So you still believe the official story?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by mike84596
making sure everyone here has seen some of the points made by 9/11 Loose change?

Good grief. How anyone can still debate the fact it's these damned fool conspiracy web sites that's behind all this mischief at this point is beyond me.

Why are you on a conspiracy website then? I take it you believe the official story you were spoon fed by the media?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

You can't be serious. The wreckage wasn't piled all nice and neat for the cranes to pick up. When the structure fell the wreckage was thrown on top of each other and jumbled together like pick-up sticks. Not only would it be more difficult trying to lift a beam that was half buried under other rubble, moving the beam may very well shift the wreckage around and crush whoever it is they're trying to dig out.

If you are analyzing the wreckage of ground zero, as you claim you are, then you should know that already.

The piece in question was a solitary exterior section at the top of the debris, overlooking two questions I asked here - Why cut out all 3 truss seats, and why are there no signs of thermal cutting device usage, do as we have to, and post pictures of workers using none thermal based cutting tools, until you post evidence of such tools then your replies are nothing more than your personal opinions.

Before you continue any further with this "suspiciously cut steel" farce of yours, I strongly urge you to pick up a copy of the book, "Aftermath", by Joel Meyerowitz. He was a photographer who took extensive photos of the cleanup of Ground Zero, and the photos you're selectively posting are almost certainly his. Not only does he show the steel being cut by the steel workers, he even shows *them*. So yes, I absolutely know the steel you're showing was cut during the cleanup process.

Again I will state, if there is evidence of other cutting tools then post them, it really is plain and simple, we truthers supply more than is healthy documentation supporting our beliefs, you guys offer a verbal salvo based on little more than self beliefs, lashed with fruitcake semantics, it may have escaped your notice but for every flaw/anomaly/irregularity/science bending aspect of that day, there is evidence of an alternative cause or reason, a great example here is Bush`s admission of seeing the 1st plane hit whilst watching a TV in the corridor pre goat book reading, this aspect was picked up on, it was proven that- There was no TV in the area the President was in and has never been a TV in that area, so this left one option, he watched it on his satellite TV in his limousine, a FOIA request was sent to the respective agency and here are the replies....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d29690713d31.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7968d7e39e0c.gif[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f05b42fc5145.gif[/atsimg]

Also, do not bother with the off centre photo copy, it`s plain to see that when photo copied the paper was at an angle, instead concentrate on yet another rebuked FOIA request.

You'll forgive me therefore if I say I'm entirely underwhelmed with your so called evidence, as odds are, I've seen your photos before you have. I don't go to those conspiracy web sites to pre-process my information for me. I always go directly to the source.

Excellent stuff, as you go directly to the source then there will be no problems posting support as to why my assumptions of the cut steels are wrong and yours are correct, pictures of alternative cutting devices please.

...and yet you continue to evade the blatantly obvious flaw in your scenario: how is it that 500,000 people in downtown Manhattan never noticed a massive tremor that registered at seismic stations miles away, seven seconds before the impact of the planes? If you can't get past that inconvenient truth then your supposed interpretation of mysterious differences in the times listed in separate reports doesn't even get out of the gate.

The mind boggles here with the *flaw*, let`s break it down you state 500k New Yorkers would have felt the tremor, so you are saying there was no tremors on or around the time of impacts?, well there was... two, so this proves that 500k New Yorkers did not feel the tremors, they happened Dave, plain and simple, i`m way out of the gate.

If you're going to quote historical events then quote them correctly. The reason for the invasion was because Afghanistan specifically refused to hand Bin Laden over for trial, despite even other Islamic countries asking them to. The films you're referring to were recovered *after* the invasion had started. I just looked this up- the war began in October, and they found the videos in December.

Do some research Dave, and locate the only *evidence* available to nail Bin Laden and thus the declaration of war.

It's blatantly obvious at this point that you're not looking at the evidence and seeing suspicious activity. You WANT there to be signs of suspicious activity so you'll keep staring at it until you start seeing it. It's also blatantly obvious you're getting your information from those conspriacy web sites trying to get you all paranoid over shadows becuase there's no way you can be coming up with this on your own. If this isn't enough to convince you that those damned fool conspiracy web sites are feeding you rubbish, I don't know what is.

Again Dave, I will request you post 100% fool proof evidence backing the OS from that day to back you up, unfortunately harsh words and truther character assassination are sooooo last year.

Originally posted by Seventh
The piece in question was a solitary exterior section at the top of the debris, overlooking two questions I asked here - Why cut out all 3 truss seats, and why are there no signs of thermal cutting device usage, do as we have to, and post pictures of workers using none thermal based cutting tools, until you post evidence of such tools then your replies are nothing more than your personal opinions.

I don't understand the question in the way you worded it. It is an indisputable fact that workers were cutting the steel out of the wreckage with torches, and it's an indisbutable fact that saws exist with hardened blades that can cut steel. I presumed that the workers at ground zero used saws in addition to torches, but since I have no photographic evidence proving they used saws in addition to torches, I therefore retract my statement and concede that the steel you showed had been cut by the cleanup crews with torches exclusively.

I still don't see how this benefits your conspiracy stories, any.

a great example here is Bush`s admission of seeing the 1st plane hit whilst watching a TV in the corridor pre goat book reading, this aspect was picked up on, it was proven that- There was no TV in the area the President was in and has never been a TV in that area, so this left one option, he watched it on his satellite TV in his limousine, a FOIA request was sent to the respective agency and here are the replies....

No, actually, it is a great example of how you are willing to grasp at any straw to keep your conspiracy stories alive. It should be obvious that he misspoke and meant to say he saw the plane HAD hit the building, since Bush is famous for his poor public speaking skills. Your dropping innundo...and let's face it, dropping innuendo IS what you're doing...that there's a case for conspiracy based on Bush not saying the word, "had" is ridiculous, even for you.

Excellent stuff, as you go directly to the source then there will be no problems posting support as to why my assumptions of the cut steels are wrong and yours are correct, pictures of alternative cutting devices please.

Are you arguing over whether the workers were using saws in addition to torches, or are you arguing over whether there were workers cutting the steel during the cleanup *at all*? OR, are you arguing that the hundreds of experienced steel workers clearing the site never noticed any of the (according to you) glaringly obvious signs of sabotage on any of the steel sticking out in front of them?

It seems to me that all your arguments depend entirely upon your assuming you know more about the events of 9/11 than even the people who were intimately involved in it.

The mind boggles here with the *flaw*, let`s break it down you state 500k New Yorkers would have felt the tremor, so you are saying there was no tremors on or around the time of impacts?, well there was... two, so this proves that 500k New Yorkers did not feel the tremors, they happened Dave, plain and simple, i`m way out of the gate.

Nice try at weaseling out of your own words, but I'm not going to fall for it. You said the differences in times listed among several reports "implies" there "may" have been a separate tremor seven and fourteen seconds *before* the planes had impacted that were powerful enough to register at seismic stations miles away. Noone in Manhattan would have considered the tremors they felt at the time of impact becuase they would have seen right away what had caused it. A tremor that occurred before the impact would have stood out like a sore thumb, which is why your claims of a pre-impact tremor has no merit,

Do some research Dave, and locate the only *evidence* available to nail Bin Laden and thus the declaration of war.

The one who is sorely in need to do research here is you. You were refering to the video recovered in Afghanistan in your critique, and I told you they were recovered after the war had started. This is irrefuatable and cannot be debated. The "evidence" linking bin laden to the attack wasn't any video, but the contents of Mohammed Atta's luggage which was still on the connecting flight, which the FBI used to to investigate the rest of his doings.

Again Dave, I will request you post 100% fool proof evidence backing the OS from that day to back you up, unfortunately harsh words and truther character assassination are sooooo last year.

I already did- Bin Laden's admission on Al Jazeera in 2004. Al Jazeera is a favorite broadcast outlet for Al Qaida broadcasts so they would almost certainly have their own undisclosed way of authenticating legitimate al Qaida releases, and most nitibly, one that Al Qaida never renounced. Since your entire critique against it was an argument over some OTHER video, I have to concur you cannot refute the 2004 video on Al Jazeera.

Also, consider this- the US gov't showed the classified material it possesed linking Al Qaida to the 9/11 attacks to it's NATO allies, and when they compared it to what their own intelligence services knew, they found it credible and they invoked article 5. We know they found it credible becuase we also showed them our evidence that Iraq was developing WMD and they DIDN'T find it credible. Thsi is the reason why NATO is in Afghanistan but not in Iraq.

This is not innuendo or bait and switch. This is reality.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I don't understand the question in the way you worded it. It is an indisputable fact that workers were cutting the steel out of the wreckage with torches, and it's an indisbutable fact that saws exist with hardened blades that can cut steel. I presumed that the workers at ground zero used saws in addition to torches, but since I have no photographic evidence proving they used saws in addition to torches, I therefore retract my statement and concede that the steel you showed had been cut by the cleanup crews with torches exclusively. I still don't see how this benefits your conspiracy stories, any.

If the saws that you mention are disc cutters they use a circular blade, these show distinctive marks on the face of the cut, small ruts in an arc shape.

No, actually, it is a great example of how you are willing to grasp at any straw to keep your conspiracy stories alive. It should be obvious that he misspoke and meant to say he saw the plane HAD hit the building, since Bush is famous for his poor public speaking skills. Your dropping innundo...and let's face it, dropping innuendo IS what you're doing...that there's a case for conspiracy based on Bush not saying the word, "had" is ridiculous, even for you.

Bush managed to remember the whole speech from Andrew Card word for word, whilst at the same time wrongly thinking he had watched the 1st crash on a TV that was never there, think of what Card was actually telling him at the time, and the sheer importance of it.

Are you arguing over whether the workers were using saws in addition to torches, or are you arguing over whether there were workers cutting the steel during the cleanup *at all*? OR, are you arguing that the hundreds of experienced steel workers clearing the site never noticed any of the (according to you) glaringly obvious signs of sabotage on any of the steel sticking out in front of them?

What I am stating here is quite simple, there is a lot of pictures showing steels to be cut, by a source of which there is no physical evidence to support.

It seems to me that all your arguments depend entirely upon your assuming you know more about the events of 9/11 than even the people who were intimately involved in it.

There are hundreds whom were intimately involved, whom all have a story to tell, why do you ignore their side?. I don`t assume anything, I see what a lot of others see also.

Nice try at weaseling out of your own words, but I'm not going to fall for it. You said the differences in times listed among several reports "implies" there "may" have been a separate tremor seven and fourteen seconds *before* the planes had impacted that were powerful enough to register at seismic stations miles away. Noone in Manhattan would have considered the tremors they felt at the time of impact becuase they would have seen right away what had caused it. A tremor that occurred before the impact would have stood out like a sore thumb, which is why your claims of a pre-impact tremor has no merit,

Nice try at weasling out Dave, your theory as to why 500k New Yorkers did not feel a tremor is answered here..........

A score of I on the Mercalli scale equates to a value between 1.0 and a 3.0 on the Richter scale and indicates a tremor felt only by a very few people under very specific circumstances.

source....

www.scienceclarified.com...

The one who is sorely in need to do research here is you. You were refering to the video recovered in Afghanistan in your critique, and I told you they were recovered after the war had started. This is irrefuatable and cannot be debated. The "evidence" linking bin laden to the attack wasn't any video, but the contents of Mohammed Atta's luggage which was still on the connecting flight, which the FBI used to to investigate the rest of his doings.

Wrongly misworded, my apologies, so war was declared via evidence that was not enough to make F.B.I.`s 9/11 most wanted page, due to the fact they could not indict Bin Laden as there was no evidence whatsoever linking him to it.

I already did- Bin Laden's admission on Al Jazeera in 2004. Al Jazeera is a favorite broadcast outlet for Al Qaida broadcasts so they would almost certainly have their own undisclosed way of authenticating legitimate al Qaida releases, and most nitibly, one that Al Qaida never renounced. Since your entire critique against it was an argument over some OTHER video, I have to concur you cannot refute the 2004 video on Al Jazeera.

I believe that report as much as you do the one regarding him stating he had nothing to do with 9/11

Also, consider this- the US gov't showed the classified material it possesed linking Al Qaida to the 9/11 attacks to it's NATO allies, and when they compared it to what their own intelligence services knew, they found it credible and they invoked article 5. We know they found it credible becuase we also showed them our evidence that Iraq was developing WMD and they DIDN'T find it credible. Thsi is the reason why NATO is in Afghanistan but not in Iraq.

When you have a certain amount of control over a group you created, you can pretty much create the history and knowledge you have over them.

This is not innuendo or bait and switch. This is reality.

This is not innuendo or bait and switch. This is reality.

Originally posted by Seventh

If the saws that you mention are disc cutters they use a circular blade, these show distinctive marks on the face of the cut, small ruts in an arc shape.

All right then, becuase I believe this is a ridiculous topic to be bogged down in, for sake of argument I will go along with your assertion that it was in fact cut by torches.

This allows me to ask: where are you going with this? It *still* isn't any sign of sabotage. It was cut during the cleanup process of ground zero, as ground crews using torched to cut the steel is an irrefutable fact and cannot be debated. The search dog proves right there it was an area of interest for the ground crews.

Bush managed to remember the whole speech from Andrew Card word for word, whilst at the same time wrongly thinking he had watched the 1st crash on a TV that was never there, think of what Card was actually telling him at the time, and the sheer importance of it.

I didn't say Bush had a bad memory or too illiterate to read speeches off teleprompters. I said he was a terrible public speaker. Do you really, and I mean REALLY, need me to provide examples?

Tell me, before I go any further with this, are you really basing your "inside job" claims solely on Bush not saying the word "had"?

What I am stating here is quite simple, there is a lot of pictures showing steels to be cut, by a source of which there is no physical evidence to support.

Please rephrase your statement. Are you saying you believe there is no physical evidence to support how the steel was cut, in which case, I would need to know what your experience and background in steel working is, or are you saying you do not know the source of the photographs, which were almost certainly taken by Joel Meyerowitz?

Nice try at weasling out Dave, your theory as to why 500k New Yorkers did not feel a tremor is answered here..........

Rubbish. I don't need to weasel out of anything becuase it's not my obligation to prove why something didn't happen. You're the one who's claiming that a tremor massive enough to be seen on seismic stations miles away occurred seven seconds before the impact, so it's your obligation to show that it had. So far, the only, and I mean the ONLY, thing you have is innuendo based upon a time mismatch between two independent reports.

Just for the sake of argument, where was this tremor centralized, anyway? It wasn't in any of the basement areas, becuase that's where the parking garage, subway stations, underground shopping malls, etc all were which were all populated at the time so we know they suffered no damage whatsoever before the impact. After all, this is where it would have had to be, or else it would have played no part in the WTC collapse.

Wrongly misworded, my apologies, so war was declared via evidence that was not enough to make F.B.I.`s 9/11 most wanted page, due to the fact they could not indict Bin Laden as there was no evidence whatsoever linking him to it.

DING DING DING! You have now posted irrefutable proof you are getting your information from the garbage those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shovelling out, becuase I have seen that exact statement coming from them almost word for word. Thank you for proving my point.

What these conspiracy web sites aren't telling you is the reason why he isn't on the FBI's most wanted list is- to be on the list he needs to be charged by a grand jury, meaning the public civil courts. The gov't wants to try Bin Laden in military courts, so they can keep the proceedings secret.

...not that it matters, since it was just announced today that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed intends to make a "why he did it" statement during his public trial, which flushes your "inside job" claims down the loo right there.

I believe that report as much as you do the one regarding him stating he had nothing to do with 9/11

The problem for you is that the statement you're referring to was a written questionnaire that was passed through the Taliban government, so there's no proof whatsoever that it came from him. The interview by the Pakistani journalist and the public broadcast in Al Jazeera DO have proof that it came from him. Hamid Mir has a photo with him sitting next to the guy!

In short, you will believe anything that supports your "inside job" claims regardless of its questionable background, and you will ignore anything that refutes your "inside job" claims regardless of the credibility of the evidence. Is this really what you're telling me?

When you have a certain amount of control over a group you created, you can pretty much create the history and knowledge you have over them.

Unsubstanciated accusations is not your forte. Since France and Germany chose not to send troops to Iraq, that right there says your guess is based entirely upon your own antiestablishment outlook on life, rather than upon the actual facts.

At what point will it finally dawn on you that you have absolutely nothing backing up these "inside job" claims other than innuendo and unsubstanciated accusations?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

All right then, becuase I believe this is a ridiculous topic to be bogged down in, for sake of argument I will go along with your assertion that it was in fact cut by torches. This allows me to ask: where are you going with this? It *still* isn't any sign of sabotage.

It was cut during the cleanup process of ground zero, as ground crews using torched to cut the steel is an irrefutable fact and cannot be debated. The search dog proves right there it was an area of interest for the ground crews.

Here we go again, twisting what I have said, there are signs of steels that have been cut with none thermal based devices, you state these have been cut by clearing crews, where are the pictures of clearing crews using none thermal cutting gear?.

I didn't say Bush had a bad memory or too illiterate to read speeches off teleprompters. I said he was a terrible public speaker. Do you really, and I mean REALLY, need me to provide examples? Tell me, before I go any further with this, are you really basing your "inside job" claims solely on Bush not saying the word "had"?

Had???, no idea where you get this notion, so it is down to Bush`s terrible public speaking that he wrongly thought he had seen the 1st impact (we know he is not talking about the 1st here, as he recalls word to word of when he was notified of the 2nd) on a television in a place there was and have never has been, a television there.

Please rephrase your statement. Are you saying you believe there is no physical evidence to support how the steel was cut, in which case, I would need to know what your experience and background in steel working is, or are you saying you do not know the source of the photographs, which were almost certainly taken by Joel Meyerowitz?

Here we go once again, twisting and trying to make this whole aspect way more complex than it is, most of those pictures are FEMA`s, loads show workers using a thermal lance or oxy-acetylene torches, both leave tell tale signs, none show alternative cutting devices, loads of steels show no signs of thermal based cuts, got it now?, as far as my experience goes with steel cutting, I have been in the building game for 30+ years including a lot of demolition, I know what a thermal cutting torch cut steel looks like.

Rubbish. I don't need to weasel out of anything becuase it's not my obligation to prove why something didn't happen. You're the one who's claiming that a tremor massive enough to be seen on seismic stations miles away occurred seven seconds before the impact, so it's your obligation to show that it had. So far, the only, and I mean the ONLY, thing you have is innuendo based upon a time mismatch between two independent reports.

Here we have you pleading not guilty to weasling out, your ignorance of the scale these two tremors were recorded at and how strong it was is forgiven, the whole point here is reports of explosions pre impacts and the seismic data to back it up.

Just for the sake of argument, where was this tremor centralized, anyway? It wasn't in any of the basement areas, becuase that's where the parking garage, subway stations, underground shopping malls, etc all were which were all populated at the time so we know they suffered no damage whatsoever before the impact. After all, this is where it would have had to be, or else it would have played no part in the WTC collapse.

I will estimate it was centralized around the area that Rodriguez explicitly details, they happened 14 and 17 seconds prior to impact, the data proves it, unless of course you have proof that the EDO or any of the many relative agencies etc that all use the U.T.C. have incorrect time stamps for the impacts or seismic data recorded.

Stereotypically Dave quote regarding *Truther* sites, treated with the respect it deserves.

None.

The problem for you is that the statement you're referring to was a written questionnaire that was passed through the Taliban government, so there's no proof whatsoever that it came from him. The interview by the Pakistani journalist and the public broadcast in Al Jazeera DO have proof that it came from him.

Hamid Mir has a photo with him sitting next to the guy! In short, you will believe anything that supports your "inside job" claims regardless of its questionable background, and you will ignore anything that refutes your "inside job" claims regardless of the credibility of the evidence.

Is this really what you're telling me? When you have a certain amount of control over a group you created, you can pretty much create the history and knowledge you have over them.

Unsubstanciated accusations is not your forte. Since France and Germany chose not to send troops to Iraq, that right there says your guess is based entirely upon your own antiestablishment outlook on life, rather than upon the actual facts. At what point will it finally dawn on you that you have absolutely nothing backing up these "inside job" claims other than innuendo and unsubstanciated accusations?

The Queen of England asked me to marry her, here is a picture of me standing next to her, does this prove anything...... no, you mention unsubstantiated evidence is the only claims of an inside job fuelled by my anti-establishment outlook on life, it never crosses your mind that every single scrap of evidence put forward, is put forward, for a reason?, very little gets explained logically, a lot would be revealed if the FOIA requests were adhered to and abided by, yet you believe a story which has absolutely no 100% fool proof evidence to offer whatsoever, you speak of a man about to admit something after several years of torture, and whom knows what threats to his family if he does not, and you gleefully look forward to this as proving what exactly?.

A government that commits genocide at any given time, squeezes an admission from a tortured prisoner.

Identical scenario in my country involving 4 alleged terrorist cells committing suicide bombing runs war games, then it happens for real, again.

The probability of this happening using a 10 year mean is: One chance in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000


Unsubstantiated you say?.

Believe in governments you preach.

reply to post by Seventh


There is still no pictorial evidence of cutter charges. There will be deformations of the metal on both sides of each cut. No photos show such deformation. Torches and thermal lances did the work.
As to the times of the seismographic evidence, note that the speed of sound varies in geologic structures and that there are shear waves and reflected waves that arrive at different times. This has been explained many times in the past and there are threads on ATS that will contain much of the data and the analyses.

Originally posted by Seventh

Here we go again, twisting what I have said, there are signs of steels that have been cut with none thermal based devices, you state these have been cut by clearing crews, where are the pictures of clearing crews using none thermal cutting gear?.

...to which I will ask...AGAIN...what benefit will it be to you to know exactly what manner the clearing crews cut the steel.

It seems to me you're dropping innuendo of impropriety to make it look like something suspicious is going on, and the only way you can do this is to deliberately take everything out of context I.E. workers cutting the steel during cleanup, the search dog finding the spot to be an area of interest, etc. If this were a sign of pre-cut columns, there'd have been many, many, MANY more columns cut that just this one.

Had???, no idea where you get this notion, so it is down to Bush`s terrible public speaking that he wrongly thought he had seen the 1st impact (we know he is not talking about the 1st here, as he recalls word to word of when he was notified of the 2nd) on a television in a place there was and have never has been, a television there.

Excuse me? You're complaining that Bush said "He saw the plane" crash into the towers, in order to drop innuendo that Bush saw actual video footage of the first aircraft strike, are you not? This is yet more innuendo that the film crew knew the first plane was on its way, which in turn is innuendo that the attack was preplanned. It's pretty well clear he meant "he saw the plane HAD" crashed into the towers, as in he was watching the same video of the aftermath everyone else was watching, regardless of where it was that he was watching it.

Here we go once again, twisting and trying to make this whole aspect way more complex than it is, most of those pictures are FEMA`s, loads show workers using a thermal lance or oxy-acetylene torches, both leave tell tale signs, none show alternative cutting devices, loads of steels show no signs of thermal based cuts, got it now?, as far as my experience goes with steel cutting, I have been in the building game for 30+ years including a lot of demolition, I know what a thermal cutting torch cut steel looks like.

If you're involved with a "lot of demolition" then you'll know that secretly rigging a heavily populated skyscraper like the WTC towers, especially ones as large as the WTC towers, is nigh impossible. It requires months of preparation that would be outright blatant, in areas that would be impossible to conceal I.E. the perimeter columns which is literally in public areas, and impossible to hide from NYPA security who were specifically on the lookout for sabotage ever since the 1993 bombing .

If I was a gambling man, I'd wager that the next thing you're about to post is the five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" game of Bush's relative being on the board of directors of the WTC security company, which in turn is innuendo that the WTC security was usurped. Am I wrong?

Here we have you pleading not guilty to weasling out, your ignorance of the scale these two tremors were recorded at and how strong it was is forgiven, the whole point here is reports of explosions pre impacts and the seismic data to back it up.

Rubbish. You have one report from a seismic station reporting when they recorded a seismic shock, and you have another report who repeated the impact time from someone else who heard it from someone else. I will be willign to agree that the commission report figure is incorrect and the seismic station figure is the actual impact time, but trying to derive that into innuendo of pre-impact explosions solely from a mismatch of figures smacks of contrivance on your part.

I will estimate it was centralized around the area that Rodriguez explicitly details, they happened 14 and 17 seconds prior to impact, the data proves it, unless of course you have proof that the EDO or any of the many relative agencies etc that all use the U.T.C. have incorrect time stamps for the impacts or seismic data recorded.

...to which I would respond, where exactly is that? There were six sub-basements in the towers. It wasn't in the shopping areas. It wasn't in the PATH concourse. It wasn't in the parking garage. People were in all those areas. It certainly wasn't the mechanical sub- basement at the very bottom on B6 or the generators would have been destroyed and the power would have gone out immediately. What's left?

This is my whole point- it's one thing to be dropping innuendo all over the place in order to get people to believe these conspiracy stories of yours are plausible, but it's another thing entirely to flesh out your innuendo with facts. Innuendo of impropriety is still innuendo.

Is this really what you're telling me? When you have a certain amount of control over a group you created, you can pretty much create the history and knowledge you have over them.

Good grief, THIS is what you have as a response to your unsubstanciated accusations? MORE unsubstanciated accusations? The fact remains that France and Germany agreed to send troops to Afghanistan, but they did NOT agree to send troops to Iraq. They are irrefutably independent of US policy.

The Queen of England asked me to marry her, here is a picture of me standing next to her, does this prove anything...... no, you mention unsubstantiated evidence is the only claims of an inside job fuelled by my anti-establishment outlook on life, it never crosses your mind that every single scrap of evidence put forward, is put forward, for a reason?

Yes it does cross my mind, which is the entire reason why I post here. You're quoting the rubbich you're getting off these damned fool conspriacy web sites, and THEY are putting out all this innuendo, quotes taken out of context, and five degrees of separation, "Kevin Bacon" games to get people paranoid over shadows. The problem for you is, when you put all the individual conspiracy stories they're spinning together, they sound like something some intoxicated fifteen year old would come up with. They aren't the least bit goal driven.

Case in point- Why the heck did these conspirators waste their time planting bombs in the basement to begin with? The building started collapsing at the point of impact of the planes, not the basement. They might as well have blown up the antenna on the roof, for all the effect it had on the building's demolition.

very little gets explained logically, a lot would be revealed if the FOIA requests were adhered to and abided by, yet you believe a story which has absolutely no 100% fool proof evidence to offer whatsoever, you speak of a man about to admit something after several years of torture, and whom knows what threats to his family if he does not, and you gleefully look forward to this as proving what exactly?.

EXCELLENT question, actually. Khalid Sheick Mohammed (according to his defense attorney) wants to use the public trial as a soapbox to use to gripe about US foreign policiy and how that policy led to the attack. He's not goign to deny his involvement, but rather, he apparently wants to explain how we're only reaping what we sow. The truthers, say all they want is to know the truth behind the 9/11 attack, and they're about to get a sworn testimony by the brains behind the attack how it really was a Al Qaida attack. They're facing a monumental problem- will they accept this testimony and acknowledge it really was an attack by foreign terrorists, or, will they go back on their word and completely ignore it, and insist this is all yet more gov't disinformation becuase they still don't want to give up their conspiracy stories?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Excuse me? You're complaining that Bush said "He saw the plane" crash into the towers, in order to drop innuendo that Bush saw actual video footage of the first aircraft strike, are you not?

Let's not also forget the extensive library of "Bushisms" to be found on the net were the bonehead misspoke. Which is practically everytime he spoke. The only reason that is weighed as significant by gentlemen *or gentlewomen* like Seventh is because it seems to support his theory. Grasping for straws and all that.

Here's a site with some Bushisms.

Could go on forever here, head-bang-wall.. spring to mind, here we have at least two examples where facts strengthen an alternative reason, Bush - 1st plane - limousine satellite - evidence - FOIA - satellite TV was watched between 07:00 - 09:00 a.m. - the papers showing what was watched have never been released (can look at the correspondence relating to this a few posts up).

Witnesses telling of explosions prior to impacts, seismic data enforces this, but obviously someone has their times wrong, I guess electronic data that records time using a clock that checks itself every 2000th of a second is not accurate enough.

Steels showing no signs of cutting charges, also showing no signs of what was the alleged cause of collapse either, heat damage, although the latter appears to have no significance whatsoever.

Some food for thought - Anyone whom has ever worked on a demolition site as some form of driver, be it a lorry or heavy none tracks plant, will know only to well how often reinforcing (sheet mesh) used in concrete, punctures their tyres, there was 110 acres of concrete per tower, I have yet to see any signs of mesh, slabs of concrete or remnants of floor trusses, anywhere, where did it go?.

The only mesh I have noticed was as the basement, a few bits can be seen......

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/db0dba92d06a.jpg[/atsimg]

And Dave, not all demolition is explosives based.

[edit on 25-11-2009 by Seventh]

Originally posted by Seventh
Could go on forever here, head-bang-wall.. spring to mind, here we have at least two examples where facts strengthen an alternative reason, Bush - 1st plane - limousine satellite - evidence - FOIA - satellite TV was watched between 07:00 - 09:00 a.m. - the papers showing what was watched have never been released (can look at the correspondence relating to this a few posts up).

the first aircraft hit at 8:46, and not even you can deny that by 8:50 every television camera in NYC was reporting the impact in real time. You have not stated anythign which disproves that Bush was simply watching the same post-inpact news feed the rest of the world was watching.

FYI the only reason you're "banging your head against the wall" is becuase you're frustrated from seeing all these secret signs and clues to conspiracy that noone else is seeing. Mostly, it's becuase you WANT there to be a conspiracy, so you're naturally interpreting what you see as being secret signs and clues to a conspiracy. We're not the ones trying to force the facts to fit a predetermined scenario, it's you.

Witnesses telling of explosions prior to impacts, seismic data enforces this, but obviously someone has their times wrong, I guess electronic data that records time using a clock that checks itself every 2000th of a second is not accurate enough.

...and you actually claim I'm the one putting words in *your* mouth? I already said that the Seismic station's recorded impact time is almost certainly the correct figure over the commission report's impact time. I also said that the commission report didn't make up their own time, but according to the bibliography they used the figure that the NTSB supplied them. Since you hold the NTSB figure to be so credible, the onus is on you: where did THEY get their seven and fourteen second differences from?

...and I will ask AGAIN- where were these pre-impact explosions? You keep ignoring the fact this was an *occupied* building, so people were everywhere from the top floor to the basement, so any explosions would have had hordes of witnesses..particularly since almost everyone below the impact level survived the collapse.

Steels showing no signs of cutting charges, also showing no signs of what was the alleged cause of collapse either, heat damage, although the latter appears to have no significance whatsoever.

Dude, there were 110 floors worth of debris. It was only one or two floors that needed to fail for the chain reaction we saw to occur. That means the debris you're lookign at in your photos has less than a 1 in 110 probability of being relevent to the initial structural failure.

Some food for thought - Anyone whom has ever worked on a demolition site as some form of driver, be it a lorry or heavy none tracks plant, will know only to well how often reinforcing (sheet mesh) used in concrete, punctures their tyres, there was 110 acres of concrete per tower, I have yet to see any signs of mesh, slabs of concrete or remnants of floor trusses, anywhere, where did it go?.

You're still quoting that rubbish from those conspiracy web sites. The floors didn't have any steel mesh. The floors were poured on-site into large corrigated steel pans, which were in turn supported by horizontal steel trusses. The floors themselves were only four inches thick or so.

And Dave, not all demolition is explosives based.

It doesn't make an iota of difference. All demolitions by definition cause destruction, and destruction is impossible to conceal, particularly when the building had full time staff of people specifically looking for damage.

You know, like how every OTHER large building in the world has?

Let me tell you some more of the “truther´s logic” that has inspired me to try and become a “debunker.”
The “inside job” theories of the “truthers” that I have seen:
1.- Holograms. Preposterous theory. I believe many truther sites have stopped supporting this.
Dozens of amateur videos and photos that coincide exactly with one another.
2.- Fake T.V. images. Nonsense, also the amateur videos, photos and eyewitnesses reports debunk this theory immediately.
3.- Blame Saudis for the terrorist attacks, but go after Afghanistan first and Iraq later.
Why no Afghan or Iraqi terrorists??
4.- Demolition of buildings with no explosions.
I now there are some explosions reported by witnesses but those aren´t at the time of collapse. There´s video evidence that during the collapse there are no explosions. The famous reported “squibs” that show plums of dust going out a few windows are completely different from detonations caused by explosives, and they are too few anyway.
Also the reasoning behind this theory is that the “core” was taken out first, to make the building collapse, but there´s video evidence showing much of the core standing after most of the collapse, and then falling apart. So, the “mechanics” of the collapse don´t match with a demolition theory.
And already we can find an altered video of the collapse of the first tower were explosions sounds have been added, during collapse. It´s really a shame on truthers to do something like that.
The fact is that during collapse there are no explosions. Also true for building 7 by the way.
5.- Time of collapse. Time it yourself, there are many videos that show the collapse of each tower and you can see yourself that the time of each collapse is much longer that initially reported, which brought up the truther´s “as fast as free fall” theory that supported their demolition theory.
6.- Evidence of demolition materials at ground zero.
No demolition related material was found anywhere at ground zero, and there should have been plenty of it around. So much that it should have been visible in many photographs.
The “truthers” have hung on to a theory of thermite or thermate or nano-thermite that has been debunked from the start. Has no merit whatsoever.
7.- Photographs taken at ground zero showing cut beams.
Truther´s use those photos to push the argument of beams having been cut previous to collapse with cut charges, and the fact is those beams were cut during the clean up work. Another “cheat”??
8.- The “stand down order” supposedly given by vice-president Cheney.
Never happened. Nowhere in official documents or reports from 9/11 is there a discussion of a “stand down order”. This is also a fabrication of the truther movement.
9.- The “pilot´s for truth” web site. This site was such a big disappointment to me, because being a 32 years of experience airline pilot myself I couldn´t believe the treatment I got over there.
They started harassing me from the first day, and questioning me and suddenly I got banned. Never insulted anybody or violate any of the norms of the site. I just tried to contribute my knowledge of some things and expressed my doubts about the diverse theories like I´m doing here.

Most you OS debunkers are using analogies that most real Truthers do not except.
Your tag team of ridiculing and insults of the Truth movement has not gone un-notices.
Some of you debunkers have no problems showing how ignorant you really are. How can any of you debunkers even talk about logic when some of you clearly have demonstrated that you have no logic . Any person who has read the FEMA report, the 911-commission report, and the NIST report can clearly see the discrepancies and unanswered questions. It is obvious to me, what some of you debunkers are trying to do here and getting to the truth is the last thing on your agenda.

The amount of time you debunkers have spent on ATS should have opened your mind to some truth, not to spread disinformation.

Originally posted by rush969
Let me tell you some more of the “truther´s logic” that has inspired me to try and become a “debunker.”
The “inside job” theories of the “truthers” that I have seen:
1.- Holograms. Preposterous theory.
2.- Fake T.V. images. Nonsense, the amateur videos, photos and eyewitnesses reports debunk this theory immediately.
3.- Blame Saudis for the terrorist attacks, but go after Afghanistan first and Iraq later.
Why no Afghan or Iraqi terrorists??
4.- Demolition of buildings with no explosions.
The “mechanics” of the collapse don´t match with a demolition theory.
The fact is that during collapse there are no explosions. Also true for building 7 by the way.
5.- Time of collapse. Please see this:
www.youtube.com.../u/39/qLShZOvxVe4
6.- No evidence of demolition materials at ground zero.
7.- Photographs taken at ground zero showing cut beams.
Those beams were cut during the clean up work.
8.- The “stand down order” supposedly given by vice-president Cheney.
Never happened. See here:
www.youtube.com.../u/44/DwFGLIsIBuM
9.- The “pilot´s for truth” web site.

I´m surprised to see no answers to this comments.
What happened people??
Looking forward to discussing any of the points shown here.
Now I have to add numbers 10 and 11 to the reasons I still believe the OS. Or maybe I should say I´d rather believe in the OS than any of the alternatives I´ve seen so far.
10.- The new "smoking gun" that came forward a few days ago.
This info. apparently comes from the P4T website. (If you read number 9 you have an idea of what I think about them.) It´s the flight deck or cockpit door sensor information on the FDR. (Flight data recorder.) To begin with, this makes no sense. P4T is basing it´s "discovery" on information that they have claimed to be false. But now, because they found something suspicious in that info. they come forward with it saying, look what we found.
It´s as if I´m going to be your prosecutor for murder 1, and I base my case on saying that you lied when you confessed to the crime!!!
And it has been demonstrated that "apparently" the indication is of a closed door for the full length of the last 12 flights of that plane. Some of which were more that 4 hours long. THERE´S NO WAY, that the cockpit door on a passerger airliner stayed closed, that long. Pilots will have coffee and drinks and food, brought to them at least once during that time, and each pilot will have to visit the bathroom, at least once during that time. Ask any pilot, please.
11.- Is also one of the latest discoveries. The International Space Station. To try to implicate this scientific achievement of multiple nations into the 9/11 tragedy shows to me how desperate some individuals or groups are, to find something to feed a clearly dwindling dying movement.
How could anybody think that there would be some kind of a weapon on the station?? That shows total ignorance of the project, what it stands for, what is being done in it, and the difference of Countries that are participating in this.
The other problem with "truthers" is that the rest of us have to prove them wrong. They don´t have to prove they are right. They just make all these claims, but not show any evidence of how it was done.
Let´s take the Space Station.
How can anybody prove there is no weapon of any kind there?? That´s what truthers will as you to do. Prove it!!! Can´t be done.

Originally posted by rush969
I´m surprised to see no answers to this comments.
What happened people??
Looking forward to discussing any of the points shown here.
Now I have to add numbers 10 and 11 to the reasons I still believe the OS. Or maybe I should say I´d rather believe in the OS than any of the alternatives I´ve seen so far.

That's it, right there. It's only in the minds of these conspiracy supporters that everyone in the world is marching in step to whatever the gov't is telling us like a bunch of automatons. In the real world, if these people don't accept what the gov't is telling us then it becomes THEIR responsibility to provide us with an alernative explanation that better fits the facts. So far, the explanations they've given us are even more unbelievable than what they claim they're criticizing. Hologram planes, nukes in the basement, controlled demolitions, lasers from outer space, good grief, their claims sound like plots from a comic book.

It smacks of a personal political agenda to conduct a smear campaign by any means necessary, than it does anythign else.

OS believer have lost their sense of logic and reasoning when it come to explaining that steel beams do not shoot in the air hundreds of feet upward in a normal building collapse.

Plain office fires do not bring steel and concrete buildings down in an hour, it never has happened.

Natural building collapses do not fall at freefall speed.

We always investigate our plane crashes but, not on 911.

OS believers are duped to believe no one lied in our government about 911.

OS believers are duped into believing Ted Olen lie.

OS believers believe that OBL was on kidney dialyses orchestrating and carrying out 911 in a dark cold cave in Afghanistan.

OS believers believe molten steel is created from burning offices furniture.

Os believers believe natural building collapse always fall perfectly in their own footprint.

OS believers believe airplane crash debris does not need recorded serial numbers to prove parts belong to said plane.

OS believers believe our government would not lie to them.

OS believers believe Boeing 757 have only one engine because, plane that hit pentagon only had one.

OS believers believe flight 93 crashed but, FDR records still show plane flying and miles away from crash site.

OS believers believe NIST report is one hundred percent true.

OS believers believe the 911 commission reports are one hundred percent true.

OS believers believe the Bush administration never lied to the American people.

OS believers believe all nineteen hijackers are real and the FBI DNA proves it.

OS believers believe we need to give up our freedom for security.

OS believers believe we should not ask questions of government authority.

OS believers believe all science beside government science is totally wrong.

OS believers believe “pull it” means for firemen to run away.

OS believers believe terrorist trained in a Cessna can fly a Boeing 767, 757 like any fighter pilots.

OS believers believe the FAA did not do anything wrong that is why they destroyed all their tapes on 911.

OS believers believe NORAD always waits an hour before launching a jet to intercept a stray commercial airliner off it flight path.

OS believers believe that “no accountability” in our government is necessary for those who flat our refused to respond like NORAD and FAA, President, vice President, CIA, FBI to save over three thousand people on the morning of 911.

OS believers believe mainstream News is not used to peddle propaganda for our military.

OS believers believe our country is incapable of doing a false flag operation but all other countries can.

OS believers believe they do not have to provide evidences to prove the OS is true.

OS believers believe that Bush and Cheney had no interest in oil in the eight years in office.

OS believers believe they are not in denial.

reply to post by impressme


Wow, I haven't seen such a load of manure since I helped clean out my Uncle's hog house when I was 14. But, please continue clinging to your story. I need the laughs.

Originally posted by impressmeOS believers believe flight 93 crashed but, FDR records still show plane flying and miles away from crash site.

So they got the FDR and then didn't bother to rig it. They reckoned without the incredible power of your "research" didn't they?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

Wow, I haven't seen such a load of manure since I helped clean out my Uncle's hog house when I was 14. But, please continue clinging to your story. I need the laughs.

You call it all a load of manure but The fact is, you defend it everyday in every 911 thread. Call it what you want but the shoe fits.

Swampfox46_1999, if you think it is so funny why do you defend it then?


BTW, you still owe me an apology for making up a lie, about me. When are you going to step up to the plate and be the man you pretend to be.


[edit on 8-12-2009 by impressme]

reply to post by impressme


As I read down your list, I see more and more people being excluded. I would guess that there are very few, if any, who fit every statement on your list.
You should poll ATS to see how many classify themselves as being "OS Believers" based on your crtieria.