This is how normal people discuss 9/11

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Which experts are you talking about? I know of just a handful, but they are heavily invested in this conspiracy theory, and they haven't published anything serious. Those are not the kind of experts you should listen to.

As for people claiming things are covered up, which people, and what is their evidence? I am of course talking about people who were part of this cover-up and spoke out. Huge cover-ups imply the involvement of many people. Or else you should define what a "huge cover-up" means and how it was done with very few. And show evidence of course.

Thing is, without any further explanation, this whole idea of a huge cover up is a "nut job" idea.




posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 





The problem with 9/11 is that people post what they think they know, usually based parrot fashion from other people posting what they think they know who have summarily dismissed information provided to them by actual experts because that information does not support the paradigm of their supposed argument.


Many of the actual engineering "experts" that could have revealed the truth died of old age including Minoru Yamasaki the TT architect. Be a critical thinker, obviously *IF* the WTC was a massive planned obsolescence project it would have been designed for that from the get go back in the early 1960's. Its a choice the information is out there and the people with rational minds that can discern the forest from the trees can know the truth.



posted on Aug, 12 2013 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Which experts are you talking about? I know of just a handful, but they are heavily invested in this conspiracy theory, and they haven't published anything serious. Those are not the kind of experts you should listen to.


I think there's a lot more than just a handful. But that doesn't matter to you since they are all involved in world wide conspiracy to lie to people so that they can sell books, t-shirts and bumper stickers. This is what I usually get when I say that if people don't go public it doesn't automatically mean that they all agree with the official story. Some people cannot imaging that there might be other reasons for keeping your mouth shut.


As for people claiming things are covered up, which people, and what is their evidence? I am of course talking about people who were part of this cover-up and spoke out.


I don't really understand what you mean when you say 'people who were part of the cover up." Are you saying that unless someone who was directly involved in the cover up confess, there's no cover up?

Here are some of the people who believe there is a cover up. But they might be 'in on it" to sell books like the people that don't believe the official story.

Senator Max Cleland

In November, after the White House set conditions for the examination of documents Cleland said, "If this decision stands, I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."”

Senato r Mark Dayton

“NORAD lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission…the most gross incompetence and dereliction of responsibility and negligence”

Bogdan Dzakovic

* Video transcript 8/21/05 : Regarding the 9/11 Commission "The best I could say about it is they really botched the job by not really going into the real failures. … At worst, I think the 9/11 Commission Report is treasonous."


Thomas H. Kean[/

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," the book states.

Lee Hamilton

Even the chair of the 9/11 Commission now admits that the official evidence they were given was 'far from the truth'.

Tim Roemer

"We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy."

John J. Farmer

Farmer’s verdict: “History should record that whether through unprecedented administrative incompetence or orchestrated mendacity, the American people were misled about the nation’s response to the 9/11 attacks.”



Huge cover-ups imply the involvement of many people.


I think this would be true if there were no such things as compartmentation, politics, gag orders, and most importantly fear.

I'm curious, why do you think noone except Snowden blew the whistle about NSA illegally spying on everybody? How many people do you think knew about it and said nothing?


Or else you should define what a "huge cover-up" means and how it was done with very few. And show evidence of course.


Well I didn't say "huge" coverup, I said enormous. To me it means that more than just a few activities and evidence are being covered up. I think it was probably done in a similar way as this coverup. And I have no idea how many people must be involved in anything like that.


Thing is, without any further explanation, this whole idea of a huge cover up is a "nut job" idea.


It depends on what you think a huge coverup is.
edit on 12-8-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by Nevertheless
 


I am very happy that I made you smile, as it has been scientifically proven that smiling is the cause of happy feelings.

Thanks. Also, I'm glad that you're not denying science.



The reason I wrote it is because these statements are usually used as explanations for someone having a different opinion regarding 9/11 events.

That's not quite true. The thing is that people have, prior to talking to you, probably discussed this and heard other people talking about it enough to realize that the people with certain opinions (that do not make sense [to them]) seem to ignore reality and validate many of those "accusations" that you brought up.

But enough about that. I don't care what your beliefs are, I just told why it was funny.
Let's focus on the subject matter.



For instance when I express my opinion about why NIST denied FOIA request for disclosing the supporting documents for the computer model which they claim explained the free fall stage of WTC 7 collapse,

This part is very important. I think a lot of confusion has arisen from someone claiming that the building collapsed in free fall, and there actually being a "free-fall stage". If I remember correctly, the building came down with around half the speed of free fall, and there is no secret surrounding how it was measured.



I usually get a response that I only care about it because of one or more of those things.

Lets try to keep out of that discussion, but again, I guess it has to do with the experience of recognizing people who refuse to accept reality because of their "religion", so to speak.



I insist why those points aren't "true" because they are not true. I care about the NIST model documents because I believe they can prove or disprove their hypothesis.

45Mb report
What is not convincing enough to you?



The very same "wrong" conclusion has been said by numerous people involved in the official investigation.

There may not be anything wrong with it, but we are unable to confirm their explanation of the most extraordinary part of the WTC 7 collapse.

You would be unable to confirm it even with further details. As is probably even NIST.




During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.


What do you think about [url=https://encrypted.google.com/url?

The document I linked to is quite extensive as it is, but... If they have indeed found a serious flaw that indicates that a building of such construction can be taken down "quite easily" if the effort is put in the right place, then yes, it could be quite responsible not to disclose it.
You're free to experiment on it yourself.




Extraordinary claims (stage 2 of the collapse) require extraordinary evidence. NIST did not provide them.

Tell me, what is extraordinary about that?



Yes there is, it's called; I don't like what you're saying, if I'll start calling you names and change the subject maybe you'll go away.

No, I won't be calling you names, I just want to get to the bottom of what is troubling you.

And I'm still wondering how it did come down like that if it cannot come down? What is it that we are discussing here?



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret
I think there's a lot more than just a handful. But that doesn't matter to you since they are all involved in world wide conspiracy to lie to people so that they can sell books, t-shirts and bumper stickers. This is what I usually get when I say that if people don't go public it doesn't automatically mean that they all agree with the official story. Some people cannot imaging that there might be other reasons for keeping your mouth shut.


True, I cannot imagine all those experts forfeiting their moral obligation. It’s a response that you hear quite often, that most of these experts are either cowards or immoral. Without any evidence, it’s an interesting fantasy. In the days of the anonymous internet these experts have all the means to speak out. "Anonymous experts for 911 truth". I say it will always remain a fantasy.


I don't really understand what you mean when you say 'people who were part of the cover up." Are you saying that unless someone who was directly involved in the cover up confess, there's no cover up?

In a cover-up this big, and with such huge moral implications, then the idea that nobody ever speaks out is very close to the realm of impossibilities.

Senator Max Cleland says nothing about an enormous cover up, just that the report he is working on in compromised because he does not have full access.
Senato r Mark Dayton talks about a cover up of negligence.
Bogdan Dzakovicv is criticizing the commission report. Does not talk about a cover up.

The rest seem similar. When you talk about an enormous cover up, are you talking about a conspiracy theory, or about people or organizations covering their asses to avoid being sued for negligence? Your quotes support the latter, and in that case, I agree, there very likely were cover ups. But to call that an enormous cover up is an enormous stretch.


I think this would be true if there were no such things as compartmentation, politics, gag orders, and most importantly fear.

To give any sensible answer to this I must first know what you believe. If you believe that things such as remote controlled planes or explosives are possible, then I wonder how you imagine that was compartmentalized, without anyone knowing what he was doing.


I'm curious, why do you think noone except Snowden blew the whistle about NSA illegally spying on everybody? How many people do you think knew about it and said nothing?

Foremost reason is of course that no mass murder was committed. In fact, I think many people involved truly believe(d) they were preventing terrorist attacks by keeping it secret. Big difference.

But even so, this did came out. And of course there is always just one whistle blower, which is the first. After that any motive to blow the whistle again is gone, the word is already out. Doesn’t mean that if Snowden wasn’t there it would never have gotten out.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
according to the news lately 70 percent of the american public do not believe the goverment on 9-11 .

thats over 220 million people i wonder why and i wonder at people who just post in the 9-11 forum all the time



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nevertheless
What exactly is unclear to you?
Tower 7


its unclear to me why NIST craps on when the BBC in england announced the collapse of building 7 19 minutes before it happened.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Nevertheless
 




This part is very important. I think a lot of confusion has arisen from someone claiming that the building collapsed in free fall, and there actually being a "free-fall stage". If I remember correctly, the building came down with around half the speed of free fall, and there is no secret surrounding how it was measured.


The free fall stage of the collapse is not a secret, the tool they used to determine what caused it is. (for our safety of course).

This is consistent with the structural analysis model, which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.




Lets try to keep out of that discussion, but again, I guess it has to do with the experience of recognizing people who refuse to accept reality because of their "religion", so to speak.


I somewhat agree with you here. Would you agree with me If I say that I think some people, because of their 'religion" so to speak, refuse to accept the reality that our government lies about almost everything and pretend like it's for our safety.



45Mb report What is not convincing enough to you?


The fact that they expect people to just trust them. I guess you can say that my "religion" is "trust but verify". Do you know what "the credibility gap" is?



You would be unable to confirm it even with further details. As is probably even NIST.


The modeling software used by NIST is available to the public. With detailed documentation, coding, methodology and assumptions NIST used to create the model, people can reproduce the exact scenario and compare the results. If their model was based on reality and the free fall stage was in fact consistent, then It would be the end of this particular conspiracy theory.



The document I linked to is quite extensive as it is, but... If they have indeed found a serious flaw that indicates that a building of such construction can be taken down "quite easily" if the effort is put in the right place, then yes, it could be quite responsible not to disclose it. You're free to experiment on it yourself.


This brings us back to the differences of our so called "religious believes", doesn't it? I believe that due to "the credibility gap" we must trust but verify. You believe that it might be too dangerous and therefor we should just trust and experiment with our own theories.

And when people do experiment on it themselves and present their results which are not consistent with NIST, should it be dismissed because it's based on their own theory or should it be believed and accepted as fact?



Tell me, what is extraordinary about that?


The first and only known skyscraper collapse with a period of free fall primarily due to fire.



No, I won't be calling you names, I just want to get to the bottom of what is troubling you.


I appreciate that


And I'm still wondering how it did come down like that if it cannot come down? What is it that we are discussing here?


Don't worry about it too much my friend. There are many people who get involved in a conversation only to find out that they don't even know what the conversation is about in the first place. I'm confident that sometime in the future you will understand the topic of this thread.
edit on 13-8-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I choose to agree to disagree with you and accept your opinion for what it is.

I must however point out the silliness of the statement below. Considering what we now know.



In the days of the anonymous internet these experts have all the means to speak out. "Anonymous experts for 911 truth".


Lets pretend that we live in the days of the anonymous internet, how do we know if the anonymous experts are really experts?
edit on 13-8-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 12:58 PM
link   


In other words an awful lot of what is written is recycled assumption, which has turned into a self sustaining cycle. That is common place for an awful lot of conspiracy based arguments, but in this particular case it is more so because people cannot accept in their own minds that a relatively simple series of events can either happen and/or be so deadly, plus there is a mindset that the US is/was untouchable. Its a massive cycle of ignorance.


Very well put.

Persons who have knowledge of the inter workings of the US Government and have many contacts within that government know a solid irrefutable time line exist from the time Saudi Monarchy told OBL that they didn't need his 'holy war fighters' and invited the US Marine Corps in to the Kingdom to set up a base. From there all the way to Hani Hanjour's high speed dive into the Pentagon is documented and unchallengeable.

Any 'truther' just refuses to look at this and just tried to fantasize different aspects of the events in New York and Washington. The media ignores them and so does everyone else. They have no evidence other than fabrication, accusation, and a deep distrust of anything or anyone in authority.



posted on Aug, 13 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I really wonder on what part I write you actually disagree on.

A statement is not silly just because you are unable to make sense of it or because you didn't think it through. It is extremely easy to recognize an expert: by the papers and articles he publishes. If the work is sound and reproducible then we know we are dealing with good science.

As of yet I don't know of any paper or article that conforms these criteria and in any way disproves the OS. Why aren't all these silent experts publishing papers that prove there was a big cover up? I will give you a hint: these imaginary experts do not exist. You made them up just to rationalize your irrational belief.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by whatsecret
 


I really wonder on what part I write you actually disagree on.


Everything you posted in this thread up to now. But that's not inportant. I know that there is nothing I can say to you that will change your opinion. You and I are actually almost the same (from what I can see in your posts) The only difference I can see is that you are unable to control yourself and politely disagree with my opinion.


A statement is not silly just because you are unable to make sense of it or because you didn't think it through.


From my point of view it's silly that you think you or anybody else are anonymous on the Internet.


It is extremely easy to recognize an expert: by the papers and articles he publishes. If the work is sound and reproducible then we know we are dealing with good science.


Honestly, all the information on architects and engineers for 9/11 truth website seems lagit to me, because I'm obviously not an expert in this field. Give me advise which experts should I believe that the papers published by anonymous experts are correct and which ones aren't?

Are you able to reproduce the results of the computer model used by NIST to determine how stage 2 of the wtc7 collapse happened? How?


]As of yet I don't know of any paper or article that conforms these criteria and in any way disproves the OS.


And that matters because...? Hhmm... Is it because you are an expert?


Why aren't all these silent experts publishing papers that prove there was a big cover up? I will give you a hint: these imaginary experts do not exist. You made them up just to rationalize your irrational belief.


See? You had an opportunity to politely disagree, but you chose to accuse me of making things up, which implies that I'm either a liar, crazy or just plain stupid.

This thread was inspired by people who behave like you. Maybe you should watch the videos in the OP?
edit on 14-8-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   
"normal" people don't discuss 911. Normal people go to work, consume food and drink, laugh and watch TV then go to bed. All the while going on with the assumption the the government has the best intentions...



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rosinitiate
"normal" people don't discuss 911. Normal people go to work, consume food and drink, laugh and watch TV then go to bed. All the while going on with the assumption the the government has the best intentions...





Land of the free to do what you're told.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatsecret

Originally posted by Rosinitiate
"normal" people don't discuss 911. Normal people go to work, consume food and drink, laugh and watch TV then go to bed. All the while going on with the assumption the the government has the best intentions...





Land of the free to do what you're told.


They don't know any better. Seriously, think about it.

I remember when I first started waking up to the "real" reality. It started with aliens but there was so much disinfo out there I began to start thinking the idea was crazy and I was crazy for thinking it.

The 911 happened and at the time I really thought it was the EVIL Taliban. It wasn't until I started learning about the Iraq war that I started to learn about the crooked techniques of the US government. My first read was Fiasco by Thomas Ricks (great read). The I read the 911 commision report. Then I read about other stuff, then other stuff, then other stuff, then other stuff.

It wasn't until I read other stuff x10 that I was able to piece things together. You can't just learn bout one conspiracy and expect to understand, or even believe for that matter. No sir, you need the whole picture. That takes time and effort and people don't have the time to stop being drones and learn for themselves.

Again, not there fault....they don't know any better. Nor is it worth the time or effort to convince those who refuse to even entertain the idea.

Let it go, let them go....nothing good will come from trying to convince anyone of anything. The must chose for themselves.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by geobro
according to the news lately 70 percent of the american public do not believe the goverment on 9-11 .

thats over 220 million people i wonder why and i wonder at people who just post in the 9-11 forum all the time


If the MSM (news) lied to you about 911 why would you believe their 70% story?

If the government is soooo powerful that they can control MSM and substitute their own 'secret' video feeds, why do they allow ATS to exist?



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by geobro
according to the news lately 70 percent of the american public do not believe the goverment on 9-11 .

thats over 220 million people i wonder why and i wonder at people who just post in the 9-11 forum all the time


If the MSM (news) lied to you about 911 why would you believe their 70% story?

If the government is soooo powerful that they can control MSM and substitute their own 'secret' video feeds, why do they allow ATS to exist?


Funny that I kept getting time out - not responding messages (server maintenance) trying to respond..



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Rosinitiate
 




Let it go, let them go....nothing good will come from trying to convince anyone of anything. The must chose for themselves.


I came to the same conclusion, however I'm curious by nature so I look for people's opinions about things that I care about. I learned a lot from debunkers and it saddens me that it is virtually impossible to have normal discussions nowadays.



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent

Originally posted by geobro
according to the news lately 70 percent of the american public do not believe the goverment on 9-11 .

thats over 220 million people i wonder why and i wonder at people who just post in the 9-11 forum all the time


If the MSM (news) lied to you about 911 why would you believe their 70% story?


Good point. I wonder what do people that trust MSM think about the 70% story...



posted on Aug, 14 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Since I haven't seen the 70% story I'm left with a few questions.
Who did they ask?
What was the EXACT question they asked?

If they asked "if they still had questions about the OS", that's an open ended question.
If they asked "Did the government created the whole 911 incident", that's different.

You would think that if 70% think the government whipped up the 911 you would hear from the loved ones of the subsequent wars.

It's been estimated that over 330,000 have been killed in all the countries involved with the war on terror.
That leaves a lot of parents, wives, children and just friends left behind.
How many of them have gone to their local media in their hour of greif and said "WHy should my son have died when Dick Cheney et all brew up the buildings?"?
NONE that's how many.

If the government couldn't shut up Snowen in modern times, how could they have stopped all the other potential leaks over the last 12 years?





top topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join