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

9 Years Later, Where's The Proof?

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The 9/11 Truth Movement still has no proof. Time and time again they bring up old points like they never even flinched. To review, let's rehash the biggies and see where we stand after nearly a decade...

1) Tower controlled demo.

2) Building 7.

3) No plane at the pentagon.

These are the main "smoking guns" that have supposedly for years proven "without a doubt" that the official story is bogus. Problem is truthers want it both ways... presence means conspiracy, but lack of presence does not disprove conspiracy. They need to realize that if they take away these big 3, the whole reason they were sucked into the conspiracy in the first place disappears.


Tower demo.

I want to focus on the collapse initiation for a bit because I think it is very important. If the collapses were caused by explosives like Gage claims, we should be able to see it with the multiple camera angles that we still have.

Instead, we can clearly see the perimeter columns bow inwards in the few seconds before the collapse. This is, without a doubt, completely undeniable. Click your mouse on 0:05 and watch how the perimeter columns all bow inward BEFORE any downward movement. I didn't have to quote mine any "eyewitness" for this. I didn't crop any video. It is all right there "in plane site" (sic) for you.


Still not convinced that the buildings were not blown up? Go to 0:15 and again watch how the building buckles INWARD at the corner.


Clear cut case of a structure trying to hold up weight, and failing. No thermite cut that corner, there was no explosives blowing it up, and it just folded under the massive stress.

Thermite?... Why?

Truthers claim that the building was burnt down with thermite. But what does thermite actually do to steel beams? The following is thermite being poured onto a horizontal beam that is painted with a thin layer of SUPER DUPER ULTRA NANO THERMATE.


The result?


Note that this is a horizontal beam where the thermite was literally dumped onto it. A vertical beam would laugh at the thermite as it ran down it's side. The painted on ubermate quickly burned up and there is no way that a slim coating of it could do anything to compromise this beam.

But what about the 3-10 TONS of "un-ignited thermite" in the dust?

Think about it. Thermite knows 2 states. It either reacts, or it doesn't. If there is truly 3-10 TONS of it in the dust, 3-10 TONS that DIDN'T ignite, then how much DID ignite? Probably a lot more than 3-10 TONS. Now we are way past simply sneaking in a little thermite in the weeks leading up to the attacks. The dogs would have smelled this, and I don't care if they were "pulled" a few days prior like some truthers claim. Planting 20-30 TONS TAKES TIME, and the dogs WERE THERE. No way around it.

We also would have seen a lot more evidence in the rubble... that is unless the 8,000 men at ground zero clean up were in on it too.

So if thermite is implausible, what about explosives?

Every single bit of footage showing the collapses failed to pick up explosive percussions in the audio track. FACT. In 9 years, there is not even ONE that does. If there were explosives, they certainly weren't involved in the collapses themselves.

But what about the hurling beams?


All 3 of these are perfectly plausible when considering the forces involved in the collapse. Dave's third example is my favorite, and it can also be shown by taking a popsicle stick and holding it between your thumb and finger. Squeeze and the stick shoots out.

This was happening on a huge scale all over the place during the collapse. And yes, there was plenty of energy in the upper "block" to both hurl beams AND destroy the structure below.

Check out the following for a huge summary on the tower collapse:

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: How Does a Building Crush Itself?

Bottom line, truthers can't have this one both ways. They want the "demo" to be quiet enough to not be picked up by any of the cameras, but have explosives that are powerful enough to both bring down a building "that shouldn't have collapsed" , and "hurl beams 600+ feet". Again, you CAN'T have it both ways. Either there was thermite and it was silent (shown to be ineffective), or it was explosives and it would be heard by tons of cameras and literally thousands of people (it wasn't). Take your pick, either way, you lose this one.

But but but... THE DUST.

Jones' dust "chips" ignite at ~400 degrees. Thermite does not. Instead of sending the samples to ANY independent lab, Jones and Harrit went out of their own field and did the testing themselves. The only other "lab" that has been allowed access to their chips to try and verify their work did not come to the same conclusion as Jones and Harrit. On top of that, their work was published in a vanity journal and the editor resigned in protest over this piece of **** getting published.

And with that, the first 1 falls. Part 2 coming up after the break.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
These are the main "smoking guns" that have supposedly for years proven "without a doubt" that the official story is bogus. Problem is truthers want it both ways... presence means conspiracy, but lack of presence does not disprove conspiracy. They need to realize that if they take away these big 3, the whole reason they were sucked into the conspiracy in the first place disappears.

Actually many were not sucked into it for such a reason. Some people called it a conspiracy long before the popular claims about weak points in the official story. Other reasons were also cited that deal far more with things like motive and opportunity than the means.
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
The 9/11 Truth Movement still has no proof. Time and time again they bring up old points like they never even flinched. To review, let's rehash the biggies and see where we stand after nearly a decade...

1) Tower controlled demo.

2) Building 7.

3) No plane at the pentagon.

These are the main "smoking guns" that have supposedly for years proven "without a doubt" that the official story is bogus. Problem is truthers want it both ways... presence means conspiracy, but lack of presence does not disprove conspiracy. They need to realize that if they take away these big 3, the whole reason they were sucked into the conspiracy in the first place disappears.


Tower demo.

I want to focus on the collapse initiation for a bit because I think it is very important. If the collapses were caused by explosives like Gage claims, we should be able to see it with the multiple camera angles that we still have.

Instead, we can clearly see the perimeter columns bow inwards in the few seconds before the collapse. This is, without a doubt, completely undeniable. Click your mouse on 0:05 and watch how the perimeter columns all bow inward BEFORE any downward movement. I didn't have to quote mine any "eyewitness" for this. I didn't crop any video. It is all right there "in plane site" (sic) for you.


Still not convinced that the buildings were not blown up? Go to 0:15 and again watch how the building buckles INWARD at the corner.


Clear cut case of a structure trying to hold up weight, and failing. No thermite cut that corner, there was no explosives blowing it up, and it just folded under the massive stress.

Thermite?... Why?

Truthers claim that the building was burnt down with thermite. But what does thermite actually do to steel beams? The following is thermite being poured onto a horizontal beam that is painted with a thin layer of SUPER DUPER ULTRA NANO THERMATE.


The result?


Note that this is a horizontal beam where the thermite was literally dumped onto it. A vertical beam would laugh at the thermite as it ran down it's side. The painted on ubermate quickly burned up and there is no way that a slim coating of it could do anything to compromise this beam.

But what about the 3-10 TONS of "un-ignited thermite" in the dust?

Think about it. Thermite knows 2 states. It either reacts, or it doesn't. If there is truly 3-10 TONS of it in the dust, 3-10 TONS that DIDN'T ignite, then how much DID ignite? Probably a lot more than 3-10 TONS. Now we are way past simply sneaking in a little thermite in the weeks leading up to the attacks. The dogs would have smelled this, and I don't care if they were "pulled" a few days prior like some truthers claim. Planting 20-30 TONS TAKES TIME, and the dogs WERE THERE. No way around it.

We also would have seen a lot more evidence in the rubble... that is unless the 8,000 men at ground zero clean up were in on it too.

So if thermite is implausible, what about explosives?

Every single bit of footage showing the collapses failed to pick up explosive percussions in the audio track. FACT. In 9 years, there is not even ONE that does. If there were explosives, they certainly weren't involved in the collapses themselves.

But what about the hurling beams?


All 3 of these are perfectly plausible when considering the forces involved in the collapse. Dave's third example is my favorite, and it can also be shown by taking a popsicle stick and holding it between your thumb and finger. Squeeze and the stick shoots out.

This was happening on a huge scale all over the place during the collapse. And yes, there was plenty of energy in the upper "block" to both hurl beams AND destroy the structure below.

Check out the following for a huge summary on the tower collapse:

NMSR 9-11 'Truth' Resources: How Does a Building Crush Itself?

Bottom line, truthers can't have this one both ways. They want the "demo" to be quiet enough to not be picked up by any of the cameras, but have explosives that are powerful enough to both bring down a building "that shouldn't have collapsed" , and "hurl beams 600+ feet". Again, you CAN'T have it both ways. Either there was thermite and it was silent (shown to be ineffective), or it was explosives and it would be heard by tons of cameras and literally thousands of people (it wasn't). Take your pick, either way, you lose this one.

But but but... THE DUST.

Jones' dust "chips" ignite at ~400 degrees. Thermite does not. Instead of sending the samples to ANY independent lab, Jones and Harrit went out of their own field and did the testing themselves. The only other "lab" that has been allowed access to their chips to try and verify their work did not come to the same conclusion as Jones and Harrit. On top of that, their work was published in a vanity journal and the editor resigned in protest over this piece of **** getting published.

And with that, the first 1 falls. Part 2 coming up after the break.

Excellent post. It is, I think, the great tragedy of the movement. Not that they ever had any real proof, any real evidence to support their conclusions, or any real experts on their side of the argument. That shouldn't have stopped them though.

There are still people, you may be one of them for all I know, who believe FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, that Lincoln was killed by agents from the Bank of England, that Franklin Pierce was poisoned, that ....well you get the idea. They have just as much of the "proof, evidence, and experts" as the 9/11 traits of this disease but that hasn't stopped them.

Why? Because these guys focus on one or two issues and not this entire laundry list of impossible scenarios and "what if's" that imply--they never come out and say it--that the entire day was fabricated. Almost to the point to where I'm surprised they didn't question the date of September 11 coming after September 10.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
There are still people, you may be one of them for all I know, who believe FDR knew about Pearl Harbor, that Lincoln was killed by agents from the Bank of England, that Franklin Pierce was poisoned, that ....well you get the idea. They have just as much of the "proof, evidence, and experts" as the 9/11 traits of this disease but that hasn't stopped them.

I don't know about whether he specifically knew but the McCollum memo clearly indicates the FDR Administration pursued policies on Japan that they clearly hoped would lead to some act of war such as Pearl Harbor. Under the circumstances it makes one wonder if FDR did know and did nothing.

Also, while we know full well there was a conspiracy to kill Lincoln we are not sure if all the conspirators were found. Remember the missing pages from Booth's diary?

For me the issue is: why was there a need for a cover-up? With JFK they sought to cover up Oswald's ties with the CIA and Jack Ruby's ties with the mafia. Is it because there is embarrassing or compromising information of a different nature there or does it indicate a conspiracy? Something is being covered up with regards to 9-11 and I would like to know what wouldn't you?
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know about whether he specifically knew but the McCollum memo clearly indicates the FDR Administration pursued policies on Japan that they clearly hoped would lead to some act of war such as Pearl Harbor. Under the circumstances it makes one wonder if FDR did know and did nothing.

Also, while we know full well there was a conspiracy to kill Lincoln we are not sure if all the conspirators were found. Remember the missing pages from Booth's diary?

For me the issue is: why was there a need for a cover-up? With JFK they sought to cover up Oswald's ties with the CIA and Jack Ruby's ties with the mafia. Is it because there is embarrassing or compromising information of a different nature there or does it indicate a conspiracy? Something is being covered up with regards to 9-11 and I would like to know what wouldn't you?

Gee, what do you think is being covered up?

I doubt it is anything serious if in fact it does exist. It won't change the basic facts of 19 middle eastern men hijacking four aircraft and crashing them into buildings in NY, Arlington, and a field in Pennsylvania.

What is your version of events?
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gee, what do you think is being covered up?

I wouldn't be entirely certain, but I think the circumstances leading up to the attacks suggest someone influential was deliberately preventing investigators from uncovering it, or several people. Whether this was foreign or domestic influence I would sure like to know who it was.
 

creativedreams

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2008
Messages
2,730
Reaction score
232
Location
Timbuktu
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I wouldn't be entirely certain, but I think the circumstances leading up to the attacks suggest someone influential was deliberately preventing investigators from uncovering it, or several people. Whether this was foreign or domestic influence I would sure like to know who it was.

Also do you recall just after 9/11 the leak in the news about an entity that bought rare PUT Option stocks on the airlines used for 9/11 which were purchase just before 9/11.....an exchange in the many millions which ended up profiting in the billions? To this day they will not release the names involved in these rare stock exchanges. This odd and rare stock exchange made the secret entity billions while everyone else lost billions.

It was even stated in the news how this would indicate "insider" trade knowledge and thus indicate foreknowlege of the crimes of 9/11.

So why the secrecy of not releasing the names in the trades to this day?

So why is there a sneaky and secretive withholding of information to the American people?

Also it is interesting that the Director of the CIA appointed by Bush just happened to have managed the company in which these odd PUT option stocks were purchased...
 
Last edited:

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
I wouldn't be entirely certain, but I think the circumstances leading up to the attacks suggest someone influential was deliberately preventing investigators from uncovering it, or several people. Whether this was foreign or domestic influence I would sure like to know who it was.

What makes you say that? Surely there is something that leads you to believe there is a cover up in place.
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
Also do you recall just after 9/11 the leak in the news about an entity that bought rare PUT Option stocks on the airlines used for 9/11 which were purchase just before 9/11.....an exchange in the many millions which ended up profiting in the billions? To this day they will not release the names involved in these rare stock exchanges. This odd and rare stock exchange made the secret entity billions while everyone else lost billions.
Who is this "they"

Also it is interesting that the Director of the CIA appointed by Bush just happened to have managed the company in which these odd PUT option stocks were purchased...

What was the Director's name?
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
I don't know about whether he specifically knew but the McCollum memo clearly indicates the FDR Administration pursued policies on Japan that they clearly hoped would lead to some act of war such as Pearl Harbor. Under the circumstances it makes one wonder if FDR did know and did nothing.

Also, while we know full well there was a conspiracy to kill Lincoln we are not sure if all the conspirators were found. Remember the missing pages from Booth's diary?

For me the issue is: why was there a need for a cover-up? With JFK they sought to cover up Oswald's ties with the CIA and Jack Ruby's ties with the mafia. Is it because there is embarrassing or compromising information of a different nature there or does it indicate a conspiracy? Something is being covered up with regards to 9-11 and I would like to know what wouldn't you?

I forgot to add in something I wanted to say.

The only thing being covered up of any importance is that today, 8/29/10, a 9/11 carbon-copy attack could take place again with the only possible thing preventing it would be passengers like we had on Flight 93. The Administrations and the Congress have totally gone back to sleep. Terrorists can get on any plane in the world and likely take them over, at least for a little while, and possibly use them was WMDs again.

We need to seal the cockpits with absolute certainty; no admission; period. We need teams of air marshalls on as many flights as possible, especially ones involving anything larger than a 737. We need to do criminal profiling of individuals. Basically we need to follow the commission's recommendations but they even go only so-far in my view.

If you're looking for a cover up, the fact that we're no safer now than we were before 9/11--only having a higher sense of awareness of the passengers--is the thing to look for. I wonder what it will be like in 2050 when 9/11 is just a footnote and those who were adults at the time are no longer aware or flying for that matter.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
What makes you say that? Surely there is something that leads you to believe there is a cover up in place.

Actually, it was the statements that officials were telling the 9-11 Commission not to investigate seriously because it would uncover extreme incompetence on the part of officials. Of course, whether they were actually concerned about them uncovering incompetence rather than something else is another matter.

I forgot to add in something I wanted to say.

The only thing being covered up of any importance is that today, 8/29/10, a 9/11 carbon-copy attack could take place again with the only possible thing preventing it would be passengers like we had on Flight 93. The Administrations and the Congress have totally gone back to sleep. Terrorists can get on any plane in the world and likely take them over, at least for a little while, and possibly use them was WMDs again.

We need to seal the cockpits with absolute certainty; no admission; period. We need teams of air marshalls on as many flights as possible, especially ones involving anything larger than a 737. We need to do criminal profiling of individuals. Basically we need to follow the commission's recommendations but they even go only so-far in my view.

If you're looking for a cover up, the fact that we're no safer now than we were before 9/11--only having a higher sense of awareness of the passengers--is the thing to look for. I wonder what it will be like in 2050 when 9/11 is just a footnote and those who were adults at the time are no longer aware or flying for that matter.

You see this is why I say "skeptic" as opposed to just calling you a skeptic because the truth is you are not a skeptic. No true skeptic would be so certain of the position you just stated. It is funny how you are more certain there isn't a conspiracy or cover-up of any sort than I am about there being a conspiracy or even a cover-up. I mean, I am fairly certain there was a cover-up but you seem to be far more certain there wasn't and I can think of no logical reason for that or evidence that would back up your taking such a position.

It seems some people just want to use the term skeptic because they feel it gives them greater intellectual legitimacy. They then use the term conspiracy theorist as a negative label to paint someone as having less intellectual legitimacy. By that method alone they probably convince people of their position or at least make them question the dissenters more than the establishment.
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
Actually, it was the statements that officials were telling the 9-11 Commission not to investigate seriously because it would uncover extreme incompetence on the part of officials. Of course, whether they were actually concerned about them uncovering incompetence rather than something else is another matter.
For example....

You see this is why I say "skeptic" as opposed to just calling you a skeptic because the truth is you are not a skeptic. No true skeptic would be so certain of the position you just stated. It is funny how you are more certain there isn't a conspiracy or cover-up of any sort than I am about there being a conspiracy or even a cover-up. I mean, I am fairly certain there was a cover-up but you seem to be far more certain there wasn't and I can think of no logical reason for that or evidence that would back up your taking such a position.

It seems some people just want to use the term skeptic because they feel it gives them greater intellectual legitimacy. They then use the term conspiracy theorist as a negative label to paint someone as having less intellectual legitimacy. By that method alone they probably convince people of their position or at least make them question the dissenters more than the establishment.

Okay...not sure what all of that meant but there seems to be a willingness on the part of some persons who doubt the official government stories on 9/11 to accept any and all counter arguments as fact; even when they contradict one another. I have seen videos where persons say that there were missiles fired into the twin towers, videos that say there were pods under the planes, videos that suggest rogue aircraft were substituted for the actual aircraft, videos that suggest a missile had hit the Pentagon, videos that suggest a fighter plane shot down Flight 93. Still other videos suggest that there was thermite, in the towers, other videos suggest bombs in the towers, other videos suggest bombs in the Pentagon, videos that suggest planted evidence in all cases, in some cases, etc....

Obviously skepticism of one opinion is a totally legitimate path to take. However, it becomes inherent on that individual to go on a different path.

Saying "you don't know" is fine but you have to "know" why you're skeptical about the official government versions of events--lest we forget there were multiple investigations an a Commission report. Which is what I'm attempting to find out. What does a report say--issued by a government agency--that has you doubting that is what really happened?

Maybe it is the poison pool syndrome for me but the only version that makes sense to me is the 9/11 Commission Report. Why? Because it requires the fewest moving parts. Because it falls in lockstep with terrorist actions in the past (suicide bombers). Because we have video of the guys going through security. Because we have phone calls from the planes. Because we have Atta's voice heard by 40 or 50 ATC's. Because we have videos of air craft hitting buildings. Because we have wreckage 100% consistent with the aircraft. Because we have remains 100% consistent with the passengers.

No other version of events I am aware of makes more sense. Again, if you wish to furnish a companion version, you can certainly do so but you should be able to list what makes you skeptical about the version of events.

Nobody, for example, ever commented intelligently on why you would need thermite when you have planes?
Nobody, for example, ever commented intelligently on why the conspiracy would include so many people you wouldn't need to include such as a crew to execute passengers.

It goes on and on depending on just which version of events you wish to embrace.

Can you version stand up to critical analysis? The 9/11 Report can.
 

I_Gaze_At_The_Blue

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
2,078
Reaction score
444
Location
Bonnie Scotland !!!
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Also do you recall just after 9/11 the leak in the news about an entity that bought rare PUT Option stocks on the airlines used for 9/11 which were purchase just before 9/11.....

Reality check creative ... put options are NOT rare !!!

Sept. 6th ... 2,075 put options were made on United Airlines

Sept. 10th ... 2,282 put options were made on American Airlines

" ... The market was in bad shape in the summer and early fall, and you know there were a lot of people who believed that there would be a sell-off in the market long before Sept. 11. For instance, American Airlines was at $40 in May and fell to $29 on Sept. 10; United was at $37 in May and fell to $31 on Sept. 10. These stocks were falling anyway, and it would have been a good time to short them"
Adam Hamilton of Zeal LLC

American Airlines put option records pre 9/11:

Jan. 8th had 1,315 puts
April 16th ... 1,019 puts
June 15th ... 1,144 puts
June 19th ... 2,951 puts

And for United Airlines:

March 13th ... 8,072
April 6th ... 8,212
July 20th ... 2,995
Aug. 8th ... 1,678 puts

In other words creative ... business as usual !!!

an exchange in the many millions which ended up profiting in the billions?

More reality creative ... no-one "profited" ... the stocks were NEVER taken up, therefore no actual cash was made.

This odd and rare stock exchange made the secret entity billions while everyone else lost billions.

Yet more reality ... those COMMON options were NEVER traded in !!!

It was even stated in the news how this would indicate "insider" trade knowledge and thus indicate foreknowlege of the crimes of 9/11.

What news ???

Funny how this has only been mentioned as a big deal in conspiracy "news" !!!

Credibility score of zero ... :roll:

So why is there a sneaky and secretive withholding of information to the American people?

Funny how it is so "sekrit" that an investigation PUBLISHED in full PUBLIC disclosure is easily available ... whoda thunk it !!!

http://nsarchive.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/9-11-sec-report.pdf

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00909.pdf

snopes.com: September 11 Put Call

Also it is interesting that the Director of the CIA appointed by Bush just happened to have managed the company in which these odd PUT option stocks were purchased...

Proof ... or is yet another case of running mouth ???

Seems you can add the trends in stock, trading and hedge strategies to the list of things you know bog-all about ...

But hey! don't let reality get in the way of inane delusion and outright lies!!!
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Saying "you don't know" is fine but you have to "know" why you're skeptical about the official government versions of events--lest we forget there were multiple investigations an a Commission report. Which is what I'm attempting to find out. What does a report say--issued by a government agency--that has you doubting that is what really happened?

The problem here is you look at the attacks themselves and if things appear consistent then it must mean there is no conspiracy. However, the attacks were just the final result and the previous stages were far more critical. Such planned attacks could have been exposed countless times before the attacks but someone kept preventing this from happening.
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
The problem here is you look at the attacks themselves and if things appear consistent then it must mean there is no conspiracy. However, the attacks were just the final result and the previous stages were far more critical. Such planned attacks could have been exposed countless times before the attacks but someone kept preventing this from happening.

Okay...who do you think "kept preventing this (the exposing) from happening"?

The reason why "he" or "she" --the "who"--would let it happen also comes to mind.

You don't seem to want to come on out and say who you hold responsible.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Okay...who do you think "kept preventing this (the exposing) from happening"?

The answer to that is simply that I do not know. I do not even know if it was one or many people. A few things I read about the Bin Laden unit of the CIA suggests to me it was not someone inside that unit, but someone who was senior over the people in that unit. Of course, I do not know if the person connected with those events is the same connected with others.

The reason why "he" or "she" --the "who"--would let it happen also comes to mind.

The reason really depends on a number of things. For one I am not prepared to say explicitly that it was about letting it happen or causing it to happen. A lot of talk has been tossed about, one was claiming that two of the hijackers were supposed to be informants or working against al-Qaeda for the CIA or maybe a foreign agency working with them and that this was just the result of a failed sting. That seems a little too clean for me.

One possibility that came to mind with what Sibel Edmonds has said is that this was the result of a corrupt official in the CIA or possibly outside like the State Department who was bribed or otherwise gotten to prevent a serious investigation. A few reasons might be that it was a rogue Pakistani, Turkish, or Saudi agent who worked with al-Qaeda or perhaps they were not rogue but in fact the country or agency in question wanted the attack to occur.

Still, the number of links between U.S. intelligence, allied intelligence, government officials, and jihadists is a little too coincidental for me to buy that it was just something like that.

We are literally talking about a network of connections between the CIA, foreign intelligence, officials, and jihadist terrorists. After Afghanistan it was Bosnia, after Bosnia it was Kosovo, after Kosovo it was Chechnya, and it may have even involved East Turkestan. Two of the hijackers who were well-known to the CIA before the attacks were in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya according to many reports. These same hijackers received their visas two years before the attacks from the Jeddah consulate, that was staffed almost entirely by CIA and was used by Afghan mujahiddin before that.
 

505

Mildly Hostile
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2006
Messages
2,384
Reaction score
1,212
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
And once again, nobody on the troof side can argue the actual topic of the thread. But but, the PUT OPTIONS. :rolleyes:

So then, is it safe to say that we are all on the same page regarding the towers? If not, let me demonstrate how LOGIC works. Thermite does not cut beams. Period. There were ZERO explosions recorded during the collapses. Thermite is ineffective and explosions were not present. The towers were not brought down with controlled demolition.

See how that works truth camp?

With that out of the way, let's move on to part 2.

Building 7.

Once again, let's use a little logic. If building 7 was brought down with controlled demolition, it is safe to say that it was rigged in advance. It is ridiculous to suggest that a crew went in and rigged the building after the towers fell.

So, if they pre-rigged it, what would have happened if it WASN'T hit by debris from the towers? It doesn't get hit, so no fires start, then what? Makes no sense.


That video shows three very important things. First is the undeniable PROOF that the fires were way more intense on the south side (facing the towers) than they were on the north side (collapse footage is almost all from this side). Second, it shows that the conditions inside the building would prevent any sane person from entering it, be it to rig the building or whathaveyou. Third and most importantly, it showed that there was foreknowledge down on the ground that the building was in terrible shape and was going to collapse. Were the 8,000 workers down there in on the conspiracy too?

Damage

First let's have a gander at what building 7 looked like on the south side pre 9/11.

wtc7_lookdown.jpg


Now go to 0:29 in the next video to see the true extent of the damage.


There is a HUGE gash down the center. Smoke is POURING out.

Freefall

Truth camp claims that the building fell in 6.5 seconds. They are LYING. Or they are STUPID. Or BOTH. From the time that the penthouse falls and the collapse has initiated, it is SIXTEEN seconds. "Freefall"? Pssssh. Not even close.


NIST

When running the models, they did it 4 different ways. When they ran it with damage only it stayed standing. When they ran it with damage and fires, the building fell. When they ran it with fire alone, the building fell. Then they ran it with no damage or fires, and instead removed a chunk of column 79 between floors 11 and 13. The building fell down.

"WTC 7 was prone to classic progressive collapse associated with the local failure of Column 79." (NCSTAR 1-A, p. 42)

So here's MY theory.

The damage redistributed loads. Fire then weakened the remaining structure. When column 79 was compromised, the penthouse fell and loads were redistributed again. 8 seconds later the north and west faces fell TOWARD the towers. Total collapse time is 16 seconds, no freefall, nothing "impossible" about it.
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
The answer to that is simply that I do not know. I do not even know if it was one or many people. A few things I read about the Bin Laden unit of the CIA suggests to me it was not someone inside that unit, but someone who was senior over the people in that unit. Of course, I do not know if the person connected with those events is the same connected with others.



The reason really depends on a number of things. For one I am not prepared to say explicitly that it was about letting it happen or causing it to happen. A lot of talk has been tossed about, one was claiming that two of the hijackers were supposed to be informants or working against al-Qaeda for the CIA or maybe a foreign agency working with them and that this was just the result of a failed sting. That seems a little too clean for me.

One possibility that came to mind with what Sibel Edmonds has said is that this was the result of a corrupt official in the CIA or possibly outside like the State Department who was bribed or otherwise gotten to prevent a serious investigation. A few reasons might be that it was a rogue Pakistani, Turkish, or Saudi agent who worked with al-Qaeda or perhaps they were not rogue but in fact the country or agency in question wanted the attack to occur.

Still, the number of links between U.S. intelligence, allied intelligence, government officials, and jihadists is a little too coincidental for me to buy that it was just something like that.

We are literally talking about a network of connections between the CIA, foreign intelligence, officials, and jihadist terrorists. After Afghanistan it was Bosnia, after Bosnia it was Kosovo, after Kosovo it was Chechnya, and it may have even involved East Turkestan. Two of the hijackers who were well-known to the CIA before the attacks were in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya according to many reports. These same hijackers received their visas two years before the attacks from the Jeddah consulate, that was staffed almost entirely by CIA and was used by Afghan mujahiddin before that.

So you admit you don't know who or how many who's. You admit you don't know names of any of these who's. Yet you're sure there was someone interfered and let the attacks happen when they could have been prevented? If you're not sure who any of these people are how can you be sure what they knew? Much less how well they "connected the dots" of the data.

As for why...now you're saying they didn't let it happen on purpose? Earlier it was that the ubiquitous "someone" prevented the lid from being blown off the entire thing.
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So you admit you don't know who or how many who's. You admit you don't know names of any of these who's. Yet you're sure there was someone interfered and let the attacks happen when they could have been prevented?

Do you realize that is not how any person would conduct a criminal investigation? You don't presume someone committed suicide when the evidence points to murder just because you don't know who did it.

As for why...now you're saying they didn't let it happen on purpose? Earlier it was that the ubiquitous "someone" prevented the lid from being blown off the entire thing.

Someone did prevent it from being exposed, whether it was intentional or not is another matter. Also why this was done is another open matter. For instance investigators into the U.S.S. Cole got pulled because the State Department got pressure from Yemen out of fears officials of its government would get implicated.
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
Do you realize that is not how any person would conduct a criminal investigation? You don't presume someone committed suicide when the evidence points to murder just because you don't know who did it.
Evidence? What evidence...
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Evidence? What evidence...

Brilliant deflection there. :roll: You suggest I have to know who did what and why to prove that it was done, and that is just not how it works. A person can know someone was murdered without knowing who killed that person or why.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
124
Reaction score
4
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
everyone who thinks that this happened intentionally..... yall are idiots.......
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
Brilliant deflection there. :roll: You suggest I have to know who did what and why to prove that it was done, and that is just not how it works. A person can know someone was murdered without knowing who killed that person or why.

Deflection. What evidence do you have that there was a "murder" to use your own deflection?

Just asking you to bring something other than wild assertions to the table. It would be a welcome change if you could produce a name, a fact, a photo....something authoritative.

Like this. Four jets crashed on 9/11. Nobody who boarded any of those flights were ever heard from again after they crashed. The remains of nearly every passenger on the flights was identified. Thus I can make the assertion that the four planes that crashed were, in fact, the four planes that were reported as hi-jacked by phone calls from the planes.

See how easy that was.

It gets better. None of the men who the FBI charges with piloting the planes after hijacking are flying today; anywhere in the world. Yet these same men all took flying lessons at US flight schools. We can either assume that all of the men who spent thousands of $ on flight lessons all changed their minds and none went into flying for a living...they're doing something else with their lives...or are no longer with us. Since the FBI charged the four men with being at the controls of the planes and that they are not flying anywhere in the world or are available for any sort of interview or book or whatever--eventhough there are dozens of conspiracy mongers who have easily the means to unearth these people; none the least of which are Pilots for 9/11 Truth--we can assume the FBI got it right.

To date, no document anywhere in my comprehensive research on the subject gave actionable intelligence to the time, place, and nature of the attacks of 9/11. Do you have something that says otherwise?
 

Demon of Light

Bohemian Revolutionary
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
5,095
Reaction score
1,544
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Deflection. What evidence do you have that there was a "murder" to use your own deflection?

Just asking you to bring something other than wild assertions to the table. It would be a welcome change if you could produce a name, a fact, a photo....something authoritative.

It wasn't a deflection, I am pointing out how irrational your demand for names is here. When a cop sees a guy who has clearly been shot multiple times he or she does not assume it was an accident until there is a suspect. The point is that you seem to think I would have to have names to have a legitimate suspicion, which is just plain stupid.
 

usda select

Banned
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
930
Reaction score
158
Political Leaning
Independent
It wasn't a deflection, I am pointing out how irrational your demand for names is here. When a cop sees a guy who has clearly been shot multiple times he or she does not assume it was an accident until there is a suspect. The point is that you seem to think I would have to have names to have a legitimate suspicion, which is just plain stupid.

Except we're not talking about murder here. We're talking about 9/11.

You're simply suspicious and either are unwilling or unable to state why. Meanwhile you chastise those who are not as paranoid as you.

When asked for evidence to support your suspicions, you complain that you're being asked to "know names". Gee sorry to ask you for specifics.

If anybody reading this is wondering why the 9/11 Truth movement is seen as a wholesale joke; just follow this conversation; it contains textbook examples.

Good luck.
 
Top Bottom