6 Reasons To Question and Investigate 9/11 on the 13th Anniversary.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

Everyone uses their intuition in judging what to believe and not believe, including you.

SERIOUSLY do you think engineers design buildings using their intuition?

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
What if I read predictions by nostradamus?

That is not apt.

The books are sound investigative journalism, something you won't get from mainstream media on a topic like this.

Do you also believe the official story of JFK's death? Jim Marrs could set you straight on that one, too.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
Why don't these chaps who are making so much from books explaining the truth pool their money, stick it with some other theorists and pay for a brand new fully independent investigation? Or is it better for them to keep printing books?

Oh that assumption again - they're all writing books for the money - what the books say is crap. That is repeatedly posted like a mantra but it's not convincing. Not if one is a seeker of the truth.

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
You said you had an intuition about tarpley that he was telling the truth, that is an abandonment of reason and logic.

I've got news for you.

Everyone uses their intuition in judging what to believe and not believe, including you.

It's not sound investigative journalism. If it was it would be much bigger news..it's a flawed study. Mr Tarpley does not believe in global warming. Mr Tarpley believes that Britain is responsible for quite a few of the ills on this planet. Mr Tarpley believes the police aided anders breveik slaughtering many young people in Norway. It's classic conspiracy theorists stuff. It's all thrown out at once. For 9/11 he claims that a shadowy cabal of secret services and associated agencies were responsible. Ask yourself and then answer 'how many people need to be involved for this to happen?'. It is blindingly obvious the answer is a very large number. I'd be convinced if I saw actual evidence that pointed the other way, it doesn't exist, its conjecture and pseudoscience. What would it take to convince and change your mind?

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
It's not sound investigative journalism. If it was it would be much bigger news..it's a flawed study.

That is another mantra. If it were true, it would be all over the news.

What people have to get a grip about is that the mainstream media is part of the problem not the solution.

Also, the books I've mentioned are not scientific studies done by a mainstream university or whatever. That's what you're making this sound like.

It's not like that.

Tarpley and Marrs are independent investigators who write books on their findings.

They do not answer to anyone but themselves.

That's the key.

We are living in a world that is dominated by a corrupt power structure if it's mainstream.

One has to be independent of the mainstream if one is to speak truth to power.

a reply to: Mary Rose



Tell us all what do THEY know about structural engineering or do they rely on intuition as well

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Hi. Just a point. Absolutely zero of my friends question the official story. Amongst us are 2 doctors, a professor, a number of teachers, a pilot, a patent translator, a couple of bio chemists, and i'm a qualified civil engineer. All of us would describe ourselves as left leaning. None of us have an agenda, none of us suffer from cognitive dissonance. That paragraph is absolute nonsense of the highest order. Posting that as reason to doubt the official story is beyond ridiculous. I'd hazard that my group has generally above average intelligence. I'd go as far to say one of our mates is eventually heading to a Nobel prize. I don't say this to brag or to make myself sound like Charlie big shot, only to show how utterly condescending and ridiculous that paragraph has.

You say all that and finish by calling the other poster condescending. Quite a feat. Btw I was the first astronaut on Pluto, and I also invented the dog.....and I don't believe the OS.......

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Hi. Just a point. Absolutely zero of my friends question the official story. Amongst us are 2 doctors, a professor, a number of teachers, a pilot, a patent translator, a couple of bio chemists, and i'm a qualified civil engineer. All of us would describe ourselves as left leaning. None of us have an agenda, none of us suffer from cognitive dissonance. That paragraph is absolute nonsense of the highest order. Posting that as reason to doubt the official story is beyond ridiculous. I'd hazard that my group has generally above average intelligence. I'd go as far to say one of our mates is eventually heading to a Nobel prize. I don't say this to brag or to make myself sound like Charlie big shot, only to show how utterly condescending and ridiculous that paragraph has.

You say all that and finish by calling the other poster condescending. Quite a feat. Btw I was the first astronaut on Pluto, and I also invented the dog.....and I don't believe the OS.......

He says, ignoring the point of the post. Still, carry on.

originally posted by: Mary Rose

originally posted by: scottyirnbru
It's not sound investigative journalism. If it was it would be much bigger news..it's a flawed study.

That is another mantra. If it were true, it would be all over the news.

What people have to get a grip about is that the mainstream media is part of the problem not the solution.

Also, the books I've mentioned are not scientific studies done by a mainstream university or whatever. That's what you're making this sound like.

It's not like that.

Tarpley and Marrs are independent investigators who write books on their findings.

They do not answer to anyone but themselves.

That's the key.

We are living in a world that is dominated by a corrupt power structure if it's mainstream.

One has to be independent of the mainstream if one is to speak truth to power.

I'm from the UK, I get my news from the BBC, from the guardian and from the times. Am I to assume that there is collusion from each of these outlets to prevent 'the truth' from coming out? The guardian released the wikileaks and edward snowden papers but they are keeping the real 9/11 deal under wraps. Ah, wait, I get it..wikileaks was a false flag. We had minor quibbles to amuse us and distract from the real problems. See also the BBC, and the times. Again, this doesn't really stand up to much scrutiny.


One has to be independent of the mainstream if one is to speak truth to power. How independent? What counts as outside the mainstream? Could you give me a definitive list please or is it just whatever you feel at the time? I read wired, is that in or out? I also read private eye, in or out?

a reply to: scottyirnbru

Well, my point was that you can claim to be whoever you want on a forum, and know as many "educated" people as you like. It doesn't add any weight at all to your opinion, or any credibility to yourself. We are all just internet nobodies with an opinion, and the discussion should reflect that.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: scottyirnbru

Well, my point was that you can claim to be whoever you want on a forum, and know as many "educated" people as you like. It doesn't add any weight at all to your opinion, or any credibility to yourself. We are all just internet nobodies with an opinion, and the discussion should reflect that.

Ok. A reasonable point. It doesn't change the fact that the initial statement was facile and condescending.

a reply to: applesthateatpeople

LOL. Um, yeah. Fox News, has nothing to do with it. And, it wasn't tooting anything. It was a statement of fact. But I understand why you would feel threatened by it.

There are other examples of steel and concrete buildings that have failed from fire alone


Could you please name an example of a steel building failing from fire alone? I've only seen the examples of ones that have burned for a long time and not collapsed. One specific example for the other side would really help as it is a big point used against to official story. Please don't use an example of the other buildings on 9/11. It would be greatly more effective to have an independent example.

Could you please show me a link or source for the evidence that the Bin Laden family was interviewed by the FBI prior to being released and that it was after normal air traffic resumed? It would help a lot in my research. Thanks. a reply to: cardinalfan0596

a reply to: TheBolt
drive.google.com...
web.archive.org...://www.hillnews.com/news/052604/clarke.aspx

originally posted by: TheBolt
There are other examples of steel and concrete buildings that have failed from fire alone


Could you please name an example of a steel building failing from fire alone? I've only seen the examples of ones that have burned for a long time and not collapsed. One specific example for the other side would really help as it is a big point used against to official story. Please don't use an example of the other buildings on 9/11. It would be greatly more effective to have an independent example.

The Windsor Tower in Madrid is often used by truthers but it had a reinforced concrete frame but the undamaged steelwork on that failed and collapsed only due to fire.

Windsor Tower

a reply to: Mary Rose

Tarpley and Marrs are independent investigators who write books on their findings.

They do not answer to anyone but themselves.

That's the key.

We are living in a world that is dominated by a corrupt power structure if it's mainstream.

One has to be independent of the mainstream if one is to speak truth to power.

How do you know they have not been influenced by anyone?
How do you know that the other investigators have?

Is it because one investigator agrees with your point of view and the other doesn't?

Did you notice how other news outlets jumped all over Fox news when they incorrectly said you can print out your own ballot and have some group collect it?
This says news outlets can't make unsubstantiated claims without being called to the carpet.

The internet is another matter.
You can be an idot and make wild claims about anything and other idoits will cheer you on.

I sincerely applaud your comment becuse you a)found an unrelated example b) at the same time eliminated a counter example from the opposite side c)did so with a concrete fact (pun 100% intended) that now people can attempt to either verify or disprove, and d)you did all this using respectful language. I did research your statement of the structural design and subsequent damage description of the building and I have initially found nothing to suggest otherwise.

a reply to: wmd_2008

My last post I accidentally responded to wmb_2008 but it was meant for you so I hope you see it. a reply to: samkent

My last reply to you was meant for someone else, sorry. Just for fun I was going to reply to you with the typical "that means nothing because of course the FBI would cover their own tracks..." but instead I'll be grateful because I think that honestly clears up another aspect. Thanks for the link and I hope more people click on it.


reply to: wmd_2008

originally posted by: TheBolt
My last reply to you was meant for someone else, sorry. Just for fun I was going to reply to you with the typical "that means nothing because of course the FBI would cover their own tracks..." but instead I'll be grateful because I think that honestly clears up another aspect. Thanks for the link and I hope more people click on it.


reply to: wmd_2008

Yet your reply does fit in with my post

a reply to: TheBolt

Just for fun I was going to reply to you with the typical "that means nothing because of course the FBI would cover their own tracks..."

Just like the SECRET Service can get a little nookie while outside the US?
Just like the Pres can get a BJ in the oval office?

Face it people like to talk. Especially if they feel they didn't get their fair share.