9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

reply to post by Cuhail


Here is my problem with that bit of "evidence".
How do you know that part wasn't part of the building as it was?
That it wasn't something cut like that at construction?
And fell there?
Or as one other poster said was cut then by a work crew working at the site when the picture was taken.
It could even have been the location of a joint where two pieces of steel were joined and obviously the other part was taken away in the tumble of the collapse.
That site was a tangled mess. Which stands to reason.
Now I am not attacking you or really anyone else.
But that evidence is open to intereptation.

If you are inclined to believe it was cut during a controlled demolition of the WTC you are going to say that is the only way it could be like that.
Because it feeds your theories nicely. Which is of course human nature.
And not something I am attacking about you but is simple human nature.
We tend to reject anything that doesn't fit into how we want to see things.
Or look at something just one way if its possible to interept it in a favorable light.

And I have yet to see anything I can say its incontrivertable and says one thing and NOTHING else.
I know, I try hard to look at everything from every angle.
Not just the angles I find most appealing.
Which is what I see happening too much.
Sure it sounds simular to "hiding" especially when you think 100% your right and there can be no honest argument or it could be simply another way of viewing it? That may equally be plausable?


[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Again, the truth movement has nothing to do with truth or 9-11.

Well thats where you are wrong. I have spent years reseraching 9/11 trying to find the truth of what happened that day.

I have filed FOIA requests with the following agencies.

FBI
NTSB
FAA
NIST
NSA (internal request)

I also have e-mailed companies that were actually at ground zero and asked questions.

What have you or the people that believe the official story done to find out what really happened that day ?

Originally posted by Midav
Popular Mechanics has a great article on debunking the 9-11 myth.

Well sorry but Popular Mecahincs itself has been debunked many times.

Also Popular Mecahanics is not a legit or legal investigating agency for 9/11.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Simple question really. No disrespect meant.
And we are?

reply to post by Midav


Just like the JFK assassination over 40 years later.

Perhaps you can provide a better explanation by actually using 9/11 as an example rather than whether 1 or 4 million Germans died? The molten steel found under WCT7 would be a good start. Or any information about WTC7 would probably also do, since it has been over 6 years and NIST still can’t explain the collapse.

We have been lied to for many many years yet are still no closer to exposing the truth. Those are the facts and people need to deal with it – preferably before the NWO arrives (as called for by Bush 41, Bush 43, Clinton, Gordon Brown, Putin, Sarkozy etc, etc. Sorry forgot David Ray Griffin who is a self-confessed globalist)

At the very least, people in positions of power were utterly incompetent and need to be exposed. Why no firings, only promotions? There were multiple warnings, multiple ‘cock-ups’ and since then there has been numerous contradictions in the official story. Something is certainly fishy and it appears as if few people around here even care.

Even Ron Paul believes there needs to be a new investigation into 9/11 after he read the 9/11 Commission Report. Obviously there are anomalies and errors that need to be addressed.

Just ‘cause we’ve been going around in circles doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact that there has been a cover-up of some description – unless there is evidence to the contrary?.

WMD anyone???

reply to post by cams


To quote what I said earlier.

And I have yet to see anything I can say its incontrivertable and says one thing and NOTHING else.
I know, I try hard to look at everything from every angle.
Not just the angles I find most appealing.
Which is what I see happening too much.
Sure it sounds simular to "hiding" especially when you think 100% your right and there can be no honest argument or it could be simply another way of viewing it? That may equally be plausable?

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Simple question really. No disrespect meant.
And we are?

I was just stating that most people who believe the official story have not done any real reserch to find out what happened that day, if they had they would see a lot of information is missing or left out of the official story.

I have a background in aviation and law enforcement.

I am a analyst for the government and have access to very good resources.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Well and good to claim that but credentials?
Proof?
After all I wouldn't let a man telling me he's a doctor cut me open without some sort of very good proof.
Kind of like that.
And read my post above. Its the one up top.
And PLEASE understand I am not attacking you.
Merely questioning which is the only way I will be convinced is if I am allowed questions.
And the answer to those questions line up in a way simular to the way they lined up for you.
I see a great many many forked roads being taken just one way and being told there is no fork.
Which they haven't.
After all isn't that your gripe with those that accept the "official story"?
That they ask no questions?



[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant


Regarding the molten steel found in the rubble pile:

What about the thousands of liters of water that was doused on the pile for weeks where molten steel was found.

'Sauna' effect??

If so why on earth did they continue to douse water on the fires if, realistically they were just causing the 'oven' to get hotter anyway.

Perhaps they need to revise their procedures...




[edit on 29-1-2008 by cams]

reply to post by cams


Funny thing about water.
It evaporates.
You know turns into a gas?
It wouldn't just automatically cool molten steel bury insulated pile.
And in that pile I would imagine the metal was well insulated.
Not also to forget that the heat from the molten steel would in turn heat up the pile.
And the pile could protect the molten steel from sustained contact with the water. By simple fact of being sooo hot and by the simple fact of shielding it.

And please dispense with the condescending remarks.
I am not any less intelligent than you are.



[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Well and good to claim that but credentials?
Proof?

Yes i have credentials and proof.

No, my main beef is people just believing what they are told and not doing any research to find out if thats what really happened.

The people that really believe the official story should be able to post evidence to support the official story. But most of them cannot and will come up with the excuse that they do not have to post evidence its up to the people that do not believe the official story to come up with evidence, or they just repeat what the media has told them or what on the some of the interent sites.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Why should they?
Any sort of disagreement is buried in condescending remarks and bickering.
Implied insults to the disagreers mental capacity?
Take a good look at this thread alone and tell me why anyone would even want to bother.
Well besides myself and a few others.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Yes i have credentials and proof.

What are they?
And isn't that what ANYONE accepting your theories is doing exactly?
You claim to be an expert not everyone cannot be experts.
That is a simple given.
I have done research and sorry I still don't see anything except as I stated above in that top post.
And for that I get my intelligence and multiple other things attacked in sooo many condescending remarks it isn't even funny.

Need I cut and paste them all?
It would take me some time to dig them all up though and I have got to go to bed fairly soon.
Is ALOT of cut and pasting.


[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
Why should they?
Any sort of disagreement is buried in condescending remarks and bickering.

Hey i have been insulted and called names on several foums just becasue i do not believe the official stoy.

So if anything its the people who believe the official story that can be more insulting and condescending.

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Because your on that side you see things through a "truther's" eyes.
I am inclined to believe it's BAD on BOTH SIDES.
Neither side is willing to accept or respect.

reply to post by OrionStars



There was more damage than just a 16-18 foot hole. If you've really looked into it, you should know this...
There are also many aircraft parts, light-poles, witnesses etc to take into account also

So what was it? A bunker busting missile that partially exploded inside and then blew up again as it made it's way through he exit hole?

If it wasn't a missile then where are all the witnesses coming forward to claim it wasn't a 757?

Same could be said about Hologram theories and CGI. It's strange how no good CGI was apparently developed for the Pentagon attack? Unless they are yet to release it?
Ie: if it was a hologram or CGI then you'd think the same video techniques would have been used at the Pentagon as well.

Originally posted by WraothAscendant
What are they?

Need I cut and paste them all?
It would take me some time to dig them all up though and I have got to go to bed fairly soon.
Is ALOT of cut and pasting.

I can post militay transcripts and transcrpts from National Cryptologic School at NSA.

If i cut and paste the insults and names i have been called it would take several pages on here.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by ULTIMA1]

And really I reject the idea of sides to begin with.
It like a great many things is a spectrum.
But there is a benefit for people to think of it as a black and white issue rather than what most things are. A spectrum.

reply to post by ULTIMA1

If i cut and paste the insults and names i have been called it would take several pages on here.

Same here.
But does it give you a right to do it to me or you to me?
Like I said bad on BOTH supposed sides.

Oh and photocopies (otherwords scans of original documents) please.



[edit on 29-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant



I'm sure you've mentioned it, but where exactly do you stand? Do you believe that there should be an independent investigation into 9/11 or not?

Thanks