Truther Thread

a reply to: wildb

Your argument is worthless, I'm sure what they were using is not the same as LEDO. It sounds good on paper but don't mean crap in the real world..

You mean you don't accept it because it contradicts your conspiracy.

***ATTENTION***

This is your final warning. Any personal attack will result in an immediate 72 hour minimum posting ban. You can disagree without resorting to name calling.

Reopened.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Please understand that 9/11 is not the biggest crime carried out by those in power. If we wish to bring to light all nefarious deeds, we need to coax whistleblowers out of the shadows by offering them the prospect of immunity from prosecution in return for their testimony.

As Steven Greer said in a lecture a month ago:

“[The 9/11 conspiracy] is disturbing, it's enraging, but it's a minor rounding error compared to what's coming if we don't end this cartel's hegemony on the secrecy related to UFO's, ET's [and] what have you. 9/11 is going to be a very minor blip on the screen.”

source: www.checktheevidence.com...

a reply to: johnquindell

I can agree that 9/11 is just a piece of a bigger puzzle, just not give total amnesty and immunity. Maybe offer to not give them the electric chair, firing squad or string them up by the neck but they should have to accept accountability and responsibility for there actions and people who would knowingly and willingly do such disgraceful and despicable things without conscience I don't hold any hope for rehabilitation . Appreciate the link, will definitely check it out.

a reply to: InconspicuousObserver

I agree, and now it is a fact that the government paid NIST to rig their science to the impossibilities to fit the OS.

NIST sold their souls for several millions of dollars to deceive the American people, and now have lost all their credibility with the American people. We call their science, pseudo science.

The WTC are the smoking guns of an inside job, buildings just don't fall down like that. I would almost except one building, but three building on the same day, that is impossibly.

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: InconspicuousObserver

I agree, and now it is a fact that the government paid NIST to rig their science

Any source for that claim?

buildings just don't fall down like that.

That design of a building obviously does when hit by a high speed heavy jet airliner....

a reply to: hellobruce

Any source for that claim?

Don't need a source, It is common knowledge that the 911 Commission ordered NIST to do the report.

That design of a building obviously does when hit by a high speed heavy jet airliner....

I disagree.

The fact is, Architects and Engineers who designed the WTC stated they built the WTC to withstand multiple impacts from fully loaded 707's in fact they said they over design the WTC.

Those airplanes did not bring down the WTC that was impossibly. The fact is, according to the designers of the trade Centers they said the worst that could have happened, if the whole building burnt from the top down all the way to the bottom floors the WTC would have never falling down.

That means all the office furniture, blinds, carpets, computers, telephones, paneling and more with jet fuel poring all over the place, would not have weaken the steel.

The OS to what NIST told about the WTC is a great big fat lie. Independent Scientist who are not on the government payroll have proved with very credible science that NIST Report is a fraud.

NIST went out of their way to cover up a crime and to get the government off the hook with their pseudo science report.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Architects and Engineers who designed the WTC stated they built the WTC to withstand multiple impacts from fully loaded 707's in fact they said they over design the WTC.

They also said the Titanic was unsinkable, they did not think the Tacoma Narrows Bridge would collapse....

The Architects and Engineers who designed the WTC never claimed it coould take multiple impacts.

Those airplanes did not bring down the WTC that was impossibly.

No, obviously it was not.

Independent Scientist who are not on the government payroll have proved with very credible science that NIST Report is a fraud.

Care to name these scientists?

a reply to: hellobruce

The Architects and Engineers who designed the WTC never claimed it coould take multiple impacts

Yes they did.

You need to do more research on the topic.

No, obviously it was not.

I understand this is your opinion and not a fact.

Care to name these scientists?

You know who they all are. However, many OSer on many social internet sites have purposely done character assassination against "every one of these scientist" and that was the first Red Flag that these scientist were on to something big.

The fact is in all the years I have research 911 and participated in online debates in many social internet sites, I witness "only" OSer making up garbage and attacking every single scientist credibility buy calling them all lairs, thieves, charlatans, hoaxers, quacks, shams, frauds, fakes, impostors, and so on and in their many online posts, I see such seething towards all these scientist. Yet, I watch the videos that are brought to the said topic against these scientist and what I witness on some of these videos is some of these scientist are being ambushed by camera crew trying their best to find a why to make these scientist look bad to the public.

For instance Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, these credible scientist have put their Reputations, their carers,on the line.

These scientist have put their names on their Technical Papers proving with science that the OS about the WTC demise is a big fat lie. I have yet to this day to see any of their science debunked. The fact is, I have only seen ridiculing against their credible science and nothing else.

These brave men and women risked everything to get the truth out to the public and should well be compensated.

I would like to add another fact here as well, many OSer appoint themselves authority on many of the 911 topics.

I do not see Truthers doing this and I could be wrong, but I haven't seen it on ATS.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Yes they did.

No, they did not. The person making that claim had nothing to do with the design or construction of the WTC.

You need to do more research on the topic.

No, obviously it was not.

You know who they all are.

avoidance noted.

For instance Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, these credible scientist have put their Reputations, their carers,on the line.

We have all seen the quality of their research! But it does pay well, Gage gets over $75,000 a year from them for this quality work!

I have yet to this day seen any of their science debunked.

You did not look very hard!

www.metabunk.org...
americanloons.blogspot.com.au...
globalbrief.ca...

a reply to: hellobruce

Thank you for demonstrated my above post.

a reply to: Informer1958

Sources?

You've been asked, and I'll ask too: Sources for those statements please?

Until then, you're just stating something you claim to have read, seen, or heard.

And no, not going to search it. You're the one making the claim, I'd like to see it's source.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Thank you for demonstrated my above post.

Funny that, debunking what truthers in groups like the AE911Truth say is simply attacking them, you are apparently not allowed to point out where they are wrong!

a reply to: TerminalVelocity

Sources?

You've been asked, and I'll ask too: Sources for those statements please?

Until then, you're just stating something you claim to have read, seen, or heard.

And no, not going to search it. You're the one making the claim, I'd like to see it's source.

I am very confident to all my statements and they are all very true.

It would take me days to gather all the credible material and online sources. If you are to lazy to do any real research into what I have claimed that is your first mistake.

You can start here if you like: www.ae911truth.org...

a reply to: hellobruce

avoidance noted.

I did not avoid anything that you do not know, and you demonstrated that to me in your above post. Ridiculing these scientist and yet you had no problem finding some of them that I am talking about.

You know who all these scientist are, you just proved it to me.

a reply to: Informer1958

Oh not lazy at all.

Just tired of truthers coming here to make claims, yet not providing sources for them (reputable ones, like the actual engineering reports).

Tell me: while the buildings may have been designed to survive direct impacts, that in itself is not really relevant since, the impacts of the planes themselves are not what caused the towers to collapse, but structure's support being exposed for a prolong period to intense heat from the fires.

What do the engineering reports say about that?

Did they design the building to be able to maintain it's structure integrity based upon that?

You have an impact event......then a very hot fire event that is prolong.

What did the design engineers for the towers have to say about that?