250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns'

Ok this is what I got so far and I have only made it thru 113, 37 irrelevant facts, 6 unverifiable good points, at least 30 eyewitness accounts that to my understanding have been debuked, most of them dealing with explosions, like 3 good points.

People involved in the conspiracy:Jeb Bush, unnnamed Pentagon officials, San Francisco Mayor and those who called him, President Bush cousin, Larry Silverstain, Gen. Myers, Warren Buffet, a bunch of firefighters that knew the Tower7 was going to collapse and another bunch of reporters that had inside knowledge about the collapse.

Agencies involved in the conspiracy: Military (NORAD, Marines, Air Force, Army), FAA, NSA,CIA, FEMA, White House, US Intel Agency,FBI

Private Corporations involved in the conspiracy: CNN, Control Demolition Inc., Raytheon, Buffalo/Niagara Airport, ODIGO, Fiduciary Trust, BBC

I tell you what, thats some BIG CONSPIRACY right there! Can wait for the other 137 smoking guns!

[edit on 22-1-2008 by Bunch]

reply to post by OrionStars


Truth tables are based on breaking a complex statment into simpler clauses and then basically figuring out a boolean for each clause (or a true or false). I don't think you can apply this kind of logic, because for 9/11 I assume you mean taking one little part, for example the supposed squibs in the towers, and saying definately they are or are not from deliberate charges.

I am talking about anomolies which are much more of a grey area. My contention is that there is alot more to explain if you assumue an inside job.

I'd like to remind everyone about the new rules here:

Ad Hominem

For the most part, the new level of discourteous activity is focused on an amazing amount of ad hominen personality attacks directed toward ATS Members, high-profile 9/11 "Truth" personalities, high-profile 9/11 "Debunker" personalities, and even non-public figures those who have been in the mainstream news as reported witnesses the events on 9/11/2001. This type of activity in the 9/11 Forum on AboveTopSecret.com stops now.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can we get back to killtown's site instead of killtown?

reply to post by dirtonwater


Truth tables are used for determining truth or falsehood in simple and complex statements. There is no such valid logic as "half-truth".

The more complex, the more difficult it can be to determine truth or falsehood, particularly when people deliberately mix truth in with their falsehoods in complex sentences. Hence, and for one example only, the reality of the context of a statement may be accurate and also be false.

reply to post by Bunch


Why are you merely accepting someone else's words they "debunked" anything? What is wrong with you personally attempting to debunk with your own logic?

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Bunch

 

Why are you merely accepting someone else's words they "debunked" anything? What is wrong with you personally attempting to debunk with your own logic?

When there is stuff that Im not familiar with or I dont have first hand knowledge, then I go and read some stuff, after that I do apply my own logic to form an opinion. That doesnt mean that I debunked anything it merely means that I got to form my opinion through the work of other people that put it in a way that I could understand.

Does that make sense?

reply to post by Bunch


Ok, fair enough.

Exactly, what of their opinionated thoughts led your own thoughts to be convinced their opinions adequately or even substantially debunked their opposition?

Can you paraphrase their words to retain the same intent and meaning, of the ones you state formed your opinions of agreement with their opinions?

Please use the points you brought up as being "debunked", by the ones you state formed your thoughts concerning debunking. Please also state the names of the people forming your thoughts. We need to know how credible people are you claimed formed your thoughts concerning 9/11/2001.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
reply to post by billybob

 

BillyB,

I will have to go ahead and disagree with you. He was calling Val at her work harassing her. Calling her home. He even posted an illegally recorded phone call on Youtube.....

well. that was just rude. and illegal.

however, the 250 smoking guns are information, and don't have a personality.

reply to post by OrionStars


In regards to the explosions, this list provides the following from 56 to 79.

-19 accounts of people hearing explosion

-1 account of someone feeling explosions,

-1 account of someone seeing multiple orange flashes (no explosions just flashes) which he suggest it could have been electrical explosions

-1 unverifiable report (#70)

- The famous floors popping out account by the firefighters, again no explosions cited which inconsistant of how an CD is performed, there is plenty videos of that.

- 2 pure speculative points

Now this is using my own logic, all the accounts of explosion could be easily explained, if you have fire and ignatable materials there going to be explosions, in a buidings like the WTC there is a big chance that you could find a source for ignition and explosions.. Now those explosions are not consistant with CD explosives, I have seen videos of those and videos of the Towers coming down, I hear none of the sort. How you explain that?


[edit on 22-1-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by Bunch
reply to post by OrionStars

 

In regards to the explosions, this list provides the following from 56 to 79.

-19 accounts of people hearing explosion


-1 account of someone feeling explosions,

-1 account of someone seering multiple orange flashes (no explosions just flashes) which he suggest it could have been electrical explosions

-1 unverifiable report (#70)

- The famous floors popping out account by the firefighters, again no explosions cited which inconsistant of how an CD is performed, there is plenty videos of that.

- 2 pure speculative points

Now this is using my own logic, all the accounts of explosion could be easily explained, if you have fire and ignatable materials there going to be explosions, in a buidings like the WTC there is a big chance that you could find a source for ignition and explosions.. Now those explosions are not consistant with CD explosives, I have seen videos of those and videos of the Towers coming down, I hear none of the sort. How you explain that?

Speculative to you but not the people convinced they saw and/or heard what they are convinced they saw and/or heard.

Who has proved people saying they heard explosions or saw orange flashes did not hear and see them? If you heard and/or saw something others say they did not hear and/or see, does that mean you did not hear and/or see see something, because they arrogantly presume you did not, and tell you that?

Debunking is when something is proved false. How does someone prove false what someone was not there to see or hear themselves? Did it ever dawn on anyone some people's hearing and/or sight are much keener than their own? If not, it should.

By your logic, prove you are correct beyond any reasonable doubt without being there yourself. Were you there to prove anything against others? If not, your and their conclusion is not very logical, are they? Particularly, when all you and they made are presumptions and nothing more.

reply to post by OrionStars


Im not arguing the fact that that explosions were heard. Im arguing the fact that those explosion directly correlates to an CD type of explosions, when you can see videos that disprove that.

Now if you can get me one witness that says that he saw explosives, wires, thermite thats another story. Another thing that makes me think that CD was not used is the fact that no one says they smell explosive residue, I dont know how many people knows was the smell after TNT is used, but is a very distinctive smell, but what I do found is a lot of quotes from firefighters and people who work on the Towers saying that they smell jet fuel.

Again explosions yes! But how you make that leap from explosions to directly correlate them to CD is beyond me.


[edit on 22-1-2008 by Bunch]

Once again, Killtown's legacy raises its head on ATS...so lets take a look at some of the 250 "smoking guns"

June 2001 - Attorney General John Ashcroft stops flying commercial aircrafts three months before 9/11.

Nope, wrong answer. His own words in front of the 9/11 Commission

ASHCROFT: My wife traveled to Germany and back in August. My wife and I traveled to Washington, D.C., on the 3rd of September before the 17th -- before the 11th attack on commercial aircraft.

Granted some of you wont accept the 9/11 Comm. Report, so there is this in regards to Farenheit 9/11.....

An earlier version of the film... included a reference to a widely circulated charge, broadcast by CBS News in July 2001, that Mr. Ashcroft had received warning of threats and stopped flying on commercial airlines. Tia Lessin, supervising producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the reference to the CBS report was cut after Mr. Moore's fact-checking team found evidence that Mr. Ashcroft had flown commercially at least twice that summer

www.nytimes.com...

Hmmm.....lets look at another one....

September 4, 2001 - Zim-American Israeli Shipping Co., partially owned by the Israeli government, moves out of the 16th floor of the WTC.

On further review...

their rental lease contract with the Port Authority expired on September 1. Still, Zim Israel had kept a small office behind in the World Trade Center, an office which consisted of their computer shipping tracking equipment. All of the computers were destroyed in the 9/11 attack and Zim's operations were actually down for a short period. Why would Israel have opened their merchant marine fleet to such vulnerability?

www.israelnewsagency.com...

Of course that last cite will bring out the "Israel knew about it claims..." But if that was true, why did nobody bother to tell one of the other Israeli companies with an office there?

Sigal Srur, ClearForest's director of human resources, said that four or five of the company's 18 workers were in the building when it was hit. "They got out at the last minute, and two who were lightly injured with scrapes have already been discharged from the hospital," she said from the company's Or Yehuda R&D offices.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

Well, that one doesnt look too smoking either....lets try another.....

September 10, 2001 - A group of top Pentagon officials cancel their travel plans for the next morning because of security concerns.

Hmm...possible I guess...however to date, the ONLY verifiable travel advisory that was distributed at the Pentagon...and throughout the federal government was....

The warning dealt primarily with military bases in Japan and Korea.

www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2001/09/14/MN92245.DTL&type=printable

Well, lets try another one shall we?

9/11 - Before the Pentagon was hit, Pentagon medic Matt Rosenberg was studying a new MASCAL emergency disaster plan which is based on the unlikely scenario of an airplane crashing into the Pentagon.

Unlikely? Okay, those of you who like to look things up, search "Air Florida Flight 90" THEN come back to mention just how unlikely it would be for an airliner to crash into the Pentagon. Those of you, who dont research....Air Florida Flight 90, took off from what was then Washington National Airport, leaving from the runway that almost points straight at the Pentagon, and then crashed into the 14st Bridge, a stone's throw from the Pentagon.

Killtown not looking so hot, so far.....

January 25, 2001 - Frank A. De Martini, Manager of WTC Construction and Project Management, says in a documentary, World Trade Center - A Modern Marvel, that the WTC twin towers were designed to withstand a crash from a fully loaded Boeing 707, the largest aircraft at the time, and believes it could sustain multiple hits from jetliners, comparing it to poking a pencil through mosquito netting

Cant help but to say it again, the experts declared the Titanic unsinkable as well.......hmmm...

Of course, some of Mr. De Martini's last words, as he was trying to check the impact site in one tower, were reportedly him requesting that they get structural engineers to look at it because he believed there was a serious danger of collapse........

July 2001 - Larry Silverstein, owner of the WTC 7, signs a 99-year lease for the rest of the WTC just six weeks before the attacks.

Talk about BAD timing.......

September 6, 2001 - A two week heightened security alert at the WTC is lifted and bomb-sniffing dogs there were abruptly removed

Key word here, "heightened" the bomb sniffing dogs that were removed were the EXTRA ones. The dogs normally stationed there, were there on 9/11. google search Sirius......K-9 Officer killed in the collapse.....

9/11 - In an ABC live broadcast with Peter Jennings, Mayor Rudy Giuliani says he was across the street from the WTC 7 in their make-shift command center and then says he was told the WTC was "going to collapse."

And the possible collapse was being discussed on news channels as well....this means what exactly? In addition, NYPD helo pilots were reporting that they could see buckling occuring in the South Tower before it collapsed.....

October 19, 2004 - A fire in a 56-story Venezuelan skyscraper spreads over 26 floors and burns for over 17 hours, but does not collapse.

Somehow, I dont recall an airliner crashing into that skyscraper.........

Well theres a few of Killtruth's assertations, demolished....

reply to post by Bunch


People seem to be reading in a lot more to what eye and ear witnesses stated than what they actually stated or even implied. They said they heard and felt explosions. They did not attribute them to any cause or location. They only stated where they were when they heard and felt them. They did not say they were located where they could see them.

Again, nothing but presumption on the part of those falsely convinced they proved anything false related to eye and ear witnesses.

So who of those you contend, but did not name, stated anythiing about controlled demolitions? I have not seen any witnesses state they knew it was controlled demolitions. Not on or immediately following 9/11/2001 they did not.

Anything can sound like an explosion. But controlled demolitions to implode do not have a loud sound of explosion to them. What does is the steel being dropped at 45 degree angle cut when enough cutter charges start releasing enough of the symmetrically cutter charged supports. The cutter charges sound like loud snaps not explosions.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Bunch

 

The cutter charges sound like loud snaps not explosions.

So whats your point that they heard snaps or exlposions? Because they say explosions not snaps, what about the any sort of smell of explosive residue, even a firecracker will leave that smell!

Can you point me to the direction of a soundless, odorless explosive device?

BTW cutter charges dont said like explosions I agree, but they are loud as hell. Especially when a lot of them are used.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by Bunch]

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Bunch

 

The cutter charges sound like loud snaps not explosions.

So whats your point that they heard snaps or exlposions? Because they say explosions not snaps, what about the any sort of smell of explosive residue, even a firecracker will leave that smell!

Can you point me to the direction of a soundless, odorless explosive device?

reply to post by Bunch


Because none said anything about hearing snapping sounds. They said said explosive sounds as in explosions taking place they heard and felt.

Why do you consistently twist the meaning and intent of your opponents' words? You just did that to me again. You do that every time an opponent soundly refutes your presumptions.

reply to post by OrionStars


First of all, I dont consider you my opponent, thats not what I come here for, maybe you do but I dont.

My question is what your point? Were cutter charge used? Or some other sort of explosive? I have seen videos of cutter charges being used in CD and I agree with you that they dont sound like explosions they sound like snaps. Eyewitnesses report hearing explosions not snaps, so that leaves me to believe that they might have felt explosions from many of the ignitable sources that you could find in a building like the WTC, thats as clear as I can put it for you.

Now you appear to have lost me somewhere, I dont know why, so let me be as clear as possible and Im going back to my original point, explosions dont directly correlate to Control Demolition explosion, give me some solid evidence that they do and I will change my position.

And where is the smell of explosive residue? No eyewitness has been cited for that one.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


I am going to pick only two of your arguments and refute them. That will cast enough doubt on the lack of credibility of the rest of your arguments, that you will have to put more effort into valid substantiation, and less into pontificating because it is so much easier.

Killtown is correct. Ashcroft did stop using commercial jetliners for transportation, and went via far more expensive private charter at taxpayer expense. CBS reported 47 days prior to September 11, 2001, that Ashcroft had already been engaging in that practice.

www.attytood.com...

"How John Ashcroft saved his own sorry rear end, and not the lives of 2,973 people who died on 9/11

Just over three years ago, when such things were not in vogue, we wrote an article about the 20 unanwered questions of 9/11. It's sad, but three years later, many of them are still unanswered -- but at least we are finally getting some info. Here's one of those questions we asked on Sept. 11, 2003:

2. Why did Attorney General John Ashcroft and some Pentagon officials cancel commercial-airline trips before Sept. 11?

On July 26, 2001 - 47 days before the Sept. 11 attacks - CBS News reported that Ashcroft was flying expensive charters rather than commercial flights because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. CBS said, "Ashcroft has been advised to travel only by private jet for the remainder of his term." Newsweek later reported that on Sept. 10, 2001, "a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

Did either Ashcroft or the Pentagon have advance information about a 9/11-style attack and, if so, why wasn't this shared with the American public?

Tonight, it looks like we can answer the first half of this one.

Yes.

As pointed out earlier today by Christy Hardin Smith at Firedoglake, Ashcroft was in on the July 2001 warnings of a pending attack by top CIA officials, the same one that was given to then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, who then tried to lie and say the meeting never happened.

Check out this report from the News Service Formerly Known as Knight Ridder:

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft received the same CIA briefing about an imminent al-Qaida strike on an American target that was given to the White House two months before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The State Department's disclosure Monday that the pair was briefed within a week after then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice was told about the threat on July 10, 2001, raised new questions about what the Bush administration did in response, and about why so many officials have claimed they never received or don't remember the warning."

As for the steel framed building in Venezuela, the comparison to the erroneous "official PM" report is valid. Eagar did not blame any planes for abnormally dropping both twin towers into their own footprints. He falsely blamed jet fuel fire in less than two hours for doing that. Killtown used the sound analogy of a steel framed building in Venezuela engulfed in fire and still standing after 17 hours.

Your side cannot seem to stop the autonomic drive to twist the intent and meaning of your oppostion, while at the same time that drive causes your side to always lose their own arguments.

reply to post by Bunch


Whether you consider it that way or not, when you argue against someone else, that someone else becomes your opponent by inference/connotation, when not formally denoted by the orally spoken or written word. When people agree, they are on the same side of argument. When they disagree, they are on opposition side of argument.

reply to post by Bunch


I does not matter what I think. That was not your argument. Your argument was concerning what witneeses heard and saw per Killtown's accounting. Don't you remember what your own points of opinionated argument were? It has not been that long ago you made your points of opinionated argument.