My sudden change of heart

reply to post by weedwhacker


What a shame. I will wait, perhaps when OP comes back there will be some actual discussion.

To re-cap: My proposition was simple, to ask (and then show examples) of just TWO commonly-repeated lies and misconceptions perpetrated from within the so-called "truth movement". These were indicated by another member, who asked specific questions, that had very clear answers. Answers that showed much of the hype is flat-out wrong.

My gist? In the proposition, was to simply point out if I could clear up those two mistaken "beliefs" that are frequently trotted out, as part of a litany of others.

By taking them one or two at a time, and showing each time the fallacy, then it can be better understood....instead, as usual, all the shouting begins, in the "free-for-all" that has defined this ever-increasing mess that calls itself the "truth movement"...this mess that has no observable direction at all...unless you count it moving in ALL directions, in ways usually unrelated to each other..... :shk:

reply to post by weedwhacker


We dont claim to have all the answers, however the NIST report has never been accepted in the mainstream and there is reason to believe it is nothing more than a farce. People like you are not interested in a debate. You just want people to stop asking questions and to shad up already and swallow the offical story. Therefore you are not contributing to the process in any way. I can only imagine what the bating and shaming must have been like before the mods laid down the law.

Of course we keep talking about the same topics if they are brought up. You would muchly prefer if we kept talking about lasers from outer space or holografic airplanes so you can debunk that and by extension anyone who doubts the official tale as seen in this video.

www.youtube.com...

To sum up, we have the NIST people who turned the scientific process in the investigation of 911 upside down. Some guy on a conspiracy board with a silly avatar, some guy on a conspiracy board with profanity in his avatar and many experts around the world who apply the scientific process, of whom some I spoke with, who educated world class engineers and architects and make a very good case.

Hmmm whose camp am I going to side with? Such a tuff decision

You will understand if I dont want to join the tinfoil hat camp.

To conclude, sure whatever you say Dave you are right on everything.

Moving on...

Originally posted by thedman
Congratulations young Jedi - You have rejected the dark forces of the TRUTH. The TRUTH is strong and difficult to resist....

Yes, because the LIES, DISTORTIONS, and COVER-UPS are far more easy to embrace to the uneducated, unresearched, ignorant, and gullible.

Truth is strong and difficult to resist. It's right and it's good. The other side, however, is not.

"Congratulations, young Jedi. You've managed to reject TRUTH and GOODNESS and came to the side of LIES and EVIL!!! Good job!!!!"

It's shocking so much venom flows from the supposed people who "KNOW THE TRUTH". And your combined aeronautic and construction engineering is.......?????? Right, no one has either on the "truth" side of this thread.
For people who think the explosions below where the planes, and yes, I do KNOW there were explosions happening, have never researched the result of reinforced concrete to stress. It explodes. Were the columns in the building being stressed? Yes they were. Did they explode? Yes, they did. Did they need any explosive charge to do so? NO.
Did people hear explosions? Yes they did. Did people say there was detonations and/or bombs? Yes, they did. Have these people been exposed to similar noise being made in a high-rise, urban area, with all the hard surfaces and chance for echoes and amplification? NO.
I've seen the documentaries, from both sides of the argument, and the "truthers" are the ones making grand assumptions, usually without any expertise to back up their opinion. There are no facts or consensus. There is only unlearned, uneducated, opinion.
The OP got it right, in my opinion. The same people who would say the government is unable to make an intelligent step in any direction believes that there are thousands of people who would have to know something, yet have remained silent, work for that same government ? And the thousands of people they now believe do nothing but cash a paycheck and promote a bit of critical thinking?
Duplicity is not a good quality to bring to an intelligent debate.

Not to mention that some scientists who work in American companies have been fired for debunking a part of the NIST report. I can see now why so many American scientists under the NIST umbrella support the official theory. They dont want to sleep under a bridge.

"reply to post by weedwhacker

What a shame. I will wait, perhaps when OP comes back there will be some actual discussion."

Is that why you're replying to your own post? I know...I know...these whacky truthers now have you talking to yourself.

Yeah, and when the OP comes back you can be the first to ask him why he/she thinks the TSA existed on 9/11/01. You can also ask OP which family members from the media or the Government died on 9/11, as per his/her ludicrous statement:

"A lot of people ask things like, "why is the media and the government so angry about us asking questions?"
Well, imagine your family just got murdered and the cops start interrogating you for the murder. Wouldn't you be mad? You know you didn't do it and you know the cops are wasting time not looking for the killer."


"In all fairness, the fact the government officials get mad about people believing in these conspiracy theories is actually more proof that they did not commit them."

And I thought the reason why these Government officials get pissed is because they are acting like caged animals which have been cornered and are no longer able to hide behind their despicable treasonous lies. Silly me.


"For people who think the explosions below where the planes, and yes, I do KNOW there were explosions happening, have never researched the result of reinforced concrete to stress. It explodes. Were the columns in the building being stressed? Yes they were. Did they explode? Yes, they did. Did they need any explosive charge to do so? NO."

Are you saying that the columns in the buildings below where the alleged planes hit were stressed?" Why would they be stressed if they were not directly impacted by the plane? Why would they be stressed if they were not directly exposed to fire, since they were below the impact and subsequent fire ball and fires?


"There is only unlearned, uneducated, opinion. Duplicity is not a good quality to bring to an intelligent debate."

And I take it that redundancy (unlearned and uneducated mean the exact same thing) is a good quality to bring to an intelligent debate?

This was just released a few weeks ago with many audible explosions.



Of course nist didn't test for explosives cause there were no reports of explosions. Guess they didn't watch this tape they had for 9 years.

Not to mention that NIST never explained where all that energy came from that caused all that destruction. Gravit can generate only so much energy.

reply to post by demonseed


Well good for you.
To each their own.
And believe whatever helps you sleep better at night.
Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by backinblackTHREE seperate maneuvers that highly trained pilots could NOT perform more often than not...

P4.911T couldn't, the rest of us can, any day.


Second line.

Third line.

Originally posted by demonseed

I wont repsond to any of that. If you have something debatable, i will see it.

If you have any evidence that contradicts what im talking about, i also want to see it. Remember, i was at truther. But for me, the truthers arguments are actually a huge fallacy. So please just present some solid evidence that contradicts anything i have mentioned above and i will gladly listen.

edit on 20-11-2010 by demonseed because: (no reason given)

Yeah, but what's your point?

People need to realize that the only way a false-flag event on the scale of 9/11 could be achieved, is through the total ownership and control of the "official" news media in the US and many other "allied" countries throughout the world, by corporate fascist entities.

So many are programmed to just simply believe whatever is on TV. It makes life so simple.

Damn I wish I could live in that comfort zone, where Bristol Palin making it through "Dancing With The Stars" is the biggest news, and the only news from Afghanistan or Iraq is how things are going so well.

Oh, a few guys got killed maybe, but not really killed because we don't see the caskets coming home (as that's not allowed so the families won't be disturbed, as if they are not heartbroken already). Nobody sees the guys with their minds destroyed from IEDs, or from just the plain horror of it all. Nobody sees the missing limbs, eyes, burns, changed personas, spouses who've fled the scene of the sheer horror.

We might pull out in 2011, but it's probably more like 2014, but we'll see. Hope and change America!

These are some of the reasons 9/11 truth is so important. There are many,many more.

You say you know that the government couldn't have taken part in 9/11 but that notion is absurd, as you would have no way of knowing that. You could think that the government (or elements therein) did not take part in 9/11, but to say you know that they didn't is disingenuous at best.

Furthermore, just because some self proclaimed truther spouts out a theory, it certainly doesn't mean that the OS is right or even any more accurate. The only official truther theory, is that the OS can't be true. Anything else is completely the opinion of that person as an individual, not as a truther.

Again, just because people come up with theories that may or may not be absurd, it certainly doesn't make the OS any more believable. You don't really need to choose the lesser of two evils. It is perfectly okay to conclude that you don't know what happened, as there has been no real investigation, so you shouldn't know what happened, at least with any discernible detail.

As far as your comparison with being interrogated after the murder of a family member, it happens and it needs to happen in order for justice to be served. Furthermore, many of the people calling BS on the official conspiracy theory, are the family members of the victims. Also, the government and media isn't getting "mad" at people calling for truth, per se. Rather, they are either ignoring the truth movement all together or doing hit pieces on it, that doesn't give the movement a fair shake.

FWIW, I work in academia and I have yet to meet one intellectual who has actually looked into the attacks passed the media hype and concluded that the OS is probable. Most professionals however wouldn't dare come out publicly as that is tantamount to career and/or livelihood suicide. If you value your career or funding, you just stay quiet on this issue.

In fact, this in of itself is telling and extremely indicative of the dire situation situation. Just the fact that you can lose your career for such an American thing to do, to hold your elected officials accountable and demand proof.



--airspoon

reply to post by weedwhacker


Ahhhh weedwhacker,where do you find the time?
Im still awaiting for you to go get those pesky tapes from the pentagon.
You did file your FOIA request I hope.
I dont want excuses from you,I want you to go get those tapes and back up your rantings.

Because,you,like the "truthers" are only presenting theories.
Now go and hunt down those classified tapes.

Ok so i am awake and i can see that this thread is going in many different directions.

I will try my best to respond to as many people as possible in this post. The first thing id like to say is that it appears as though everyone on the truther side is using words like "ludicrous" and "outlandish" over and over. Why? I dont know. Im happy to debate but if you quote random stuff i say and call it ludicrous then thats pretty immature so i dont really see the point in arguing with someone like that.

For those pointing out that the TSA didnt know anything until after the incident is like saying the FBI didnt know anything about 9/11 until after.

en.wikipedia.org...

"The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security responsible for security in all modes of transportation in the U.S."

I know wikipedia isnt the greatest source, but it sure as hell beats infowars by a mile. So in that regard i am ok with using it as a source. Now please tell me how an Agency of the Department of Homeland Security did not know about 9/11 yet somehow billions of people watching T.V. did?

What if ONE of the hijackers happened to go through security by the TSA. That ONE hijacker would blow the cover off of everything. In this regard, the conspiracy theorists would have to assume that the government would need the TSA officials at the locations where the terrorists boarded to be on board with the "inside job."

As for the explosions people are posting. You are posting videos of the collapse of a skyscraper. The video shows a building crumbling and loud sounds occurring as it fails down. Did you expect a hi-rise to make absolutely no sound as it fell?

I am actually a musician and i can tell you that a recording sounds a lot different from the original, especially when you factor in handheld cameras with tiny microphones on top of youtube compression that lowers sound quality. What sound like "explosions" could be any loud sound such as rumbling. I could record my car starting and it can sound "like" an explosion.

The point im making here, though, is that the "explosions" are occurring as the building is collapsing. If you watch every demolition video, the explosions are heard seconds before the building actually collapses. However, the "explosions" you are claiming occur AS the building is collapsing. As i mentioned earlier, demolition crews do not blow up buildings in this way. It is impossible to guarantee where the building will fall and how fast it will fall(im not talking seconds here, im talking milliseconds when it comes to blowing up floors as other floors are collapsing).

So far not one person has addressed the above issue, and i personally dont see anyone addressing it other than posting the same two gif images and claiming the "rumbling of collapse" to be explosions. I am trying to be civil about this, but no worries for me. If you guys want to talk about it in this way then be my guest, it only makes you look so much more credible.

Wow OP the fact that you completely ignored BoneZ' thought out replies to most of which you've stated made me literally decide to join the website (finally after all this lurking) to express my disgust.

Yet you continue to say that you wish to debate it intelligently and respectfully?

Bonez replies were among the best to your OP, period.

And by the way I went to a school for recording music (Recording Arts Canada or RAC) and let me tell you that you can't just make anything sound like an explosion, especially as effortless as you make it seem. Your car would sound distorted but it wouldn't sound anything close to a true to life explosion. Thats like saying I can make go "Brooooommmmm" with the lower range of my voice into a mic and it sounds like an explosion...

Really?

Bottom line REPLY TO BONEZ lol (He proved you wrong more than once, and shed some light on just how much "research" you've done.)

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by demonseed
At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.

That's where real research and knowledge comes into play. When someone does real research, they can easily weed out the loopy "theories" like no planes, nukes, holograms, CGI, DEW, etc.

Originally posted by demonseed
Who in the hell orchestrated this thing?

Easy: The same people who orchestrated "Operation Northwoods" which would have used similar tactics and had similar outcomes.

Originally posted by demonseed
hijacking 4 airliners(along with convincing TSA agents to go along)

Really? Did you really say this? Have you actually done any real research into 9/11 at all? The TSA wasn't formed until after 9/11 and directly as a result of the "hijacked" planes.

All I can say is "wow" to that statement.

Originally posted by demonseed
this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.

Of course it's not and nobody has said otherwise. But 9/11 is the first and only time in history that a steel-structured highrise has collapsed from fire. And not just collapsed, but collapsed globally and completely to the ground. Oh, and THREE times in one day, by the way. A feat that controlled demolitions have only ever accomplished in the past.

Originally posted by demonseed
Buildings in heavily populated areas are built in a way that they collapse inward.

I noticed you didn't post a source for this claim, but I don't agree with the accuracy of your claim. Suffice it to say, the towers didn't collapse inward, but outward because they were blown from the inside out.

Originally posted by demonseed
it simply indicates that buildings that lose a large amount of structural integrity will most likely fall onto their own footprint.

Except that the towers did not lose a large amount of structural integrity. In fact, the damage from the plane impacts was minor. According to NIST's own numbers, there was only 15% of the structure in the impact zones that was damaged. That leaves 85% of the structure on the four floors of impact, completely intact and undamaged. That is not a large amount of structural damage.

Originally posted by demonseed
Why in the world would the penthouse fall into the footprint of the building if its being demolished?

Why in the world would the building fall straight down if the penthouse on one side of the building fell? Usually, buildings fall toward the side that's damaged, not straight down. The penthouse falling into the building isn't going to cause every single column across the entire building to fail simultaneously.

Originally posted by demonseed
If you told me that aliens fired a laser beam to bring down the building, i would believe that over explosives.

It's absolutely disgusting that you would even say or believe in such a thing.

Originally posted by demonseed
We are also talking about a LOT of weight, causing the building to collapse faster as it progresses.

Collapsing faster is one thing, collapsing in free fall, even for 2 seconds of a 6-second fall, is very damning evidence. Natural collapses don't cause buildings to fall in free-fall with zero resistance. The only thing in the world that can take out the resistance is explosives.

Originally posted by demonseed
There are also no signs of explosives being used throughout the building.

Then you haven't done much research into controlled demolitions. But don't feel bad, most other people haven't either. There are controlled demolitions that look and sound exactly like the towers and WTC 7.

Originally posted by demonseed
After watching countless controlled demolitions, NONE of them looked anything remotely close to the collapse of WTC 7.

Then you didn't really watch "countless" demolitions. There are plenty that look even remotely close. Kinda like this one:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]



Looks pretty damn close to me. Oh, and let's add the south tower in the mix as well:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/379570d95fd1.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by demonseed
The only people hearing explosions are the people inside of the buildings, yet for some reason people outside recording cannot hear them?

Are you kidding me? You can't be serious. Either you (again) haven't done the least bit of research, or you're being dishonest. I made a short video with a few of the many witnesses that heard the explosions:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by demonseed
There is still no concrete proof that there was a controlled demolition.

Really? I think witnesses in my above video described the sounds of a controlled demolition pretty well. And if that's not enough, did you even read the First Responder Oral Histories? There are many firefighters that saw flashes coming from the lower and middle floors of both towers while the buildings were collapsing above. They also said the flashes were going "up, down and around" both towers and had "popping or exploding sounds" associated with the flashes. That is yet another sign of controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by demonseed
But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above,

I don't know where you got that information from. The following is from a 1200-page structural analysis by the engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson that built the towers:

The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. All the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

"Live loads" meaning the actual weight on and above. 85% of the columns in the four floors of the impact zones were intact, easily carrying the live loads of the damaged 15% of columns.

Originally posted by demonseed
having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim

It must be an outrageous claim since NIST even did away with the "pancake theory" years ago.

Originally posted by demonseed
poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition

They absolutely do:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


You won't find those ejections in any other building collapse except for controlled demolition because they are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. This is the THIRD proof of controlled demolitions with the witness testimony I provided in my above video, and the flashes seen by the firefighters.

Flashes, booms, and ejections are all absolute signs of controlled demolitions and you will not find any of those in fire-induced or natural collapses. I have challenged trusters for years to prove me wrong, but none have to this day.

Originally posted by demonseed
no sound during the collapse of explosives going off.

As I stated earlier, there are videos of controlled demolitions on the internet that sound exactly like the towers and WTC 7. There are over 1000 different types of explosives that can be used in controlled demolitions. Some are not as loud as others. Some are more powerful than others.

Originally posted by demonseed
If you believe the government "did it", then i want to ask you.. just how in the hell did they do it?

Not a single person can answer that question without speculating. That's why a new investigation is needed.

Explosives alone, especially in WTC 7, proves inside job. WTC 7 was one of the most secure buildings in NYC.

Originally posted by demonseed
Stephen jones with a bag of powder is not evidence.

With each statement you type, you are showing more and more that you either did not do any real, actual research, or you're being dishonest and ignorant.

Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D, along with Dr. Jeff Farrer, Ph.D, tested dust samples and came to conclusions based on lab testing. Perhaps you missed their interviews?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile obtained a dust sample from the same source as Dr. Jones, tested the dust and came to the same conclusions as Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer. He independently confirmed that the red layer on the chips was thermitic.

Furthermore, Mark Basile obtained a second dust sample from a museum in NYC, and again found the chips and confirmed that the red layer is thermitic. That's two dust samples, from two separate entities, tested by three separate people, all confirming that the red layer is thermitic, and constructed on the nano-scale.

Perhaps you missed his interview here:

www.youtube.com...


So, your statement "Steven Jones with a bag of powder" automatically shows your lack of research and knowledge into 9/11, and further shows your disregard for any scientific evidence or research into 9/11.

Originally posted by demonseed
Remember, i was at truther.

No, actually you weren't. By your own admission, you were only skeptical about WTC 7 and that's it. That does not equate to you being a truther. There's so much to learn and research about 9/11, and it seems you haven't even scratched the surface.

A real truther would never turn sides without some sort of coercion or threat, because facts are facts and evidence is evidence.


One thing I will say in conclusion, and that I keep saying, is that at the very beginning of the NIST report, it states that nothing in their report can be used as evidence in a court of law or be taken as factual. NIST used guesses, calculations, and made-up computer models to support their report. But all they have are theories like the rest of us. 9/11 was simply Operation Northwoods, upgraded.

So, no matter what side of the fence you stand on, you're still believing in a conspiracy theory.

Here it is if you want.
2nd

Originally posted by NationOfSin
Wow OP the fact that you completely ignored BoneZ' thought out replies to most of which you've stated made me literally decide to join the website (finally after all this lurking) to express my disgust.

Yet you continue to say that you wish to debate it intelligently and respectfully?

Bonez replies were among the best to your OP, period.

And by the way I went to a school for recording music (Recording Arts Canada or RAC) and let me tell you that you can't just make anything sound like an explosion, especially as effortless as you make it seem. Your car would sound distorted but it wouldn't sound anything close to a true to life explosion. Thats like saying I can make go "Brooooommmmm" with the lower range of my voice into a mic and it sounds like an explosion...

Really?

Bottom line REPLY TO BONEZ lol

I feel that i did respond to his post and many others similar to his in regards to my original post. If he wishes to debate he can do so. Are you his representative?

reply to post by demonseed


Lol..

Am I his representative? No, but in my humble opinion his post completely OWNED you. I say that with a taste of humor of course with respect. I just wanted to see what you had to say to him, considering everything he wrote made you look worse, and uninformed.

It just seemed like you were ducking his response...

Originally posted by NationOfSin
reply to post by demonseed

 

Lol..

Am I his representative? No, but in my humble opinion his post completely OWNED you. I say that with a taste of humor of course with respect. I just wanted to see what you had to say to him, considering everything he wrote made you look worse, and uninformed.

It just seemed like you were ducking his response...

edit on 20-11-2010 by NationOfSin because: grammer

Well everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. No debate there