Think our Govt.didn't lie about 9/11 WTC buildings? Check this out:

[-Cp]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lw-jzCfa4eQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ&feature=player_embedded#!)

[-Cp]

Er.. post should have read:

Think our Govt.didn't lie about 9/11 WTC buildings? Check this out:

I (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?32661-Think-our-Govt.didn-t-like-about-9-11-WTC-buildings-Check-this-out)f one of the mods could update this.. that'd be great.. :)

[revelarts]

wow,

that was amazing, kind of breathtaking really.
thanks for posting

[Little-Acorn]

More kook theories..... (yawn)

[-Cp]

More kook theories..... (yawn)


Yeah, I'm sure you know far more than these engineers and architects...*yawn*..

[J.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WSDxErgBE






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg_GArE7UBQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxSnjLJhJlQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_XD2s-zg28


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcPP-0Kvpzo


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOa1t5NcCO4




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pfIlxtb5Pk

[Gaffer]

Yeah, I'm sure you know far more than these engineers and architects...*yawn*..

Yes I do know far more than these "architects and engineers"....yawn loudly.

[revelarts]

More kook theories..... (yawn)

Did you watch it Lil Acorn?
You gaffer?

And you thought all of the points were kooky?

[Little-Acorn]

Did you watch it Lil Acorn?


I'm sorry... is this thread about me?

I'm flattered.

But I'm afraid it's a pretty boring and unimportant subject.

[J.T]

When it comes to what they knew prior to September 11th, 2001, about
possible terrorist attacks against the United States, do you think members of
the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth
but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?

Telling Truth Hiding something Mostly lying DK/NA
3/30-4/1/04 CBS 24 58 14 4
4/8/04 CBS 21 66 10 4
4/23-27/04 24 56 16 4
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040429_poll/20040429_poll_results.pdf

I guess there are a lot of cooks in America...


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26340

[J.T]

But I'm afraid it's a pretty boring and unimportant subject.

You don't think the murder of 3000 people is important?

[Gaffer]

Did you watch it Lil Acorn?
You gaffer?

And you thought all of the points were kooky?

Another truffer documentary. It's over two hours long. No I'm not going to watch the same crap they put out every six months for the past 10 years all because they hate Bush. Nut cases with degrees are still nut cases.

[Little-Acorn]

You don't think the murder of 3000 people is important?

Still waiting for an answer to my question.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, I'm sure you know far more than these engineers and architects...*yawn*..

We're supposed to believe what they "think" just because they are architects and engineers? What about the architects and engineers that were actually on the ground, involved in the clean-up, involved in the investigation? The architects and engineers that speak of what happened on 9/11 are laughed at by all these knuckleheads - but then it's touted we should believe them just because *gulp*, they are architects and engineers?

Those actually involved in the clean-up and investigation, you know, the real architects and engineers, think these guys are a bunch of fruit loops. It's the same arguments they have been giving for years now and the same arguments that have been debunked for years - IF you choose to watch that stuff too.

Have fun though!

Btw - there was once a guy here who posted the following in regards to one thinking 9/11 was an inside job. Amusing....


First off Sertes is a complete tool if he really believes 9/11 was an inside job. Also - if he believes that, then he's yet another reason for folks to know and understand why it's sad when cousins marry.

Secondly, Jim - all one needs to do is point him to the Popular Mechanics 9/11report which provides unshakable proof that 9/11 was in fact carried out by our enemy

[J.T]

Popular mechanics? Really? :laugh:

A Boeing 767 cannot break the sound barrier, dude.

[jimnyc]

Popular mechanics? Really? :laugh:

A Boeing 767 cannot break the sound barrier, dude.

The only one mentioning Popular Mechanics at this time is a quote from the OP from years back. He's the one who thinks it's married cousins backing up the wacko theories.

But, since you mentioned it, just how much of their investigations and "facts" can you dispute with direct evidence, and not theories? Give us a link to what was stated in PM and then another link to factual evidence to dispute it...

[Noir]

I don;t have the time to watch the video, but on the whole am not convinced the US Admin had anything to do with 9/11. Except for WTC 7.

I don't think anyone could look at WTC 7 objectively and conclude it was anything other than demolition.

[Little-Acorn]

I wonder sometimes about the mental processes of people who think the government put demolition charges against all major structural supports of a building some (long?) time before Sept. 11, 2001 and then just bided their time until someone happened to fly airliners into the two tallest WTC towers; and then took that opportunity to set off the charges. And somehow kept it so completely secret, possibly for years until the planes hit, that no one had any idea what was going on until long afterward when they saw the films of the multiple collapses.

Just how stupid and gullible would you have to be to believe that? It boggles the mind.

Yet people who actually expect us to believe those claims, post on boards like this one every day.

[revelarts]

I'm sorry... is this thread about me?
I'm flattered.
But I'm afraid it's a pretty boring and unimportant subject.
Thread about you?
you said it's kooky.... without watching it.



Another truffer documentary. It's over two hours long. No I'm not going to watch the same crap they put out every six months for the past 10 years all because they hate Bush. Nut cases with degrees are still nut cases.
How do you know if it the same "crap" if you haven't watched it? And you claim to know they all hate Bush.
Not very honest Gaff.
It's fine to reject it out of hand without watching, (not very scientific but it's OK) but your commentary on it is pretty lame and based on ignorance not facts.
It's lazy like the alot of MSM commentary on the tea party.
"OH they are racist , OH the Only Hate Obama cuase he's Black"
"Oh really, Ever Go to a tea party meeting?"
"NO, I wouldn't waste my time.".

What would you tell that person?

[Little-Acorn]

Thread about you?
you said it's kooky.... without watching it.


Still waiting for an answer to my question.

[Noir]

I wonder sometimes about the mental processes of people who think the government put demolition charges against all major structural supports of a building some (long?) time before Sept. 11, 2001 and then just bided their time until someone happened to fly airliners into the two tallest WTC towers; and then took that opportunity to set off the charges. And somehow kept it so completely secret, possibly for years until the planes hit, that no one had any idea what was going on until long afterward when they saw the films of the multiple collapses.

Just how stupid and gullible would you have to be to believe that? It boggles the mind.

Yet people who actually expect us to believe those claims, post on boards like this one every day.

I know what you mean, and in what i can only describe as a bizarre process of thought i somewhat agree with you, however, that building did not fall naturally. Totally even and at free fall speed. Something is wrong with that.

[Little-Acorn]

Yet people who actually expect us to believe those claims, post on boards like this one every day.

I know what you mean, and in what i can only describe as a bizarre process of thought i somewhat agree with you, however, that building did not fall naturally. Totally even and at free fall speed. Something is wrong with that.

Can I call 'em, or what? :D

[Noir]

Can I call 'em, or what? :D

Its not really 'calling 'em" given i said the same in the post before your post =/

But do you believe that a building 40 odd stories high with a steel structure can collapse uniformly at free fall speed due to fire damage?

[revelarts]

Is the thread About lil Acorn?
Uh No. Not sure what that has to do with it. You made an ignorant comment about a film you never watched we responded


I wonder sometimes about the mental processes of people who think the government put demolition charges against all major structural supports of a building some (long?) time before Sept. 11, 2001 and then just bided their time until someone happened to fly airliners into the two tallest WTC towers; and then took that opportunity to set off the charges. And somehow kept it so completely secret, possibly for years until the planes hit, that no one had any idea what was going on until long afterward when they saw the films of the multiple collapses.

Just how stupid and gullible would you have to be to believe that? It boggles the mind.

Yet people who actually expect us to believe those claims, post on boards like this one every day.

Who said people think that?
But lets play truther advocate here....



the government put demolition charges against all major structural supports of a building...
well meh OK were good so far except for "ALL" and "the Government". But base on the evidence explosives where in the building. Someone put them there maybe Bin Laden, maybe the SOME people in the Gov't, Maybe ___ ?
Who had greater motive and opportunity? if we're just looking at the facts. And not making assumptions of innocents or guilt based on reputation.

some (long?) time before Sept. 11, 2001...
Some time before... OK


and then just bided their time until... someone happened to fly airliners into the two tallest WTC towers
Where does this come from? who said this?

the Attack seemed coordinated. many in the military and intell agencies say that the attack was not unknown. Alqeda and Bin laden worked with the intel folks against the USSR and in Bosinia, freedom fighters back in the day. And according to 1 FBI source Bin Laden was in contact with US on SEPT 10.

and then took that opportunity to set off the charges
coordinated, but not well enough to include building 7 i guess.

And somehow kept it so completely secret possibly for years until the planes hit,
Not hard to keep a secret that, even if you expose it some folks will refuse to believe it.

[Gaffer]

Give me a logical reason why. Why would explosives be planted. Why weren't all the surrounding building taken down as well with explosives. Why wait for planes to be flown into the buildings. For every speculation and every theory you present I have to ask WHY?

[revelarts]

In a murder trial motive is great to have but if you've got the prime suspects prints on the gun and video of the murder. Unless it's self defense or insanity, the reason why is not necessary to get a conviction. Even if we catch the all the perps we may never know the real reason(s) WHY.
We can speculate generally and in some specific areas all day long but only the people involved can really answer that question.

[-Cp]

Ironic how the mods moved this to the "conspiracy theory" section when in fact, the video posted is not at all "Conspiracy" - it's 100% based on raw data. But then again, most of the folks believe everything the Govt. tells them and there for anyone who dares question the govt. must be a "conspiracy weirdo"...

[-Cp]

Another truffer documentary. It's over two hours long. No I'm not going to watch the same crap they put out every six months for the past 10 years all because they hate Bush. Nut cases with degrees are still nut cases.

Typical, brain-washed "sheeple" who refuses to look at opposing views..

And this video was not made by "truffers"....

When you post stuff like this, Gaffer - it shows that you're an arrogant, self-important, kool-aid drinker who, despite MOUNTAINS of contrary evidence, keep your head buried in the sand.

[-Cp]

The only one mentioning Popular Mechanics at this time is a quote from the OP from years back. He's the one who thinks it's married cousins backing up the wacko theories.

But, since you mentioned it, just how much of their investigations and "facts" can you dispute with direct evidence, and not theories? Give us a link to what was stated in PM and then another link to factual evidence to dispute it...

Unlike you, Jim, I can retract statements in light of new data- I'm not so brainwashed to "toe-the-party-line" as to not examine all the data, not just the stuff supporting my view at the time.

[-Cp]

Give me a logical reason why. Why would explosives be planted. Why weren't all the surrounding building taken down as well with explosives. Why wait for planes to be flown into the buildings. For every speculation and every theory you present I have to ask WHY?


Asking "why" won't make the evidence presented in this video go away...

[Noir]

Ironic how the mods moved this to the "conspiracy theory" section when in fact, the video posted is not at all "Conspiracy" - it's 100% based on raw data. But then again, most of the folks believe everything the Govt. tells them and there for anyone who dares question the govt. must be a "conspiracy weirdo"...

Not ironic in the slightest. (I hate when the word term irony is misused.)

Bur that notwithstanding; The term conspiracy related to a secretive plot intended to cause harm. Regardless of the 'proof' or 'facts' etc in the OP it's purpose is to expose a supposed conspiracy and is duly a conspiracy theory.

[Gaffer]

Asking "why" won't make the evidence presented in this video go away...

You have your evidence so tell me why it was done? Who benefited in what way?
Why weren't the explosives set off sooner so they could kill more people? If there is evidence then WHY is very important. There is no evidence there is only speculation based on video's.

And yes these are truffers. It's the same bunch that were spouting this shit before.

Interesting that this is coming out in an election year. How long will it take for them to blame the tea party or republican candidates?

[J.T]

As Jim Hoffman points out in his excellent rebuttal (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/), "This bold assertion flies in the face of a published report of scramble frequencies (http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap) that quotes the same Maj. Douglas Martin that is one of PM's cited experts!"

"From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said."
The article also makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous war games (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2004/080904wargamescover.htm) scheduled for the morning of 9/11 which confused air defense personnel as to the true nature of the attack as it unfolded, as is documented by the recent release of the NORAD tapes (http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/020806tapesintensify.htm).

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

[J.T]

then just bided their time until someone happened to fly airliners into the two tallest WTC towers

people who actually expect us to believe those claims

The only person to ever make that claim is you


Give me a logical reason why. Why would explosives be planted. Why weren't all the surrounding building taken down as well with explosives.\

What was inside Building 7? Do you know?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEQtxTnDusk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcXPbKkf5h8

[-Cp]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/100806popularmechanics.htm

Easy there killer! Folks around here aren't interested in facts or truth now, unless it fits their own, brainwashed view....

[jimnyc]

Why not just blow up the buildings in other than "demolition style" and blame the terrorists. Or have had 6 planes hit the towers to give a more plausible reason as to why they fell? There are many ways they could have "pulled" this off, that would have been easier and took less people, and still had the same results or "better", for them at least.

To pull this off there would have had to be hundreds and hundreds involved, if not thousands, and yet still not a shred of direct evidence pointing to a single person that is provable. Not one single person has come forward with knowledge of the plan and none of their loved ones either. If you say less would only need be involved, you're only increasing the amount of work they would have had to have done to pull of this act.

And at the end of the day, still, after 10 years - not one single shred of hard, irrefutable evidence has come to light, or come forward, to prove the official versions wrong.

So I'll ask again, do any of you not agreeing with the official version, have anything other than theories or speculation to prove the government, or even PM, for that fact? You know, ANY hard evidence of to refute what "we" have been told?

Unless you have something other than A&E 911, the Jones Juice Drinkers, Jesse Ventura, loose change - I've watched them all, including the video in the OP. Very interesting indeed, and entertaining, and even thought provoking. But it lacks one thing - hard evidence of any kind. Just more cool music, theories and innuendo.

Oh, and what many call the mainstream media, which some say leans left and others say leans right - barely touch this inside job crap with a 50ft pole. Even though it would be a career maker or at least a lot of $$$. But respected journalists don't even touch it. But I guess so many of them, and their agencies, are involved in this massive coverup. Even Bill Clinton spoke out against 9/11 being any type of inside job. But of course being president it must have been easy for him to assist setting up this project.

[jimnyc]

Easy there killer! Folks around here aren't interested in facts or truth now, unless it fits their own, brainwashed view....

You went from thinking only some sort of inbred people believed such stories, to promoting said stories now. Not for nothing, but sounds like you were the one who was brainwashed. If these guys had legitimate, credible and irrefutable "evidence" - they would have no choice but to be listened to.

[Psychoblues]

I heard that the demons of Augue don Fucktsboro were involved somehow. Sarah Palin, as an Assembly of God member, may be able to properly discern all this for us. Demonology is their exact claim to fame.

Oh yes. Been there and done that, my friends.

Psychoblues

[-Cp]

You went from thinking only some sort of inbred people believed such stories, to promoting said stories now. Not for nothing, but sounds like you were the one who was brainwashed. If these guys had legitimate, credible and irrefutable "evidence" - they would have no choice but to be listened to.

As long as there are thick-headed, brainwashed folks in this country, their work is cut out for them. I find it highly lame that folks like you and Gaffer won't even bother watching this video and offering any sort of intelligent rebuttal. Instead, you toe-the-"derp"-line and bring nothing to the discussion of this video.

Since you know they have no "legitimate, credible and irrefutable "evidence" - please tell me which of the evidence they provide is not, legitimate, credible or irrefutable. I'm sure you should have no problems answering this within 30minutes - I'll be waiting..

[revelarts]

...And at the end of the day, still, after 10 years - not one single shred of hard, irrefutable evidence has come to light, or come forward, to prove the official versions wrong.

So I'll ask again, do any of you not agreeing with the official version, have anything other than theories or speculation to prove the government, or even PM, for that fact? You know, ANY hard evidence of to refute what "we" have been told?...

Truther Advocate:
So Iron Balls that only form at temps higher than Jet fuel and paper can create is not HARD Evidence?
(um that's sound kinda weird but, there you go)
So Molten STEEL where there should have been NONE is not HARD evidence?
SO NANO Thermite found in the 911 dust by MORE than ONE independent researcher is not HARD evidence?
SO the laws of Physics is not Hard evidence?


Irrefutable? What "we've been told" by the gov't is not Irrefutable, in fact the details of the story have changed several times because people kept asking questions, the 911 commission even says many Military officials and intel groups lied and covered up items they wanted answers too and they never did get the strait info on some things.
So why should we believe the Gov't Theory anymore than any other theory, since it's far from irrefutable?

[-Cp]

Truther Advocate:
So Iron Balls that only form at temps higher than Jet fuel and paper can create is not HARD Evidence?
(um that's sound kinda weird but, there you go)
So Molten STEEL where there should have been NONE is not HARD evidence?
SO NANO Thermite found in the 911 dust by MORE than ONE independent researcher is not HARD evidence?
SO the laws of Physics is not Hard evidence?


Irrefutable? What "we've been told" by the gov't is not Irrefutable, in fact the details of the story have changed several times because people kept asking questions, the 911 commission even says many Military officials and intel groups lied and covered up items they wanted answers too and they never did get the strait info on some things.
So why should we believe the Gov't Theory anymore than any other theory, since it's far from irrefutable?

Does no good bro, you're dealing with someone who has his head in the sand....

[J.T]

Why not just blow up the buildings in other than "demolition style" and blame the terrorists. Or have had 6 planes hit the towers to give a more plausible reason as to why they fell? There are many ways they could have "pulled" this off, that would have been easier and took less people, and still had the same results or "better", for them at least.

Why not use an attack similar to the last one, which almost worked, but use two trucks this time? Why go through all the hassle of learning to fly, hijacking planes, flying way out of your way to escape radar coverage (which means learning where those ares are and navigating to them), play dosey-doe with a military plane, travel within miles of eachother, find a way to magically remain coordinated despite unscheduled take-off delays, fly planes into the twin towers when no building had ever collapsed to sue plane strike or fire, fly past the pentagon, perform a near-impossible turn, and strike the one side of the pentagon that had been newly reinforced and was empty of anyone important...? Why would AQ go through all the trouble of learning to overcome America's air defenses, infiltrate the military to learn when the training exercises would be taking place and control of NORAD would be in civilian hands for the only time in living memory, and carry out such an elaborate scheme when they experience with bombs and Timothy McVeigh already showed how effective a large truck bomb can be against a building? There are many ways they could have pulled these attacks off that would taken less people, less time, no infiltration of military intelligence channels... and still had the same effect- better even, since people would wonder whether any truck on the road could be a bomb and it'd be so much hard to combat such a threat that to control air travel.

Then again, why was NORAD training for this specific attack when Bush and other sin the government said repeatedly that nobody ever imagined any such threat? Why was the order given to stand down? Why do so many radar detections approach the planes before peeling off? Why was one plane still in the air after hitting the tower? And why did the government even have Operation Northwoods floating around as a possible justification for war in the first place?

To pull this off there would have had to be hundreds and hundreds involved, if not thousands
How do you figure? You can rig a building with a dozen people or even one person. You just take longer with a smaller team. BTW, what was with all the renovations and closed floors in the weeks leading up to the attacks? Remotely-controlled planes have been around since the 80's, when it was made public that they were used to perform crash tests,



And at the end of the day, still, after 10 years - not one single shred of hard, irrefutable evidence has come to light, or come forward, to prove the official versions wrong.

Except government evidence.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WSDxErgBE



So I'll ask again, do any of you not agreeing with the official version, have anything other than theories or speculation to prove the government, or even PM, for that fact? You know, ANY hard evidence of to refute what "we" have been told?

Yep, and it's been posted at least twice now. The data is all from government sources, including the evidence of a plane in the air after hitting the tower.


You went from thinking only some sort of inbred people believed such stories, to promoting said stories now. Not for nothing, but sounds like you were the one who was brainwashed. If these guys had legitimate, credible and irrefutable "evidence" - they would have no choice but to be listened to.

Like Galileo was listened to when he presented his evidence?


Does no good bro, you're dealing with someone who has his head in the sand....

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State

[SassyLady]

Why not use an attack similar to the last one, which almost worked, but use two trucks this time? Why go through all the hassle of learning to fly, hijacking planes, flying way out of your way to escape radar coverage (which means learning where those ares are and navigating to them), play dosey-doe with a military plane, travel within miles of eachother, find a way to magically remain coordinated despite unscheduled take-off delays, fly planes into the twin towers when no building had ever collapsed to sue plane strike or fire, fly past the pentagon, perform a near-impossible turn, and strike the one side of the pentagon that had been newly reinforced and was empty of anyone important...? Why would AQ go through all the trouble of learning to overcome America's air defenses, infiltrate the military to learn when the training exercises would be taking place and control of NORAD would be in civilian hands for the only time in living memory, and carry out such an elaborate scheme when they experience with bombs and Timothy McVeigh already showed how effective a large truck bomb can be against a building? There are many ways they could have pulled these attacks off that would taken less people, less time, no infiltration of military intelligence channels... and still had the same effect- better even, since people would wonder whether any truck on the road could be a bomb and it'd be so much hard to combat such a threat that to control air travel.

Then again, why was NORAD training for this specific attack when Bush and other sin the government said repeatedly that nobody ever imagined any such threat? Why was the order given to stand down? Why do so many radar detections approach the planes before peeling off? Why was one plane still in the air after hitting the tower? And why did the government even have Operation Northwoods floating around as a possible justification for war in the first place?
How do you figure? You can rig a building with a dozen people or even one person. You just take longer with a smaller team. BTW, what was with all the renovations and closed floors in the weeks leading up to the attacks? Remotely-controlled planes have been around since the 80's, when it was made public that they were used to perform crash tests,


Except government evidence.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WSDxErgBE





Yep, and it's been posted at least twice now. The data is all from government sources, including the evidence of a plane in the air after hitting the tower.



Like Galileo was listened to when he presented his evidence?



All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State





I might have missed this question and answer ... how do you explain the people who were on the ground who saw the planes hit their targets? Are you saying they are part of the conspiracy also? What about the two documentary filmmakers who were doing a documentary on the NYFD at the time and actually filmed the first plane hitting the tower? And, where are all the people that were on those planes?


Also, I don't understand what you mean by there was a plane in the air after hitting the tower?

[J.T]

I might have missed this question and answer ... how do you explain the people who were on the ground who saw the planes hit their targets?
See: Operation Northwoods

Do you know what a drone is? You know radio-controlled aircraft have been around since the 80s (http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/info;jsessionid=ujk8krqosr33?id=LV-1998-00091&orgid=1), right?

Refer to the video, in which multiple radar signatures are seen converging with, flying on top of, and then later peeling away from the planes said to have crashed into the Pentagon, WTC, and the field in Pennsylvania.


And, where are all the people that were on those planes?


Probably dead.


Also, I don't understand what you mean by there was a plane in the air after hitting the tower?

I mean exactly that. See: Go to the 37-minute mark of the last video.


According to National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Flight Path Study, United 93 allegedly impacted the ground at 10:03am, September 11, 2001.
...
Full Transcript Here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/14141827/NYC-B1-NTMO-East-Position-3-Fdr-Transcript)

United 93 transponder is recognized by Air Traffic Control as airborne after alleged impact time. Some have made the excuse this is due to Coast Mode tracking. ATC did not recognize any signs of CST (Coast Mode). Further confirmation that this was not any type of "Coast Mode" is that ATC also recognized United 93 reporting an altitude. The only way ATC could observe a reported altitude is if United 93 were squawking Mode C on the transponder, which means altitude reporting capability. Further confirmation comes in the form of latitude and longitude positions reported by ATC. N39 51 - W78 46 were reported as the last known radar position of United 93. It is unclear if the position is reported as Degrees, Minutes or Decimal, however, standard aviation terminology is in Degrees, Minutes. With that said, both positions are well past the alleged United 93 Crash site

It is impossible for ATC to have observed United 93 transponder and altitude after the reported impact time and southeast of the crash site, if United 93 did in fact crash in Shanksville


http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html

[J.T]

No evidence... except what the government provides

[jimnyc]

First off Sertes is a complete tool if he really believes 9/11 was an inside job. Also - if he believes that, then he's yet another reason for folks to know and understand why it's sad when cousins marry.

[-Cp]

First off Sertes is a complete tool if he really believes 9/11 was an inside job. Also - if he believes that, then he's yet another reason for folks to know and understand why it's sad when cousins marry.


You sound like a parrot - and again, prove that you have nothing intelligent to offer to the discussion...

[jimnyc]

You sound like a parrot - and again, prove that you have nothing intelligent to offer to the discussion...

The whole thread is void of intelligence from the very beginning. Yet another reason for folks to know and understand why it's sad when cousins marry.

[J.T]

So let's see, one side presents their fact and arguments, as well as their criticisms of the official story and rebuttals to common arguments.

The other side posts sad personal attacks and insults and repeatedly tells themselves 'It CAN'T be true! It CAN'T be true!'...

[jimnyc]

So let's see, one side presents their fact and arguments, as well as their criticisms of the official story and rebuttals to common arguments.

The other side posts sad personal attacks and insults and repeatedly tells themselves 'It CAN'T be true! It CAN'T be true!'...

I've debated this issue a million times on this one board alone. Generally, with the same people over and over who post videos and think they are proving something. I don't think I need to present my arguments and facts in 9000 threads. It's not my fault you're too lazy to do a little searching. The insult is his own damn words. One should never post something that they wouldn't mind having presented back to them in the same manner. And just because our years of reading articles on this issue and watching video lead us to a different conclusion, doesn't mean we just dismiss things. We dismiss stupid things with little to no evidence AKA conspiracy theories.

[J.T]

conspiracy theories.

You mean 19 people conspiring to overcome America's air defenses during a wargame scenario involving the very attacks they were carrying out and violating Washigton D.C. Class Bravo airspace an hour after the WTF attacks?

And you never explained how the government's data shows a plane in the air after it already crashed. Or how a Boeing 767 can so greatly exceed its envelope and be controllable by a pilot we're told could barely handle a Cesna. Or how Building 7 happened, given its placement, the fact it was never hit by a plane, the fact that there were fires on about three floors, and the fact that it fell into its own footprint.

Oh, and you also insult the FDNY, who clearly are incompetent if you're to be believed and those fire was as bad as you claim while they said they could knock it down with two lines.

[revelarts]

I've debated this issue a million times on this one board alone. Generally, with the same people over and over who post videos and think they are proving something. I don't think I need to present my arguments and facts in 9000 threads. It's not my fault you're too lazy to do a little searching. The insult is his own damn words. One should never post something that they wouldn't mind having presented back to them in the same manner. And just because our years of reading articles on this issue and watching video lead us to a different conclusion, doesn't mean we just dismiss things. We dismiss stupid things with little to no evidence AKA conspiracy theories.

OK Jim I know you've read a lot of stuff on 911. But i just did search on your name and thermite here, and what you say is "there is a better explanation, read this" "and "the columns in the PICTURES weren't cut by thermite they were cut by workers" (then you start name calling) . But you never address the fact that the nano thermite/thermate was found. When it SHOULD NOT BE THERE AT ALL.
It's like finding a Switchblade knifes and bayonets with blood on them at an "Accident" scene where someone was killed by "broken glass" but the glass pieces were to small to make the cuts found and people still just ignore/dismiss the knifes bayonets. "People who Found Bayonets are KOOKS and got fired, that proves it's CRAZY nonsense from IDIOTS. Plus glass is a BETTER explaination. Don't listen to other so called respected scientist who also founds military issue baynots covered with blood. these are not the bayonets your looking for. Look at the all that GLASS and WHY WOULD THEY USE bayonets when they could have just used machine guns? "

And I can't find you mentioning iron micro balls ... uhhh,
But on the molten steel you posted some links to debunk sites where they say , in a nutshell, "Fires SOMETIMES can POSSIBLY get as hot as were indicated every now and then... in spots. AND well what's pouring our of the side of the building? it looks like aluminum to us .. at least at the bottom there ...no, well A little ... but it doesn't matter what color it is... It's Probably aluminum mixed with other burning stuff... yeah that's the ticket."
not exactly an Irrefutable explanation but "good enough for gov't work" I guess.

[SassyLady]

See: Operation Northwoods

Do you know what a drone is? You know radio-controlled aircraft have been around since the 80s (http://nix.larc.nasa.gov/info;jsessionid=ujk8krqosr33?id=LV-1998-00091&orgid=1), right?

Refer to the video, in which multiple radar signatures are seen converging with, flying on top of, and then later peeling away from the planes said to have crashed into the Pentagon, WTC, and the field in Pennsylvania.



Probably dead.


I mean exactly that. See: Go to the 37-minute mark of the last video.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/united-93-still-airborne.html

Well, I think the people who are trying to convince you and your conspiracy friends are the ones that are lying. Have you ever thought about that?

I believe the people who were there, in those buildings and on the ground ... not the conspiracy nuts that are putting together elaborate powerpoint presentations.

[revelarts]

Well, I think the people who are trying to convince you and your conspiracy friends are the ones that are lying. Have you ever thought about that?

I believe the people who were there, in those buildings and on the ground ... not the conspiracy nuts that are putting together elaborate powerpoint presentations.


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/c2cViy34b1A?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Jcg8hMEmTVE?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="360" width="640"></object>


<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/PfxkcBmZfK0?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/PfxkcBmZfK0?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[revelarts]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cZ4dVo5QgYg?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cZ4dVo5QgYg?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

[J.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q6dUd8T4o4

[J.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3qa1PbBf-o

[jimnyc]

The phone calls from the airplanes were fake too! It was actually voice-morphing technology!!

Now that I know that these people never spoke with their loved ones, and those still alive were only speaking to some sort of morphed calls, that changes everything! A little weird that loved ones wouldn't notice, but still a gamechanger! Only the government can pull off this type of technology! It's a crime!!!


The idea that phone calls from passengers on the targeted flights were fake and actually created with voice-morphing technology has been promoted by several "no Boeing" advocates and in particular detail by author David Ray Griffin in his numerous books, talks, interviews, and essays. The case for the 'fake phone calls theory' as articulated by Griffin has become ever more nuanced and complex as government and airline disclosures have undermined the simplicity of the original set of claims surrounding the calls, and other researchers have pointed out flaws in that case. However, the theory remains rooted in the premise, seemingly calculated to be offensive attack survivors, that the last voices heard from victims on the planes were faked.



http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-08/error-phone-calls-were-fake

(these truther nuts are seriously fucked in the head!)

http://theboxpress.com/wp-content/uploads/tin-foil-hat-625p.jpg

[J.T]

I love how those who swallow the official story evade the problems with the government's tale and instead blindly attack the reds herrings put out by those who seek to discredit those who question the official story. If you wanted to discredit the conspiracy theorists who accused the Germans of dressing up as Poles and staging attacks n their own bases as a pretext for war, you wouldn't deny it was done. You'd pretend to be a debunker and embellish the real story with tales of alien cooperation until the version you were pushing was so outlandish people began to reject all questioning of the Polish attack against the Fatherland out-of-hand.

PsyOps 101, people.