.

 

Nonsense, you don't get fake injections into live civilian radar units. Ask any air traffic controller and they will tell you the same thing. Not only that, but the radar data from that morning is available freely to anyone. No one has ever found any 'fake' blips.

The NEADS staff confirmed that it was real world. So what? Wouldn't you?

I quite often see aircraft flying along and say "hey there goes an ART-72" or "Hey there goes the RNZAF 757". UAL175 and AAL11 were spotted by pilots. Multiple pilots. The air traffic recordings show this. Radar shows this. Debris shows this.

 

I thought Danny Jowenko, the explosives expert whom truthers always throw around, said it would take weeks?

 

Oh really?

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html

The hottest spot was 1020[SUP]o[/SUP] Kelvin which converts to 1376.33[SUP]o[/SUP] Fahrenheit. Steel melts at about 2500[SUP]o[/SUP] Fahrenheit. Care to explain why these "molten metal hotspots" are about 1200[SUP]o[/SUP] Fahrenheit LOWER than when steel melts? Or do you have other info that shows hotspots at or around 2500[SUP]o[/SUP] Fahrenheit?

 

I have already asked an ATC friend. The FAA uses injects in training at OKC.

Otherwise CJ, you're just regurgitating official government talking points, and in so many ways I've lost count, the official government story of 911 is a fraud. Sorry Charlie.

 

Thank you for providing that information. Disregarding the numbers for a moment, how do you explain the hotspots? How do you explain that office fires burning on the 80th floor would do that? I know the link qualifies that there was a significant rainfall on September 20, and other records say it also rained September 14, so those partially explain the change in color on the surface.

And back to the numbers, how does that compare with the media stories, TV and print, regarding the presence of molten iron in the belly of the beast that went on about 90 days?

 

The link includes a photo that says "Hot spots show as orange and yellow areas. Dozens of hot spots are seen on September 16, but most had cooled or the fires had been put out by September 23". So if that was true, why did it take about 90 days before anyone could approach these allegedly "cooled" or "put out" fires by 9/23/01? Methinks the site is spewing a whopper. I lived in the area at that time and I heard from local news broadcasts that they could not get anywhere near those spots for several weeks after 9/11.

Note I don't necessarily endorse the nuclear theory, it's just another theory IMO but those hot spots were fact and so were the multiple corroborating eyewitness accounts of molten steel.

 

You're welcome.

First, what did you think created the molten iron (I thought it was molten steel, molten iron melts at around 2800[SUP]o[/SUP]F so you just upped the temperature by 300[SUP]o[/SUP])? Thermite? Nuclear reaction of some sort? And what kept it molten for 90 days?

You don't think there was anything in that debris pile that could have ignited/burned debris after the collapse?

And you think rainfall is going to lower the surface temperature being generated by molten iron (again, I thought it was molten steel) below by 1200[SUP]o[/SUP]? Think about that for a minute. You are saying that there was a continuous source of heat at or above 2500[SUP]o[/SUP]F that kept the molten iron (steel) in a molten state for 90 days? Please explain that first.

Which is it Eleuthera? Molten steel or molten iron? there's a difference of about 300[SUP]o[/SUP]?

 

Why don't you ask the eyewitness who claims to have seen the "melting of girders on 9/11" rather than a poster who wasn't there? What do you suppose girders are made of?

[video=youtube;syXpA6B85Ek]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syXpA6B85Ek[/video]

(just ignore my posts as you usually do, run truther run lol).

 

Steel or iron, it doesn't matter to me. If the government had not been so busy covering up facts and evidence we would know that. If the authorities had followed the editorial advice of Fire Engineering magazine and conducted proper forensic procedures for the crime of the century we might know that.

You're just full of questions Gamolon. Would that someone like you had been able to raise those questions in a public forum.

From my life experiences rain tends to cool things off. Have you had different experiences in that area? How can office fires burning on the 80th floor cause such a debris field?

What do you suppose would be a plausible energy source to keep iron or steel molten for 90 days?

 

Always directed at everyone and everything that questions/contradicts the OCT but never one single question about the OCT. 15+ years later and these phonies are still trying to convince OCT skeptics that every minute detail of the OCT is 100% fact and the storytellers are completely honest and had the best intentions. Yet I doubt they have ever changed even one person's mind who hasn't swallowed the OCT.

 

As are you.

And your "life experiences" include being around some type of heat source, buried in a debris pile, that maintained a 2800[SUP]o[/SUP]+ temperature for 90 days which kept iron molten for that time span? And with this "life experience" you saw rain cool the surface above that 2800[SUP]o[/SUP+] hotspot by 1500[SUP]o[/SUP]?

Explain to me how this heat source didn't melt/burn everything around it, but made "swiss cheese holes" in steel? How did this heat source do that Eleuthera? That's like dropping a sheet of paper into a campfire and after 5 minutes, pulling it out to find a couple of separate holes burned through and the rest of the paper intact. How was this heat source directed to certain places on steel beams to burn holes through them?

See my question just above regarding your "life experiences" with that scenario.

How can thermite/thermate keep a 2800[SUP]o[/SUP]+ temperature for 90 days? How can a resultant nuclear blast generate some sort of heat source that melts holes in steel, not all the steel, and maintains a 2800[SUP]o[/SUP]+ for 90 days?

You seem to think it was some type of nuclear heat source right? Correct if I'm wrong. I'll ask this again. How did this heat source, radiating 2800[SUP]o[/SUP]+ temperatures in all directions create HOLES in steel beams and not melt everything around it?

How about a slow burning, insulated by tons of debris, fire (or fires in multiple locations) coupled with chemicals and gasses, causing a eutectic reaction on the steel? But that's far-fetched right?

 

(ignore this too, I'm just posting my thoughts)

It probably did. Several eyewitnesses claim they saw molten steel running like lava.

[video=youtube;cCdRA09pztM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCdRA09pztM[/video]

What chemicals and what gasses would cause that do you suppose, for weeks? A slow burning insulated fire? Little or no oxygen source? Seen days after 9/11? Did this ever happen for any building fire ever? There have been fires in chemical factories that haven't caused that to happen. Wrong chemicals and gasses? Yeah I guess you have to have the right chemicals and gasses and they just happened to be present all over the WTC site but never anywhere else. I think the question can be answered via experiment which I don't believe anyone has ever done. One can take a pile of steel, set it on fire, bury it with various chemicals and gasses (trial and error) and see what works to replicate such an event. I suggest various forms of (nano)thermite/ate to start, only because that is one theory, not because such a chemical is commonly present in office buildings. Then if that doesn't work, try all the chemicals that might be present in a typical office building, including paint chips of course. There have been 40+ steel frame high rise fires in history, some of these were office fires, apparently none resulted in such an event. So obviously none had such chemicals/gasses present in those offices. WTC had to be unique, since something was present that isn't usually present in office buildings. And it was present in all 3 buildings. So many convenient and very unique coincidences on 9/11, literally hundreds of coincidences. What are the odds?

 

well at least you gave an "honest" answer according to whatever you believe ... can you elaborate some more on who did what with your 105 people? ...

 

Have you ever wondered why the authorities ignored good forensic procedures at WTC for that event? The subject of Fire Engineering Magazine's editorial complaints?

Or do you just wonder about my thoughts?

 

Hey Shinebox...

When are you going to answer post #178?
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=477904&page=28&p=1067003829#post1067003829

 

could you give me a link to post 178? ... you put me up in the high 200s ... or just ask the question again ... is this where some guy asks who watches your videos? ...