Captain Beard
No longer active
- Sep 6, 2001
- 28,010
- 99
- 48
No, but it really kinda was planned that far back, according to documents from the FBI. GOV failed to act on the reports. It WAS preventable, etc.
9/11 predicted by 1995 "Illuminati" card game
- Thread starter Brooks
- Start date
Chromatose
Squid pro quo
It was also predicted by Mike Portnoy
EXACTLY
And these guys
9/11 was so obviously planned by criminals within our government, it's not even funny. It's really sad, and scary, that they would do such a thing. They've done it before.
slashvanyoung
Dopefish lives!
And by Slayer:
"Pessimist, Terrorist targeting the next mark
Global chaos feeding on hysteria" - Disciple
God Hates Us All, released on September 11th 2001.
9/11 was actually a very good day for me till afternoon when everybody went apeshit.
"Pessimist, Terrorist targeting the next mark
Global chaos feeding on hysteria" - Disciple
God Hates Us All, released on September 11th 2001.
9/11 was actually a very good day for me till afternoon when everybody went apeshit.
you have to mention it, that your afternoon was when the morning attacks took place on 9/11
EricT
Don't you ever get...
Or 9/11 was a terrorist attack on our country attacking our 2 highest buildings, which are thought by the rest of the world to symbolize our wealth...
Oh, I'm sorry, is that idea too out there for acceptance?
Oh, I'm sorry, is that idea too out there for acceptance?
wildfyr
unus spiritus est
March 18, 2008 at 17:12:55 Permalink
9/11: Tom Murphy Provides the Proof 9/11 was inside job!
Diary Entry by David Watts
Tell A Friend
Tom Murphy, provides basis for proof 9/11 was an inside job.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6616
9/11: Tom Murphy Provides the Proof 9/11 was inside job!
Tom Murphy, after all of his extremely intensive research, -- as evidenced by the citing of a plethora of scientific arguments and formulae throughout his myriad comments on OpEdNews postings -- has stunningly declared the existence of molten metal at ground zero!
In a posting on March 10, 2008 (....What is [9/11] Truth? ), Mr. Murphy stated, The existence of molten metal at the base of the debris piles has never been proven, aside from anecdotal recollections made by workers' statements and a handful of misinterpreted photographs.
Then, just one week later on March 17th (in a posting on ... 9/11 Questions: Part 2 of 3), Mr. Murphy confounded both his supporters and detractors when he stated, ... the most likely cause of the molten metal was the heat of compression caused by the condensing of a 100-story [sic] building into 10-stories, i.e., he agrees molten metal was present under the rubble of the Twin Towers! Mr. Murphy indeed had some sort of mind-opening epiphanic experience that leaves the rest of us -- both his supporters and detractors -- having to deal with the mind-bending implications of Tom Murphy providing the proof 9/11 was an inside job.
How did Mr. Murphy go from anecdotal recollections and misinterpreted photographs to attempting to explain the cause of the molten metal? He viewed a video at a link provided by Mr. Scott Ledger.
The simple proof that Mr. Murphy provides goes like this:
Tom Murphy says there was molten metal beneath the Twin Towers, therefore Tom agrees the eyewitness accounts of the molten metal were accurate.
Given that eyewitness accounts also exist that say that there was molten metal beneath WTC7; and given that NASA thermal maps show the temperatures at the site of WTC7 to be just as hot as at the sites of the Twin Towers and therefore the two are consistent; therefore, molten metal was also present below WTC7.
Given that Tom Murphy only attempts to explain away the molten metal beneath the two 110 story buildings in terms of condensing the full 110 stories during the collapses; and given that Tom did not attempt to explain away the molten metal beneath WTC7 in terms of compressing only 47 stories during its collapse -- I contend an absolutely logical and reasonable conclusion; therefore, by omission, Tom implies there must be another reason for the molten metal to have been below WTC7.
Given that there is only one sensible/possible 'other' reason for the existence of molten metal below WTC7: thermite; and given that there is evidence for the existence of thermite; and given that the only reason for thermite to be present would be for the purpose of carrying out a controlled demolition of WTC7, a steel-frame building; therefore, it must be concluded -- not even considering all of the other evidence -- that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.
Given that it takes at least weeks to plan and prepare a building like WTC7 for a controlled demolition; and given that there is no reason to believe anyone other than insiders could have carried out the advanced preparation and actual execution of the controlled demolition of the secure WTC7 (CIA Building); therefore the controlled demolition of WTC7 was carried out by insiders.
Given that WTC7 was brought down on 9/11; and given that there could be no reason to demolish WTC7 other than to be included with the other events on 9/11; therefore insiders also planned and executed the other events on 9/11, i.e., 9/11 was an inside job.
Tom, let me be the first to welcome you to the 911Truth movement.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_080319_japanese_senator_for.htm
What "research" did the "messenger" actually do?
Where Mr. Alten has been known to frequent OpEdNews.com, this comment's specifically addressed to him. Billy is lost to his own 9/11 faith, as well as a fair number of others - to include Mr. Alten.
As I've answered and sourced previously, NORAD was only conducting one (1) exercise at the time of the attacks contrary to the five confined to the northeast "corridor". Two additional NORAD drills were scheduled but had not commenced.
In light of this, I'm forced to ask these questions. WHO do Truthers fear the most - themselves and their hidden but real doubts on 9/11? WHAT part of these sourced facts on the exercises don't Truthers understand? WHEN will they actually play the role of the skeptic and look at the EVIDENCE and not the speculation rooted in their own biases? HOW do they continue to believe the false assertions on these exercises? WHY do they thrive in the negative and wither in the positive?
Regardless... Mr. Alten, you who "innocently" feigns responsibility by claiming to "only be the messanger", read the reality of the exercises and not some silly, speculative nonsense typed up by a misanthrope whose idea of a good time is biting the same hand that feeds him. And you call the tripe that you served up in your novel - research? My sixth grader could uncover what follows, while your still playing with your "rabbit hole" - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6509 .
"What were these supposed military operations on Sep. 11th about?"
There are all kinds of exercises AIREXs, JTFEXs, CAXs, CPXs, FTXs, TTXs, etc... There was only one (1) military exercise that was underway or active on 9/11 Operation Northern Guardian ( click here ), which was limited to northern Canada and Alaska and NOT the Continental United States or CONUS.
Two other military exercises were planned for 9/11 Global Guardian ( click here ) and Vigilant Guardian ( click here ) but never commenced officially at their respective and scheduled start times because of the "real-world" attacks associated with 9/11.
There was a National Reconnaissance Office (part of the DoD) Site Recover Plan (SRP) drill conducted in Virginia. The scenario involved a small, prop-driven plane crashing into one of the office towers there due to mechanical failure ( click here ). This drill was evaluating the group's ability to implement its Business Continuity Plans (BCPs), following an incident that triggers its plan. Once the 9/11 attacks were announced, the NRO immediately canceled the drill.
And lastly, Operation Tripod was entering day two of a multi-day drill on distributing medicines to a metropolitan New York City. The City's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) conducted the drill, which included joint interaction with FBI and FEMA representatives. Once the 9/11 attacks were announced, the OEM immediately canceled the drill and used the drill's staging site (Pier 92) as its alternate Emergency Operations Center (EOC) when WTC 7 was evacuated ( click here ).
So, here we had three (3) exercises that were on-going and two (2) scheduled but not started. Three (3) of the exercises involved NORAD but only one (1) was actually drilled on 9/11. Hmmm. How many drills does the military conduct at that level in a given year? The number is many hundreds - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/ex.htm . Therefore, is it conceivable that three multiple day drills might be run concurrently for several days? I'd say that's a "yes".
The other drills were conducted (1) by DoD at the facility/functional group level not at the service or joint service level and (2) by the NYC OEM at the city level with inputs from the state and Federal levels. These two drills had nothing to do with the military drills that were scheduled previously. Thus, was it probable that these drills, at completely different planning levels compared to the military operations, could have been scheduled on the same day? Again, that'd be a "yes"!
by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1067 comments) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 11:59:41 PM
9/11: Tom Murphy Provides the Proof 9/11 was inside job!
Diary Entry by David Watts
Tell A Friend
Tom Murphy, provides basis for proof 9/11 was an inside job.
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6616
9/11: Tom Murphy Provides the Proof 9/11 was inside job!
Tom Murphy, after all of his extremely intensive research, -- as evidenced by the citing of a plethora of scientific arguments and formulae throughout his myriad comments on OpEdNews postings -- has stunningly declared the existence of molten metal at ground zero!
In a posting on March 10, 2008 (....What is [9/11] Truth? ), Mr. Murphy stated, The existence of molten metal at the base of the debris piles has never been proven, aside from anecdotal recollections made by workers' statements and a handful of misinterpreted photographs.
Then, just one week later on March 17th (in a posting on ... 9/11 Questions: Part 2 of 3), Mr. Murphy confounded both his supporters and detractors when he stated, ... the most likely cause of the molten metal was the heat of compression caused by the condensing of a 100-story [sic] building into 10-stories, i.e., he agrees molten metal was present under the rubble of the Twin Towers! Mr. Murphy indeed had some sort of mind-opening epiphanic experience that leaves the rest of us -- both his supporters and detractors -- having to deal with the mind-bending implications of Tom Murphy providing the proof 9/11 was an inside job.
How did Mr. Murphy go from anecdotal recollections and misinterpreted photographs to attempting to explain the cause of the molten metal? He viewed a video at a link provided by Mr. Scott Ledger.
The simple proof that Mr. Murphy provides goes like this:
Tom Murphy says there was molten metal beneath the Twin Towers, therefore Tom agrees the eyewitness accounts of the molten metal were accurate.
Given that eyewitness accounts also exist that say that there was molten metal beneath WTC7; and given that NASA thermal maps show the temperatures at the site of WTC7 to be just as hot as at the sites of the Twin Towers and therefore the two are consistent; therefore, molten metal was also present below WTC7.
Given that Tom Murphy only attempts to explain away the molten metal beneath the two 110 story buildings in terms of condensing the full 110 stories during the collapses; and given that Tom did not attempt to explain away the molten metal beneath WTC7 in terms of compressing only 47 stories during its collapse -- I contend an absolutely logical and reasonable conclusion; therefore, by omission, Tom implies there must be another reason for the molten metal to have been below WTC7.
Given that there is only one sensible/possible 'other' reason for the existence of molten metal below WTC7: thermite; and given that there is evidence for the existence of thermite; and given that the only reason for thermite to be present would be for the purpose of carrying out a controlled demolition of WTC7, a steel-frame building; therefore, it must be concluded -- not even considering all of the other evidence -- that WTC7 was brought down in a controlled demolition.
Given that it takes at least weeks to plan and prepare a building like WTC7 for a controlled demolition; and given that there is no reason to believe anyone other than insiders could have carried out the advanced preparation and actual execution of the controlled demolition of the secure WTC7 (CIA Building); therefore the controlled demolition of WTC7 was carried out by insiders.
Given that WTC7 was brought down on 9/11; and given that there could be no reason to demolish WTC7 other than to be included with the other events on 9/11; therefore insiders also planned and executed the other events on 9/11, i.e., 9/11 was an inside job.
Tom, let me be the first to welcome you to the 911Truth movement.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_080319_japanese_senator_for.htm
What "research" did the "messenger" actually do?
Where Mr. Alten has been known to frequent OpEdNews.com, this comment's specifically addressed to him. Billy is lost to his own 9/11 faith, as well as a fair number of others - to include Mr. Alten.
As I've answered and sourced previously, NORAD was only conducting one (1) exercise at the time of the attacks contrary to the five confined to the northeast "corridor". Two additional NORAD drills were scheduled but had not commenced.
In light of this, I'm forced to ask these questions. WHO do Truthers fear the most - themselves and their hidden but real doubts on 9/11? WHAT part of these sourced facts on the exercises don't Truthers understand? WHEN will they actually play the role of the skeptic and look at the EVIDENCE and not the speculation rooted in their own biases? HOW do they continue to believe the false assertions on these exercises? WHY do they thrive in the negative and wither in the positive?
Regardless... Mr. Alten, you who "innocently" feigns responsibility by claiming to "only be the messanger", read the reality of the exercises and not some silly, speculative nonsense typed up by a misanthrope whose idea of a good time is biting the same hand that feeds him. And you call the tripe that you served up in your novel - research? My sixth grader could uncover what follows, while your still playing with your "rabbit hole" - http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=6509 .
"What were these supposed military operations on Sep. 11th about?"
There are all kinds of exercises AIREXs, JTFEXs, CAXs, CPXs, FTXs, TTXs, etc... There was only one (1) military exercise that was underway or active on 9/11 Operation Northern Guardian ( click here ), which was limited to northern Canada and Alaska and NOT the Continental United States or CONUS.
Two other military exercises were planned for 9/11 Global Guardian ( click here ) and Vigilant Guardian ( click here ) but never commenced officially at their respective and scheduled start times because of the "real-world" attacks associated with 9/11.
There was a National Reconnaissance Office (part of the DoD) Site Recover Plan (SRP) drill conducted in Virginia. The scenario involved a small, prop-driven plane crashing into one of the office towers there due to mechanical failure ( click here ). This drill was evaluating the group's ability to implement its Business Continuity Plans (BCPs), following an incident that triggers its plan. Once the 9/11 attacks were announced, the NRO immediately canceled the drill.
And lastly, Operation Tripod was entering day two of a multi-day drill on distributing medicines to a metropolitan New York City. The City's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) conducted the drill, which included joint interaction with FBI and FEMA representatives. Once the 9/11 attacks were announced, the OEM immediately canceled the drill and used the drill's staging site (Pier 92) as its alternate Emergency Operations Center (EOC) when WTC 7 was evacuated ( click here ).
So, here we had three (3) exercises that were on-going and two (2) scheduled but not started. Three (3) of the exercises involved NORAD but only one (1) was actually drilled on 9/11. Hmmm. How many drills does the military conduct at that level in a given year? The number is many hundreds - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/ex.htm . Therefore, is it conceivable that three multiple day drills might be run concurrently for several days? I'd say that's a "yes".
The other drills were conducted (1) by DoD at the facility/functional group level not at the service or joint service level and (2) by the NYC OEM at the city level with inputs from the state and Federal levels. These two drills had nothing to do with the military drills that were scheduled previously. Thus, was it probable that these drills, at completely different planning levels compared to the military operations, could have been scheduled on the same day? Again, that'd be a "yes"!
by Tom Murphy (2 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1067 comments) on Thursday, March 20, 2008 at 11:59:41 PM
