My sudden change of heart

reply to post by demonseed


lol... I see what you're doing...

It's all good.

Originally posted by NationOfSin
reply to post by demonseed

 

lol... I see what you're doing...

It's all good.

Sorry if i came off mean. But in all honesty i did respond to most of his claims. His post was really long so it is possible i left something out, but i responded to the sounds and the videos he posted.

Realize he posted two gif's where neither shows the entire sequence of events.

The WTC gif shows the building collapsing "after" the penthouse fell, throwing at least 3-4 seconds of collapse out the window.

The second gif shows a random demolition occurring "after" explosives where used. He is basically picking and choosing "how much" of each respective video he wants to show and not giving us the whole story.

If you watch any controlled demolition you will see that they are actually very different from what happened on 9/11.

Originally posted by demonseed

Originally posted by NationOfSin
reply to post by demonseed

 

If you watch any controlled demolition you will see that they are actually very different from what happened on 9/11.

Naturally, you do not want it to completely resemble a normal controlled demolition, so any smart person would set it up with more money involved, more explosives, and since the buildings are so insanely strong they had too...you are right though it doesnt look entirely the same, looks like they put at least 10 times more explosives in than usual.

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

edit on 20-11-2010 by GrinchNoMore because: edit, spelling etc

its just hard for me to believe that some dudes in the desert could orchestrate something so complex that just happened to happen at the perfect time for there to be no one to stop them. has it occured to you that they intentionally did the drills and that the people doing the drills werent in on it and so when stuff started hitting the fan they went and shot down the 4th plane? if someone big didnt orchestrate this than the government just let it happen and that to me is more sad than any other option.

reply to post by demonseed


You want some good old solid AMERICAN evidence?
Here is 2 minutes of it- and if those suckers release the rest of it, I will fly it high

reply to post by demonseed

You didn't come of as mean, no worries!

It's quite a topic to discuss, there are so many unanswered questions...

That's why its up to us to do the best we can to figure out what really happened!

reply to post by demonseed


May I ask a question about this?

What if ONE of the hijackers happened to go through security by the TSA...

The "TSA" wasn't formed until after 9/11. Yes, there were very similar standards for airport security screening in place, since the 1970s (when the first wave of airline hijackings began, which began this nightmare....), these were all part o f FAA-mandated and other Federal (and International) agencies' mandates.

So....in 2001...and 2000, and 1999, and 1998......etc. Same ole', same ole'. "Security" was a joke then. IT is now a 'joke' in some ways (which I won't detail, for obvious reasons), but NOW it is also a travesty, as has been evident in the news of late, yes??

Point is, 9/11 was a ONE OFF EVENT!!! We were unprepared for the sheer audacity, and ferocity of it all. At least, WE who worked in the Industry. WE weren't forewarned, and were therefore vulnerable....WE had been trained in terms of PREVIOUS events, and the history of how they panned out...and that experience was used to devise what was (and this isn't giving anything away, since it's on the Web by now) what was known as the "Common Strategy". It was part of everyone's Security Training...everyone who was involved in the aspects of aviation, and the airline industry, that would be expected to come into contact with hijacking situations. Covers a LOT of people, not just flight crew members.

AND lots of others, on the ground, not always with the airlines.. (FBI, ATC, etc....)

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by demonseed

 

May I ask a question about this?

What if ONE of the hijackers happened to go through security by the TSA...

The "TSA" wasn't formed until after 9/11. Yes, there were very similar standards for airport security screening in place, since the 1970s (when the first wave of airline hijackings began, which began this nightmare....), these were all part o f FAA-mandated and other Federal (and International) agencies' mandates.

So....in 2001...and 2000, and 1999, and 1998......etc. Same ole', same ole'. "Security" was a joke then. IT is now a 'joke' in some ways (which I won't detail, for obvious reasons), but NOW it is also a travesty, as has been evident in the news of late, yes??

Point is, 9/11 was a ONE OFF EVENT!!! We were unprepared for the sheer audacity, and ferocity of it all. At least, WE who worked in the Industry. WE weren't forewarned, and were therefore vulnerable....WE had been trained in terms of PREVIOUS events, and the history of how they panned out...and that experience was used to devise what was (and this isn't giving anything away, since it's on the Web by now) what was known as the "Common Strategy". It was part of everyone's Security Training...everyone who was involved in the aspects of aviation, and the airline industry, that would be expected to come into contact with hijacking situations. Covers a LOT of people, not just flight crew members.

AND lots of others, on the ground, not always with the airlines.. (FBI, ATC, etc....)

Sorry i was referring to airport security.

I guess i got "caught" there. Im obviously a paid disinfo agent who makes no mistakes( i know you didnt accuse me of that but others have).

I honestly thought that the TSA always existed. Oops.

Originally posted by demonseed
I honestly thought that the TSA always existed. Oops.

And that's why you were never a truther to begin with. You really don't even know the most basic facts about 9/11. It seems you have much research to do before making an informed decision either way.

Possibility:
If the hijackers, pictures of whom we have seen, really did hijack 4 Boeing 747s, then flew them out of radar contact, to have their 'blips' taken over by remote controlled drones, which were then flown dead centre into the 2 towers and a fly over of the Pentagon (thus making sense of Cheney's "the orders have not changed", i.e. do NOT shoot it down...it is a cover for the missile... ) that takes care of 3 locations and no dead airliners. ....the real 747s have been flown elsewhere (just guess.... 'cuz I don't know)

None of the 4 Boeings were overloaded with passengers.

Then Flight 93 arrives into the picture, supposedly, and guess what? It contains all passengers and crew of #22, #77, an #175, and there are two stories re Fight #93....

1.) that it landed at Cleveland airport, with some 200 passengers aboard, who were offloaded and taken to a NASA holding place....

2.) that it was shot down over Indian Lake

--Mossad did this and hired the "rag-heads", and the above says why so many have been found alive, there were no suicide crashes.

The exact hits on the WTC Towers, to hit planted explosives was the only way...remote control...why trust it to human error? Said drones were loaded with airline parts, perhaps more explosives,

AND

...if all the control was done from Bldg #7, the #7 had to come down to hide the evidence!!!!!!!!

reply to post by demonseed


The point being that if you didn't even know that the TSA was as a result of the attacks, it's indicative of your over-all knowledge (or lack thereof) on the subject matter. However and with that being said, the TSA gaff isn't even the worst of it, as there are many fallacies in your stated knowledge of the events. Your OP is rife inaccuracies, myths and flawed logic, which makes your TSA gaff seem tiny in comparison, though the implications are obvious and that is that you are either basing your opinion on inaccurate data and flawed logic, or you are simply being dishonest.

That in of itself wouldn't be a big deal, as you can't really fault someone for being ignorant of the facts, particularly with an issue such as 9/11, though you also claim to be certain of a particular position (while mocking those with accurate data to boot), which ultimately makes those inaccuracies a much bigger deal.

If you don't have the facts, then it is not only dishonest to claim certainty of your position, but it is disingenuous too. To go further, when you have the wrong facts (that 10 minutes of research would dispel), then mock those who don't while being certain of your position, then you have less credibility than those anonymous bloggers pushing the "no-planes" theory.

The truth of the matter is that nobody can be certain of what actually happened on that day, as a proper investigation (indeed, an investigation at all) was neglected and any intellectual debate on the issue has been stifled and ridiculed. As another poster pointed out and as I always take the time to note, everyone believes in a conspiracy theory regarding 9/11, whether you believe that 19 hijackers pulled off the attacks alone or whether you believe that certain elements within the government may ultimately be responsible. Either way, you believe in a conspiracy theory.

Ultimately, the "no-planes" theory, "alien death ray" theory and all of the other kooky theories are just as silly as the official conspiracy theory, when you conduct at least 10 minutes of objective research. It does absolutely no good to point out the ridiculousness of one kooky theory, only to support another, especially when you base this opinion on data that is clearly flawed.

If you aren't knowledgeable on a particular subject, it generally is a good idea not to pretend that you are, especially when claiming others to be wrong. It only makes you look silly in the end. Sadly, there is a whole lot of this in the truster community. After all, if FOX News, MSNBC or CNN says something, it must be true as those are the entities that have been delegated to do the critical thinking for most. Punditry, the detriment of society and the bain of freedom.

All in all, it is pretty much a good idea to check your facts before proclaiming certainty, especially when you are making accusations against others for being wrong. If you don't have enough facts to make a conclusion, then it is okay not to conclude or to deduce that you can't conclude. It is much better to not have an answer, then give the wrong answer, especially when that answer claims that the other answers are wrong, answers that were actually researched and aren't based on flawed logic or data.

--airspoon

reply to post by Asktheanimals

Official theory = Boxcutters bring down skyscrapers.

That's kinda like sayin' post-it-stickies and sharpie felt-tip pens launches a space shuttle . Hopefully , I am not the only one who recognizes such tactics .

reply to post by airspoon

Ultimately, the "no-planes" theory, "alien death ray" theory and all of the other kooky theories are just as silly as the official conspiracy theory, when you conduct at least 10 minutes of objective research.

There are many theories that are perpetuated as stereotypes about 9/11, such as the whole "holographic planes" bullcrap. That is a genuine disinformation campaign designed to direct people away from researching the issue.

reply to post by demonseed


Does it really matter? The '"real conspiracy" going on is so vast you obviously don't even see it unfolding before your eyes. If you don't beleive me go to google video and type in straw man illusion and watch/listen to it in it's entirety and then prove the video wrong. Upon trying to prove the video you will in fact prove it right and from there your mind should be blown as open as mine was...

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by demonseed

 

The point being that if you didn't even know that the TSA was as a result of the attacks, it's indicative of your over-all knowledge (or lack thereof) on the subject matter. However and with that being said, the TSA gaff isn't even the worst of it, as there are many fallacies in your stated knowledge of the events. Your OP is rife inaccuracies, myths and flawed logic, which makes your TSA gaff seem tiny in comparison, though the implications are obvious and that is that you are either basing your opinion on inaccurate data and flawed logic, or you are simply being dishonest.

That in of itself wouldn't be a big deal, as you can't really fault someone for being ignorant of the facts, particularly with an issue such as 9/11, though you also claim to be certain of a particular position (while mocking those with accurate data to boot), which ultimately makes those inaccuracies a much bigger deal.

If you don't have the facts, then it is not only dishonest to claim certainty of your position, but it is disingenuous too. To go further, when you have the wrong facts (that 10 minutes of research would dispel), then mock those who don't while being certain of your position, then you have less credibility than those anonymous bloggers pushing the "no-planes" theory.

The truth of the matter is that nobody can be certain of what actually happened on that day, as a proper investigation (indeed, an investigation at all) was neglected and any intellectual debate on the issue has been stifled and ridiculed. As another poster pointed out and as I always take the time to note, everyone believes in a conspiracy theory regarding 9/11, whether you believe that 19 hijackers pulled off the attacks alone or whether you believe that certain elements within the government may ultimately be responsible. Either way, you believe in a conspiracy theory.

Ultimately, the "no-planes" theory, "alien death ray" theory and all of the other kooky theories are just as silly as the official conspiracy theory, when you conduct at least 10 minutes of objective research. It does absolutely no good to point out the ridiculousness of one kooky theory, only to support another, especially when you base this opinion on data that is clearly flawed.

If you aren't knowledgeable on a particular subject, it generally is a good idea not to pretend that you are, especially when claiming others to be wrong. It only makes you look silly in the end. Sadly, there is a whole lot of this in the truster community. After all, if FOX News, MSNBC or CNN says something, it must be true as those are the entities that have been delegated to do the critical thinking for most. Punditry, the detriment of society and the bain of freedom.

All in all, it is pretty much a good idea to check your facts before proclaiming certainty, especially when you are making accusations against others for being wrong. If you don't have enough facts to make a conclusion, then it is okay not to conclude or to deduce that you can't conclude. It is much better to not have an answer, then give the wrong answer, especially when that answer claims that the other answers are wrong, answers that were actually researched and aren't based on flawed logic or data.

--airspoon

Einstein flunked out of school.

We should ignore him too, huh?

Im not saying im Einstein, but i hope you see where im coming from.

I was mis-understood something completely irrelevant to what we are debating(the actual theories themselves and not the creation of an agency) and that makes me lack any credibility, right?

I wonder whose really using the Straw man tactics here?

reply to post by demonseed


Then why would the firemen interviewed say they heard multiple explosions during rescue attempts? Just to create more conspiracy!! Those buildings did not burn long enough to collapse that quick. Was there enough weight and potential energy for the top 1/3 of the building to pulverize the lower 2/3rds into dust? I dont think so. And yes building 7 was the smoking gun as to how 1 and 2 fell. They need for war and to fuel the military industrial complex that drives the only economy this country has left. The United States truly has become the Lords of War. It is not muslims or Jews or anyone else but the CIA, (corporate intellgence agency), that stirs the pot and keeps the world on the constant precipice of war. Corporate controll plain and simple. Money Money Money.

It was Mossad. Israel had to get us over there to defend them against Iraq and Afghanistan, which posed a risk to their security. Simple.

Originally posted by demonseed

#3 Fire does not cause buildings to collapse!

.....

Im not going to barrage you with explanations or theories, but contrary to conspiracy belief, this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.

Prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fires. Ever!

Originally posted by demonseed

1) Towers 1 and 2 fell due to the impact. The weight of the above floors would easily cause the floors below to give way. If this was a stone structure like a pyramid then sure, it would not collapse this way. But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above, having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim and is easily understandable. I never fully believed this was a controlled demolition(poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition) but my earlier beliefs of WTC 7 caused me to investigate this further. However, looking at it now Towers 1 and 2 fell exactly as they should have.

What?? Are you really saying that the bottom floor (or any other floor) only holds enough weight to hold the floor above it? Then WTF holds up the rest of the floors above it?

You say it is easily understandable. I say you are gullible.

The fact is that the lower floors held up the above floors just fine before the collapse. The weight of the building didn't increase, so why were the lower floors suddenly incapable of holding up the same weight?

I think you need to either do some more research, or stop researching altogether

Or maybe you are pretending to support the OS so you can make it look bad from the inside-out. In which case, thumbs up!

reply to post by WashingtonGrewHemp


I dont think Afganistan, a backwater 7th century country, posed any threat to Israel. Israel already handled Iraq in the 1980's by taking out their nuclear reactor.There may be a connection but the corporate money machine still gets the nod from me.

It doesn't really matter what one believes did or didn't happen. What matters is what did happened and the evidence derived from it. The facts are the buildings could not fall at free fall speed through thier own mass. Explosives had to clear the path. When one mass hits another mass it causes resistance period that is not arguable, all the BS about how the building was wired or was impossible to wire etc doesn't matter because the facts are the buildings fell at free fall speed. There is no other explanation for them falling at that speed but explosives period nothing! You cannot defy the laws of physics. if you think you can please provide us a demonstration of your theory. Those are the facts and cannot be disputed though fools try.

Whether government was involved or not cannot be absolutely proven however it is highly likely they were for a couple reasons. First they lied and covered up to many things which shows guilt. Second they are one of the few entities on the planet who have the resources and assets to pull something like it off.

Those are the hard facts everything else is just nibbling around the edges massaging someone's emotional belief one way or the other.

End of thread!