9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: Wizayne

Can you explain it's oddly fast and totally destructive nature?

The collapse of each of the WTC buildings was such that there was nothing that could have stopped the collapse.

Or do you shut down all possibility of open mindedness on your part because he didn't just say "fell real fast..."?

None of the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed. I think you missed this video, so I will post it once again.

So you expect others to provide years worth of researched truth, just to be allowed to have a differing view, but the only thing you offer to justify your hard stance for the official story is "The collapse of each of the WTC buildings was such that there was nothing that could have stopped the collapse."
THAT"S HILARIOUS!!!! You have truly explained the collapse with amazing detailed precision.

And second, the whole repeating yourself over and over about the term free fall speed is amateur at best. Proving that they didn't come down as fast as through air alone and then ending the argument DOES NOT JUSTIFY how fast they actually did come down. That is just a tactic you're using because saying "The collapse of each of the WTC buildings was such that there was nothing that could have stopped the collapse." just makes you look silly.

Your response was exactly what I thought it would be, so I know how it will go from here on out. I'm gonna save myself the aggravation and time and just end this here. Good luck in life my friend.

For those who may have forgotten.....You are responsible for your own posts.

This is the topic

9/11 Bombshell: Methodical Deception -- Rebekah Roth

Please discuss it, and not each other....and another reminder, 9/11 forum info


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

a reply to: Nova937

I'm going to call 'OS Truthers' 'OS Activists' because they are not searching for the truth.

The truth can be found in videos, photos, radar, seismic, and ACARS data and expert testimony from structural and civil engineers, architects, demolition experts and even firefighters who later clarify their accounts of explosions that had nothing to do with explosives.

a reply to: jude11

I also know that what the OS states is NOT what actually happened.

Of course 9/11 happened what the OS states. Experts have confirmed the OS as well.

The deception actually originated from the Truth Movement. Case in point, they claim the WTC buildings fell at free fall speed, when in fact, they did not. That was clearly proven by the fact that debris are outpacing the collapse and striking the ground while the collapse of the WTC buildings are still in progress many stories above the ground.

a reply to: Wizayne

So you expect others to provide years worth of researched truth, just to be allowed to have a differing view, but the only thing you offer to justify your hard stance for the official story is "The collapse of each of the WTC buildings was such that there was nothing that could have stopped the collapse."

Nothing stopped the collapse of WTC6 in this video.

I am about one-third through Methodical Illusion. Yes, as she points out, it is fiction, with all fictional characters. So far I'm not particularly impressed with the book, but I will finish it before I judge it.

a reply to: jude11

I might add that disinformation has clouded 9/11 over the years. I have caught truthers on many occasions posting false and misleading information.

a reply to: jude11

What I do know is that we have never been told the truth behind 9/11. I know that we have a right to know.

Of course, but that doesn't mean posting disinformation from those conspiracy websites.

I know that if everything checked out to be as the OS states, there would be no questions.

I also know that what the OS states is NOT what actually happened.

It has been 14 years since the 9/11 attack and yet, no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. There are conspiracy theorist making money passing 9/11 disinformation on the Internet.

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: jude11

I might add that disinformation has clouded 9/11 over the years. I have caught truthers on many occasions posting false and misleading information.

Holy Smokes! From what I have seen so far, you might be the largest source of disinformation here.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Of course 9/11 happened what the OS states. Experts have confirmed the OS as well.

I'm sorry but I will have to reiterate here that the Official Story is so full of holes it cannot be the truth of what happened. You say experts have confirmed the OS? How about the 1000's of experts that have in their various fields proven the validity of the OS as being a big LIE?

Your right about one thing. There is disinformation all over the place including coming from the so called experts you are willing to believe no questions asked. There are so many impossibilities in the so called Official Story that defy belief and the laws of physics. As so many experts have said 9/11 has been the first and last time that unbelievable things have happened.

Disinfo is Rife in the Official Story but as you say there is also disinfo regarding the Conspiracy that shrouds 9/11. I like to listen to the experts. AE911 is a great start because they are all experts giving their opinions and expert evaluations. Pilots for 9/11 truth are the same as are Fire-Fighters for 9/11 truth. They created these sites for a reason. Not for disinfo but to discuss and evaluate the 'Impossibilities' of 9/11. They are NOT disinfo agents. They are EXPERTS in their respected fields.

You keep accusing them of disinformation and lying but you fail to recognize that the people dishing out the Official Narrative as Truth are just as much to blame for disinformation.

a reply to: Nova937

They are "experts" in their fields......where their colleagues openly laugh at them. The box stacker, the Seattle firefighter, and of course, Robby Balsamo are jokes when it comes to their professions, they are good however, at making money off of those who have turned 9/11 conspiracy into a religion.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

1000's of experts. Not the odd one or 2 disinfo agents!

1000's. You can't discredit all experts!

a reply to: Nova937

You might want to go through their membership to see how many are actually experts in those particular fields and then compare that number to the total number of people in those fields. Seeing Kevin Ryan, the fired water lab boy, commenting as an engineering expert is rather funny.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Nova937

You might want to go through their membership to see how many are actually experts in those particular fields and then compare that number to the total number of people in those fields. Seeing Kevin Ryan, the fired water lab boy, commenting as an engineering expert is rather funny.

Using ad hominem-type arguments that question with no justification whatsoever the credentials of those putting the counter-argument is the last refuge of someone who has no sound criticism to make about the arguments of 9/11 truth proponents. Ryan never regarded himself as an "engineering expert" as you falsely want to claim in order to support your vacuous ad hominem. Your accusing 9/11 truthers of dodgy arguments is like the pot calling the kettle black.

a reply to: micpsi

He is (or was) a member of A/E911truth. He is one of the people Nova apparently considers an expert in the field of architecture/engineering. And, he first came out, with his malarkey about UL certifying the steel for the WTC as if he was qualified to comment.

And yes, quite a few of the people listed on A/Es page were not experts in the fields.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: micpsi

He is (or was) a member of A/E911truth. He is one of the people Nova apparently considers an expert in the field of architecture/engineering. And, he first came out, with his malarkey about UL certifying the steel for the WTC as if he was qualified to comment.

And yes, quite a few of the people listed on A/Es page were not experts in the fields.

What Nova thinks is irrelevant to your argument, which required that he regarded himself as an engineering expert. He was a qualified chemist and Site Manager at Environmental Health Laboratories (EHL) in South Bend, Indiana. Calling Ryan's statement about UL certifying the steel for the WTC "malarkey" is just your swallowing uncritically UL's denial. It begs the question! Not only that, a New York Times article about the WTC reported in April 8, 2002 that “a furnace procedure called ASTM E-119” is used to “determine if building materials will survive out-of-control blazes.” The Times went on to report “The furnace tests, conducted at places like Underwriters Laboratories here, focus on the ability of separate building components — a steel column or a concrete roof support — to survive temperatures as high as 2,000 degrees.”

This article was critical of the tests performed as they related to the WTC, but certainly didn’t deny that they were performed, and made it clear who it was that performed them by saying –“At the Underwriters Laboratory campus in this northern Chicago suburb, where workers carry out those blazing tests…”.

So, you see, UL DID, indeed, carry out tests of steel components and might well have tested and certified some of the WTC steel. You wouldn't expect them to admit that, would you, had they done the testing that failed to predict the subsequent failure? LOL! Apparently, you DO!
The people who are listed do not necessarily claim to be all "experts" in engineering. They are listed as supporters of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. You have misunderstood the significance of this list, perhaps to provide yourself with yet another bogus ad hominem argument.....

a reply to: micpsi

Using ad hominem-type arguments that question with no justification whatsoever the credentials of those putting the counter-argument is the last refuge of someone who has no sound criticism to make about the arguments of 9/11 truth proponents. Ryan never regarded himself as an "engineering expert" as you falsely want to claim in order to support your vacuous ad hominem. Your accusing 9/11 truthers of dodgy arguments is like the pot calling the kettle black.

You might want to look at this page.
a&e experts
Just on the first page we see IT eng. - Waste water eng. etc.
Would you call these people as 'expert witnesses' in a 911 demo case?

You also have to question whether an 'architect' is qualified to determine physical conditions of a building.
That is the job of a 'structural engineer'.

Maybe I should sign up too just to see if they take me.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: micpsi

Using ad hominem-type arguments that question with no justification whatsoever the credentials of those putting the counter-argument is the last refuge of someone who has no sound criticism to make about the arguments of 9/11 truth proponents. Ryan never regarded himself as an "engineering expert" as you falsely want to claim in order to support your vacuous ad hominem. Your accusing 9/11 truthers of dodgy arguments is like the pot calling the kettle black.

You might want to look at this page.
a&e experts
Just on the first page we see IT eng. - Waste water eng. etc.
Would you call these people as 'expert witnesses' in a 911 demo case?

You also have to question whether an 'architect' is qualified to determine physical conditions of a building.
That is the job of a 'structural engineer'.

Maybe I should sign up too just to see if they take me.

You have misunderstood the significance of the people listed on that page. They are supporters of the organisation. They don't HAVE to be all fully qualified engineers and architects. Yet again, a self-serving argument based upon deception or (shall I be charitable?) honest misunderstanding.

a reply to: micpsi

I see you missed all the pertinent information. Namely that water lab boy was qualified to speak about the steel.