Is this 9/11 nonsense going to ever go away? ZERO eveidence but still pushing on!

page: 62
61
<< 59  60  61    63 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by JohnJasper

I would use a novel approach that didn't occur to the 9/11 Commission. I would listen to the testimony of eye-witnesses and question them to gather as much detail as possible to determine what happened on the day and when.

Well to start, eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Above and beyond that, it happened almost a decade ago.


You are fond of repeating this. Eye witness testimony should be considered but not necessarily taken as fact (unless it's a cop's testimony because they're always right
) The numerous written statements also serve as a starting point. But I suspect you'd be happier if we just ignored both and just trust the good ole boys in Washington.




posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by nickspm
 


You haven't actually come up with any evidence to substantiate that any explosives were detected in any van on 9/11. Your entire argument is one of incredulity about the retractions and denials because you so obviously want it to be true. Not a good basis for ascertaining the truth.

Dan Rather has not only been criticized for the way he handled the van explosives story but also for the car bomb at the State Dept which he also reported 9/11 :-

www.fair.org...

Was there a car bomb at the State Dept ?



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by nickspm
 





What we have are early reports from different sources that law enforcement found explosives in a van driven by Israelis near the George Washington Bridge. "Tons of explosives" is how one reporter described the find.


Precisely, a reporter. A REPORTER who wasnt present is the one that described the find. There is not ONE law enforcement member who mentioned explosives. Not one, no reports, NOTHING. And yet, because a reporter says it happened, you accept it as the Gospel...even when the same media says, oops we made a mistake (one of literally dozens in the course of September 2001)



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
Here's a transmission recorded from a police scanner on 9/11 that refers to a request for a bomb squad before a van exploes between 6th and 7th Avenue and King Street.

This was confirmed as authentic by MTI Report 02-06.

radicalfilms.co.uk...



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnJasper

Well to start, eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Above and beyond that, it happened almost a decade ago.



You are fond of repeating this.

Yes facts are fun



Eye witness testimony should be considered but not necessarily taken as fact (unless it's a cop's testimony because they're always right
)

Helping me prove my point
Thanks !


The numerous written statements also serve as a starting point. But I suspect you'd be happier if we just ignored both and just trust the good ole boys in Washington.


If you think I actually trust the corrupt politicians, you're nuts. My personal view is that both the republican and democratic parties only work for their best interests and not for the people who they serve. I just don't subscribe to the "hyper competent government hypothesis". If you believe that the US government created 9/11 you must also subscribe to this hypothesis.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by nickspm
Here's a transmission recorded from a police scanner on 9/11 that refers to a request for a bomb squad before a van exploes between 6th and 7th Avenue and King Street.

This was confirmed as authentic by MTI Report 02-06.

radicalfilms.co.uk...


This recording has been going the rounds for years. As you say, it was allegedly recorded from a scanner listening in to NYPD transmissions but no-one seems to have tried to verify the recording with NYPD.

The MTI report only provides support for the recording to a limited degree. Report says a suspicious vehicle turned out to be an innocent delivery truck and, amazingly, that it had a mural on the side depicting a plane flying into the WTC.

The recording is very muddled. It seems to start off with a serious report about a remote contolled plane filled with explosives which then morphs into a suspicious vehicle which has a mural depicting an airplane diving into New York City and exploding. Then the vehicle, on King Street between 6th and 7th, explodes.

The whole thing is as clear as mud and begs many questions. Would terrorists really drive around New York on 9/11 with a mural of a plane flying into the WTC on the side ? This seems to me to be utterly absurd. How does the person supposedly reporting it know that a mural represents a remote-contolled plane filled with explosives ?Could a truck have exploded on King Street without any confirmation anywhere ? if so, why did the MTI report say it was an innocent delivery truck ?

I have seen suggestions, but I have no idea on what basis, that the truck was in fact a toy delivery truck and that a toy remote controlled plane was depicted on the side.

Make of that what you will but, as it stands, it hardly amounts to evidence of explosives in a van in New York on 9/11. Perhaps a truther might like to pursue the matter with NYPD ?



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
One of the problems with getting to the truth of 911 is the fact that we get distracted by tangents...

Five minutes on this web page www.911myths.com... will educate us on the fact that the report of explosives in the van was retracted 8 minutes later by the same officer that originally reported it.

Three arrested with van full of explosives 4:27:11 AM
Reports from New York are saying three people have been arrested with a van of explosives. The van was stopped along the New Jersey turn-pike near the George Washington Bridge. It was not clear why police stopped the van but when they did they found it was laden down with tonnes of explosives. archives.tcm.ie...

But mysteriously this correction from the same source, issued less than 8 minutes after the first story, doesn’t get the same attention:

Police confirm arrests but deny explosives find 4:34:43 AM
NYPD officers have confirmed the arrest of three men on the New Jersey turn-pike. However officials denied any explosives were found in the van. Officials declined to say why exactly the men had been arrested.
archives.tcm.ie...

I am 100% convinced of the controlled demolition of all three WTC buildings on 911. But, I am not interested in makings claims that have not been researched carefully...it is damaging to the truth movement.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 09:05 PM
link   
The police scanner recordings that describe an exploding van on 9/11 at King between 6th and 7th have been verified as authentic NYPD recordings by MTI Report 02-06.

radicalfilms.co.uk...

Also two separate transmissions from two separate fire units were received by Manhattan Fire Dispatch both around 11:45 am on September 11th: specifically about the truck bomb on King Street.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by nickspm
 

You may be correct..I have not been able to find a second reference to the transcript of the police radio transmission i posted above...so I am unable to confirm the authenticity of the denial of explosives being found..
edit on 24-10-2010 by jambatrumpet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
jambatrumpet-

We agree that the buildings were brought down through controlled demolitions.

After that, the big picture emerging at least from my perspective is of lots of vans with explosives being used
that day.

I'm not even denying that there were one or two retractions regarding various vans in different locations with explosives. The mayor definitely denied bombs beings found with one of the vans.

Right now I'm following hunches and looking for bits of evidence for and against and trying to take things to the next level. I could hit a wall and discover that I'm completely wrong. That would be a bit depressing at first, but I'd get past it. Either way we're dealing with a horrific crime. However if vans with explosives were used, too, it represents a level of depravity almost unimaginably worse than what we even thought possible.

I posted a link yesterday or the day before of how Mossad was caught red handed with explosives in the Mexican Congress less than a month after September 11th occurred. What does that prove about September 11th? Maybe nothing. However, it appears there is a willingness to do harm that other groups may not feel so profoundly. Again, I'm trying to put together a big picture, then I'll look at the details.



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by L1U2C3I4F5E6R
When is this so called "truth" movement and conspiracy talk going to end?

Truthers seem rather sanctimonious and believe in the fact that 9/11 was an inside job.


The real problem is all of the people that can't understand grade school physics.

You can't make skyscrapers hold themselves up without figuring out how to distribute the steel. So it is ridiculous to think that it is possible to analyze whether or not a 150 ton airliner could destroy a 400,000 ton skyscraper in less than two hours without knowing the distributions of steel and concrete.

So it is certainly curious that the nation that put men on the Moon can't supply that information for buildings designed before 1969. Grade school kids all over the world should be laughing at the United States.

Who gives a damn about Inside Jobs or Conspiracy Theories? Physics is more important then the US government.

9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century.

psik



posted on Oct, 25 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
Zero Evidence?!
I guess it depends on what theory you subscribe to.
I would say there is plenty of evidence in general, it's all how it
is interpreted.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 03:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud
Zero Evidence?!
I guess it depends on what theory you subscribe to.
I would say there is plenty of evidence in general, it's all how it
is interpreted.


Funny that since you obviously subscribe to the OS and have done your best to trash any other theory....

Very contradictory cluckerspud.... or were you just trying to bump the thread???

Korg.



posted on Oct, 27 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I finally got around to watching this video about the assassination of JFK Jr ( I read about it last year but didn't realise this excellent video was available) and while I was watching it, I constantly thought - these people have so much experience killing people and manipulating the media. But as the documentary points out, they do things that don't make sense, that prove conspiracy where otherwise we might not have noticed and served no other purpose but were apparently done because they wanted to!

If you're not aware of the JFK Jr assassination or haven't seen this documentary, you're missing an important chunk of historical context from which to assess the events of 9/11.


Google Video Link


edit on 27-10-2010 by JohnJasper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2010 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Burnt pancakes don't taste right. Maybe they just need extra maple syrup with another side order of bullsh
t!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
I also notice none of you "truther's" will answer my questions.
I've stated that since all of you seem to want a new investigation, how would that happen?
Who would perform the investigation?
What would they investigate?
What would you say if, at the end of the investigation, the investigators came to the same conclusion as the "official story" ? Would you then drop it ?


So for the late reply.. But I just figured out how to tell if someone replied to me


To answer your first question. "Who would perform the investigation?"
I live in Canada, so I can only speak from my perspective, but I want a "Royal" investigation into 9/11. Which means that it would be mandated by the Canadian Federal Government and that would be subject to our Access to Information Act, so that all it's findings can be accessible to the public.

The reason I want that, is because Canada has an active role in Afghanistan "fighting terrorism", when we are historically a peace keeping nation. For us to be fighting a war in Afghanistan I want to be SURE that what we're being told is true. To me, I find it very suspicious because it happened at a time that many nations were needed the economic boost a war creates. Also we also simultaneously merging many aspects of our government (via security and prosperity partnership) yet have less freedom to travel as citizens back and forth... So I'm looking at this and I'm thinking MAN... a lot of people are becoming a lot richer, while we are losing our Rights and feeling more policed then EVER.

Question #2 "What would they investigate?". They would investigate the architectural feasibility that such structures (WTC 1,2 &7) could all possibly fall onto themselves. Ultimately they would need to investigate the American Government's role in the attack because if this is a propaganda war I don't want our country to be part of it.

Last question... "What would you say if, at the end of the investigation, the investigators came to the same conclusion as the "official story" ? Would you then drop it ?" ~ Yes I would. If someone could really properly explain to me how it's normal for those building to collapse straight onto themselves instead of following the path of least resistance which have been down and to the side... then ok. I'll believe and I'll be seriously happy and relieved. Man, what a load off that would be. Man.. I'd almost support the war..... ehh... no I wouldn't. 66k civilians killed in Iraq... nah.. it's not worth it anyway. It's ALL wrong.



posted on Oct, 29 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Hey, those buildings didn't stand a chance.
It was a very windy day.



posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOPrimate
To answer your first question. "Who would perform the investigation?"
I live in Canada, so I can only speak from my perspective, but I want a "Royal" investigation into 9/11. Which means that it would be mandated by the Canadian Federal Government and that would be subject to our Access to Information Act, so that all it's findings can be accessible to the public.

First, thanks for responding.
Although what you're asking is a reasonable request, do you think this would be accepted by the truthers? They would suggest that the canadian and american governments are in on it together and the investigation would be a sham.


The reason I want that, is because Canada has an active role in Afghanistan "fighting terrorism", when we are historically a peace keeping nation. For us to be fighting a war in Afghanistan I want to be SURE that what we're being told is true. To me, I find it very suspicious because it happened at a time that many nations were needed the economic boost a war creates. Also we also simultaneously merging many aspects of our government (via security and prosperity partnership) yet have less freedom to travel as citizens back and forth... So I'm looking at this and I'm thinking MAN... a lot of people are becoming a lot richer, while we are losing our Rights and feeling more policed then EVER.

Excellent points !


Question #2 "What would they investigate?". They would investigate the architectural feasibility that such structures (WTC 1,2 &7) could all possibly fall onto themselves. Ultimately they would need to investigate the American Government's role in the attack because if this is a propaganda war I don't want our country to be part of it.

I wouldn't have a problem with that but I would suggest that if another investigation were to occur, there should be ZERO assumptions as to what happened. Start fresh and go from there.


Last question... "What would you say if, at the end of the investigation, the investigators came to the same conclusion as the "official story" ? Would you then drop it ?" ~ Yes I would. If someone could really properly explain to me how it's normal for those building to collapse straight onto themselves instead of following the path of least resistance which have been down and to the side... then ok. I'll believe and I'll be seriously happy and relieved. Man, what a load off that would be. Man.. I'd almost support the war..... ehh... no I wouldn't. 66k civilians killed in Iraq... nah.. it's not worth it anyway. It's ALL wrong.


I appreciate your responses and your open mind. Unfortunately I believe that most truthers will only believe an investigation if the US government is shown to be involved.

Thanks again !



posted on Nov, 7 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 



Originally posted by jfj123
First, thanks for responding.
Although what you're asking is a reasonable request, do you think this would be accepted by the truthers? They would suggest that the canadian and american governments are in on it together and the investigation would be a sham.


Anything would be an improvement on the previous 9/11 Commission and NIST investigations. What would help "truthers" would be an investigation NOT staffed by long-time friends of the people who are our top suspects in the conspiracy. A case in point-


Mid-1980s: Future 9/11 Commissioner Believes White House Lies about Iran-Contra Affair without Checking
Future 9/11 Commission vice chairman Lee Hamilton (D-IN), at this time chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, fails to properly investigate Iran-Contra allegations. He learns of press reports indicating that the Reagan administration is illegally funneling weapons and money to the anti-Communist rebels in Nicaragua, but when the White House denies the story, Hamilton believes it. Hamilton will later acknowledge that he has been gullible, and will say of his political style, “I don’t go for the jugular.” It is during the Iran-Contra investigation that Hamilton becomes friends with Dick Cheney, at this time a Republican congressman. [Shenon, 2008, pp. 33] Cheney is the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee and so must work closely with Hamilton, including on the Iran-Contra investigation. [PBS, 6/20/2006] Hamilton calls Cheney “Dick” and they will remain friends even after Cheney becomes vice president in 2001 and Hamilton, as vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, begins to investigate Cheney’s actions as a part of the Commission’s work. [Shenon, 2008, pp. 33] Hamilton will also fail to properly investigate “October Surprise” allegations (see 1992-January 1993).


Hamilton's record for "failing to properly investigate" hardly made him the public's choice for vice-chairman of the 9/11 Commission but apparently strong favourite for incumbent Republicans.

As a person seeking the truth, I can confirm that I would respect the outcome of a public inquiry as long as all the evidence is heard in public, under oath and subject to cross-examination.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

When is this so called "truth" movement and conspiracy talk going to end?


I urge you to watch this, then you know why. Court case Dutch justice system about Osama against the US. Interesting outcome

edit on 13-3-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)
edit on 13-3-2011 by TribeOfManyColours because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
61
<< 59  60  61    63 >>

log in

join