50 Facts Concerning 9/11 that Point Away from the OS (The Facts Speak For Themselves)

I agree Mike, with a bully pulpit like Judge Napolitano maybe we can finally begin to get some traction on this story. If it turns out to be building seven's mysterious collapse that gets it rolling then lets all of us keep banging that drum. These guys who continue to belittle everyone who doubts the OS are now actually comical. I wonder where their christmas party is this year?

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by hdutton
My point being, this "inexperienced" pilot was traveling at more than 800 miles per hour

The conspiracy theorists just keep sillier and sillier. Now the one of the 767's that hit the WTC was flying at supersonic speed and no one heard the sonic booms. Must be like the hush a boom silent explosives that the truthers claim were used in the WTC's.

I think you are putting words in people's mouths here:
1) He MIGHT be referring to the Pentagon -- where the plane went into a dive. The cruising speed of about 500 MPH could have increased then.
2) Most "Truthers" are not disputing planes, or their speed -- it's not pertinent to the many undisputed Facts that put Bush's group in the prime list of suspects who "allowed it to happen." We can debate if they Made it Happen with placed charges in the buildings.
3) "Conspiracy theories" in general, seem to crop up when governments are NOT forthcoming with details that should be there if the crime scene and events happened as they claim.
4) If you BOTHER to read about past Conspiracies -- the "theorists" seem to have much better track record than Government apologists;
>> Gulf of Tonkin
>> The Lusitania.
>> Reasons for WW I -- US supplying weapons to the British, WW II -- US companies supplying weapons, shutting down trade routes and setting up bases near Japan to provoke them.
>> JFK assassination: The Warren Commission was pretty much trashed by later GOVERNMENT investigations -- kind of like the "9/11 Commission" stated that the Bush administration was obstructing them, and the could NOT make informed conclusions other than there was a coverup. Two men were charged in civil court with conspiracy in the JFK assassination, and it's well documented that at least 3 bullets were fired. Also, it's likely that Lee Harvey Oswald was in Russia as a double-agent, and he was met by the head of the State Department when he was returned -- likely for a debriefing.

Do we need to go on about the Korean, Vietnam and Spanish-American wars? Our intelligence agencies are ALL ON THE RECORD that they "may have made up events." Meaning; we were not attacked.

Even going into recent events; Iraq and Afghanistan -- do we need to dredge that up? Downing Street Memos and propaganda directly linked to Australian Newspapers (via Rupert Murdoch), and then to a government financed Lincoln Group and then back to the Bush administration -- show that battle plans and a desire to go to war were a priority from day one of their administration.

The first Gulf War was also a con job -- but then we'd be going far afield again.

GitMo -- turns out torture was happening, and it WAS a policy.

>> What "conspiracy theories" are you talking about that are full of crap? People have theories all over the place but I'd like you to SHOW WHEN OUR MILITARY HAS TOLD US THE TRUTH. Show us any instance of not being lied to when it comes to war, or terrorist attacks.

Originally posted by old_god

Unless and until someone with a SPINE aquires a position which can bring about the prosecution of a proper investigation AND the prosecution of those involved, not only in the events but also the cover-up, nothing close to justice can be expected with any other aspects involving this government

"How the hell did many laws, patterns, practices and accepted peer reviewed research get totally blown out of the water on that specific day?

Seriously, did the entire laws of physics and the generations engineering facts (developed through those sciences and practices) get nullified on that particular day?"

This is what is being asked of us, forget about all the other points, theories and accusations out there - ask yourself a simple question:

If so many other institutions, bodies and individual scientists, engineers and researchers are saying the official story does not hold up to fact, why did those 3 buildings defy the laws of physics, of engineer facts and proven practices and literally crumble on their own foot print on that fateful day?"

It has gotten to the point for me that all of these engineering schools saying nothing is more important than who did it. What would the situation be today if in June of 2002 2/3rds of the engineering schools had publicly announced that there was no way airliners could destroy buildings that big that fast?

But Steven Jones is supposedly a physicist. Aren't physicists supposed to know about gravity? Don't skyscrapers have to hold themselves up against gravity? When has he ever discussed how the steel had to be distributed in a skyscraper? Why should we listen to any physicists talk about Black Holes if they haven't said anything about skyscrapers holding themselves up.

After NINE YEARS this is a HUGE social psychological issue. Are all of the psychologists and psychiatrists supposed to be unable to comprehend Newtonian physics? This global situation is ridiculous. Oh yeah, people in Australia aren't supposed to be able to understand gravity. DUH!

New Video:
www.youtube.com...

psik

reply to post by psikeyhackr

After NINE YEARS this is a HUGE social psychological issue. Are all of the psychologists and psychiatrists supposed to be unable to comprehend Newtonian physics? This global situation is ridiculous. Oh yeah, people in Australia aren't supposed to be able to understand gravity. DUH!

After nine years you must realize that either:

Option "A" - Everyone in the world is "in on it",

Option "B" - Everyone else in the world is dumber than you or

Option "C" - You are wrong.

Now, give me one good reason why I or anyone else should consider anything but "C".

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by Velocismo

 

Well considering that there was a peer-reviewed scientific study done on those particulates, proving (according to a consensus of scientists) that it couldn't have been anything other than advanced engineered nano-thermitic particulates, so no I don't think that it could have just been random particles.

--airspoon

>> This would be a good field of study which COULD be independently tested. "Nano-particles" are not just dust. When you are talking about steel and aluminum, there is a strength and a normal crystalline structure where grinding or flaking is going to USUALLY result in a much larger particle. Personally, I'm not an expert, and don't know why it would be "nano" thermite when thermite itself could probably burn through any supports. I believe there were reports of iron-aluminum oxides found in the air -- and that can't happen at the temperatures of a normal building fire -- and stop with the magical "jet fuel" already -- when a building gets fully inflamed, it's as hot as jet fuel which would only help it achieve that peak heat quicker.

My guess is, that a nano-thermite compound would show much smaller particles and even different chemistry. Nano-carbon is highly toxic for instance, and doesn't break down in nature like natural carbon structures do. A nano-compound will combine in ways that larger compounds will not -- even when heated to the same temperatures. Probably some military specialists could be called upon for advice.

Jessie Ventura, who was a demolitions specialist while in Special Forces, says that he thinks it was used -- and that the substance can be "painted on" and it is inert when wet. The people painting it on would have no knowledge of what they are using. When it dries, it becomes active. That's something I hadn't thought of an makes it even easier to have set the buildings up for destruction ahead of time.

There are no samples left from the Twin Towers steel or the molten metal found -- but I'm sure there is plenty of "dust" left over from court cases after 9/11 for people who's lungs were damaged. It was lucky for Silverstein that the buildings fell, because he would have spent more on removing the asbestos in those towers than he was paying to lease if from the Ports Authority.


>> I don't think there will be much progress however. The Wikileaks documents show that the Obama Administration worked to put pressure on Spanish Courts to STOP their efforts to hold 6 Bush administration officials responsible for war crimes and bring them to trial. Whether Obama is helping cover up for Republicans because he's a co-conspirator, or whether there are hit squads under Cheney's control still active -- I have no idea. More and more it seems, that all our governments and power structure (like the Catholic Church) are run by Psychopaths who only promote people who are docile or Psychopaths themselves.

It still chills me to know that the ONLY person ever given a pardon by George Bush as governor of Texas was a serial killer. George probably thought it was funny.

reply to post by psikeyhackr


Do you have any comments about the "50 facts" posted by the OP?

It seems to me we could get into the Physics of skyscrapers and how pancake collapses take MORE TIME than free fall -- but that's kind of a distraction. It seems that MOST of the anti-Truther comments here seem to be about everything BUT the 50 Facts in question.

Has anyone really refuted the facts on record yet?

reply to post by hooper

Now, give me one good reason why I or anyone else should consider anything but "C".

there are 50 reasons in the OP, though certainly a lot more than that. Furthermore, there are a lot more options than the "A", "B" and "C" of your ignorant "list".

You seem to have neglected:

Option "D" - A handful of government insiders or influencers were "in on it" and used the intelligence infrastructure and government resources to pull this off.

The list is still not all-inclusive. However, trusters and official conspiracy theorists would rather embrace ignorance by ignoring an overwhelming mountain of evidence in order to believe some wild conspiracy theory that is based on faith in the word of proven liars.

Also, your option "B" is wrong, as it doesn't require people to be more dumb, only more ignorant and ignorance is all but proven by the fact that the majority of American people who trust the official conspiracy theory are completely ignorant of Building 7 and a plethora of other evidence pointing away from the official conspiracy theory.

I have not yet seen a single person who has been made aware of this evidence and then continued to believe the official conspiracy theory, though I have known several people to stay private in their beliefs. Just because someone doesn't voice their beliefs regarding 9/11, certainly doesn't mean that they buy the official conspiracy theory. It has been my experience that most educated people don't buy the hoopla in the OS one bit, though due to the threat of losing their livelihood and career, they stay quiet, which many people falsely interpret as supporting the official conspiracy theory.

After all, it would seem rather silly that such an effort of demonizing people who ask questions or require evidence before buying into a theory - a wild theory at that - wouldn't have an ulterior motive behind it, such as keeping people from asking the questions or opposing the silliness in the first place.

One has to ask why there is such an exhausted effort to demonize or discredit those who either ask questions, look for evidence or find said evidence, as opposed to answering the questions or viably refuting the evidence.

Yes, instead of answering or reiterating the questions, the questioner is simply ridiculed, falsely discredited and demonized. Then, he is made an example of by having his/her funding cut-off or having their job terminate. The same thing where people have come forward with evidence or sound logic. Instead of that evidence or logic being viably refuted, it is completely ignored and the messenger is attacked, as opposed to the message. This only happens, generally speaking, when there is not merit or method to countering that message. In other words, it is a dirty tactic to side-step the debate and steer it away from an intellectual direction and back towards ignorance, which is usually required for the argument made by the ones doing the demonizing.


--airspoon

good job 9/11 is not a conspiracy its fact, theres too much evidence to support it, and all the evidence the government has doesnt add up

reply to post by airspoon
Well stated Spoon. I believe that we are in the womb of enlightenment this very day. Not sure why I feel more confident now, but I do. Just the fact that two media personalities from Fox news have voiced their doubts about bldg. seven is a huge breakthrough. I know it's been almost ten years but we can't let up the pressure for a NEW investigation. Each day we are closer to closure. Those people will not have died in vain, those responsible will receive their just due. I know it.

reply to post by dillweed
I agree Dillweed,There has been a major break through with the Judge and Rivera although we must must bare in mind that little essay that old Cass Sustein wrote about cognitive infiltration.The best advice I have heard is to be cautious.

reply to post by mike dangerouslyThanks, Mike. Yours is wise counsel. We've come too far now to err on the side of haste. It's my belief that the best each of us can do is continue to apply heat to our reps in congress. Steady, and unrelenting until the noise is so loud they can't ignore the elephant in the room any more.

reply to post by dillweedExactly,Dillweed Although other than Ron Paul no politician seems all that eager to demand a new investigation into 9/11...

Where's all this "mountain of evidence" for the 19 arabs pulled off 9/11 theory?

I don't think I ever seen a thread on it neither.You would think there would be lots of them considering all the "mountains of evidence" there is.I'm going to search..I'll be right back.

I'm starting to think that things are much more complicated than evidence that the White House allowed the attacks to happen. It's a well known fact that the Saudi's didn't like Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. The first attempt at demolishing the WTC was in 1993, two years after the Gulf War (Which involved Saddam) that Bush Senior was hell-bent on eliminating as well as Osama Bin Laden being exiled from Saudi Arabia (In essence, he was hated by the Saudi's for making his feelings known that he didn't like American soldiers being on Saudi soil).

That 1993 bombing failed. What's if the Saudi's asked the American government to eliminate Osama and Saddam once and for all. The Saudi's would take care of financing, training the terrorists and staging the actual attack whilst the Americans do the dirty work of invading two countries with the promise of having control of the poppy fields (Making money from drugs) in Afghanistan, and the oil fields in Iraq. They'll make billions upon billions from having control of both fields as well as the money made from war. Obviously, I'm sure that in the process they also made huge sums of money from the collapse at home such as the WTC insurance, "disappearance" of WTC gold etc. The whole thing was planned.

Makes me sick just thinking about it.

Welcome to my nightmare.

Originally posted by Cassius666
reply to post by Black_Fox

 

Star and Flag for the OP...

I think its pretty much established that it were explosives that have torn both the towers to shreds and collapsed the WTC. It has been established that WTC 7 did not collapse due to fire. We now know Mossad was riding dirty in a van full of boom. We should build up on that, not take 10 steps back debeating the 3 people left on the side that think the official story is true. Ignore those guys.

I don't think they think the OS is true, I think their well being and financial future
are best served if the OS is held up and pushed in the MSM.

In polls over 80% of the ppl do not believe the OS.

In politics anything past 75% is considered a pretty rare event,
especially in a very controversial event.

reply to post by airspoon

there are 50 reasons in the OP, though certainly a lot more than that.

Not really. I won't go into all 50 of the allegations/assumptions/assertions here, but it should be sufficient to note that one of your "facts" contains the word "alleged" thats usually a pretty good red flag that what is being stated may not be exactly "factual".

Furthermore, there are a lot more options than the "A", "B" and "C" of your ignorant "list".

Nope, thats about it at this point. Either everyone who should know better is in on it, or they are much dumber than you or you are wrong.

You seem to have neglected:

Option "D" - A handful of government insiders or influencers were "in on it" and used the intelligence infrastructure and government resources to pull this off.

I wouldn't call it "neglect" its more like "knows better". Whats a handful? 5? 6? 60? 600? 6000?

The list is still not all-inclusive. However, trusters and official conspiracy theorists would rather embrace ignorance by ignoring an overwhelming mountain of evidence in order to believe some wild conspiracy theory that is based on faith in the word of proven liars.

Right back at ya. The only way to maintain the US government conspiracy model is to set up a well defended path of circular logic.

Also, your option "B" is wrong, as it doesn't require people to be more dumb, only more ignorant and ignorance is all but proven by the fact that the majority of American people who trust the official conspiracy theory are completely ignorant of Building 7 and a plethora of other evidence pointing away from the official conspiracy theory.

No, "B" is right on point. You do not have access to any special knowledge that is not accessible to everyone else. People know about and saw Building 7 collapse, the NIST report is out there, readily available. You choose to ignore the truth.

I have not yet seen a single person who has been made aware of this evidence and then continued to believe the official conspiracy theory, though I have known several people to stay private in their beliefs.

Thank you for sharing your opinion. If you really believe this to be the case where is your report? I obviously have been exposed to this so-called "evidence" and I certainly have not been turned - so how did that happen if, as you postulate, everyone that is exposed is turned?

Just because someone doesn't voice their beliefs regarding 9/11, certainly doesn't mean that they buy the official conspiracy theory.

Yeah, it pretty much does. Its one thing to speculate that more people may object to some trivial point of politics or culture than is accounted for, however, to speculate that there is an army of persons out there that hold that the US government murder 1000's of their fellow citizens and are remaining moot for whatever reason is nonsensical. People today feel very free to express their opinions about everything from condom use to highway construction projects, but for some reason they have chosen to stay silent on this subject?

It has been my experience that most educated people don't buy the hoopla in the OS one bit, though due to the threat of losing their livelihood and career, they stay quiet, which many people falsely interpret as supporting the official conspiracy theory.

Well, thats very convenient, huh? Everyone who says they agree with you is on your side, and everyone who doesn't say anything is on your side. I beg to differ. People are "silent" not out of fear, but for the same reason that they are silent about little puple men living on the moon - its nonsensical and not an issue.

After all, it would seem rather silly that such an effort of demonizing people who ask questions or require evidence before buying into a theory - a wild theory at that - wouldn't have an ulterior motive behind it, such as keeping people from asking the questions or opposing the silliness in the first place.

I rarely hear anybody on your "side" actually ask questions. An accusation with a question mark on the end is not a question. And more importantly I rarely hear anyone asking questions, getting an answer and saying, "oh, so thats why that happened, OK". They usually just spin off into denial and then simply reiterate the question at a later date, ready, once again, to ignore the answer.

One has to ask why there is such an exhausted effort to demonize or discredit those who either ask questions, look for evidence or find said evidence, as opposed to answering the questions or viably refuting the evidence.

Actually, there's not. There really isn't enough interest in either demonizing to not demonizing. No one really cares.

Yes, instead of answering or reiterating the questions, the questioner is simply ridiculed, falsely discredited and demonized.

Generally only after it is either pointed out that the "question" is simply a baseless accusation, or after the answer is given and routinely ignored.

Then, he is made an example of by having his/her funding cut-off or having their job terminate.

And you, of course, have proof of this actually, directly happening? Somebody is de-funded or terminate for asking a real question?

The same thing where people have come forward with evidence or sound logic.

"Sound logic" and "evidence" is often like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder.

Instead of that evidence or logic being viably refuted, it is completely ignored and the messenger is attacked, as opposed to the message. This only happens, generally speaking, when there is not merit or method to countering that message. In other words, it is a dirty tactic to side-step the debate and steer it away from an intellectual direction and back towards ignorance, which is usually required for the argument made by the ones doing the demonizing.

Once the "logic" and "evidence" is refuted and the behavior persists, then alternative approaches and review of alterior motiviation begins. This is the step in the process when, occasionally, real demons are found.

reply to post by hooper


I Think everyone in the 9/11 truth movement should know better than to argue with Hooper. It will NOT solve anything.
You will NOT change his mind. Your time is better off spent on spreading the word to those who will listen.

Dont feed the trolls!

reply to post by VonDoomen


Someone rains on your delusional "parade", and you decide to refer to them as a "TROLL"?? I would call an alert on this....but, perhaps someone else should. Then again, what would be the point? If it gets deleted, then the response to it makes little sense......


So...because there are individuals who are able to use reason,and logic...it's better to just "tell others who will listen"...as long as THEY, too, are delusional? Then, what will you do once THEY review all the real facts (and not just those assertions that, as Hooper pointed out, were alleged to be "facts", by the OP), and these who will "listen" realize, AFTER listening, that what the "truthers" have been spewing all along is garbage?

Well, guess they will "turn into" trolls too, huh??

See, it does happen, when people REALLY seek the "truth"...they discover that the so-called "truth movement" is a tissue fantasy of smoke and mirrors....fueled by the naive nattering nabobs who seem, like lemmings, to prefer to jump to a conclusion, ANY conclusion that involves a "conspiracy"...just because they prefer to view the world as "one big conspiracy". Instead of taking some time to think it through logically, and absent all the foolish hyperbole.....

Sad, sad, sad....


PS> You can read MY post on this thread topic, and its pertinence, on page 1, I believe. Dipping into it since, until now, I have seen NOTHING that changes, in terms of the same arrogance displayed by the same people who refuse to see reality, and choose to wallow in ignorance. Just the usual, the flags, all on a premise that is shaky, at best. AND completely over-stated to boot!!

reply to post by weedwhacker


No, he doesn't rain on my parade. Ive argued with him many times before. i just was trying to point out, to everyone else in the thread, that it is not worth their time to continuously argue with everything he says.

Here Hooper-

What is your opinion on the insider trading that took place prior to 9/11 on UAL and how we havent investigated where the money went to? why is this not worth investigating?

* Huge surges in purchases of put options on stocks of the two airlines used in the attack -- United Airlines and American Airlines
* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of reinsurance companies expected to pay out billions to cover losses from the attack -- Munich Re and the AXA Group
* Surges in purchases of put options on stocks of financial services companies hurt by the attack -- Merrill Lynch & Co., and Morgan Stanley and Bank of America
* Huge surge in purchases of call options of stock of a weapons manufacturer expected to gain from the attack -- Raytheon
* Huge surges in purchases of 5-Year US Treasury Notes

911research.wtc7.net...
www.heartson.com...


Why cant we, as a free country, get direct proof that a plane hit the pentagon? They have given us 1 grainy pathetic clip that does not show anything legible. Im sorry I am not like you! I cant put my faith behind this as evidence. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7c54fd0c6f7d.gif[/atsimg]

You want to make me a real believer in the OS?
Release every single tape of security cam footage that covers the pentagon attacks. Let the gov't prove their story, and I'll never mention it again.