9/11 Conspiracy Theorists still subjected to ridicule

a reply to: Dark Ghost

According to online label-makers I am a 911 Truther....a label I will wear with pride. It is unfortunate for the OS BS label-makers though - because the truth is not on their side - mass delusion is.

The OS BS label-makers love government reasoning and answers and think the government is working in their best interests - that's the biggest LOL of all.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

All one has to do to know it was a conspiracy is believe what George Bush said he was doing as the first plane struck the first building. I guess it would be ridiculous to believe Bush was telling the truth, but also ridiculous to believe he was lying a whole lot. So, unless we believe exactly what the author is saying in terms of Bush lying "just the right amount to make him look the least bad", then we are ridiculous.

originally posted by: Informer1958
I find it very interesting that the word Truther means a negative.

So if one finds a lie in the OS of 911, what is he or she if they expose it?

Answer: A Politically incorrect person. From what I have seen, that is the truth right there.

originally posted by: THest
Most conspiracy theorists are dorks, sitting alone in their cellars.... never had any chicks.... let alone SEX.


A...M I .... RIGHT?

That's what movies and the news wants the general public to believe! :p

Oh I see, your new here! Error accepted.
Asking questions and beings skeptic never made anyone not have sex.

originally posted by: wayforward
All one has to do to know it was a conspiracy is believe what George Bush said he was doing as the first plane struck the first building.

Bush knew and while it happened, he was telling a story about the pet goat to children in school. Bush is part of the skull and bones fraternity from Yale and for people in "secret societies", symbolism is very very important. It doesn't matter if someone doesn't believe in symbology, these people do and act upon it.

The goat surely signified Baphomet which also often symbolizes Satan. These types of wackos don't let a good crisis go to waste.

*****ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS*****

We would like to remind you that we expect civility and decorum in all forums, topics, and discussions. Continuing to post in a manner not in accordance with the T&C's can and will result in post removals and/or posting bans. Please continue your discussions with an eye on the topic and not your fellow members. Please also remember to stay on topic and cease any and all attempts to derail the thread/discussion before you.

Thank you.

You Are Responsible For Your Own posts.

We Expect Civility & Decorum In All Topics.

Ad Hominem Attacks And You

Courtesy Is Mandatory

*** Do Not Reply To This Post ***

a reply to: Joneselius

Explain that.......

When Silverstein said; "pull it" he was referring to firefighters, not explosives. The term: 'Pull it" does not apply to demo explosives in the world of demolition and Silverstein had not such authority to order demolition of his building anyway.

The decision to clear a safe area about WTC7 was made by Fire Chief Daniel Nigro

Daniel Nigro: Chief of Department FDNY

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.

2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.

3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.

4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

In other words, the Truth Movement took the words; "Pull it" out of context when they did not pertain to explosive demolition.

a reply to: skyeagle409
I absolutely agree that Silverstein's phrase, "Pull it" has been grossly taken out of context.

That being said, I still struggle to wrap my mind around WTC7's seemingly perfect collapse.

I occasionally wonder about the Twin Towers and how they both managed to collapse into themselves (even though the top portion of one seemed to "fall off" then disintegrate). However, I can remind myself that the Towers were similar structures and suffered similar damage and the fact that they were constructed with a sort of "exo-skeleton" helps me to comprehend how they could implode in the manner in which they did.

It's a bit more difficult for me to digest WTC7. It wasn't hit by a plane. It's foundation was surely rattled as the Towers fell, but so did the foundations of every other building in the area (and some were closer to the Towers). So why did it collapse so perfectly?

To be candid, I'm in the construction management business and I know how to build but I have zero experience with controlled explosion demolition, but I see every day that buildings are over designed (primarily because Engineers of Record, as well as developers, do not want to be sued. WTC7 was completed in 1987 if I remember correctly. I promise you the building was structurally sound and a "typical office fire" would not bring it down. And if it was an atypical fire... a fire strong enough to collapse the building... I struggle to comprehend how it would come down so neatly. I would have expected perhaps portions to collapse and create a huge, very expensive mess rather than be self contained.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Answer: A Politically incorrect person. From what I have seen, that is the truth right there.

I have never been politically correct, I don't believe in it.

One of my best friends put a YouTube video up about the alternative view point on 9/11, and this is the exact exchange between the two of them, on th comments.

Friend: Sorry but this is just nonsense

My best Friend: Would you care to elaborate brother?

Friend: Not really dude.

in my opinion, then why comment then? But dont worry a fellow friend responded with this,

"There is no need to eleaborate. You simply have to stick your head in a bucket of sand, igore the obvious, fail to back up your statement in with any facts whatsoever and then go back to watching stricly come dancing."

And then Friend made a slur on hippies and then there was no point continuing.

a reply to: eluryh22

To be candid, I'm in the construction management business and I know how to build but I have zero experience with controlled explosion demolition, but I see every day that buildings are over designed (primarily because Engineers of Record, as well as developers, do not want to be sued. WTC7 was completed in 1987 if I remember correctly. I promise you the building was structurally sound and a "typical office fire" would not bring it down. And if it was an atypical fire... a fire strong enough to collapse the building... I struggle to comprehend how it would come down so neatly. I would have expected perhaps portions to collapse and create a huge, very expensive mess rather than be self contained.

There is much more to the story of WTC7. It was basically gutted when it collapsed, which it why in the final seconds of its collapse, WTC7 tilted toward the south, which is where it was gutted by debris from WTC1. What people were observing during 911 was the north facade of WTC7, but let's take a look at the south side of WTC7.

Photo: What is Left of the South Wall of WTC7

As you can see, WTC7 suffered massive impact damage WTC1 on its south wall. Let's take a look at comments from the firefighters.

Boyle: "A little north of Vesey I said, we’ll go down, let’s see what’s going on. A couple of the other officers and I were going to see what was going on. We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what’s going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post.

Hayden:Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors.

It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, "At the edge of the south face you could see that it is very heavily damaged." [Firehouse Magazine, 5/02]

www.debunking911.com...

Now let's take a look here and remember, you are looking at the north side of WTC7, but the south side of WTC7 is gutted and in the final seconds, you can see WTC7 tilt toward the south because its structural support on the south side was destroyed by debris from WTC1.

American 11 stuck WTC1 and it eventually collapsed. United 175 struck WTC2 and it collapsed. WTC7 suffered massive impact damage from the collapse of WTC1 and uncontolled fires and it eventually collapsed.

American 77 struck the Pentagon and it suffered a partial collapse, which leaves United 93 as it headed for Washington D.C. Question is, what building in Washington D.C. was targeted by United 93, which never reached Washington D.C.?

To sum it up, WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7 collapsed due to fire and impact damage, not from explosives and a cruise missile was not capable of inflicting the kind of damage observed inside and outside the Pentagon, but then again, no one saw a missile strike the Pentagon.

The Pentagon missile story was fabricated.by Thierry Meyysan, and some truthers took the bait and ran off with it.

a reply to: EA006

Classic example of the internet - Silverstein got between $3-10 Billion in the insurance payment.
Can't be precise.

Silverstein got only $4.1 billion, but he wanted over $7 billion. He lost his case in court to get the balance and as a result, he lost billions of dollars thanks to the 9/11 attack.

Silverstein Loses Battle Over 9/11 Payouts

A federal judge on Thursday rejected developer Larry Silverstein's bid to recover billions of dollars from two airlines whose planes were used in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, a significant setback in his nearly decadelong fight for more money to rebuild the World Trade Center.

After a four-day bench trial in Lower Manhattan this week, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that an investment group led by Mr. Silverstein had already received all the compensation for which it is eligible: the $4.1 billion paid by property insurers in 2004.

www.wsj.com...

a reply to: amazing

Just to let you know that your video is a joke. For an example, it mentions that the Pentagon was renovated to absorb a cruise missile strike. Nothng could be further from the truth. The Pentagon was reinforced for car bomb attacks, not cruise missile strikes. The fact that there is a huge hole on the west side of the Pentagon show how absurd that claim is.

In another segment of your video, it mentions a pod on United 175. There is no pod. I later found that truthers misidentified aerodynamic fairings and MLG doors as a pod, which are standard equipment on all B-767s, but it didn't end there. Another truther claimed that a pod could be seen beneath the forward fuselage of United 175, but a closer look revealed that what he perceived to be a pod, was nothing more than the paint scheme.

Question is, did you really think that United Airlines would have grounded its B-767 in order for it to be modify to carry a pod loaded with 1000 pounds of explosives when over 20,000 pounds of cargo could have been carried in the cargo holds without modifying anything?

It's blunders like those that have discredit the Truth Movement over the years. There was no way a pod could have been attached to the airframe of United 175 and not attract a lot of attention, which would have left a paper trail from Washington State to Washington D.C.

I know, because I have modified large and small aircraft including military helicopters over the decades and knew that the claim of an attached pod on United 175 was false.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: amazing

Just to let you know that your video is a joke. For an example, it mentions that the Pentagon was renovated to absorb a cruise missile strike. Nothng could be further from the truth. The Pentagon was reinforced for car bomb attacks, not cruise missile strikes. The fact that there is a huge hole on the west side of the Pentagon show how absurd that claim is.

In another segment of your video, it mentions a pod on United 175. There is no pod. I later found that truthers misidentified aerodynamic fairings and MLG doors as a pod, which are standard equipment on all B-767s, but it didn't end there. Another truther claimed that a pod could be seen beneath the forward fuselage of United 175, but a closer look revealed that what he perceived to be a pod, was nothing more than the paint scheme.

Question is, did you really think that United Airlines would have grounded its B-767 in order for it to be modify to carry a pod loaded with 1000 pounds of explosives when over 20,000 pounds of cargo could have been carried in the cargo holds without modifying anything?

It's blunders like those that have discredit the Truth Movement over the years. There was no way a pod could have been attached to the airframe of United 175 and not attract a lot of attention, which would have left a paper trail from Washington State to Washington D.C.

I know, because I have modified large and small aircraft including military helicopters over the decades and knew that the claim of an attached pod on United 175 was false.

Just so you know. I'm not part of any "Truth Movement" Whatever that is.

I'm just a guy with questions, who has an open mind who looks at all the evidence and claims.

You only focused on the Pod and the pentagon. There were tons of things in that video that make you wonder and question things. Tons of things that, any intelligent person would want to take a closer look at.

I do thank you for the reply and input on the pods and pentagon remodel though. Again, that's more information that we need...more input for an intelligent discussion.

As you can see, WTC7 suffered massive impact damage WTC1 on its south wall.

What is he talking about, I see very little damage and it's at the top of the building...

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Symmetrically they both fell in their own footprint. Would you like to
further this childish game of semantics or concede?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Answer: A Politically incorrect person. From what I have seen, that is the truth right there.

Buhaw! What the hell does that have two do with anything.

a reply to: randyvs

NwFHEoiUZ7o

That is false. In some videos, even WTC7 can be seen tilting toward the south in the final seconds of its collapse.

a reply to: skyeagle409

No that's another one of your lies.
A small tilt considering the gargantuan size of the building was expected
even before hand.



I suppose you've single handedly debunked the Iluminati playing cards tho right!
Continuing your assault on justice.

a reply to: randyvs

That doesn't work because reality says otherwise because there was no way the top of the WTC Tower was going to tip over on its side.