If 911 is viewed as a crime instead of a terrorist attack, it becomes clear...

reply to post by plague311

If someone comes up with the time, I would like someone to lay out an actual theory. I don't mean posting "We're just asking questions and saying there are problems." I mean actually lay something out.

Here's a good start.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by CaptChaos


I am coming here because I would like to learn as well. By getting a fully laid out explanation of what the theory is, maybe I can understand and learn. However, stating that you can "follow the yellow brick road" doesn't really bring me to any further information. Maybe if there was an ultimate goal that I was following the yellow brick road too it would help. I mean, come on, even Dorothy knew she was going to see the wizard.

I guess I didn't expect people to get defensive about asking them to explain their theory. At least NIST put out a report with a working theory as to what happened that day, followed by fact and evidence. I don't see you doing that. Maybe I am missing something. Are you stating that you don't have a theory, you are just asking questions?

Check, normal CT stuff. Also, the reason I am posting is because I am at work, you know...my job. I do that.

reply to post by comprehension


Hmmm, after reading that it doesn't have much for evidence. By that I mean, something other than wikipedia. I don't really buy into that. I am not saying it has to be government documents, as we all know how those are "manipulated", but maybe something else.

It just seems to me if there was this much evidence then other countries would help the truth movement progress. There are several countries that hate the US. Why aren't experts from those countries coming forward? Why are they not displaying scientific information to illustrate the issues in the NIST report?

Originally posted by plague311
reply to post by comprehension

 

Hmmm, after reading that it doesn't have much for evidence. By that I mean, something other than wikipedia. I don't really buy into that. I am not saying it has to be government documents, as we all know how those are "manipulated", but maybe something else.

It just seems to me if there was this much evidence then other countries would help the truth movement progress. There are several countries that hate the US. Why aren't experts from those countries coming forward? Why are they not displaying scientific information to illustrate the issues in the NIST report?

It'll take a while to read sure, but it's necessary background for the final chapter. If you'd like to read the end first, it is here.

reply to post by plague311

It just seems to me if there was this much evidence then other countries would help the truth movement progress. There are several countries that hate the US. Why aren't experts from those countries coming forward? Why are they not displaying scientific information to illustrate the issues in the NIST report?

If you're assuming other nations don't have a stake in 911, I recommend the long version.

No, I am not saying other nations don't have a stake in 9/11. I am very educated on the effects of 9/11. However, I am saying that if there was a mountain of evidence, as this thread implies, then why are experts from other countries (especially less than friendly countries) not seeking out their Nobel Prize by proving the conspiracy is true.

I see CTists use hypotheticals all the time in an attempt to prove their point. All I am saying is after 10 years, and the implication that hundreds, if not thousands, of people were involved in this nefarious plot. How come none of them have spoken out? Firemen, policemen, demo people, etc. It can't be because they're afraid. If so, then they are cowards. Because just speaking out might get them killed, but it would blow the lid on everything. If these fire fighters are brave enough, heroes enough, to risk their lives to save people they have no idea who they are, then I can't imagine they would accept the deaths of thousands. Some of these deaths were 300+ of their brethren. I'm sorry, just that is enough to make me believe. Firefighters are our heroes, and I believe that they are better people than that. To either be paid off, or to help this plot.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

Sorry, but those are the facts. The Executive Branch should not be compelled to testify. Separation of powers. Its pretty plain and simple.

Sorry, but "those" are not the facts.

You cited a source which undermined your own argument, after which I proceeded to completely eviscerate your position.

At least put some effort in when you respond, hmmm? Something better than "I'm right and you're wrong". Surely these kinds of sub-par "I say so" responses can't be the norm in hundred-percenter circles? Oh wait...

Originally posted by plague311
No, I am not saying other nations don't have a stake in 9/11. I am very educated on the effects of 9/11. However, I am saying that if there was a mountain of evidence, as this thread implies, then why are experts from other countries (especially less than friendly countries) not seeking out their Nobel Prize by proving the conspiracy is true.

I see CTists use hypotheticals all the time in an attempt to prove their point. All I am saying is after 10 years, and the implication that hundreds, if not thousands, of people were involved in this nefarious plot. How come none of them have spoken out? Firemen, policemen, demo people, etc. It can't be because they're afraid. If so, then they are cowards. Because just speaking out might get them killed, but it would blow the lid on everything. If these fire fighters are brave enough, heroes enough, to risk their lives to save people they have no idea who they are, then I can't imagine they would accept the deaths of thousands. Some of these deaths were 300+ of their brethren. I'm sorry, just that is enough to make me believe. Firefighters are our heroes, and I believe that they are better people than that. To either be paid off, or to help this plot.

On the one hand you say you are very educated on the effects of 911, and in the same sentence you mention the Nobel Prize, as if it was some sort of barometer of truth. Why do you assume the Nobel committee isn't corrupt? Obama has a Peace Prize, after all.

"firefighters are our heroes"?

Are there no "bad", unheroic firefighters then?

reply to post by plague311


The towers disintigrated at the speed of an object falling through air. Not possible by progressive collapse.

Originally posted by comprehension

Originally posted by plague311
No, I am not saying other nations don't have a stake in 9/11. I am very educated on the effects of 9/11. However, I am saying that if there was a mountain of evidence, as this thread implies, then why are experts from other countries (especially less than friendly countries) not seeking out their Nobel Prize by proving the conspiracy is true.

I see CTists use hypotheticals all the time in an attempt to prove their point. All I am saying is after 10 years, and the implication that hundreds, if not thousands, of people were involved in this nefarious plot. How come none of them have spoken out? Firemen, policemen, demo people, etc. It can't be because they're afraid. If so, then they are cowards. Because just speaking out might get them killed, but it would blow the lid on everything. If these fire fighters are brave enough, heroes enough, to risk their lives to save people they have no idea who they are, then I can't imagine they would accept the deaths of thousands. Some of these deaths were 300+ of their brethren. I'm sorry, just that is enough to make me believe. Firefighters are our heroes, and I believe that they are better people than that. To either be paid off, or to help this plot.

On the one hand you say you are very educated on the effects of 911, and in the same sentence you mention the Nobel Prize, as if it was some sort of barometer of truth. Why do you assume the Nobel committee isn't corrupt? Obama has a Peace Prize, after all.

"firefighters are out heroes"?

Are there no "bad" unheroic firefighters then?

Oh, I didn't realize that everyone but the people that were for the conspiracies were corrupt. Ok, forget what I said than. The Nobel Prize committee is corrupt. Wow. I just, don't know what to say. I have never been told that the Nobel Prize committee is also in on the 9/11 conspiracy and THAT is why they aren't giving out prizes to the "experts" that come out.

I hope you hear how ludicrous you sound. You're basically saying that everyone in the world is in on 9/11 EXCEPT the people that are CTists. Just...wow.

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
reply to post by plague311

 

The towers disintigrated at the speed of an object falling through air. Not possible by progressive collapse.

Can you please link a source? From a non CTist website? If you can I would be happy to look at it. The towers didn't fall at free fall speed. That has been proven completely false on several different sites, by several different structural engineers, demo experts, and in peer reviewed papers. I will be awaiting that link. Thanks.

Originally posted by plague311
Oh, I didn't realize that everyone but the people that were for the conspiracies were corrupt. Ok, forget what I said than. The Nobel Prize committee is corrupt. Wow. I just, don't know what to say. I have never been told that the Nobel Prize committee is also in on the 9/11 conspiracy and THAT is why they aren't giving out prizes to the "experts" that come out.

I hope you hear how ludicrous you sound. You're basically saying that everyone in the world is in on 9/11 EXCEPT the people that are CTists. Just...wow.

No, not "just wow", what a cop out.

If you think power doesn't corrupt, then by all means, convince me who isn't corrupted. If you think the people who gave the Obamanation a peace prize aren't corrupt, please explain your reasoning.

Originally posted by comprehension
The area has "this kill" and "that kill" and kill means channel, or creek in Dutch, not crap.

Actually, not quite, but almost. I'm Dutch, I don't recognize the word as meaning channel or creek, and nobody uses it that way. What's more, it's not in the most prestigious Dutch dictionary (Van Dale) as such. "Kil" actually means "cold", "chilly" or "cold-hearted".

Kil is, however, what's known in Dutch as a "toponiem", a term derived from a geographic location, some of which, indeed, refers to water, but to an area of water accidentally formed ("watergeul"), by, for example, a dike break.

FYI.

Originally posted by plague311
The towers didn't fall at free fall speed.

FYI, "free fall speed" does not exist. Free fall refers to acceleration, not speed. There is a profound difference, as anybody with a modicum of understanding of physics knows.

And no, WTC 1 & 2 did not fall at free fall. WTC 7 did, however, for a short period of time (approx. 7-8 floors), and this is admitted in the NIST report on WTC 7, but without a feasible attributing explanation in terms of mechanics.

Originally posted by plague311
reply to post by CaptChaos

 

I am coming here because I would like to learn as well. By getting a fully laid out explanation of what the theory is, maybe I can understand and learn. However, stating that you can "follow the yellow brick road" doesn't really bring me to any further information. Maybe if there was an ultimate goal that I was following the yellow brick road too it would help. I mean, come on, even Dorothy knew she was going to see the wizard.

I guess I didn't expect people to get defensive about asking them to explain their theory. At least NIST put out a report with a working theory as to what happened that day, followed by fact and evidence. I don't see you doing that. Maybe I am missing something. Are you stating that you don't have a theory, you are just asking questions?

Check, normal CT stuff. Also, the reason I am posting is because I am at work, you know...my job. I do that.

Try this

It's, you know, the original post. Here is the conclusion:

Conclusion History has many interpretations, and this report has been just one of many – an interpretation pieced togetherfrom the bold admissions and revelations of insiders, whose stories have been ignored and suppressed by themajor media organizations. It is an interpretation of history that suggests a few determined men strove to changethe world in defense of western capitalism in ways which they felt needed to be hidden from the public.Whatever emotion or logic that was adequate to cause them to hide their actions from the public was not strongenough to prevent them from committing the acts. In changing the world, crimes were committed for the goodof the American public, without the American public having a say in what it thought was in its best interest. Tocover-up these crimes, thousands of innocent people had to be murdered. Hundreds of thousands of people acrossthe globe have been subjected to the terrors of wars funded by this operation. The ‘few good men’ responsiblefor these events make sure no one knows who is responsible, because in their hearts, they know that what they dois not acceptable to the American public. The alleged statements by Bush and Reagan are testimony to that point:
Sarah McClendon: "What will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran contra?George H.W. Bush: "Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase usdown the streets and lynch us." 230 “If such a story gets out, we’ll all be hanging by our thumbs in front of the WhiteHouse….” 231 It might be fair to rationalize their crimes as collateral damage in a war to preserve the American standard of living, and that because they risk their lives to serve the American public, they are ‘entitled’ to reap the spoils of war. If thousands had to die to enrich the life and secure liberty for millions, is that not an acceptable sacrifice?It might also be fair to suggest that these agents are nothing more than a criminal association of sociopaths andpsychopaths, out to enrich themselves by means of violence, and who have murdered thousands, destroyed thelivelihoods of tens of thousands, and caused endless misery, pain and death for millions in foreign lands. As abrotherhood always at war, they live under a motto of ‘results at any cost’ and they spin a web of deceit whichallows the American public to tolerate their crimes.It might be fair to view the politicians who use them as ‘realists,’ who accept the existence of both kinds of men,and use them to preserve and protect the American public, and like generals in war, be forced to make the ‘harddecisions’ on behalf of the citizenry.It might also be fair to view the politicians as ‘opportunists’ who use the agents for their own personal gain. Mostof these politicians made their fortunes by capitalizing on the death and misery of war which they forced othersinto unwillingly, and through deception. They have insider trading knowledge of secret funds that in actualitybelong to the American public, and unlimited personal access to those funds. 41Regardless of any personal interpretation, the process for ascertaining truth which has held consistent with thevalues of the American public has been a trial by jury, where the prosecutors and defense abide by the law toconduct a fair and impartial hearings of the facts. This report is based on hearsay evidence, and as a result,proves nothing. Hopefully, what it does is define hypotheses to be proven by subsequent archive research.Americans had a chance in the 1980s to set the system straight, to enforce the law and prosecute thoseresponsible for the Iran-Contra crimes. Americans could have sent a message that criminal behavior by itsleaders is unacceptable. By no

Couldn't fit, try this:

Conclusion History has many interpretations, and this report has been just one of many – an interpretation pieced togetherfrom the bold admissions and revelations of insiders, whose stories have been ignored and suppressed by themajor media organizations. It is an interpretation of history that suggests a few determined men strove to changethe world in defense of western capitalism in ways which they felt needed to be hidden from the public.Whatever emotion or logic that was adequate to cause them to hide their actions from the public was not strongenough to prevent them from committing the acts. In changing the world, crimes were committed for the goodof the American public, without the American public having a say in what it thought was in its best interest. Tocover-up these crimes, thousands of innocent people had to be murdered. Hundreds of thousands of people acrossthe globe have been subjected to the terrors of wars funded by this operation. The ‘few good men’ responsiblefor these events make sure no one knows who is responsible, because in their hearts, they know that what they dois not acceptable to the American public. The alleged statements by Bush and Reagan are testimony to that point: Sarah McClendon: "What will the people do if they ever find out the truth about Iraq-gate and Iran contra?George H.W. Bush: "Sarah, if the American people ever find out what we have done, they will chase usdown the streets and lynch us." 230 “If such a story gets out, we’ll all be hanging by our thumbs in front of the WhiteHouse….” 231 It might be fair to rationalize their crimes as collateral damage in a war to preserve the American standard of living, and that because they risk their lives to serve the American public, they are ‘entitled’ to reap the spoils of war. If thousands had to die to enrich the life and secure liberty for millions, is that not an acceptable sacrifice?It might also be fair to suggest that these agents are nothing more than a criminal association of sociopaths andpsychopaths, out to enrich themselves by means of violence, and who have murdered thousands, destroyed thelivelihoods of tens of thousands, and caused endless misery, pain and death for millions in foreign lands. As abrotherhood always at war, they live under a motto of ‘results at any cost’ and they spin a web of deceit whichallows the American public to tolerate their crimes.It might be fair to view the politicians who use them as ‘realists,’ who accept the existence of both kinds of men,and use them to preserve and protect the American public, and like generals in war, be forced to make the ‘harddecisions’ on behalf of the citizenry.It might also be fair to view the politicians as ‘opportunists’ who use the agents for their own personal gain. Mostof these politicians made their fortunes by capitalizing on the death and misery of war which they forced othersinto unwillingly, and through deception. They have insider trading knowledge of secret funds that in actualitybelong to the American public, and unlimited personal access to those funds. 41Regardless of any personal interpretation, the process for ascertaining truth which has held consistent with thevalues of the American public has been a trial by jury, where the prosecutors and defense abide by the law toconduct a fair and impartial hearings of the facts. This report is based on hearsay evidence, and as a result,proves nothing. Hopefully, what it does is define hypotheses to be proven by subsequent archive research.Americans had a chance in the 1980s to set the system straight, to enforce the law and prosecute thoseresponsible for the Iran-Contra crimes. Americans could have sent a message that criminal behavior by itsleaders is unacceptable. By not stopping this organization at that time, Congress and the American publicallowed this criminal syndicate of American ‘heroes’ to continue to wreak even more havoc on the world in thename of the American public. This assault on the Constitution, freedom, democracy, the Geneva Convention, andthe rule of domestic and international law has continued unabated for over 50 years. By refusing to re-open thewidely discredited inquiry called the 9/11 Commission, and by refusing to address the covert funding that feedsthis syndicate without accountability, the Congress seemingly becomes co-conspirator to past and future crimes.Ronald Reagan was correct: “….America will never make concessions to terrorists; to do so would only invitemore terrorism. Once we head down that path, there would be no end to it, no end to the suffering of innocentpeople, no end to the bloody ransom all civilized nations must pay.” 232 Before his death, Erle Cocke testified that he though the whole operation had become too big for anyone todetermine how to bring closure to it, and that those who wanted to see it ended just gave up. Given thethousands of people who have been murdered to keep this secret, and given the way wit

Ah, it doesn't fit. Try reading the OP for starters before commenting. It's long, yes. Sorry about that. I'm not too good at two minute sound bytes.

Do you guys come in at page 10 and ask for an explanation all the time?

reply to post by snowcrash911


In the area around new York City and up the Hudson River valley are number of locations (towns, rivers) which
"KILL" as part of name

ie. Kill Van Kull - channel between Staten Island and NJ
Arthur Kill - Back channel between Staten Island and NJ

Peekskill - village in Westchester county North of NYC
Sparkill - small village Rockland county west of NYC
Fishkill - village north of NYC
Walkill - village in Orange county north of NYC, named for small river in area

You get the point

Kill comes from the Middle Dutch word kille, meaning riverbed, water channel, or stream. During the British colonial era the bay was known as Cull bay.[7]

Fresh Kills was a small fresh water stream on Staten Island - not brackish

Unfortunately mentally challenged seem to accord some sinister purpose to the name......

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by snowcrash911

 

In the area around new York City and up the Hudson River valley are number of locations (towns, rivers) which
"KILL" as part of name

ie. Kill Van Kull - channel between Staten Island and NJ
Arthur Kill - Back channel between Staten Island and NJ

Peekskill - village in Westchester county North of NYC
Sparkill - small village Rockland county west of NYC
Fishkill - village north of NYC
Walkill - village in Orange county north of NYC, named for small river in area

You get the point

Kill comes from the Middle Dutch word kille, meaning riverbed, water channel, or stream. During the British colonial era the bay was known as Cull bay.[7]

Fresh Kills was a small fresh water stream on Staten Island - not brackish

Unfortunately mentally challenged seem to accord some sinister purpose to the name......

I just explained to the forum what "kil" actually means in Dutch after blatant misrepresentation by somebody else, and where the contextual "toponiem" ("topographical name") water-related meaning derives from. I hold no such "sinister" misconceptions about "Fresh Kills", so you're presumably responding to me while addressing someone else. Typical haughty debunker nitwit tone. Long on bravado, short on substance.

reply to post by CaptChaos


I do when the information makes no sense. I actually traveled to this site via another post by a CTist that referred to this post. In all honesty, I am going to bail on this. I have seen too much stupidity, links to stupidity, and over all irrationality. A wise man once said, you are who surround yourself with. I do not want to surround myself with the likes of this. I'll stick to my rational people.