9/11 Survivors, and Daniel Sanjata Speak w/ WAC engage JC residents Q&A *Updated*

Originally posted by Sean48

What are we talking about here .
3 buildings down , 3000 people killed . Air travel changed forever.
2 wars with US soldiers dieing. over 1 trillion spent on wars with no end in
sight. US liberties taken away forever.

Your right Joey , your too smart for us.

Truthers are the chicken butts.

This post proves that in your case, and in the case of most truthers IMHO, truther protests about 9/11 are pure political. They DO NOT CARE that they are wrong about engineering issues, etc.

Just look at the disgrace that is ae4911truth. Yep, they have engineers. "They" do not have the guts to put their professional reputation on the line and submit a peer reviewed paper to any kind of respected journal. Instead, they get Tony Szamboti to make a fool of himself and submit to vanity rags and self ran websites.

They definitely have the ability to do something useful if they feel that strongly.

But they're either too chicken butt, or too lazy, or too embarassed to do anything useful.

reply to post by Joey Canoli


If there was a new investigation to figure out if there were malicious or benign sources of these explosions, would you support the new investigation, or still contest that it wouldn't bring anything new to the table?

3000+ people died

100+ people heard explosions before the plane impacts in the WTC basement levels in both buildings.

not to mention those explosions were strong enough to be felt across the Hudson. My sister who was an EMT at the time felt the shock-wave all the way at liberty state park.

Yes, benign explosions, when it could be felt 1 1/2 miles away.

There are more reasons for me to be skeptical of these explosions being benign, because not only did i witness the towers fall, and both plane impacts, not to mention family telling me what they heard/felt during that horrible day, something just doesn't sit right with these explosions in the sub basement. I don't know about you, but an exploding generator, or anything benign in the towers, would of not been felt 1 mile away.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
What liberty have you lost?

I can't take a 20 oz. bottle of shampoo on a flight with me.

My entire internet privacy is a joke.

Civil liberties are rights and freedoms that protect an individual from the state. Civil liberties set limits on government so that its members cannot abuse their power and interfere unduly with the lives of private citizens.

Common civil liberties include the rights of people, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and additionally, the right to due process, to a trial, to own property, and to privacy.

en.wikipedia.org...

Please don't tell me we haven't lost that liberty when we have school officials searching trucks parked off school property.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And when we have the SS knocking on a guys door and questioning him for 7 hours for a Twitter post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry to veer off topic OP.

reply to post by Nutter


Im sorry....what section of the Constitution covers carrying shampoo on an airliner......besides you can still put it in a checked bag.

Internet privacy...now that is hilarious....when you consider that the majority of the hardware that makes the internet possible is under the control of the US government. You havent had the "right" to privacy on the internet since its inception.

Threatening the President has always gotten the attention of the Secret Service it is a federal crime after all.


Kinda what I figured...no real argument......

reply to post by ugie1028

not to mention those explosions were strong enough to be felt across the Hudson. My sister who was an EMT at the time felt the shock-wave all the way at liberty state park.

A shock wave felt that far away, would have blown out a lot more windows in manhatten.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Threatening the President has always gotten the attention of the Secret Service it is a federal crime after all.


Kinda what I figured...no real argument......

Kinda what I figured. Didn't bother to read the links. I'll let you figure out your mistake.

You want constitutional rights lost?

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Read the thread I linked to about the kid who had his truck searched while it was parked off school property by school officials.

Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that medical marijuana or any drug for that matter be governed by the federal government. That makes it a states issue. Yet, there is a federal law.

I could go on where I know I am not as free as I once was, but since you don't even take the time to look at my links and just assume what I linked to, then there is no point anymore. Have fun in your fantasy world.

reply to post by Nutter

Read the thread I linked to about the kid who had his truck searched while it was parked off school property by school officials

Well I guess that would depend on the definition of unreasonable. Where are the court documents on that?


Do you think the Civil Rights Act just "happened" out of the goodness of the politicians hearts? No, it took the PEOPLE willing to work to change something they saw as unjust. Same thing here, IF the kid's Fourth Amendment rights were truly violated, then he should be in court.

Too many people go through life thinking the know what their "rights" are, few of them ever bother to learn.

Then you mention the Tenth Amendment. Most people dont know what it says, they have forgotten everything after the right to keep and bear arms...and most of them want THAT stricken. You whine about marijuana laws should fall to the states....and yet, what are you doing to help elect people who remember that Amendment? Or are you too busy waiting for your unconstitutional government run health care?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Sean48

 

What liberty have you lost? I keep seeing people complain that they have lost rights...but no one will ever detail what they think they have lost.

You should try this website called ATS. There are threads and threads and threads answering your question. Many of them have you listed as a friend and help you to defend the OS in 9/11 threads. Just look around sometime. You would be amazed at what you might find when you turn off the AM radio and step away from the same old threads.

reply to post by Lillydale


Lets see...

Right to peacebly assemble..still intact
Right to freedom of speech..still intact
Right to practice your religion..still intact
Right to keep and bear arms..for the most part, still intact
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures...still intact (till shown otherwise in a court of law)

I could keep going down the list, but it wouldnt matter.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Lillydale

 

Lets see...

Right to peacebly assemble..still intact
Right to freedom of speech..still intact
Right to practice your religion..still intact
Right to keep and bear arms..for the most part, still intact
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures...still intact (till shown otherwise in a court of law)

I could keep going down the list, but it wouldnt matter.

You have officially just completely lost it haven't you? You started off today making less sense than usual and it got me wondering. Now I get this...um...whatever it is. I have no clue what this response is to or for or about but now I get the picture about you.

Originally posted by ugie1028

If there was a new investigation to figure out if there were malicious or benign sources of these explosions, would you support the new investigation, or still contest that it wouldn't bring anything new to the table?

I support the TM looking all they want. I have no issue with that.

But it's a non-starter:

1- If the guv is involved, the TM will repeat their complaints.

2- I would not support an investigation run by the TM that gives it any subpeona powers, etc. My fear is that they would not care, in their zeal, about violating people's right to private property, nor making poorly supported accusations (we already have MANY examples of this behavior - Killtown, etc)

So ..... no.

This thread is priceless. Reams of argument, thousands of words, from TM people trying to prove that almost anything can cause an explosion.

And so when explosions are heard on 9/11, doesn't that kind of suggest that they could have been caused by a multitude of things? Especially if there are so many potential explosives out there? And therefore there's no reason at all that the explosions heard were caused by demolition charges.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
This thread is priceless. Reams of argument, thousands of words, from TM people trying to prove that almost anything can cause an explosion.

Explosions are caused by compounds and conditions. Under the right conditions, just about anything can cause an explosion. What part of that are you having trouble with? Do you need the definition of explosion?

And so when explosions are heard on 9/11, doesn't that kind of suggest that they could have been caused by a multitude of things? Especially if there are so many potential explosives out there? And therefore there's no reason at all that the explosions heard were caused by demolition charges.

So you have invented the interesting new concept of the straw man leap. Interesting logic you use when reading threads. It shows that you apparently did not actually read the thread or are having a hard time with it.

You will not find nearly as many 'truthers' insisting that every explosion must have been part of some controlled demolition as you will find debunkers trying to claim there were no explosions at all. What exactly does that say about the 'OS movement?'

There were explosions, whatever the cause of them. There are plenty of reasons to expect secondary explosions in such chaos. There does not yet seem to be a good reason to claim there were no explosions or my personal favorite, to claim they must have been silent because you cannot hear them on crappy video equipment.

If what you are concerned with is truth and logic, I would go for the folks denying explosions at all. What is that all about? Then instead of painting with such a broad brush, acknowledge the discussion of explosions is just that. We have firemen specifically mentioning secondary devices for that argument.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
This thread is priceless. Reams of argument, thousands of words, from TM people trying to prove that almost anything can cause an explosion.

Sure is.

In their zeal to defend Rod's ever changing story, they didn't realize they were shooting themselves in the foot.

Not that surprising when you think about it. Collectively, the TM has shown that their own internal conflicts mean nothing to them.

Quite the circuit breaker they have working there. Must be nice.

reply to post by Lillydale


There's no "OS movement". There's no "OS". And I've never heard of anyone saying that there were absolutely no audible blasts at Ground Zero. After all, with two enormous jet fuel-laden aeroplanes smashing into skyscrapers at extreme speeds I'd be surprised if the area resembled a quiet Sunday afternoon in the park.

You've just spent a lengthy amount of time becoming increasingly hysterical in an attempt to prove that those explosions could have been caused by just about anything. A battery, a transformer, cleaning fluids, pressurised water.

So forgive me if I find that amusing, as it hardly helps the case for "bombs at the twin towers"

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures...still intact (till shown otherwise in a court of law)

You have not read the Patriot Act have you?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Lillydale

 

There's no "OS movement". There's no "OS".

How can there not be an "OS?" Please explain what you would call the story that was told to us by government officials? You can call it whatever you like, just let me know. Until you have a better name, Official Story works pretty well to describe the story given to us by officials.

And I've never heard of anyone saying that there were absolutely no audible blasts at Ground Zero.

Really? Would you wager that? Want to bet I can find quotes of people who support the "OS" complaining that the bombs must have been silent since there were not recorded well on tape? There is no way you actually read anything on ATS and have not seen that at least once. I will be happy to go to the trouble but I think you are being disingenuine to play some semantics game of some kind.

After all, with two enormous jet fuel-laden aeroplanes smashing into skyscrapers at extreme speeds I'd be surprised if the area resembled a quiet Sunday afternoon in the park.

You would think eh? But still, there they are.

You've just spent a lengthy amount of time becoming increasingly hysterical in an attempt to prove that those explosions could have been caused by just about anything. A battery, a transformer, cleaning fluids, pressurised water.

Becoming hysterical? FOX news veiwers please learn to differentiate between insults you dream up and facts. You have what to base that on? I have never been hysterical once and if my typing were to convey that I was, you would be able to point that out. I have faith you cannot.

So forgive me if I find that amusing, as it hardly helps the case for "bombs at the twin towers"

You want me to forgive you for laughing at over 3000 dead Americans? Yeah, you are super funny.

[edit on 1/20/10 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by Lillydale
How can there not be an "OS?" Please explain what you would call the story that was told to us by government officials? You can call it whatever you like, just let me know. Until you have a better name, Official Story works pretty well to describe the story given to us by officials.

It works well for you because it allows you to point out inconsistencies in accounts from different agencies or organisations and pretend that "they can't even keep their story straight". Meanwhile, back in the real world, people understand that there are several accounts that make up plausible versions of what happened, and that they will sometimes disagree.

And once again there's no "OS Movement". I, for example, disagree with several of the claims made by the US government about 9/11. The difference is that I don't waste my time with the sideshow of TM nonsense. Indeed I consider the TM to be just as damaging to the search for what went wrong as blind belief in the government.

Really? Would you wager that? Want to bet I can find quotes of people who support the "OS" complaining that the bombs must have been silent since there were not recorded well on tape? There is no way you actually read anything on ATS and have not seen that at least once. I will be happy to go to the trouble but I think you are being disingenuine to play some semantics game of some kind.

Disingenuous.

But no, I've never heard anyone claim that there were no loud banging sounds at ground zero. They may have done, but

1 You've not shown me them

2 Even if you did that wouldn't refute my statement. It remains perfectly true that I've never heard anyone claim such a thing. If they did then I'd disagree with them.

Becoming hysterical? FOX news veiwers please learn to differentiate between insults you dream up and facts. You have what to base that on? I have never been hysterical once and if my typing were to convey that I was, you would be able to point that out. I have faith you cannot.

She said. Hysterically.

You want me to forgive you for laughing at over 3000 dead Americans? Yeah, you are super funny.

I knew you'd pull out some sanctimonious drivel of this kind.

But I'll spell it out anyway: I'm not laughing at them. I'm laughing at you, spending hours of your time disproving a central canard of he Truth Movement. Well done.

Originally posted by Lillydale
Please explain what you would call the story that was told to us by government officials?

How about what actually happened - as opposed to the "truthers" made up stories about:
beam weapons from space, atomic bombs being used to bring down the towers, invisible ninja's using invisible explosives to bring down the buildings, thermate being found, aliens watching it all happen, 2000;s in the USAF knowing about etc etc and any other silly stories the ct's have come up with!

reply to post by dereks


you know whats really funny?

you bringing up the most insane CT's that are not even being mentioned in this thread.

your post made me laugh.



Another funny thing is that you bunch the truthers all up in one group, when the TM doesn't even support those theories.

keep trying to discredit the TM. but all i can say is that your failing miserably.