9/11 Conspiracy Theorists still subjected to ridicule

a reply to: MotherMayEye

It's been hijacked by disinfo, not wild mental theories. INTENTIONALLY wild mental theories. That's how they discredit all truthers -- everyone who questions the OS gets lumped in with the disinfo and the people who fall for the disinfo.

Many truthers were using conspiracy websites that are well-known for spewing disinformation and in some cases, outright lies. They have used 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' as a reference, but I have caught 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth' spewing disinformation and lies and I have confronted the founder of that website and let him know that what he was posting was false, yet he continues to post disinformation and lies and truthers continue to use his website as a reference source, whereas, they continue spread debunked disinformation and lies to other message boards.

Another website used by truthers as a reference source, is VA Today, but let's take a look at Gordon Duff of VA Today becaues truthers use him as a reference as well.

Gordon Duff Confesses to Posting 40% False Information

"If I Didn't Write False Information I Wouldn't be Alive..." -

www.forbiddenknowledge.tv...

Using CT websites as references and posting hoaxed videos and photos resulted in this.

Disinformation Killed 9/11 “Truth”

By 2009, the 9/11 “Truth” Movement was so inundated with disinformation that it had become a laughingstock. The easily-discredited claims (lies) contaminated the greater issue and soiled dissenters across the board. “Turd blossom” was a Karl Rove phrase that could describe what the movement had devolved into. The media, whether corporate or foundation-funded, could find people ranting about “the Jews” or the Illuminati, the Lizard People, the missiles, holograms, mini-nukes or space beam weapons vaporizing the Twin Towers.

Many trolls, and some public personalities, appeared to be professional disinformation artists hard at work concocting and posting this crap online, which others repeated to their own detriment. One cannot easily prove that a specific person is a paid shill, a disinformation agent, a cyber agent provocateur, but be assured they are out there, and “out there.”

DISINFORMATION TO DISCREDIT

Author Thomas Pynchon wrote, “If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” I’ll go one better and in the process explain modern cyber disinformation: If they can get you asking stupid questions, then their lapdog media can dismiss you as a “nut.”

That’s how it works, people. Well beyond questions, they have long lassoed a whole generation of newbies into reposting pseudo evidence about the 9/11 attacks, as if these were established facts. That’s FUD, using bogus evidence to taint those who choose to pass it on.

Photographs or sound bites are taken out of context to fabricate some new angle that no one had ever noticed before. More often than not, that was because these new findings were patently false. So much sloppy research and twisted factoids peppered the 9/11 “Truth” universe that the very concept of truth itself was devalued in the process.

www.911truth.org...

Despite the fact that I have warned people to beware of those truther websites, there are still those who continue to post disinformation, some of which, were planted in order to discredit the Truth Movement. Now, we have them claiming mini-nukes and space beam weapons as weapons that took out the WTC buildings.

Typical nukes were originally used by truthers, but when it was shown that such explosions would have created huge craters that would have sucked up the WTC buildings, which didn't happen, they then switched to mini-nukes.

a reply to: skyeagle409

So says the guy who cited the International Skeptics forum and a guy named "Ref" as the source of an email purportedly written by former FDNY Chief Nigro.

Seems to me you are guilty of believing and spreading disinfo yourself.

Most people just want to live in their little box life of illusion that they have built for us. They don't want to believe the facts and the evidence because it's scary and disturbing. People don't even want to go there mentally.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Your plane hitting the pentagon theory does not hold up. Planes made of aluminum do not disintegrate leaving no cabin behind. Whatever exploded in or out the pentagon was NOT a commercial airliner. Because commercial airliners dont defy the laws of physics when entering a solid object.

See here




You claim there were NO explosions being audible in the collapse of WTC 7 as well as 1 and 2. Let me cite this source for you. It is explained by A&E's Jim Hoffman.

Question:
Why weren't the sounds that were heard during the destruction of the WTC skyscrapers on 9/11 as loud as the blasts heard in videos of acknowledged controlled demolitions?

Answer:
As 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman points out at 911research.com, the continuous and rapid explosions of the Twin Towers would make distinct explosions nearly impossible to hear, except perhaps by those who were right next to the Towers. A news clip from Fox shows witnesses in midtown NYC stating that the explosive roar of the Towers’ demise sounded like “another large aircraft flying overhead.” These roaring sound waves were heard miles away.

www1.ae911truth.org...


Your buckle theory does not work either. For the building's to collapse without resistance that would need for all the lower collumns to "buckle" simultaneously. Hence why a steel frame building has NEVER collapsed due to fire and never will.



All you have produced thus far is mere Pseudoscience.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

Molten metal was seen pouring out the lower floors.

Molten aluminum was seen flowing from the northeast corner of WTC2, which is the exact location where much of the aluminum airframe came to rest. In addition, many aluminum panels were installed on the exterior of the WTC buildings.

A woman standing in the gaping hole from the Boeings impact when it was spose to be "burning out of control" ect ect inconsistency after another with the OS

There was no question the WTC buildings were on fire. Ever wondered why people were jumping from the upper stories of the WTC buildings?

So the aluminum airframe with the buildings aluminum panels produced the thermite ?

Yes where there is smoke there is fire. That does not answer why or how the woman was able to stand in the gaping hole where there was an "inferno burning the inner columns" as the OS claims. Can you answer the question withiut being so vague ?

Thanks

- DF

a reply to: DarthFazer

Your plane hitting the pentagon theory does not hold up.

Of course it does because all of the wreckage recovered at the Pentagon was from American 77, which was tracked to the Pentagon where radar contact was lost, and my Wing Commander, who was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck has confirmed the aircraft as a B-757.

It is apparent that these B-757 wing flaps did not come from a cruise missile.

B-757 Wing Flaps at the Pentagon.

Planes made of aluminum do not disintegrate leaving no cabin behind.

That is false. Please explain why you do not see intact aircraft wreckage at these three crash sites.

Photo: Caspian Flt 7908

Photo: Crash Site of Caspian Flt 7908


Photo: Belview Airlines B-737

Photo: Crash Site of Belview Airlines B-737


Photo: PSA Flt 1771

Photo: Crash Site of PSA Flt 1771

... Whatever exploded in or out the pentagon was NOT a commercial airliner. Because commercial airliners dont defy the laws of physics when entering a solid object.

What you are implying does defy the laws of physics because witnesses reported that an airliner struck the Pentagon, not a missile, and their claims are backed by phyisical evidence.

Photos: American 77 Wreckage at the Pentagon

Photo: American 77 Wreckage at the Pentagon

Video of American 77 Stiking the Pentagon

I might add that American Airlines confirmed the aircraft that crashed at the Pentagon was American 77.



Which is backed by a C-130.

a reply to: DarthFazer

About those burning buildings you posted. They were not struck by aircraft nor suffered from impact damage that dislodged their fire protection, unlike WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

Now, let's examine one of those buildings close-up and you will notice that the heap of mess you see lying on the ledge of the concrete building was originally the outer steel structure of the Windsor building, which left only the concrete structure standing.

Windsor Building Fire

Photo: Concrete Structure Remains Standing After Collapse of its Outer Steel Structure

A survey of the fire damaged structure of the Windsor Tower, Madrid, has concluded that the concrete structure “performed extraordinarily well in a severe fire”.

The study, ‘Fire in the Windsor building, Madrid: Survey of the fire resistance and residual bearing capacity of the structure after the fire’ was carried out by the Spanish Instituto Technico de Materiales y Construcciones (INTEMAC). It underlined the need for fireproofing structural steel concluding that the “need for fireproofing of steel members to guarantee their performance in the event of fire was reconfirmed”.

The Windsor Tower fire started on the 21st floor of the 32 storey building in February 2005. The fire quickly spread due to a lack of fire stops between the curtain wall façade and the concrete floor slabs. Designed and built in the 1970s, the tower was built using traditional design methods. Extensive refurbishment was underway at the time of the fire. Ironically, part of the refurbishment programme was to bring the building’s fire standards up-to-date with the installation of active fire prevention and resistance measures.

Structural failure happened with the collapse of the steel perimeter columns which resulted with the floor slabs collapsing as the edge support was taken away.

The massive concrete transfer slab at the 20th floor prevented further progressive failure.

www.debunking911.com...

You have to look at the rest of the story, not judge a book by its cover.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Many truthers were using conspiracy websites that are well-known for spewing disinformation and in some cases, outright lies. They have used 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' as a reference, but I have caught 'Pilots For 9/11 Truth' spewing disinformation and lies and I have confronted the founder of that website and let him know that what he was posting was false, yet he continues to post disinformation and lies and truthers continue to use his website as a reference source, whereas, they continue spread debunked disinformation and lies to other message boards.

Like you using 911 Myths as your sources and many others Shill disinformation websites that are very bias and only support the lies of the OS.

I too have confronted many OS die hart believers of using these disinformation websites which have been debunked many years ago. Yet they continue to use these websites as you have used demonstrated repeatedly.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Because commercial airliners dont defy the laws of physics when entering a solid object.

Let's take a look at what a B-25 had done to the Empire State Building. The B-25 is much slower and lighter than a B-767.

Photo: B-25 Impact Hole on Wall of the Empire State Building

a reply to: Informer1958

ike you using 911 Myths as your sources and many others Shill disinformation websites that are very bias and only support the lies of the OS.

I use my decades-long experience to determine when to hold 'em and when to throw 'em.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Well you should have thrown them.

And yes you have used 911 Myths recently.

a reply to: Informer1958

The laws of physics, commons sense, and factual history backup what I say.

Case in point; Demo explosives when detonated, make a lot of noise, a lot of noise that is not heard as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed, which explains why demo explosions were not detected by seismic monitors in the area and why no demo explosive hardware was ever found at ground zero.

And, we can bring up demolition experts as stating they heard no demo explosions at ground zero.

a reply to: skyeagle409

The laws of physics, commons sense, and factual history backup what I say.

The laws of physics do not back up what you say period. In fact the laws of physics are "impossible" in the real world and cannot happen. Any six grader knows that!

a reply to: skyeagle409

Case in point; Demo explosives when detonated, make a lot of noise, a lot of noise that is not heard as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapse, which explains why demo explosions were not detected by seismic monitors in the area and why no demo explosive hardware was ever found at ground zero.

Your kicking a dead horse.

Your right about one thing though, and I know you are jumping with joy that no hardware was found at ground zero. That's because the real terrorists had the crime scene clean up without an investigation.

a reply to: Informer1958

The laws of physics do not back up what you say period.

Of course the laws of physics back up what I say and as an example, provide us with the time line where demo explosions are heard in the following WTC7 video.



In case you do not know what demo explosions sound like, we can go here.



Now, compare those demo explosions in the previous video with the collapse of WTC1 beginning at time line 0:30.



The fact that there is no sound of demo explosions as WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed, explains why no demo explosions were detected on seismic monitors.

Seismic Data 1

Seismic Data 2


To sum it up, there is absolutely no evidence that demo explosives were used during the 9/11 attack.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Of course the laws of physics back up what I say and as an example, provide us with the time line where demo explosions are heard in the following WTC7 video.

You think you are funny. In my opinion all these videos you have posted have been tampered with and explosions edited out, and you know this. Yet you continue to spam the threads with pseudo videos.

That is your truth but it is not mine. To many eyewitness went on record claiming explosions and that proves your videos have been tampered with.

a reply to: Informer1958

You think you are funny. In my opinion all these videos you have posted have been tampered with and explosions edited out, and you know this. Yet you continue to spam the threads with pseudo videos.

That won't work, because even seismic monitors failed to detect demo explosions at ground zero.

Now, please point out the time lines in the videos where explosions are heard.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
I use my decades-long experience to determine when to hold 'em and when to throw 'em.

Who doesn't use their knowledge and experience to determine what is credible?

And you already demonstrated you aren't discriminating when it comes to the sources you use for your *cough* 'evidence'.

a reply to: Informer1958

Like you using 911 Myths as your sources and many others Shill disinformation websites that are very bias and only support the lies of the OS.

That won't work because it is clear that B-757 wreckage was recovered at the Shanksville crash site of United 93 and from the Pentagon regarding American 77.

Aircraft wreckage from American 11 and United 175 was also recovered. Do I need to post videos, photos, communication tapes and data to prove my points once again?

a reply to: skyeagle409

That won't work, because even seismic monitors failed to detect demo explosions at ground zero.

Now, please point out the time lines in the videos where explosions are heard.

That won't work .

Your videos have all been tampered with in my opinion as I have told you earlier, yet you continue to ignore that and continue to post these tampered video with such delight as if they are true.

I have told you many times in order to support the OS one MUST edit, and deceive to fool as many people as possible.
It won't work for me.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Who doesn't use their knowledge and experience to determine what is credible?

Truthers. Case in point; they claim that demo explosives were used to destroy WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7, yet they cannot provide the sound of demo explosions as those buildings are collapsing, which also explains why seismic monitors did not detect demo explosions at ground zero.

If they were that knowledgeable, why were they duped by this photo, which they claimed was evidence of molten steel?

So-called evidence of molten steel