My problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory

[mrerisian]

My problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory is with the theorists themselves. They all had prejudices which were merely confirmed by the events of that day.

Firstly let me go for the most well known and widely believed of the lot: The Powers That Were. By this I mean, The Bush Administration and The Blair Government. Given their ties with Israel and the geopolitical situation at the time they were already concerned about Islamic terrorists. the idea of suicide bombers on their streets was a worry. Suddenly their worst fears seemed to come true! In their final analysis this was to them confirmed and off they went on their crusade.

Secondly let me go for David Icke, one of the most well known dissenters. Given where his head was at in 1999-2001 he was already of the opinion that the people at the top of the tree were unquestionably evil: Child torturing blood drinking shape shifting Lizards. He'd already predicted they'd kill without mercy. Suddenly his worst fears seemed to come true! In his final analysis this was to him confirmed and off he went on his crusade.

Thirdly there's Alex Jones. Similar to Icke but with a more orthodox religious leaning. He'd also been saying the evil powers that be were going to attack America at some point. He still says this, I remember a show a few years ago where he was warning that they were going to nuke a major city! However, in 2001, suddenly his worst fears seemed to come true! In his final analysis this was to him confirmed and off he went on his crusade.

I never really bought any of the above's stories as to how it happened. There were flaws and contradictions in all of them. The one that really got me hooked in was Loose Change 2.

Which, it turns out, is full of lies, half truths and errors. Oh.

So, here's where I'm at with 9/11. I don't know what happened but I don't really trust those whose prejudices are being confirmed.

Furthermore in the debate I think people sometimes miss the point: Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth.

[tusme]

My problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory is with the theorists themselves. They all had prejudices which were merely confirmed by the events of that day.

Firstly let me go for the most well known and widely believed of the lot: The Powers That Were. By this I mean, The Bush Administration and The Blair Government. Given their ties with Israel and the geopolitical situation at the time they were already concerned about Islamic terrorists. the idea of suicide bombers on their streets was a worry. Suddenly their worst fears seemed to come true! In their final analysis this was to them confirmed and off they went on their crusade.

Secondly let me go for David Icke, one of the most well known dissenters. Given where his head was at in 1999-2001 he was already of the opinion that the people at the top of the tree were unquestionably evil: Child torturing blood drinking shape shifting Lizards. He'd already predicted they'd kill without mercy. Suddenly his worst fears seemed to come true! In his final analysis this was to him confirmed and off he went on his crusade.

Thirdly there's Alex Jones. Similar to Icke but with a more orthodox religious leaning. He'd also been saying the evil powers that be were going to attack America at some point. He still says this, I remember a show a few years ago where he was warning that they were going to nuke a major city! However, in 2001, suddenly his worst fears seemed to come true! In his final analysis this was to him confirmed and off he went on his crusade.

I never really bought any of the above's stories as to how it happened. There were flaws and contradictions in all of them. The one that really got me hooked in was Loose Change 2.

Which, it turns out, is full of lies, half truths and errors. Oh.

So, here's where I'm at with 9/11. I don't know what happened but I don't really trust those whose prejudices are being confirmed.

Furthermore in the debate I think people sometimes miss the point: Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth.
Well, Mrerisian, 911 was a "conspiracy theory" even before it happened...by those, whom had the desire and capability to do so...

[kappy0405]

Furthermore in the debate I think people sometimes miss the point: Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth.

you make good points... but ask yourself this: Who is more capable of pulling it off? members of the government? or solely Al-Qaeda? or perhaps a combination of both?

There's almost no chance that all 4 planes successfully crash and burn without some help from people within the government. I still have questions and doubts as to details of the conspiracy that many claim, but Occams Razor says there was at least some complicity within the government. That doesn't mean there was, but it is the most probable scenario.

[mrerisian]

Well, Mrerisian, 911 was a "conspiracy theory" even before it happened...by those, whom had the desire and capability to do so...

. . . And your point is?

[tusme]

. . . And your point is?
...hopefully, find the answers to your "problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory"... ;) :)

[the cosmos]

you make good points... but ask yourself this: Who is more capable of pulling it off? members of the government? or solely Al-Qaeda? or perhaps a combination of both?


Really good questions, those! :)

[tb303]

you make good points... but ask yourself this: Who is more capable of pulling it off? members of the government? or solely Al-Qaeda? or perhaps a combination of both?



Considering that Al-CIA-duh is a mythical organisation invented by the CIA and that Tim Osman, er I mean Osama Bin Laden was a CIA asset and that the CIA funded the Mujahadeen which morphed into the Taliban which the USA was still handing money to in 2001, I reckon the question as to who pulled it off is a no-brainer.

[bendoon]

My problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory is with the theorists themselves. .

Your logic is in error then.

The theorists themselves have no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the official version. The official version is either true or not whatever anyone else thinks and just because you may have a dislike for some of the people who do not agree with the Government does not mean the Government is telling the truth.

Its a bit more complicated than that unfortunately.

[tb303]

My problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory is with the theorists themselves.

Are you a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?


So, here's where I'm at with 9/11. I don't know what happened but I don't really trust those whose prejudices are being confirmed.


So whose come up with a 9/11 theory that isn't confirming their prejudices?


Furthermore in the debate I think people sometimes miss the point: Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth.

And neither is state sponsored terrorism, false flag attacks or intelligence agencies creating and funding terrorist organisations.

But why stick that in at the end, since you pointed out at the beginning that the pushers of the offical story of 9/11 are also conspiracy theorists?

[bsmurph83]

My problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory is with the theorists themselves. They all had prejudices which were merely confirmed by the events of that day.

prejudices that were well founded on research into suppressed information, i.e., these guys all realise that TPTB (or at least the rogue elements within) had the motivation to orchestrate these attacks.

on the other hand, the prejudices AGAINST such 'theorists' are predominantly inculcated by playing on preexisting subconscious programming that renders the armchair observer emotionally incapable of dealing with a different point of view. Thus, they do no research, and then, when 'conspiracy theorists' point out all the obvious flaws in the official fable, said armchair types have THEIR prejudices 'confirmed', in that they expected all along that those 'paranoid delusional' types would 'theorize' about actual events that might have unfolded. Of course, the armchair types do no real rearch and can dismiss the 'conpiracists' out of hand, because they 'knew all along' that people would decry the official version as a fraud, though without ever truly understanding why this happens so consistently - it's because the PTB LIE so consistently.

Firstly let me go for the most well known and widely believed of the lot: The Powers That Were. By this I mean, The Bush Administration and The Blair Government. Given their ties with Israel and the geopolitical situation at the time they were already concerned about Islamic terrorists. the idea of suicide bombers on their streets was a worry. Suddenly their worst fears seemed to come true! In their final analysis this was to them confirmed and off they went on their crusade.

if they were/are so concerned about 'terrorists', why do they continue to fund them and perpetuate them? their concern is merely that people don't make the connections and realise who is creating and utilising these terror networks covertly. the concern of these 'rogue elements' is that their proxies and patsies remain on the loose, as they are valuable assets, but they forgot to mention that in the official analysis, not to mention the rest of such details...

Secondly let me go for David Icke, one of the most well known dissenters. Given where his head was at in 1999-2001 he was already of the opinion that the people at the top of the tree were unquestionably evil: Child torturing blood drinking shape shifting Lizards. He'd already predicted they'd kill without mercy. Suddenly his worst fears seemed to come true! In his final analysis this was to him confirmed and off he went on his crusade.

You don't need blood drinking reptilians in your analysis to see that the official myth is a load of shite. Everyone merely worked the fraud into their own outlook, but one thing is unchanging amongst the most independent-minded researchers: 9-11 is a fraud, and CANNOT happen as depicted without major help from on US soil - period.

[...]

I never really bought any of the above's stories as to how it happened. There were flaws and contradictions in all of them. The one that really got me hooked in was Loose Change 2.

Which, it turns out, is full of lies, half truths and errors. Oh.

Analysis shows it is not half as packed with BS as the official story, and something that draws attention to how ludicrous the official story is, is still better than no dissent at all.

So, here's where I'm at with 9/11. I don't know what happened but I don't really trust those whose prejudices are being confirmed.

I just hope you aren't stupid enough to trust those peddling the official version, who are still desperate to maintain the notion that only "tin foil hat nutters" could possibly be so outrageous as to question their ridiculous little fable that can only survive in the minds of the most poltically ignorant...

Furthermore in the debate I think people sometimes miss the point: Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth.

Far from being "the point", it is, at worst, completely irrelevant. "The point" is that violent Islam does not have the capabilities for such an attack, no matter how many 'caves' in Afghanistan they have hollowed out for themselves. You wanna render the most highly defended airspace in the world so completely vulnerable, then you need a LOT of assistance from certain key places. This has been explained over and over... Never mind the REST of the ridiculous elements of the story.

At the end of your post, I gather that you are basically just realising that we need to consult more than just one source/researcher in determining what happened on 9-11, rather than putting all our eggs in one basket, but this is just common sense and applies in any research endeavour. Doubt is a good thing after all...

The REAL conspiracy theory is the official version of events.

[secondsun]

Furthermore in the debate I think people sometimes miss the point: Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth.

...can you prove that?

[george tatum]

...can you prove that?

Is this helpful? -

http://www.silkroadstudies.org/new/docs/Silkroadpapers/0607Islam.pdf

I have no particular opinion, but Islamic Radicals definitely exist as do several other curious ideological groups. Most of these groups play a part in killing people at some point in history. Before I get accused of something or other, I should point out that the same could be said about Christian fundamentalists. Almost all religious fanatics eventually kill someone at some point, either by action or leadership.

[camreeno]

I have a problem with how correct the 9/11 conspiracy theory is. It's just too correct that it scares me. That's my problem with it.

[mrerisian]

...hopefully, find the answers to your "problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory"... ;) :)

That's a pretty Zen answer there dude. Don't have a clue what you're on about.

Really good questions, those! :)

Does that mean you're considering saying yes to Al Qaeda did it on their own?

the question as to who pulled it off is a no-brainer.

Exactly my problem with these theories. Anyone who appeals to you on those terms implies a lack of faith in the substance of their argument. What you're saying is that if I don't agree I'm thick.

Maybe so. But I'm not afraid of someone thinking I'm not their version of clever.

Your logic is in error then.

The theorists themselves have no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the official version. [...]
Its a bit more complicated than that unfortunately.

You're wrong there. Most decent 9/11 conspiracy theories involve facts which I am not able to independently verify. I can't go to the scene and check the thermite balls or watch the radar flight paths etc. I'm not a skilled demolition expert and I don't understand how buildings collapse etc.

This means you end up relying upon the theorist in question for the information. It's all very well for them to say 'do your own research' but in reality that's not practical.

I can't check if bombdogs were or were not removed from the towers. I don't know if mobile phones work on planes. Etc etc etc.

With this being the case the credibility of the theorist (or more accurately 'researcher') is central to the thesis.

It amazes me the number of people who'll go "oh yeh I've been researching this shit independently for years" only for this 'research' to be revealed as sitting on the net in your dressing gown smoking a dooby.

Research involves going to the scene - interviewing witnesses - talking to experts. Not asking your 'intuition' and looking on wikipedia after watching a few numbnut youtube vids.

(Point of clarity - I'm not saying you do all of the above, I'm just making a wider point)

Are you a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

No I don't think I am. I've yet to hear a convincing explanation and lack the resources to independently investigate it.


So whose come up with a 9/11 theory that isn't confirming their prejudices?

In my opinion, none of the above.


And neither is state sponsored terrorism, false flag attacks or intelligence agencies creating and funding terrorist organisations.


Good point. I think I just feel it's a significant part of the alternative view which frequently annoys me so I wanted to put it in there. That said, you're absolutely right.

prejudices that were well founded

Is this also true in the case of TPTB's prejudices against Islamic Terrorists?

the PTB LIE so consistently.

I'm not sure I agree, TPTB do lie but not 'consistently'.



if they were/are so concerned about 'terrorists', why do they continue to fund them and perpetuate them?

In order to control them. The question really is, does that tactic work?

one thing is unchanging amongst the most independent-minded researchers: 9-11 is a fraud,

Well, they're not independent minded are they? They're part of a collective who agree that the official version is a fraud.

I just hope you aren't stupid enough to trust those peddling the official version,

I'm 100% not afraid of being called stupid. You weaken your standing in my eyes chucking that word around like a bullying teacher. As I've made plain, I don't trust the official version. Please deal with the debate in hand and don't try to put me in a box. Pretend I'm a real person like you eh?

RE Violent radical Islam...

...can you prove that?

Yes. I've spoken to people who are way down that rabbit hole. One of them is an old school friend.

The reason I mention it is because most conspiracy theory comes from a religious perspective. It's only natural that people who are embedded in that world view would want to ignore the fact that it can be so dangerous.

[bendoon]

You're wrong there. Most decent 9/11 conspiracy theories involve facts which I am not able to independently verify. I can't go to the scene and check the thermite balls or watch the radar flight paths etc. I'm not a skilled demolition expert and I don't understand how buildings collapse etc..

Can you go to the scene and check the Governments theory ?

No, fail again.

[mrerisian]

Can you go to the scene and check the Governments theory ?

No, fail again.

What are you talking about?

This is exactly the sort of moronic binary thinking that pulls this forum down. I'm not one of your goodies or baddies mate.

I'm not supporting the Government's theory.

Learn to read and try again eh?

[bendoon]

What are you talking about?

This is exactly the sort of moronic binary thinking that pulls this forum down. I'm not one of your goodies or baddies mate.

I'm not supporting the Government's theory.

Learn to read and try again eh?

You are rubbishing people that speak out against the Government.

People like you are all over the net, 10 a penny.

You might fool some people but not me. :rolleyes:

[kappy0405]

Originally Posted by the cosmos: "View Post
Really good questions, those!"

Does that mean you're considering saying yes to Al Qaeda did it on their own?

If he's agreeing with those questions, and the motive for the questions.. I think he means that if you determine which party is most capable of carrying it out, it becomes somewhat sensible to at least investigate the 911=inside job theory without immediately dismissing it.

If you look at all the possible theories, the inside job one is the most probable.

[mrerisian]

You are rubbishing people that speak out against the Government.

People like you are all over the net, 10 a penny.

You might fool some people but not me. :rolleyes:

Precisely what I'm talking about, you've got a with us or against us mentality. Just like George Bush. I hope for your own sanity that is where the similarities end.

Hail Eris!

[mrerisian]

If he's agreeing with those questions, and the motive for the questions..


Then he should be open to the possibility that this one can be answered with a 'yes': "solely Al-Qaeda?"

Unless he's just being rhetorical and making a statement as opposed to posing a question.


it becomes somewhat sensible to at least investigate the 911=inside job theory without immediately dismissing it.

Yes.


If you look at all the possible theories, the inside job one is the most probable.

I'm not doing a poll here. I'm explaining my problems with the existing conspiracy theories. Just asserting your beliefs isn't quite what I'm after. I've had my fill of people just making assertions and then calling me thick or a shill if I don't blindly agree with them.

[mrerisian]

This thread has collapsed into bickering.

So it is with every internet discussion on 9/11.

I think this is because the conspiracy theorists know their foundations are shaky hence aggressive tit for tat is the norm. If you have faith in your point of view you're not worried when someone challenges it. The truth does not require you to believe in it.

I know there's a sun in the sky. Someone who challenges my belief in that reality ain't going to be on the end of anger and insults. Hit a belief I'm insecure about and from there the anger will come.

Furthermore my identity and self worth isn't wrapped up in my belief in the sun. Can that be said of 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Imagine the turnaround if TPTB's conspiracy theory were conclusively proved to be a fraud in the minds of everyone in the world. Their identity would change forever.

This is why people often get personal, as happened a few posts back.

[george tatum]

I think this is because the conspiracy theorists know their foundations are shaky hence aggressive tit for tat is the norm. If you have faith in your point of view you're not worried when someone challenges it. The truth does not require you to believe in it.

I know there's a sun in the sky. Someone who challenges my belief in that reality ain't going to be on the end of anger and insults. Hit a belief I'm insecure about and from there the anger will come.

Furthermore my identity and self worth isn't wrapped up in my belief in the sun. Can that be said of 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Imagine the turnaround if TPTB's conspiracy theory were conclusively proved to be a fraud in the minds of everyone in the world. Their identity would change forever.

This is why people often get personal, as happened a few posts back.

I agree. So much so that I deleted my original post.

You have made some very good points about the way that this subject is handled in discussions. The assumption that anyone who does not agree with one's own ideas is automatically an idiot is questionable. Additionally how does calling someone an idiot win them to your side of the argument? It's just not very polite or constructive.

I also agree that research involves a lot more work than merely reading articles on the internet or looking through books. You are right to suggest that an active interest in the subject would mean hands-on experience and going out to the places and people of interest. After all, a good researcher would effectively be able to write and gain publishing for their own books, rather than following the works of others. That is what seperates a recognised professional researcher from a hobbyist.

[mrerisian]

I agree. So much so that I deleted my original post.

You have made some very good points

No worries man, glad I'm starting to make an impact on people.

[bendoon]

I think this is because the conspiracy theorists .

You follow precisely the debunkers text book.

You call people who do not believe every utterance from the Government a conspiracy theorist.

If you want to debunk "conspiracy theorists" you have to do better than that, like actually prove the Government theories.

Epic fail again.

[mrerisian]

You follow precisely the debunkers text book.

You call people who do not believe every utterance from the Government a conspiracy theorist.

If you want to debunk "conspiracy theorists" you have to do better than that, like actually prove the Government theories.

Seriously dude, what are you on about? I don't believe the Government's theories, why do you want me to prove them to you?

I know it's a big ask but maybe you should ACTUALLY READ the thread before wiping a load of your 'wise words' on it.

[tb303]

I'm explaining my problems with the existing conspiracy theories.

But you're not, you're explaining your problems with 9/11 theorists.


I think this is because the conspiracy theorists know their foundations are shaky hence aggressive tit for tat is the norm.

Which conspiracy theorists? In your opening salvo you correctly included those that believe the 'official' version to also be conspiracy theorists.

Now I know that a discussion about conspiracy theorists and their motives and behaviour is all highly cerebral, innit, but wouldn't your time be better served attempting to come to your own conclusions about what happened on 9/11, because you obviously give a damn.

So instead, do you have any particular problems with the various explanations of what happened on 9/11?

[mrerisian]

But you're not, you're explaining your problems with 9/11 theorists.

That's a valid point. One of the reasons for this is I find it hard to get what Alex Jones / David Icke / et al's position is exactly. It seems to change over time.

Same goes for Loose Change. How many different versions have we seen of that now?

This is also true for the 'official' version.

The 'theory' often just sort of boils down to someone getting annoyed and saying, 'it's obvious you moron'.

Maybe someone should post up a clear version of events to be analyzed?


Which conspiracy theorists?

All of them.

[george tatum]

But you're not, you're explaining your problems with 9/11 theorists.

Which conspiracy theorists? In your opening salvo you correctly included those that believe the 'official' version to also be conspiracy theorists.

Now I know that a discussion about conspiracy theorists and their motives and behaviour is all highly cerebral, innit, but wouldn't your time be better served attempting to come to your own conclusions about what happened on 9/11, because you obviously give a damn.

So instead, do you have any particular problems with the various explanations of what happened on 9/11?

I will freely admit I have no conclusions about 9/11. I know some things about 9/11, but I will not state I know everything about it unless I can categorically satisfy myself in that I have investigated to the fullest and most far reaching ends of the subject.

I haven't yet done that.

Additionally I doubt a lot of people who debate it online have either. Most 'research' and 'evidence' is regurgitated material from other researchers. I am seeing that now and it's a revelation in the debate.

To use a metaphor, the truther movement is like a religion with the documentary makers, website owners, public speakers and independent authors as clergymen. No-one is talking directly to god and they still need to go to church everyday for guidance. They trust these independent sources implicitly without question. There are a host of religious groups who believe they are followers of 'the one truth'. The truth has not been determined yet. Hence - arguments and debates.

I will not last in this debate. In order for me to continue I need to speak to the people involved in person. I need to visit the places where it took place. I need to do intensive educational courses in architecture. I need to learn properly - not in passing. This is something that cannot be done from home and requires active participation. I see that now. The research I have conducted until this moment has been amateurish point-and-click nonsense at best.

[triforcharity]

I was there. Feel free to ask away. I was a firefighter with FDNY that had gotten off that day. Only to return back as soon as the first plane hit.

[bendoon]

I was there. Feel free to ask away. I was a firefighter with FDNY that had gotten off that day. Only to return back as soon as the first plane hit.

Were the firefighters who said they heard explosions lying ?

[george tatum]

I was there. Feel free to ask away. I was a firefighter with FDNY that had gotten off that day. Only to return back as soon as the first plane hit.

In the context of this online discussion the obvious issue is what you think and what you observed. You were there.

I have seen witnesses enter the debate before and most of them are treated harshly, largely because most did not believe it was an inside job. Personally I have no opinion, but I can't speak for others on this site.

If your views contrast with the truth movement, be aware that arguments and insults will inevitably gush forth, but for my own part, any eye witness testimony is useful in the debate.

[tb303]

I will not last in this debate.

Thus far it's been a debate about conspiracy theorists.


In order for me to continue I need to speak to the people involved in person. I need to visit the places where it took place. I need to do intensive educational courses in architecture. I need to learn properly - not in passing. This is something that cannot be done from home and requires active participation. I see that now. The research I have conducted until this moment has been amateurish point-and-click nonsense at best.

Well good luck to you and you're fortunate to have the time and the resources to do this. But in the meantime, you have a gut feeling about 9/11 and I would imagine a fair amount of knowledge already. I had a gut feeling when I turned the TV on and saw the second tower collapse - INSIDE JOB.

[secondsun]

RE Violent radical Islam...

Yes. I've spoken to people who are way down that rabbit hole. One of them is an old school friend.



...i speak to lots of people too!... and it proves nothing!... the chat i had with a guy that meets with the Prince of Liechtenstein a few weeks back was very enlightening!... but if i shared it here it would prove nothing!

...you might call them "Radical fascistic violent Islam"... i prefer the freedom fighter tag... and i wish em` luck!... no Radical fascistic violent Islamic individual had anything to do with the attacks of 9-11 or 7-7!

...do you think the World has more to fear from "Radical fascistic violent Islam" or some Radical Psychopathic Ruling Elite... which by the way... created the "Radical fascistic violent Islam" in the first place!?!

[kappy0405]

Were the firefighters who said they heard explosions lying ?

+1

[secondsun]

...was having a chat with a New Yorker the other night... he was i guess about 25/26 years old... so a teenager at the time, not that that makes any difference to anything,... he was in his apartment that morning.... the windows of his kitchen were blown out!... he said he lived 12 blocks away!... if true,and absolutely no reason to doubt him.... the blast from the plane impacts would not have done that!

[tabea_blumenschein]

Were the firefighters who said they heard explosions lying ?


Of course they weren't lying.

But the more important question to ask is:

Were the firefighters who said they heard explosions describing the detonation of explosive devices, or other things?

I know I've posted the following in my comments before, but I believe it bears repeating. Read through this list of descriptions and ask yourself exactly what is being described:

Following are 16 WTC first responder descriptions of explosive noises well before the towers collapsed:

"Sounded like bombs" –Keith Murphy
"A huge explosion" –Gerard Gorman
"Sound of popping and exploding" –Alwish Monchery
"Explosions" –William Burns
"Kept hearing these large boom, boom" –Rosario Terranova
"Sounded like explosions." –Anthony Fitzgerald
"Like a shotgun going off" –Mark Meier
"Sounded like explosions" –Wilfred Barriere
"Sounded like bombs, like blockbusters" –John Murray
"You could hear explosions" –Richard Smiouskas
"Sounded like an M-80, that's how loud they were" –Tim Pearson
"Sounds like a shotgun" –Eric Ronningen
"Sounded like an explosion" –John Morabito
"There were lots of explosions" –Jeff Birnbaum
"Under the assumption that the sounds were secondary bombs." –Andrew Rodriguez
"Sounded like bombs. Like a bomb going off. I mean, it was huge." –FDNY Deputy Chief Peter Hayden


These are all phrases the first responders used to describe the sound of the bodies of jumpers hitting the ground. The list of phrases was gleaned from eyewitness testimony by Mark Roberts specifically to make the point that the word "explosion" should not be taken to mean "explosives going off".

There are many other things the firefighters and other first responders described as explosions as well. I've enumerated some of them before, I'll go through them again:

Some firefighters/first responders heard (but didn't see) one of the plane impacts.
Some heard (but didn't see) one of the tower collapses.
Possible localized collapses inside a twin tower, or one of the other burning buildings nearby.
Tires/gas tanks of burning cars exploding.
Firefighter oxygen cylinders exploding.
Transformer explosions/electrical shorts.
Jet fuel deflagrations.
Debris falling from damaged buildings.
Falling elevators (if a body hitting the street is described as "like a bomb going off" by Mr. Hayden and others, imagine what an elevator hitting the base of the shaft at high speed must sound like.)
Police fired shots into the air several times for crowd control purposes, or to shoot out a window before taking cover.

That's off the top of my head. There are doubtless some other possibilities as well.

If the "truth movement" were really interested in "putting the pieces together" as regards the firefighter eyewitness testimony, they would attempt to answer a number of questions. Among them are the following:

1. When was the explosion heard, and where was the firefighter at the time?

2. Are accounts from different firefighters describing the same event, or separate events?

3. Does the context of the firefighter's recorded testimony explain what the source of the explosion was? It often does, but truthers are very good at "lying by ommision" -- i.e. editing that context out to make the firefighter testimony look "incriminating".

4. Did the firefighter describe other events that would support the "explosion was produced by explosives" hypothesis? In other words, things like flying shrapnel or the massive breaking of windows.

5. Is it possible to systematically rule out the possibilities enumerated above as possible sources of the explosion? To quote Carl Sagan:

Spin more than one hypothesis. If there's something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each of the alternatives. What survives, the hypothesis that resists disproof in this Darwinian selection among "multiple working hypotheses," has a much better chance of being the right answer than if you had simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.*

(* There is a footnote to this paragraph that's also worth including:

This is a problem that affects jury trials. Retrospective studies show that some jurors make up their minds very early - perhaps during opening arguments - and then retain the evidence that seems to support their initial impressions and reject the contrary evidence. The method of alternative working hypotheses is not running in their heads.)

6. Finally, is it possible to contact the firefighters whose testimony is in question, and ask them directly whether they believe that what they heard that day was the detonation of high explosives, or something else?

If New York's Bravest honestly thought that the event that killed 343 of their brothers was an "inside job", why aren't they saying anything?

If you think the answer is "they fear for the safety of their families", try telling that to:

– The Higgins family: Retired FDNY Captain Ed, FDNY firefighter brothers Joe, Mike, and Bob, and NYPD Sergeant Mike, whose son and brother Timothy died on 9/11.

– Lee Ielpi, one of the most decorated firefighters in FDNY history and his son, firefighter Brendan, whose son and brother Jonathan died on 9/11.

– Captain John Vigiano, whose firefighter sons John and Joseph died on 9/11.

– Jimmy Boyle, retired FDNY union president, whose firefighter son Michael died on 9/11.

– Chief Jim Riches, whose son James died on 9/11.

– Chief Eddie Schoales, whose son Thomas died on 9/11.

– Captain Bill Butler, whose son Jonathan died on 9/11.

– Battalion Chief Joe Pfeifer, whose brother Kevin died on 9/11.

– Lieutentant Tommy Brunton, whose brother Vincent died on 9/11.

– Lieutenant Dennis O'Berg, whose son Dennis died on 9/11.

– Lieutenant Paul Geidel, whose son Gary died on 9/11.

– Fire Patrolman Mike Angelini, whose firefighter brother Joseph and nephew Joseph Jr died on 9/11.

– The Harrell family, whose firefighter brothers Stephen and Harvey died on 9/11.

– The Haskell family, whose firefighter brothers Thomas and Timothy died on 9/11.

– The Langone family, whose firefighter brothers Peter and Thomas died on 9/11.

[tabea_blumenschein]

...was having a chat with a New Yorker the other night... he was i guess about 25/26 years old... so a teenager at the time, not that that makes any difference to anything,... he was in his apartment that morning.... the windows of his kitchen were blown out!... he said he lived 12 blocks away!... if true,and absolutely no reason to doubt him.... the blast from the plane impacts would not have done that!

If you're implying the windows were broken by detonating explosives, that doesn't pass the smell test for me. What's one block, two or three hundred feet? Twelve blocks would put the building half a mile away, maybe more. You'd have to detonate a pretty huge amount of TNT in open air to blow out windows a half a mile away, and that would also burst the eardrums (at least) of many of the thousands of people who would have been in the vicinity in the meantime. Since the alleged explosives were supposedly located inside the buildings rather than in open air, the hypothesis becomes even less plausible.

When the plane hit, some of the debris that came out the other side went a hell of a long way. I wonder if some of that debris isn't what broke your friend's windows.

That's just speculation based on hearsay, though. I don't think we can learn much from your account of the conversation as given.

[george tatum]

Thus far it's been a debate about conspiracy theorists.

Well good luck to you and you're fortunate to have the time and the resources to do this. But in the meantime, you have a gut feeling about 9/11 and I would imagine a fair amount of knowledge already. I had a gut feeling when I turned the TV on and saw the second tower collapse - INSIDE JOB.

That's interesting because I had a gut feeling of 'That's really, REALLY bad. I can't even begin to imagine what those people are going through'.

[goldenbear]

i know its a stupid question to ask but wasnt charlie sheen there when the towers went down. that is why he is asking for an independent inquiry into 9/11.

i know i wasnt but even on the news you could hear explosions.not unlike bombs going off.and the free fall building crash.my dad used to work on demolition and even he said a building wouldnt go down like that unless it was a controlled explosion.

we need to have an independant inquiry.people are not satisfied that it was just planes bringing down buildings.there are too many unanswered questions.this is why the people on here are having debates.

it needs people like us to wake the sheep and ask for it.nevermind quarreling amongst ourselves.isnt that the whole idea of divide and conquer so we keep arguing and nothing ever gets done.you get the gist.same goes for 7/7 we need to do something.

[mrerisian]

...you might call them "Radical fascistic violent Islam"... i prefer the freedom fighter tag...

Great. Sorry dude but you're living in cloud cuckoo land. Islam and freedom are unhappy bedfellows. Lets focus on the debate eh?

...was having a chat with a New Yorker the other night... [...] he was in his apartment that morning.... the windows of his kitchen were blown out!... he said he lived 12 blocks away!... if true,and absolutely no reason to doubt him.... the blast from the plane impacts would not have done that!

What? This is exactly the sort of nonsense I'm talking about. Why would a two of the biggest buildings in the world falling down with all the debris etc not knock your windows out? Furthermore how does that 'prove' they fell down due to explosives / beam weaponry whatever?

Now, for the lurkers following this debate, I've been criticised for focusing in on the theorists themselves but look at the formula here. It's one you'll see repeated often. Bias towards Radical Islamists (thinks their 'freedom fighters') and so fits his 'evidence' to that world view. Without (I'm guessing) any professional experience of falling buildings and so forth.

Look how comprehensively his argument is destroyed by someone who claims to have that sort of professional experience:

What's one block, two or three hundred feet? Twelve blocks would put the building half a mile away, maybe more. You'd have to detonate a pretty huge amount of TNT in open air to blow out windows a half a mile away, and that would also burst the eardrums (at least) of many of the thousands of people who would have been in the vicinity in the meantime. [...]
When the plane hit, some of the debris that came out the other side went a hell of a long way. I wonder if some of that debris isn't what broke your friend's windows.


We live in a world where logic and evidence are the deciding factors in a debate. You can't just go with blind prejudice and gut instincts. That's mob rule and it gets us nowhere.

I had a gut feeling when I turned the TV on and saw the second tower collapse - INSIDE JOB.

Good for you. I guess what you're telling us is that your gut feeling has never been challenged? Doesn't that worry you? I use my head for thinking and my gut for digesting food. A by product of that is farting. In fact I think that's the last useful thing my gut produced this morning, a big fart. Where does that leave us?

Gut feelings are, in my experience, just that. They can be wrong and they often are. People who rely upon them haven't yet learned to use their brains.

Imagine if we lived in a world where gut instincts were prized as highly as rational thought! If your Doctor told you his gut instinct thinks you've got cancer. 'No evidence for it, just a feeling'.

Stupid.

[mrerisian]

I was there. Feel free to ask away. I was a firefighter with FDNY that had gotten off that day. Only to return back as soon as the first plane hit.

Do you have any way of proving your credentials which does not compromise your identity?


I have seen witnesses enter the debate before and most of them are treated harshly, largely because most did not believe it was an inside job. [...]
If your views contrast with the truth movement, be aware that arguments and insults will inevitably gush forth,

I'm on pretty much the same page as the above post. So before we get under way I'd like to thank you for posting, I'm looking forward to your insights!

Of course they weren't lying.

But the more important question to ask is:

Were the firefighters who said they heard explosions describing the detonation of explosive devices, or other things?


Increasingly where I'm going with this. A big building falling down isn't going to make no noise. If that had been the case it would have been more suspicious than what happened. Remember we're talking here about people who are fitting the evidence to their world view. They hear the word "explosion" and that's it, in their mind "proves it". Not so in mine.

If New York's Bravest honestly thought that the event that killed 343 of their brothers was an "inside job", why aren't they saying anything?


Notice as well that the implication here is that "truthers" are BRAVER than firefighters. A little bit laughable in my opinion.

I want to echo george tatum's point once again here. The way that actual eyewitnesses are treated by 'truthers' has been shameful in many cases. If that happens here it's yet another strike against the alternative view in my eyes.

[tb303]

If New York's Bravest honestly thought that the event that killed 343 of their brothers was an "inside job", why aren't they saying anything?

They are. They may not all be FDNY, but they consider themselves as brothers:

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

"On September 11, 2001 hundreds of our Brothers had the courage to stand up to the actions of Terrorists, and enter those towers to help rescue people and extinguish fires. 343 firefighters and 60 police officers gave their lives standing up for what they believed in… helping others in their time of need. Well, my Brothers and Sisters, it is our turn to show some courage. We must have the courage to confront the horrors of that day, the humility to consider we don’t know the “whole” story, the willingness to educate ourselves, and the responsibility to inform others. We must have the courage to stand up to those who are stopping a true investigation into who murdered more than 3,000 innocent civilians and over 400 of our Brothers.

We must demand answers and accountability for why hundreds of New York Firemen didn’t hear evacuation orders, how 3 towers collapsed so quickly and so explosively, and why thousands of rescue workers and civilians alike were not warned of the extremely dangerous atmosphere that was known to exist.

If you think the media or our government has given us the answers, think again. If you think this can’t happen again, think again. Seven years later most Americans haven’t even heard of Tower 7. Seven years later, most Americans don’t know thousands more of those rescue workers are sick, and many are dying from their exposures at Ground Zero. Seven years later, the FBI still hasn’t listed Osama Bin Laden as “wanted” for the 9/11 attacks. This is incredible–they are the lead investigators, and they don’t have enough evidence to put him on the “most wanted” list for those attacks? So, why do so many Americans believe he was behind it? Why are we at war over it? Do you know what evidence there is? The destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, incomplete answers, and abysmal accountability is disgusting and unacceptable.

We must all look at the evidence with an open mind and make rational unbiased judgments. Remember, you don’t have to be an expert to sit on a jury, and you have the right to be critical of, and demand answers from the “experts”. Take the time to gather facts, and have the courage to ask for more. If you come to the same conclusion as the FBI, and don’t place him on your “most wanted” list, then have the courage to help find those responsible for the deaths of so many of our Brothers and Sisters. We all need to show some courage by demanding answers and justice!!"


If you think the answer is "they fear for the safety of their families", try telling that to...

And what of the following family members of FDNY victims that are saying something:

- Josef Princiotta – Cousin of Firefighter Vincent Princiotta, FDNY, Ladder Company 7, Manhattan, lost in the collapse of the WTC South Tower.

- Sally Regenhard – Mother of Firefighter Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, Ladder Company 131, FDNY, Red Hook, who went missing at the WTC. One of the twelve members of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission. Founder and co-chair of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign.

- Eileen Torres, Marisol Torres, Carmen Zayas – Cousins of Lieutenant Manuel Delvalle, Jr., Engine Co. 5, Manhattan, FDNY.

- Daniel Wallace (1984 - 2007) – Son of Lt. Robert Wallace, Engine 205, Ladder 118, FDNY.

- Linda Cammarata – Mother of Firefighter Michael Cammarata, Ladder Company 11, Manhattan, FDNY.

- Brian Smith – Brother of Firefighter Kevin Smith. Charter member of the FDNY hazardous materials unit. On 9/11 served on the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management.

- Joanne Barbara – Wife of Assistant Chief Gerard Barbara, FDNY.

- Kristen Hall – Daughter of Firefighter Thomas Kuveikis, FDNY, Squad 252.

- Barbara Krukowski-Rastelli – Mother of Firefighter William E. Krukowski, FDNY, Ladder Company 21, Manhattan.

- Adele Welty – Mother of Firefighter Timothy Welty, FDNY, Squad 288, Queens.

- Rosaleen Tallon DaRos – Sister of Firefighter Sean Patrick Tallon, Ladder Company 10, FDNY.

- Mary Palmer-Murphy – Sister of Chief Orio Palmer, Battalion 7, FDNY, Manhattan.

- Agnes McCaffrey – Sister of Chief Orio Palmer, Battalion 7, FDNY, Manhattan.

- Rosemary Cain – Mother of Firefighter George C. Cain, Ladder Company 7, Manhattan, FDNY.

- Nancy, Terry, Meaghan, Connor and Christopher Nee – Sister, brother-in-law and niece and nephews of Firefighter George C. Cain, Ladder Company 7, Manhattan, FDNY.

- Paula Minara – Wife of Firefighter Robert Minara, Ladder 25, FDNY.

- Sally-Ann Asaro – Sister of Firefighter Carl F. Asaro, Ninth Battalion, Manhattan, FDNY.

- Mary McWilliams – Mother of Firefighter Martin McWilliams, Engine Company 22, Upper East Side, FDNY.

- Michelle Little – Sister of Firefighter David M. Weiss, FDNY, Rescue Company 1, Midtown Manhattan. Co-founder Unite in Peace

- Barbara Scaramuzzino – Mother of Firefighter Nicholas Rossomando, Rescue Company 5, FDNY.

- Vincent and Domenica Ragusa – Parents of Firefighter Michael Paul Ragusa, assigned to Engine Company 250, but on 9/11 working with Engine Company 279, FDNY.

- Beth Feehan – Daughter-in-law of William M. Feehan, First Deputy Fire Commissioner, FDNY.



If you're implying the windows were broken by detonating explosives, that doesn't pass the smell test for me. What's one block, two or three hundred feet? Twelve blocks would put the building half a mile away, maybe more. You'd have to detonate a pretty huge amount of TNT in open air to blow out windows a half a mile away, and that would also burst the eardrums (at least) of many of the thousands of people who would have been in the vicinity in the meantime. Since the alleged explosives were supposedly located inside the buildings rather than in open air, the hypothesis becomes even less plausible.


Are you familiar with the blast wave characteristics of micro-nuclear devices?

[mrerisian]

we need to have an independant inquiry.people are not satisfied that it was just planes bringing down buildings.there are too many unanswered questions.this is why the people on here are having debates.

I think you're wrong. I like the idea of an independent inquiry but I don't think it would help, people would continue to contest it. As I've tried to make clear, over the years I've begun to understand that this debate is not based on evidence it's driven by gut instinct and blind prejudice.

I was hooked in for a bit but the scales dropped from my eyes when I started to consider the theorists themselves. They present information which I cannot check and all of them have been caught exaggerating the truth (some of them have been caught just plain lying) from time to time.

This whole 'gut instinct' thing sums it up perfectly. Often we're not really in the realms of rational discussion.

[tb303]

That's interesting because I had a gut feeling of 'That's really, REALLY bad. I can't even begin to imagine what those people are going through'.

Why is it interesting?

The tower looked like it was coming down in a controlled demolition, the Oklahoma bombing had been proven to be an inside job and Alex Jones had predicted in July 2001 that the government were planning another terrorist attack:

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

[tb303]

Good for you. I guess what you're telling us is that your gut feeling has never been challenged? Doesn't that worry you? I use my head for thinking and my gut for digesting food. A by product of that is farting. In fact I think that's the last useful thing my gut produced this morning, a big fart. Where does that leave us?

Gut feelings are, in my experience, just that. They can be wrong and they often are. People who rely upon them haven't yet learned to use their brains.

Imagine if we lived in a world where gut instincts were prized as highly as rational thought! If your Doctor told you his gut instinct thinks you've got cancer. 'No evidence for it, just a feeling'.

Now is not the time for a discussion on gut feelings or intuiton versus intellect or logic. Suffice to say my initial gut feeling was supported by knowledge of previous false flag operations and predictions of another imminent attack.

That initial gut feeling about 9/11 hasn't been challenged in the slightest by the ridiculous explanations given by the 'official' peddlers of 9/11 truth.


Stupid.

What is stupid?

[mrerisian]

They are. They may not all be FDNY, but

So there's not a consensus. That's pretty clear. I think there are more eyewitnesses who go with the official story than not though, right?


Are you familiar with the blast wave characteristics of micro-nuclear devices?

Are you? Be honest now. Don't claim to be when you're actually not.

[tb303]

So there's not a consensus. That's pretty clear. I think there are more eyewitnesses who go with the official story than not though, right?

I have no idea and the people i listed were not eyewitnesses as far as I know.


Are you? Be honest now. Don't claim to be when you're actually not.

No, I am not at all familiar with micro-nuke blast wave characteristics.

[mrerisian]

Why is it interesting?


I think it's interesting because it shows the difference between a 'truther' and someone who has not made up their mind. Empathy should be your first thought, not conspiracy.

Some of these 'truthers' particularly the ones who hate the Jews or America thought 'aha - an opportunity'. This is also true of some of the politicians and civil servants, 'bury bad news' etc.

But wait, you're contradicting yourself now:

I had a gut feeling when I turned the TV on and saw the second tower collapse - INSIDE JOB.

Now is not the time for a discussion on gut feelings


Why bring up your gut feelings if now is not the time for it?

The above ERROR makes me suspicious of your previous posts. Are you being inconsistent elsewhere? I hope not, I'm reading them in good faith.

[mrerisian]

I have no idea and the people i listed were not eyewitnesses [...and...] I am not at all familiar with micro-nuke blast wave characteristics.


So we're no further along the line than we were before.

Glad you've got that gut instinct though eh? ;)

[tb303]

I think it's interesting because it shows the difference between a 'truther' and someone who has not made up their mind. Empathy should be your first thought, not conspiracy.

Don't talk bollocks.

I was sat at my desk on 9/11 and a friend phones me and tells me what was happening. Unable to access the internet, I switched on a TV in the adjacent room and almost immediately watched the second tower collapse. Why would my initial gut feeling or first thought be specifically one of empathy? Empathy was certainly one of the emotions I felt when I then saw footage of people running away, covered in dust and jumping out of windows.

Your attempt to label 'truthers' as having no empathy is extremely lame and speaks volumes about your real feelings on this whole 9/11 issue.


Some of these 'truthers' particularly the ones who hate the Jews or America thought 'aha - an opportunity'. This is also true of some of the politicians and civil servants, 'bury bad news' etc.


Yeah, so what?


But wait, you're contradicting yourself now:

Why bring up your gut feelings if now is not the time for it?

The above ERROR makes me suspicious of your previous posts. Are you being inconsistent elsewhere? I hope not, I'm reading them in good faith.

No am I not. If you want an indepth discussion on gut feelings and intuition versus intellect and logic and how it relates to conspiracy theory, then start a new thread somewhere.


So we're no further along the line than we were before.

Glad you've got that gut instinct though eh?

Where did I say that I rely purely on gut instinct?

And with reference to the characteristics of micro-nuke explosions, information is hard to come by, highly classified and real world case studies and examples extremely thin on the ground. Check out the page below and wonder why even the 'truth movement' or alternative media won't touch the theory, Rense being an exception:

http://www.rense.com/general76/wtc.htm

However, towers collapsing at close to free fall speeds into their own footprints, NORAD standing down, the PNAC agenda, inconsistent crash anomalies and a plethora of other issues surrounding 9/11 leaves one not having to rely soley on gut instinct.

[mrerisian]

Don't talk bollocks.

Pot, I'd like you to meet Mr Kettle.


Why would my initial gut feeling or first thought be specifically one of empathy?

I can't help you there buddy. Empathy was my first instinct. Same goes for most the people I know and some of the posters here and, I'll bet, a lot of those reading.


Your attempt to label 'truthers' as having no empathy is extremely lame and speaks volumes about your real feelings on this whole 9/11 issue.


So you're accusing me of lying now? Or hiding my 'real feelings'. Didn't take long for this debate to descend again did it? Furthermore you're twisting what I said. I don't think ALL 'truthers' acted like that. Some of them, in my experience, are like me in that they didn't know who to blame at first. Then they watched Loose Change 2 (full of inaccuracies) and we're sold on the alternative point of view.

My current perspective is as I say, I don't know the truth here.

Now, lets get down to this lying accusation. I'm a big believer in the idea that a critic reveals himself in his criticism. Point one finger and three point back at you. Judge not lest ye be judged. He who has not sinned etc...

You did contradict yourself. When I put this to you, with evidence, your response was telling:


No am I not.

Dude, that's not exactly the most convincing of arguments. Here are your two contradictory statements:

I had a gut feeling when I turned the TV on and saw the second tower collapse - INSIDE JOB.

Now is not the time for a discussion on gut feelings


They're quoted in order of posting.

One of them is a discussion of your gut feelings.

The other is denouncing discussion of anyone's gut feelings because 'now is not the time'.


The fact you can somehow ignore the reality that these two statements contradict because it doesn't fit in with your world view tells us an awful lot about your character. This undercuts your reliability as a commentator on something like 9/11. How many other awkward facts have you ignored while doing your 'research' into that 'gut feeling'?

Is it ignorance or is it just a barefaced lie?

Lets leave your micro nuke explosions to one side for the moment as you've already explained it's not something you know anything about.

As for the remaining stuff - none of that paints a clear picture. It's all suspicious but not beyond reasonable doubt. Hence this string that I've created. I have problems with all the versions of events I've heard.

[tb303]

I can't help you there buddy. Empathy was my first instinct. Same goes for most the people I know and some of the posters here and, I'll bet, a lot of those reading.

I don't need your help. If I turn on a TV and see one of the tallest structures in the world collapsing live on air and empathy isn't my first reaction, then I guess I'm just a heartless bastard and I'm in awe of your ability to focus on what really matters :rolleyes:


So you're accusing me of lying now? Or hiding my 'real feelings'. Didn't take long for this debate to descend again did it? Furthermore you're twisting what I said. I don't think ALL 'truthers' acted like that.

Where have I said you were lying?

Let me remind you of what you said:


I think it's interesting because it shows the difference between a 'truther' and someone who has not made up their mind. Empathy should be your first thought, not conspiracy.

So why didn't you make it clear that you don't think that all 'truther's' act like that, huh?

Tell me, do you go on forums like JREF and raise these hypothetical questions. If not, why not?


Some of them, in my experience, are like me in that they didn't know who to blame at first. Then they watched Loose Change 2 (full of inaccuracies) and we're sold on the alternative point of view.

My current perspective is as I say, I don't know the truth here.


So, you were a 'truther' and now you're not?

I'll tell you what your real feelings are - you're confused, the world doesn't make sense anymore and 9/11 helped to wake you up to this, but you can't get your head around this all pervasive conspiracy that seems to encompass everything. You're in the denial phase, get over it.

Now as far as pussyfooting around discussing the psychology of myself and conspiracy theorists, I'm done. If you want to talk about the events of 9/11, I'm all yours.

[broadperspective]

When you search the 9/11 trajedy enough to come up with an intelligent and realistic assessment, you don't need any so called conspiracy theorists, etc., to confidently proclaim that 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition and the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, possibly a missile instead...

From that understanding, then you automatically know something is crooked within the establishment for not wanting to confront the real scenario...

The research then needs to further continue in order to precisely identify the truth !

There are at least 2 things we can be sure of : Controlled demolition and Pentagon hit by something other than a commercial plane. Therefore we know there's a cover up and automatically a conspiracy...

[mrerisian]

Where have I said you were lying?


Don't talk bollocks.

...and then...


Your attempt to label 'truthers' as having no empathy is extremely lame and speaks volumes about your real feelings on this whole 9/11 issue.


You're implication is that my 'real feelings' are hidden. Furthermore, telling someone they're talking bollocks is hardly a sign that you trust their word.

More importantly I love how you duck the fact you've contradicted yourself. Good work! Like I said, it's a significant error. Made more so by your lack of humility when it was pointed out.

Now, onto the next bit of key information you've ignored as you try to piece together the argument that I'm saying ALL 'truthers' lack empathy:


Let me remind you of what you said:


I think it's interesting because it shows the difference between a 'truther' and someone who has not made up their mind. Empathy should be your first thought, not conspiracy.


What I've done here is highlighted the two key words you should be looking at but appear to be ignoring. Are you ignoring this evidence on purpose?

I'll help you out a bit. The use of the signifier 'a' here refers to a single person. It's 'a' singular. One 'truther'. Then of course the word 'truther' here is again singular as opposed to plural. It's not 'truthers' it's 'truther'. This is how words work. They mean specific things. They don't mean what your 'gut feelings' want them to mean.

Your omission of the next line is also interesting.

The fuller quote is...

I think it's interesting because it shows the difference between a 'truther' and someone who has not made up their mind. Empathy should be your first thought, not conspiracy.

Some of these 'truthers'


Hopefully that's nice and clear for you now I've used bold type and explained some of the basics of our language.


Tell me, do you go on forums like JREF and raise these hypothetical questions. If not, why not?

No I don't because I don't care about the JREF forums. I like Icke and think this forum could raise its game so I currently contribute to it.



So, you were a 'truther' and now you're not?


Sort of.


I'll tell you what your real feelings are - you're confused, the world doesn't make sense anymore

You had me right up until the word 'anymore'. It's never made sense to me.

Besides the fact you're clearly ignoring the words I write and building me into some world view / reality tunnel of your own means I don't think you're best placed to write a consistent analysis. Thanks all the same.

[mrerisian]

When you search the 9/11 trajedy

...google tells you you've spelled 'trajedy' wrong and suggests 9/11 tragedy...

you don't need any so called conspiracy theorists, etc., to confidently proclaim that 3 towers were brought down by controlled demolition and the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane, possibly a missile instead...


My emphasis.

Mate, you might be able to 'confidently proclaim' things after spending time searching the 9/11 'trajedy', whatever that means, but I can't. There's no clear narrative I've encountered that fits all the main (universally agreed) facts.

No one is debating the fact that there was a conspiracy. Thanks for your input but all your really doing is asserting your position. Like I said earlier this isn't a poll.

[frase]

...google tells you you've spelled 'trajedy' wrong and suggests 9/11 tragedy...



My emphasis.

Mate, you might be able to 'confidently proclaim' things after spending time searching the 9/11 'trajedy', whatever that means, but I can't. There's no clear narrative I've encountered that fits all the main (universally agreed) facts.

No one is debating the fact that there was a conspiracy. Thanks for your input but all your really doing is asserting your position. Like I said earlier this isn't a poll.

How dare you make such grandiose generalisations about millions of people in the 9/11 truth movement.....
You at ethe end of the day believe in a boogeyman in a fucking cave.....
Hilarious..Do you leave a mince pie out for Santa too?

[tb303]

Ok mrerisian, I'll feed you one last time.


You're implication is that my 'real feelings' are hidden. Furthermore, telling someone they're talking bollocks is hardly a sign that you trust their word.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bollocks

Like you need it defined :rolleyes:

Yes, it can mean that one thinks that one is lying and can also mean that one thinks that one is talking nonsense as in silly bollocks.

As to your real feelings being hidden - c'mon, be honest, why are you spending time analysing the psychology behind 9/11 conspiracy theory when you admit that you don't know who was behind it. I mean, what's more important, your problem with 9/11 conspiracy theorists or your problem with what happened on 9/11?


More importantly I love how you duck the fact you've contradicted yourself. Good work! Like I said, it's a significant error. Made more so by your lack of humility when it was pointed out.

Oh I get it now, you're not playing this little game with me because I accused you of contradicting yourself on another thread? :rolleyes:

At no time have I contradicted myself with reference to gut feelings on this thread. Let me refresh your memory as to what you intially stated:


Good for you. I guess what you're telling us is that your gut feeling has never been challenged? Doesn't that worry you? I use my head for thinking and my gut for digesting food. A by product of that is farting. In fact I think that's the last useful thing my gut produced this morning, a big fart. Where does that leave us?

Gut feelings are, in my experience, just that. They can be wrong and they often are. People who rely upon them haven't yet learned to use their brains.

Imagine if we lived in a world where gut instincts were prized as highly as rational thought! If your Doctor told you his gut instinct thinks you've got cancer. 'No evidence for it, just a feeling'.

So, here you equate gut feelings with digesting food and farting and that gut feelings can be wrong, often are and that people who rely upon them haven't learned to use their brains. That's a pretty scientific viewpoint from someone who seems to be a fan of pure intellect :rolleyes:

Now, I'll state this again since you appear to be having comprehension problems - Suffice to say my initial gut feeling was supported by knowledge of previous false flag operations and predictions of another imminent attack.

Did I state anywhere that I rely purely on gut instinct?

Stating that I had a gut feeling and that another thread would be a more appropriate place to discuss left brain/right brain thinking is not contradicting oneself. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


What I've done here is highlighted the two key words you should be looking at but appear to be ignoring. Are you ignoring this evidence on purpose?

I'll help you out a bit. The use of the signifier 'a' here refers to a single person. It's 'a' singular. One 'truther'. Then of course the word 'truther' here is again singular as opposed to plural. It's not 'truthers' it's 'truther'. This is how words work. They mean specific things. They don't mean what your 'gut feelings' want them to mean.

Whilst your disappearing up your own backside with the semantics, I feel I should point out to you that your statement...


I think it's interesting because it shows the difference between a 'truther' and someone who has not made up their mind.


more accurately applies to all 'truthers' and all people who have not made up their minds since you have not defined any particular person in the singular. When you make a statement like that, the inference is of multiple people. Do you understand this?


Hopefully that's nice and clear for you now I've used bold type and explained some of the basics of our language.


Oh dear, well it's backfired on you, hasn't it?


No I don't because I don't care about the JREF forums. I like Icke and think this forum could raise its game so I currently contribute to it.


I'm sure you'd love the JREF forums as they're full of people disappearing up their own backsides.


You had me right up until the word 'anymore'. It's never made sense to me.


Still in denial then, eh?


Besides the fact you're clearly ignoring the words I write and building me into some world view / reality tunnel of your own means I don't think you're best placed to write a consistent analysis. Thanks all the same.

You're doing a perfectly good job by yourself of outlining your own personality profile, so yes, I'll leave you to it.

[frase]

Mossad and CIA did it.
END OF

[mrerisian]

How dare you make such grandiose generalisations about millions of people in the 9/11 truth movement.....
You at ethe end of the day believe in a boogeyman in a fucking cave.....
Hilarious..Do you leave a mince pie out for Santa too?

No idea what you're bumbling on about.

[camreeno]

Mossad and CIA did it.
END OF
And the ISI. (Pakistan's "CIA")

[tb303]

How dare you make such grandiose generalisations about millions of people in the 9/11 truth movement.....

Well he did that.

You at ethe end of the day believe in a boogeyman in a fucking cave.....
Hilarious..Do you leave a mince pie out for Santa too?

But he hasn't said that. He won't commit himself either way and is far too interested in pointing that 'truthers' have no empathy and some bollocks about conspiracy theorists all having their prejudices confirmed on the day despite the fact that not all 9/11 conspiracy theorists were 9/11 conspiracy theorists on 9/11 :rolleyes:

[mrerisian]

Mossad and CIA did it.
END OF

Oh right. You're one of those people who thinks that forcefully asserting your opinion is the same as a reasoned argument backed by evidence.

I mistook you for someone who might actually contribute.

[mrerisian]

Ok mrerisian, I'll feed you one last time.



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bollocks

Like you need it defined :rolleyes:


Does the irony escape you that YOUR chosen definition has as it's second point: a falsehood or series of lies?

We're going round in circles. I'm going to answer your next point with a previous post:


As to your real feelings being hidden - c'mon, be honest, why are you spending time analysing the psychology behind 9/11 conspiracy theory when you admit that you don't know who was behind it. I mean, what's more important, your problem with 9/11 conspiracy theorists or your problem with what happened on 9/11?


You're wrong there. Most decent 9/11 conspiracy theories involve facts which I am not able to independently verify. I can't go to the scene and check the thermite balls or watch the radar flight paths etc. I'm not a skilled demolition expert and I don't understand how buildings collapse etc.

This means you end up relying upon the theorist in question for the information. It's all very well for them to say 'do your own research' but in reality that's not practical.

I can't check if bombdogs were or were not removed from the towers. I don't know if mobile phones work on planes. Etc etc etc.

With this being the case the credibility of the theorist (or more accurately 'researcher') is central to the thesis.

It amazes me the number of people who'll go "oh yeh I've been researching this shit independently for years" only for this 'research' to be revealed as sitting on the net in your dressing gown smoking a dooby.

Research involves going to the scene - interviewing witnesses - talking to experts. Not asking your 'intuition' and looking on wikipedia after watching a few numbnut youtube vids.


Same for this next bit:


Oh I get it now, you're not playing this little game with me because I accused you of contradicting yourself on another thread? :rolleyes:


Nope - I don't hold grudges. Particularly when I can't even remember the incident. Furthermore I don't get upset by the idea that I might have contradicted myself. I'm full of contradictions and am happy to recognise when I'm wrong. Can the same be said for you? I doubt it after the way you've carried on...

Like I said, you're going round in circles so I'm just going to re-quote my original post from the first time you went down this route:


At no time have I contradicted myself with reference to gut feelings on this thread.


Here are your two contradictory statements:

I had a gut feeling when I turned the TV on and saw the second tower collapse - INSIDE JOB.

Now is not the time for a discussion on gut feelings


They're quoted in order of posting.

One of them is a discussion of your gut feelings.

The other is denouncing discussion of anyone's gut feelings because 'now is not the time'.




Did I state anywhere that I rely purely on gut instinct?


No you did not.


Stating that I had a gut feeling and that another thread would be a more appropriate place to discuss left brain/right brain thinking is not contradicting oneself. DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


That's not an accurate representation of what happened. You're doing that thing again where you try to twist events (or lie about them) to fit your view of yourself. Just admit you contradicted yourself. Stop embarrassing yourself.


you have not defined any particular person in the singular. When you make a statement like that, the inference is of multiple people. Do you understand this?


I clearly understand language a lot better than you do mate. The subject is defined by the previous sentences. I was talking about YOU. You were the 'truther' in that particular instance. Oh dear eh?


Oh dear, well it's backfired on you, hasn't it?


Well quite. Hard luck lad.

I'll leave you to it.

Probably for the best eh?

[tb303]

You know, I really should leave you to your navel gazing, but I just had to point this one out:
I clearly understand language a lot better than you do mate. The subject is defined by the previous sentences. I was talking about YOU. You were the 'truther' in that particular instance. Oh dear eh?

A bit unlucky for you then that you continued to dig your own hole when you followed up your initial statement:


I think it's interesting because it shows the difference between a 'truther' and someone who has not made up their mind. Empathy should be your first thought, not conspiracy.

with this:


Some of these 'truthers' particularly the ones who hate the Jews or America thought 'aha - an opportunity'. This is also true of some of the politicians and civil servants, 'bury bad news' etc.

This further goes to prove that you were commenting about the attitudes of 'truthers' in general and not just me. This was on page 5.

On page 6 you give us the lesson in semantics but wait until page 7 to inform us that you meant just me all along!

Nevermind giving us a lecture on the use of the English language, you've given us quite the lesson in mental masturbation and backpedaling.

[secondsun]

Great. Sorry dude but you're living in cloud cuckoo land. Islam and freedom are unhappy bedfellows. Lets focus on the debate eh?

...i am!.. i responded to a comment you made!... which was...

Furthermore in the debate I think people sometimes miss the point: Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth.

...you said yourself its in the debate!... so dont contradict yourself also!

...anyway... i asked you to prove..."Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth."

...you said you can!... cos` a mate told you so!?!.... eh?

...but you expect us CT`s to fly to NY and undertake our own independently verifiable reasearch... or we are wasters!?... your double standards are obviously biased in your direction!

...i dont need to fly to NY for my research... in fact i am saved a great deal of time and money cos` a constant stream of New Yorkers just step into my Cab in London on a very regular basis!... and they are all asked where were you on 9-11 and what was their expieience...ok Dude?

...oh!... no surprise to me!... you dodged my question!... which was...

...do you think the World has more to fear from "Radical fascistic violent Islam" or some Radical Psychopathic Ruling Elite?

...pick one!

...but i expect will dodge it again and try and convince any lurkers i`m from `cloud cuckoo land`!?

[bendoon]

I have said this before, the OP has done nothing but defend the establishment and ridicule truth seekers since his first post on the forum.

He also uses the words "fascistic Islam"

Now where have I heard that term before (some Neo Con news outlet) :rolleyes:

My advice; don't take the bait.

[secondsun]

I have said this before, the OP has done nothing but defend the establishment and ridicule truth seekers since his first post on the forum.

He also uses the words "fascistic Islam"

Now where have I heard that term before (some Neo Con news outlet) :rolleyes:

My advice; don't take the bait.

...you`ve smelt the Rat too!... well done!... your a wise man! ;)

edit:... mrerisian has logged out!... blast!... and i was so looking forward to any reply!... when he said...

No I don't because I don't care about the JREF forums. I like Icke and think this forum could raise its game so I currently contribute to it.


...i thought... aint we lucky!... the boy has come to our rescue!... hanging on to my seat here!

[tb303]

...i am!.. i responded to a comment you made!... which was...



...you said yourself its in the debate!... so dont contradict yourself also!



Beware, mrerisian constantly states things, then forgets he's stated them resulting in a merry-go-round of semantics, allegations and insults as he tries to shift the blame for his errors on to the person who points them out to him.

Well, at least he admitted he was confused.

[secondsun]

Beware, mrerisian constantly states things, then forgets he's stated them resulting in a merry-go-round of semantics, allegations and insults as he tries to shift the blame for his errors on to the person who points them out to him.

Well, at least he admitted he was confused.


...dont worry... these traits are common in people mentored in same way that appear here under various identities... he kinda reminded me of Brian!

[mrerisian]

...anyway... i asked you to prove..."Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth."

...you said you can!... cos` a mate told you so!?!.... eh?

...but you expect us CT`s to fly to NY and undertake our own independently verifiable reasearch... or we are wasters!?... your double standards are obviously biased in your direction!

...i dont need to fly to NY for my research...

No sitting in a taxi is adequate I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Don't reduce what I said about Radical Islam. I have met and spoken to f--king nutjobs who are inspired by a version of Islam that is violent fascistic and insane. If you're a taxi driver I don't believe you've never met people who are equally out of their box on the 'opium of the people'.

As for your question, who am I more scared of, Crazy World Leaders or Wacky Muslim Radicals. The former, by a long shot. What's your point?

I have said this before, the OP has done nothing but defend the establishment and ridicule truth seekers since his first post on the forum.


If I'm defending the establishment why am I putting them in the same category as all the other 'conspiracy theorists'?

You're lying. Why do some 'truthers' have such a problem with the truth?


He also uses the words "fascistic Islam"

Now where have I heard that term before (some Neo Con news outlet) :rolleyes:

My advice; don't take the bait.

Fine, if you're like the previous poster and you want to pretend there's no such thing I'd like to thank you for your contribution. It is part of the debate in that 'truthers' often ignore the reality that Islam (like all Abrahamic religions) is fascistic and a potentially significant problem for the future.

I suggest you follow your own advice and continue to ignore me. Ignorance suits you well.

[mrerisian]

...you`ve smelt the Rat too!...

Yes, I disagree with you, I must therefore be suspect. I see now why you ignore the fascistic tendencies of religion. I imagine your world would be better if EVERYONE just agreed with you eh? Those who don't single them out for insults and 're-education'?

Beware, mrerisian constantly states things,

Still can't leave it despite your promises? Why do you think that is?

[mrerisian]

You know, I really should leave you to your navel gazing, but ... but you can't because you know you've made a bit of a tit of yourself so you're still trying to claw back a bit of dignity by deliberately misunderstanding simple posts?


you were commenting about the attitudes of 'truthers' in general and not just me. This was on page 5.

No - as the post makes plain, I went on to comment about SOME 'truthers'.

I'm not backpedaling at all. The posts stand up for themselves. You're the one who can't let this lie, despite promising to in your last post. Why is that? I think it's because you know you've exposed your ability to ignore information that doesn't fit your world view as I explained before. A crucial problem with some 'truthers'.

[secondsun]

No sitting in a taxi is adequate I'm sure.

...if i fly to NY to talk to New Yorkers or i talk to New Yorkers who fly to me.... whats the difference?

As for your question, who am I more scared of, Crazy World Leaders or Wacky Muslim Radicals. The former, by a long shot. What's your point?

...if the radical wacky muslims are flying planes into buildings and blowing up tube trains and buses... why are you more scared of our World mis-leaders?

[mrerisian]

...if i fly to NY to talk to New Yorkers or i talk to New Yorkers who fly to me.... whats the difference?


You're not at the scene of the crime. It's not as good. Simple as that. 'Research' into something as huge as 9/11 isn't 'I spoke to some bloke in a cab'. Imagine if the 9/11 Commission's Report was based on what people have told you in the back of your cab. It'd be laughed at even more than it already is.


...if the radical wacky muslims are flying planes into buildings and blowing up tube trains and buses... why are you more scared of our World mis-leaders?

Because the world leaders have more power.

[secondsun]

You're not at the scene of the crime. It's not as good. Simple as that. 'Research' into something as huge as 9/11 isn't 'I spoke to some bloke in a cab'

...i have spoken to a personal friend of the Bush family!... someone who`s parent sat alongside Dick Cheney at the Pentagon!.... an Intelligence Officer with 35 years service at the Pentagon!.... amongst others!

... if i flew to NY and walked around ground zero for a while do you think i might bump into poeple like that???

Imagine if the 9/11 Commission's Report was based on what people have told you inthe back of your cab. It'd be laughed at even more than it already is.


...for all the good it is it might as well have done!

Because the world leaders have more power.

...exactly!... thats why they created these messed whacky muslims ( the vast majority of Muslims are fine people by the way! )... just as they created these 9-11 Truthers!... those capitalists.... those Communists....etc etc etc!

[mrerisian]

...i have spoken to a personal friend of the Bush family!... someone who`s parent sat alongside Dick Cheney at the Pentagon!.... an Intelligence Officer with 35 years service at the Pentagon!.... amongst others!

Sure... how many of those people were telling the truth? You've no way of knowing.


...exactly!... thats why they created these messed whacky muslims ( the vast majority of Muslims are fine people by the way! )... just as they created these 9-11 Truthers!... those capitalists.... those Communists....etc etc etc!

No. World Leaders did not create Islamic fascists. Nor did they invent 'truthers' or capitalists or indeed communists. You attribute more power to them than is rational. I'm sure they like people like you. You are starting to come across as gullible. This is another trait of some 'truthers'.

In proportion to Muslim terrorists they are more powerful. That's the reason they're more dangerous. MORE POWERFUL, not ALL POWERFUL.

[secondsun]

...hmmmmm!

In proportion to Muslim terrorists they are more powerful.

...but with all that power...they still cant find Osama!

...if your integrity is genuine?... all i can say is you have a lot of homework to do!

[fanoftruth]

This has now formed into about 6 or 7 pages of a 'You vs Me' argument and has little to do with 9/11 so it may as well be thrashed out via personal messages.

None of mrerisians posts contain anything of real substance on the subject of 9/11 so why not let the topic die instead of taking the bait each time.

[white horse]

you make good points... but ask yourself this: Who is more capable of pulling it off? members of the government? or solely Al-Qaeda? or perhaps a combination of both?

There's almost no chance that all 4 planes successfully crash and burn without some help from people within the government. I still have questions and doubts as to details of the conspiracy that many claim, but Occams Razor says there was at least some complicity within the government. That doesn't mean there was, but it is the most probable scenario.

You all need to step back a little....

Are you still under the impression that governments have the control over us?

If members of the Bush admin (Cheney, Papa Bush, Rumsfeld) were invovled it was not in their capacity as members of the government; it was as memebrs of the Club of Evil that were strategically placed into government, sometime many years before, in order to act as gatekeepers in crucial roles whne needed.

The US and UK governments have been hijakced, stop looking for your answers in the halls and offices of official governemt! Lol! Sme of the comments I read around this site - it's like some people think the government planned it like it was some housing policy or something Lol!! 'Where are the minutes of the 911 planning committe' - 'You saying the government planned and carried this out'??

NO!!!!

911 was not a government operation!

911 was not an inside job!!

911 was conducted by parasites.

911 was, in every sense of th eword, a hi-jack job.

Start thinking outside the box... :D

[tb303]

None of mrerisians posts contain anything of real substance on the subject of 9/11 so why not let the topic die instead of taking the bait each time.

Agreed.

[broadperspective]

From the last sentence of your first post, you made it quite clear that you tend to favor the underlying reasons put forth by authorities, as of why the incident occurred.. So how's MOSSAD these days ? ;)

You've been doing a great job of stirring shit for no reasonable purpose...

The perfect troll !!

[mrerisian]

...but with all that power...they still cant find Osama!

...if your integrity is genuine?... all i can say is you have a lot of homework to do!

See it always collapses into 'wahhh you don't agree with me, you must be lying'. It's pathetic. I don't buy the official story as regards Bin Laden. Never have done. Don't try to box me into a point of view that I do not have.

This has now formed into about 6 or 7 pages of a 'You vs Me' argument and has little to do with 9/11 so it may as well be thrashed out via personal messages.

Agreed. I honestly don't think that's my fault though. Re-read them and you'll notice that I'm trying to explain why the conspiracy theorists themselves are relevant to the debate. It gets a little tatty as it goes on but the point is relevant. Conspiracy theorists cook up their ideas and then sometimes (like a bad scientist) can't drop them when the evidence contradicts.

What people should do instead is go - 'oh yeah, that evidence proves me wrong, guess it's back to the drawing board'.

This You Tube video best articulates what I'm talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA86N8K4VBI

How many people who post here can honestly say they would behave as the 'elderly professor' does?

How many do you think would shout 'arrgh you're a shill f--k off'!


None of mrerisians posts contain anything of real substance on the subject of 9/11 so why not let the topic die instead of taking the bait each time.

Advocates of ignorance.

Agreed.

You just can't handle what I've really written. I DON'T BUY ANY OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES...

From the last sentence of your first post, you made it quite clear that you tend to favor the underlying reasons put forth by authorities, as of why the incident occurred.. So how's MOSSAD these days ? ;)

You've been doing a great job of stirring shit for no reasonable purpose...

The perfect troll !!

In my idiocy I thought I might get a few good thought provoking points of view that were contrary to my own. If the level of debate is not going to get any higher than the above I totally agree - let this string die. I certainly learned something from it.

[tb303]

From the last sentence of your first post, you made it quite clear that you tend to favor the underlying reasons put forth by authorities, as of why the incident occurred.. So how's MOSSAD these days ? ;)

You've been doing a great job of stirring shit for no reasonable purpose...

The perfect troll !!

He didn't get off to the best of starts with the first sentence of his post...


My problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory is with the theorists themselves. They all had prejudices which were merely confirmed by the events of that day.


which assumes that all 9/11 conspiracy theorists were 9/11 conspiracy theorists on 9/11.

So the whole premise of his thread is nonsense.

[mrerisian]

which assumes that all 9/11 conspiracy theorists were 9/11 conspiracy theorists on 9/11.

So the whole premise of his thread is nonsense.

If you want to selectively quote bits and deliberately misunderstand things I guess you would end up living in a world full of nonsense. Shame you can't do as you promised and leave this discussion. Wonder why that is?

[tb303]

Did somebody say something? :D

[mrerisian]

Did somebody say something? :D

Great - so what exactly are you proving? That you and your mates can bleat me down?

I want lurkers and casual readers to note where this debate has led and why.

[white horse]

I think this is because the conspiracy theorists know their foundations are shaky hence aggressive tit for tat is the norm. If you have faith in your point of view you're not worried when someone challenges it. The truth does not require you to believe in it.

I know there's a sun in the sky. Someone who challenges my belief in that reality ain't going to be on the end of anger and insults. Hit a belief I'm insecure about and from there the anger will come.

Furthermore my identity and self worth isn't wrapped up in my belief in the sun. Can that be said of 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Imagine the turnaround if TPTB's conspiracy theory were conclusively proved to be a fraud in the minds of everyone in the world. Their identity would change forever.

This is why people often get personal, as happened a few posts back.

What worries me is your use of the label 'conspiracy theorists'...

[white horse]

I want lurkers and casual readers to note where this debate has led and why.

Why?

[mrerisian]

What worries me is your use of the label 'conspiracy theorists'...

Why does it worry you?

As for my appeal to lurkers and casual readers, I think anyone who reads this string from start to finish will get a glimpse into why there are MAJOR problems with 9/11 no matter which way you try to look at it.

[camreeno]

I'll throw a few questions at the 9/11 "wasn't an inside job" crowd here.

...
-Why after waiting 442 days just to get an investigation did the 9-11 Commission fail to answer 70% of the questions the victim’s families had?

-Why is Osama Bin Laden not wanted for 9/11 on the FBI’s Most Wanted List?

-In August ’03 it was revealed the Gov’t ordered the EPA to lie about the air quality resulting in 50,000 sick and dying 1st responders, why has no one been held accountable?

-Why do 120+ Senior Military Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement and Gov’t Officials, 600+ Engineers & Architects, 70+ Pilots & Aviation Professionals and 200+ Professors all Question the official story of 9/11?

-Why have co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission Lee Hamilton & Thomas Keane in their book “Without Precedent” say that the 9/11 Commission “were set up to fail”?

-WTC Building 7, a 47 story tall skyscraper was not hit by a plane but collapsed later that day. Why was it not investigated by the 9-11 Commission?

-Is it coincidence that a military simulation of hijacked planes flying into buildings was taking place on the morning of 9/11/01?

-Why does the data recorder of Flight 77 show a flight path in a different place than the one released by the 9-11 Commission?

-The head of Pakistani Intelligence transferred $100K to Mohammed Atta but was not investigated – WHY NOT?

-BBC & CNN began reporting WTC 7 had collapsed almost a half-hour before it did? How did they know this and who told them?

-Why have 80+ videos outside the Pentagon never been released? Why have we only seen 5 frames of one film?

-Why has it never been explained what caused so much steel to turn into molten metal at the WTC site?

-What force pulverized most of the concrete and office material of the Towers into dust then ejected steal beams hundreds of feet into the air?

[bendoon]

mrerisian is a sceptic, he has come here to enlighten us and stop us making fools out of ourselves by not believing everything the authorities tell us.

One day we will all thank him for his great wisdom.

[gribz]

-Why have 80+ videos outside the Pentagon never been released? Why have we only seen 5 frames of one film?



You should add that even the 5 frames we have seen shows nothing of a 757 commercial airliner and only a fire ball.

That 5 frames alone almost prove there was no plane as it would be impossible for at least a section of the plane not to appear and then this clip is saying the plane disappears upon impact. Now the original official story is that it vapourised due to the jet fuel - the chance of every piece of a) the plane b) passengers c) luggage vapoursing upon impact has to be in the 10000000 / 1. If I put a bit of paper into a fire I can still see it for a few seconds so a plane is going to take longer to melt and dissolve than a piece of paper.

Yet we will get people stating there was pieces of the plane but the pieces they say they found on the lawn are almost untouched!!! And the engines planted are not from a 757.

[camreeno]

You should add that even the 5 frames we have seen shows nothing of a 757 commercial airliner and only a fire ball.

That 5 frames alone almost prove there was no plane as it would be impossible for at least a section of the plane not to appear and then this clip is saying the plane disappears upon impact. Now the original official story is that it vapourised due to the jet fuel - the chance of every piece of a) the plane b) passengers c) luggage vapoursing upon impact has to be in the 10000000 / 1. If I put a bit of paper into a fire I can still see it for a few seconds so a plane is going to take longer to melt and dissolve than a piece of paper.

Yet we will get people stating there was pieces of the plane but the pieces they say they found on the lawn are almost untouched!!! And the engines planted are not from a 757.I agree. It's all nonsense. We're told a plane hit the building when we haven't been given one video or picture showing a plane. If they just released some footage that clearly showed a plane, then bam, it would put an end to all the speculation.... But why DON'T they? Because there was no plane.....Sheesh, honestly.

[noewhan]

it becomes somewhat sensible to at least investigate the 911=inside job theory without immediately dismissing it.


Yes.


So after all of that, you still want a new investigation?

We all have our own theories because it hasn't been properly investigated by professionals. Apparently Richard G and others just aren't good enough. Apparently history teaches us nothing, like what happened in 1993.

[triforcharity]

You should add that even the 5 frames we have seen shows nothing of a 757 commercial airliner and only a fire ball.

That 5 frames alone almost prove there was no plane as it would be impossible for at least a section of the plane not to appear and then this clip is saying the plane disappears upon impact. Now the original official story is that it vapourised due to the jet fuel - the chance of every piece of a) the plane b) passengers c) luggage vapoursing upon impact has to be in the 10000000 / 1. If I put a bit of paper into a fire I can still see it for a few seconds so a plane is going to take longer to melt and dissolve than a piece of paper.

Yet we will get people stating there was pieces of the plane but the pieces they say they found on the lawn are almost untouched!!! And the engines planted are not from a 757.

The engines are in fact from a 757. You have been watching Loose Change too much. They contacted a factory that DIDN'T EVEN MAKE those engines.

So, you are saying that the parts of the plane that were outside the pentagon should have been scarred by flames?? Ok, makes sense, except for the fact that they might have been in direct contact with any kind of flame for about 1 second, hell, i'll you a whole 5 seconds. This is not enough time to even have the slightest effect on the planes aluminum shell.

[triforcharity]

I agree. It's all nonsense. We're told a plane hit the building when we haven't been given one video or picture showing a plane. If they just released some footage that clearly showed a plane, then bam, it would put an end to all the speculation.... But why DON'T they? Because there was no plane.....Sheesh, honestly.

Why would they use planes in NYC and PA, but a missle at the Pentagon?? It makes no sense. At all. None whatsoever.

1-A missle would have left tons of desks, fruniture, computer parts, victims, filing cabinets, etc, etc,etc, on the lawn of the pentagon. This obviously didn't happen. Aapparently you guys lack the understanding of how missles work.

Now, secondly, they most likely will not be releasing any inside footage, as that building, just the inside of it, is classified. If they showed the video from inside the pentagon, it would reveal the locations and capability of their security system. This is not going to happen. The USG cares more about National Security, than a few tin-hat society members claiming thata a missle hit the pentagon. Its just not going to happen.

[gribz]

So, you are saying that the parts of the plane that were outside the pentagon should have been scarred by flames?? Ok, makes sense, except for the fact that they might have been in direct contact with any kind of flame for about 1 second, hell, i'll you a whole 5 seconds. This is not enough time to even have the slightest effect on the planes aluminum shell.

Nonsense. So on 1 hand you have a small part of the shell that wasnt marked even if it was in contact with a flame for 1-5 seconds (which is an assumption) yet the rest of the plane just dissolves in 1 fire ball that lasted a few seconds (which was shown on the 5 frames)???

The engines are in fact from a 757

Eh? No they are not! And thats nothing to do with loose change. I fly every month and if I was to board a 757 or similiar and saw those tiny engines on the wings I wouldnt be going near the plane. Engines from 757s are massive!

[gribz]

Why would they use planes in NYC and PA, but a missle at the Pentagon?? It makes no sense. At all. None whatsoever.

1-A missle would have left tons of desks, fruniture, computer parts, victims, filing cabinets, etc, etc,etc, on the lawn of the pentagon. This obviously didn't happen. Aapparently you guys lack the understanding of how missles work.

Now, secondly, they most likely will not be releasing any inside footage, as that building, just the inside of it, is classified. If they showed the video from inside the pentagon, it would reveal the locations and capability of their security system. This is not going to happen. The USG cares more about National Security, than a few tin-hat society members claiming thata a missle hit the pentagon. Its just not going to happen.

What a pile of bullshit. For a start they needed a missile to pierce the reanforced walls of the pentagon. And who says they used planes in NYC? I havent seen any clear pictures of a commerical plane hit WTC 1 and certainly havent seen any hitting WTC 7, have you? Ive only seen 'a' plane hitting WTC 2 on tv.

1-A missle would have left tons of desks, fruniture, computer parts, victims, filing cabinets, etc, etc,etc, on the lawn of the pentagon.

Can you explain how a missile would have left this but a plane wouldnt?

Secondly, if the USG cares so much about national security then why did the defence systems stand down that day? And why wasnt the security missile at the pentagon activated - Any aircraft that flies over this airspace and does not make itself known to FAA automatically gets shot down.

Head out of sand and smell some coffee comes to mind :) ;)

[tabea_blumenschein]

What a pile of bullshit. For a start they needed a missile to pierce the reanforced walls of the pentagon. And who says they used planes in NYC? I havent seen any clear pictures of a commerical plane hit WTC 1 and certainly havent seen any hitting WTC 7, have you? Ive only seen 'a' plane hitting WTC 2 on tv.

1. What is your evidence that the reinforced wall was capable of withstanding the impact of a Boeing 767 at over 400 mph?

2. Even if high-quality footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon were to surface, the entire "truth" movement would immediately dismiss it as "faked". Am I right?

Secondly, if the USG cares so much about national security then why did the defence systems stand down that day? And why wasnt the security missile at the pentagon activated - Any aircraft that flies over this airspace and does not make itself known to FAA automatically gets shot down.

Nonsense. (http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html)

[secondsun]

The engines are in fact from a 757. You have been watching Loose Change too much. They contacted a factory that DIDN'T EVEN MAKE those engines.


..due to severe lack of time for research these days... please do me a favour and post your proof of the point high lighted... thanks!

[secondsun]

Why would they use planes in NYC and PA, but a missle at the Pentagon?? It makes no sense. At all. None whatsoever.

1-A missle would have left tons of desks, fruniture, computer parts, victims, filing cabinets, etc, etc,etc, on the lawn of the pentagon. This obviously didn't happen. Aapparently you guys lack the understanding of how missles work.

Now, secondly, they most likely will not be releasing any inside footage, as that building, just the inside of it, is classified. If they showed the video from inside the pentagon, it would reveal the locations and capability of their security system. This is not going to happen. The USG cares more about National Security, than a few tin-hat society members claiming thata a missle hit the pentagon. Its just not going to happen.

...it makes perfect sense!... depends on how much `sense` you`ve got in the first place!?...they did`nt fly a plane into the Pentagon simply because they did`nt have to!... the Psyop was performed!.. people were readied to believe a plane hit the building!!!.... dont you get it?... after what they saw all they needed was a voice of `Authority` saying a plane had hit the Pentagon!!!!.... and an image of a smoking hole!... and everyone sucks it all up!... again!!!

...oh!...and in my opinion... the Towers were built to be destroyed... the Pentagon was`nt!

[tabea_blumenschein]

..due to severe lack of time for research these days... please do me a favour and post your proof of the point high lighted... thanks!

Will this do? (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml)

[secondsun]

Will this do? (http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml)

....not unless you can prove it was from flight 77!

...we need some serial numbers i think!?

[triforcharity]

....not unless you can prove it was from flight 77!

...we need some serial numbers i think!?

Lets see, flight 77 was boarded by these certain people.

CREW:
•Charles Burlingame, 51, Va., captain, American Airlines
•David Charlebois, Washington, D.C., first officer, American Airlines
•Michele Heidenberger, 57, Chevy Chase, Md., flight attendant, American Airlines
•Jennifer Lewis, 38, Culpeper, Va., flight attendant, American Airlines
•Kenneth Lewis, 49, Culpeper, Va., flight attendant, American Airlines
•Renee May, 39, Baltimore, Md., flight attendant, American Airlines

PASSENGERS:
•Paul Ambrose, 32, physician
•Yeneneh Betru, 35, Burbank, Calif., director of medical affairs, IPC
•MJ Booth
•Bernard Brown, 11, student, Leckie Elementary School (Washington)
•Suzanne Calley, 42, San Martin, Calif., Cisco Systems Inc.
•William E. Caswell, 54, Silver Spring, Md., physicist, U.S. Navy
•Sarah Clark, 65, Columbia, Md., sixth-grade teacher, Backus Middle School (Washington)
•Zandra Cooper, Annandale, Va.
•Asia Cottom, 11, student, Backus Middle School (Washington)
•James Debeuneure, 58, Upper Marlboro, Md., fifth-grade teacher, Ketcham Elementary School (Washington)
•Rodney Dickens, 11, student, Ketcham Elementary School (Washington)
•Eddie Dillard
•Charles Droz, 52, Springfield, Va., vice president for software development, EM Solutions Inc.
•Barbara G. Edwards, 58, Las Vegas, Nev., teacher, Palo Verde High School
•Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, University Park, Md., research director, ECOlogic Corp.
•Dana Falkenberg, 3, University Park, Md.
•Zoe Falkenberg, 8, University Park, Md.
•James Joe Ferguson, 39, Washington, D.C., educational outreach director, National Geographic Society
•Darlene ``Dee'' Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va.
•Wilson ``Bud'' Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va., retired Navy Admiral and pilot, American Airlines
•Richard P. Gabriel Sr., 54, Great Falls, Va., managing partner, Stratin Consulting
•Ian Gray, 55, Washington, D.C., healthcare consulting firm president
•Stanley Hall, 68, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.
•Bryan Jack, 48, Alexandria, Va., senior executive, Defense Department
•Steven D. ``Jake'' Jacoby, 43, Alexandria, Va., chief operating officer, Metrocall Inc.
•Ann Judge, 49, Great Falls, Va., travel officer manager, National Geographic Society
•Chandler Keller, 29, El Segundo, Calif., propulsion engineer, Boeing Co.
•Yvonne Kennedy
•Norma Khan, 45, Reston, Va., nonprofit organization manager,
•Karen A. Kincaid, 40, lawyer, Wiley Rein & Fielding in Washington
•Dong Lee, 48, Leesburg, Va., engineer, Boeing Co.
•Dora Menchaca, 45, Santa Monica, Calif., associate director of clinical research, Amgen Inc.
•Christopher Newton, 38, Ashburn, Va., executive, WorkLife Benefits
•Barbara Olson, 45, TV commentator and lawyer
•Ruben Ornedo, 39, Los Angeles, Calif., propulsion engineer, Boeing Co.
•Robert Penniger, 63, Poway, Calif., electrical engineer, BAE Systems
•Robert R. Ploger III, 59, Annandale, Va., software architect, Lockheed Martin Corp.
•Lisa J. Raines, 42, Great Falls, Va., senior vice president, Genzyme Corp.
•Todd Reuben, 40, Potomac, Md., tax and business lawyer
•John Sammartino, 37, Annandale, Va., technical manager, XonTech Inc.
•Yang Shuyin, 61, Beijing, China
•Diane Simmons
•George Simmons
•Mari-Rae Sopper, 35, Santa Barbara, Calif., women's gymnastics coach, UC Santa Barbara
•Robert Speisman, 47, Irvington, N.Y., diamond industry salesman
•Norma Lang Steuerle, 54, Alexandria, Va.
•Hilda Taylor, sixth grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School in Washington
•Leonard Taylor, 44, Reston, Va., technical group manager, XonTech Inc.
•Sandra Teague, 31, Fairfax, Va., physical therapist, Georgetown University Hospital
•Leslie A. Whittington, 45, University Park, Md., professor, Georgetown University
•John Yamnicky, 71, Waldorf, Md.
•Vicki Yancey, 44, Springfield, Va., Vredenburg
•Zheng Yuguang, 65, Beijing, China


http://www.boston.com/news/daily/13/victims_list.htm#aa11


Now, how could MOST of these people's DNA be found INSIDE the Pentagon, if they WERE NOT on the plane?? 184 out of 189 to be exact.

http://www.pica.army.mil/Voice/voice2001/011207/Forensicid.htm

Now, couple that with the other evidence (FDR, Radar tracks, physical evidence of an airplane INSIDE the Pentagon etc. etc. etc. ) and how could it NOT have been 77?? Its impossible. I would be so far fetched it would not even be close to plausable.

[secondsun]

Lets see, flight 77 was boarded by these certain people.

...are you certain these `certain` people were on the plane?

...i`m not!

Now, how could MOST of these people's DNA be found INSIDE the Pentagon, if they WERE NOT on the plane?? 184 out of 189 to be exact.

...if your certain this DNA of these certain people was certainly found in the Pentagon... good luck to you!

...i`m not!

...you see... i`m still stuck on something!... its this footage that was certainly released by the phoney Government!... you know the footage i mean!.... this is a giff i made from it!

http://i242.photobucket.com/albums/ff68/911wasainsidejob/pentagon-animation.gif

...hmmm!... it still bugs me how this plume of smoke resulting from the engine of flight 77 hitting the lamp post.... seems to vanish, in what i would guess is approx` 1 sixth of a second,... from frame 2?!?!?!... thats impossible!... and of course there is the curiosity of why the plume throws no shadow?... thats impossible too!.... so if you can help me get over this little stumbling block i`ll take a look further at your possibly fictitious list of `certain` passengers!....ok!?

[bigcadaver]

The engines are in fact from a 757.

Right.....engine fan at Pentagon...

http://www.911-strike.com/engine_rotor.jpg

Actual size of commercial jet liner engine...

http://static.wix.com/media/7bb4b62e9b5e6fc3c4634b8e1638a26e.wix_mp

[gribz]

Right.....engine fan at Pentagon...

http://www.911-strike.com/engine_rotor.jpg

Actual size of commercial jet liner engine...

http://static.wix.com/media/7bb4b62e9b5e6fc3c4634b8e1638a26e.wix_mp

Thanks for posting this, I was going to look for the pictures during my earlier post but i was too lazy :D

But there is no comparison, its actually hilarious comparing the 2 pictures. As I said, if I was about to board a 757 with those fans found at the pentagon then Id rather walk my journey. Those fans shouldnt be on a glider!

And someone will say they are just 'part' of the engines but if thats the case why did these parts survive yet the rest disapear.

The Pentagon lie is beyond obvious its laughable and insults the intelligence of an 8 year old. Anyone who believes it AFTER looking at the evidence are crazy!

[tabea_blumenschein]

Obviously, gribz and bigcadaver didn't bother reading the material I linked to earlier.

Also, I have a problem with that photograph. The perspective, with the camera positioned so near the front of the engine and the two workers in the background, makes the engine look far larger than it really is. Digressing briefly, fishermen will use the same trick to make a the fish they're holding in a photograph look huge - hold the fish at the end of your outstretched arms and an average catch looks world-record size.

One more time:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

And gribz, the rest of the plane didn't just "vaporize" or "disappear". I'm not going to argue about it with you anyway, because your position is doubtless "no photos = it didn't exist" and "photos = planted evidence". The classic truther catch-22, right?

[gribz]

Obviously, gribz and bigcadaver didn't bother reading the material I linked to earlier.



One more time:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml



Also, I have a problem with that photograph. The perspective, with the camera positioned so near the front of the engine and the two workers in the background, makes the engine look far larger than it really is. Digressing briefly, fishermen will use the same trick to make a the fish they're holding in a photograph look huge - hold the fish at the end of your outstretched arms and an average catch looks world-record size.

You cant be serious with that reply? There is a guy standing next to the fan engine - is he on stilts and the tallest person in the world??

And gribz, the rest of the plane didn't just "vaporize" or "disappear". I'm not going to argue about it with you anyway, because your position is doubtless "no photos = it didn't exist" and "photos = planted evidence". The classic truther catch-22, right?

Well were did it go? was it vacummed up by the cleaning ladies within 3 mins of the crash?

My opinion isnt if there is no photo's = it didnt exist. Its more to a case of no debris = it didnt exist. Take the WTC2 for example - it hit 80 floors above the ground, so whilst I expect some debris scattered over a larger scale it would be trickier to identify pieces after as the building was demolished. My take on that is that 'a plane' did hit the south tower (although not a commercial one), but with the pentagon I just dont think a commerical airline hit it either and there is far more evidence that says so than the official story.

Your entitled to your opinion as much of the rest of us are. :)

PS your right i didnt read your links, but i will at some point today.

[bigcadaver]

Also, I have a problem with that photograph. The perspective, with the camera positioned so near the front of the engine and the two workers in the background, makes the engine look far larger than it really is. Digressing briefly, fishermen will use the same trick to make a the fish they're holding in a photograph look huge - hold the fish at the end of your outstretched arms and an average catch looks world-record size.

This is the funniest thing i've ever read ever! This post wins the internet!!!

Shut'er down folks...you're not going to get better than this ever on any website regarding any discussion on anyting...ever!!

Congrats!!

Actually, I take that back....you and/or triforcharity could maybe beat the level of hilarious rediculousness of this post by trying to explain 2.5 (minimum) seconds of freefall (admitted by NIST) of building 7. But we're not going to see that are we?

[rodin]

Obviously, gribz and bigcadaver didn't bother reading the material I linked to earlier.

Also, I have a problem with that photograph. The perspective, with the camera positioned so near the front of the engine and the two workers in the background, makes the engine look far larger than it really is.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1270/810948952_cf3912f97b.jpg

Engine diameter is about the height of a cabin door. I would guess turbine diameter about 1.5 - 2m

[rodin]

http://www.911-strike.com/engine_rotor.jpg

This is not an engine fan. Where are the blades?

It may be the central shaft. There would have been a blade in each segment I guess.

Planted evidence since there is no plane entry wound @ Pentagon

[triforcharity]

Thanks for posting this, I was going to look for the pictures during my earlier post but i was too lazy :D

But there is no comparison, its actually hilarious comparing the 2 pictures. As I said, if I was about to board a 757 with those fans found at the pentagon then Id rather walk my journey. Those fans shouldnt be on a glider!

And someone will say they are just 'part' of the engines but if thats the case why did these parts survive yet the rest disapear.

The Pentagon lie is beyond obvious its laughable and insults the intelligence of an 8 year old. Anyone who believes it AFTER looking at the evidence are crazy!

Engines are made up of many different parts. Have either of you two read this page, and absorbed any of it??

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

[triforcharity]

http://www.911-strike.com/engine_rotor.jpg

This is not an engine fan. Where are the blades?

It may be the central shaft. There would have been a blade in each segment I guess.

Planted evidence since there is no plane entry wound @ Pentagon

The blades break off. That is what they are designed to do.

Stop the argument from increduility.

[bsmurph83]

Apologies if this represents a slight thread derailment, but it is worthy reading from the encyclopedic Webster G. Tarpley and I wanted to throw it into a thread somewhere:

Objections to the 9/11 imposture in its official version are often dismissed as conspiracy
theories. Supporters of the official version use this a term of contempt, even though it is
clear that to label a point of view as a conspiracy theory is in no way to refute it. The
charge or insult of conspiracy theory is not only demagogical, but also intellectually
dishonest, since the official version, involving as it does Bin Laden and al Qaeda acting
at a distance from remote caves with the help of laptops, represents a conspiracy theory
of a peculiarly fantastic type. Implicit in this procedure is the assumption that a
conspiracy theory which is endorsed and embraced by the controlled corporate media is
no longer a conspiracy theory, but rather respectable, and presumed true. Minority views
which are not supported by the controlled corporate media remain conspiracy theories,
and cannot be credible, no matter how true they can be shown to be. To these applies the
warning issued by the deranged prevaricator in the White House:
We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous
conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th,
malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists
themselves, away from the guilty. (UN General Assembly, November 10,
2001)
The entire controversy about conspiracy theory is a diversion, and is generally conducted
in such a way as to lead away from the facts on the table. Charges of conspiracy theory
represent in their own way a form of ideological terrorism, and grow out of the
intellectual climate of cold war McCarthyite witch-hunts. Conspiracy itself has a history
as long as humanity, since it is one of the primordial forms of political action.
Machiavelli writes about conspiracy in a long chapter of his Discourses; what he means
by conspiracy is a plot to kill a ruler and to seize power in his place, like the conspiracy
organized by the Pazzi family against the Medici in the 1480s. Conspiracy is also an
active category of the Anglo-Saxon common law.

[bsmurph83]

Further from this vastly knowledgeable man (I realise it is fairly elementary for those of us with a firmer grip on reality than the System Minds enslaved by the official fantasy Re: 9-11):

US society today is neither a tyranny nor a democracy; it is
organized from top to bottom according to the principle of oligarchy or plutocracy. The
characteristic way in which an oligarchy functions is by means of conspiracy, a mode
which is necessary because of the polycentric distribution of power in an oligarchical
system, and the resulting need to secure the cooperation and approval of several
oligarchical centers in order to get things done. Furthermore, the operations of secret
intelligence agencies tend to follow conspiratorial models; this is what a covert operation means... (see Synthetic Terror)

With all this in mind, we may justifiably take the official version with more than a grain of salt considering the devious and conspiratorial nature of agencies such as the FBI that have so largely contributed to the official mythology and its perpetuation... Deception is traditionally their lifeblood; their M.O. *Shock!*

Thus, Tarpley continues:

So, in an oligarchical society characterized by the preponderant role of
secret intelligence agencies – such as the United States at the beginning of the twentyfirst
century -- anyone who rules out conspiracies a priori runs the risk of not
understanding very much of what is going on. One gathers that the phobia against alleged
conspiracy theory in much of postmodern academia is actually a cover story for a distaste
for political thinking itself.

[tb303]

Classic stuff from Tarpley, thanks bsmurph83.

Implicit in this procedure is the assumption that a
conspiracy theory which is endorsed and embraced by the controlled corporate media is
no longer a conspiracy theory, but rather respectable, and presumed true. Minority views
which are not supported by the controlled corporate media remain conspiracy theories,
and cannot be credible, no matter how true they can be shown to be.

Nailed it.

[bigcadaver]

Engines are made up of many different parts. Have either of you two read this page, and absorbed any of it??

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Yes I did read it and found it to be very good info...thank you. My personal beliefs that 911 was an inside job don't necessarily rest with the Pentagon. They are fueled by the open and shut case regarding building 7. Everything else can be argued and debated at nauseum and people who believe or don't believe can't be convinced either way in most cases. Is it possible that this fan actually came from a 757s engine? Sure....so i'm not going to dwell on it. The Pentagon....flight 93...there are COUNTLESS coincidences/unanswered questions that simply add to the evidence pile but not alot I have found can be used as PROOF of much but they do raise plenty of questions for sure.

It is just unbelieveably comical to read posts like this...

"Also, I have a problem with that photograph. The perspective, with the camera positioned so near the front of the engine and the two workers in the background, makes the engine look far larger than it really is. Digressing briefly, fishermen will use the same trick to make a the fish they're holding in a photograph look huge - hold the fish at the end of your outstretched arms and an average catch looks world-record size."

About pictures like this....

Right.....engine fan at Pentagon...

http://www.911-strike.com/engine_rotor.jpg

Actual size of commercial jet liner engine...

http://static.wix.com/media/7bb4b62e9b5e6fc3c4634b8e1638a26e.wix_mp

That shows just what lengths you koolaid drinkers will go to deny what is right in front of you.

That's why I stick to the one indisputable observable fact as much as possible. Freefall acceleration collapse of building 7...admitted by NIST...impossible without explosives....end of story.

[bsmurph83]

Wow.

"Also, I have a problem with that photograph. The perspective, with the camera positioned so near the front of the engine and the two workers in the background, makes the engine look far larger than it really is. Digressing briefly, fishermen will use the same trick to make a the fish they're holding in a photograph look huge - hold the fish at the end of your outstretched arms and an average catch looks world-record size."

At best and in this context this is sophistry. At best.

[bsmurph83]

there are COUNTLESS coincidences/unanswered questions that simply add to the evidence pile but not alot I have found can be used as PROOF of much but they do raise plenty of questions for sure.

Yup! Taken alone/in isolation, most of the amazing and absurd 'coincidences' propping up the official story do not utterly disprove it, BUT, taken as a whole, they represent a scale of implausibility so absurdly monumental that only a fool could possibly believe what the media/intelligence community/corrupt Gov elements present to us as an explanation. More holes that a fishing net.

[gribz]

Also, I have a problem with that photograph. The perspective, with the camera positioned so near the front of the engine and the two workers in the background, makes the engine look far larger than it really is. Digressing briefly, fishermen will use the same trick to make a the fish they're holding in a photograph look huge - hold the fish at the end of your outstretched arms and an average catch looks world-record size.



Thats still priceless. Ive no idea how long you have been up working that out but fair play to you - best answer Ive ever seen - it is actually better than the official story!!

Hilarious! Espcially when there is ahuman leg next to the supposed 757 engine then you compare it to the real engine - surely the guy next to the pentagon fan is on stilts!!!

:D:D:D:D:D

[bigcadaver]

Yup! Taken alone/in isolation, most of the amazing and absurd 'coincidences' propping up the official story do not utterly disprove it, BUT, taken as a whole, they represent a scale of implausibility so absurdly monumental that only a fool could possibly believe what the media/intelligence community/corrupt Gov elements present to us as an explanation. More holes that a fishing net.

That's exactly correct! The sheer VOLUME of these coincidences/ inconsistencies/unanswered questions makes the probability that they all lign up to confirm the official story virtually nil.

What I find useless is to argue most of these points by themselves with these koolaid drinkers. You will find yourself swimming in an ocean of double talk, double standards and semantics.

911 was an inside job because of the staggering VOLUME of these questions and inconsistencies...not any 1 point, combined with the admitted, observable freefall uniform collapse of WTC7.

Case closed.

[bsmurph83]

surely the guy next to the pentagon fan is on stilts!!!

:d:d:d:d:d

lmfao!

[bigcadaver]

Thats still priceless. Ive no idea how long you have been up working that out but fair play to you - best answer Ive ever seen - it is actually better than the official story!!

Hilarious! Espcially when there is ahuman leg next to the supposed 757 engine then you compare it to the real engine - surely the guy next to the pentagon fan is on stilts!!!

:D:D:D:D:D

LOL....funny how he seems to have disapeared since this post eh? He's probably taking long walks mumbling to himself....

"But the fishermen....they're all CTs too....the fish...the engine...can't they see it?....."

[tb303]

Digressing briefly, fishermen will use the same trick to make a the fish they're holding in a photograph look huge - hold the fish at the end of your outstretched arms and an average catch looks world-record size.



Did you hear about the one that got away?

http://planetpov.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/dick_cheney.jpg

[white horse]

Lets see, flight 77 was boarded by these certain people.

CREW:
•Charles Burlingame, 51, Va., captain, American Airlines
•David Charlebois, Washington, D.C., first officer, American Airlines
•Michele Heidenberger, 57, Chevy Chase, Md., flight attendant, American Airlines
•Jennifer Lewis, 38, Culpeper, Va., flight attendant, American Airlines
•Kenneth Lewis, 49, Culpeper, Va., flight attendant, American Airlines
•Renee May, 39, Baltimore, Md., flight attendant, American Airlines

PASSENGERS:
•Paul Ambrose, 32, physician
•Yeneneh Betru, 35, Burbank, Calif., director of medical affairs, IPC
•MJ Booth
•Bernard Brown, 11, student, Leckie Elementary School (Washington)
•Suzanne Calley, 42, San Martin, Calif., Cisco Systems Inc.
•William E. Caswell, 54, Silver Spring, Md., physicist, U.S. Navy
•Sarah Clark, 65, Columbia, Md., sixth-grade teacher, Backus Middle School (Washington)
•Zandra Cooper, Annandale, Va.
•Asia Cottom, 11, student, Backus Middle School (Washington)
•James Debeuneure, 58, Upper Marlboro, Md., fifth-grade teacher, Ketcham Elementary School (Washington)
•Rodney Dickens, 11, student, Ketcham Elementary School (Washington)
•Eddie Dillard
•Charles Droz, 52, Springfield, Va., vice president for software development, EM Solutions Inc.
•Barbara G. Edwards, 58, Las Vegas, Nev., teacher, Palo Verde High School
•Charles S. Falkenberg, 45, University Park, Md., research director, ECOlogic Corp.
•Dana Falkenberg, 3, University Park, Md.
•Zoe Falkenberg, 8, University Park, Md.
•James Joe Ferguson, 39, Washington, D.C., educational outreach director, National Geographic Society
•Darlene ``Dee'' Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va.
•Wilson ``Bud'' Flagg, 63, Millwood, Va., retired Navy Admiral and pilot, American Airlines
•Richard P. Gabriel Sr., 54, Great Falls, Va., managing partner, Stratin Consulting
•Ian Gray, 55, Washington, D.C., healthcare consulting firm president
•Stanley Hall, 68, Rancho Palos Verdes, Calif.
•Bryan Jack, 48, Alexandria, Va., senior executive, Defense Department
•Steven D. ``Jake'' Jacoby, 43, Alexandria, Va., chief operating officer, Metrocall Inc.
•Ann Judge, 49, Great Falls, Va., travel officer manager, National Geographic Society
•Chandler Keller, 29, El Segundo, Calif., propulsion engineer, Boeing Co.
•Yvonne Kennedy
•Norma Khan, 45, Reston, Va., nonprofit organization manager,
•Karen A. Kincaid, 40, lawyer, Wiley Rein & Fielding in Washington
•Dong Lee, 48, Leesburg, Va., engineer, Boeing Co.
•Dora Menchaca, 45, Santa Monica, Calif., associate director of clinical research, Amgen Inc.
•Christopher Newton, 38, Ashburn, Va., executive, WorkLife Benefits
•Barbara Olson, 45, TV commentator and lawyer
•Ruben Ornedo, 39, Los Angeles, Calif., propulsion engineer, Boeing Co.
•Robert Penniger, 63, Poway, Calif., electrical engineer, BAE Systems
•Robert R. Ploger III, 59, Annandale, Va., software architect, Lockheed Martin Corp.
•Lisa J. Raines, 42, Great Falls, Va., senior vice president, Genzyme Corp.
•Todd Reuben, 40, Potomac, Md., tax and business lawyer
•John Sammartino, 37, Annandale, Va., technical manager, XonTech Inc.
•Yang Shuyin, 61, Beijing, China
•Diane Simmons
•George Simmons
•Mari-Rae Sopper, 35, Santa Barbara, Calif., women's gymnastics coach, UC Santa Barbara
•Robert Speisman, 47, Irvington, N.Y., diamond industry salesman
•Norma Lang Steuerle, 54, Alexandria, Va.
•Hilda Taylor, sixth grade teacher at Leckie Elementary School in Washington
•Leonard Taylor, 44, Reston, Va., technical group manager, XonTech Inc.
•Sandra Teague, 31, Fairfax, Va., physical therapist, Georgetown University Hospital
•Leslie A. Whittington, 45, University Park, Md., professor, Georgetown University
•John Yamnicky, 71, Waldorf, Md.
•Vicki Yancey, 44, Springfield, Va., Vredenburg
•Zheng Yuguang, 65, Beijing, China


http://www.boston.com/news/daily/13/victims_list.htm#aa11


Now, how could MOST of these people's DNA be found INSIDE the Pentagon, if they WERE NOT on the plane?? 184 out of 189 to be exact.

http://www.pica.army.mil/Voice/voice2001/011207/Forensicid.htm

Now, couple that with the other evidence (FDR, Radar tracks, physical evidence of an airplane INSIDE the Pentagon etc. etc. etc. ) and how could it NOT have been 77?? Its impossible. I would be so far fetched it would not even be close to plausable.

Ah Jeezuz are we back on this merry go round again?? :eek:

We have metal planes evaperating, yet we have DNA recovered from the scene...

Does this not strike you as... odd...???

[tabea_blumenschein]

I hope you guys enjoyed your laugh. You obviously didn't comprehend what I was trying to say.

Here's that picture again:

Actual size of commercial jet liner engine...

http://static.wix.com/media/7bb4b62e9b5e6fc3c4634b8e1638a26e.wix_mp

Bigcadaver says "actual size of commercial jet liner engine". Now let me ask you all something.

suppose someone who doesn't know a whole lot about commercial jet aircraft were asked to estimate the diameter of the engine based on that photograph alone. How many of them do you think would come anywhere close to the right answer? I'd bet that anyone you asked would overestimate that diameter by a significant margin. Why? Because of the perspective issue that I was trying to point out earlier, and that you all misinterpreted.

It was the picture above I was referring to, not the one with the worker standing in front of the piece of wreckage.

Okay?

[bigcadaver]

I hope you guys enjoyed your laugh. You obviously didn't comprehend what I was trying to say.

Here's that picture again:



Bigcadaver says "actual size of commercial jet liner engine". Now let me ask you all something.

suppose someone who doesn't know a whole lot about commercial jet aircraft were asked to estimate the diameter of the engine based on that photograph alone. How many of them do you think would come anywhere close to the right answer? I'd bet that anyone you asked would overestimate that diameter by a significant margin. Why? Because of the perspective issue that I was trying to point out earlier, and that you all misinterpreted.

It was the picture above I was referring to, not the one with the worker standing in front of the piece of wreckage.

Okay?

"Someone who doesn't know a whole lot about commercial jet aircraft"...would still be able to tell that the actual jet liner engine in the second photo is MUCH bigger than the fan in the pentagon photo. That's all that matters...whether they think that its 70% bigger or 62% bigger is irrelevant. The fact that you bring this up as an actual debate point and compare it to fishing pictures is what is hilarious.

Most people can use their common sense and do not rely on fraudulent government reports to tell them how to think. I wish you and triforcharity were some of those people....but helas....

[bsmurph83]

It is amazing the trivialities the believers insist on focusing on whilst simultaneously avoiding the most important aspects.

On top of that, you simply edit out what is inconvenient to your emotional need to trust the Gov and defend your Nanny State. How do you propose that all of that human DNA from bodies could be recovered from 77 while the materials comprising the plane mysteriously vanished? Are you proposing the materials (aluminium for instance) that go into building such a plane actually are MORE vulnerable to fire than human tissue? Um............

Wait, let me guess, you're going to go back to the old 'but there was a handful of enigmatic debris on the lawn which was cleaned up miraculously with a nice little emu bob because most of the pieces were small enough to be hand held...' - How many airline crashes have EVER fit the description of what happened at the Pentagon?

Then of course there is the issue of the hole/s being punched through all that steel and concrete - a hole which, we might add, is not even the right size for your mysterious aircraft to cause it. Can someone PLEASE present ANY of the scientific evidence that such an alleged airliner can cause such incredible damage to such a structure? And where did the plane go, having somehow defied all known physics and penetrated so far into the Pentagon? And the bodies... On and on we go...

For the geopolitically and historically impaired see: BBC now admits al qaeda never existed - YouTube

Al Qaeda is a myth invented by the people whose data you are so eagerly swallowing. Those 10 minutes are 10 well spent minutes and should (hoping in vain, I know) offer some pause for consideration, even a jumping off point for further research.

If I could wave a wand and get you to see that you are actually defending the oligarchy's process of enslaving you, I'd do it... Since I don't and can't, why don't you stop and consider the implications of some things... Like Bin Laden being a known Intel asset, Al Qaeda being a complete myth, people such as the Bushes being in business with the Bin LAdens, FBI agents being told to back off the Bin Ladens and not pursue investigations into them after 9-11, numerous people receving tipoffs not to go to work at the WTCs that day, MASSIVE insider trading indicating clear foreknowledge, the USA being the biggest progenitor and funder of terrorism on earth bar noone, the fact that such an attack is not even remotely possible without LOTS of help from on US soil (which was willingly provided by people of the caliber of Dick Cheney), a bare minumum of 5 'hijackers' showing up alive and well after having apparently flown planes into skyscapers (more FBI or CIA identity theft, hooray), the fact that no such buildings had EVER collapsed entirely like that without it being a controlled demo' and yet it happened 3 TIMES on the same day - surely cause for massive suspicion for any sentient being (fire don't burn hot enough to create a 'pancake' collapse (which has never occurred anywhere before or after, even in buildings burned far worse and for much longer) and the plane impact has been described as poking a hole in mosquito wire - hardly catastrophic damage even combined), Rumsfeld lying about Al Qaeda bases carved out of mountains (hahaha!), the lies/rationalisations about the WMD's which never existed (just like the invisible Al Qaeda mountain bases and the whole 'organisation'), proven documented history of planned and executed false flag attacks staged by the Gov (see Northwoods for a start), lies about the accuracy of 'smart bombs' and such as deployed (deliberately or otherwise) against civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan, Cheney's alleged stand-down order, the numerous 'coincidental' war games that just HAPPENED to be going on during 9-11 that mimicked the actual events so closely, the lie about noone being able to foresee anyone flying planes into buildings when they were running goddamn drills for that EXACT situation that SAME day, Intel control over media content of what we are and are NOT allowed to see, and on and on the list goes...

Come on guys... Widen your vision a little...

What logical reason do you have for defending the version of events given to you by the minds responsible for much of the above (incredibly incomplete) list??? Honestly. Why do you feel compelled to defend the notions set forth by TPTB regarding how this played out? What credibility do they have? These are the minds responsible for around 2 million civilian Iraqi deaths thanks to Bush 41 and 43's reign of terror. The same network that ordered the bombing of civilian water supplies are asking you to believe their version of events for that day - as if they have no vested interest in any outcome! As if they actually can be taken at face value! *Sigh*

Please start paying attention to independent scholars such as Tarpley...

Peace

[bigcadaver]

If I could wave a wand and get you to see that you are actually defending the oligarchy's process of enslaving you, I'd do it... Since I don't and can't, why don't you stop and consider the implications of some things... Like Bin Laden being a known Intel asset, Al Qaeda being a complete myth, people such as the Bushes being in business with the Bin LAdens, FBI agents being told to back off the Bin Ladens and not pursue investigations into them after 9-11, numerous people receving tipoffs not to go to work at the WTCs that day, MASSIVE insider trading indicating clear foreknowledge, the USA being the biggest progenitor and funder of terrorism on earth bar noone, the fact that such an attack is not even remotely possible without LOTS of help from on US soil (which was willingly provided by people of the caliber of Dick Cheney), a bare minumum of 5 'hijackers' showing up alive and well after having apparently flown planes into skyscapers (more FBI or CIA identity theft, hooray), the fact that no such buildings had EVER collapsed entirely like that without it being a controlled demo' and yet it happened 3 TIMES on the same day - surely cause for massive suspicion for any sentient being (fire don't burn hot enough to create a 'pancake' collapse (which has never occurred anywhere before or after, even in buildings burned far worse and for much longer) and the plane impact has been described as poking a hole in mosquito wire - hardly catastrophic damage even combined), Rumsfeld lying about Al Qaeda bases carved out of mountains (hahaha!), the lies/rationalisations about the WMD's which never existed (just like the invisible Al Qaeda mountain bases and the whole 'organisation'), proven documented history of planned and executed false flag attacks staged by the Gov (see Northwoods for a start), lies about the accuracy of 'smart bombs' and such as deployed (deliberately or otherwise) against civilians in Iraq/Afghanistan, Cheney's alleged stand-down order, the numerous 'coincidental' war games that just HAPPENED to be going on during 9-11 that mimicked the actual events so closely, the lie about noone being able to foresee anyone flying planes into buildings when they were running goddamn drills for that EXACT situation that SAME day, Intel control over media content of what we are and are NOT allowed to see, and on and on the list goes...

Come on guys... Widen your vision a little...

You know, this list is very good, but as you said....on and on the list goes....and on and on and on. What is mind boggling is that, the folks who believe the official conspiracy theory will take each nugget INDIVIDUALLY in your post and find some plausible explanation for it (however unlikely and usually government postulated) and do the same INDIVIDUALLY for the dozens more you didn't list. Then as they do, they tell themselves...

"see...that tin hat wearing CT didn't prove anything...I showed him"...

When in reality they should be looking at the totality of the information and realizing the fact that if only ONE....ONE....of these nuggets turns out to be true then the entire official story falls apart. So from a statistical standpoint....it is statistically IMPOSSIBLE for the official story to be true based on the sheer volume of coincidences TAKEN AS A WHOLE that have to line up. So...with that....and with the NIST (and triforcharity) admitted 2.5 second freefall uniform collapse of building 7...out in plain view for anyone to measure and what do you get?

But...I can already see triforcharity or his fishing sidekick disecting your list and picking out 1 or 2 items they can use to steer the conversation elsewhere.

Let's wait and see.

[mrerisian]

I'll throw a few questions at the 9/11 "wasn't an inside job" crowd here.

Just to clarify - I'm not part of that 'crowd'. I have problems with all the conspiracy theories including the one put forward by the powers that be. This string has amply demonstrated my overall point. It's not an open and shut case no matter which way you slice it.

The advocates of any conspiracy theory often reduce themselves to personal attacks and name calling. This is to my mind clear proof that they themselves are a little insecure about their point of view.

It's why sarcastic nonsense posts like this fall a little short:mrerisian is a sceptic, he has come here to enlighten us and stop us making fools out of ourselves by not believing everything the authorities tell us.

One day we will all thank him for his great wisdom.

I question the authorities version of events also. Therefore YOU ARE WRONG in your analysis of me. What's more I've made my position clear since the outset of the string. Oh dear. This means we can learn something about you... You IGNORE evidence and allow prejudice to inform your world view.

That's a fact informed by your behavior which anyone here can verify by looking over previous posts. It's your kind of mentality which has caused me to wake up from my 'conspiracy theory' slumber when I unquestioningly thought the whole thing was 'an inside job'. When I realised I was keeping company like yours I started to look deeper than just infowars and this site.

Even at the height of my belief in the alternative version of events (of which there are many) I found it a little far fetched the sheer number of people who would need to be involved in the conspiracy. engines planted are not from a 757. Planting engines etc? All seems a little bit silly doesn't it?

That said I really think we've stumbled into a world of faith here...
So after all of that, you still want a new investigation?

Perhaps but I don't think it would make much of a difference. All those who think it was an inside job would think the investigation a whitewash unless it went their way.

The engines are in fact from a 757. You have been watching Loose Change too much.

I'm not an aviation expert but I do know Loose Change 2 is FULL OF ERRORS. They fell foul of 'bendoon syndrome' in that they had a conclusion which they then tried to fit by ignoring evidence and taking people's word for it without looking further.

Yes I did read it and found it to be very good info...thank you. My personal beliefs that 911 was an inside job don't necessarily rest with the Pentagon. They are fueled by the open and shut case regarding building 7. [...]
That's why I stick to the one indisputable observable fact as much as possible. Freefall acceleration collapse of building 7...admitted by NIST...impossible without explosives....end of story.

That's the main point for me as well. It's the oddest and biggest hole in the official story. But it doesn't prove an 'inside job' in the manner that Icke and Jones talk about. It doesn't prove anything - just potentially disproves the official story.

I just can't get behind the following logic anymore:

911 was an inside job because of the staggering VOLUME of these questions and inconsistencies...not any 1 point, combined with the admitted, observable freefall uniform collapse of WTC7.

Case closed.

Case still open - back to the point of my original post.

[bigcadaver]

Case still open - back to the point of my original post.

Sorry you can't see it. The forensic evidence is there combined with a veritable orgy of circumstancial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence:

List too long to post...once you step back and look at all the coincidences that need to line up for the official story to make sense....its a staggeringly unlikely possiblity as close to a statistical impossibility as can be imagined.

Forensic evidence: Observable measurable uniform freefall collapse of building 7...admitted by NIST (and triforcharity) impossible due to only fire and gravity.

Unexploded nanothermite chips, some attached to iron microspheres found in WTC dust independently confirmed in peer reviewable published papers....yet to be publicly and scientifically rebutted.

[mrerisian]

Circumstantial evidence:

List too long to post...once you step back and look at all the coincidences that need to line up for the official story to make sense....its a staggeringly unlikely possiblity as close to a statistical impossibility as can be imagined.


Who calculated these statistics for you? You're exaggerating and it does your argument no good. Furthermore there's a logical leap which I can't follow most people on. It goes like this:

OFFICIAL STORY HAS HOLES = 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.

I just don't follow that logic. You need more evidence to get me to that conclusion.


Forensic evidence: Observable measurable uniform freefall collapse of building 7...admitted by NIST (and triforcharity) impossible due to only fire and gravity.

Unexploded nanothermite chips, some attached to iron microspheres found in WTC dust independently confirmed in peer reviewable published papers....yet to be publicly and scientifically rebutted.

As for this nanothermite stuff - oh dear. So who used this 'nanothermite' and how?

Again, it's not something I can reasonably check out. Which peer reviewed published papers are you talking about? Are these respectable scientific journals or am I going to follow a link through to some dumbass Christian website? I'm so sick of being told in no uncertain terms that something is true only to bump into obvious old fashioned bullshit as I follow up links/claims etc.

[triforcharity]

Sorry you can't see it. The forensic evidence is there combined with a veritable orgy of circumstancial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence:

List too long to post...once you step back and look at all the coincidences that need to line up for the official story to make sense....its a staggeringly unlikely possiblity as close to a statistical impossibility as can be imagined.

Forensic evidence: Observable measurable uniform freefall collapse of building 7...admitted by NIST (and triforcharity) impossible due to only fire and gravity.

Unexploded nanothermite chips, some attached to iron microspheres found in WTC dust independently confirmed in peer reviewable published papers....yet to be publicly and scientifically rebutted.

Um, where?? I have never seen this. Has it been submitted to any of the leading universities in the world?? Why is that??? Humm.....Gee......I wonder why.
Peer reviewed?? Bentham again?? Please, that is hardly a peer review. That is a check/bank account balance increase review.

[bendoon]

Um, where?? I have never seen this. Has it been submitted to any of the leading universities in the world?? Why is that??? Humm.....Gee......I wonder why.
Peer reviewed?? Bentham again?? Please, that is hardly a peer review. That is a check/bank account balance increase review.

Don't you feel just a tinge of guilt knowing that you are covering for the biggest gang of mass murderers in history ?

[tb303]

Don't you feel just a tinge of guilt knowing that you are covering for the biggest gang of mass murderers in history ?

He'll feel more than a tinge when the truth comes out in the mainstream media as part of the plan to bring the US down.

America destroyed by design...

[camreeno]

Hey mremritian, I don't know about you but the official 9/11 explanation has massive holes and to still defend it shows some insecurity on your part. And who is insecure? You're saying conspiracy "theorists" are insecure? How so?

What you're saying is very indicative of someone who attacks conspiracy theories for the fact alone that they're conspiracy theories. Now that you say this falsity lies on all conspiracy theories, you're just proving you base your judgement on presupposition and don't actually check if things are conspiracies or not. The real conspiracy theory we have at hand is the notion that a man in a cave coordinated the biggest terrorist attack on history with a laptop connecting with 19 terrorists with boxcutters who purchased their plane tickets the day before. You're riding the wave of the status quo that whatever the mass media says must be true. So if the mass media says conspiracy theorists are nuts, oh they MUST be nuts... You see, you've created an axiom and you're rerouting evidence to suit your presupposition.

It was an inside job and this is extremely straightforward. I can guess you're trying to come up with a list of "inconsistencies" in the conspiracy theories now that you're reading this, but all I can say is look at this from above and don't put a bias on it and the truth will make itself known.

What sources do you go by to get your info on 9/11? What documentaries have you watched, books you've read, sites you've visited, etc? If you choose your sources according to a cemented belief, then the belief will stay there is you only research on supporting evidence to the belief. It could be that you haven't actually looked at the main bulk of the conspiracy points and you haven't pieced it together.

There's no point in arguing if both sides never listen to each other. This isn't a matter of rooting for a football team, this is a question of objective facts and only one side can be right. It's like arguing that 1 plus 1 equals 2 then another guy claims it's 3. I'm sorry but you just haven't looked at the evidence. Hell, even David Icke adamently insists it was an inside job and he wrote a 500+ page book about it. I suggest reading that, 9/11: Synthetic Terror, Towers of Deception, or one of the other main books on this.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Forensic evidence: Observable measurable uniform freefall collapse of building 7...admitted by NIST (and triforcharity) impossible due to only fire and gravity.

Bigcadaver, would you be nice enough to answer these two questions?

1. What part of WTC7 does NIST admit was in "freefall"?

2. When did the "freefall" period for that portion of the building start, and when did it end?

Thanks.

[secondsun]

He'll feel more than a tinge when the truth comes out in the mainstream media as part of the plan to bring the US down.

America destroyed by design...

..dont hold your breath waiting for the MSM... but China may bring down the US in other ways!

[mrerisian]

Hey mremritian, I don't know about you but the official 9/11 explanation has massive holes and to still defend it shows some insecurity on your part. [...]

There's no point in arguing if both sides never listen to each other.

100% agree, so how about you read what I've actually written eh? I'm not defending the official version. That's plain to see, just read a few of my posts. Then try to get my name right and perhaps we're onto something...

[bigcadaver]

Who calculated these statistics for you? You're exaggerating and it does your argument no good.

Exaggerating? Really?

During the London bombings there were emergency drills taking place that day that mirrored the scenario that was taking place in the real world almost identically. Alex Jones had a statistical actuary table done to determine the odds of this happening and it turned out to be 1 in more times then every grain of sand on the earth. Now lets say they were WAAAAAYYYYY off and its only 1 in every grain of sand in the Sahara....or 1 in every grain of sand in Miami beach....or 1 in every grain of sand that I can hold in my hand!!! That is still a VERY UNLIKELY coincidence.

It is a reasonable assumption that the statistical likelyhood of NORAD running drills on the same day as 911 that mimicked the events of 911 almost identically would be AT LEAST just as low. And this is just ONE in a LONG list of coincidences that have to line up to make the official story plausible. When you compound the unlikelyhood of ALL these coincidences....yes my friend...you get a virtual statistical impossibility.

[supertzar]

Your logic is in error then.

The theorists themselves have no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the official version. The official version is either true or not whatever anyone else thinks and just because you may have a dislike for some of the people who do not agree with the Government does not mean the Government is telling the truth.



Yes!

[bigcadaver]

Bigcadaver, would you be nice enough to answer these two questions?

1. What part of WTC7 does NIST admit was in "freefall"?

2. When did the "freefall" period for that portion of the building start, and when did it end?

Thanks.

The answers to your questions are found in the easy to follow videos linked below...no engineering or physics degrees required....just common sense.

Also...just for some comic relief....notice how nervous and fidgetty these guys are when answering the questions they are posed...particularly John Gross. These guys are PHD structural engineers speaking about a subject they understand inside and out...STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. Yet they can't answer simple questions without sounding like they're 15 year old kids trying to talk their way out of a shoplifting charge.

It would be a lot funnier if their behavior wasn't a result of them participating in the cover up of the cause of death of 3000 people.

NIST Finally Admits Freefall...Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=related

NIST Finally Admits Freefall...Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80&feature=related

NIST Finally Admits Freefall...Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=related

[supertzar]

You're wrong there. Most decent 9/11 conspiracy theories involve facts which I am not able to independently verify. I can't go to the scene and check the thermite balls or watch the radar flight paths etc. I'm not a skilled demolition expert and I don't understand how buildings collapse etc.

This means you end up relying upon the theorist in question for the information. It's all very well for them to say 'do your own research' but in reality that's not practical.

I can't check if bombdogs were or were not removed from the towers. I don't know if mobile phones work on planes. Etc etc etc.

With this being the case the credibility of the theorist (or more accurately 'researcher') is central to the thesis.

It amazes me the number of people who'll go "oh yeh I've been researching this shit independently for years" only for this 'research' to be revealed as sitting on the net in your dressing gown smoking a dooby.

Research involves going to the scene - interviewing witnesses - talking to experts. Not asking your 'intuition' and looking on wikipedia after watching a few numbnut youtube vids.



Whether you are able to "verify" something through fallible means doesn't have any bearing on the truth of the matter either. What is talking to an expert going to do to determine the truth? Nothing. You might talk to ten experts and get ten different answers. It's the quality of the information that is important, not the source. You can "confirm your prejudice" and be incorrect or you can confirm it and be correct. It doesn't make sense to make conclusions based on whether someone confirmed their prejudice or not.

[mrerisian]

What is talking to an expert going to do to determine the truth?

Experts are fantastic. They give you the benefit of their expertise. You wanna fix your computer? Ask an expert. They'll tell you a lot more than nothing!

In this instance experts help stop people from getting carried away. They can tell you things about how buildings fall etc. They can also get you out of relying on Alex Jones for his statistical analysis of things:

Exaggerating? Really?

During the London bombings there were emergency drills taking place that day that mirrored the scenario that was taking place in the real world almost identically. Alex Jones had a statistical actuary table done to determine the odds of this happening and it turned out to be 1 in more times then every grain of sand on the earth.

Right. So you're getting your statistics from Alex Jones. No further questions your honor.

I love AJ but I don't exactly trust him for consistently accurate info. I've been listening to him for too long for that. I love the idea that a statistician gave the answer I've highlighted. Very funny.

[supertzar]

Experts are fantastic. They give you the benefit of their expertise. You wanna fix your computer? Ask an expert. They'll tell you a lot more than nothing!



I work in a hospital with a dedicated Cardio-Vascular Center. It is full of highly paid doctors, all of whom arguably qualify as experts in their field. Well over fifty of them are aware that the latest research shows that radiation in commercial tobacco is the primary cause of lung cancer. Does the public get the benefit of these experts' knowledge? No. They puff away on radioactive ciggies without even knowing it. Other so called experts in the field have no idea that commercial growing practices are primarily responsible for lung cancer. I myself know more than many experts about it. Again, it is the information that is important, not the source.

[bigcadaver]

Right. So you're getting your statistics from Alex Jones. No further questions your honor.

Nice to see you read and quoted the rest of my post! Ok....let's pick a more than reasonable statistical probability for these events. Can we agree that the number of grains of sand on the Earth is quite a bit more than one hundred? Can we also agree that a variance of about 39 zeros as a margin of error is enough leeway to Mr. Jones' stats?

Just to put that in perspective.....this is Alex Jones' number....

100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

This is our number...

100

Enough margin there? Ok...then if we then take the DOZENS and DOZENS of coincidences that have to line up and give them each a one in a hundred chance of happening.....no....forget that.....let's only pick TEN. Can we agree that with the DOZENS and DOZENS of coincidences that we all know occured...at least ten will have at least a one in a hundred chance of occuring? Ok...following me? Then the likelyhood of all ten lining up at one in a hundred chance each is one in a TRILLION. Now...I don't know much but I think its safe to say that one in a TRILLION is pretty close to a statisitcal impossibility....and that's being unbelievably generous.

I love the idea that a statistician gave the answer I've highlighted. Very funny.

That's not the answer that the statistician gave. They used an actuary table to calculate the number which came up to a 1 followed by 41 zeros ( I can't pronounce the number that its called). Jones then uses the grain of sand analogy to put that number in perspective. See for youself at the 41:40 mark of Terrorstorm...linked below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NKxUxK_iqk

[mrerisian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NKxUxK_iqk

Is that the version of Terrorstorm where he says the London bombings happened before the election? Or is it the one where they corrected all those errors?

C'mon man, I'm familiar with Alex Jones and much as I like him I don't trust him for statistics and facts. He's often wrong.

[bigcadaver]

Is that the version of Terrorstorm where he says the London bombings happened before the election? Or is it the one where they corrected all those errors?

C'mon man, I'm familiar with Alex Jones and much as I like him I don't trust him for statistics and facts. He's often wrong.

Dude....were there or were there not drills happening in London that mirrored the bombings almost precisely at the same time? You don't need Alex Jones to tell you this.

Were there or were there not drills being conducted by NORAD at the time of the WTC attacks that mirrored that scenario almost precisely? You don't need Alex Jones to tell you this either. If Alex Jones had the likelyhood of this coincidence calculated as...

...1 in 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000...

...and we use...

...1 in 100...

...instead......is that not enough leeway that it JUST MIGHT fall into the margin of error of his calculation?

Enough said...use your common sense dude!

[mrerisian]

were there or were there not drills happening in London that mirrored the bombings almost precisely at the same time? You don't need Alex Jones to tell you this.

Were there or were there not drills being conducted by NORAD at the time of the WTC attacks that mirrored that scenario almost precisely?!

No need to get all rhetorical on me. Yes, there were drills going on in both occasions. They're not (as you say) 100% identical to the real world situations that were going on but there are some strong similarities.

Strong enough to suggest an MO perhaps.

However, there's not enough in that to point to an inside job. It only raises suspicion. As I've already said (though I remind you because you ignored it previously) my position is that all of the main theories have question marks and holes. WTC7 is the biggest stumbling block for me.

As for them doing drills which tie in with real world situations - that is sort of their job. Most of the time they're practicing and training, that's what we pay them for. Furthermore you'd hope they were practicing for the sort of thing that might happen (and in fact did). If they'd been practicing for a sea based troop invasion I think there'd be more room to criticise them.

What irks me is when people like Jones jump on their soapbox with a bullhorn and try to exaggerate the already incredible facts. Do you really think he has the information to factor in a statistical analysis of the likelihood of the coincidence that there were practices going on at the same time as real world events? Like the secret service and security services dish out press releases with the details of all their activities and their exact locations. It's more than a little silly and it makes me skeptical of his BS*.

It's interesting to me that you've been so sucked in by him. Maybe you're new to it all but rest assured he makes a lot of mistakes - early versions of Terrorstorm were full of 'em.

Don't get me wrong though. I do like Alex Jones, he's entertaining and the fact he's mates with Icke nowadays is great.

*ahem - BS in the sense Pope Bob used the abbreviation. IE belief system.

[bigcadaver]

No need to get all rhetorical on me.

I won't get rhetorical if you use your common sense. I pointed out one section of Terrorstorm for reference regarding facts that are common knowledge (not just in Terrorstorm) and you proceeded to discount that statement based on other inacuracies in other parts of the documentary that I wasn't even talking about....that can be slightly frustrating...this is a tactic used very often by the "debunkers".

Yes, there were drills going on in both occasions. They're not (as you say) 100% identical to the real world situations that were going on but there are some strong similarities.

I never said 100% identical....please point out where I said that. I said virtually identical and I was only quoting the agencies that were conducting the drills. I can point out in Terrorstorm when the agencies themselves are using these terms....will you again point out that Alex Jones got a date wrong on some other video that has nothing to do with this discussion?

However, there's not enough in that to point to an inside job. It only raises suspicion. As I've already said (though I remind you because you ignored it previously) my position is that all of the main theories have question marks and holes. WTC7 is the biggest stumbling block for me.

Me too...and i've stated MANY times that it is not any ONE issue/inconsistency that sells me on the inside job. Its the totality and sheer VOLUME of these inconsistencies and the compounded unlikelyhood of each item that makes the official story simply impossible....combined with the uniform collapse of WT7 at freefall acceleration out in plain view for anyone to measure.

As for them doing drills which tie in with real world situations - that is sort of their job. Most of the time they're practicing and training, that's what we pay them for. Furthermore you'd hope they were practicing for the sort of thing that might happen (and in fact did). If they'd been practicing for a sea based troop invasion I think there'd be more room to criticise them.

This statement would totally make sense if the events after the attacks reflected that. We had MANY interviews with Bush, Rice et. al stating that "no one had ever invisioned these scenarios". Seems fishy to me. If they had come out right away and said...

"yup...we actually practiced for this stuff...including drills on that very day which is why we were confused.....etc etc...."

...then your observation above might make sense. They only admitted to these drills once the info leaked to the public. Again...this is not make or break for me...just another "coincidence/peculiarity/inconsistency" to throw on the mountain.

What irks me is when people like Jones jump on their soapbox with a bullhorn and try to exaggerate the already incredible facts. Do you really think he has the information to factor in a statistical analysis of the likelihood of the coincidence that there were practices going on at the same time as real world events?

Don't know....he used standard actuary tables used by insurance companies to calculate the likelyhood of these events coinciding. These statistical tools are used everyday for all kinds of analysis. Someone somewhere must think they are useable numbers...which is why there is always a margin of error. I gave him a 39 zero margin of error....seems more than fair!! :p

It's interesting to me that you've been so sucked in by him. Maybe you're new to it all but rest assured he makes a lot of mistakes - early versions of Terrorstorm were full of 'em.

What evidence do you have that i'm "so sucked in by him"? Because I used one quote in one of his videos? I'm not new to this at all and am always skeptical of Alex's info or anyone else's for that matter.

[mrerisian]

I won't get rhetorical if you use your common sense. I pointed out one section of Terrorstorm for reference regarding facts that are common knowledge (not just in Terrorstorm) and you proceeded to discount that statement

I was putting the film into context. In order to explain why I thought your statistics were a bit sussed. The facts you were talking about were not common knowledge. They were statistical analysis.


I never said 100% identical....please point out where I said that. I said virtually identical and I was only quoting the agencies that were conducting the drills.
No - you were quoting one of the agencies - the British one who spoke on the BBC. I know the quote. There's no equal quote from the US that I'm aware of using that phrasing. Furthermore the phrase virtually identical is a little misleading, regardless of where the quote comes from. The London one is much closer to what was happening than the 9/11 one and it's 9/11 we are discussing.


I can point out in Terrorstorm when the agencies themselves are using these terms....will you again point out that Alex Jones got a date wrong on some other video that has nothing to do with this discussion?


Now - if you can point out both of the agencies using the term virtually identical I'll concede that point to you but if you can't you're going to have to concede a point to me: 'truthers' recklessly exaggerate already incredible evidence.

Furthermore, the error I'm talking about wasn't on some other video - IT WAS ON TERRORSTORM that they fu#ked it up. Sorry if you didn't know that but it's becoming obvious to me that I know a little more about AJ and his films than you do.

Understand who you're debating with here. I waited for my copy of Terrorstorm like a fat kid waits for his easter eggs. I loved it at first, it's only when I started fact checking that it came a little undone. Now, the version you've seen may have had those errors corrected but the point remains. He's not a cast iron trustworthy source. This is true for most of the 'dot connectors' you find on the net. They ignore things and make stuff up to fit their world view. I stand to be corrected?


Me too...and i've stated MANY times that it is not any ONE issue/inconsistency that sells me on the inside job. Its the totality and sheer VOLUME of these inconsistencies and the compounded unlikelyhood of each

That argument used to sell me as well but over time I've started to realise that the alternative historians and their theories are just as full of holes. It's clear you're not yet at that stage. Just remember that my basic logical problem is best expressed in me saying that the following equation doesn't compute:

OFFICIAL STORY FULL OF HOLES = INSIDE JOB

Mine goes a little more like this... OFFICIAL STORY FULL OF HOLES = They're lying / They got stuff wrong / Some of the holes aren't actually holes / Possible inside involvement.

The first three options feature bigger in my mind and they aren't proof of the final point.

Back to your post, interesting bit here...

In response to THEY'RE THE SECURITY SERVICES THEY SHOULD BE PRACTISING SITUATIONS WHICH ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR:

This statement would totally make sense if the events after the attacks reflected that. We had MANY interviews with Bush, Rice et. al stating that "no one had ever invisioned these scenarios". Seems fishy to me. If they had come out right away and said...

"yup...we actually practiced for this stuff...including drills on that very day which is why we were confused.....etc etc...."

...then your observation above might make sense. They only admitted to these drills once the info leaked to the public. Again...this is not make or break for me...just another "coincidence/peculiarity/inconsistency" to throw on the mountain.

We're getting a little confused here - there's two different events which you're discussing 7/7 and 9/11. The 7/7 admission came on the day of the attacks. The 9/11 admission was prior to the attacks (http://www.norad.mil/News/2001/090901.html) and was mainstream news a few months after (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/access/426239581.html?did=426239581&FMT=ABS).

As for them saying 'we never expected this' I think that's fair comment. Factually obviously the idea of a hijacked airliner to be used as a missile wasn't unthinkable but it was certainly out of the realms of Hollywood. I don't know about you but I remember the sheer surprise that anything like that could happen lasted for (almost) a year. The only thing I can equate it to is the sort of disasters you might practice for and yet not really expect to happen. The number of fire drills, Heimlich maneuvers and emergency alarms people do everyday without ever really thinking they'll need to use them are a testament to that. The nuclear power station near me practices a meltdown scenario every month but I don't think any of them expect it to really happen.

Let's hope they're right!

Now as for AJ (who I am honestly a fan of) we're back to reliability:


Someone somewhere must think they are useable numbers...


Yes and in this instance that someone lived in Texas and was called Alex Jones. A good bloke with a good heart who ON THE VERY SAME FILM let that get in the way of what was actually true. I am of course referring to the classic error in Terrorstorm where he says the 7/7 attacks happened just before an election. Not true.

That's why I claim the source is important, if I can just quote another poster:
so called experts in the field have no idea that commercial growing practices are primarily responsible for lung cancer. I myself know more than many experts about it. Again, it is the information that is important, not the source.
No - the source in this instance is important. The source is faulty, according to supertzar, he therefore allows himself to take the role of expert because he's more reliable. Experts are either right or wrong but we all trust the former and start to ignore the latter. AJ is often wrong.

This is one of my central problems with 9/11 conspiracy theories.


What evidence do you have that i'm "so sucked in by him"? Because I used one quote in one of his videos? I'm not new to this at all and am always skeptical of Alex's info or anyone else's for that matter.

You don't seem it. And you're trusting him for statistical analysis. There are lies damn lies and then there are statistics! It's the last thing I'd trust him on. Like I say he's a good guy, I'd offer him shelter in a storm but I'd treat his rants with a pinch of salt. ;)

[supertzar]

No - the source in this instance is important. The source is faulty, according to supertzar, he therefore allows himself to take the role of expert because he's more reliable. Experts are either right or wrong but we all trust the former and start to ignore the latter. AJ is often wrong.

This is one of my central problems with 9/11 conspiracy theories.

You don't get what I am saying. I am not taking a role as an expert - I just know more than so-called experts about this. A lot of experts actually don't know shit. Have you not figured this out yet?

[mrerisian]

You don't get what I am saying. I am not taking a role as an expert - I just know more than so-called experts about this. A lot of experts actually don't know shit. Have you not figured this out yet?

In the example you gave, you are taking the role of expert because their 'expertise' is, in your experience, frequently wrong. It's a perfect example of what I've been talking about since this string began:

They're ignoring facts.

They're, in your experience, wrong about things.


It's exactly the problem I have with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The theorists themselves often do both of the above and it's driven me out of their head space. I now literally do not believe any of the versions of 9/11 I've been told. They're all suspect.

[supertzar]

In the example you gave, you are taking the role of expert because their 'expertise' is, in your experience, frequently wrong. It's a perfect example of what I've been talking about since this string began:

They're ignoring facts.

They're, in your experience, wrong about things.


It's exactly the problem I have with 9/11 conspiracy theories. The theorists themselves often do both of the above and it's driven me out of their head space. I now literally do not believe any of the versions of 9/11 I've been told. They're all suspect.


I am not generalizing. I am talking about a specific issue. It's not about my experience. They are simply wrong about it. Moreover they are hiding the truth.

I don't know why you would want to "believe" anything. Just analyze the data and figure out to the best of your ability the likelyhood that any particular thing is true.

[triforcharity]

The answers to your questions are found in the easy to follow videos linked below...no engineering or physics degrees required....just common sense.

Also...just for some comic relief....notice how nervous and fidgetty these guys are when answering the questions they are posed...particularly John Gross. These guys are PHD structural engineers speaking about a subject they understand inside and out...STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. Yet they can't answer simple questions without sounding like they're 15 year old kids trying to talk their way out of a shoplifting charge.

It would be a lot funnier if their behavior wasn't a result of them participating in the cover up of the cause of death of 3000 people.

NIST Finally Admits Freefall...Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=related

NIST Finally Admits Freefall...Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80&feature=related

NIST Finally Admits Freefall...Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=related

Ok, now, can you please answer the question of when WTC 7 was seen to be in freefall. You have claimed that it was instantly. (hint-You're wrong)

Those videos prove nothing. It proves someone was not prepared. Maybe he wasn't briefed on that topic. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he had to take a crap really bad. Who freaking knows. Specualtion will get you nowhere.

So, to recap, WHEN did WTC 7 begin to freefall??

[triforcharity]

You don't get what I am saying. I am not taking a role as an expert - I just know more than so-called experts about this. A lot of experts actually don't know shit. Have you not figured this out yet?

Ok, so why would they be experts?? Are you smarter that the experts?? I think not. Well, most of the time, not.

[bendoon]

Ok, so why would they be experts?? Are you smarter that the experts?? I think not. Well, most of the time, not.

Experts are paid handsomely, money corrupts, people who post here are unhindered by corruption in most cases and able to express their honest unbiased opinion.

[supertzar]

Ok, so why would they be experts?? Are you smarter that the experts?? I think not. Well, most of the time, not.

Haven't you ever encountered an expert who was not?

[triforcharity]

I am an expert in my field. Do you think that you know more about fires and its properties than me?? Do you think that when I investigate a fire, that I can be swayed by some money?? Hardly. Its called morals.

BTW, I am also not paid all that well.

[bendoon]

I am an expert in my field. Do you think that you know more about fires and its properties than me?? Do you think that when I investigate a fire, that I can be swayed by some money?? Hardly. Its called morals.

BTW, I am also not paid all that well.

You are just a user name on a forum, no one here really knows who anyone else is. What you say here is judged on its merit not on who you claim to be in real life.

[triforcharity]

Prove one thing that I have said is false. Prove it. I will wait. Everything that I have said is backed up by verifiable facts and evidence. When it comes to fire, I know my stuff.

[bigcadaver]

Ok, now, can you please answer the question of when WTC 7 was seen to be in freefall. You have claimed that it was instantly. (hint-You're wrong)

Those videos prove nothing. It proves someone was not prepared. Maybe he wasn't briefed on that topic. Maybe he forgot. Maybe he had to take a crap really bad. Who freaking knows. Specualtion will get you nowhere.

So, to recap, WHEN did WTC 7 begin to freefall??

It was essentially instantly from the first movement of the roofline...which is the time that matters regarding this argument. The roofline was motionless one moment...the next it was in uniform freefall for 2.5 seconds. This has been admitted by NIST which can be seen in the video. The NIST guys TRYING to dance around this fact at the briefing is what's funny. The data as it is graphed by David Chandler is very clear and easy to understand in the video as well (unless your eyes and ears are closed).

What's funny is that you're still arguing about start times and next you're going to jump on the progressive collapse bandwagon when you're simply not getting it....freefall....AT ANY POINT in the collapse is impossible with ANY structure holding it up! That's one of the first thing that the guy from NIST says in part one of the video when they were claiming constant speed instead of constant acceleration...then he tries to correct himself in part III. Didn't you get that? They were FORCED to admit freefall after first trying to slip that one by (John Gross's comical answer) his colleague corrected him when he realized the jig was up....they then HAD to deal with the ramifications of freefall...backpeddling from what they had said earlier. I thought you watched the videos?? Oh....you watched it SELECTIVELY....that's different.

Where did the support structure go so instantaneously and uniformly? How did fire...a slow organic process cause all the support structure to collapse instantly and uniformly...accomplishing in fact what only a handful of demolishion companies in the world can do? Uniform collapse at freefall speed AT ANY POINT is impossible due to fire and gravity.

Sorry dude...try again.

[bendoon]

When it comes to fire, I know my stuff.

So do I, I used to light fires all the time when I was a kid.

[bigcadaver]

Mresian...you and I are not far off enough on our opinions of things that I feel like getting into a circular debate with you. I think I know where you stand....its not that far off from where I stand.

By the way...you said earlier something like...

..."I'm not sure you know who you're debating?".....

Should I be asking for your autograph? :D

[supertzar]

I am an expert in my field. Do you think that you know more about fires and its properties than me?? Do you think that when I investigate a fire, that I can be swayed by some money?? Hardly. Its called morals.

BTW, I am also not paid all that well.

Do you think that has any goddamn thing to do with what I am talking about? :mad:

[bigcadaver]

Prove one thing that I have said is false. Prove it. I will wait. Everything that I have said is backed up by verifiable facts and evidence. When it comes to fire, I know my stuff.

Are you forgetting when you COMPLETELY contradicted yourself and said this?

Ok, thermite you say?? How did this thermite work on vertical columns?? How did it stay in contact long enough to melt the column?? It would be impossible to account for rates of melting steel with thermite. Why you ask?? It doesn't melt steel. Hell, 1000 pounds of it couldn't even cut a truck in half. I mean, you're asking thermite, even nanothermite, to do something in such a precisely timed fashion, its unrealistic.

For which I replied this...
----------------------------
And yet you're asking FIRE to produce those results? Man....that's got to be one of the funniest things i've read. You are acknowledging above that for the collapse to have occured the way it did that something had to happen in a "precisely timed fashion"???? Which weapons grade nanothermite CAN'T DO in your mind.....but a slow organic process like FIRE CAN???????

Man that was a good one...I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that one!!

Nanothermite can be used as a powerful explosive same as C4 or dynamite and can be used specifically as a shape charge.
----------------------------

Man...its hard to keep track of stuff when you don't have the truth on your side isn't it?

[noewhan]

911 Press 4 Truth (Part 7 of 9) - YouTube

CIA
(Criminals In Action)

[tabea_blumenschein]

The answers to your questions are found in the easy to follow videos linked below...no engineering or physics degrees required....just common sense.

Also...just for some comic relief....notice how nervous and fidgetty these guys are when answering the questions they are posed...particularly John Gross. These guys are PHD structural engineers speaking about a subject they understand inside and out...STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING. Yet they can't answer simple questions without sounding like they're 15 year old kids trying to talk their way out of a shoplifting charge.

It would be a lot funnier if their behavior wasn't a result of them participating in the cover up of the cause of death of 3000 people.

NIST Finally Admits Freefall...Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0GHVEKrhng&feature=related

NIST Finally Admits Freefall...Part 2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtKLtUiww80&feature=related

NIST Finally Admits Freefall...Part 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz43hcKYBm4&feature=related


Thank you for taking the time to post all that, bigcadaver. But it wasn't exactly what I was asking for -- I wanted to find out what you believed the answers to those questions were.

If you're going to use "NIST admits freefall" as an argument, then you should at least know what it is that NIST is actually admitting to. Based on what I'm reading in your posts, I don't think you really know that. That's why I asked you the questions I did.

FYI, here's what you're getting wrong:

1. NIST admits 2.5 seconds of freefall. Not correct; the "freefall" time was only 2.25 seconds. Not a major error, but I'd expect you to get this right if you're going to use a "NIST admits freefall" argument to support your claims.

2. The freefall period begins as soon as the roofline begins to fall -- no, it doesn't; it doesn't begin until 1.75 seconds after the north face begins to descend.

3. The collapse of WTC7 begins when the roofline begins to fall -- no, it doesn't. The collapse of WTC7 was a series of events that began prior to the collapse of the east penthouse into the building. And the east penthouse collapsed into the building 4 to 8 seconds before the roofline began to fall.

~

If I remember correctly, the "freefall" period involved floors 7 through 14.

Guess where the major fires were located!

Once the fires developed, according to witness accounts and photo evidence gathered in the NIST investigation, there were confirmed fires on at least 16 floors: 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 19, 21, 22, 29, and 30.

Source. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)

That building burned for 7 hours with no firefighting operations and no fire suppression from the sprinkler system. That's far longer than the fireproofing protecting the steel was rated for -- 3 times longer, triforcharity tells me. So when you consider that the structural integrity of that part of the building was already pretty much shot as a result of the fires, and then factor in the additional structural failures caused by the early part of the collapse (including what was happening inside the building before the roof began to fall), the "freefall" of those particular floors seems pretty self-explanatory.

At least to me.

[bigcadaver]

Thank you for taking the time to post all that, bigcadaver. But it wasn't exactly what I was asking for -- I wanted to find out what you believed the answers to those questions were.

If you're going to use "NIST admits freefall" as an argument, then you should at least know what it is that NIST is actually admitting to. Based on what I'm reading in your posts, I don't think you really know that. That's why I asked you the questions I did.

FYI, here's what you're getting wrong:

1. NIST admits 2.5 seconds of freefall. Not correct; the "freefall" time was only 2.25 seconds. Not a major error, but I'd expect you to get this right if you're going to use a "NIST admits freefall" argument to support your claims.

2. The freefall period begins as soon as the roofline begins to fall -- no, it doesn't; it doesn't begin until 1.75 seconds after the north face begins to descend.

3. The collapse of WTC7 begins when the roofline begins to fall -- no, it doesn't. The collapse of WTC7 was a series of events that began prior to the collapse of the east penthouse into the building. And the east penthouse collapsed into the building 4 to 8 seconds before the roofline began to fall.

~

If I remember correctly, the "freefall" period involved floors 7 through 14.

Guess where the major fires were located!



Source. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires)

That building burned for 7 hours with no firefighting operations and no fire suppression from the sprinkler system. That's far longer than the fireproofing protecting the steel was rated for -- 3 times longer, triforcharity tells me. So when you consider that the structural integrity of that part of the building was already pretty much shot as a result of the fires, and then factor in the additional structural failures caused by the early part of the collapse (including what was happening inside the building before the roof began to fall), the "freefall" of those particular floors seems pretty self-explanatory.

At least to me.

I'm tired of goint round and round with this argument tonight. I cut my thumb badly at work today and i'm typing with 9 fingers tonight and i'm tired. I'll address this sometime tomorrow.

Good night everyone...even to my arch rivals!!! ;)

[triforcharity]

It was essentially instantly from the first movement of the roofline...which is the time that matters regarding this argument. The roofline was motionless one moment...the next it was in uniform freefall for 2.5 seconds. This has been admitted by NIST which can be seen in the video. The NIST guys TRYING to dance around this fact at the briefing is what's funny. The data as it is graphed by David Chandler is very clear and easy to understand in the video as well (unless your eyes and ears are closed).

What's funny is that you're still arguing about start times and next you're going to jump on the progressive collapse bandwagon when you're simply not getting it....freefall....AT ANY POINT in the collapse is impossible with ANY structure holding it up! That's one of the first thing that the guy from NIST says in part one of the video when they were claiming constant speed instead of constant acceleration...then he tries to correct himself in part III. Didn't you get that? They were FORCED to admit freefall after first trying to slip that one by (John Gross's comical answer) his colleague corrected him when he realized the jig was up....they then HAD to deal with the ramifications of freefall...backpeddling from what they had said earlier. I thought you watched the videos?? Oh....you watched it SELECTIVELY....that's different.

Where did the support structure go so instantaneously and uniformly? How did fire...a slow organic process cause all the support structure to collapse instantly and uniformly...accomplishing in fact what only a handful of demolishion companies in the world can do? Uniform collapse at freefall speed AT ANY POINT is impossible due to fire and gravity.

Sorry dude...try again.

You're wrong. Look at the reports, and don't cherry-pick them. It waas not instantly in freefall.

Try again, this time, READ THE REPORTS!! Hell, its not even hard to find. Google NIST faq's

[triforcharity]

Are you forgetting when you COMPLETELY contradicted yourself and said this?



For which I replied this...
----------------------------
And yet you're asking FIRE to produce those results? Man....that's got to be one of the funniest things i've read. You are acknowledging above that for the collapse to have occured the way it did that something had to happen in a "precisely timed fashion"???? Which weapons grade nanothermite CAN'T DO in your mind.....but a slow organic process like FIRE CAN???????

Man that was a good one...I threw up in my mouth a little when I read that one!!

Nanothermite can be used as a powerful explosive same as C4 or dynamite and can be used specifically as a shape charge.
----------------------------

Man...its hard to keep track of stuff when you don't have the truth on your side isn't it?

Not, not at all.

You do not understand fire. You also do not understand the NIST reports, at all. Have you seen this??

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/east-westcollapse.jpg

How about this??

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/1WTC7p83a.jpg


Caan you understand any of those drawings?? I bet not.

Also, how does nanothermite act as an explosive?? I haven't seen any. Oh, the ICE thing?? Not hardly. Take away the ice?? No explosion. Nano-thermite is a bull. It cannot be used as an explosive like c4. Never.

Why did nobody see this thermite going off in ANY of the videos?? Why did FDNY not see it?? They were within 200 yards of WTC 7 when it fell. Why did none of them report seeing a massive light show?? Oh, right....Because it didn't happen.

[bigcadaver]

You're wrong. Look at the reports, and don't cherry-pick them. It waas not instantly in freefall.

Try again, this time, READ THE REPORTS!! Hell, its not even hard to find. Google NIST faq's

I have read NISTs report and its a complete farce on a monumental scale! Its funny how you keep saying...

..READ THE REPORTS....LOOK AT THEIR DATA ON THIS PAGE OR THAT PAGE!!

NIST's document is a fraud, I have read it...it completely fabricates information based on pre-determined conclusions. This is EASY to SEE if you LOOK with you OWN EYES at the video evidence and quit sucking on the tit of the fraudulant NIST report.

The penthouse falls and there is movement at that point....consistent with a CD when they blow out a key column to bow the structurr inward. The "kink" is then visible, again visible in most CDs...there is still no discernable movement of the roofline. Then SUDDENLY the roofline collapses...at freefall acceleration uniformly across the length and width for 2.5 seconds this is visible from any angle of the multiple videos available.

Fire CANNOT produce these results. FIRE COULD have produced the column failure that held up the penthouse (unlikely but possible I guess) however....if the only entities at work here were fire and gravity, then you would have seen the building crumple and bend and likely FALL OVER in the direction of the "bulges" and "leans" you were talking about. But no....instead what do we SEE? (see being the operative word)

UNIFORM SUDDEN COLLAPSE AT FREEFALL ACCELERATION!

Impossible due to fire and gravity alone.

Fire...by the way....causes collapses like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvIK9Cm4NLE&feature=related

Slow....progressive...pieces falling off and peeling away. Then, a section of the house FALLS OVER while the rest of the building remains standing. Its obvious even in a WOODEN structure that fire cannot heat material (ANY MATERIAL) evenly across a large area to a point where the entire support structure SUDDENLY reaches its failure point within fractions of a second...which is the precision needed to produce what was observed in building 7s collapse. You said this yourself....do I have to remind you?

Oh and regarding your computer simulation collapse models....have you seen the video animation? You can look at those and tell me that they even REMOTELY look like the motion that was obverved in plain site? Well I know YOU will. The average person would look at that and compare it to the observed ACTUAL collapse and laugh. Tell you what....dig up the numbers they used to produce those computer models and we'll have a look at that data ok? Wait.....oh....NIST haven't disclosed that information. I wonder why if this was such an open and honest investation? If the computer model data was released it could be independently checked to reveal their bullshit that's why.

Also, how does nanothermite act as an explosive?? I haven't seen any. Oh, the ICE thing?? Not hardly. Take away the ice?? No explosion. Nano-thermite is a bull. It cannot be used as an explosive like c4. Never.

Regarding the explosive nature of nanothermite....I thought you said you watched all the videos I posted? Funny...I guess lying is part of the character of both the people who produced the official story and those who defend it. See again what a drop of nanotermite can do:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsI9RAEKLSI

Why did nobody see this thermite going off in ANY of the videos?? Why did FDNY not see it?? They were within 200 yards of WTC 7 when it fell. Why did none of them report seeing a massive light show?? Oh, right....Because it didn't happen.

This one again eh? There were many eyewitnesses that reported seeing flashes of light. You can check them easily...then you will dismiss them so never mind. Also, do you keep bringing this up as well as the "no one heard explosions" argument because this is what is seen and heard in typical CDs? You mean TYPICAL CDs where the entire building is stripped for weeks of all doors, windows, curtains, blinds? And where the media and the police and the fire department and the mayor and the governor are all told in advance to come and watch and where the explosions are actually part of the show? You're comparing these criminally perpetrated maticulously planned events to typical CD events? Do you think that perhaps noise factor may have been taken into consideration by whoever perpetrated this and measures where taken to minimize...same as the light flashes?

AMAZING!!

Regardless...the argument is still backwards! Did building 7 collapse uniformly at freefall acceleration? Yes...admitted by NIST and YOU! This is impossible due to fire and gravity alone. You have to work backwards from there.

Try again...

[supertzar]

I recall that NIST admitted that they could not get their computer simulations to re-enact the falling of the towers until they used parameters outside the range of reality. Is that not true?

[mrerisian]

NIST's document is a fraud, I have read it...it completely fabricates information based on pre-determined conclusions.

Ok - I am not articulate enough in the laws of physics and falling buildings and fire damage to follow your debate but I am interested in an answer to the following question:

Do you think The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is therefore part of the conspiracy?

[triforcharity]

I like that video, its pretty cool. Too bad when you compare wood, with other object, there is a huge difference. Your understanding of fire, and its properties are very limited. Wood may last up to 45 minutes sometimes in a fire. Unprotected steel, not nearly as long. Why do you think they put fireproofing on expoosed steel??? Because the patterns look cool??

[bigcadaver]

I like that video, its pretty cool. Too bad when you compare wood, with other object, there is a huge difference. Your understanding of fire, and its properties are very limited. Wood may last up to 45 minutes sometimes in a fire. Unprotected steel, not nearly as long. Why do you think they put fireproofing on expoosed steel??? Because the patterns look cool??

So...you read my entire post and this is all you offer up? I expected more from you! Are you giving up on you JREF bretheran?

Regarding your rubix cube of a response....your reasoning is backward as usual. It doesn't matter if steel lasts as long as wood or not. It doesn't matter WHY they put firproofing on steel. What matters is the nature of fire and how it affects material vs. what is OBSERVED in building 7s collapse.

As a slow organic process fire creeps from place to place and heats areas in a NON-uniform manner. It doesn't matter if wood will last 45 mins and steel 2 mins or 2 hours! The point is that the process by which the collapse is caused (if at all) is a SLOW ORGANIC one (if caused by fire)...not a virtually instantaneous process within 10ths OF SECONDS which is REQUIRED to have all structural elements fail SIMULTANEOUSLY in a building to have it fall uniformly at freefall acceleration (admitted by NIST and YOU). The only mechanism that is KNOWN for causing that kind of timed precision (which you acknowledged was needed...need I remind you) is EXPLOSIVES!!!

[bigcadaver]

Do you think The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is therefore part of the conspiracy?

You are asking for an answer which requires assumptions and a lot of speculation so that's what I will give you...assumptions and SPECULATION. This is not something i'm going to debate with you or anyone else in a circular fashion for days since it is ultimately pointless ok?

Let's see....do I think NIST is TOTALLY in on it? Like they were sitting at the table when the plans were being hatched for this false flag? No...I certainly don't believe that (although possible). My OPINION is that they were likely told after the event occured when they were handed the investigation to simply come up with a scenario that fit the story.

This is the official story of what happened....make it fit your findings...no matter what! Hijackers hijacked the planes...crashed them into the towers...fire burned hot...weakened the steel....and the towers collapsed. In the process of their collapse...falling debris damaged and set building 7 on fire...which also collapsed due to weakened support structure...due to damage and fire...(in a nutshell).

I certainly DON'T think that the PHDs that work at NIST are idiots or incompetent...so having to come up with this story and the leaps and manipulations of data they've had to make to fit this "story" have (I think) certainly led them internally to realize that they are part of (unwittingly perhaps) a cover up since NONE OF IT makes sense...they surely realize that! But...they are between a rock and a hard place! They are an agency paid by the very government they are being told to investigate....a lot to lose by telling the truth me thinks!

Again...speculation of course....but when you watch the videos (part I, II and III) labeled "NIST Finally Admits Freefall" on youtube, its AMAZING to me the level of incoherance, incompetance, and nervousness that these guys show during what should be ROUTINE for PhDs when they are supposedly talking about their area of expertise. They are structural engineers at a PHD level....taking SEVEN YEARS to put out their findings....think they might know the data by then? Yet they fidget and fumble around answering the simplest of questions.

"Others" (they know who they are) on this site will have you believe that PHDs holding a briefing on the most bizarre building collapse in history which they had been studying for 7 years were perhaps "unprepared" to answer questions....or maybe they had to "take a dump really bad". Seems like grasping at some serious straws to me to explain very strange behavior from what should be GURUS on the subject being discussed.

Again...just speculation.

Crap! Now you've gone and made me move into speculation which I never like to do. Perfect opportunity for charity to derail the factual debate we're having...or that I AM having at least...(he's running out of ammo) and to attack this speculative post for the next 2 or 3 days.

Very predictable these "debunkers"!

:D

[triforcharity]

So...you read my entire post and this is all you offer up? I expected more from you! Are you giving up on you JREF bretheran?

Regarding your rubix cube of a response....your reasoning is backward as usual. It doesn't matter if steel lasts as long as wood or not. It doesn't matter WHY they put firproofing on steel. What matters is the nature of fire and how it affects material vs. what is OBSERVED in building 7s collapse.

As a slow organic process fire creeps from place to place and heats areas in a NON-uniform manner. It doesn't matter if wood will last 45 mins and steel 2 mins or 2 hours! The point is that the process by which the collapse is caused (if at all) is a SLOW ORGANIC one (if caused by fire)...not a virtually instantaneous process within 10ths OF SECONDS which is REQUIRED to have all structural elements fail SIMULTANEOUSLY in a building to have it fall uniformly at freefall acceleration (admitted by NIST and YOU). The only mechanism that is KNOWN for causing that kind of timed precision (which you acknowledged was needed...need I remind you) is EXPLOSIVES!!!

You obviously did not read the NIST report. It doesn't say the complete collapse started instantaneously. It says that as the fire progressed, it would cause the beams to come off their seat plates, and fall to the floor below. That is the difference in steel buildings. The vertical columns rely on the horizontal beams for lateral support. The vertical beams rely on the horizontal for vertical support. They rely on each other. Too many failures, and the other beams, have too much weight on them. Too much load. As they begin to fail, it put even more stress on the remaining structure. Once column 79 failed, the rest of the INTERRIOR of the building was bound to fail.
The ENTIRE interrior collapsed, and caused the EXTERRIOR (What you could actually see ) collapse. It was still a slow process. It wasn't instant in any sense of the meaning. You obviously have not reaad any of the NIST reports.

I have a copy of all of the reports on WTC 7 if you need them. Just let me know.


BTW, a fire in a wood framed building will collapse differently than other buildings. To argue that they would fail the exact same waas, or even simmilar is assinine. Google ductility, and try to read for comprehension. If you need help understand it, let me know.

[triforcharity]

BigCadaver,

How many people worked on the NIST reports?? FEMA?? You claim they were all forced/coerced into helping cover up the deaths of ~3000 people. Ok. Why have not ONE SINGLE ONE comme out and said it is all false, that they manipulated data, or anything of the sort. You're trying to tell me not one single one of them have morals??

Oh, they would loose their jobs. That is a cop out. And a bad one at that. I wouldn't matter at that point, as the WHOLE ENTIRE engineering community, and really politics in general, would be up in arms. Why does NOBODY come foreward annonomisly to the New York Times, or well, reaally anyone, and present their case. Oh, because everyone is a coward, and has no spine. BULL!! That is HORSESHIT.

[triforcharity]

Hey big, I still have lots of ammo. You see, the thing is, my ammo actually does something, yours just makes alot of noise, but that is it. You're shooting blanks.

[supertzar]

BigCadaver,

How many people worked on the NIST reports?? FEMA?? You claim they were all forced/coerced into helping cover up the deaths of ~3000 people. Ok. Why have not ONE SINGLE ONE comme out and said it is all false, that they manipulated data, or anything of the sort. You're trying to tell me not one single one of them have morals??

Oh, they would loose their jobs. That is a cop out. And a bad one at that. I wouldn't matter at that point, as the WHOLE ENTIRE engineering community, and really politics in general, would be up in arms. Why does NOBODY come foreward annonomisly to the New York Times, or well, reaally anyone, and present their case. Oh, because everyone is a coward, and has no spine. BULL!! That is HORSESHIT.

See Kevin Ryan. He worked for UL and called NIST out on how they claimed the steel UL certified for the WTC succumbed to forces they should have withstood. He lost his job.

[supertzar]

Hey big, I still have lots of ammo. You see, the thing is, my ammo actually does something, yours just makes alot of noise, but that is it. You're shooting blanks.

You don't want to address this simple question, though.

I recall that NIST admitted that they could not get their computer simulations to re-enact the falling of the towers until they used parameters outside the range of reality. Is that not true?

[mrerisian]

Were NIST in on it?

This is not something i'm going to debate with you [...]

Very predictable these "debunkers"!

:D

But, to be fair, it's the most obvious question. Why would these experts want to go along with something like that? Doesn't make sense. One of my major stumbling blocks. The world is not populated by cowards and evildoers. Most people are decent folk and if they were told fake this to fit the facts they'd reply with a simple 'f- off'.

[bigcadaver]

See Kevin Ryan. He worked for UL and called NIST out on how they claimed the steel UL certified for the WTC succumbed to forces they should have withstood. He lost his job.

Don't worry....Charity will dismiss this guy somehow! Ryan reported that the models that they built were exposed to longer hotter fires and higher weight load and no failures occured with only a 2 or 3 inch sag in the steel. When NIST through out that info and fabricated a 40+ inch sag he started to complain about the company's reputation beng tarnished by these fabricated results...he was fired.

You see...that's what these debunkers do. There have been PLENTY of people come forward including now several members of the 911 commission itself. PLENTY of eyewitnesses who saw flashes of light and heard explosions DURING the collapses...but they just dismiss it. They they claim WHY HASN'T A SINGLE PERSON COME FORWARD!!

They have come forward...they are simply ignored by the agencies charged with coming up with a plausible explanation to a pre-determined outcome that doesn't fit if their info is included. And since you refuse to open your eyes to look at anything else but their fabricated data and fraudulant reports...you ignore them too.

[mrerisian]

They they claim WHY HASN'T A SINGLE PERSON COME FORWARD!!

They have come forward...they are simply ignored by the agencies charged with coming up with a plausible explanation

You were right, we are about to go round in circles here...

Those who have come forward that I've looked into are never the most reliable of witnesses. This comes right back to my original point the theorists themselves are often more than a little odd and this detracts from their information.

You have to accept that I'm not debunking in the traditional sense though. I just don't buy any of the versions of events that I've had sold to me, by anyone.

[bigcadaver]

Were NIST in on it?

But, to be fair, it's the most obvious question. Why would these experts want to go along with something like that? Doesn't make sense. One of my major stumbling blocks. The world is not populated by cowards and evildoers. Most people are decent folk and if they were told fake this to fit the facts they'd reply with a simple 'f- off'.

It is a very obvious question no doubt and your reasoning SHOULD be how the world works but i'm afraid it doesn't. Many of these people owe their careers and livelyhoods to these agencies that are kept alive and well by the government. NIST was headed by Donald Evans at the beginning of the investigation and later replaced by Carlos Gutierez....both were appointed to those positions by the Bush administration. There are unbelievable conflicts of interest involved here. This is why a truly INDEPENDENT investigation is being called for.

[bigcadaver]

You were right, we are about to go round in circles here...

Those who have come forward that I've looked into are never the most reliable of witnesses. This comes right back to my original point the theorists themselves are often more than a little odd and this detracts from their information.

You have to accept that I'm not debunking in the traditional sense though. I just don't buy any of the versions of events that I've had sold to me, by anyone.

Yes I understand your position quite clearly. And I would normally agree...I certainly don't come to my conslusions lightly but there is simply TOO MANy coincidences and inconcistencies for my taste. I can't fathom in a million years how such monumental COMPOUNDED implausability could ever be true....coupled with the collapse of building 7 at uniform freefall acceleration.

[mrerisian]

NIST was headed by Donald Evans at the beginning of the investigation and later replaced by Carlos Gutierez....both were appointed to those positions by the Bush administration. [...] This is why a truly INDEPENDENT investigation is being called for.

I suspect a truly independent investigation would be impossible. Who'd do it? Whoever did would be getting called a Shill and a Zionist before they even began.

This is the crux of the issue for me. You can talk about those on the inside and their agendas and conflicts of interest but what about the alt. historians? They also have a conflict of interest. If Alex Jones or Icke found out as a point of fact that actually it was just a few crazy Muslims with boxcutters they'd never report that. It'd be career suicide. I'd go as far as to say they actually have more of a vested interest in their position than people working at NIST who will be used to coming up with uncomfortable facts which don't suit their paymasters. It's their job to get to the truth and say things like, "no, sorry boss, it can't be done". They will all at some point have broken uncomfortable news or they wouldn't be working there!

[mrerisian]

there is simply TOO MANy coincidences and inconcistencies for my taste. I can't fathom

No, I can't fathom it either but try posting up a string to that effect and look at the response you get! Abuse, shouted down and called a shill. This string has been a real significant part of my closing the door on this kind of stuff. Too many dogmatic people intent on fighting as opposed to debating.

9/11 is simply not an open and shut case.

[bigcadaver]

No, I can't fathom it either but try posting up a string to that effect and look at the response you get! Abuse, shouted down and called a shill. This string has been a real significant part of my closing the door on this kind of stuff. Too many dogmatic people intent on fighting as opposed to debating.

9/11 is simply not an open and shut case.

Agree for the most part. But...for ME...the official report (911 commission) was produced by the government...most of it doesn't make sense. The NIST report on the collapse of the twin towers was produced by a government agency...most of it doesn't make sens. The NIST report on the collapse of building 7 was produced by a government agency....most of it doesn't make sense. When the 3 main documents explaining the events of that day are all produced by the government and none of them make much sense it leads me to believe that the entity that produced those documents is trying to cover its tracks....hence....inside job...particularly when you also take HISTORY into account. Governments all over the world have done this type of thing for political gain since the dawn of government...the U.S. is no exception.

I understand you don't make that leap...to me its a very small step.

And in reality....the events have been independently investigated...just not officially acknowledged. Richard Gage's presentation paints a thorough and much more realistic scenario which actually matches the observations using the scientific method. David Chandler's video analysis of building 7s collapse is very thorough and easy to follow....all you gotta do is prove freefall...which he did...NIST finally had to admit it. These are only 2 or many examples of people who have put forth thorough independent evidence. I don't care if someon comes up with info that Richard Gage and/or David Chandler are Zionists or Gay or a wife beaters or Yankee fans! Their information is based on science and makes sense based on what was observed and measured. That's all i'm looking for.

Objects fall on earth in vacuum at the rate of 9.8m/s2...if you stick to the scientific method, you can do experiments in a multitude of different ways you will not be able to come up with a different number. It doesn't matter what your political affiliations are....it doesn't matter where your loyalties lie...you will not be able to come up with a different number. That is the beauty of science.

What NIST and the 911 commission report have done, from a metaphorical standpoint, is come up with a different number to the rate of fall of gravity (LITERALLY in some cases). The story doesn't hold water...its virtually impossible for all these coincidences to line up, their pseudo-science doesn't match the observations, it doesn't match ANY of the independently derived conclusions...not even close.

[_ads_]

No, I can't fathom it either but try posting up a string to that effect and look at the response you get! Abuse, shouted down and called a shill. This string has been a real significant part of my closing the door on this kind of stuff. Too many dogmatic people intent on fighting as opposed to debating.

9/11 is simply not an open and shut case.

Sorry to jump into this discussion real late but I have read through the first few pages and the very manner in which you forumlated this thread is a little wolfish and when people here were kind enough to supply their reasons as to why 9/11 wasn't / was an inside job in a polite way, you didn't really reciprocate.

I also have to take offence to your statement about radical Islam as Islam is my faith but I am not posting this solely for that reason.

Now, if you had a soccer team of which 4 of its members were more interested in breaking the legs of their opponents than actually scoring goals you would soon find the general concenssus to be that your soccer team is an evil one even if the views / beliefs of those 4 members of your team do not reflect the majority of the team's attitude to the sport. Likewise the same can be said for any religion / cult / organised group or even occultist who are victims of hate because people believe them to be devil worshippers when in actual fact the very term "occult" means hidden from view.

There are many reasons people should look into 9/11. The obvious one being the clear and simple fact that it was without doubt one of the most disasterous events to take place in history. 9/11 also presents a lot of firsts though. First time in history buildings collapsed the way they did because of fire. The hijackers somehow didn't make it onto the passenger manifest. Out of all the people on the plane nobody had the courage to take on a man with a boxcutter.... and also how did the box cutter with presumably a metal blade make it onto the plane in the first place? First time telephone calls were able to be made at high altitudes and speeds of over 200mph. There are plenty more reasons and what's more worrying is that New York city is calling firefighters liars for hearing explosives in the buildings the way I look at it. They experienced this first hand as they were actually on the site. Many first responders have died and are diying due to the debris they have inhaled and have received no help from the state government.

Let's also look at a remarkable fact. The BBC reported on some of the hijackers still alive and well! >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1559151.stm

They sure beat Jesus' miracles on that one.


I quote your forum signature:

"Have become bored of the homophobia, Antisemitism (no not anti-Zionism, I know the difference,) racism and overall boring group think which infects conspiracy theorists. Sorry if my tone is over emotional."

So you have become bored of Antisemitism? What about people like you posting on forums saying radical islam is not a myth?

Also in one of your posts:

You have to accept that I'm not debunking in the traditional sense though. I just don't buy any of the versions of events that I've had sold to me, by anyone.

You don't buy any of the versions of events but you say they have been sold to you. Which one is it? So you don't buy the things that you've bought? Odd...


I do hope you show appreciation to those willing to respond to your first post in this thread as you keep attacking people whenever they supply information. You don't have to believe it but at least give them some kind of credit for taking their time out to respond to your questions which spans several pages back on this thread.

[bigcadaver]

You don't buy any of the versions of events but you say they have been sold to you. Which one is it? So you don't buy the things that you've bought? Odd...

I will let him clarify his own thoughts but I believe you're misunderstanding what he stated. If I may....he's saying that there are various versions of the story being sold...by the government...by the truth movement...by the debunkers etc....and he's not necessarily buying any of them.

Hope I was accurate...

[triforcharity]

See Kevin Ryan. He worked for UL and called NIST out on how they claimed the steel UL certified for the WTC succumbed to forces they should have withstood. He lost his job.

Yepo, as well he should have. He lied about UL's testing, as they never did what they claimed they did. He lied about it, and tried to use his position with a SUBCRACTOR of UL, to further his lie.

You use a company's name to further your own personal agenda, you will most likely loose your job.


BTW, he worked with WATER, not STEEL.

[triforcharity]

You don't want to address this simple question, though.


A linkey please???

[triforcharity]

bigcadaver,

One problem with your first post.


The 911 Comission report had nothing to do with the engineering report. 911 Comission was political, and what happened before, and how we could prevent it, and the NIST reports are how the BUILDINGS fell, and what could we do in the future to possibly prevent them.

BTW, why are you right, but the 51 different peer-reviewed papers on the collapses wrong?? What has the T(B)M put foreward that is peer reviewed in ANY reputable journal in the ENTIRE WORLD.

I will accept any language, from any continent on earth.

[white horse]

bigcadaver,

One problem with your first post.


The 911 Comission report had nothing to do with the engineering report. 911 Comission was political, and what happened before, and how we could prevent it, and the NIST reports are how the BUILDINGS fell, and what could we do in the future to possibly prevent them.

BTW, why are you right, but the 51 different peer-reviewed papers on the collapses wrong?? What has the T(B)M put foreward that is peer reviewed in ANY reputable journal in the ENTIRE WORLD.

I will accept any language, from any continent on earth.

In the case of 911 the engineering aspects and the political aspects are intimately linked.

It is part of the deception to seperate them.

Compartmentalisation - the oldest of the aresenal of manipulation and control trickery.

_ads_ - very well put. Elloquant words. Do not apologise for them! ;)

[triforcharity]

Oh, yeah, because a bunch of politicians should be tackling engineering and physics problems.

That is horseshit.

Would I ask the NFPA to investigate a plane crash?? No. NFPA deals with firefighting and building codes. Not airplanes.

Would I ask my plumber to fix my circuit breaker panel?? No. That is not what they do.

We ask people, with relative training, to investigaate things they know about.

Engineers do not investigate political matters, and politicians do not investigate engineering matters. To suggest otherwise is assinine and ignorant.

[dangermouse]

Oh, yeah, because a bunch of politicians should be tackling engineering and physics problems.

That is horseshit.

Would I ask the NFPA to investigate a plane crash?? No. NFPA deals with firefighting and building codes. Not airplanes.

Would I ask my plumber to fix my circuit breaker panel?? No. That is not what they do.

We ask people, with relative training, to investigaate things they know about.

Engineers do not investigate political matters, and politicians do not investigate engineering matters. To suggest otherwise is assinine and ignorant.

not if the politicans have direct links to the experts investigating the issue

[triforcharity]

not if the politicans have direct links to the experts investigating the issue


Holy shit, so you're saying that anyone who has any contact with any govenment agency is in on it??

Come the fuck on. Seriously?? That is retarded at best. Your little game reminds me of "7 Degrees with Kevin Bacon". Anyone, anywhere, that proves your theory wrong, if they have ANY contact with the USG, they are dismissed.


Ok, don't believe NIST. That is ok. Why is it that no other agency, or person WORLDWIDE has produced ANYTHING that proves them wrong???

Why??

Any language will do. Any at all.

[white horse]

Oh, yeah, because a bunch of politicians should be tackling engineering and physics problems.

That is horseshit.

Would I ask the NFPA to investigate a plane crash?? No. NFPA deals with firefighting and building codes. Not airplanes.

Would I ask my plumber to fix my circuit breaker panel?? No. That is not what they do.

We ask people, with relative training, to investigaate things they know about.

Engineers do not investigate political matters, and politicians do not investigate engineering matters. To suggest otherwise is assinine and ignorant.

You misunderstand me.

You cannot investigate 911 without looking at both the political AND engineering together. I'm not asking a politician to write a paper on building demolition mechanics...

From what I can gather it is PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBLE for the offical story to have occured, yet that is what the 'political' answers have come up with...

911 is everyone's wake up call.

If the political questions come up with one set of answers...

What if those answers break the rules of physics and bend the laws of reality??

[triforcharity]

What political answers do not mach the physical evidence??

[white horse]

What political answers do not mach the physical evidence??

:eek:

you f'real??

[triforcharity]

Yes, please provide it here. I would love to see the facts you have.

[white horse]

What political answers do not mach the physical evidence??

That a Boeing hit the Pentagon...

That mobile phone calls were made from the planes...

That the hijackers executed a turn into the Pentagon that pilots have declared practically impossible for the best pilots and engineers have stated could possibly tear a Boeing apart...

That the hijackers hit there targets despite having only a few lessons and basically ebing laughed from their Cesnas by the instructors...

That a passport was found at WTC ground zero...

That DNA has apparantly been found at the scenes that have vapourized planes...

That a guy with a laptop in a cave in teh Torra Bora could have organised the attackes...

That NORAD was stood down 'just as a coincidence'

That the Airforce was stood down 'just as a coincidence'

That steel structured buildings fell at close to free-fall speed after fires not hot enough to melt steel...

That the lobbies of the WTC were badly smashed up...

That people died in the basements before the planes hit...

That the buildings went thru fire/security drills in the weeks before the attacks....

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

[white horse]

Yes, please provide it here. I would love to see the facts you have.

There are no facts in the world of 911.

[white horse]

Yes, please provide it here. I would love to see the facts you have.

you can use the search facility in your User CP - I have been over this ground a trillion times and I see no evidence for ANY aspect of the official stroy.

[white horse]

Yes, please provide it here. I would love to see the facts you have.

http://www.celsias.com/media/uploads/admin/fishing2.jpg

[bigcadaver]

That a Boeing hit the Pentagon...

That mobile phone calls were made from the planes...

That the hijackers executed a turn into the Pentagon that pilots have declared practically impossible for the best pilots and engineers have stated could possibly tear a Boeing apart...

That the hijackers hit there targets despite having only a few lessons and basically ebing laughed from their Cesnas by the instructors...

That a passport was found at WTC ground zero...

That DNA has apparantly been found at the scenes that have vapourized planes...

That a guy with a laptop in a cave in teh Torra Bora could have organised the attackes...

That NORAD was stood down 'just as a coincidence'

That the Airforce was stood down 'just as a coincidence'

That steel structured buildings fell at close to free-fall speed after fires not hot enough to melt steel...

That the lobbies of the WTC were badly smashed up...

That people died in the basements before the planes hit...

That the buildings went thru fire/security drills in the weeks before the attacks....

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

Don't worry white horse....charity has an answer for every one of thsee "coincidences" that makes perfect sense to him. He doesn't realize that any one of these conincidences has a VERY low probability of occuring and that ALL of these coincidences COMPOUNDED together has a statistically ZERO chance of occuring. Never mind the dozens of other coincidences/inconsistencies that you didn't list. The chery on the sunday is fire producing the uniform freefall collapse of building 7 which anyone can see and measure which is impossible.

He's admitted that building 7 fell at freefall speed...he had to since the bible...I mean the NIST report...was FORCED to admit it since anyone with half a brain could do this measurement. He admitted that what happened to building 7 had to happen with "timed precision" (his words) but still claims that fire is capable of this precision even though there are no examples of this happening before in history to any buidling made of any material (accept for a house of cards at his house...still waiting for the video). He claimed that nanothermite couldn't be used as an explosive "EVER" (his words) and yet I showed him a video where a drop of nanothermite vaporized a watermellon (he's yet to respond). He's called ou David Chandler for participating in AE911 truth "for the money" even though AE911 truth is a non-profit organization and he has ZERO evidence of David Chandler making one cent off his particpation yet the PHDs at NIST and FEMA are paid specifically for their work in their reports and are part of the very government that they were charged with investigating....no conflict of interest there as far as charity is concerned right?

It lets him sleep well to explain these away thinking that the U.S. government never lies and has his and the world's best interest at heart. So...let him sleep.

[bigcadaver]

bigcadaver,

One problem with your first post.

The 911 Comission report had nothing to do with the engineering report. 911 Comission was political, and what happened before, and how we could prevent it, and the NIST reports are how the BUILDINGS fell, and what could we do in the future to possibly prevent them.

Deflect much?

Where is the video of your house of cards collapsing uniformly, suddenly at freefall speed due to fire and gravity? This will be the first time in history that this has occured...you will be FAMOUS!

You are an idiot.

[triforcharity]

That a Boeing hit the Pentagon...

Boeing parts were found INSIDE the pentagon, as well as DNA from people that were IN the plane, Radar tracks that go from the first report of hijack, to the Pentagon...... All faaked huh?? LOL!!

That mobile phone calls were made from the planes...

AirFones?? Oh, that's right......

That the hijackers executed a turn into the Pentagon that pilots have declared practically impossible for the best pilots and engineers have stated could possibly tear a Boeing apart...

Really?? But yet, it is done very often, and even aeronautical engineers say it could be done. Quite easily.

Fly close to the ground?? How about this video.
Proof Pentagon 9/11 planes can fly low and fast - YouTube



That the hijackers hit there targets despite having only a few lessons and basically ebing laughed from their Cesnas by the instructors...

Right, and they all had Commercial Pilots licenses..... But you also quote mined that. They said they had no doubt that that he could fly a plane once it was airborn.

That a passport was found at WTC ground zero...

So were body parts, and other pieces of paper, and seat cusions (Which, BTW, are less resistant to fire than paper) etc.etc.etc.....

That DNA has apparantly been found at the scenes that have vapourized planes...

Vaporized?? Where in the Comission report, or the NIST report, does it claim that?? BTW, no plane vaporized. There are parts of it at every scene.

That a guy with a laptop in a cave in teh Torra Bora could have organised the attackes...

So, because he lived/lives in Torra Bora, means he couldn't organize something like this?? You stereotyping is duly noted.

That NORAD was stood down 'just as a coincidence'

Who said NORAD stood down?? Didn't they launch planes?? I believe they did.

That the Airforce was stood down 'just as a coincidence'

Air Force?? Wait, what?? I thought they launched planes?? Ah, yes, they sure did.

That steel structured buildings fell at close to free-fall speed after fires not hot enough to melt steel...

Wow, of all those, you got only ONE PART of a statement correct. Nowhere did the NIST of Comission report that anything fell because of melted steel. WEAKENED, yes.

CLOSE. But not quite, well, not even close really. 20 seconds is nowhere near freefall.


That the lobbies of the WTC were badly smashed up...

They were. Buy a huge fireball from the even bigger fireball that shot down the elevators. I know LC loves to claim that the elevator shafts were "hermetically" sealed, they were not. Not now, not ever.


That people died in the basements before the planes hit...

Evidence?? Nobody died in the basement before the attack. You have to remember, the sound and flames that shot through the building were much quicker than the sound outside.


That the buildings went thru fire/security drills in the weeks before the attacks....

They went through fire/security drills monthly. This is required. Why is that suprising?? I think lots of people survived because they DID practice the fire drills.

and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...

And on...... You have spouted lies after lie, with no evidence of any of it.

[triforcharity]

BigCadaver,

Where have I ever said that the USG never lies?? I have NEVER, not once, EVER, on ANY forum, ANYWHERE, said anything CLOSE to that.

BTW, I am watching the watermelon video now.

[white horse]

Boeing parts were found INSIDE the pentagon, as well as DNA from people that were IN the plane, Radar tracks that go from the first report of hijack, to the Pentagon...... All faaked huh?? LOL!!



AirFones?? Oh, that's right......



Really?? But yet, it is done very often, and even aeronautical engineers say it could be done. Quite easily.

Fly close to the ground?? How about this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nBaU0vwP-o&feature=player_embedded





Right, and they all had Commercial Pilots licenses..... But you also quote mined that. They said they had no doubt that that he could fly a plane once it was airborn.



So were body parts, and other pieces of paper, and seat cusions (Which, BTW, are less resistant to fire than paper) etc.etc.etc.....



Vaporized?? Where in the Comission report, or the NIST report, does it claim that?? BTW, no plane vaporized. There are parts of it at every scene.



So, because he lived/lives in Torra Bora, means he couldn't organize something like this?? You stereotyping is duly noted.



Who said NORAD stood down?? Didn't they launch planes?? I believe they did.



Air Force?? Wait, what?? I thought they launched planes?? Ah, yes, they sure did.



Wow, of all those, you got only ONE PART of a statement correct. Nowhere did the NIST of Comission report that anything fell because of melted steel. WEAKENED, yes.

CLOSE. But not quite, well, not even close really. 20 seconds is nowhere near freefall.




They were. Buy a huge fireball from the even bigger fireball that shot down the elevators. I know LC loves to claim that the elevator shafts were "hermetically" sealed, they were not. Not now, not ever.




Evidence?? Nobody died in the basement before the attack. You have to remember, the sound and flames that shot through the building were much quicker than the sound outside.




They went through fire/security drills monthly. This is required. Why is that suprising?? I think lots of people survived because they DID practice the fire drills.



And on...... You have spouted lies after lie, with no evidence of any of it.

Dude... I've been on these forums for a few years now... I'm immune to this kind of horseshite!

That's really funny!

[triforcharity]

Can you prove it wrong?? You cannot. You can speculate and handwaave it all away (Which you have done) but you cannot prove it wrong.

[white horse]

Can you prove it wrong?? You cannot. You can speculate and handwaave it all away (Which you have done) but you cannot prove it wrong.

I cannot prove it wrong.

Oh I have had this argument many many times... ussed to have it with others a while back.

Never in any of my post ever anywhere do I ever use the word 'prove'.

Nothing can be proven.

Not in 911.

Never said that.

I said you cannot seperate the engineering from the political in 911.

Can you prove any of the above?

I am not using absolute proof. You wont get anywhere like that. in my opinion scientists are as deluded as Religious fanatics. Really, only seeing a narrow spectrum.

I am one of the many here who do not just use physics or maths or engineering or anything that can give a finite respoce... don't trust em.

(I also don't trust the source or the nature of most of the 'evidence' presented; IF the whole operation was planned and carried out by the US on its own people, from whatever level that comes from - who and where, then how can you put your whole trust in systems and procedures that are far EASIER to control than those that would have been needed on 911!?!?

You cannot have it both ways?? You cannot use the perps own evidence to back them up?

I use intuition, heart, guts, occam's razor, as well..

The story does not fit.

Any truly good detective will 'smell a rat' with a story and that is all they need ot begin to ask questions.

I began to ask questions of 911 and I found EVERY avenue of enquiry severely lacking, not just for evidence, but for credibility.

That turn to the Pentagon was not credible.

The 911 Omission report was not credible.

Rumsfeld and Cheney's action before during or since were not credible.

The increased security drills before the attacks were not credible, given the connections the private company had with Bushes brother...

The lack of CCTV evidence of a plane flying into the Pentagon given the amount of cameras around...


Just

Not

Credible

[white horse]

http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/961/wtclobby3.jpg

A frame capture from the WTC North lobby as the emergency services arrive on the scene.

Those are broken marble tiles on the wall... A fireball?? A fireball from a thousand feet high travelled down the lift shafts and exploded in the basement causing the lobby doors to blow out and blow marble tiles off the walls?

[white horse]

Fifty questions

1.

How come dead or not dead Osama bin Laden has not been formally indicted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as responsible for 9/11? Is it because the US government - as acknowledged by the FBI itself - has not produced a single conclusive piece of evidence?

2.

How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours - without even a crime scene investigation?

3.

How come none of the 19's names appeared on the passenger lists released the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?

4.

How come eight names on the "original" FBI list happened to be found alive and living in different countries?

5.

Why would pious jihadi Mohammed Atta leave a how-to-fly video manual, a uniform and his last will inside his bag knowing he was on a suicide mission?

6.

Why did Mohammed Atta study flight simulation at Opa Locka, a hub of no less than six US Navy training bases?

7.

How could Mohammed Atta's passport have been magically found buried among the Word Trade Center (WTC)'s debris when not a single flight recorder was found?

8.

Who is in the possession of the "disappeared" eight indestructible black boxes on those four flights?

9.

Considering multiple international red alerts about a possible terrorist attack inside the US - including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's infamous August 6, 2001, memo - how come four hijacked planes deviating from their computerized flight paths and disappearing from radar are allowed to fly around US airspace for more than an hour and a half - not to mention disabling all the elaborate Pentagon's defense systems in the process?

10.

Why the secretary of the US Air Force James Roche did not try to intercept both planes hitting the WTC (only seven minutes away from McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey) as well as the Pentagon (only 10 minutes away from McGuire)? Roche had no less than 75 minutes to respond to the plane hitting the Pentagon.

11.

Why did George W Bush continue to recite "My Pet Goat" in his Florida school and was not instantly absconded by the secret service?

12.

How could Bush have seen the first plane crashing on WTC live - as he admitted? Did he have previous knowledge - or is he psychic?

13.

Bush said that he and Andrew Card initially thought the first hit on the WTC was an accident with a small plane. How is that possible when the FAA as well as NORAD already knew this was about a hijacked plane?

14.

What are the odds of transponders in four different planes be turned off almost simultaneously, in the same geographical area, very close to the nation's seat of power in Washington, and no one scrambles to contact the Pentagon or the media?

15.

Could defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld explain why initial media reports said that there were no fighter jets available at Andrews Air Force Base and then change the reports that there were, but not on high alert?

16.

Why was the DC Air National Guard in Washington AWOL on 9/11?

17.

Why did combat jet fighters of the 305th Air Wing, McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey not intercept the second hijacked plane hitting the WTC, when they could have done it within seven minutes?

18.

Why did none of the combat jet fighters of the 459th Aircraft Squadron at Andrews Air Force Base intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon, only 16 kilometers away? And since we're at it, why the Pentagon did not release the full video of the hit?

19.

A number of very experienced airline pilots - including US ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a former fighter jet pilot - revealed that, well, only crack pilots could have performed such complex maneuvers on the hijacked jets, while others insisted they could only have been accomplished by remote control. Is it remotely believable that the hijackers were up to the task?

20.

How come a substantial number of witnesses did swear seeing and hearing multiple explosions in both towers of the WTC?

21.

How come a substantial number of reputed architects and engineers are adamant that the official narrative simply does not explain the largest structural collapse in recorded history (the Twin Towers) as well as the collapse of WTC building 7, which was not even hit by a jet?

22.

According to Frank de Martini, WTC's construction manager, "We designed the building to resist the impact of one or more jetliners." The second plane nearly missed tower 1; most of the fuel burned in an explosion outside the tower. Yet this tower collapsed first, long before tower 2 that was "perforated" by the first hit. Jet fuel burned up fast - and by far did not reach the 2000-degree heat necessary to hurt the six tubular steel columns in the center of the tower - designed specifically to keep the towers from collapsing even if hit by a Boeing 707. A Boeing 707 used to carry more fuel than the Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 that actually hit the towers.

23.

Why did Mayor Rudolph Giuliani instantly authorized the shipment of WTC rubble to China and India for recycling?

24.

Why was metallic debris found no less than 13 kilometers from the crash site of the plane that went down in Pennsylvania? Was the plane in fact shot down - under vice president Dick Cheney's orders?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_116.htm

Can you answer any of these?? Stick to the first 20 or so by all means.

[camreeno]

I have a theory why so many coincidences happened on the day of 9/11. The hijackers had a coincidence machine and produced them. Ha! Take that conspiracy theorists!

[triforcharity]

I will try to answer a few of them, but the rest are mostly speculative, and I won't specualte on something that I have very little knowledge on.

[QUOTE] Why was metallic debris found no less than 13 kilometers from the crash site of the plane that went down in Pennsylvania? Was the plane in fact shot down - under vice president Dick Cheney's orders? [?QUOTE]

Um, 8.07782 miles away?? Maybe by car. And I do not believe it was metallic debris. I believe it was paper.

Aparently you do not understand how long it takes to get armed fighter planes loaded and ready. 7 minutes is pretty damn good. Possibly even too good.

I'll look at the rest.

[bigcadaver]

Fifty questions

1.

How come dead or not dead Osama bin Laden has not been formally indicted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as responsible for 9/11? Is it because the US government - as acknowledged by the FBI itself - has not produced a single conclusive piece of evidence?

2.

How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours - without even a crime scene investigation?

3.

How come none of the 19's names appeared on the passenger lists released the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?

4.

How come eight names on the "original" FBI list happened to be found alive and living in different countries?

5.

Why would pious jihadi Mohammed Atta leave a how-to-fly video manual, a uniform and his last will inside his bag knowing he was on a suicide mission?

6.

Why did Mohammed Atta study flight simulation at Opa Locka, a hub of no less than six US Navy training bases?

7.

How could Mohammed Atta's passport have been magically found buried among the Word Trade Center (WTC)'s debris when not a single flight recorder was found?

8.

Who is in the possession of the "disappeared" eight indestructible black boxes on those four flights?

9.

Considering multiple international red alerts about a possible terrorist attack inside the US - including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice's infamous August 6, 2001, memo - how come four hijacked planes deviating from their computerized flight paths and disappearing from radar are allowed to fly around US airspace for more than an hour and a half - not to mention disabling all the elaborate Pentagon's defense systems in the process?

10.

Why the secretary of the US Air Force James Roche did not try to intercept both planes hitting the WTC (only seven minutes away from McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey) as well as the Pentagon (only 10 minutes away from McGuire)? Roche had no less than 75 minutes to respond to the plane hitting the Pentagon.

11.

Why did George W Bush continue to recite "My Pet Goat" in his Florida school and was not instantly absconded by the secret service?

12.

How could Bush have seen the first plane crashing on WTC live - as he admitted? Did he have previous knowledge - or is he psychic?

13.

Bush said that he and Andrew Card initially thought the first hit on the WTC was an accident with a small plane. How is that possible when the FAA as well as NORAD already knew this was about a hijacked plane?

14.

What are the odds of transponders in four different planes be turned off almost simultaneously, in the same geographical area, very close to the nation's seat of power in Washington, and no one scrambles to contact the Pentagon or the media?

15.

Could defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld explain why initial media reports said that there were no fighter jets available at Andrews Air Force Base and then change the reports that there were, but not on high alert?

16.

Why was the DC Air National Guard in Washington AWOL on 9/11?

17.

Why did combat jet fighters of the 305th Air Wing, McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey not intercept the second hijacked plane hitting the WTC, when they could have done it within seven minutes?

18.

Why did none of the combat jet fighters of the 459th Aircraft Squadron at Andrews Air Force Base intercept the plane that hit the Pentagon, only 16 kilometers away? And since we're at it, why the Pentagon did not release the full video of the hit?

19.

A number of very experienced airline pilots - including US ally Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a former fighter jet pilot - revealed that, well, only crack pilots could have performed such complex maneuvers on the hijacked jets, while others insisted they could only have been accomplished by remote control. Is it remotely believable that the hijackers were up to the task?

20.

How come a substantial number of witnesses did swear seeing and hearing multiple explosions in both towers of the WTC?

21.

How come a substantial number of reputed architects and engineers are adamant that the official narrative simply does not explain the largest structural collapse in recorded history (the Twin Towers) as well as the collapse of WTC building 7, which was not even hit by a jet?

22.

According to Frank de Martini, WTC's construction manager, "We designed the building to resist the impact of one or more jetliners." The second plane nearly missed tower 1; most of the fuel burned in an explosion outside the tower. Yet this tower collapsed first, long before tower 2 that was "perforated" by the first hit. Jet fuel burned up fast - and by far did not reach the 2000-degree heat necessary to hurt the six tubular steel columns in the center of the tower - designed specifically to keep the towers from collapsing even if hit by a Boeing 707. A Boeing 707 used to carry more fuel than the Boeing 757 and Boeing 767 that actually hit the towers.

23.

Why did Mayor Rudolph Giuliani instantly authorized the shipment of WTC rubble to China and India for recycling?

24.

Why was metallic debris found no less than 13 kilometers from the crash site of the plane that went down in Pennsylvania? Was the plane in fact shot down - under vice president Dick Cheney's orders?

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_116.htm

Can you answer any of these?? Stick to the first 20 or so by all means.

Good god Whitehorse....charity is able to explain away (in his own mind) freefall collapses of buildings due to fire and gravity alone and it makes perfect sense to him. You really think you're going to get him on any of these points? He claims that...

-...fireballs can travel 1000 feet down elevator shafts and set people on fire before they hear the explosion!!!

-...that buildings can collapse at freefall acceleration due to fire and gravity as the only driving forces!!!

-...that nanothermite can't be used as an explosive even though i've showed him video that it is an insanely powerful explosive!!!

- He admits that building 7s collapse was caused by a process that needed "timed precision" and thinks that fire can behave this way!!!

- He dismisses certain people's opinions based on their supposed monetary gain for these opinions yet has no evidence of said monetary gain...yet he accepts other peoples views as fact whose entire income is from the very entity they are charged with investigating!!!

He will explain each item away like its all good and nothing to doubt anywhere. As I mentioned...most of these items individually has a low probability of occurence.....COMPOUNDED...together they have a virtually ZERO chance of occuring...yet he will explain each away and think to himself "I showed that tin hat wearing CT who was boss!!"

Cool....i've still got PLENTY of points that i've yet to hear from him on. He's likely email his buddies at JREF and waiting for straw grasping answers. I'm patient though...your post should keep him busy for a while in the meantime.

[triforcharity]

Good god Whitehorse....charity is able to explain away (in his own mind) freefall collapses of buildings due to fire and gravity alone and it makes perfect sense to him. You really think you're going to get him on any of these points? He claims that...

Exactly. I could speculate all day long. But, you see, I don't speculate on things I have absoluely no knowledge about. Neither should you.

-...fireballs can travel 1000 feet down elevator shafts and set people on fire before they hear the explosion!!!

I never claimed that. You are twisting my words.

I said that a fireball could in fact shoot down an elevator shaft, long before they heard the explosion from OUTSIDE.


-...that buildings can collapse at freefall acceleration due to fire and gravity as the only driving forces!!!

Right. Thousands of others have no problem with it either. How about the 51 different TRUELY PEER REVIEWED papers that I have provided?? Care to discredit them?? I'll wait.


-...that nanothermite can't be used as an explosive even though i've showed him video that it is an insanely powerful explosive!!!

So you blew up a watermelon. I could do that with 10 minutes in my garage. Its really not that hard. Now, if he had blown a cement block to kingdom come, I would certainly change my mind.


- He admits that building 7s collapse was caused by a process that needed "timed precision" and thinks that fire can behave this way!!!

Again, twisting my words. I explained this in the other thread. Try reading and UNDERSTANDING what you are reading.

- He dismisses certain people's opinions based on their supposed monetary gain for these opinions yet has no evidence of said monetary gain...yet he accepts other peoples views as fact whose entire income is from the very entity they are charged with investigating!!!

Are you talking about the NIST? Or are you blabbering on about the 9/11 Comission??
Here is why people in government investigated the attacks.

You ready??

Who else has the type of clearance OTHER than people in Washington to hear alot of the things that were discussed?? You?? Doubtfull.

Me?? Well, I have a better chance than you, but still not even close.

Who?? You friends Chandler or maybe Judy "Space Beams" Woods? Maybe we should have let Iraq and Afganistan run the investigation. Yeah, that would have been a great idea. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


He will explain each item away like its all good and nothing to doubt anywhere. As I mentioned...most of these items individually has a low probability of occurence.....COMPOUNDED...together they have a virtually ZERO chance of occuring...yet he will explain each away and think to himself "I showed that tin hat wearing CT who was boss!!"


But yet you believe that hundreds of people that would be required to be "In on it" not ONE of them has EVER come foreward, and when this was all being set up, NOBODY declined their offers/demands, and reported ANYONE. That my friend takes the BIGGEST leap of faith.

I have never thought that. I have however wondered why, after 8 yeaars, all the tin-foil hat idiots haven't found ANY evidence WHATSOEVER!!



Cool....i've still got PLENTY of points that i've yet to hear from him on. He's likely email his buddies at JREF and waiting for straw grasping answers. I'm patient though...your post should keep him busy for a while in the meantime.

I would LOVE to hear about all this evidence you have.

Tell me, with all these impossibilities, why haven't the brightest minds in the entire world come foreward exposing it as false?? Why do the most brilliant minds of the world believe it, but yet, you, an internet investi-googler, figure it all out??
Tell me, why haven't you people ever gone to court with any of your "evidence"?
Why did your little petition fail miserably??

[white horse]

Aparently you do not understand how long it takes to get armed fighter planes loaded and ready. 7 minutes is pretty damn good. Possibly even too good.

I'll look at the rest.

Apparantly you don't.

The frontlint airbases have two fighters on the run way fuelled up and ready to go, and two pilots fully kitted up beside the runway. Two more planes are being made ready behind them to relieve them. After a few hours they rotate. There are always two ready to go.

But not on 911.

What's your story?

What's your background??

[triforcharity]

Apparantly you don't.

The frontlint airbases have two fighters on the run way fuelled up and ready to go, and two pilots fully kitted up beside the runway. Two more planes are being made ready behind them to relieve them. After a few hours they rotate. There are always two ready to go.

But not on 911.

What's your story?

What's your background??

Where do you get that line of shit from?? You think that the stuff you see in the movies are real?? Holy crikeys.

My story?? I am a firefighter who saaw ~3,000 snuffed out by your little terrorist friends.

My background?? Its the Red Sox Nation logo, what's yours???

[white horse]

Where do you get that line of shit from?? You think that the stuff you see in the movies are real?? Holy crikeys.

My story?? I am a firefighter who saaw ~3,000 snuffed out by your little terrorist friends.

My background?? Its the Red Sox Nation logo, what's yours???

OK - back up there a little my friend.

My terrorist friends? Get real. I befirend no murderers.

I'm sorry for your loss. I truly am. I am on your side. I am interested in finding these perps. I do not mean to upset you in your grief.

Do you think it was all Osama and AL Quaeda? Do you think there was absolutley no involvement from Stateside at all?

You were a firefighter in NY? Did you see the planes? Were you a first responder?

I mean no offence dude - but you seem to be an opologist for the Bush regime and those that carried out this attrocity.

What I meant by background is where have you been for 8 years? You have to understand, you have just popped up on this board and you seem to have a full set of fully formed answers to debunk EVERY aspect of the 911 'truth' movement theories, whatever they are.

("Its the Red Sox Nation logo" - I don't know what this means, sorry?)

Who do you think did it?

If you are an eye witness to the attrocity then your statements are the most valuable there are on the internet.

Where have you been for 8 years? Where have you been telling your story?

Have you written any of your story down before? Do you have any weblinks?

Have you seen the stories from William Rodriquez? What do you think of them?

Have you seen the stories from your colleagues in the Fire Department and amongst the NYPD who beleive the buildings were demolished?

Did you actually see any planes? Were you able to identify any of them as Boeings?

Where were you - exactly - during the emergency?

You will have to forgive me if I seem rude but people 'appear' at this forum at regular intervals, claim to be eyewitnesses to events on the day yet fail to bring anything individual or personal whatsoever to back that up. Bombastic statements alone to not provide credibility.

If you are genuine, I am genuinely interested, from both a personal view and a research point of view to hear your story. (I have friend who I believed was in the restaurant that morning - so I thought he was dead while I watched this play out on telly - he had actually missed a appointment so had rescheduled for next day - so didn't lose any one personally, thankfully).

Where were you - what were your movements on the day - what did you see - what did you do?

[bsmurph83]

Sorry if this has already been posted, all. I'm not gonna go reading the whole fuckin' thread to check though. Enjoy.

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
Gordon Duff Salem-News.com

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?


John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."

With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure.


In 2006, The Washington Post reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission..."

What does Farmer's book tell us? Farmer offers no solutions, only a total and full rejection of what was told and his own his own ideas concerning the total failure of honesty on the part of the government, a government with something to hide.

Farmer never tells us what. Nobody could keep a job in the public sector speaking out more than Farmer has. What were Farmer's omissions? There are some. Now that we know that intelligence given the 9/11 Commission wasn't just lies from our own government but based on testimony coerced through torture from informants forced to back up a cover story now proven false, a pattern emerges.




We know that, immediately after 9/11, many more potential suspects and informants were flown directly to Saudi Arabia by Presidential order than were ever detained and questioned. We will never know what they could have said. Their testimony would have been vital to any real investigation were they not put beyond the reach of even Congress and the FBI.

Putting aside all other questions of recent evidence of CIA involvement with bin Laden prior to 9/11 or altered physical evidence involving the Pentagon attack, any failure to call to account the systematic perjury committed by dozens of top government officials, now exposed as a certainty is an offense to every American.

What do we know? We know the conjecture about 9/11 still stands but for certain, we know we were lied to, not in a minor way, but systematically as part of a plot covering up government involvement at nearly every level, perhaps gross negligence, perhaps something with darker intent.

Are we willing to live with another lie to go with the Warren Report, Iran Contra and so many others? Has the sacrifice of thousands more Americans, killed, wounded or irreparably damaged by a war knowingly built on the same lies from the same liars who misled the 9/11 Commission pushed us beyond willingness to confront the truth?

Have we yet found where the lies have begun and ended? There is no evidence of this, only evidence to the contrary. The lies live on and the truth will never be sought. The courage for that task has not been found.

Can anyone call themselves an American if they don't demand, even with the last drop of their blood, that the truth be found?

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?
-End-

STARTING TO SINK IN YET? *Chuckles*

[bigcadaver]

Sorry if this has already been posted, all. I'm not gonna go reading the whole fuckin' thread to check though. Enjoy.

The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
Gordon Duff Salem-News.com

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?


John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."

With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure.


In 2006, The Washington Post reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission..."

What does Farmer's book tell us? Farmer offers no solutions, only a total and full rejection of what was told and his own his own ideas concerning the total failure of honesty on the part of the government, a government with something to hide.

Farmer never tells us what. Nobody could keep a job in the public sector speaking out more than Farmer has. What were Farmer's omissions? There are some. Now that we know that intelligence given the 9/11 Commission wasn't just lies from our own government but based on testimony coerced through torture from informants forced to back up a cover story now proven false, a pattern emerges.




We know that, immediately after 9/11, many more potential suspects and informants were flown directly to Saudi Arabia by Presidential order than were ever detained and questioned. We will never know what they could have said. Their testimony would have been vital to any real investigation were they not put beyond the reach of even Congress and the FBI.

Putting aside all other questions of recent evidence of CIA involvement with bin Laden prior to 9/11 or altered physical evidence involving the Pentagon attack, any failure to call to account the systematic perjury committed by dozens of top government officials, now exposed as a certainty is an offense to every American.

What do we know? We know the conjecture about 9/11 still stands but for certain, we know we were lied to, not in a minor way, but systematically as part of a plot covering up government involvement at nearly every level, perhaps gross negligence, perhaps something with darker intent.

Are we willing to live with another lie to go with the Warren Report, Iran Contra and so many others? Has the sacrifice of thousands more Americans, killed, wounded or irreparably damaged by a war knowingly built on the same lies from the same liars who misled the 9/11 Commission pushed us beyond willingness to confront the truth?

Have we yet found where the lies have begun and ended? There is no evidence of this, only evidence to the contrary. The lies live on and the truth will never be sought. The courage for that task has not been found.

Can anyone call themselves an American if they don't demand, even with the last drop of their blood, that the truth be found?

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?
-End-

STARTING TO SINK IN YET? *Chuckles*

Good info...its a relief to see that some people still have a conscience!

But...of course.....charity will dismiss/deflect again. That's what debunkers do. Then a few posts down the road he'll still claim that "not a single person has come forward"....that....the truth movement has no evidence whatesoever....that....the near 1000 architects and engineers and over 5000 others including pilots, firemen, scholars etc are just complete idiots.

[white horse]

Good info...its a relief to see that some people still have a conscience!

But...of course.....charity will dismiss/deflect again. That's what debunkers do. Then a few posts down the road he'll still claim that "not a single person has come forward"....that....the truth movement has no evidence whatesoever....that....the near 1000 architects and engineers and over 5000 others including pilots, firemen, scholars etc are just complete idiots.

It's a pattern we've see repeated at these boards a lot.

[bsmurph83]

every post 'charity' makes decreases whatever pitiful remnants of perceived credibility of his remain. in a recent post he reffered to our 'ilk' as terrorists... that shows everyone the intellectual level he is operating on. must be a big fan of the patriot act. hope you don't ever accidentally wear any jeans, charity!

wake up 'tri'. the truth hurts but the consequences of organised and systematic denial and ignorance hurt more. the people who came up with the 9-11 Commission Report are saying it's a load of shit, where does that leave you? on your desert island of emotional irrationalism from the looks of things... enjoy your tan, i hope it's worth it...

[bigcadaver]

every post 'charity' makes decreases whatever pitiful remnants of perceived credibility of his remain. In a recent post he reffered to our 'ilk' as terrorists... That shows everyone the intellectual level he is operating on. Must be a big fan of the patriot act. Hope you don't ever accidentally wear any jeans, charity!

Wake up 'tri'. The truth hurts but the consequences of organised and systematic denial and ignorance hurt more. The people who came up with the 9-11 commission report are saying it's a load of shit, where does that leave you? On your desert island of emotional irrationalism from the looks of things... Enjoy your tan, i hope it's worth it...

+100000

Summed up beautifully in a nutshell!!

[bigcadaver]

Exactly. I could speculate all day long. But, you see, I don't speculate on things I have absoluely no knowledge about. Neither should you.

Right....like claiming without any evidence whatsoever that nanothermite can't be used as a demolition explosive when ONE DROP of it is capable of vaporizing a watermellon.

I never claimed that. You are twisting my words. I said that a fireball could in fact shoot down an elevator shaft, long before they heard the explosion from OUTSIDE.

Sorry....this claim makes MUCH more sense!! :rolleyes:

Right. Thousands of others have no problem with it either. How about the 51 different TRUELY PEER REVIEWED papers that I have provided?? Care to discredit them?? I'll wait.

And thousands of others say that the story is crap.

So you blew up a watermelon. I could do that with 10 minutes in my garage. Its really not that hard. Now, if he had blown a cement block to kingdom come, I would certainly change my mind.

Let's see you do it then with as little explosive material as what was in the video ONE DROP!!! While you're at it you could film it right after you film your house of cards dropping at the rate of gravity uniformly after you set it on fire. Be careful playing with all these explosives and flamable material
though....don't want you to end up looking like this...

http://i29.tinypic.com/2ed2pvt.gif

Again, twisting my words. I explained this in the other thread. Try reading and UNDERSTANDING what you are reading.

"TWISTING" your words eh...well here are your words exactly as you typed them...
______________________

Ok, thermite you say?? How did this thermite work on vertical columns?? How did it stay in contact long enough to melt the column?? It would be impossible to account for rates of melting steel with thermite. Why you ask?? It doesn't melt steel. Hell, 1000 pounds of it couldn't even cut a truck in half. I mean, you're asking thermite, even nanothermite, to do something in such a precisely timed fashion, its unrealistic.
_______________________

When you're talking about fire...its a slow progressive collapse as the NIST report claims...when you're talking about nanothermite...its incapable of "such precise timing". Which is it? Am I untwisting your words enough asshole?

Are you talking about the NIST? Or are you blabbering on about the 9/11 Comission?? Here is why people in government investigated the attacks.

You ready??

Who else has the type of clearance OTHER than people in Washington to hear alot of the things that were discussed?? You?? Doubtfull.
Me?? Well, I have a better chance than you, but still not even close.
Who?? You friends Chandler or maybe Judy "Space Beams" Woods? Maybe we should have let Iraq and Afganistan run the investigation. Yeah, that would have been a great idea. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well...since neither Afghanistan or Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks it would have likely been a more accurate investigation then the fairytale put up by NIST, FEMA and the 911 Commission, who have by the way been going public with the FACT that this was a cover up.

But yet you believe that hundreds of people that would be required to be "In on it" not ONE of them has EVER come foreward, and when this was all being set up, NOBODY declined their offers/demands, and reported ANYONE. That my friend takes the BIGGEST leap of faith.

The 911 commission is starting to come forward...you will dismiss it.

I would LOVE to hear about all this evidence you have. Tell me, with all these impossibilities, why haven't the brightest minds in the entire world come foreward exposing it as false?? Why do the most brilliant minds of the world believe it, but yet, you, an internet investi-googler, figure it all out?? Tell me, why haven't you people ever gone to court with any of your "evidence"? Why did your little petition fail miserably??

You have been hearing about it...everyday. You just dismiss it like a good little koolaid drinker.

When people come forward they are attacked and discredited in the mass media which is owned by the very entities who perpetrated these crimes. Incentive enough for many to stay quiet.

How has the petition "failed miserably"? Are you making stuff up again. If the petition succeeds in getting a new investigation in a year or 10 years it will have succeeded. Just because it hasn't now doesn't mean it has failed.

Try again...

[tb303]

...enjoy your tan, i hope it's worth it...

A nice depleted uranium tan...

[tb303]

Be careful playing with all these explosives and flamable material
though....don't want you to end up looking like this...

http://i29.tinypic.com/2ed2pvt.gif





Nah, he wouldn't get that far, he'd look more like this...

http://staging.radaronline.com/exclusives//matchplay_103107_FRESH.jpg

[bigcadaver]

lol....

[triforcharity]

OK - back up there a little my friend.

My terrorist friends? Get real. I befirend no murderers.

My apologies than. I apologize to you, as I seem to have lumped you into the catagory that most Truthers belong to. Which is, they are morons and terrorist sympathisers. (sp?) Again, my apologies.

I'm sorry for your loss. I truly am. I am on your side. I am interested in finding these perps. I do not mean to upset you in your grief.

Do you think it was all Osama and AL Quaeda? Do you think there was absolutley no involvement from Stateside at all?

You did not upset me. Well, not in the sense that you think.

I think Osama might have had some help from some other terrorists.

I think there was no involvement in the sense, again, that I think you are thinking. Their involvement was more indirect. They could have prevented it if people hadn't been so imcompetant. They had too many warnings. Now, what could have been done, if anything, is debatable.

You were a firefighter in NY? Did you see the planes? Were you a first responder?

I was FDNY on 9/11. I have since retired from the big city, and taken up residence in a small town on the east coast of Florida.
I did in fact see both planes hit. I was heading home, and saw it fly in, I though it was odd, as it was very low, and watched if hit the tower. I knew right then, that it was no accident.
Like I said, I was heading home, and decided to turn back to help. I knew it would be a long day.

I mean no offence dude - but you seem to be an opologist for the Bush regime and those that carried out this attrocity.

You believe that Bush had his big-dumb hand in it. I believe that Osama and his goons had their whole bodies involved in this. You seem to think that I supported Bush, but you see, that is absolutely wrong. I caannot stand Bush. Friends of mine died, and they dragged their feet setting up a comission to investigate what happened.
I also think it is horseshit that there has been so little help from the feds for health care for GZ workers. Too many people have died. IMHO, needlessly.


What I meant by background is where have you been for 8 years? You have to understand, you have just popped up on this board and you seem to have a full set of fully formed answers to debunk EVERY aspect of the 911 'truth' movement theories, whatever they are.

("Its the Red Sox Nation logo" - I don't know what this means, sorry?)

Background on my computer. Sorry, smartass sometimes.

Where have I been?? Living my life, enjoying my kids, took a few years off after I retired from FDNY. Fished alot. Built my house, things like that.
I didn't have internet for almost a year after I moved to Florida. I just wanted to disconnect for a while. I needed to.
No, I do not have all the answers. When I waatched that garbage film Loose Change, I wanted to know how this could possibly have been so wrong, on so many levels. (PODS???????) Yeah, so I started looking at both sides. Then I saw some of the really dumb shit, like no-planes, VicSims, etc. I was sickened and disgusted.


Who do you think did it?

If you are an eye witness to the attrocity then your statements are the most valuable there are on the internet.

Where have you been for 8 years? Where have you been telling your story?

Thank you. But, I am not the most knowledgeable person on stuff like this. Especially engineering questions.

See above.

I have not been telling my story, or writing any books, or anything like that. I refuse to make any money off the memories of my dead friends.
Sitting there dwelling on what happened, writing books, doing speaches, etc, just aren't my style. I am not a hero. I did work with 343 of them though.


Have you written any of your story down before? Do you have any weblinks?

No. I don't enjoy rehashing that hellish day. Its part of the greiving process. I did my ranting years ago. Then, I went fishing.


Have you seen the stories from William Rodriquez? What do you think of them?

I have seen Rodriquez's story. I honestly think he is a hero, as opening the doors that only he had a key for most likely saved alot of lives.

BUT, at the same time, I believe he has embellished his story somewhat, and only started talking about the other stuff after he realized all the attention he was receiving. I think overall, he means well, but just enjoys the spotlight a little too much, and will say anything to stay there.


Have you seen the stories from your colleagues in the Fire Department and amongst the NYPD who beleive the buildings were demolished?

No, I have seen the people who use similies, metaphor, and hyperbole. But, I have a very hard time believing anyone in FDNY truely believes that any of the WTC towers were brought down by explosives.

I have said it before. There was most certainly explosions in the towers. But not EXPLOSIVES. There is a big difference. There are probobly a dozen things that can and will go boom in a fire. Every one of them would have been found in abundance in the towers.

Did you actually see any planes? Were you able to identify any of them as Boeings?

I could tell you that it wasn't a Cessna, or a turbo-prop plane. The first one, I was too far away to know what kind it was. The second one, I knew it was something huge, like an Airbus or a Boeing.

Where were you - exactly - during the emergency?

On the ground. (sorry, smartass again. ) I went to Ground Zero, and worked doing S&R. I never went into the towers, at least not past the South tower lobby.


You will have to forgive me if I seem rude but people 'appear' at this forum at regular intervals, claim to be eyewitnesses to events on the day yet fail to bring anything individual or personal whatsoever to back that up. Bombastic statements alone to not provide credibility.

I certainly understand. But, I am not going into huge detail here, or really anywhere.


If you are genuine, I am genuinely interested, from both a personal view and a research point of view to hear your story. (I have friend who I believed was in the restaurant that morning - so I thought he was dead while I watched this play out on telly - he had actually missed a appointment so had rescheduled for next day - so didn't lose any one personally, thankfully).

Email me at matthew@911firefighters.org


Where were you - what were your movements on the day - what did you see - what did you do?

Email me.

[mrerisian]

C'mon guys, this string is potentially very interesting reading but there's no need for comments like this:


You are an idiot.

True communication is only possible between equals. Accept that first and then this string can remain interesting.

My story?? I am a firefighter who saaw ~3,000 snuffed out by your little terrorist friends.

in a recent post he reffered to our 'ilk' as terrorists... that shows everyone the intellectual level he is operating on. must be a big fan of the patriot act. hope you don't ever accidentally wear any jeans, charity!


The reason I mentioned right at the start of the string that come what may there is a real genuine threat from Islamic extremists is because I think conspiracy theory at its worst can look the other way on that issue. The Islamist nutjob faction are very small but they do exist. I've met them, spoken to them, seen them RIOTING in the street and making speeches about the filthy Kuffar and the Jew. They're real!

Remember, I don't believe any of the versions of events I've been sold but I am open to the possibility that one of them might be true and I just don't understand it. If the official version (or one like it) is true then pretending that someone else other than radical Islamofacists did it does make you their allies.

Now, I'm going to re-read this string as I think I've missed some earlier comments directed at me...

[triforcharity]

Good info...its a relief to see that some people still have a conscience!

But...of course.....charity will dismiss/deflect again. That's what debunkers do. Then a few posts down the road he'll still claim that "not a single person has come forward"....that....the truth movement has no evidence whatesoever....that....the near 1000 architects and engineers and over 5000 others including pilots, firemen, scholars etc are just complete idiots.

Have you read the book?? I have. Its quite good actually. But, it is not good for your side. At all.

1000 Architects OR engineers, only a few of both. Out of how many in the USA??? Right. Same going for the rest of the *for911Truth groups. They have been fed lies by their respective groups.

[triforcharity]

I think you are confused on the meaning of the word "vaporized".

[mrerisian]

The 911 Comission report had nothing to do with the engineering report.


Loose Change makes this line a little blurred so it's a common point of confusion for people.


BTW, why are you right, but the 51 different peer-reviewed papers on the collapses wrong?? What has the T(B)M put foreward that is peer reviewed in ANY reputable journal in the ENTIRE WORLD.

I will accept any language, from any continent on earth.

Just re-posting this because the question was ducked. Why is it that so many people in respectable positions being published in peer review papers are going along with this conspiracy. It doesn't make sense!

[mrerisian]

Listen up, little boy. Piss off back to JREF with your tail between your legs, tell 'em you failed and that they need to send a bigger boy.

Yeah that improved the standard of debate. Way to go!

An argument won like that is an argument lost. Stop being so immature.

[mrerisian]

Dude... I've been on these forums for a few years now... I'm immune to this kind of horseshite!

That's really funny!

I dunno man, the answers he provided weren't all bad. The mobile phone thing used to get me until I looked into it and was told that they would work on a plane just not too well. Now, Loose Change's explanation was they'd got robot voice to make the calls? Hardly Occam's razor...



I use intuition, heart, guts, occam's razor, as well..

The story does not fit.

Any truly good detective will 'smell a rat' with a story and that is all they need ot begin to ask questions.

See - that all sounds great but what qualifies you as a detective? What other cases have you solved? How many burning buildings have you dealt with?

Good detectives don't, in my experience, use their guts, heart or intuition much. They use things like facts and evidence if they're going to secure a conviction. There's simple not enough of that in the case of 9/11. It's not BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

[mrerisian]

Sorry to jump into this discussion real late No problemo.


I also have to take offence to your statement about radical Islam as Islam is my faith but I am not posting this solely for that reason.

You don't have to. You've decided to. That's your choice. Offence is taken, not given.


Out of all the people on the plane nobody had the courage to take on a man with a boxcutter.... and also how did the box cutter with presumably a metal blade make it onto the plane in the first place?

Yeah, you know all this security they've brought in since the terrorist attacks? That didn't used to be as strict back then. I think the two are linked?

As for no one tackling him, that's simple. The advice at the time was to let the terrorists hijack the plane and fly it to where they wanted to go. That way no one would get hurt. Those passengers HAD NO IDEA they were about to be used as a big missile.

This ties in neatly with the reality of Islamofascism. Only recently did people in the West start to really UNDERSTAND the fact that Islam in it's worst form can become an ideology which people will die for. Prior to that I think there was a feeling that it was a little bit like Christianity, ie it had been tamed.


New York city is calling firefighters liars for hearing explosives in the buildings This has been addressed earlier on. Explosions don't need to mean bombs.



I quote your forum signature:

"Have become bored of the homophobia, Antisemitism (no not anti-Zionism, I know the difference,) racism and overall boring group think which infects conspiracy theorists. Sorry if my tone is over emotional."

So you have become bored of Antisemitism? What about people like you posting on forums saying radical islam is not a myth?

Listen mate, you'll have to take this one up with the people who I've spoken to who claim to represent your religion yet seem very keen on getting angry about Jews and 'filthy' Kuffars. They're REAL and they're not hard to find. Islam is a big religion, you can't surely be blind to the fact that some of the people who follow it are f-cking nutjobs?

I look forward to your answer and hope you decide to stop choosing to be offended by my words.

[tb303]

Yeah that improved the standard of debate. Way to go!

An argument won like that is an argument lost. Stop being so immature.

This ain't just an argument, sunshine, this is about millions of innocent people being slaughtered, depleted uranium flying around the globe, worldwide crackdowns on civil liberties and freedom and all in the name of what?

So carry on with your circular debates and mental masturbation while you still can.

[_ads_]

No problemo.



You don't have to. You've decided to. That's your choice. Offence is taken, not given.

So if I punch one of your family members in the face you have a choice to become offended? Which part of your subconcious are you talking about?


Yeah, you know all this security they've brought in since the terrorist attacks? That didn't used to be as strict back then. I think the two are linked?

Actually metal security screening was implemented around 1995 if I may inform.


As for no one tackling him, that's simple. The advice at the time was to let the terrorists hijack the plane and fly it to where they wanted to go. That way no one would get hurt. Those passengers HAD NO IDEA they were about to be used as a big missile.

Well made point except reports have been made of the hijackers being alive years after the attack.


This ties in neatly with the reality of Islamofascism. Only recently did people in the West start to really UNDERSTAND the fact that Islam in it's worst form can become an ideology which people will die for. Prior to that I think there was a feeling that it was a little bit like Christianity, ie it had been tamed.

If you think Islam is a fascist political system then you must first question your own in a world of 9-5 5 days of week of slavery using a monetary system that has no real worth. It is a fact that an orthodox Islamic or even Christian banking system would not allow interest to occur and the dealings with fiat currency. Your courts are actually corporations acting for the best interest of those parent companies that finance them (the state) which is also a corporation and proof of that is your social security number. You're raped for tax for just about everything and if you can't pay, you don't live.


This has been addressed earlier on. Explosions don't need to mean bombs.

Oh that's right of course. This would also explain why the last man out (google it) felt explosions from the basement, he was held a hero for dragging people out of the WTC and also met with Hillary Clinton who honoured and congratulated his courage and bravery but as soon as he started to speak about the explosions the media copped out of his social circle and his phone calls were rejected.........




Listen mate, you'll have to take this one up with the people who I've spoken to who claim to represent your religion yet seem very keen on getting angry about Jews and 'filthy' Kuffars. They're REAL and they're not hard to find. Islam is a big religion, you can't surely be blind to the fact that some of the people who follow it are f-cking nutjobs?

I am not your mate. Did you miss my parable-like text passage?

I look forward to your answer and hope you decide to stop choosing to be offended by my words.

Easier said than done.

Also, I don't see any need to post further in this topic as it is clearly wasted energy. You wouldn't believe shit if it hit you right in the face without further government investigation.

[mrerisian]

This ain't just an argument, sunshine, this is about millions of innocent people being slaughtered, depleted uranium Blimey, you sound very important when you spout off stuff like that...

Hang on a minute - it's matey! I didn't recognize you there dude, sorry. Captain Contradiction strikes again! You're the guy who limped off this thread after making a tit of yourself by constantly contradicting yourself.

Here's one of your best two contradictory statements:



"I had a gut feeling when I turned the TV on and saw the second tower collapse - INSIDE JOB."

"Now is not the time for a discussion on gut feelings"



They're quoted in order of posting.

* One of them is a discussion of your gut feelings.

* The other is denouncing discussion of anyone's gut feelings because 'now is not the time'.

Awesome! You were very funny. I particularly liked the way you couldn't admit you'd contradicted yourself. It revealed something quite profound to me and I urge anyone interested in this debate to read your valuable contribution earlier on.

Interesting that your continued postings provide YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of you saying one thing one minute then another the next:



None of mrerisians posts contain anything of real substance on the subject of 9/11 so why not let the topic die instead of taking the bait each time.Agreed.

Classic troll behavior.

[mrerisian]

So if I punch one of your family members in the face you have a choice to become offended? Which part of your subconcious are you talking about?
No, in that instance I'd be more than offended. Just as you'd be if I decide to punch someone you're close to. Fortunately for you though there is no chance of that happening as I am a committed pacifist. I'd only be violent in self defence. My religion is one of PEACE.

I find it very odd and potentially revealing how you instantly started fantasizing about something like that... Particularly given that I'm talking about YOUR subconscious. Not mine.


If you think Islam is a fascist political system

Didn't say that. I was speaking of people who use Islam as a form of fascism. Knives can be used to cut bread or people. Religion is a tool used to control people. Islamofascists use it to advance a fascistic agenda.


then you must first question your own in a world of 9-5 5 days of week of slavery using a monetary system that has no real worth.

Irrelevant to the debate. How about looking at the problems within your own crowd first? I'm not interested in who has tastiest BS you've misunderstood what I'm saying. My point is simple, there ARE nutjobs who claim to be part of your religion. I notice you've ducked that point and I can understand you mightn't want to admit it.

For the record, I am 100% aware that my lifestyle is not perfect.


I don't see any need to post further in this topic as it is clearly wasted energy.

Fair enough. Your contribution was a little confused anyway.

[tb303]

Blimey, you sound very important when you spout off stuff like that...

Yep, puts it into perspective, doesn't it.


Hang on a minute - it's matey! I didn't recognize you there dude, sorry. Captain Contradiction strikes again! You're the guy who limped off this thread after making a tit of yourself by constantly contradicting yourself.

My sincerest apologies, I forgot this was your thread.

Allow me to refresh myself and others as to the start of it:


My problem with 9/11 conspiracy theory is with the theorists themselves. They all had prejudices which were merely confirmed by the events of that day.

Once again, what a marvelously nonsensical introduction.


Furthermore in the debate I think people sometimes miss the point: Radical fascistic violent Islam is not a myth.

And totally irrelevant to your opening premise which was nonsense in the first place - congratulations!


Here's one of your best two contradictory statements:



They're quoted in order of posting.

* One of them is a discussion of your gut feelings.

* The other is denouncing discussion of anyone's gut feelings because 'now is not the time'.


If you're going to quote me, then quote me correctly, thank you.

You denied it before, but I'm sure you must have a bee in your bonnet about the other thread to do with the BBC. Search for it and I think it might clear up a few things for you.


Awesome! You were very funny.

Thank you.


I particularly liked the way you couldn't admit you'd contradicted yourself. It revealed something quite profound to me and I urge anyone interested in this debate to read your valuable contribution earlier on.


Oh yes I'm quite sure the readers of this thread are intrigued to know more and are on the edge of their seats. Suffice to say, I think you need to look up the definition of the word contradict.

Now of course, my offer still stands if you do want to discuss gut feelings elsewhere.


Interesting that your continued postings provide YET ANOTHER EXAMPLE of you saying one thing one minute then another the next

On the contrary. This thread managed to move on beyond your nonsensical ramblings about conspiracy theorists, and you may recall that I said I'd continue with you if wanted to debate the events of 9/11.

However, what you have managed to do is embroil yourself, me and this thread with your original nonsense which to me looks like...


Classic troll behavior.

[bsmurph83]

this thread has long since passed the point of idle intellectual masturbation. personally, i'm over seeing the most important and devastating points completely ignored by those with an emotional need to believe the government. if someone has to continuously ignore the most pertinent facts whilst glorifying the inconsequential then it says a lot about their argument. much more reading needs to be done by those who are not yet convinced 9-11 is a fraud. serving bits and pieces up on a silver platter is obviously not helping, so methinks energy may be best directed elsewhere (not that I'm just realising this now or anything ha!)...

peace

[noewhan]

Alex Jones often says that the news lies. What he really means (in my opinion) is that when first reports come out, there is a lot of truth, but then the 'elite' move in and start twisting the story.

As you'll see on Loose Change 2nd edition and other documentaries - there's a lot of news footage & articles. But then of course people get fired, or silenced. As usual.

To 9/11 truth sceptics... If the truth movement is wrong, please explain what happened at the Pentagon. Do you seriously believe a plane made that hole & shock wave?

Can you debunk the warnings which certain people received the day before?

Is Operation Northwoods a made-up document? Prove it, please.

And how can people ignore what the fire-fighters said, and others say? Most people herd 'huge explosions'. Not pissy pop explosions like fire extinguishers or cars. (As Gordon Bloyer would say).


Actually on the topic of fire extinguishers... Were the ones in the WTCs explosive? Are they all explosive?

3-4-5 weeks of molten steel? :/

No smoke, no fire at the crash site of flight 93? As first responders say. C'mon.

Combined Maths of 9/11. - YouTube

Good video from Dick Ghostmoon.

[matrix911]

I will try to answer a few of them, but the rest are mostly speculative, and I won't specualte on something that I have very little knowledge on.

Why was metallic debris found no less than 13 kilometers from the crash site of the plane that went down in Pennsylvania? Was the plane in fact shot down - under vice president Dick Cheney's orders?

Um, 8.07782 miles away?? Maybe by car. And I do not believe it was metallic debris. I believe it was paper.

Aparently you do not understand how long it takes to get armed fighter planes loaded and ready. 7 minutes is pretty damn good. Possibly even too good.

I'll look at the rest.


you barely answered 1 let alone the other 23 and then 50........ and even after 50, you'd barely be scratching the surface.

Its more than apparent you haven't done anything remotely close to what is called REAL RESEARCH or even the most basic investigation.

With all due respect to your profession as a firefighter, you obviously lack the critical thinking skills necessary in discussing all the questions, physical impossibilities and anomalies that alone prove INSIDE JOB on 9/11... so before you criticize those who have done indepth research, I suggest you go do some basic research and educate yourself on more than just the biased evidence you've been fed.

[matrix911]

Fifty questions

1.

How come dead or not dead Osama bin Laden has not been formally indicted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as responsible for 9/11? Is it because the US government - as acknowledged by the FBI itself - has not produced a single conclusive piece of evidence?

2.

How could all the alleged 19 razor-blade box cutter-equipped Muslim perpetrators have been identified in less than 72 hours - without even a crime scene investigation?

3.

How come none of the 19's names appeared on the passenger lists released the same day by both United Airlines and American Airlines?

4.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_911_116.htm

Can you answer any of these?? Stick to the first 20 or so by all means.


you have at least 10,000 more to list....... :rolleyes:

but just 1% of those should keep him busy for a while if he can even answer them with any more evidence and logic than just his opinion.
:cool: