It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Psychology101 to Psychology911

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Claiming we've all been magically created out of a clod of dirt by some invisible guy is as preposterous as claiming hordes of secret agents planted explosives in a heavily occupied building without anyone noticing.
[edit on 12-5-2009 by GoodOlDave]

Lets examine this issue a bit. "hordes of secret agents planted explosives is a play on the "Vast conspiracy" I've already debunked.


Terror Links In Tenn. Mystery? MEMPHIS, Tenn., Feb. 16, 2002-CBS News
One of the men, authorities say, drove from New York to Memphis on Sept. 11 - the day of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center.

And one of them, at the time of his arrest, was carrying in his wallet a pass to the trade center dated Sept. 5. A few months ago, the contets of Sakher Hammad's wallet would have seemed innocuous: Two video rental cards; two major credit cards; a card designating him a “charter member” of Team Ford Racing; a New York plumber's business card.

[bold]And a pass, dated 09/05/01 that gave him access to the lower basement of One World Trade Center. [/bold]

Shown a photocopy, New York City Port Authority officials said the pass looked authentic, but they couldn't be certain without seeing the original.

[bold]Authorities say Sakher Hammad told them he is plumber, and that he and his cousin were in the tower to work on the sprinkler system.
New York authorities have no record of a plumber's license for either cousin.[/bold]

A business card in Sakher Hammad's wallet was for a Magic Plumbing & Heating Inc. in Brooklyn. It advertises “custom kitchens, bathrooms, water heaters, boilers, repiping” - generally residential in nature. A call to the business produced only a full voice-mailbox for someone named “Rocky.” Using a reverse telephone directory, the AP found a list of phone numbers at the company's street address, all of them for individuals, among them Sakher Hammad.

I encourage you to read the whole article so no cherry picking.

1. So in this instance a Middle-Eastern man trying to obtain a fake driver license and is being investigated for the murder of a DMV employee who was helping the man and several of his "cousins" both in the present and others in the past.

2. He claims to be a plumber working on the sprinkler system along with his cousin in the WTC prior to 9/11. The plumbing company appears to be a front. They work on primarily residential services, but the company's phone numbers go to individuals with a full voice mail box. The Port Authority has no records of the plumbing companies working in the towers or it's employees. There is no plumbing license for this man anywhere. Private companies, according to the Port Authority, could have hired the service, but all records were destroyed. A private company is a possible source for the fake WTC pass to allow access into the tower with a plumbing truck. Heightened security is removed from the WTC complex. I've seen no mention of a bomb sniffing dog at the WTC: 1 on 9/11. Bomb in the basement?

3. He has a pass dated 9/5/01 allowing him access to basement levels of WTC 1. The exact location of a huge basement explosion that occurred on 9/11 that reminded survivors of the 1993 attack, caused cave-ins, and blew up parking garages,etc. The Port Authority can not verify the authenticity of the pass. It could be a forgery, just like the drivers license he was trying to obtain. Based upon the above information, it most likely is. This man should have been detained as a suspect in the 9/11 attacks.

Summary: I've just offered a plausible scenario of individuals that could have been involved in planting explosives within the towers. Therefore, it doesn't take "hordes of secret agents" planting explosives as you suggest.
You offer a debunking talking point, and I offer a plausible factual scenario that should have been investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Was it?
Take a guess.



[edit on 13-5-2009 by Swing Dangler]




posted on May, 13 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Dave, if you believe the government lies, why do you accept the official story without critical analysis? When the 9/11 Commission itself states it was lied to and when Senator Dayton states NORAD lied to the American public, why do you then accept those lies without examining the context of those lies and their implications?


Once again you put words in my mouth to placate your conspiracy dogma. By all accounts, these "lies" you're referring to wasn't any coverup of a conspiracy. It was a coverup to downplay the gross mishandling of the situation. From Sen. Dayton's own statement, he declared NORAD officials "lied to the American people to create a false impression of competence". This only supports MY assertion that the gov't would be too incompetent to pull off any such plot successfully, and only discredits your claim there was some super organization that pulled off the most insanely complex conspiracy with the sheer perfection of coordination that rivals a supernatural act.

You claim I'm the one who refuses to look at the context. From where I'm sitting, it's YOU who is refusing to look at the context becuase you're falsely misquoting Dayton to makie it look out like he wants to expose some secret conspiracy when all he wants to do is expose the govt's incompetence. How do you explain this?



9/11 Commission Lie: Mohammad Atta was a fundamentalist Muslim. Daniel Hopsickler's investigation and interviews with numerous witnesses prove otherwise.


The information that Atta was a fundamentalist didn't come from the US. It came from the Germans, who reported via his former coworkers that Atta would break off from work and pray toward Mecca several times a day, which certainly supports the case that he was a fundamentalist. Are you saying the Germans are in on the supposedly secret conspiracy, as well?

Regardless, he was by everyone's definition a sociopath (his own girlfriend said he dismembered her kittens!), so your bickering over what a sociopath should or shouldn't have been properly doing in his other endeavors is being rather unrealistic, don't you think?


Let me ask you this, Dave. Why do you you accept the official narrative of 9/11 considering the vast amount of lies, omissions, and distortions that it has been proven to contain?


Mostly because all the so-called "proof" I've seen that the official narrative has "lies, distortions, and omissions" are themselves lies, distortions and omissions. You've all but admitted you're getting your information about the "lies, omissions, and distortions" from Davin Griffin's book of the same name, and his list IS entirely rubbish. His claims of "lies and distortions" are either based entirely on unsubstanciated claims or are themselves lies and distortions (I.E."No arab names were on the passenger manifests", "the towers all fell in their own footprints", "the fires in WTC 7 were small", etc) , and his claims of omissions are ridiculous things the commission was never set up to investigate to begin with(I.E. "why Bush stayed at the elementary school as long as he did", "why the south tower fell first despite it being hit second", "How Northwoods may have been related", etc). I can give you as many more examples of this that you desire.

You know, your simply posting links you found out on the internet somewhere in support of *other* links you found on the internet is not exactly disproving my statement that the truthers are lacking in independent thought. What say you tell me IN YOUR OWN WORDS why you believe it's false, rather than simply robotically repeating what your conspiracy web sites are spoon feeding you?

I'll give you your first homework assignment- According to the report, NYPD helicopters flying eye level to the impact areas in the towers reported the support girders in the structure were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were about to collapse, and about a half hour later, they did. IN YOUR OWN WORDS, how is this a lie, exactly?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Dave, here is where you agreed that the government lies:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You state that you disagree that the government never lies. Which means you agree that the government DOES lie.

How is that putting words into your mouth?



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Summary: I've just offered a plausible scenario of individuals that could have been involved in planting explosives within the towers. Therefore, it doesn't take "hordes of secret agents" planting explosives as you suggest.
You offer a debunking talking point, and I offer a plausible factual scenario that should have been investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Was it?
Take a guess.


Good Grief, you can't be serious. First of all, those columns were *huge*, like 3 feet x 4 feet with 6 inch thickness. They weren't tin cans, they were battleship armor. It would take at *least* sixty pounds of explosives (15 pounds per side) to breach it, and I know even that will be on the low side. Given there were 49 columns per floor, and 110 floors, it would take over 160 TONS of explosives to bring just ONE tower down. It would have taken him ten years to rig each tower up, and you're honestly claiming just one or two guys did all that? This is really what you're claiming?

Second of all, noone could just go into the WTC and wander around on their own for no reason. Ever since the 1993 attack security was really clampign down, so the only way such agents could even get into the building was if the NYPA authorized them to come in. All work was monitored by NYPA and these secret agents would have been caught as soon as they started dragging in weird equipment and entering areas they didn't need to be in.

Third, the building had their own army of inspectors, custodians, engineers, etc and they'd have access to all the places where these explosives would have had to be, and there'd be no way, NO WAY, these demolitions could have been planted without their being discovered almost immediately. All it would take is one inspector looking for rust spots to notice something was amiss. We know they didn't becuase William Rodriguez was a custodian that survived, and not even he saw anything amiss.

Fourth, that doesn't even remotely begin to explain all the *other* conspiracies being thrown around by the truthers I.E. missiles at the Pentagon, manufactured photos and evidence, legions of disinformation agents at NIST, FEMA,MIT, etc etc etc. You're not talking about two or three people. You're talkign about two or three HUNDRED THOUSAND people who either had direct or indirect participation, or had critical knowledge of the operation, from the truck drivers bringing the explosives to the WTC to the guy painting the pentagon cruise missile in AA colors to trick eyewitnesses to the bulldozer operator digging out the fake crash site in Shanksville to the double agent at NORAD deliberately sending fighters in the wrong direction. There'd be more people involved in this operation than there was in all of Watergate and Iran-Contra, and they couldn't keep those conspiracies secret, either.

If this is what you consider to be a "plausible factual scenario" then keep looking, becuase this isn't even remotely resembling anything plausible or factual. Allow me to repeat this so that it finally sinks in- you can NOT plant controlled demolitions in a heavily occupied building without any of the occupants noticing. Period.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
You state that you disagree that the government never lies. Which means you agree that the government DOES lie.

How is that putting words into your mouth?


Yes it IS putting words in my mouth. Since you are consistently getting my position wrong, allow me to post it now- I believe that claiming the gov't always tells us the truth is just as naive and uninformed as saying the gov't always lies to us.

The gov't will always tell us whatever makes the gov't look good, whether it happens to be a lie or the truth. Thus, explaining the details of a attack by a bunch of terrorists can be the truth becuase it emphasizes that we're the victim, while a coverup to hide gov't bungling and incompetence during the attack can be a lie becuase revealing it makes us look like idiots.

You can't simply declare two plus two can't equal four simply becuase the gov't told us that. You have to take each story as they come.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
First of all, those columns were *huge*, like 3 feet x 4 feet with 6 inch thickness.


Maybe the core columns at the base had dimensions like that, but certainly not all of them. I don't think conventional explosives were used, I'm not sure what the consensus here is but I know there are many people in agreement there. There was steel recovered that had holes eaten through it by a eutectic reaction similar to thermite, and even more similar to "thermate."


Second of all, noone could just go into the WTC and wander around on their own for no reason. Ever since the 1993 attack security was really clampign down, so the only way such agents could even get into the building was if the NYPA authorized them to come in.


What's so hard to believe about that? It would actually be very easy to bring things into the building if the security team allowed clearance. Who oversees the WTC security team? If you look it up, for a large number of years it was Stratesec, the company formerly known as Securacom, which is infamous for a number of famous security breaches. It's also famous for once having G.W. Bush's cousin on its board of directors. Now, if the security team weren't "in on it," I agree it would be very difficult. But I really do think the security must have been very corrupt, based on how the buildings collapsing necessitating additional energy sources of some kind.


You're not talking about two or three people. You're talkign about two or three HUNDRED THOUSAND people who either had direct or indirect participation, or had critical knowledge of the operation, from the truck drivers bringing the explosives to the WTC to the guy painting the pentagon cruise missile in AA colors to trick eyewitnesses to the bulldozer operator digging out the fake crash site in Shanksville to the double agent at NORAD deliberately sending fighters in the wrong direction.


All I'm going to ask is, why would you tell the bulldozer operator the entire operation?

NORAD operators were confused because wargames were scheduled for that day by someone. That one person could have been solely responsible for the confusion of the entire agency, operators asking, "Is this real-world or exercise?" etc



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Second of all, noone could just go into the WTC and wander around on their own for no reason. Ever since the 1993 attack security was really clampign down, so the only way such agents could even get into the building was if the NYPA authorized them to come in.


More information on how easy it is when you have the right credentials:
www.nytimes.com...

Outstanding quote:
"an investigator said yesterday that it appeared all three entered through the front door, with at least two of the men flashing fake identification cards to the guards patrolling there."

More information about it:
www.nytimes.com...

Outstanding quote from that one:
"I'm not shocked that this happened because there are plenty of days when you can wave an ID in front of them and they just let you in,'' he said. ''Often they are talking to each other and don't even look. You can give them anything."

And even more information:
en.wikipedia.org...

Outstanding quote from that one:
"Salvatore explained to Ralph that following the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, there was camera surveillance of almost everywhere inside the World Trade Centers, inside garages and even in elevators. Also, all employees had to wear ID tags when operating within the building. This obviously posed a problem, after a conversation between Salvatore and Ralph, the persuasive Ralph cajoled Salvatore into handing over an ID badge only issued to trusted employees, such as himself."

I'm sure if a low life mafia thug could think of it, I'm sure some Middle Eastern Terrorists, the bright boys at the CIA, the inquisitive folks at the FBI, or the local Girl Scout troop could, too.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
You state that you disagree that the government never lies. Which means you agree that the government DOES lie. How is that putting words into your mouth?
Yes it IS putting words in my mouth. Since you are consistently getting my position wrong, allow me to post it now- I believe that claiming the gov't always tells us the truth is just as naive and uninformed as saying the gov't always lies to us.
The gov't will always tell us whatever makes the gov't look good, whether it happens to be a lie or the truth. Thus, explaining the details of a attack by a bunch of terrorists can be the truth becuase it emphasizes that we're the victim, while a coverup to hide gov't bungling and incompetence during the attack can be a lie becuase revealing it makes us look like idiots.
You can't simply declare two plus two can't equal four simply becuase the gov't told us that. You have to take each story as they come.




I believe that claiming the gov't always tells us the truth is just as naive and uninformed as saying the gov't always lies to us.

I couldn't agree with you more!
Geez, Dave your doing it again....using the Government is a misnomer. Individuals within the Government. How many times do we have to cover that?

Two, you claimed I put words into your mouth. I didn't.
So you agree that individuals within the Government lie to the people, correct? It appears that you do. Something else we can agree on.

Now can you think of anyone within the Government that lied to the American people to cover up a conspiracy?
President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. He claimed that North Vietnam attacked us first. That was a lie based upon the OPLAN-34A strikes that provoked N. Vietnam to attack us. LBJ on Tape

This lie wasn't to make us "look" good to the world, this lie was told to us justify the Vietnam War! This was conspiracy fact that wouldn't be revealed to the world until the tapes were declassified.

Or how about Inside The White House That Was Built By Lies as read in Time Magazine

Or the fact that the Nixon lied to the American public about expanding the war in Vietnam to its neighbor Cambodia.

Now with those historical references in mind, your must agree that your statement when changed to the following, "Thus, explaining the details of a attack by a bunch of terrorists can be a lie because it emphasizes that we're the alleged victim, while covering up the complicity of (individuals within the) gov't because they are intelligent and competent and did so to advance foreign policy agendas. Change the place, people, time, and methods and we just described the origins of the Vietnam conflict.

I could go on but I won't. So please don't patronize us by stating the government only lies to make itself look good. I've will refer you to William Bloom's Killing Hope for even more examples. You refuse to educate yourself Dave. I've been studying foreign policy and covert operations for 25 years so please take my advice and educate yourself.

By taking "each story as they come" you've essentially disconnected events and placed them into their own individual folder. By doing so you fail to study and observe the links between those events over time. As a result, history to you is simply a series of random events that are unconnected, unrelated, and non-conspiratorial. History IS a connection of events with vast interconnected relationships incorporating all faucets of society. That's not to say all events are conspiratorial, of course. Will you accuse me of putting words into your mouth? Maybe, but that is my opinion of your psychology...to get back to the thread's title.



posted on May, 13 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Summary: I've just offered a plausible scenario of individuals that could have been involved in planting explosives within the towers. Therefore, it doesn't take "hordes of secret agents" planting explosives as you suggest.
You offer a debunking talking point, and I offer a plausible factual scenario that should have been investigated by the 9/11 Commission. Was it?
Take a guess.


Good Grief, you can't be serious. First of all, those columns were *huge*, like 3 feet x 4 feet with 6 inch thickness. They weren't tin cans, they were battleship armor. It would take at *least* sixty pounds of explosives (15 pounds per side) to breach it, and I know even that will be on the low side. Given there were 49 columns per floor, and 110 floors, it would take over 160 TONS of explosives to bring just ONE tower down. It would have taken him ten years to rig each tower up, and you're honestly claiming just one or two guys did all that? This is really what you're claiming?


I've given you a plausible example of how a suspect could have entered the building, specifically WTC:1 basement levels using a forged pass, perhaps even using a plumbing truck to get into the basement levels.

Two, I never said bombs were what brought the building down only their use. I apologize for making you assume that in my comment.
Your jumping to conclusions and offering a straw man. I'm stating a basement attack using an explosive device did take place and the individual listed above is suspect based upon the evidence. He or others like him could have rigged key structural areas within the towers themselves.
And there is the possibility that devices, not necessarily "tnt", could have been used in the destruction of the building and the evidence points to this.

I did not mention anything about the core columns in the basement or in the towers. I will reference witness observations and Port Authority Transcripts. You can read The Case For Explosives in the Basement of WTC: North Tower.

Finally, your entire point could be supported with forensic chemical tests to scientifically PROVE no explosives were used in the destruction of the building.

Dave, NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY tested the remains for explosive residue.
Therefore, you can never say, explosives were not used. Considering the uniqueness of collapse, it should have been the first line of investigation.
Oh, this isn't a conspiracy website, just in case you want to commit the argument fallacy of style over substance. "Its conspiracy website!" but it links to factual information.
Fire Engineering-Investigation Half Baked Farce


Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members- described by one close source as a "tourist trip"-no one's checking the evidence for anything.

On the other hand, chemical tests have been done that point to something other than gravity causing the collapse. Physical evidence in the form of melted swiss cheese like holes in steel have been found and ignored. See FEMA.
Your getting caught up in the method. I showed you the method is indeed possible and plausible. Yet you change the focus to the amount of explosives needed? Your point fails while mine is based upon facts.

The point remains a valid line of investigation for suspects and methods involved in the 9/11 attack.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe the core columns at the base had dimensions like that, but certainly not all of them. I don't think conventional explosives were used, I'm not sure what the consensus here is but I know there are many people in agreement there. There was steel recovered that had holes eaten through it by a eutectic reaction similar to thermite, and even more similar to "thermate."


The statement still doesn't contradict the fact that it's impossible to rig an occupied building with demolitions without anyone noticing. It's like saying a woman won't suspect her husband is cheating on her when he stays out late as long as it's mystery perfume on him and not mystery lipstick.



What's so hard to believe about that? It would actually be very easy to bring things into the building if the security team allowed clearance. Who oversees the WTC security team? If you look it up, for a large number of years it was Stratesec, the company formerly known as Securacom, which is infamous for a number of famous security breaches. It's also famous for once having G.W. Bush's cousin on its board of directors. Now, if the security team weren't "in on it," I agree it would be very difficult. But I really do think the security must have been very corrupt, based on how the buildings collapsing necessitating additional energy sources of some kind.


Then you're only admitting it had to have been more than a handful of guys to pull off, since it would necessarily mean the NYPA security had to have been in on it too. It also means that, unless you're implying Marvin Bush planted the explosives himself, all the layers of management between him and the WTC security had to have been in on it, too. It ALSO means that the additional maintenance crews in a position to discover the explosives I.E. custodians like William Rodriguez likewise had to be in on it. Oh, and add all the cleanup crews and authorities who were picking up the suspicious looking steel from ground zero. That brings it to a couple thousand people right there, and you're STILL not done implicating people.

Besides, it is insultive and disgusting to falsely accuse the personnel in the WTC as being secret accomplices to murder simply becuase you want these conspiracy stories to be true. It also opens you up to some pretty hard core lawsuits, too. I shouldn't have to tell you that.


All I'm going to ask is, why would you tell the bulldozer operator the entire operation?


He would necessarily need to be a collaborator, otherwise, when they announce a plane crashed supposedly on the very exact spot where he dug that hole, he's going to think, "hey, something isn't right here", he'll open his mouth to the wrong people, and the whole plan will begin to unravel. The only other option would be to bump him off, in which case there'd have to be the greatest collection of simultaneous mass murders in US history to silence all the other unthinking witnesses from the truck drivers that brought the explosives to the WTC to the deer hunters who stumbled across the pre-dug hole in Pennsylvania, and there's no way they could cover *that* up.


NORAD operators were confused because wargames were scheduled for that day by someone. That one person could have been solely responsible for the confusion of the entire agency, operators asking, "Is this real-world or exercise?" etc


In which case you're only AGREEING with me that the bulk of the events that occurred during 9/11 were due entirely to confusion and mismanagement, rather than any conscious secret conspiracy to murder people. Thank you.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11



The statement still doesn't contradict the fact that it's impossible to rig an occupied building with demolitions without anyone noticing. It's like saying a woman won't suspect her husband is cheating on her when he stays out late as long as it's mystery perfume on him and not mystery lipstick.

Impossible?? Based upon what knowledge do you make this statement, especially considering the scenario I proposed above?

Secondly, if you remember the comments of William Rodriquez to the 9/11 Commision investigator 9/11 Investigator Notes he stated security in the stairwells was lax and saw people in the stair wells having sex, smoking, and doing drugs.

How out of the ordinary would it be for an individual company to hire outside people to do work in the towers? IT WOULDN"T!

In fact the Port Authority said companies can hire outside work and often did. So the fact it is, it would be relatively easy to accomplish this task of rigging key structural points within the towers to assist gravity in the collapse.. You need to start thinking more like a competent terrorist instead of making excuses for the terrorists means and methods.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe the core columns at the base had dimensions like that, but certainly not all of them.


The statement still doesn't contradict the fact that it's impossible to rig an occupied building with demolitions without anyone noticing.


That doesn't sound much like a fact to me, so I'm going to go with standard procedure for this sort of thing and ask you to prove it.

It hardly matters if people notice. No one stops construction workers and interrogates them on what they're doing, except maybe security, but again, if security was breached then there is no problem whatsoever. Do you stop construction workers you see in public, or stand over their shoulder, or get up in their business in any way at all? How do you know they aren't setting explosives? What makes you so certain that THEY even know what they're actually doing (ie what if they are applying explosives in slurry form and think it's fireproofing)? And what makes you think NYC is going to be any different with so many millions of people all in their own world, doing their own thing from day to day and suspecting no different?


Then you're only admitting it had to have been more than a handful of guys to pull off, since it would necessarily mean the NYPA security had to have been in on it too.


Yes, some of them must have done something in relation to it for anyone to get in there but you probably assume every single officer had to have full working knowledge or something equally illogical. Imagine you are the one guy responsible for bringing stuff in the buildings, and you have connections and resources. There is nothing about what you need to do that requires you to tell everyone what is going on. I wouldn't be surprised if even such a person didn't know exactly what was going on. It's called "compartmentalization," or "need-to-know basis," and it's actually SOP for sensitive intelligence work, or anyone with common sense about how to do something and keep it quiet. The Mafia is another organization that's good about these kinds of things.


It ALSO means that the additional maintenance crews in a position to discover the explosives


That depends on what kind of "explosive" it was and where it was placed. If you'll notice, the latest papers are suggesting a highly engineered eutectic mixture applied to the surface of columns. FEMA found the exact same thing and analyzed and reported it in appendix C of their report, and the samples were melted and had holes in them, their structural integrity totally lost, and FEMA couldn't explain how it happened. No one is going to look at red "paint" on a column and suspect anything.




All I'm going to ask is, why would you tell the bulldozer operator the entire operation?


He would necessarily need to be a collaborator, otherwise, when they announce a plane crashed supposedly on the very exact spot where he dug that hole, he's going to think, "hey, something isn't right here"


So they'd do him the common courtesy of explaining the whole damned thing to him, which of course the agents there would all know themselves. Yeah, ok. If you don't believe they'd sooner lie to him then I think you are very naive. They would sooner just shoot the guy when he was done, imo. You can believe what you want, but no one would ever put YOU in a position to make these kinds of decisions, I can tell you that much right now. For the record I don't think any bulldozer operator was ever even used, I just let it go for the sake of argument.



That one person could have been solely responsible for the confusion of the entire agency, operators asking, "Is this real-world or exercise?" etc


In which case you're only AGREEING with me that the bulk of the events that occurred during 9/11 were due entirely to confusion and mismanagement


And I don't think it was a coincidence that the wargames were rescheduled for that day, when many of them were originally scheduled to happen in October. I think the confusion was intentional and the MEANS by which the smallest number of people would have been involved at NORAD. A FEMA exercise also in Manhattan scheduled for Sept. 12 had them in WTC7 setting up a command post on Sept. 10th. I don't think that's a coincidence either (and it seems more "psychic" than "confused" in this case, doesn't it?). But again, you are free to make what you will of those facts, they speak for themselves.

[edit on 14-5-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Geez, Dave your doing it again....using the Government is a misnomer. Individuals within the Government. How many times do we have to cover that?


...then if you accept the fact that "the gov't" is a collection of individuals attempting to work together for a common goal then your conspiracies end before they even begin. Once one evil, rotten guy atttempts to put his plan to murder innocent people into motion, some other individual will be horrified and put a stop to it. Then there are the people who'll have second thoughts after the fact and anonymously reveal the truth to the public like Deep Throat did to expose Watergate. Yet other individuals may go along with it, but becuase they're so clueless they'll make mistakes and cause problems that will only ensure the plan can never succeed.

How do you explain your contradiction?


Now can you think of anyone within the Government that lied to the American people to cover up a conspiracy?
President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. He claimed that North Vietnam attacked us first. That was a lie based upon the OPLAN-34A strikes that provoked N. Vietnam to attack us.


You cannot even remotely begin to compare the Vietnam war with 9/11. For one thing, it was the middle of the cold war and there was at a mutual public understanding and commitment to contain Communist expansion. The Communists acting like the Mongol horde all the time I.E. North Korea, Berlin wall, Stalin's collectivization, Mao's cultural revolution, etc., didn't really make them look good, either.

On the other hand, there would be no possible cover story or motive that could excuse planting explosives to blow up an occupied building in NYC, especially a famous landmark like the WTC, as you'd have to be as dumb as a bag of hammers to not understand that the act will lead to killing a lot of innocent Americans. The ability to get anyone to actually do it, and even more unlikely to do it successfully, is a few molecules away from being non-existent.

You ALSO discredit yourself by bringing up all these examples of lies to begin with, since, by the very act of your posting them here, it's a de facto admission that these lies were exposed. If insiders suffering from guilt would reveal THOSE lies I.E. Deep Throat, then they're damned sure going to reveal the 9/11 attack was staged. You yourself admit the gov't is made up of individuals with individual motivations, and not some automatons who mindlessly follow orders in collective hive mentality.

Sooner or later, the fact will dawn on you that the more you try to justify your conspiracy stories, the more you only wind up showing how they can't possibly be true.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
...then if you accept the fact that "the gov't" is a collection of individuals attempting to work together for a common goal then your conspiracies end before they even begin. Once one evil, rotten guy atttempts to put his plan to murder innocent people into motion, some other individual will be horrified and put a stop to it. Then there are the people who'll have second thoughts after the fact and anonymously reveal the truth to the public like Deep Throat did to expose Watergate. Yet other individuals may go along with it, but becuase they're so clueless they'll make mistakes and cause problems that will only ensure the plan can never succeed.

How do you explain your contradiction?
If insiders suffering from guilt would reveal THOSE lies I.E. Deep Throat, then they're damned sure going to reveal the 9/11 attack was staged. You yourself admit the gov't is made up of individuals with individual motivations, and not some automatons who mindlessly follow orders in collective hive mentality.On the other hand, there would be no possible cover story or motive that could excuse planting explosives to blow up an occupied building in NYC, especially a famous landmark like the WTC, as you'd have to be as dumb as a bag of hammers to not understand that the act will lead to killing a lot of innocent Americans. The ability to get anyone to actually do it, and even more unlikely to do it successfully, is a few molecules away from being non-existent. Sooner or later, the fact will dawn on you that the more you try to justify your conspiracy stories, the more you only wind up showing how they can't possibly be true.


Dave, do you have a problem following lines of logic? You stated that the government ALWAYS lies to make itself look good. I proved that government lies to cover-up a conspiracy using multiple historical examples. I modified your own comment as a factual analysis of 9/11 based upon lies in order to cover up conspiracy with regards to 9/11 and the resulting foreign policy initiatives. I wasn't comparing the war itself to 9/11, simply the pattern individuals in the government used to lie us into war in Vietnam to the lies within 9/11 to justify the War on Terror. I wasn't comparing the wars themselves. Reading comprehension my friend...

Dave if I understand you correctly, your position relies upon the guilt of one insider to begin blowing the whistle, therefore the whistle would have been blown with regards to a conspiracy on 9/11. But because that whistle hasn't been blown, there was no conspiracy. Is this correct?
If so, I would refer you to the following whistle blowers: Whistleblowers Ignored....
So this point can be debunked.

Your next point relies upon human character to discredit and disprove 9/11 conspiracy theories. The fact that the individuals within the government themselves lied about the air quality, the war in Iraq and Vietnam, and a host of past injustices against fellow human beings destroys the "human character" argument.
Furthermore, those who carry out covert operations do so with the intent of plausible denability:


In politics and espionage, deniability refers to the ability of a "powerful player" or actor to avoid "blowback" by secretly arranging for an action to be taken on their behalf by a third party—ostensibly unconnected with the major player.-Wiki (sorry, hate using it but it was quick and convenient.

The use of foreign nationals on 9/11 eliminates the guilt that might be associated with 'killing' fellow Americans and maintains deniability for those powerful players in the corridors of power. It is also a historical fact that foreign nationals are used to advance covert ops.



posted on May, 14 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Impossible?? Based upon what knowledge do you make this statement, especially considering the scenario I proposed above?

Secondly, if you remember the comments of William Rodriquez to the 9/11 Commision investigator he stated security in the stairwells was lax and saw people in the stair wells having sex, smoking, and doing drugs.


What am I basing this statement upon? YOURS, actually. If William Rodriguez was able to catch people sneaking into the stairwell to have sex and do drugs..and I really doubt he'd be the only one on the maintenance crew catching people doing this...he certainly would have discovered suspicious activity in maintenance areas like the support columns, particularly when there would have been suspicious activity at *every* support column.


How out of the ordinary would it be for an individual company to hire outside people to do work in the towers? IT WOULDN"T!


Between the inner core columns and the outer perimeter there was absolutely nothing but a giant open concrete floor and non-load bearing walls made of drywall. There wasn't anything that any outside people brought in by the tenants could even access to sabotage.


You need to start thinking more like a competent terrorist instead of making excuses for the terrorists means and methods.


That's essentially the problem right there. When you tell me I "need to think like a terrorist" this says right there that you're not looking at the facts as they we know them. You believe there were demolitions first and then you make up as many stories as you need to in order to have them sound plausible.

In case you hadn't noticed, you just supplied better proof than I ever could to back up my original point about comparing the religious fundamentalists with the truthers and their knack for forcing reality to conform to their preconceived belief systems.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
Impossible?? Based upon what knowledge do you make this statement, especially considering the scenario I proposed above?

Secondly, if you remember the comments of William Rodriquez to the 9/11 Commision investigator he stated security in the stairwells was lax and saw people in the stair wells having sex, smoking, and doing drugs.

What am I basing this statement upon? YOURS, actually. If William Rodriguez was able to catch people sneaking into the stairwell to have sex and do drugs..and I really doubt he'd be the only one on the maintenance crew catching people doing this...he certainly would have discovered suspicious activity in maintenance areas like the support columns, particularly when there would have been suspicious activity at *every* support column.


How out of the ordinary would it be for an individual company to hire outside people to do work in the towers? IT WOULDN"T!


Between the inner core columns and the outer perimeter there was absolutely nothing but a giant open concrete floor and non-load bearing walls made of drywall. There wasn't anything that any outside people brought in by the tenants could even access to sabotage.

You need to start thinking more like a competent terrorist instead of making excuses for the terrorists means and methods.

That's essentially the problem right there. When you tell me I "need to think like a terrorist" this says right there that you're not looking at the facts as they we know them. You believe there were demolitions first and then you make up as many stories as you need to in order to have them sound plausible. In case you hadn't noticed, you just supplied better proof than I ever could to back up my original point about comparing the religious fundamentalists with the truthers and their knack for forcing reality to conform to their preconceived belief systems.


Dave, people having sex and doing drugs in the stairwells is out of the ordinary which is why he remembers it so well. I never said he saw them sneaking into the stairwell so please don't add to the statement in order to qualify your own. I posted what he witnessed. The point being, security was lax within the towers themselves.

Secondly, maintenance people in the towers would not be out of the ordinary whether it be plumbers, construction, maintenance, etc. especially in the evening. And considering the Port Authority stated that private companies could sub-contract work, it would be rather easy.

Your position relies on the "incompetent terrorist" theory that states that the terrorists who rigged the building did so in plane site with turbines on and the ACME tnt label in full view allowing those who see the label rat the terrorists out before the rigging is complete. Therefore because this was never reported, there was never explosives planted in the tower. Fail.

As far a the core columns and such, explain to me how elevator maintenance was completed as the eleveators were within the core itself?
You can view the blueprints online of course.

I presented a plausible scenario based upon facts (WTC pass and questionable credentials) in relation to WTC which should have been investigated by the FBI but to this day was not. This isn't forcing reality as you claim, this is based upon fact.

Now, you can shut me up forever if you can provide the forensic chemical test results that prove NO explosives were used in the destruction of the towers. Now go fetch that steel so we can begin testing if you can find it.

Your logical description about explosives in the towers is then followed by a story is the EXACT same process used by NIST with regards to the official story. But somehow that is ok to you.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

In fact the Port Authority said companies can hire outside work and often did.


That's right, they did. The Port Authority doesn't do construction on its own, they farm it out to other people. That said, it doesn't mean they simply close their eyes and pick a random company out of a book, nor do they simply allow any Joe to come in simply becuase they ask. They have their own tried and true list of preferred contractors. For one thing, they'd necessarily need to be bonded by a recognized state agency like every other contractor is, which means your gigantic "secret" conspiracy just gets even bigger.



So the fact it is, it would be relatively easy to accomplish this task of rigging key structural points within the towers to assist gravity in the collapse.. You need to start thinking more like a competent terrorist instead of making excuses for the terrorists means and methods.


...and YOU have to think like the rational investigator seeking the truth as you try to claim you are, rather than imagining these goofball plots that could only work in a comic book.

First off, these imaginary terrorists of yours would have to set them up extremely quickly before some custodian or another discovered them, and the towers were so flipping huge it would take a thousand guys going up and down the stairs and elevators nonstop, and they wouldn't be able to conceal THAT, either. Second, they'd have to do it on EVERY floor, not just one or two, or else you're admitting that yes, falling floors really can cause a cascading collapse all on its own, and we both know there was no simultaneous construction of every floor in every tower. Third, they'd absolutely positively require the help of people within the NYPA to do it, including some of whom that died when the towers collapsed, and I doubt anyone would be THAT fanatical to your conspiracy. Fourth, the explosives would have left blatantly obvious blast marks on all the steel during the cleanup, and I mean ALL the steel, and every photo I've seen showed the steel was either broken like a twig or ripped like a piece of paper.

The only way you truthers can get around these obstacles is if you willingly make up crap off the top of your head as you go along about armies of secret agents everywhere, super explosives noone has ever seen before, and everyone else in the world being as dumb as a bag of hammers except for you. Oh yeah, then there's slandering perfectly good and honest people as being accomplices to mass murder without a shred of evidence simply becuase you truthers don't want to admit your conspiracy stories are wrong. Then, YOU come along and claim all these weird stories will magically make perfect sense somehow once I "think like a terrorist", which still makes no sense becuase before 9/11 the people who really DID think like a terrorist didn't waste their time with secret controlled demolitions. In 1993 they simply put a van full of explosives in the basement and hoped for the best.

Shall I continue, or do you get the picture? Sooner or later, you're going to have to realize there's only so much make believe you can wallow in before these conspiracy stories becomes too absurd even for you. You're certainly not stupid.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Dave, people having sex and doing drugs in the stairwells is out of the ordinary which is why he remembers it so well. I never said he saw them sneaking into the stairwell so please don't add to the statement in order to qualify your own. I posted what he witnessed. The point being, security was lax within the towers themselves.


???Huh??? What the heck is the difference between people sneaking into the stairwells and people going into the starwells to do drugs and have sex?


Secondly, maintenance people in the towers would not be out of the ordinary whether it be plumbers, construction, maintenance, etc. especially in the evening. And considering the Port Authority stated that private companies could sub-contract work, it would be rather easy.


Nope, becuase there's be no reason why any construction crews would ever need to be in those areas. All they'd need to do is put up drywall and carpets to make the big empty area look pretty. They wouldn't nor couldn't be putting in new toilets or elevators.


As far a the core columns and such, explain to me how elevator maintenance was completed as the eleveators were within the core itself?
You can view the blueprints online of course.


You should already know the answer to that question. The towers didn't have elevators that went all the way up. The elevators were set in stages so that people going up to higher floors had to get out of one elevator and enter another. The machinery for these were all on floors dedicated to such maintenance and machinery, and for the custodians, inspectors, etc, these areas would be their headquarters.


Now, you can shut me up forever if you can provide the forensic chemical test results that prove NO explosives were used in the destruction of the towers. Now go fetch that steel so we can begin testing if you can find it.


Bad logic. YOU are the one claiming there were explosives in the building so it is dependent on YOU to prove there were explosives. All one need to do is look at the photos of the steel found at ground zero to show they couldn't have been destroyed by any explosives, so putting them under forensic testing for explosives is rather pointless.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
reply to post by FlyersFan
 



I see you took considerable time and effort to list what looks like a majority in agreement with the OS. I suggest you take the same amount of time and effort to objectively review the basics covered in the video and apply them to the inquiry at hand.

Input on how psychology is the one part of this equation that very few consider relevant, and yet it is the one area of study/inquiry that makes the lie stand in the face of a torrent of scientific truth.


[edit on 27-4-2009 by The All Seeing I]


Thank you. I was going to pretty much say the same thing. Instead of actually speaking to the psychological experiment showing exactly how people can be lead like sheep to the slaughter, Flyersfan simply gave her own opinion from her being a psyche major.

Well, I too was going after a doctorate in psychology but after a year in I figured my MBA was going to be enough for me for now. More because of the cost of schooling than from me not wanting to actual obtain the degree.

When I post on psychology type threads I try to make sure I at least address the examples given.

So with that said, I, with my few degrees and experience in engineering and structural design, AND with my life long enjoyment of the topic of psychology and my pursuit of said degree, have virtually a complete opposite view of what took place that fateful day and since.

I also know for a fact that people will listen to the authoritative figures because that is how we are raised from day one. That is what we are taught in school. To trust our government explicitly. To do what they say and believe what they say.

I simply ask, if we can prove that a group of people have lied to the populace before then would it not be prudent to consider that they would do it again....and again and again? If they get caught in lies (which there are MANY MANY lies that last administration was caught in and we have video evidence of many of those instances) then why should we continue to trust and believe them?

That's basic psychology there. Isn't it borderline insanity to then completely trust that group of people from that point on simply because they are supposedly our elected officials?



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 




That's right, they did. The Port Authority doesn't do construction on its own, they farm it out to other people. That said, it doesn't mean they simply close their eyes and pick a random company out of a book, nor do they simply allow any Joe to come in simply becuase they ask. They have their own tried and true list of preferred contractors. For one thing, they'd necessarily need to be bonded by a recognized state agency like every other contractor is, which means your gigantic "secret" conspiracy just gets even bigger.

Can you source the PA's list of preferred contractors?

But yet strangely enough, a plumbing agency with unlicensed plumber is able to gain access to the WTC. Strike 1 for ya!



...and YOU have to think like the rational investigator seeking the truth as you try to claim you are, rather than imagining these goofball plots that could only work in a comic book.


If I'm a rational investigator, I would have conducted forensic chemical tests for explosive residue. Did any Federal Agency do that? NO! So with your logic, the investigative agency is irrational.

If I'm a rational investigator, I keep all material remains for investigation as called for by Fire Engineering leadership. Fire Engineering, not a consipracy site...That wasn't done, which makes the official investigation irrational.

So far the official investigation sounds pretty irrational. Strike 2 for ya!

As far as wiring the building up, you don't need every floor. See any controlled demolition specialist. After all, the explosives do not bring the building down, they only ASSIST gravity.


Third, they'd absolutely positively require the help of people within the NYPA to do it, including some of whom that died when the towers collapsed, and I doubt anyone would be THAT fanatical to your conspiracy
You mean like the plumbers without licenses with passes to the WTC complex? People or person? Debatable. Do you need PA at all? No. Not if an independent company can bring workers in to do contract work for them. I'm not sure of the exact process but it probably goes like this: The Acme company needs some work done. They file a work order with the Port Authority. The PA approves the work order, issues clearance and passes to the ACME company. The sub-contractors come in and do the work. I don't even need security if I can forge passes or an individual within the ACME company files the necessary paperwork, like the plumber story I discussed earlier.



Fourth, the explosives would have left blatantly obvious blast marks on all the steel during the cleanup, and I mean ALL the steel, and every photo I've seen showed the steel was either broken like a twig or ripped like a piece of paper.


1. Your first mistake is relying on traditional blast explosives and exempting other cutter type of explosives, ie, thermite.
1. So you've seen every photo of the clean up have you? Sure you haven't, so you can't apply your own observations to all of the steel. Fail!
2. Picture of steel I suspect you haven't seen this one as no office fire can do what has been done to this steel.FEMA Report

Melted Steel

Maybe you haven't seen this one as found in the FEMA report:FEMA picture



The only way you truthers can get around these obstacles is if you willingly make up crap off the top of your head as you go along about armies of secret agents everywhere, super explosives noone has ever seen before, and everyone else in the world being as dumb as a bag of hammers except for you.


Army of super-duper secret agents? LOL Many members of NIST were aware of the nano-thermites and associated varieties as shown by Kevin Ryan-Top 10 Connections Between NIST Scientists and Nano-Thermites The explosive material may not be known to the public, but the scientists at NIST were very aware of the material. No theory, just facts. I encourage you to read the paper.

Army of super duper secret agents getting caught?
Oh geez, going to have to nail you again....


The video from Discovery's "Science Channel" summarizes the story of the Citicorp Center, which underwent major structural retrofits barely a year after its completion, when the architect, William LeMessurier, realized that a design flaw could lead to the building's collapse in a strong wind. The truth only became known to the public nearly twenty years later, in a 1995 article that appeared in New Yorker magazine entitled "The Fifty-Nine-Story Crisis"...


If the above doesn't work, the direct link: The Secret Retrofit of the Citibank Tower in 1978
In this case a high rise tower is retrofitted secretly without the residents even knowing it!!!!!!!!! 20 years later the public founds out!

You can now stop talking about super-duper secret agents planting stuff would be caught. This piece of evidence proves that it could be done! You fail again! The rest of your post is the typical debunker tactic of attacking my character so I will ignore it.

If you want to discuss facts Dave, I would happily do so, as I'm entertained by your persistence. But if you continue to assault my character, I will ignore you and notify the mods.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join