If one looks at 9/11 Truth as a scam it becomes clear...

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Channel 2. death.




posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 




Are these people more interested in making their professions look complicated and just want to be BELIEVED? Are physicists supposed to do experiments?


Why don't these 1500 a&e do the computer simulations.
Why don't they show all of us specifically how it could not have happened?
You want exact numbers? Why not get them from these 1500?

But Noooo! All they do is whine about how they "feel" it could not have happened the way it did.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Careers in architecture and structural engineering don't pay well, they had to resort to selling DVDs online to pay the bills


Careers in architecture don't actually pay that well. Especially if you're doing the kind of 'architecture' that most of the ae911 signatories are involved in, like designing kitchens.

You can't deny that there are people sending money to websites who are no nearer their goal of an investigation. You may not be getting scammed, but plenty of people are.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Considering the "movie" that Martin Sheen and Woody Harrelson are about to make about 9/11 (sic) it struck me that there are actually Truthers out there giving money to organisations like ae911 and aa911 and whoever else.

These are people who pride themselves on being able to see through the lies, to detect the ruses and tricks of TPTB. And to prove it they are sending money to organisations with a proven track record of not advancing their claims. They are doing the precise opposite of being discerning, and paying for it. I submit that they are being scammed.


Yes, it's a scam. All you need to do is look at what these damned fool conspiracy web sites are doing to see what their game is. Dylan Avery releases thirty versions of his Loose Change flick where he invents and rejects conspiracy claims the same way a chef experiments with a souffle, Alex Jones has been preaching "imminent US dictatorship" for the past ten years, and thanks to one poster here, we found out that Richard Gage is now a multimillionaire entirely from selling conspiracy videos.

Despite their apparent different methodologies, every single one of these con artists have one thing in common- they refuse to do a damned thing to actually DO anything about all the gloom and doom scenarios they're preaching. They'll just keep shovelling out more and more paranoia to get people feeling more and more helpless. Richard Gage is a case in point- he literally has everything he needs to calculate where these supposed controlled demolitions were planted to replicate how the towers collapsed...collapse videos, building blueprints, chemical composition of the explosives, 1500 experts, etc...which would prove for all time that there was indeed a conspiracy, but he isn't doing it. All He does is repeat the exact same "It looks like controlled dmeolitions" over and over while asking for more money over and over. The reason for this is obvious- they KNOW what they're saying is hogwash and they KNOW there's no solution for a problem that doesn't actually exist. Actually doing something more tangible than dropping innuendo might start getting they're audience to wonder what the heck they're actually doing with all the money people are shovelling to them.

The problem is, all this conspiracy mongoring is entirely faith based logic in that the truthers WANT there to be a conspiracy, so they'll happily invent their own excuses for the gigantic absurdities and lapses in logic throughout their claims. You've seen many examples of this yourself- the planes were all holograms, all the eyewitnesses around the Pentagon were secret agents, the buildings were all fake structures, and the like. Trying to discuss 9/11 conspiracies rationally with such people is akin to discussing evolution with the Pope. In the end, there's not a whole lot you can do to get these people from shoveling their money to therse snake oil peddlers.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Little news flash , I dont care what Gage says, Avery, its my own suspicions that led me too look deeper.

Attack them till your blue, you can,t change the facts.

Thanks for worrying about my finances though.

Grand total spent by me on 911 , ZERO



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


But wait, what about all the books and movies about 911 by non 'truthers'?

Are they scamming you?

www.flashlightworthybooks.com...

There are many books and movies about 911 that have nothing to do with 'truthers'.

www.ranker.com...



What was the point of making this thread? Bored or something?


I'm not saying that all commerce is a scam you dullard. I'm saying that asking people for money on a website for a "film" that seems to exist only in the imagination of its makers is a confidence trick. I'm saying that this seems to be a continuing theme of the "Truth" movement as it busily jets around the globe on the dime of the gullible not changing anything at all.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Are these people more interested in making their professions look complicated and just want to be BELIEVED? Are physicists supposed to do experiments?


Why don't these 1500 a&e do the computer simulations.
Why don't they show all of us specifically how it could not have happened?
You want exact numbers? Why not get them from these 1500?

But Noooo! All they do is whine about how they "feel" it could not have happened the way it did.


How do you do a relevant computer simulation when you don't even know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers?

Old computer saying: Garbage In, Garbage Out.

The NIST demonstrates that it is possible to lie with computers. Why can't they even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?

I asked Gage about that information in May of 2008 in Chicago. He gave me this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. The steel and concrete distributions had to be figured out for all of them. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931. What kind of electronic computers did they use?

What do you mean the transistor was not invented until 1947?

The experts on both sides are making a farce of a simple problem.

psik



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
Yep..
And then one of the hi-jackers passport, magically fell onto the streets of NY unscathed only to picked up by an FBI agent.
And then the third building collapsed straight down because of fire.

WOW...those Arabs sure are magical.


Now, you see? THIS is exasctly what I was referring to by "faith based logic" in that this poster WANTS these 9/11 conspiracies to be true, so whenever a information void appears he'll fill it with his own specially invented speculation which supports his own pre-determined conclusions.

In this instance, there are many alternative possibilities, such as the FBI conducting a warrantless search on the hijackers' homes and recovering the passports, and becuase they can't use evidence siezed during warrantless serches as evidence they came up with a cover story on how it was found in the street. This scenario explains what happened every bit as much as their scenario does, but you won't find a single truther that subscribes to it simply because it isn't sinister sounding enough, and it doesn't support their preconcieved "secret plot to take over the world" theories.

It's one thing for someone to want to do an objective review of the facts to deduce possible answers to their questions, but when it becomes such a blatant attempt to strongarm the examination toward the direction they specifically want the examination to go, that's when it becomes a scam. There's no Earthly way they can deny this.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Now, you see? THIS is exasctly what I was referring to by "faith based logic" in that this poster WANTS these 9/11 conspiracies to be true, so whenever a information void appears he'll fill it with his own specially invented speculation which supports his own pre-determined conclusions.

New angle? Good the old one was getting tiresome.

Two thirds of New Yorkers, Over 50% of the US, question the events of 911

And your saying its because we are crazy. Nice.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

How do you do a relevant computer simulation when you don't even know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers?


Gage and his travelling circus have the blueprints to the WTC, they have videos showing the progression of the collapse from every conceivable angle, they have 1500 experts ranging from materials engineers to explosives experts, and thanks to Jones and Harrit, they have the chemical composition of the explosives that were used. It would take a task force like that about a week to calculate out where the explosives were planted to cause the pattern of destruction we all saw. The structural strength of the steel, the amount of concrete used, the weak points in the building, everything can be determined as they go along. They wouldn't even need a spot-on analysis, a general estimate would do...but they can't even come up with even that much of an answer.

They're not doing it because either a) they're a pack of lazy sacks of [censored] who wouldn't even leave a house that was on fire or b) they know they're selling a lot of conspiracy nonsense and they know they can't get two plus two to equal five regardless of how artfully they try. There's no secret option c here.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 





How do you do a relevant computer simulation when you don't even know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers?

The NIST demonstrates that it is possible to lie with computers. Why can't they even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?

I asked Gage about that information in May of 2008 in Chicago. He gave me this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. The steel and concrete distributions had to be figured out for all of them.

So to use your logic.

Since none of the 'chosen' 1500 have accurate plans they cannot possibly know what brought the buildings down.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 





Two thirds of New Yorkers, Over 50% of the US, question the events of 911

Utter nonsense.
There is no respected poll to show anything like this.

Make up something better next time.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Little news flash , I dont care what Gage says, Avery, its my own suspicions that led me too look deeper.


Little news flash. When you say "you had your own suspicious" you're admitting I'm RIGHT when I say you have a preconcieved conclusion as to what happened on 9/11 and you're intentionally steering your examination into supporting that preconcieved conclusion. True researchers look at the available information and then attempt to derive a plausible scenario from it, not the other way around.


Grand total spent by me on 911 , ZERO


Just because you yourself didn't spend money on this snake oil it doesn't mean that others aren't. It was posted here not too long ago that Gage made $20 million on his video sales. I can definitely believe this because he sells them during those conferences he holds...and if you look at his schedule you'll see he's had a LOT of conferences. Even then, you pay admission to go listen to him talk. Did it everr occur to you that if he really did have evidence of a conspiracy to commit mass murder, he'd be shouting it out to anyone who'd listen rather than ask people to pay him money to learn what "the real truth" is?
edit on 23-1-2012 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr
I asked Gage about that information in May of 2008 in Chicago. He gave me this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. The steel and concrete distributions had to be figured out for all of them. The Empire State Building was completed in 1931. What kind of electronic computers did they use?


If Gage believes these blueprints "aren't accurate" then why is he listing them on his web site as "key facts"?

Good GOD the guy is a blatant scam artist.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Good GOD the guy is a blatant scam artist.


Something is very Blatant, I agree.

Your unwavering devotion to muddy the facts of 911, shame on you.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Are there any truthers here who have been (or feel they have been) scammed out of their money? I know I haven't spent any money on videos, and I've watched just about all of them - official theory and conspiracy theory alike. They're all available for free online. What a scam.

I did buy my copy of the 9/11 Commission Report, but I think that's the only money I've spent in ten years of researching.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat

I did buy my copy of the 9/11 Commission Report, but I think that's the only money I've spent in ten years of researching.

Sadly, that money went to support people on websites like ATS .
People to support the OS.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Now, you see? THIS is exasctly what I was referring to by "faith based logic" in that this poster WANTS these 9/11 conspiracies to be true, so whenever a information void appears he'll fill it with his own specially invented speculation which supports his own pre-determined conclusions.

New angle? Good the old one was getting tiresome.

Two thirds of New Yorkers, Over 50% of the US, question the events of 911

And your saying its because we are crazy. Nice.


No, I'm saying it's because the con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites are liars and you yourself are simply drinking their Kool aid. "Questioning the events of 9/11" does NOT under any circumstances means they believe in any of these goofball "sinister plot to take over the world" conspiracy claims. It means they believe there's more to the story than what the gov't is admitting to, and guess what- I'm one of them. An administration so incompetent that it couldn't even hand out water bottles to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels most assuredly has more failures on its hands concerning the 9/11 attack than what they're admitting to. The 9/11 commission report documents some of the lesser failures but I guaranteee there has to be more, and the reason why they're not being straightforward is obvious- noone wants to be the one to admit their screwup caused 3000 people to be killed.

You conspiracy people do NOT represent those of us who want a proper accounting of what happened on 9/11 and I would appreciate it if you were to stop pretending that you do, thank you very much.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

New angle? Good the old one was getting tiresome.

Two thirds of New Yorkers, Over 50% of the US, question the events of 911

And your saying its because we are crazy. Nice.


In the more reliable polls there are indeed large numbers who question the government's account, but the vast majority do so on the basis that they feel intelligence failures were covered up. If one asks specific questions about Conspiracy Theories like demolition the numbers who respond that they entertain those notions drop dramatically.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



How do you do a relevant computer simulation when you don't even know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the towers?

The NIST demonstrates that it is possible to lie with computers. Why can't they even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers?

I asked Gage about that information in May of 2008 in Chicago. He gave me this lame excuse about the NIST not releasing accurate blueprints. There are 200 buildings around the world over 800 feet tall. The steel and concrete distributions had to be figured out for all of them.

So to use your logic.

Since none of the 'chosen' 1500 have accurate plans they cannot possibly know what brought the buildings down.


I never claimed that any of them KNEW what brought the buildings down. I don't claim to know what brought the buildings down. I am simply saying an airliner and fire could not do it and without that information no one can PROVE THAT AIRLINERS AND FIRE COULD BRING THEM DOWN.

It is totally absurd to not have that data. I am not talking about the plans I am talking about the steel and concrete distribution. Were the horizontal beams in the core at the 5th level the same thickness as the horizontal beams at the 105th level? Where is that data? But if the thicknesses were different then the weight of steel on those levels would be different even if all of the horizontal beams were in the exact same locations.

psik





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum