9/11 Truth Movement Gaining Scientific Credibility

And why exactly are people saying that RT is not a credible news source? They are a REAL news outlet, having real reporters, doing real news stories. They are the only legitimate news outlet that reported on Ron Paul accurately and fairly during the last election. They report on real stories, and they do it professionally and concisely. In fact, of all the mainstream news sources, they seem to be one of the few that still does good old fashioned reporting.

They don't seem to take a political slant based on bias, but will do stories on all kinds of topics, even if they are political hot-potatoes.

I really am tired of people here on ATS making wild claims, such as "most people on ATS consider RT to not be a reliable source." That is just bunk from what I can see. They are far more reliable than CNN, MSNBC, or FOX. Those stations are owned by people who have a very clear political agenda. RT seems to present stories that cut across political lines.

I very much like RT's style of reporting, their professionalism, they conciseness, and the fact that they cover real news stories... not just "Brittany Spears Fluff" stories like the other main stream media outlets.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Hello,
I read all the posts, well, all the ones that the ignore button did not omit. I just want to thank you for keeping me up to date on how this story is progressing.

Without RT, who would be covering this story as it progresses? Where would we be if all this information was not made available to us, by any news outlet/website?

I imagine it would be in the same hiding place as all the evidence being with-held from the people from day one. That's my biggest argument. The investigation was concluded even before it could get underneath the rubble. Why else would these architechs and engineers feel compelled to come forward in the first place? Because the eye witness accounts were buried in the rubble also. One eye witness couldn't even speak at the original commision hearing, not because the commision wasn't listening to witness testimony, but because that witness in particular just happened to have died mysteriously. I think his name was Barry Jennings. He had alot of clout.

Edit to add; Unsure of my facts about Barry




[edit on (2/27/1010 by loveguy]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
My source is all available images of the Pentagon and the witnesses that were there.

So you have no source for your claim, you ignore the physical evidence like other "truthers".

This is why the "truth" movement will not get anywhere, the "truthers" have no actual physical evidence of any sort of explosive or thermite being used at the WTC, and totally ignore the physical evidence of the 757 that hit the Pentagon.

The one attempt to prove thermite was used at the WTC turned up paint, and they had to resort to a vanity press without peer review to get that published, a vanity press that has been shown would publish anything if you paid them $800!

reply to post by brygivrob

"I used to be a truther, but I saw enough facts, actual facts, to realise that it's just a bunch of people trying to prove what they already believe."

That's not how you role? Really? as in "Let's roll!" ?

You seem to be an anomaly.

"...you've never really had a significant number of people who've questioned- looked at the evidence and questioned the official narrative, switch sides and go back to believing in the official narrative. All of the movement has been in the other way."

Jesse Richard said that, in case you didn't watch the video.

Can you show me the facts, the actual facts, because we all know, actually, how un-factual, some facts can be. So, can you show me some of the facts that changed your mind?

Please, I beg you! This affliction from which I suffer needs a remedy. And those facts of yours sound just the thing.

Maybe signed affidavits by 500 physicists supporting the os? Or, CCTV video footage from the gas bar and hotels surrounding the Pentagon? Or, maybe just a legitimate explanation why it took 441 days after the attack to put together the 9/11 Commission?

Trust me, I wish I didn't believe what I believe. I have NOTHING to prove. This is my first post/reply, and you know, I guess you get all the credit.

So, again, please, enlighten me. Show me the light.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
My source is all available images of the Pentagon and the witnesses that were there.

So you have no source for your claim, you ignore the physical evidence like other "truthers".

This is why the "truth" movement will not get anywhere, the "truthers" have no actual physical evidence of any sort of explosive or thermite being used at the WTC, and totally ignore the physical evidence of the 757 that hit the Pentagon.

The one attempt to prove thermite was used at the WTC turned up paint, and they had to resort to a vanity press without peer review to get that published, a vanity press that has been shown would publish anything if you paid them $800!

Dereks, you need to be more specific as to exactly what evidence is being ignored. That way we can make a judgement on it. By making overly general accusations nothing is added to the discussion. You can believe as you wish but to debate an issue we need to throw items on the table that we can all look at. Why do you believe no evidence of thermate has been found? Why do you think it is obvious that the Pentagon was hit by a plane. Please provide your sources. I"m not saying this to bait you, I'm really interested in both sides of this issue.
The problem with most exchanges is that no substantiation is provided. I'd love to consider any evidence that is out there. Just please provide sources.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by baboo]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by baboo]

Here Dereks, here's a start for you to consider...


Thermate in the WTC...

www.youtube.com...


Plane hitting the Pentagon...

www.youtube.com...

These are just a start. If you need more just ask.

Originally posted by baboo
Dereks, you need to be more specific as to exactly what evidence is being ignored.

Evidence like this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... that shows how a 757 hit the Pentagon, and the damage it caused....

Why do you believe no evidence of thermate has been found?

Because no evidence has been shown that proved thermite was found, also how was it placed in the buildings with no one noticing?

Why do you think it is obvious that the Pentagon was hit by a plane.

as i said, have a look at www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm really interested in both sides of this issue.

if you were interested in both sides why havent you looked at www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why havent you look at the evidence produced in court of 757 parts during Zacarias Moussaoui's trial?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Lastly, while looking at what the 9/11 truth movement offers in way of evidence, "mini nukes", no planes at the WTC, "pods", and other such nonsense are not supported by the greater 9/11 truth movement, nor acknowledged by the professional research organizations within the 9/11 truth movement as credible theories.

As a 9-11 truther I feel insulted by your last paragraph. I really do!

If we are not willing examine various theories, some more credible than others, than how can we ever determine what likely happened? Just saying the government lied because the towers could not fall straight down won't cut it imo.

You have to be willing to go out on a limb even if proven wrong later on. Nothing ventured, nothing gained! The hell with credibility, as though the government had all the credibility, and we had none. Can't you see its all BS?

You guys remind me of mainstream ufo skeptics that believe only what seti and mufon say and disregard everything else as trash. Your doing a big disservice to the community! A wise man listens TO ALL SIDES of any given topic BEFORE making up their minds, regardless how crazy a theory MAY SEEM!

Obviously the government planned 9-11 very well and intentionally made it confusing so no one could easily figure it out. Forget the deniers who simply deny everything and start developing a 360* view on the issue.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

Originally posted by baboo
Here Dereks, here's a start for you to consider...
Thermate in the WTC...

www.youtube.com...

have a look at ronmossad.blogspot.com... and funny how they couldnt get their paper published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, they published in a journal without peer review, that will accept anything as long as you pay $800....
and
ronmossad.blogspot.com...

[edit on 28/2/10 by dereks]

By this point even a chimp would see that it was an inside job or that at the very least the government had a hand in letting it happen.

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
My source is all available images of the Pentagon and the witnesses that were there.

So you have no source for your claim, you ignore the physical evidence like other "truthers".

This is why the "truth" movement will not get anywhere, the "truthers" have no actual physical evidence of any sort of explosive or thermite being used at the WTC, and totally ignore the physical evidence of the 757 that hit the Pentagon.

The one attempt to prove thermite was used at the WTC turned up paint, and they had to resort to a vanity press without peer review to get that published, a vanity press that has been shown would publish anything if you paid them $800!

Honestly, why do people like you even bother posting here? You have been asked to produce this physical evidence many many times and continually fail to do so. It only takes half a brain to realize that making a claim you can never back up is less than worthless.

Can you provide us a link to that physical evidence or at least explain why you believe there is physical evidence?

This is not an invitation to go around in circles playing word games. This is a direct question and if you respond without trying to even answer, I will just ignore you. Yes, this is a promise because I am tired of you OSers playing your merry go round game every time someone asks a question.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by K J Gunderson]

Originally posted by dereks
Evidence like this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... that shows how a 757 hit the Pentagon, and the damage it caused....

You are going to have to do better than that. There is already enough people in that thread debating whether or not there is any evidence presented in that thread. So far there is no agreement there. Can you pick just one thing from that thread? You talk about all kinds of "PHYSICAL" evidence so just pick one item from that thread to shut us all up with and you will be king...or play word games and prove yourself the fool many seem to think you are. Your call.

Originally posted by seethelight
Russia Today is NOT a credible source.

My eye balls and common sense are the only credible sources I need to know the 9/11 OS is a crock of shi.....

[edit on 28-2-2010 by Odessy]

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by baboo
Dereks, you need to be more specific as to exactly what evidence is being ignored.

Evidence like this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... that shows how a 757 hit the Pentagon, and the damage it caused....

Do you ANY idea how hard it is for a big plane to impact the pentagon at such a low level? In fact, its ground level and the hole made doesn't come close to being an airplane. Its wayyyyyy toooooo smalllllllll!

If the government said it was a cesna, I would say maybe 5% chance but still penetrating concrete is no easy task, especially steal reinforced concrete used in the construction of the building.

You guys cannot fool knowledgeable folks. As for the debri pictures you posted, those could be from anywhere taken decades ago from NTSB! Do you really think people are that stupid or what?

reply to post by downisreallyup


They're only more reliable because they say what you want to hear.

It's like watch religious television for you.

RT is PAID FOR and was SETUP BY Putin.

So if you wanna get your news from Putin, that's great...

After all, Bush looked into his eyes and saw his soul and knew he was a good man.

It, like many Faithers likes to show dodgy footage of UFOs:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you want to read one engineers take on UFOs and 9/11 go here:

www.etcorngods.com...

He'll probably be on RT next.

Russia Today - The US Will break up in 2009:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

that happened, didn't it?

They also repeatedly showed the completely debunked Pyramid UFO footage for weeks.

reply to post by seethelight


The only reason I'm responding to this submitter's post is to highlight what I think is more "ploy" than an honest point being made. So often, people start with an agenda, and then FIND something to fix it to. I'm not trying to READ MINDS here -- but I've responded to enough of this person's points to see a pattern.

Russia Today is NOT a credible source.

That might be valid if the bulk of the legitimacy hung on Russia Today -- but it doesn't. The credentials and degrees of the engineers should be the significant data point. But, this might appear to be the WEAKEST link. Instead of approaching the STRONGEST SUPPORT, or argument, the most inconsequential and lowest hanging fruit is attacked.

In the UN's Climate Report, of 3000 pages, one comment about the Himalayas melting by 2032 was attacked -- it was not part of the peer reviewed and supporting evidence -- just a side conclusion. Yet it is the basis and spun in the media as a "conspiracy" and evidence of bad science.

So 1/10th of 1% of the worlds engineers think 9/11 was a demo, that isn't actually very impressive.

Einstein was less than 1 Millionth of the people who took physics in college. Does this mean his theory of General Relativity had to be wrong because it challenged the scientific consensus of the time?

A scientific CONSENSUS on peer review is important -- like in the Global Warming Models from many scientists in the world -- raw numbers MIGHT matter. But the point of PEER review is to challenge the THEORIES and show evidence that can be proven or disproven. Peer review can't just "vote" on how many think this or that -- the facts that theories are based on, and the proofs have to be challenged with actual reproducible evidence.

When a steel beam shoots 600 feet to be buried in a wall of another building from a FALLING building, and this has never happened before without some detonation driving it -- that's something that can be proven or disproven with history, physics and engineering models.

Russia Today = Fail
Statistically insignificant number of engineers = fail
And on and on...

That's just two anecdotal points with logical fallacies. A report about Russia Today wasn't used as evidence for the Engineers points or their legitimacy. And a million engineers isn't better than 10 engineers if they cannot show a basis for their points. This is getting close to the "Chewbacca Defense" in that the person trying to discredit throws in hyperbole, and then references the hyperbole to say how ridiculous it all is.

So often, I see someone debate the 9/11 posts by pointing to the weakest and strangest THEORIES, that someone else might have posted a year ago on another blog. PROVING, how a building can collapse THEORETICALLY, from a fire, requires claims that steel has a lower melting point, because there was kerosene and a plane involved -- without showing proof from the smoke and fire we say, that it was any hotter than office fires that get JUST AS HOT AS JET FUEL, and yet, do NOT collapse steel structures -- as if this were something that we should just believe without evidence.

Constantly, ANY THEORY, EVER PROPOSED is attacked, without answering the UNANSWERED questions, or supporting their theory; a theory that fire can bring down buildings at DEMOLITION SPEED. Free-fall speed should not be the consideration, since buildings that get demolished, have some resistance and then fall nearly at free-fall speed -- exactly like all three WTC buildings. When the floors turn to dust, and almost keep up with debris falling a couple stories ahead -- that's showing NO RESISTANCE -- and as the engineers point out; THE BUILDING STRAIGHT DOWN IS THE MOST RESISTANCE.

reply to post by Odessy


Sorry mate, but "common sense" can't answer the questions I've posed.

In fact none of you Faithers can or even seem to try.

Common sense is no replacement for evidence.

reply to post by Unplugged


Sorry, which is it?

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Lastly, while looking at what the 9/11 truth movement offers in way of evidence, "mini nukes", no planes at the WTC, "pods", and other such nonsense are not supported by the greater 9/11 truth movement, nor acknowledged by the professional research organizations within the 9/11 truth movement as credible theories.

As a 9-11 truther I feel insulted by your last paragraph. I really do!

If we are not willing examine various theories, some more credible than others, than how can we ever determine what likely happened? Just saying the government lied because the towers could not fall straight down won't cut it imo.

You have to be willing to go out on a limb even if proven wrong later on. Nothing ventured, nothing gained! The hell with credibility, as though the government had all the credibility, and we had none. Can't you see its all BS?

You guys remind me of mainstream ufo skeptics that believe only what seti and mufon say and disregard everything else as trash. Your doing a big disservice to the community! A wise man listens TO ALL SIDES of any given topic BEFORE making up their minds, regardless how crazy a theory MAY SEEM!

Obviously the government planned 9-11 very well and intentionally made it confusing so no one could easily figure it out. Forget the deniers who simply deny everything and start developing a 360* view on the issue.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by EarthCitizen07]

FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!


This is why claiming to know the real secret truth behind 9/11 is self-destructive.

Which is right, crazy theory with no evidence A, or crazy theory with no evidence B?

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Go on then, answer my questions.