- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,450
- Reaction score
- 1,245
- Location
- New Mexico
- 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Who is this "they"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.
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...
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?
What makes you say that? Surely there is something that leads you to believe there is a cover up in place.
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.
For example....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.
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.
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?
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 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...
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.
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.
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?
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.
Evidence? What evidence...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...
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?