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.

 

I have never convinced anyone else that 9/11 was an inside job

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



No Website, dvd, or anything else has changed my original opinion of the day of 9/11.


This may be true as far as it goes, but from what I've seen, the bulk of the truther material is comign from these web sites.I know this becuase I see that they're all posting the exact same buzzwords, almost word for word I.E. "fell at free fall speed", "fell in their own footprints" and so on. You yourself may not visit these web sites, but these factoids had to have come from somewhere.


I previously said in my post, "I smelled a rat when the Pentagon got "hit" and since I saw with my own eyes the "collapse" of WTC 7, I have been looking at all the evidence available.


All right then, just what part about the Pentagon attack "made you smell a rat"? The plane flew over a highway in the middle of rush hour so many,MANY people saw the thing fly over.

As for the collapse of WTC 7, all you need to do is see the pattern of wreckage dispursement to see that a trail of devestation ran from the north tower, crushed its way through WTC 5 and 6, and led directly into WTC 7 (as per NOAA aerial photos). WTC 7 fell for the simple reason that WTC 1 fell on it. If the north tower fell a little to the left or the right, it'd just be some *other* building that would have fallen.


I have researched, studied, discussed with friends who are in the demolition industry (when I was working in the construction industry) and my best friends brother who is a Architect, who has worked here and overseas extensively.


How do your friends in the demolition industry explain how an *occupied* building could be rigged with demolitions without anyone in the building noticing, then? They above all would know just how much work and effort goes into demolitions. It'd be akin to saying someone could put an elephant in your kitchen and you'd never notice it.


"WHAT, THEY HAVE COLLAPSED, IMPOSSIBLE (looking at me like if I was a stupid f##$wit). "HOW CAN THEY COLLAPSE" I told him about the planes. "THERE MUST HAVE BEEN MORE THAN JET FUEL AND ONE PLANE FOR EACH TOWER - I WENT THERE A FEW YEARS AGO, I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE GONE DOWN THAT EASY"


They "went down that easy" becuase they had a radically different design than any other skyscraper did, and it contained an achilles heel that noone realized was there. This is the fundamental flaw in the theorists' arguments, as they rely on the mistaken belief the towers were built like every other skyscraper was.

FYI all the walls your friend saw when he was there a few years ago were non-load bearing drywall. He could have punched a hole and walked right through them if he wanted to, and in many a surviror's case, they did.


Yes, I admit I have watched and studied all those RELEVANT investigations, ,docos on dvd/cd/internet and and all of them confirm what I ORIGINALLY thought - Something is Very Wrong With The Official Story.


I agree, something IS wrong, namely, that too many people in important positions were napping on the job and royally [censored] up that day. Orders weren't being handed down properly, fighters were flying around in circles with nowhere to go, critical information wasn't being shared, and so on. Moreover, NIST fire expert Dr. Quintiere wrote a report where he speculated the towers never had proper fire insulation to begin with, meaning that many MORE skyscrapers out there may be potential death traps.

There was so much bumbling and slipping on banana peels on 9/11 that we don't need to introduce conspiracy. Never underestimate the power of stupid people.


We havn't been subconsciously hypnotized (using FEAR & THE MEDIA) by the REAL criminals behind 9/11 & ALL their little bitches trying to cover it up.


Why don't you really think about my last 2 statements?


Trust me, I do. The moment you posted "all their little bitches trying to cover it up" it told me you think armies of secret agents are putting out engineered disinformation meant to trick you, and we both know what your criteria is for determining what is true and what is not- it isn't the credibility of the source, but whether or not it happens to conform with your conspiracy theories.

Am I incorrect in that assumption?




posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


My reference to the Pentagon is warranted by:

The Fact that it is in the 17 mile no fly zone, as is the White house.

The Fact, that is one of the most protected buildings in the world.

The Fact, that the Pentagon has it's own defense systems, including ground to air missiles.

The Fact, that Dick Cheney, new the plane was 60 miles out, even 10 miles out in the end. You can easily check this yourself.

The Fact that Many witnesses saw 2 planes. (Some claim to have seen 3)

There is some suggestions from witnesses of a flyover.

There is some suggestion from witnesses of a another smaller plane, or drone hitting the Pentagon.

There is some Suggestion, of a mid-air destruction of Flight 77, by a missile, or bomb

There is some evidence of a missile hitting the Pentagon, or explosive used on it.

The Fact that the Pentagon was hit at and suffered damage to it's most robust area.

The Fact that if a suicide bomber wanted to kill as many as possible and create maximum damage, he would have flown the plane into the roof of the Pentagon - simply because it would have been far more simple to do.

The Fact, That the FAA has shown the real flight path projectory and this contradicts the south approach - that what was said to knock down at least 5 of the light poles.

The Fact, that it is scientifically impossible for a 40ft & 200 pound+ light pole being hit by a 500mph+ plane being hurled into a taxi windscreen without scratching the bonnet or causing injury while the cab driver was traveling at 40mph before hitting the brakes and admitting not seeing the plane. You can check the photos and the whole investigation yourself.

Note the size of the whole in the windscreen, and the damage to his backseat, then compare that with the light poles' weight and hieght ."Lloyd and his magic lightpole . I recommend, if you havn't already read the threads on Lloyd and CIT's Investigation.

The Fact, that all of the video evidence was confiscated by the FBI, that could have shown what hit the Pentagon.

The Fact, that the video released by the FBI does not show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666
Hi GoodOlDave, I am not religious at all. My eyes are just open, and getting wider as time goes on.

I mean no offense to you or anyone else that disagrees with me here, nor am I trying to change any ones mind.


I know you're not out to intentionally out to offend anyone. You are an obviously intelligent person, and I do believe you have good intentions. The problem is that your conspiracy movement is inspiring a culture which is attracting all sorts of negative influences like a moth is attracted to flame. One zealot tried to do Google searches on me to dig up information to "get me" with, and forged my handle and posted pornographic material to try to discredit me. Oh, and then there was the woman who tried to tell me the attack was staged by a secret satan worshipping cult that infiltrated all of society, and they destroyed the towers becuase "they looked like a giant number eleven and eleven is a sacred number to the satan worshippers". Then, there was the guy who called me a murderer(!) becuase "Bush staged 9/11 and murdered 3,000 people, and since I didn't believe it, that made me a murderer, too".

It doesn't really matter whether it's religious zealotry or political zealotry. It's still the exact same single minded blind loyalty to a favored ideal.


It would be good if you thought of us in a more positive way.


Like I said, the problem isn't with you, the problem is with the self serving websites putting out volumes of bad information. You yourself are just the victim of this.


Many 9/11 survivors and victims families are in FACT asking for a new, independent investigation.


That's right, they do...but the part you're leaving out is that they want to know who was responsible for all the failures and why. They interviewed one of the Jersey girls in my local newspaper not too long ago (forgot which one), and IN HER OWN WORDS she said the secrecy of the gov't and their reluctance in coming forward with what they know is fostering all these crackpot conspiracy theories.

"Crackpot" is her description, not mine.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666
The Fact that it is in the 17 mile no fly zone, as is the White house.

Are you sure about that?



The Fact, that is one of the most protected buildings in the world.
The Fact, that the Pentagon has it's own defense systems, including ground to air missiles.

Neither of these are true. Please source either of them


The Fact, that Dick Cheney, new the plane was 60 miles out, even 10 miles out in the end. You can easily check this yourself.

Indeed and if you research this properly you'll find this was not AA77 at all but a projected path.


The Fact that Many witnesses saw 2 planes.

There were two planes, AA77 and a C-130. Would you like to see the RADAR data?


There is some suggestions from witnesses of a flyover.

No witness saw a 'flyover', it is what CIT have deduced from their analysis of inconsistent witness accounts.


There is some suggestion from witnesses of a another smaller plane, or drone hitting the Pentagon.

I don't know where you're getting this from


There is some Suggestion, of a mid-air destruction of Flight 77, by a missile, or bomb

There is no evidence whatsoever of this, in fact I find it hard to believe you haven't just made this up on the spot


There is some evidence of a missile hitting the Pentagon, or explosive used on it.

What evidence?


The Fact that if a suicide bomber wanted to kill as many as possible and create maximum damage, he would have flown the plane into the roof of the Pentagon - simply because it would have been far more simple to do.

So why did TPTB choose to do otherwise? Do you think they deliberately did the opposite of what people "would" do?


The Fact, That the FAA has shown the real flight path projectory and this contradicts the south approach - that what was said to knock down at least 5 of the light poles.

No, you're referring to an animation which also portrays the plane impacting the pentagon at a 45 degree angle. If you don't think it did this, why do you use this video as evidence of something else?


The Fact, that it is scientifically impossible for a 40ft & 200 pound+ light pole being hit by a 500mph+ plane being hurled into a taxi windscreen without scratching the bonnet or causing injury while the cab driver was traveling at 40mph before hitting the brakes and admitting not seeing the plane. You can check the photos and the whole investigation yourself.

Really, could you show me any science behind this? Perhaps some equations, or a repeated experiment?


The Fact, that all of the video evidence was confiscated by the FBI, that could have shown what hit the Pentagon.

All videos featuring a plane and many which did not catch the impact have been released.


The Fact, that the video released by the FBI does not show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

It does, I've even analysed it myself, here have a look at a high resolution crop of the plane's tail entering shot: 911db.org...

This post is nothing but "truther talking points", an attempt to shotgun the opponent with so many questions and lines of enquiry that the other person cannot address them all and victory can be declared. The problem with this is that for many years information on what actually happened has been accumulated, and people like me have learned where these false assumptions are from, and what evidence actually exists.

For example, to explain the DNA evidence, you will have to resort to wild speculation. I challenge you to explain it any other way.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
When I said "the little bitches helping cover things up" -

I am talking about NIST who have changed their story on WTC 7 at least three times now., The Chairman of the 9/11 commission (I have forgotten his name) & the rest of the 9/11 commission.

Lucky Larry and some planted witnesses and Lloyd the taxi driver.

I never said there are armies of secret agents.

Do you know that a number of members on the original commission are now not agreeing with the official story, and indeed there is a cover-up of some sort?

Cheers



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666
I am talking about NIST who have changed their story on WTC 7 at least three times now., The Chairman of the 9/11 commission (I have forgotten his name) & the rest of the 9/11 commission.

So wait, when NIST keeps the same story, that's proof they have an agenda. But when they change their theory based upon evidence, that's also proof they have an agenda? Looks like you've covered both sides here!


Lucky Larry and some planted witnesses and Lloyd the taxi driver.

Got any evidence whatsoever to support this other than "it sounds dodgy to me, therefore it is"?


Do you know that a number of members on the original commission are now not agreeing with the official story, and indeed there is a cover-up of some sort?

How many believe in controlled demolition theories? How many believe AA77 did not hit the Pentagon? I don't doubt there are lots of potential coverups when it comes to foreknowledge, even NORAD's response, but there's little to no evidence suggesting any sort of controlled demolition or any plot to carry out 911.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I'm spending the summer in an undisclosed Sunni Islamic country and it's a heck of a relief to have intelligent dinner table discussions with people who are able to think critically of government actions.
Instead of rolling eyes I received nods when I alleged it was the US gov. Likewise they shared the feeling that Osama bin Laden is little more than a CIA hologram at this point.
They also felt that my claims that Americans are kept dumb with the fluoridated water and fructose instead of sugar were justified.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666
My reference to the Pentagon is warranted by:

The Fact that it is in the 17 mile no fly zone, as is the White house.


The plane was able to approach so close becuase the transponder was turned off and it was flying over the Appalachean mountains on its approach. There was too much ground clutter on the radar return and ground controllers didn't see it until it was almost on top of them.


The Fact, that the Pentagon has it's own defense systems, including ground to air missiles.


Not true. The Pentagon has its own missile system NOW. They didn't have any missile system on 9/11, and the reason they have missiles now is becuase of 9/11.


The Fact that Many witnesses saw 2 planes. (Some claim to have seen 3)


There were two planes. The second was a C-130 cargo plane out of (I believe) Andrews that was rerouted to follow flight 77 and report on where it was going.


There is some suggestions from witnesses of a flyover.


I do not go by "suggestions". I go by actual eyewitness accounts, and actual eyewitness accounts say the plane hit the Pentagon. The Pentagon isn't out in the middle of the desert, you know, there's a freeway right next to it, and the plane came in over it during rush hour traffic.


There is some evidence of a missile hitting the Pentagon, or explosive used on it.


There is only one witness who ever said it was an actual missile that he saw, and the guy's own son said he's a practical joker and he really wasn't anywhere near the Pentagon on 9/11.


The Fact that the Pentagon was hit at and suffered damage to it's most robust area.


What do you mean by "Robust area"?!? Flight 77 punched right through several rings of the Pentagon, so how is this "robust"?


The Fact that if a suicide bomber wanted to kill as many as possible and create maximum damage, he would have flown the plane into the roof of the Pentagon - simply because it would have been far more simple to do.


There's no way they could dive onto the roof from the altitude and attack angle they were flying. They were flying a lumbering passenger jet, not a witches broom. Besides, you know as well as I do that the Pentagon is one big ring. There is more open courtyard then there is roof, so by no means would it have been "far more simple to do".


The Fact, That the FAA has shown the real flight path projectory and this contradicts the south approach - that what was said to knock down at least 5 of the light poles.


Would you mind explainign this statement? The five lightpoles knocked over were all in a single straight line with each other, and the line leads directly to the location of the Pentagon where the aircraft hit.

Remember, Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon straight on. It hit at an angle.


The Fact, that it is scientifically impossible for a 40ft & 200 pound+ light pole being hit by a 500mph+ plane being hurled into a taxi windscreen without scratching the bonnet or causing injury while the cab driver was traveling at 40mph before hitting the brakes and admitting not seeing the plane. You can check the photos and the whole investigation yourself.


I did check the photos. All the photos I've seen were entirely of the driver side. Becuase the light poles were on the outside of the highway (the inside being lined with concrete barriers) any damage would logically have to be on the passenger side. We drive on the RIGHT side of the highway here, you know.


The Fact, that the video released by the FBI does not show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.


The fact is that no cameras were focused at the exact spot where the aircraft hit. The ones that were, only showed the area in the background and were only taking photos every few seconds like ever other security camera in existence, and the attack was all over by the time the followup photo could be taken. Besides, isn't it YOU who is going by the "absence of proof is not proof of absence" principle in defending these controlled demolitions stories of yours?

I can post links to any and all material I posted, if you so desire.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by dazbog


Would you mind terribly giving me an example of how I'm trying to derail the topic? Someone started this thread discussing how they have never convinced anyone else that 9/11 is an inside job and I'm posting reasons for that, namely, that the material the truthers are posting is entirely rubbish and that they come off more like religious zealots to their audience than serious researchers. Your not wanting to hear the answer does not by any means invalidate it as an answer.

GoodOlDave
Go back and reread the OP. He is not debating the merits of the actual event. You are ! There are numerous threads on here discussing the evidence or lack there of . I think you know very well what you are doing. Half a dozen posts have been directed toward you, the OP has asked you to stay on topic. Pretty simple stuff Dave.



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


If this airport is commercial, for civilians I have made a error here. I was under the impression that it was for Air force/Military planes only.

I thought I remember reading somewhere that the Pentagon and the White house are both in the no-fly zone for commercial aircraft.

The Pentagon security I am talking about (being one of the most protected buildings in the world) is their capabilities of tracking threats, - like an off-course airplane heading towards their building, their communications with NORAD and the nearby Air Force base.

They have a huge amount of mounted cameras inside, outside and on top of the roof.

I don't have proof that the Pentagon has missiles, but I'm sure someone on here, or an ex-government employee from the Pentagon will eventually prove to us if they have ground to air defense, using either missiles or gatt guns.
r
I never said that there was evidence of Flight 77 exploding in mid-air from a missile or bomb. I said it is has been suggested.

I mentioned this because of the lack of plane debris that was found, and some theories explored here on ATS.

The Pentagon lawn was cleaned up very quickly and by having gravel being put down on the whole as well seemed a little strange.

The pictures of the engine shown at the Pentagon site, does not look like the size of a Boeing 757 or a 747. It looks much smaller.

The first pictures and video release of the Pentagon in the first few minutes, before the roof gave way show very little, if any evidence of fire damage inside the building in the first floor. The hole is too small also and you know all the rest of it.

I know about the C-130 and the Radar, and there are many inconsistencies with air-traffic controllers, the Military and NORAD as to how long Flight 77 was airborne, it's flightpath when it turned away from the Washington Area and then circled back to the Pentagon.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by Skyline666]



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyline666
 




If this airport is commercial, for civilians I have made a error here. I was under the impression that it was for Air force/Military planes only.


Ronald Reagan National Airport
www.metwashairports.com...
Back in the early 80's, this is where an Air Florida flight took off without deicing and slammed into one of the Potomac River bridges.




I thought I remember reading somewhere that the Pentagon and the White house are both in the no-fly zone for commercial aircraft.


Yes that is posted on many truther websites, but its not true.



The Pentagon security I am talking about (being one of the most protected buildings in the world) is their capabilities of tracking threats, - like an off-course airplane heading towards their building, their communications with NORAD and the nearby Air Force base.


Well since the Pentagon is less than a half mile from the approach from Reagan National, what would you define as "an off-course airplane heading towards their building"? All the communications in the world doesnt change the human factor when it comes to reacting to an emergency. In all actuality, the Pentagon was one of the LEAST defended buildings in the US military. No fences, no outer perimeter, nothing but open lawn.




I don't have proof that the Pentagon has missiles, but I'm sure someone on here, or an ex-government employee from the Pentagon will eventually prove to us if they have ground to air defense, using either missiles or gatt guns.


Prior to 9/11, nope. With it located where it is, it would be insane to put automated AA defenses....unless you want to see airliners mistakenly blown out of the air.




I mentioned this because of the lack of plane debris that was found, and some theories explored here on ATS.


Again, not true. Plenty of plane debris was found.




The Pentagon lawn was cleaned up very quickly and by having gravel being put down on the whole as well seemed a little strange.


And what would have happened had they tried to drive the cranes, dump trucks and other assorted heavy equipment across the lawn? They would have sunk into the ground, hence the gravel.




The pictures of the engine shown at the Pentagon site, does not look like the size of a Boeing 757 or a 747. It looks much smaller.


You mean what remained of an engine that smashed through a building?



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
***ZEITGEIST*** is a movie all about government conspiracies....on the dy of 9/11 there was a schedualed drill with the army where they were dealing with same scenario...they had no way of knowing what was the drill and what was real....



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I haven't either...www.abovetopsecret.com... But I'll try try try and keep on keepin on!
Second line.

[edit on 8-6-2009 by alyosha1981]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Goodol Whatever
I was polite enough to respond to your request ref; your overt attempts to derail this thread.
You have 150 posts on ATS defending the official story. We get it ! You buy the official line.
However, I will point out that you have quite successfully DERAILED the original intent of the OP.
Frankly I am quite annoyed with your sophomoric posturing. I was rather interested in other peoples reactions when they approached friends with something other then the official story. But thanks to good ol dave, that has now come to an end. CONGRATULATIONS Dave !



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by dazbog

You have 150 posts on ATS defending the official story. We get it ! You buy the official line.
However, I will point out that you have quite successfully DERAILED the original intent of the OP.
Frankly I am quite annoyed with your sophomoric posturing. I was rather interested in other peoples reactions when they approached friends with something other then the official story. But thanks to good ol dave, that has now come to an end. CONGRATULATIONS Dave !


I don't think that's fair.

This evolved between contributors, and with the overwhelming numbers believing alternate theories it's a welcome relief to hear them critcized constructively.

Frankly of the people I know in the real world, as opposed to the online one, almost all consider the Truther phenomenon a comedy act. And it's not because they blindly accept the MSM. I'm talking intellectuals, journalists, academics, scientists, etc.

They view it much like the extraterrestrial visitation phenomenon. Endless talk, a million websites, no convincing proof. Also a growing cult and a supportive sub-industry full of conmen.

The believers in 9/11 conspiracies are far more defensive than most who accept the so-called Official Story. People not aware of the online propagated version are at least receptive to something that conflicts with what they know. Not Truthers.

There are still many outstanding questions on 9/11. Mostly in the area of suspected foreknowledge by the US government and it's intelligence agencies. And overarching questions on the politics of foreign regime complicity, funding, etc.

Independent journalists and historians are slowly filling in the gaps. Ultimately the answers will come from people who are willing to do primary research and real investigative work. But not from believers of whatever is on the web that supports their attraction to conspiracy theories.

Mike



[edit on 9-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Yes there are many more Questions, It us good that you admit that.

I for one also admit making a few errors in my posts regarding the Pentagon, I see now how and where I went off in the wrong direction. I will make sure I don't post to quickly without re-checking the facts, against my memory again.

Everyone needs to re-check sources first, if not 100%.

See you guys on some other threads

Cheers



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyline666
When I said "the little bitches helping cover things up" -

I am talking about NIST who have changed their story on WTC 7 at least three times now., The Chairman of the 9/11 commission (I have forgotten his name) & the rest of the 9/11 commission.


They did not "change their story". In truth, there really is no story becuase noone can say with absolute definition the physical mechanics of the collapse. All they can do is work with what they have I.E. wreckage, eyewitness accounts, and blueprints, so different offices can and do come up with different theories. Thus, NIST's report contradicts FEMA's report, and one NIST engineer will claim the aircraft impact stripped off the fireproofing on the support braces while another NIST engineer will claim there wasn't enough fireproofing to begin with.

What do YOU think the word "research" means, anyway?



I never said there are armies of secret agents.


No, actually, you did. For there to be controlled demolitions in such huge buildings like the towers it necessarily means that a) there had to either be a thousand technicians to set them up quickly, or a handful of technicians working years and years, both of which would be immediately noticable b) there had to be insiders in the NYPA, NYPD, NYFD, etc to get the controlled demolitions planted so that noone noticed them to begin with, and c) all the tenants in the WTC had to be in on it as well becuase they would certainly have seen what was going on. That's not including the airlines for rigging the planes, the FAA and NORAD for allowign them to fly around, etc. I don't even know how many more would have to be involved in covering all these things up.

Pop quiz- in the 9/11 commission report, NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the aircraft impact area at the WTC reported that the support beams were glowing red from the fires and looked like they were about to collapse, and 1/2 hour later, they did. This clearly contradicts the "controlled demolitions" claims, so tell me, how is the NYPD helicopter pilot's report a fake?


Do you know that a number of members on the original commission are now not agreeing with the official story, and indeed there is a cover-up of some sort?


Yes I do. One fellow says that the commission's work is just a best guess but he also says that so far, their best guess explains the events better than any other scenario. Another person wrote a book about to be published, documenting coverups to hide the horrid [f**kups and collapse of security procedures that day. I have yet to see ONE commission member agree with even a microbe of any of these "inside plot" conspiracies.

I invite you to prove me wrong in anything I posted here.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by dazbog
Go back and reread the OP. He is not debating the merits of the actual event. You are ! There are numerous threads on here discussing the evidence or lack there of . I think you know very well what you are doing. Half a dozen posts have been directed toward you, the OP has asked you to stay on topic. Pretty simple stuff Dave.


Earth calling dazbog- the topic for this thread is called "I HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB.". If you don't believe me that the topic is called "I HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" then look at the top of this thread and you'll see the title of this thread that says "I HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" for yourself. Go ahead. Take a look. I'll wait.

As the topic of this thread is called "I HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" it therefore stands to reason that any discussion related to "I HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" is a relevant topic for the forum. I am posting examples of *why* it's the case that the truthers "HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB", namely, incidents of zealotry that turn people off, passing off bad information, unwillingness to listen to other people's opinions, association with outright crackpots with no credibility, and so forth, all of which would certainly alienate your audience. It is others here who are dragging out discussions over the exact details of these incidents, not me, but since it's critical to understanding why the truthers "HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" I oblige such discussions.

To me, this is certainly a relevant discussion to why the truthers "HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB". Moreover, if the truthers are so reluctant to address the reasons why they "HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" then you people are going to be consistently griping about how "I HAVE NEVER CONVINCED ANYONE ELSE THAT 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB".

If you can't see the relevence of *that* then it will be at your cost, not mine.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dazbog
Frankly I am quite annoyed with your sophomoric posturing. I was rather interested in other peoples reactions when they approached friends with something other then the official story. But thanks to good ol dave, that has now come to an end. CONGRATULATIONS Dave !


All right, if you're operating in such a heavily restrictive window of discussion such as that, I'll tell you my first experience with the truther movement.

When I first heard of people tryign to claim controlled demolitions I originally thought they were a fringe of a fringe, like people believing that Elvis faked his own death, or something, with few followers. One day, I was in a political discussion board completely unrelated to the 9/11 attack when one of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist zealots invaded it and attempted to steer a "why bush is a shmuck" discussion into a "why the WTC was blown up by controlled demolitions" discussion. When I said I didn't agree with the claim, he said "Bush staged the 9/11 attack and murdered 3,000 people, and since I didn't believe it, I was a murderer, too!". In their zeal to stir up false public unrest over this rubbish the conspiracy theorists have become every bit as irresponsible and dangerous as someone yelling FIRE in a crowded theater, and I was so thoroughly and completely disgusted that I have been actively engaging them ever since.

There, now, you got your way about wanting to hear about reactions to people approaching others with something other than the official story. Happy, now?



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
I think the word research means basically, is to undertake any activity to extend knowledge.

If NIST and the 9/11 commission had researched and investigated high rise building fires and many other things properly originally, why did the 9/11 commission fail to mention WTC 7 at all in their report? This building "collapse" must have raised many questions within the 9/11 commission, seeing that no plane hit it, don't you agree?

1000's of people were not needed, just a few chosen "ones"in each profession/division. (the NYPD, NYFA, the Mayor, Lucky Larry, and all the others you mentioned like the FAA, NORAD etc..., if you ad them up, it is not 1000's of people.

I don't agree with you when you mention it would have taken years and years for a "handful of technicians" to set it up. There was work done there, between 9 and 12 months worth which is PUBLICLY known. This wasn't just a "handful"of people and they had access to the core columns.

It is also publicly known that George Bush's brother and cousin had a lot of control with, and were on the board of the Security Firm that looked after the WTC complex.

NIST have given numerous excuses about why WTC 7 collapsed - I think the most bizzare excuse they gave was when they said that WTC 7's diesel tank,- which is underground, was hit by debris from the other buildings, thus causing these so called huge damage & fires causing collapse, if that is true, why did it take until 17:20 in the afternoon to "collapse"?, when the first 2 took approx. 105 minutes and 56 minutes to "collapse"

If the fires and smoke were so intense, as some people state, it would have been hard to determine what they were looking at from their helicopters.


However,

If indeed, The Police helicopter pilots were looking at some steel beams glowing some planted thermite in that impact area, not jet fuel, because a lot the jet fuel fire ball that everyone saw just after impact was mostly outside of the building.

Yes there were fires and heat inside, not that huge and not temperatures between 1500F & 1800F, but approx 1250F-1320F( - and this only when the jet fuel had maximum oxygen), especially going by the colour of the smoke, The smoke changes very quickly - and if you look to the far right of the impact area you can see people standing right in front of the hole of the building, not long after the impact. There are close up photo shots available of this.


The fuel that did explode in the buildings ignited the thermite or something similar to make people focus on the fires & some molten metal drop from the far left of impact area.

Every ones' focus, especially the media was on the impact areas, not the bottom of the buildings or anywhere else.

As you know, there are many witnesses including firefighters that experienced explosions from all around them and underneath them.

These witness accounts support the huge plume of dust and smoke rise from the bottom of WTC 1 before it's Collapse.

Some people even believe the planes had their own detonators/explosives attached to the bottom of the fuselage to help the thermite ignition but that's another interesting story, not for here.

Remember all of the broken steel columns that were shipped off to Korea and which Country???

Just the local CSI Team could have had quick and reliable results if they had something to work with? Or did I miss something here?

The free fall rate that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed is approx 10 floors per second,go and do the math again , and don't believe NISTS lies about WTC 7 & their TS computer mode. They started the exact time of free fall earlier than you might think, to make it seem to everyone that it" didn't really fall at true free fall speed"

There is plenty of information for you to check on NISTS report about the free wall and it has been, in a lot of peoples eyes proven to be fraud, hence why they wont release the computer model they used for their experiment.

Cheers

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Skyline666

[edit on 9-6-2009 by Skyline666]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join