ATTN: Everyone

page: 4
56
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by MattMulder



to Dave: don't you think "they" got rid of the guys on the field ? asylums, cemetaries or erasing memory...name it



Ok I have not seen any proof of that. I've seen many allegations to the effect, but no proof. If there is proof, I will gladly read it. After all that's what this thread is about. I will do my own research, but if anybody has any definitive proof on that please provide it.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by davec0021]

sorry about all quotes here, I messed this up, can't seem to fix it

[edit on 28-2-2010 by davec0021]




posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by davec0021
 

In your mind, what would qualify as "definitive proof?"



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Again I agree with most of you that this smells of a conspiracy, and you will probably hate me for this but I want someone who was directly involved. It takes many people to plant explosives to take down a building, it takes many people orgranize an event like this. Surely they would not have been able to kill all these people, or silence them all, and surely after 9 years something more definitive should have surfaced.

btw I like the part in the video where the firefighter told people to get back because there was a bomb in the building. Has anybody found this guy? What's his story, did he see it?

LOL 200+ artists

Dave

[edit on 28-2-2010 by davec0021]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by davec0021]

[edit on 28-2-2010 by davec0021]



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by davec0021
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Again I agree with most of you that this smells of a conspiracy, and you will probably hate me for this but I want someone who was directly involved.

Well, there's Larry "Pull It" Silverstein on PBS, who could only have been talking a controlled demolition, since there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull", firefighters aren't referred to as "it", not to mention the fact that Silverstein had absolutely no authority over FDNY or any 9/11 firefighting/rescue efforts.

Then there's Rumsfeld's confession to Parade magazine:


"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building [Pentagon] and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

www.defenselink.mil...



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


I've seen Larry "Pull It" Silverstein on PBS, and he claims he has been misquoted.

Not going to do it for me GF.

skepticwiki.org...

From skepticwiki
"The history of the "pull" quotation and the Truth Movement bears a little examination. As noted, it premiered on PBS on September 10, 2002[35]. However, Silverstein's alleged confession was noted, at the time, by nobody at all.
The discovery of the deep Truthy significance of the words "pull it" were apparently made by one Jeremy Baker, a Truther[36], after seeing a repeat of the program in March 2003. The first time it was aired, neither the journalist interviewing Silverstein, nor, apparently, anyone in the program's audience (including any members of the Truth Movement who were watching) noticed that Silverstein confessed to complicity in the crime of the century.
The obvious reason for this is that his words do not in fact support that interpretation."

I want the guys who planted the explosives if they exist.

Dave



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by davec0021
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

The obvious reason for this is that his words do not in fact support that interpretation.

"Obvious reason?" Then what interpretation do his words support?

Certainly nothing to do with "pulling" any firefighters or rescue efforts.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by davec0021
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

The obvious reason for this is that his words do not in fact support that interpretation.

"Obvious reason?" Then what interpretation do his words support?

Certainly nothing to do with "pulling" any firefighters or rescue efforts.



skepticwiki.org...
From the same source as before:

"What did Silverstein mean?
Silverstein's account of what Silverstein meant was given in a statement made by Dara McQuillan for Silverstein Properties on September 9 2005:

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building. Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. [39]
According to his account, then, he meant "pull" in the sense of "abort the operation", "pull out", rather than in the non-existent sense of "blow up". It is not difficult to find other people using phrases such as "pull the mission" or "pull the operation" in just such a way[40][41][42][43][44]. On the other hand, as noted, it is impossible to find anyone but a Truther who uses the word "pull" in the sense of "blow up".

The context also bears examination. In the PBS quote, Silverstein says:

And I said y'know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it.
Concerns over loss of life are an excellent reason to pull back firefighters from an attempt to save mere property; but it would not be a good reason to blow up a building; under that interpretation of "pull", it comes as a complete non sequitur.

We should note that Silverstein's account fits the facts as we know them: we know that the FDNY did, in fact, abandon attempts to save WTC7; we have no indications of any firefighters trying to blow it up.

Finally, we should note the extreme psychological implausibility of the Truther hypothesis, under which Larry Silverstein wanders into a television studio and absent-mindedly confesses to the world his complicity in the crime of the century. In our experience people don't do that sort of thing. "



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by davec0021
 

Sorry Dave, but that explanation doesn't hold water. There were NO firefighters or firefighting efforts in WTC 7 because there was NO water pressure. Firefighters are not referred to as "it" and since when does Larry Friggin' Silverstein have ANYTHING to do with FDNY or their firefighting/rescue efforts, especially while sitting at home watching TV?

If your house was on fire, do you think you could call the fire department and tell them to stop fighting it? This explanation is so ridiculous, it doesn't warrant comment.

BTW, have you read any of the military/intelligence/law enforcement statements on www.patriotsquestion911.com...

There's no shortage of military heavyweights who've spoken out:


Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.

* Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:

"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise -- including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots -- have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.

They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official “investigations” have really been cover-up operations.

Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response.

We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now -- not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books -- so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration’s interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed.

We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media."


* Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible… There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up… Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible.…

Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.

I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder." video.google.com...#



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Here's that WTC 7 that was so damaged and engulfed in flames that it had to be "pulled:"



Southwest view: (upper right)




[edit on 2/28/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


OK GF, there is a lot there to read. May take me a couple of days. Also for the record, I do believe something isn't right with 9/11 or it's investigation. I have no issue with you discussing what you have discovered with me here, even though I may not be in agreement.
What I will say though, unless a smoking gun is found in a new investigation where will that get anybody? Like wise what if further investigation debunks some of the evidence for a conspiracy. When would any side be willing concede?
For the anti conspiracy types, only a credible inside witness will probably suffice. For the conspiracy types I'm not sure any evidence brought forward which debunks or proves otherwise to their current beliefs would suffice.
Let's all think about this, and where we stand.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   
"Firefighters are not referred to as "it" and since when does Larry Friggin' Silverstein have ANYTHING to do with FDNY or their firefighting/rescue efforts, especially while sitting at home watching TV?"

Yeah, I can see the Fire Chief now saying, "Why don't you get the owner of the building on the phone right now so he could tell us how to do our job."



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by davec0021
For the anti conspiracy types, only a credible inside witness will probably suffice.

Good luck with that one! Any insider who even thinks about that is a dead man walking. In 50 years, maybe, like E. Howard Hunt did in his death bed confession that the CIA killed Kennedy (BTW, Hunt was one of the 'three tramps' photographed at the grassy knoll.)


Originally posted by davec0021
For the conspiracy types I'm not sure any evidence brought forward which debunks or proves otherwise to their current beliefs would suffice.

Not true for me. For starters, how about a photo of whatever hit the Pentagon? If someone can show me just one photo of AA77 anywhere near the Pentagon, I'll rethink my position.

I hope you don't think my replies are aimed specifically at you. Thanks for keeping an open mind.



posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by davec0021
 


I disagree and think us CTs would concede when a few key questions are answered.

Those are the plane at the pentagon, the explanation for the horizontally sliced beams at WTC, and what went down with building 7. a few with Shanksville, but I think they got that one on lock down. (I personally think that was one they were not aware of that day and it was forced down, or shot down)

But I commend both of you for taking a very civil road with this one. It's a breath of fresh air.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


And as usual the same can be applied to the truthers as well. There are posts from the truthers that have no real basis or proof. They show a picture and say "this is what it is" and when some don't believe the truther then BAM....disinfo agent right on the spot. How childish

-Kyo



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by davec0021
reply to post by Emerald The Paradigm
 


Emerald, stars for you.

I just posted a similar reply to Dimensional Detectives other similar thread.

Disclaimer: I too feel there is something completely odd with 9/11 and events that have happened since, but if I disagree with you, let it be known I'm not trying stop any further investigation or trying derail any current investigation. I'm just using my common sense.

So yes I'll agree there are many pieces of this puzzle that don't add up. Here's my problem though, all these pieces don't necessarily derail the official story. It's been almost 9 years now, and no large pieces have been discovered.

I believe this was all sort of covered in the Stack IRS crash conspiracy discussion. I advocate that if there is a conspiracy, there would have to be so many people in on it that it would be hard to keep secret. Surely somebody somewhere with big information would have come forward by now. Steps could be taken that even in the event your death your damn busting information would make out even after your death. Yet we still don't see this. Again I ask why is that.

Time will tell I guess but I'm not holding my breath.

Dave


I often see this argument put forward as an objection against all kinds of conspiracy theories and conspiracy evidence. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't make any logical sense as an argument. It is a classic slippery-slope or camel's nose fallacy where one event is given (so many people would have to know of the conspiracy) and another event is said to be inevitable consequence of that premise( that someone would surely have talked by now), without proof or justification.

There are many examples of conspiracies undertaken without disclosure until the documents were declassified and publicly revealed: the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Operation Northwoods, the Manhattan Project, and J. Edgar Hoover's accusation that George Bush led the JFK assassination plot are a few that come to mind.

But the odd thing is that some people who could be considered "part of the conspiracy" have made public statements revealing that we were lied to by the government about 9-11. Several of the 9-11 Commission members, for example, have disclosed facts that show the Commission and its report to contain significant failures and flaws and showing the effort to be more of a coverup than anything else.


[edit on 3/3/10 by without_prejudice]



posted on Mar, 3 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by davec0021
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


OK GF, there is a lot there to read. May take me a couple of days. Also for the record, I do believe something isn't right with 9/11 or it's investigation. I have no issue with you discussing what you have discovered with me here, even though I may not be in agreement.
What I will say though, unless a smoking gun is found in a new investigation where will that get anybody? Like wise what if further investigation debunks some of the evidence for a conspiracy. When would any side be willing concede?
For the anti conspiracy types, only a credible inside witness will probably suffice. For the conspiracy types I'm not sure any evidence brought forward which debunks or proves otherwise to their current beliefs would suffice.
Let's all think about this, and where we stand.


I have to agree with some of what you say here. There are so many questions about the Official Story and so much speculation that certainly not all of it could be true. What many on the "truther" side failed to realize is that when you make an objection to a conspiracy theory like the OS, you needn't come up with your own speculative version of what happened to make your case. You merely have to point out the logical or evidentiary discrepancies that call into a reasonable doubt the version of events you have been given.

And indeed, a true smoking gun is exactly what I hope that a new investigation would reveal and prove. What other point would there be in calling for another investigation?

If it proves to be that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, so be it. It doesn't affect the idea that members of the Bush administration and the military had a hand in 9-11. It is truly a moot point on the matter of government complicity in the attacks. If somehow they could prove that the collapses at the WTC were not controlled demolition after several failed attempts to do so over the last 9 years, I could concede that but it would have to be some iron-clad bullet-proof undeniable argument and evidence. Certainly evidence constructed as a simulation on a computer where the model's parameters do not strictly adhere to reality is not going to fill that bill.

So, yes, some of the speculation that has been put forth about the attacks is no doubt wrong--it has to be. But all alternate scenario speculation is completely unnecessary to debunk or call into reasonable doubt the government's official conspiracy theory. Frankly, I would be glad for it be sorted out so that the truth of the matter sees the light of day and we all know once and or all what really happened.





new topics
top topics
 
56
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join