September 11: The New Pearl Harbor [Video]

Oh, and here's a nice little piece featuring work from folks at such places as MIT. I guess they are either idiots or are in on it too, right? www.tms.org...

a reply to: jaffo

You throw the term truther around as if it encapsulates all who question the OS. That's called marginalizing and is a known tactic of propaganda to ease the argument for themselves. See, most in this thread like to discuss possibilities to an official story that they may have questions about. This is what we are to do, as a populace or we could just be doomed to repeat what other failed counties have done and succumb to a possibly nefarious regime. So, keep being a good patriot and claim truth, but we all know you're just agenda-driven for one reason or another

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

You throw the term truther around as if it encapsulates all who question the OS. That's called marginalizing and is a known tactic of propaganda to ease the argument for themselves. See, most in this thread like to discuss possibilities to an official story that they may have questions about. This is what we are to do, as a populace or we could just be doomed to repeat what other failed counties have done and succumb to a possibly nefarious regime. So, keep being a good patriot and claim truth, but we all know you're just agenda-driven for one reason or another

Ad hominem, hand waving, denial. Thanks for the amusement, have a nice day.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: jaffo

So you're relying on news crews to examine the rubble professionally for explosives? That seems rather silly. Are they qualified to do such tasks? Tell me, why didn't they examine the rubble for explosives? Why did NIST not consider explosives but were instead commissioned to make up a fairytale to explain how a building could come down without external accelerators (WTC 7)? Seems like "explosives" were made to be "taboo" from day 1. Like a little kid shoveling evidence behind him after being comfronted.

You don't speak for every engineer and you seem to think only "qualified" ones are the ones that agree with your flawed assessment of the events. Please, don't just say they all agree with the OS - where's a list of them that studied the OS and wrote their name down in ink supporting such. Is that list bigger than AETruth?

How about bomb techs....?? Are they qualified to determine if explosives were used?? Local bomb squad (Passaic County Sheriff) spent 3 weeks at WTC searching rubble for victims and removing debris. Talked to several of them - Not a
word about bombs, explosives, controlled demolition. Most are retired now

How about arson investigators/fire marshals? Are they not qualified to determine if explosives were used??

Arson investigators I know take classes from ATF about explosive investigation

A reply to: Greathouse

independent.academia.edu...
Click the "....more" blue texts.

www.academia.edu...
www.academia.edu...

www.abovetopsecret.com... (A few links)

www.abovetopsecret.com... (The building's mid-center French demolition, which was a true gravity-driven collapse)

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: jaffo

No need to shout mate. And maybe you should concentrate more on what he's saying, not who he is....

No, actually I MUST focus on the issue of who he is first. Why on Earth should I take that guy's word when I do not even know who he is or what his actual qualifications are? Seriously, what part of that would be denying ignorance?!

Well, if that's the case, who are you? What are your qualifications? Why should I believe anything you have to say? I've always thought that the message is more important than the messenger, but I've come to realize that's not the case when dealing with 911 debunkers.

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: jaffo

No need to shout mate. And maybe you should concentrate more on what he's saying, not who he is....

No, actually I MUST focus on the issue of who he is first. Why on Earth should I take that guy's word when I do not even know who he is or what his actual qualifications are? Seriously, what part of that would be denying ignorance?!

Well, if that's the case, who are you? What are your qualifications? Why should I believe anything you have to say? I've always thought that the message is more important than the messenger, but I've come to realize that's not the case when dealing with 911 debunkers.

That's partially true. Because we are speaking in an expert realm when we are talking about engineering and structural failure. So it matters A LOT who the messenger is. Because if the messenger is trying to give EXPERT TESTIMONY but the messenger IS NOT AN EXPERT, the they are talking out their rear and offering ill-informed opinions (i.e. "I spent an hour on YouTube and so I know physics") as fact on an expert matter where they are woefully unqualified to do so. And I wish to point out that AT NO TIME have I offered my own opinion as fact. I have relied upon what proven experts have said and continue to say. So once again another truther misses the point by a mile.

a reply to: LaBTop

Would you please quit throwing all of your opinions responses and threads at me.

Come out in one line in plain English so I can research the building you're talking about that was demolished from the top instead of the bottom. Please name the structure.

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: jaffo

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: jaffo

No need to shout mate. And maybe you should concentrate more on what he's saying, not who he is....

No, actually I MUST focus on the issue of who he is first. Why on Earth should I take that guy's word when I do not even know who he is or what his actual qualifications are? Seriously, what part of that would be denying ignorance?!

Well, if that's the case, who are you? What are your qualifications? Why should I believe anything you have to say? I've always thought that the message is more important than the messenger, but I've come to realize that's not the case when dealing with 911 debunkers.

That's partially true. Because we are speaking in an expert realm when we are talking about engineering and structural failure. So it matters A LOT who the messenger is. Because if the messenger is trying to give EXPERT TESTIMONY but the messenger IS NOT AN EXPERT, the they are talking out their rear and offering ill-informed opinions (i.e. "I spent an hour on YouTube and so I know physics") as fact on an expert matter where they are woefully unqualified to do so. And I wish to point out that AT NO TIME have I offered my own opinion as fact. I have relied upon what proven experts have said and continue to say. So once again another truther misses the point by a mile.

Lol! Really? I'm no astronomer, so if I told you the earth revolves around the sun, you'd claim I was talking out my rear? As I said, the message is more important than the messenger...except when dealing with 911 debunkers, And you just proved my point quite succinctly. Someone missed something by a mile..that much is obvious.

originally posted by: jaffo
originally posted by: LaBTop
a reply to: jaffo

Dr Graeme McQueen, a professor in Scotland and he teaches engineering at a university in Edinburgh, if I remember it right.
He has published some well written papers regarding his critique on the NIST report its engineering parts.

jaffo :

"If I remember it right." How about proof?

"Edinburgh, if I remember it right." Could be Aberdeen instead.

There's a post of mine explaining in detail about the huge misrepresentation of the WTC 7 blueprints by NIST. A famous US lawyer representing A&E filed a lawsuit based on this.
By the way, NIST's whole ridiculous theory of thermal expansion is based on this misrepresentation of the seats of the crossbeams holding column 79 up on each floor of WTC 7.
That whole NIST theory is now toast. On top of the real blueprint, a photo has also been found of the real dimensions of that seat, showing column 79 and that seat while the crossbeam rests on it. From just after completion of WTC 7.

I'll try to find that post for you. The ATS Search engine keeps mixing my screen name up with the word "laptop", which makes it impossible to click on the next ATS search-page in every query I do. It's utterly ANNOYING.

a reply to: samkent

There are many official and unofficial government people in many countries who have revealed the truth about 911 from Pakistan and Germany for instance


They know 911 was a scam


They also know that all they can do is become a “conspiracy theory believers” and NOT an official of their government.

They are too frightened of the retaliation they will receive by the Americans to go official.

With all due respect, you really don’t know what you’re talking about


Great videos Shadow Herder!

originally posted by: jaffo
I would also like to point out that I take issue with the title of this entire thread, as there is not only not one shred of proof that America "allowed Pearl Harbor to happen" but there is also TONS of evidence to the contrary, some of it from Japan, actually. . .

Let me try and answer you in kind..

Minoru Yamasaki the designer of the World Trade Center towers was a second-generation Japanese American.
During WW2 many Japanese Americans were imprisoned in barbed wire internment camps.
They weren't able to attend the funerals of their civilian family and friends who died in the Hiroshima atomic bombings.
Although they didn't have to smell the stench of the scorched bodies at the funerals they could not escape the sad news.
And again three days later in Nagasaki..

Yamasaki was able to sneak his parents out of Seattle and Shelter them in New York city.
I believe the choice of Yamasaki to design the WTC towers was for the purposes of historical continuity with WW2 Japan.

Was Japan too eager to supply the steel columns that would rain down on NYC?
Was the collapse of the towers meant to punctuate the end of New York City's role as the center of World Trade?

A reply to: jaffo

EVERYBODY, including Eager from MIT, has left his 2001 piece behind. He even points you to a more elaborate piece of him from 2007, about metallurgy.
We are now in 2015, and many published peer reviewed papers further. Try the last Bazant for starters, and his opponents, who prove him wrong on several subjects. Or Charles M. Beck, who proves mathematically that a global collapse could not start naturally after even 2/3 of the steel core columns would have failed instantly.
See for much more, recent WTC collapse authors, my Academia.edu links I posted. READ them for once in your life.

a reply to: jaffo

Gravity proves it was controlled demolition. WTC building 7 fell at free fall speed for the first 8 floors. NIST was forced to admit and add it to the report after scientific analysis proved that it did, this is impossible without controlled demolition.

Further more, in the history of human construction across the entire globe, no steel framed high rise has ever been brought down by
fire. Not one...... Ever, across the entire globe in all of history. Seems if you say this one did, the burden of proof should be on you because saying it did is slightly ludicrous when you look at all the factors.

originally posted by: Helious
no steel high rise has ever been brought down by
fire. Not one...... Ever, across the entire globe in all of history.

How many have been hit by a high speed jet airliner? By your own reasoning when a high speed jet airliner hits a building it will collapse!

a reply to: hellobruce

WTC 7 wasn't hit by a jetliner buddy.

a reply to: Helious

Uuuuuummmmmm ............ You were saying?

a reply to: Greathouse

That is a partial collapse at best and not symmetrical. It has no relevance to WTC building 7 and it's symmetrical, complete collapse at free fall speed for the first 8 stories that falls in it's own foot print. You can't be serious....

Furthermore, the building you show in that video appears to be Delft University and that would be Steel-reinforced and not a steel frame. Not the same thing, at all.

a reply to: Helious

I merely addressed your statement about steelframe buildings collapsing from fire. I quite well realize it didn't fall in the parameters of either of the twin towers collapse.

I just pointed out that your entire argument was based on a non-truth.

a reply to: Greathouse

The video you posted was not a steel framed building. It was steel reinforced concrete. My argument stands, yours however, is undone.

Link