Zeitgeist, 9/11 Coincidences, 7/7 Ripple Effect, etc.

Remove all ads!

Chicky, liberal is on the right side of the political spectrum, and many of the people i've been debating with, are confessed liberals.
Try to understand that I'm from the most atheist country in the world after Japan, and we have a socialist government. Our liberal parties are considered right wing.

 

Uhh Coineineagh, over here in the states liberal & socialists are on the left & conservatives are on the right.
Me, i guess i would qualify as a conservative, mostly non-religious(but none of the hatred that some of the non-rel. seem to have towards it), partial free-market libertarian/partial republican(what a lot here call a neo-con, i guess).

 

It's funny how we can be so different. We speak the same language, have similar cultures, watch most of the same hollywood stuff, our countries are allied, have in principal the same type of government, and we play the same PC games.
Still we're miles apart in politics, even the term liberal has different meanings. In Europe we're like: "Hey relax, the former Soviet Union is just two borders away."
And you're like: "Oh my, those poor souls were almost swallowed by the Soviets, GOD help them."
As for 'liberal', in Holland it's associated with wealthy middle class saying: "Go away government, we don't want to pay taxes, we're doing fine on our own."
The majority opinion in Holland is that affairs in the States ar far worse off, but that we are gradually heading that way too. It may seem strange that even the homeless have an income of 1600 dollars a month, but they won't kill you for your shoes.
Liberal should be in the advantage of businessmen and employers, it results in less regulation of wages and employees' rights. If you ask me, the businessmen are shooting themselves in the foot, because it earns them more money, but costs everyone in happiness.

 

I'm confused because you just said they were:

Maybe I'm just easily lost.

 

Here in the states that would be considered a very conservative position.

 

This would be the 12th post following up this remark. Conservative was a bad summary for 'right-wing' and 'religious', I admit that.
If I expected to find less than 5% religious board members, and there are 20%, then it is safe to say the members are much more religious than I expected. I didn't imply that most members are religious. When including liberals in the right-wing, the same goes for right-wingers too.
In Holland we are often surprised by how right-wing america is, we think our differences can't be that big, but whaddya know...
Political terms aren't set in stone, IIRC the current Democrats and Republicans haven't always been like this either. In the distant past their roles were reversed.
European-political-spectrum

 

I have tried to explain this liberal mix-up several times. The US has one political terminology and Europe another. Sometimes it gets confusing but if you pay attention for a while you will learn it.

ps. Just so you know, the American one is wrong and funky.

 

For the past few days my activity was limited since I had work on my thesis. That's done for now, so I'm all game, I now even have time to 'read' your posts.

Oh I'm sorry. I just had the idea that you would be okay with that since you were insulting the other members and generally being rude in almost every post of yours before I started replying.

Oh noes, amidst all the chaos, the news reporters made a mistake. Clearly they are involved!

Yeah, whats even more suspicious is that the buildings collapsed after suffering serious damage, that has never happened before. Perhaps you're talking about WTC7, that one also did suffer serious damage.

I'm assuming that you're talking about this video? I couldn't find any other highly debated video on the 9/11 debunker sites, so I guess I've got the right video. It's odd that you use words like prove because when the video quality is cranked up, we can see this. I may be half blind, but that man seriously looks like Osama. Even the Saddam Hussein copies didn't look that much like their original. Another pet peeve used by the debunkers is the fact that he is wearing a ring on his right hand, which cannot be found on any other Bin Laden video!!! or can we? A third (and last confession video pet peeve that I'm going to address here) is that he is sick and suddenly looks healthy on the confession video. Wow, the much quoted source is the BBC. But didn't they went out to prove that that was an unreliable source since it aired the confession as legitimate?

I couldn't any evidence supporting the existence of pockets of molten metal beneath the debris. I saw some pictures, but those turned out to be fake.

Bin Laden solved that one for you. Watch the last Bin Laden video, he's going on and on about that everything happened because America was screwing things up. And just between you and me, muslim fanatics are nuts.

This sure looks like empty.

This sure looks like "none."

The Ba'ath party was secular.

Quoting NFPA guide 921: Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations:

Yeah I saw that. First I'll have to say that the representation of the pancake theory was extremely misleading. It's also funny that these experts are unable to keep track of time, because they claim 10 seconds, I claim 12+ and I have been counting!
Right, about those beams. It's odd that those things are sticking clearly out of the debris, during cleanup. How plausible do you think it is that the ironworkers who were cleaning it up happened it to cut it diagonally so that it would fall in a controlled direction (like with trees, to not hit anyone else on the head.)

Do you have a source for that? I'm quite interested in the amount of weight the floors were able to withstand? 20 + an airplane?

Like I told you before, it took way longer than that. The first heavy debris may have touched the ground in 15 seconds, but it took at least 18 seconds.

Which is funny, because I remember only 1 or 2 "explosions" going of.

Because (a) with a jet engine, the flame is outside the engine itself and (b) it is cooled by airflows, (c) it was specifically designed for such problems.

One of the videos shows the collapse starting with a bend at the level of the impact. Look it up, can't remember which tower sorry.

Uhh, A lot of buildings in the vicinity were hit by debris. All of the 7 WTC buildings were destroyed, look here to get an overview.

Falling always happen in the direction that the object is pulled (by the earth). It only falls to the side if there is stuff blocking its fall, the lower floors collapsed before they could really resist the weight of the upper floors, but you can see on the videos that there is some resistance from the lower levels at the start of collapse. This resistance quickly turns not to be enough when the other upper floors also force their weight on the lower floors. The lower floors then individually try to withstand the upper floor since the weight is not shared between floors (that wouldn't have happened if "triangles" (Don't hit me, I'm not architect) had been used during construction.)

Fair enough. Perhaps it's just the philosopher in me, but I believe that things cannot be really proven (outside of logic.)

Personally knowing dozens of engineers who work at the largest Defense Contractor in the Netherlands, I'd say that none of them would do it. I'm sure that it could happen in a country were there is a large powerful government who has brainwashed their citizens to be uncritical and to make them believe that the government knows best. Like with any socialist, communist, fascist or otherwise highly authoritarian country.

Can I assume that you're claiming that you're not a scientist because you have been using words like proof and irrefutable.

So, I was thinking here. How can I prove this guy that he is wrong. Any counter argument I throw at him is either avoided or answered with something along the lines of "That might have happened, but B might also have happened. I need prove to show that B couldn't have happened." This is indeed like a religious discussion. I am required to prove that the government wasn't involved and you only need to prove that it was. However, proving that the government was involved is a *so much more* easier task than proving that it wasn't. Proving an absence of something that I have no direct access to is impossible, because there always exists the possibility that I haven't looked good enough. I feel kind of cheated. I could change my task to proving that terrorist did attack the WTC. Like with a video in which Osama Bin Laden confesses it, but then you would change your stance and claim that since he was "trained by the CIA", he could be ordered to attack. Then it would be my job to prove that such a link did not exist. Ad infinitum.

Well... this was all the effort that I had to spend today. It's amazing what you can find in 3 hours with Google. Goodnight.

 

I'm impressed!

Wow! I asked for it, didn't I? I admire the amount of research you've done to get to these counterarguments. I only hope you won't be annoyed by the relative ease by which many of them are refuted. But you have some strong ones in there, I have to admit. A considerable challenge, so here goes...
I'll attempt to mark arguments based on facts and likelihood with an asterisk*, and arguments made based on beliefs and opinion with two** It's probably going to look smug or annoying, so I apologize for that in advance**.

Oh no you don't! Accidentally reporting the collapse of a building, and it happening 20 minutes later in exactly the fashion the reporters said, is no mere coincidence. It is highly unlikely* Not to mention the satellite connection being lost in an inopportune moment, while the signal seems perfect before*.

You're making conclusions that suit your story, allow me to take an excerpt of my own from that link:

Hey, I was told that the support structure was on the outside?

Cranked up, you say? I wonder if you can find a video that was "cranked up" too. I do see some manipulation of his skincolor and nose. It's possible to enhance the quality of videos too, but purposely making a blurry image of an actor look like someone else in near impossible in a video. They did the same thing in the 7/7 London bombings: They claimed security cameras weren't working, but they did manage to produce a single freeze-frame with the 4 'terrorists' caught on camera. This sort of bogus evidence is widely distributed on debunking sites, and when they are proven* to be forgeries, it isn't believed**. I'm too lazy to scour the internet looking for the proof that this particular freeze-frame is a forgery** - it's a lot more work* than finding a manipulated freeze-frame on a debunking site.

Hmm, I'm going to have to ask you to take my word that I did see a video, with molten steel dripping out of the WTC even before it collapsed, somewhere. Videos are hard to manipulate, if I find it again, I'll put it up here. Anyway, weren't there satellite infra-red photos taken of Ground Zero?

It just struck me that two aspects of the conspiracy don't make sense: If Al Qaide is still under the command of the CIA and Bin Laden, why wouldn't he confess to the attack? One of these aspects is a deliberate distraction**, but the other will be true. I'm guessing Al Qaida is still under CIA/Bin Laden control, and the fake confession is just a distraction**.

Where does it say that all floors are occupied? Nice list, but I'd prefer a floor plan, showing the occupation. Can you find one? Actually, don't bother - I'd just say that document can be forged anyway**. The following points are more important: The maintenance workers moving people around, removal of bomb-sniffing dogs, and countless witnesses hearing noises (from empty floors) in the weeks leading up to the attack*, is all very suspicious. The claim made that half the floors were empty, was only on 911 coincidences, I haven't verified it.

I didn't know that. Did they recover all 2.3 billion? Also in a 911 coincidences vid, was a claim that witnesses saw an abandoned dump truck, packed with gold bars, in an underground parking tunnel underneath WTC7. But it may be a distraction**.

I didn't say they weren't, this is taken from a statement I made, about 40% of the Baath party being christians. Since they had the most christians*, they were the christian party of Iraq.

I had already checked on this, and I knew that black smoke doesn't necessarily mean the fire is oxygen-limited. I opted to not adjust it, because I wanted to leave my post unedited. Silly, huh? But blue or white flames are always there when a fire burns efficiently*. The yellow and orange flames seen at the WTC fire* make it very hard to explain** the 'furnace fire conditions' which effected the alleged heat transfer to the steel of the support structure. Still highly unlikely*.

Yeah, once I saw the picture of that thermate-cut beam, it really convinced me**. Now when a beam is cut manually, wouldn't they use a circle-saw, or a flame-torch, or something**? If they did that, you wouldn't see iron dripping from the cut locations like candle wax**. Thermate is used when they can't manually cut, like in a demolition**. But clearing up rubble is easier**. They probably wouldn't use thermate then, because it would leave behind a hazardous, hot mess of molten steel*.

The discussion advanced a lot further. Apparently the support structure was based on a network of spanning wires, which snapped apart easily. I'm skeptical that the force would have overcome the resistance completely**. The lack of evidence remaining makes all hypotheses unprovable*. I'm not to blame for this*, I would much rather that I had evidence to refer to**.

The theory is that the force was too great for the floors to offer any significant resistance**. So disregarding resistance, T2Bruno still calculated 23 seconds for the building to come down, when correctly accounting for the law of conservation of momentum*. Maybe the jet fuel gave some extra downward thrust**

Ignited thermate gives an exothermic reaction, not an explosion*. The witnesses who heard explosions said they came from the basement areas*. Who knows, maybe it was from the gold robbery...**

The short answer is: Titanium is also used in the engine, and that won't weaken at 1500 F*.

Since I need you to take my word for something earlier, I'll believe you**. This is just my layman's assessment anyway, it is all ultimately unprovable*.

Nice bird's eye view. It's good that they fell straight down, of course. How much of Manhattan would have been crushed if they had fallen sideways?

So the conclusion of the ultimately unprovable hypothesis it that the two tallest buildings in the world were actually shoddy, half-finished, asbestos-covered, fire hazardous buildings, of even poorer construction than most low skyscrapers**. Ground Zero supports this, because the rubble in the picture lookes like the wood splinters that remain when a termite-infested wooden shack collapses**.

I'm not denying that I have my opinions*. Recorded empirical data is the only true evidence/proof*. Everything that isn't measureable can then be split into logical reasoning/likelihood, and opinions/beliefs**.

Is this guy a friend of yours? This demolition expert can't think of any other possibility than a controlled demolition in WTC7.

How about a Capitalist government**? I know it's not considered official terminology, and pushed to the realms of communist propaganda*. But let's be serious here: Does voting for one of two parties have anything akin to democracy, as the ancient greeks intended**? It's an extreme form of government**.

Read the empirical data statement above.

You should be trying to prove, using empirical data, that my view of the events is unlikely or impossible, so don't focus on proving me wrong. That's just personal**. You're doing a good job so far, I especially liked the photo of Ground Zero. If it was taken in 2001 instead of 2005, it may have been useful*.

I disagree. The government confiscated and even destroyed evidence, and you choose not to make a big deal out of it*. Debunking sites can add tons of false information and forged evidence. Even when proven false, these sites can continue to spread the false data. It's freedom of information. Getting adequate publicity when a debunking site is proven to be lying, is very difficult. We can use our imaginations to pick the official story apart, but debunkers are free to lie, and they tell people what they want to hear. The playing field is fairly even, but conspiracy theorists aren't listened to as much.

I swear I hadn't read this when I talked about the two-fold Bin Laden & CIA aspect before**. If you'd like me to choose, I'd say the CIA involvement is more in line with the rest**. So ignore the fake Bin Laden video. This is actually in your advantage, because I already had a valid counter-argument for the Bin Laden tape**: The "enhanced" picture is a freeze-frame, while they could just as easily have enhanced the entire video, but manipulating a video is near impossible*.

Come to think about it, when I asked this, I was in error. "Absurd" is a value judgement*, it is by definition an opinion**. It can't be disproven with facts*.

Well, I had a night shift in a building with internet, so I was in luck*. This did take up at least 5 hours of my 8 hour shift, though**. Good Morning

 

Well coineineagh is right & wrong about the molten metal & the thermite. There WAS molten metal at the site but it wasn't steel, it was aluminum.
The exterior cladding of the wtc1 & 2 had almost 2 million kg of aluminum & the jet body cosisted of almost 67,000 kg of aluminum.
Now aluminum melts between 850-1250 degrees F dependng on add-ins.
Also molten aluminum reacts EXTREMELY VIOLENTLY to water.
In fact, guess what happens when you add it to water + lime(concrete) + gypsum(sheetrock) + rust(the iron structures in the building) ?
You get a THERMITE reaction, which as it happens creates even more oppurtunity for the compounds to mix & create more thermite reactions.

The aluminum compound used for plane bodys contains 2% magnesium & manganese. Not good as far as fires go as magnesium will burn even in a nitrogen & carbon dioxide heavy enviroments.
Manganese is a powerful Oxidizer & burns almost as well as magnesium.

For all the science please look here :http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

 

Technically, the Ba'ath party is Sunni, which is why the Shia in Iraq were treated so poorly under Saddam.

 

Very convincing indeed. I read the whole thing, and I'm out of my depth to offer any expert critique. I will offer layman counterarguments, so feel free to correct me if you know better. Now that molten metal suits the hypothesis, it is easily accepted. After coming with all kinds of explanations, the conclusion is now that there was a thermate reaction. It's a reversal of the tables, and I find myself beaten by the very argument I thought was so strong. Witnesses saw pools of molten metal even 6 weeks after the collapse. Now that there's a plausible explanation, this researcher even volunteers the fact that fires were burning even 12 weeks afterwards. I'm may be mistaken, but hydrogen combustion gives a loud bang, as far as I know. That's the main reason hydrogen engines are difficult to make: The reaction is so violent. Wouldn't Ground Zero have had continual loud bangs in the 12 weeks afterwards, as if there were constant fireworks going off?
My most skeptical thought would be: So there was a huge amount of molten aluminium, mixing with reagents to form explosive and thermite reactions. But this isn't as well placed as thermite/thermate from a controlled demolition. It is possible that the hour was long enough to let the thermite reactions do the necessary structural damage, so that it comes crashing down like it was rotten on the inside. But how likely is it that it reached ALL the important structural supports?
The pdf article also mentions that these fires would have raged well above the measured 1832 F measured by NIST, so is there even evidence that supports this theory? I'm guessing here, but I think that the lack of these 1100-2000 C fires (it's celsius now, whereas we were talking about fahrenheit before. Celcius is much higher) is evidence to the contrary. They would have been burning for a while in the building, plenty time for the NIST to measure fires well over 1832 F... But well placed thermate charges wouldn't be measured, since they are set off just before the collapse. If they accidentally went off, these charges would have been so small, as to only heat up localized pockets of fire a bit.
-->It still offers no explanation why the buildings came down in 10-18 seconds, instead of the predicted minimum of 23 (where resistance is presumed to be negligible).
-->And it doesn't explain the mysterious collapse of building 7, which had fires on the top floors, but started collapsing from the ground floor...
In the addendums there are two interesting issues discussed. First is the discrediting of Dr. Steven Jones' experiments. Dr. Jones was not thorough in his experiments, he did not add all reagents required. In my opinion, Jones shouldn't have done these experiments atall. It only proves that the explosive reactions are possible, which is already documented. There are weaker points in this hypothesis, as I explained above.
Second and final point is the presence of airplane oxygen canisters, which could have supplied the fire with the oxygen it needed to burn efficiently. I'll have to cave on this issue, so the core of the fire could have been burning efficiently, even though the outer fires seemed oxygen-limited.

 

Oh no I don't? Then I'm going to follow your example and ask for proof since she may have received the news that that building collapsed from other news sources and had not been able to recognize the Salomon's building in the distance.
And besides, she claimed that the details were very vague and sketchy.

Sorry, what link? I just grabbed the photos from Google.

So I went to google and I typed in "high resolution osama confession"
The first link went to good and tried 911myths.com Since you already claimed that a video is nearly impossible to fake, you should accept this video as "proof" of his involvement.
It's the third flash movie from below, the specific video is the "Moussaoui trail clip". Do you know why the videos on youtube are so blurry and miscoloured? That's because of the lossy compression that is applied to a video when it is to be made more suitable for the Internet.

Osama is surrounded by high ranking Taliban officials like Suleiman Abu Ghaith, Ayman al-Zawahiri and Khaled al-Harbi (who received amnesty in SA.) They must be also blind to see that it is not Osama, or themselves involved, or it really was Osama in that video.

The second one from below shows confessions from Osama, but with only audio. That was aired on ME television,

The last videos contains very high resolution videos of the people you claimed to be known to be alive and well. They are presenting their wills.

Please look at the other high resolution freeze-frames on that page as well.

I'm sure that with all those 9/11 debunkers who so gleefully attack each point that is thrown at them, finding a site that "proves" the high resolution video to be fake wouldn't be too difficult.
Isn't it odd that those debunkers haven't posted freeze-frames of the high resolution version to prove their point. Since a low quality video is good enough to see that it is not Osama, a high quality must be even better!

Of course they've seen it, but they still don't stop talking about how blind we must be to not see that it is not Osama. They haven't even attacked the high resolution. They're in clear state of denial.

I remembered how I stepped away from Loose Change and the entire 9/11 debunk theory. It's a video called Screw Loose Change and in it, they demonstrated that the creators of Loose Change were severely suffering from tunnel vision. I saw more lies coming from the direction of loose change than from any other. Watch it, you'll see.

It's very plausible that there was an underground fire raging beneath Ground Zero. There has been an underground fire burning in Centralia, Pennsylvania for nearly 50 years. Says nothing about molten pockets of steel though.

Yeah funny isn't it, gravity can do that. Darnest thing. It especially happens when the lower portions of the building cannot resist the weight of the lower floors. If the upper floors did resist, *then* the building would have fallen sideways. You blame the evil government, I blame the construction.

I'm assuming that you're talking about the birds eye view that I posted. The upload date of the image is in 2005, ground zero looked like this in 2005

They used flame torches, remember this photo? Look at the black "candle wax." Doesn't that look like slag to you? It even dripped down, look at slag inside the red circle. Oops, it ran out of bandwidth. I could find another picture, but that doesn't show 'dripped' slag

There is a lot of mistrust in the 'men from Washington,' especially in the Southern States. They are actually resisting the government more than us. They may be being brainwashed about America by all those rituals like singing the anthem, pledging allegiance, but the US does not equal the US government. A large bonus point of a capitalist government over the Lefty governments is that in a standard capitalistic country, you will not be locked up and tortured for criticizing the government. Government criticism flourishes in capitalistic countries, you're a fine example.

No it actually doesn't. In the US, all citizens from all races, sexes and classes are allowed to vote. They don't even have to complete their military education before receiving their right to vote.

What's your source for the 2.3 billion? Couldn't find it in a quick google search.

I wonder how the people from the Industrial Age would work with steel without "Blue" or "White" fire.

Quote from demolition guy:

I lol'ed at the translation Perhaps we should show him this picture.

Edit:

If resistance is negligible then we're doing a free fall: 9.8 seconds.

 

I thought I saw something about a blue screen and an old recording in this bit, but then it was gone when I wanted to quote it. What would the news source change? She reported the collapse of a building before it happened, whether she knew it or not. A very big coincidence.

Well, there was a lot of text on that page too.

You made a big issue out of it, maybe you missed my responses:

I did watch Loose Change. I saw how dubious it was, and I'm not surprised it was televised. I won't go into this, their 'evidence' is too easily disputable. Make a big show of debunking a bogus conspiracy movie, and even more people are convinced the conspiracy is ridiculous. No thank you.

If you say so. Another coincidence to add to the pile.

That's made abundantly clear. These buildings survived the 1975 fire (which burned hotter), survived a terrorist bombing, and stood stoicly for an hour after a boeing crashed into each of them. The two tallest building in the world were of poor construction, and many people just happened to profit from their collapse.

You may be right here, I don't know enough about it. But I always thought torches made sparks of the metal fly away, not drip.

I can't remember being locked up by my lefty government. Maybe they wiped my memory too. At least in a socialist government, poverty isn't a crime punishable by starvation/hypothermia.

Took a while for me to get this, I assume you're criticizing ancient greek democracy. Well, those who did get the right were free to walk into a meeting and participate. It beats ticking a box once every 4 years: Would you like bad, or worse?

It's a mistake, it should be 2.3 TRillion. One of the 911 coincidences vids is my source.

I didn't notice the poor translation. Perhaps there are better ones on YouTube. The picture doesn't really tell you much though. Maybe some burning rubble did ricochet into the front door, or maybe the thermite was ignited.

Assuming T2Bruno's calculation to be correct, you forget that the floors' collapse with the law of concervation of momentum is already 23 seconds minimum. Only gravity and the floors' inertia, no resistance atall.

 

coineineagh: Don't use my information out of context. I gave a full explanation which included structural reasons why "perfect" resistance was not a good assumption. The time of collapse should have been much shorter than 23 seconds.

As far as the state of the rubble -- the potential energy of the towers cannot be ignored (nearly 1,000,000,000,000 joules). Their collapse released a huge amount of energy (equivalent to ~200 tons of TNT) and would easily have caused the heat seen in the following weeks and months. Pressure and friction generate a lot of heat.

 

Yeah totally different from what we have now. Participation of standard citizens in politics is not possible in our democracy. No sirree. You do realize that political parties can be joined?

Neither is it in a capitalistic country , but the law of nature always deals with those who do not take control of their own lives.

Yeah, perhaps some burning rubble did fell into the front door, causing 18 of the 47 floors to suffer serious damage and fire to break out on dozens. That's one heck of a front door.

Lol, just lol. 2.3 trillion dollars in gold bars! Holy ****!?? Wow!!!! Amazing! It sounded to absurd to be true, so I did some critical thinking.

I tried to find the video, but couldn't. "9/11 coincidences gold" nor "9/11 coincidences 2.3 trillion" didn't give any results on Google video.

I looked up the speech in which Rumsfeld talked about 2.3 trillion missing, and it has absolutely no link to whatever you have been implying!!

I looked up what the largest known stockpile of gold was in the world. It's 14 times smaller than your mysterious stockpile of 2.3 trillion. According to wikipedia, thats 160 billion dollars of gold. 5000 metric tons!! 5.000.000 kilos!! A normal US army truck can carry a load of 5 metric tons. So moving the 160 billion dollars would require a thousand trucks! Moving the fabulous 2.3 trillion dollars would require (you guessed it!) 14.375 trucks with.... gold! Oh, even better! The gold price now is 5 times higher than in 2001. So, according to you almost 72.000 trucks carried the gold out of the cellar beneath WTC4, while the building was evacuated, no witnesses and "only a few trucks with gold were found."

You believe that bombs were needed to destroy the two towers after they were hit by planes, but you had very little trouble in accepting that along with 2.3 trillion dollars in gold bars, 72.000 trucks vanished into thin air during the attacks. Poof.

Seriously, what the ****? This really takes the cake. Good day.

 

Coineineagh was asked

coineinaegh's answer

Dude, there are only 266 million Troy oz.s at the Federal reserve in NY city & 147 million Troy oz.s at Fort Knox. That adds up to less than 350 Billion dollars at full market price.
So there is no way in h#ll there was 2.3 Trillion dollars worth at the WTC.
That would be 2 Billion, 875 Million ounces of gold(over 89,000 TONS !)
Even using a specially designed truck to haul 40 tons at a time it would take over 2,200 trips to move that much gold.
Also considering that the 400 million Troy oz.s at the Fed & Fort knox represent almost 35% of the worlds financial gold reserves, i find it highly unlikely that more than 7 Times that amount at the WTC.

Morgoth beat me to it

 

Hmh, we might have a case of language differences here. In some languages, the words that sound like trillions and billions and whatnot actually mean each other and so on.

 

I hope not In Dutch the word most resembling trillion means Quintillion (10^18)

 

Morgoth, you seem to be forgetting that I started this thread for a critical discussion, not for outrage comments, insults, or other psychological abuse. You seem to find it just as important to put me in my place, as to offer counterarguments. I must confess that I don't enjoy discussing with you, not because you offer valid counterarguments (which you do sometimes), but because of your tone. If my thread enrages you, just stop reading it, dude.

Hey, maybe some documents are missing now, after the Pentagon attack?
I got the vaults mixed up with this story on 911truth, sorry. Feel free to ridicule me again Morgoth, you always do. It's easy to undermine ME because I make mistakes in relaying the story, but let's not get sidetracked. You all know that I'm no expert, and I definitely wasn't there. So let's listen to some people who were there. The janitor, workers, firemen, Larry Silverstein...

So what about these eye witnesses? How do you rationalize their testimony? Were they confused, crazy? Are they making it up? So what is your position on witnesses, are they evidence, or opinion?