Just Wondering...

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: In4ormant

A good reason why the 9/11 Truth Movement has made itself look clownish is because they have been posting disinformation that was planted to discredit the movement and accepting silly claims from Steven Jones, Richard Gage, individuals who have been caught lying, and websites such as Loose Change and Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Check it out.

Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”

The claim that a missile destroyed the Pentagon lives on, probably the first major 9/11 disinformation coup, and it has long been cited by international corporate media as a sure indicator of mental illness or stupidity. You can point at 42 Pentagon witnesses who saw a plane, noting that zero eyewitnesses ever reported a missile, but, in a self-reinforcing religious mind wash, contrary evidence is handily dismissed. The messenger is bludgeoned.

A steaming case of a “honey pot” trap, this Pentagon/missile theory originated from a website that called itself “Silent But Deadly,” hosted in France starting in June of 2003 (Warning: link to disinformation website). This missile theory popped up nearly two years after the actual 9/11 attacks and after a Congressional investigation needed to be censored by the White House, in order to protect their Saudi friends and possible co-conspirators.

www.911truth.org...

I have gone head-to-head with Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, because I caught him and his group deliberately posting disinformation, so I challenged him with my experience as a pilot and airframe technician of over 40 years. His website is another prime example of how easy truthers have been duped with disinformation and misinformation.

Every time something is disproven they just say "nuh uh". It's becoming childish at this point.

a reply to: In4ormant

a reply to: skyeagle409

A question for you guys. Do you believe the people in power of the
U.S. gov. in 2001. Or any other persons of said power before or after,
would never be party to anything as sinister, as what the truth
movement is indicating? i.e. that our gov. attacked the world trade
center as a prelude to invading Iraq and Afghanistan?

Just wondering...

a reply to: randyvs

A question for you guys. Do you believe the people in power of the
U.S. gov. in 2001.

It depends. One thing for sure, the United States received warnings from around the world just prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack that Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were preparing to attack the United States with aircraft and some of those warnings originated from the Middle East. Not long after the attack, Osama bin Laden admitted his responsibility and al-Qaeda released the last will and testament martyr videos of the 9/11 hijackers.

Investigations found no evidence that explosives were used, neither detection on seismic monitors nor explosive hardware at ground zero. People hearing what sound like explosions does not automatically translate into explosives because there are many things that can produce explosive-like sounds that have nothing to do with explosives. Here are a few examples where 9/11 truther websites distorted comments about explosions

9/11 Debunked: WTC Accounts of Bombs & Explosions Explained Video

www.youtube.com...=24

The Elevator Man's Tale

We heard the explosion and within a matter of seconds after that impact, I heard – and as well as everybody else heard – this noise, this increasing sound of wind. And it was getting louder and louder. It was like a bomb, not quite the sound of a bomb coming down from a bomber. It was a sound of wind increasing, a whistling sound, increasing in sound.

What we heard was 6 and 7 car free-falling from the 107th floor and they impacted the basement at B-2 Level. And that’s the explosion that filled the lobby within a matter of two or three seconds, engulfed the lobby in dust, smoke.

www.thrnewmed...ember...


Harsh winter triggers New York City manhole explosions

Record snowfall is turning the city's mean streets even meaner, with 65 manholes exploding or catching fire since New Years, a utility spokesman said on Friday.

www.reuters.com...


Louie Cacchioli, 51, is a firefighter assigned to Engine 47 in Harlem.

Cacchioli was upset that People Magazine misquoted him, saying "there were bombs" in the building when all he said was he heard "what sounded like bombs" without having definitive proof bombs were actually detonated.

www.arcticbea...9-Jul-2005.html...


Craig Carlsen, Firefighter

Craig Carlsen said that he and other firefighters “heard explosions coming from the south tower...there were about ten explosions...At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit.

graphics8.nyt...HIC...

Or any other persons of said power before or after, would never be party to anything as sinister, as what the truth movement is indicating? i.e. that our gov. attacked the world trade
center as a prelude to invading Iraq and Afghanistan?

First of all, those 9/11 truther websites have been caught posting disinformation, misinformation and outright lies. Steven Jones and Richard Gage have been caught lying, and the Pilots for 9/11 Truth website was caught pushing false and misleading information. Much of the disinformation that 9/11 truther websites have been posting was done in order to discredit the truther movement and it worked.

In regard to Iraq, the United States did not concocted false information regarding WMD in Iraq because the person who concocted the report of WMD in Iraq was an Iraqi, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, code named; "Curveball."

‘Curveball,’ man who lied about WMDs, comes clean

“Curveball,” the man whose lies about weapons of mass destruction helped form the basis for invading Iraq, has come clean in an interview with the BBC, as reported by British news site the Independent.

www.washingtonpost.com...

However, WMD was eventually found in Iraq by U.S. troops. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, the United States had warned the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden or else. The Tailiban failed to heed the warning and the rest is history. Had they done so, there would not have been a war.

Amazingly, it was the Taliban that warned the United States just prior to the 9/11 terrorist attack that Osama bin Laden would attack America and furthermore, the United States did not benefit from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because those wars will cost the United States trillions of dollars over the next 3 decades.

Those are the facts and it is a mistake to use those 9/11 truther websites as references knowing that they have been caught pushing disinformation, misinformation, and lies.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: In4ormant

a reply to: skyeagle409

A question for you guys. Do you believe the people in power of the
U.S. gov. in 2001. Or any other persons of said power before or after,
would never be party to anything as sinister, as what the truth
movement is indicating? i.e. that our gov. attacked the world trade
center as a prelude to invading Iraq and Afghanistan?

Just wondering...

Do you believe Islam is "The Religion of Peace" ?

I believe that was the biggest lie told to us by the government during 911.

So where is that proof that the photo I posted was photoshoped. Either provide some evidence or withdraw the accusation and apologise.

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: In4ormant

a reply to: skyeagle409

A question for you guys. Do you believe the people in power of the
U.S. gov. in 2001. Or any other persons of said power before or after,
would never be party to anything as sinister, as what the truth
movement is indicating? i.e. that our gov. attacked the world trade
center as a prelude to invading Iraq and Afghanistan?

Just wondering...

No, I don't, and I don't believe most people here actually think that either.

Here's the problem with those who just assume that they would - they're paranoid about EVERYTHING, absolutely everything is an evil conspiracy, but there's suspiciously never any actual evidence for those conspiracies.

Even though everything is constantly debunked, the suspicion itself seems to be "evidence" enough for most people here to believe there is always something sinister going on.

Do I believe that individuals within government are self-serving, potentially easily corruptible and deserve a lot more scrutiny than they get? Absolutely!
Does this automatically mean that any of them would be capable of mass murder of their fellow citizens? Absolutely not.

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: waypastvne

You do realize there is much more to the OP than steel beams and airplanes? Try working on other aspects.

We've been confronting all the aspects of this, and every time you come back with something else. Your points are consistently debunked one after the other, and now finally when another one is debunked you want to change the subject?

Has this belief in magical infallible indestructible steel been debunked or not?

Do you now accept that steel becomes weaker under the conditions seen in those towers or not?

originally posted by: soulpowertothendegree
a reply to: skyeagle409

I bet the building did not collapse free fall and turn to a pile a dust with projectiles flying out from the core. Give it a rest, you will not find one single example of any buildings falling like these 3 did in the history of mankind, NONE, without the use of a controlled demolition.

Now, find something else to chew on.

Right, once again...

Those towers did not fall at free fall speed.
You have seen the same videos and photos we all have, yes?

You have seen the still images of either of the towers collapsing, with the external supports CLEARLY closer to the ground than the collapsing building, yes?

One is falling at free fall speed, because there is NOTHING in its way, this is the OUTER RUBBLE of the building collapsing, yes?

Now, if that rubble is falling at free fall speed, and it's clearly and visibly lower in space than the top point of the collapsing building, the building CANNOT BE COLLAPSING AT THE SAME DAMN SPEED.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
You say the design was flawed? Fine, you are wrong.

No, that's not what I said and you damn well know it.
Please quote where I said in that post that the design of any building there was flawed.

What I stated was that the design of that building (WTC 1 AND 2) is intended to work together with all its component parts to remain standing and structurally sound. When you remove a load bearing wall from a building the risk of collapse is increased, or do you deny this reality?

If you're going to try to claim that you're responding adequately to our debunking, at least try to do it with more credibility.

Please bring on the next piece of bs for us to debunk

a reply to: soulpowertothendegreeIf it weren't for 911, i'd still be alseep.

See, what many people don't understand is this: The towers had to be taken down because they were in bad condition. It would have cost them more to fix the problems the towers had, then it would to bring them down.

So, they figured: "hey, since the towers have to be demolished anyway, let's use that for our advantage. Well, create a few characters to blame, use some of our "advanced technology" and bring the towers down, in grand fashion. We'll tell the people (over and over again) the boogie man did it, and if we don't go after him, the boogie man is going to do it, again! We'll wave our Patriotic flag, and sing our Patriotic song, and the American sheeple (cough, cough...excuse me. I mean, the American people) will help us clean up the mess. Then, as their cleaning up, we'll steal all the platinum, gold, diamonds, etc, etc, located underneath the rubble.

Then, someone said: "hey, here's an idea: we'll blame the group that used to work for us; the farmers that tend our poppy fields; and we'll connect them to the group that works for us, in the oil fields. We'll wipe them out, and replace them with new farmers and oil workers."

The next person said: "But, what about the paper trail?" Another man replies: "Pull it".

911 IN a NUTSHELL.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Here's the problem with those who just assume that they would - they're paranoid about EVERYTHING, absolutely everything is an evil conspiracy, but there's suspiciously never any actual evidence for those conspiracies.

This is absurd and at the very least makes me feel foolish
for not knowing rather than just waiting and wondering to
see that you aren't even worth debating?

You're that far gone?

wow!

Help the paranoids are out to get me!

a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

This. 'Debate' on the issue always inevitably ends in one side ignoring everything that doesn't fit with what they've already decided to be true, and screaming "shill" at anyone who disagrees.

I very rarely get involved in 9/11 threads because I don't deal well with ignorant, arrogant idiots (ie. 95% of 'truthers'), and I don't want to get banned from ATS.

I haven't seen anyone "screaming shill" anywhere on this thread, so I am curious as to why you would even say such a thing. In actuality it has been you, more than anyone else, assuming other posters' beliefs on the subject and mocking them without even bothering to ask what they really think, simply because they do not agree that the 9/11 incident can be explained with the government's official story.

There have been plenty of posts by people who don't think it was a demolition, that the planes actually did cause the collapse of the towers, yet still do not believe the official story that the government tried to feed us.

You may want to look up the definition of the word "debate". It is not meant to win people over to one side or another. It is meant to be an argument, with both sides presenting information and insight as to why they believe their position to be the correct one. When you make inflammatory, blanket statements such as the little gems quoted above, you are bringing absolutely nothing productive to the table.


You stated in an earlier post that you have a degree in architecture and structural engineering:

I also went on to study architecture and structural engineering in college, git my degree, and went into the field.

So how about treating this like an actual debate instead of an opportunity for attempting to belittle and insult other people's intelligence and tell us, in your professional, expert opinion as an architect and structural engineer (since you're in the field, right?), what causes you to believe that the official story the government gave is true? Or is it just a case of you blindly believing whatever you are told to believe?

I'm sure, with your vastly superior knowledge and professional experience in the field of structural engineering, you can lend some valuable insight to the subject instead of just weak and, frankly, childish attempts at insulting other educated, intelligent people who actually have offered technical information and plausible theories supporting the belief that there is no way the towers were destroyed in that manner, by those planes. Maybe you could teach us something, yeah? Since you're allegedly an expert? That would be productive and relevant. What you are doing instead is most assuredly not.

a reply to: Rocker2013

Now, if that rubble is falling at free fall speed, and it's clearly and visibly lower in space than the top point of the collapsing building, the building CANNOT BE COLLAPSING AT THE SAME DAMN SPEED.

Exactly!! It is very clear in videos and photos that dust plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse of the WTC buildings, which simply means that the WTC buildings are not falling at free fall speed at all and the evidence was there for all to see.

a reply to: waypastvne

So where is that proof that the photo I posted was photoshoped. Either provide some evidence or withdraw the accusation and apologise.

No, I'm perfectly with'in the T&C to surmise even a first glance
opinion and record it here in all it's textual beauty and splendor.
And this conversation you're trying to have regarding a pic.
Is exactly why pics aren't evidence.

a reply to: smurfy

Snippets,
'The day after 9/11, Canada’s Globe and Mail commented: “For some reason, Secret Service agents did not bustle [Bush] away.”

The background for this comment was explained by Philip Melanson, the author of a book about the Secret Service. “With an unfolding terrorist attack,” Melanson said, “the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” That this indeed would have been standard operating procedure is illustrated by the fact that, as soon as the second strike on the World Trade Center was seen on television, one agent said to Sarasota County Sheriff Bill Balkwill: “We’re out of here. Can you get everybody ready?”

But this agent’s decision was obviously overridden by some higher-level Secret Service agent, as Bush was allowed not only to remain in the classroom for seven or more minutes, but also to remain at the school for another twenty minutes. He was even allowed to deliver a television address to the nation, thereby letting everyone know that he was still at the school.

This behavior seemed especially reckless in light of reports, issued at the time, that as many as eleven planes had been hijacked. The Secret Service should have feared that one of those planes was bearing down on the school at that very moment. The Secret Service’s behavior, however, suggested that it had no fear that the school would be attacked.'

That only served to cement my initial impression that he knew it was coming by his utter lack of surprise when he was told...the fact that he remained at the school rather than being ushered to a secure location. He knew that he was in no danger, and so did his handlers. Additionally, I felt that his giving the address to the nation from the school seemed (and still seems) contrived...like it was an extra measure of insurance that everyone would remember when this all went down, he was reading to a bunch of kindergarten kids and therefore could not possibly have been involved. Even my stepdad (a retired USAF colonel and staunch Republican) said that he immediately knew something wasn't right when they didn't remove him from the location, and he also was one of the first people other than myself whom I personally heard question the lack of surprise on POTUS' face when he was told. He knew. They all knew, plain and simple.

a reply to: tigertatzen

That only served to cement my initial impression that he knew it was coming by his utter lack of surprise when he was told...the fact that he remained at the school rather than being ushered to a secure location.

With warnings flowing in from around the world prior to the 9/11 attack, there was no way that Bush was unaware, especially since receiving this report.

Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US

upload.wikimedia.org...

www.cnn.com...

Bush, Rice, our intelligence services and even the FAA, had dropped the ball.

a reply to: In4ormant

Just seems odd to me that a country that never needed much of a reason before to go to war would need something so elaborate as this to do it then.

I agree with you. I see why they used the planes...a huge distraction...but what I don't get is: why planes? Why not something else? Or for that matter, nothing at all? That has been something that I feel should be obvious, but is instead maddeningly elusive. There had to be a reason behind it other than just something to create a big enough "boom" at the time to cover up the demolition and fool people...they had to know that their story would not hold up to serious scrutiny, so why do it? And, as you've said, we're this big fearsome country who does what the hell it wants. Why not just say "ok, we're going to war" (or whatever other motives were governing the decision) and be done with it? There are pieces missing from the puzzle...something else is underlying all of this. Surely they could have done something to get the American people backing whatever it was they wanted to do without killing all of those people. One of my best friends lost her sister on 9/11, and the only reason she's still alive herself is because she had a stomach bug and couldn't go to work that day.

They know good and well that their official story is a load of horse puckey, they know that we know it, and they don't care. All they have to do is say "that's our story and we're sticking to it" (and they have), and refuse to comment further (ditto), and that's that, as they say. They're running the show and they know it...and if we don't buy their explanation, too bad. And it has always been that way. So what the hell is going on? I'm not sure I want to find out, but I have the distinct feeling that we're about to.

a reply to: smurfy

The steel plates were about an inch thick pretty much the norm, but they were subject to cold brittle fracture something not properly understood then, because of impurities in the steel, but still the standard of the day. The Wrought iron rivets though, or some of them were below par, and there were design flaws as well. Brittleness seems to be the key rather than thinness.

Thank you for clarifying. Everything I have read also points to sub-par materials, cheaply manufactured as a contributing factor as well. My point though, was that the towers in NYC were not made of materials such as those on the ship and were constructed at a time where builders knew better, and that was in direct response to his crack about the Titanic's engineering specs.

a reply to: avgguy

I think that terrorists hijacked four planes. Here's the thing, you can't claim that bush is a mastermind false flag engineer and in the next sentence talk about how big of a bumbling idiot he is. So it's got to be one or the other. He was either an evil genius or he's a one step above drooling.

He's a drooling mouth-breather and he didn't mastermind anything. I doubt he could even mastermind something as complicated as mowing the White House lawn. He followed a script, and he turned out to be a terrible actor too. The one they've got now is at least articulate, even though his acting skills aren't much better than B-movie quality either...and that's me being generous.

a reply to: tigertatzen

I agree with you. I see why they used the planes...a huge distraction...but what I don't get is: why planes? Why not something else?

The use of planes was to maximize loss of life and publicity. Check out the Bojinka Plot.

The Bojinka Plot

The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale three-phase attack by Islamists Ramzi Yousef and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to occur in January 1995. The attack was to include the assassination of Pope John Paul II, the bombing of 11 airliners in flight from Asia to the United States (which would kill approximately 4,000 passengers and shut down air travel around the world), and the crashing of a plane into the headquarters of the CIA in Fairfax County, Virginia.

Despite careful planning, the Bojinka plot was disrupted after a chemical fire drew the Philippine National Police's (PNP) attention on January 6–7, 1995. Yousef and Mohammed were unable to stage any of the three attacks but did kill one person and injure scores detonating several test bombs on Philippine Airlines Flight 434 (which nearly caused enough damage to result in the destruction of the aircraft), in a Filipino shopping mall and theater.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Bush, Rice, our intelligence services and even the FAA, had dropped the ball.

Well, that makes it even worse then, doesn't it? They screwed up and knew, yet didn't bother to warn anyone or make even the slightest effort to keep those people from perishing? I think I prefer the conspiracy where they caused it over one in which they simply stood by and did nothing while it happened. I really hope that is not true.