9/11 Comprehensive Concise Evidence---please contribute

Originally posted by rival
Because what I am looking for are the CORE responses that initially swayed
the poster to the conspiracy side. The one or two bits of evidence that
were so compelling that they caused the respondent to finally make up
their mind and DENY IGNORANCE as they see it.

I promise you your chance, and I promise you I will do the work involved to
answer your challenges...but in due time

*edit to add: I have done alot of homework, watching films, verifying
claims of posters, websites, films etc., and I could easily compile
MY OWN list from MY point of view. But the objective is to compile
a consensus list of the best evidence from many perspectives.



[edit on 9-7-2010 by rival]

HEAR HEAR FANTASTIC THREAD imo, COMPILE A LIST OF PEOPLES REASONS FOR DISBELIEVEING THE OFFICIAL STORY AND THEN PRODUCE THAT LIST IN ANOTHER FORUM FOR PEOPLE TO EXAMINE AND GIVE OR REMOVE CREDENCE FROM THE BELIEF. aaarrrggghhh the baby put caps lock on again. Sorry not going to rewrite without.

1) Silverstein Properties being awarded WTC lease even though they were out bid by Vornado Realty Trust by $50 million. The story goes, Vornado later "withdrew" their offer. I wonder why?

www.wtc.com...

2) Silverstein increases the insurance coverage of the Towers (specifically acts of terrorism) after being "awarded" the lease.

3) The insurance carriers for the WTC failing to properly investigate and litigate glaring coverage issues and providing hefty lightning quick settlements to Silverstein Properties.

4) The cost for "legally demolishing" the less than full occupancy WTC Towers and/or performing the required asbestos abatement were prohibitive. Let's face it, these buildings were not raking in the big bucks, needed big money to make them safe for occupants and were a huge cash drain.

5) Larry "Pull It" Silverstein all but admitting to PBS that WTC Building 7 was a demolition job.


"...so a guy that couldn't even keep something as piddling inconsequential as a marital affair secret from the public is the mastermind behind a secret plot to blow up the Murrah building...? While you're at it, would you mind terribly explaining that to me, as well?"

I know something as complex as this never occurred to you, but could it be that the purpose of the whole Kenneth Starr sideshow/circus was to distract the public and hide the truth about Oklahoma City, Waco, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Columbine and every other shady criminal occurrence which took place during this guy's illustrious administration?

If you pay attention, you realize that this type of smoke and mirrors show goes on all the time in politics. Some have theorized the purpose of the Watergate scandal, which led to the resignation of a President, was to keeps the wraps on a larger, much more damaging conspiracy.

If you really examine it, why would Nixon, who obviously had a huge lead in the polls going into the 1972 election, take such a huge unnecessary chance by ordering the criminal break in and wire tapping of the Democratic Party Headquarters? This is not something which is done by someone who is expecting to not only win the election, but win it big.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 9-7-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

One of the biggest problems I have from that entire day is; none of the 19 hijackers were on any of the manifests (passenger lists).
Now, how did 19 passengers allude that most fundamental function of boarding (four different) planes?

My other 'concern' is: Why was FEMA in NYC on September 10th?



Thank you and goodnight!

reply to post by rival


Great idea! May I just add, that it really helps to list a reliable source.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by rival
Because what I am looking for are the CORE responses that initially swayed the poster to the conspiracy side. The one or two bits of evidence that were so compelling that they caused the respondent to finally make up their mind and DENY IGNORANCE as they see it.

While you're at it, I invite you to likewise inquire as to the original source of the information that swayed the poster. My position from day one is that conspiracy proponents have been and are being swayed by the paranoid rubbish these 9/11 conspiracy web sites (I.E. Loose Change) are pushing out, and so far, from my conversations here, I have not been proven incorrect.

Let's start from the beginning- what was the source of the information that originally swayed YOU to the conspiracy side?

Well, Good Old Dave I agree with you here. What I intend to do is cull
the easily dismissed and unverified rubbish as you say from websites
and authors more concerned about profit than truth. This should be
done by consensus from my side, and by solid arguments from your side.

I'm looking for the bits that you have the most difficulty debunking, not
bits like the no-plane theory based on holograms. I AM out to "get ya"
Dave, but no subversive tactics...the truth, the whole truth...and nothing
but the truth. When this is over I want you to cross over to the
dark side young Jedi

The straw that broke the camel's back for me? The way in which building 7
fell, and my subsequent research into the circumstances surrounding
its collapse.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by rival]

Many in the administration connect with profiting from the war in Iraq. source[3] Council on Foreign Relations, "Strategic Energy Policy Challanges for the 21st Century", April 2001.

reply to post by Stewie


Stewie, as a friendly heads up, that particular video is false, and has fake added in noises. here is the original video:


no explosions. What you posted is a known video with faked audio.

"Stewie, as a friendly heads up, that particular video is false, and has fake added in noises. here is the original video:

no explosions. What you posted is a known video with faked audio."

How exactly do you know which video is authentic and which one is fake? Did you happen to track down the cameraman/owner of the film and review his original film? Did you happen to get a signed statement from this individual? Was the original film analyzed by a professional lab and found to be authentic and not tampered with? Has a recognized body certified this film as being authentic?

Stewie, if someone tells you that a video uploaded to Youtube is "original", without the proper proof and documentation to support it as such, be very, very suspicious. As I said before, without tracking down the original film and the owner of it, there is no way to prove which video is authentic and which is fake. Who knows? Maybe both videos are fake with the soundtrack being altered on both of them.

When someone tries to sucker you into believing something which is unable to be proven through a chain of evidence, you can rest assured there are ulterior motives at play.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

"I think now, frankly, he is dead for the reason he is a... kidney patient," Musharraf said.[123] If Bin Laden suffered kidney failure, he would require a sterile environment, electricity, and continuous attention by a team of specialists, Gupta said.[122]


en.wikipedia.org...

Bin Laden Dead.


www.foxnews.com...

Bhutto confirms bin laden dead. (She was assassinated a few days later.)

video.google.com...


CIA says bin laden dead.

www.veteranstoday.com...



Bush says bin laden is a "prime suspect".

"All I can tell you is that Osama bin Laden is a prime suspect, and the people who house him, encourage him, provide food, comfort or money are on notice. And the Taliban must take my statement seriously."

www.telegraph.co.uk...

He praised the heroes of 11 September, while for Osama Bin Laden, al-Qaeda's fugitive leader, there was a pledge to bring him "and other terrorists... to justice".

news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 9-7-2010 by American_Soviets]

reply to post by rival


um if i were to say planes or bombs i would be contradicting someone else theory.

so impacts and explosions is really all that is needed for a historical point of view.

we don;t know anything else for sure..............................................

reply to post by rival


your number 2 point is evidence of explosive below street level.


you have no evidence.

your thread lead me to believe that this was for historical reasons and not propaganda and making your theory stronger.... no debunking?


peace out

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
I know something as complex as this never occurred to you, but could it be that the purpose of the whole Kenneth Starr sideshow/circus was to distract the public and hide the truth about Oklahoma City, Waco, Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Columbine and every other shady criminal occurrence which took place during this guy's illustrious administration?

As yes, the "Wag the Dog" ploy again. Hate to burst your bubble...well, actually I don't but it's polite to say so...but I've seen the movie, and the "Wag the Dog" principle says you don't conceal something gigantic with something small. You conceal something small with something gigantic. If the OKC bombing happened after the Monica Lewinsky thing you might have had a point, but as it stands you're not even quoting your own conspiracies correctly.

If you really examine it, why would Nixon, who obviously had a huge lead in the polls going into the 1972 election, take such a huge unnecessary chance by ordering the criminal break in and wire tapping of the Democratic Party Headquarters? This is not something which is done by someone who is expecting to not only win the election, but win it big.

Nixon was narcissistic, paranoid and imagined everyone was out to double cross him, and his personal issues caused him more problems in his career than just Watergate. If you're genuinely suggesting there was some whole other secret conspiracy behind the Watergate conspiracy, don't even go there.

You know, my OTHER position other than the 9/11 conspiracy people blindly swallowing the paranoid rubbish these damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing out is that the bulk of the 9/11 conspiracy people are antiestablishment paranoids who subscribed to piles of OTHER conspiracies (I.E. the JFK assassination, faked moon landing, etc) long before 9/11, which is the whole reason they'd be attracted to these 9/11 conspiracy web sites to begin with. Thank you for proving me correct.

The best evidence that the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC twin towers was severely flawed, and the towers could not have collapsed to the ground through "pancaking" as was concluded, can be found here.

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

found at the International Center for 911 Studies.

www.ic911studies.org...

Ie, multiple reports by international physicists, structural engineers, and other experts refuting the NIST conclusion.

Originally posted by rival
I'm looking for the bits that you have the most difficulty debunking, not
bits like the no-plane theory based on holograms. I AM out to "get ya"
Dave, but no subversive tactics...the truth, the whole truth...and nothing
but the truth. When this is over I want you to cross over to the
dark side young Jedi

I do invite you to try, but you should know that I haven't simply blown onto this site with the wind. I've gravitated here after talking to many, many, MANY 9/11 conspiracy components. Thus, I should warn you I know your own conspiracy claims better than you do, and I can say with 100% certainty that your claims are based 100% on misrepresentation of the facts, unsubstanciated accusations, and outright falsehoods. The people who told you these conspiracy claims WANT you to believe there's a conspiracy going on, and I will be more than happy to show you how little you really know. I'm not here to insult you or to make you feel bad. You are simply the victim in their con game.

The straw that broke the camel's back for me? The way in which building 7 fell, and my subsequent research into the circumstances surrounding its collapse.

So you read the NIST report, then? Almost to a man/woman, I've found the bulk of the people griping about the NIST report never read the thing and don't even know what the consistancies even are. I'm not saying the report is perfect, but it answers the questions more logically than "ten thousand secret agents" or, "everyone is as stupid as a bag of hammers".

You don't even have to pay a nickel for it. It's a gov't publication so it's free. Here it is:

NIST report on the WTC 7 collapse

Why the NIST report on WTC7 is flawed, and the people responsible should have their professional licenses pulled.

www.journalof911studies.com...

accessed from the Journal of 9/11 Studies found here:

www.journalof911studies.com...

(Yes, we know Good ole boy, you know more than all of these scientists, engineers and physicists...)

Notice: Not ONE official story cultist has dared to try and respond to my last post: VAPORIZATION OF STEEL CANNOT, REPEAT CANNOT BE CAUSED BY FUEL BASED FIRES.

They can ignore this proof, this total evidence, but they cannot hide from it.

Once you've collected all of the evidence, are you going to then come up with a narrative of what you believed happened? Or, are you going to continue with "just asking questions"?

Originally posted by richierich
Notice: Not ONE official story cultist has dared to try and respond to my last post: VAPORIZATION OF STEEL CANNOT, REPEAT CANNOT BE CAUSED BY FUEL BASED FIRES.

They can ignore this proof, this total evidence, but they cannot hide from it.

...nor do we have to. It is not upon us to prove a negative. It is up to you to prove your assertions. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary evidence. Now that you have proven your thesis, whom do you plan on taking your story to? What actual actions do you now plan on taking?

Or, are you going to continue “just asking questions”?

Originally posted by Stewie
Why the NIST report on WTC7 is flawed, and the people responsible should have their professional licenses pulled....

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar

I don't have to do anything. When the parties responsible for perpetuating a lie realize they are cowards for succumbing to political pressure, I believe they will commit suicide in utter shame.

As an aside, please respect the wishes of the OP, and stay on topic, huh?