I Was A Professional 9/11 Truther (And I Gave It Up)

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boncho

High security areas. Baggage processing areas, ramp areas, some in public areas but the majority are in areas where you need a badge to get to. Some of those kind of overlap with public areas, so they all had to be checked. They also had to check to make sure there was no help from an airport worker.

There's literally no cameras as people get into the ramp areas that lead into the planes? It's fine if there isn't, Im honestly surprised. I feel like out of the dozens of flights I've always assumed, recognized or expected to be video taped as I was getting onto the planes. Not saying it's impossible, but ~300 cams is a lot also.

I have ~5 working cams on my business. Covers 5000 sq ft. Equal to about 1 cam per 1000 sq ft. 300 would = 3 000 000

Maybe Im dumb, ignorant, whatever. I just witnessed the first reposes to this person talking about something totally opposite of what he was asking, "security video" vs "boarding video"

First poster mentions "no hijackers were recording boarding the plane.", and response is: "they recorded them here at the security checkpoint".

Not to be the master of obvious here, but security checkpoints are not the same as boarding the plane.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Our air defenses were shut down completely that day and false radar and transponder signals injected in to FAA and NORAD radars.

Want to provide some sources for that claim?

No steel skyscraper would collapse due to fires

Hm, interesting. How do you know that a "steel skyscraper" would not collapse due to fires? Surely if the integrity of steel beams were compromised due to prolonged exposure to extremely high temperatures the likelihood of the beam bending due to the immense weight on top of it would increase substantially.

and leave a rubble pile less than 1/100th of the original height of the building.

I don't think it was less than 1/100th of the original height of the building. From what I understand the rubble pile was quite massive. Additionally, you realize that a lot of it pushed outwards due to the force of the building collapsing into itself, correct?

Certainly building 7 should prove that there was more at play here than just aircraft crashing in to buildings.

Why would building 7 prove that there was "more at play"? Honestly, I am somewhat confused as to why you would think this.

9/11 destroyed many things besides the security of the US;

How did it destroy the security of the U.S.? If anything 9/11 prompted better security.

it destroyed the records of the El Dorado task force which was tracking financial crimes, records of WorldCom as well as Enron vital to their prosecution for theft and mismanagement, by destroying the brokerage responsible for clearing the 10 year bonds that financed Project Hammer which destabilized the Soviet economy and instituting emergency clearing procedures for said bonds to the tune of nearly a quarter billion dollars.

I am not well-versed in this portion but even if this is true how is this relevant?

The planning and execution of 9/11 were quite remarkable and only possibly with the assistance of the major media.

Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job via the government I highly doubt that the "major media" would have been involved in any way, shape, or form. That would be extremely illogical.

No, I don't believe anyone who has seriously investigated 9/11 could walk away from it somehow thinking they were foolish to have ever bothered.

I have yet to find any convincing evidence to debunk the official story.

The elite have stolen all the money or did you not hear about the TARP bailouts?

Evidence? Sources?

They all got bonuses and kept floating ever larger derivatives bubbles.

Sources, please.

It will all come crashing down one day so don't be surprised when it does.

What will?

Our money grows more worthless by the day thanks to QE 1, 2, 3, infinity.

Hardly.

Those seeds might not seem like such a looney idea.

They sure do to me.

I'd rather hang on to crazy conspiracy theories than support and give a wink to a criminal government that only plans to increase it's own power at the expense of the people.

You'd rather hang on to theories based on nothing but silly ideas and anecdotes rather than appealing to logic and reason? Interesting.

a reply to: boncho

I used to easily walk 3-4 miles a day working at the airport. Logan airport has 102 gates, and the International terminal alone covers 800,000 square feet. There's a lot of area to cover with cameras. There may be some on the jetways, but if they catch passengers that's almost by accident as they focus on the operator consoles.

a reply to: boncho

First poster mentions "no hijackers were recording boarding the plane.", and response is: "they recorded them here at the security checkpoint".

Not to be the master of obvious here, but security checkpoints are not the same as boarding the plane.

Yes but that's more proof than the conspiracy crowd has for CD on the buildings.

You're the kind of guy that believes in magic bullets.
All you original fairy tale traitors got is gas lighting.
a reply to: pteridine

originally posted by: beijingyank
You're the kind of guy that believes in magic bullets.
All you original fairy tale traitors got is gas lighting.
a reply to: pteridine

What you have is an incomprehensible reply. Indeed, it is Jones who tries to convince the ignorant that he has found the magic thermite disguised as red paint.
Why don't you make your case by showing how much heat would be released by a film of thermite on the steel beams? Then, calculate how hot the beam would get. After you discover that the heat released wouldn't even make the steel warm, you can write to Jones and complain that he has deceived you and many others. Any time you want to discuss Jones' paper point-by-point, I will be glad to do it.

a reply to: samkent

es but that's more proof than the conspiracy crowd has for CD on the buildings.

The real question is if it were CD or even 'aided demo' on the buildings (or even no help physically, but still facilitated by inside sources), do you really think our establishment, (the political - Congress, and professional - NIST, etc) would get to the bottom of it (?).

The 'official' story on JFK is it was as it was disseminated though it's now clear even a CIA historian admits it was covered up, by the CIA] and additional tidbits. That's not even addressing the fact ~80 people related to the case died in 10 years - mathematically impossible odds.

The fact 9/11 is not as it was, I think can be rationally acknowledged in a number of other ways. One doesn't need a 'smoking-gun' since there's many. The way they handled Susan Lindhauer is one. For what the lady went through, she's surprisingly sane (even though they claimed she wasn't to discredit her).

It comes down to proper skepticism. Not the convoluted reverse skepticism created in the 50s (diametrically opposed to actual skepticism, and also perfectly socially engineering people to reject anything critical or threatening of the mainstream.) I jumped ship on this topic a long time ago when I realized how infiltrated it is.

The very way it developed, is very reminiscent of a few other events, the problem for the people spinning the lies, (lies have short legs) so in time, what you recognize in past works of fiction, one can spot similar markers in current works.

a reply to: boncho

The fact 9/11 is not as it was, I think can be rationally acknowledged in a number of other ways.

19 hijackers crashed planes into buildings.
The fires finished them off.
All the rest is conspiracy conjecture.

originally posted by: boncho
a reply to: samkent

The real question is if it were CD or even 'aided demo' on the buildings (or even no help physically, but still facilitated by inside sources), do you really think our establishment, (the political - Congress, and professional - NIST, etc) would get to the bottom of it (?).

I would like to think so, yes.

The 'official' story on JFK is it was as it was disseminated though it's now clear even a CIA historian admits it was covered up, by the CIA] and additional tidbits. That's not even addressing the fact ~80 people related to the case died in 10 years - mathematically impossible odds.

His "admissions" are of very little merit, really. Unless there are some classified documents detailing the CIA's involvement which suddenly become declassified and released to the public then we will likely never know if there was CIA involvement in the Kennedy assassination. Hell, even testimonies from ex-CIA agents don't mean that the CIA was involved... there would need to be some stronger pieces of evidence to back up their claims.

Also, how are those odds (assuming that ~80 people involved with the case actually died) "mathematically impossible"? Please do elaborate.

The fact 9/11 is not as it was, I think can be rationally acknowledged in a number of other ways. One doesn't need a 'smoking-gun' since there's many. The way they handled Susan Lindhauer is one.

As far as I know, Susan Lindhauer was a looney who claimed that she was an asset of the CIA when in reality she never had anything to do with the CIA. She was a U.S. Congressional Staffer... and an activist/journalist, nothing more and nothing less.

For what the lady went through, she's surprisingly sane (even though they claimed she wasn't to discredit her).

She's not "sane" at all. The woman is clearly delusional.

It comes down to proper skepticism. Not the convoluted reverse skepticism created in the 50s (diametrically opposed to actual skepticism, and also perfectly socially engineering people to reject anything critical or threatening of the mainstream.) I jumped ship on this topic a long time ago when I realized how infiltrated it is.

Or perhaps this topic isn't "infiltrated" at all and the official story is the true story.

The very way it developed, is very reminiscent of a few other events, the problem for the people spinning the lies, (lies have short legs) so in time, what you recognize in past works of fiction, one can spot similar markers in current works.

Examples?

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

I read the report years ago. It appears you did not. Sorry for no link.

Two different military aircraft out of Eglin AFB, both short on fuel because they were on other missions, had eyes on the Learjet before it left Florida airspace, but had to return to base because of low fuel.

The "official" intercept by 2 F-16s out of Maxwell I think was at a point near Eufala AL, right along the line that is the border between Alabama and Georgia that is also the line between Central and Eastern time zones.

The distance between Eufala and Gainesville is 200 nm. The airplane went NORDO at a point 40 NW of Gainesville, so it travelled about 160 nm before it was formally intercepted. 160 miles at 250knots is 42 minutes.

If you don't understand that you don't understand math. If you prefer not to believe it, you are in denial. Either way, I am done;.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Assuming that the geographic points in the NTSB report were accurate, it does not matter who was out over the
Gulf doing whatever you say they were doing, and it doesn't matter if Santa Claus himself made the final intercept.

160 nautical at 250 knots takes 42 minutes. Or do you disagree?

Nm. Circles. That's all this is.

a reply to: beijingyank


Less than a minute and a half into it, you have a problem. The iron microspheres.....which you will find in EVERY steel framed skyscraper. They are a byproduct of welding....NOT thermite. He also references the Sun Bank computer room....full of UPSs..and the likely source of the "flowing" metal, along with the aluminum framing in the computer room. Again, not proof of thermite.

a reply to: logicsoda

Also, how are those odds (assuming that ~80 people involved with the case actually died) "mathematically impossible"? Please do elaborate.

Just seeing this post now, sorry for the long reply. Before I get into it, so it's still considered on-topic, to readers I suggest researching the parallels from CIA & JFK to the current various operations (which we are not privy to, but can deduce from earlier work---COINTELPRO/DISINFO Campaigns, etc) ----remember that the CIA came up with "Conspiracy Theorist" as a means to attack those who questioned JFK. Check it in NGram if you don't believe, there's a memo the same year from CIA on how to address JFK criticisms--e,g, debunking manual)

Now, [here's a list of all the deaths involved related to the JFK case]Link - a total of around ~80 related people dead in 10 years. And another 25 right as the House Committee went on with the investigation (not sure if they are part of the 80 or additional).

An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that on November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one.

Someone is free to work out the math if they question it.

Hell, even testimonies from ex-CIA agents don't mean that the CIA was involved... there would need to be some stronger pieces of evidence to back up their claims.

This is from a CIA historian that concluded McCone & Dulles helped cover it up by sidelining the Warren Commission & blocking them from accessing information. Keep in mind one of them retired right before and was appointed to the Commission. Dulles, who had direct links to Nazi-Germany pre WWII, and helped facilitate PAPERCLIP, was well accustomed to espionage and secrecy.

This is a declassified, internal report that concluded they helped cover up the case.

If anyone is outraged I might imply that numerous "natural deaths" are being counted in the death category, keep in mind, the CIA had a heart attack gun. They were also involved in mind-control experiments.

Sirhan Sirhan ("responsible" for another Kennedy death) has never remembered the crime fully, and experienced numerous 'programming' ...what people would call, 'glitches', but I think most importantly, physical evidence that simply didn't match up, and more likely it showed Sirhan fired randomly and recklessly without intent to kill, but another gun was fired as his didn't hold the full number of shots. the only other person to fire a gun was a security guard for LockHeed Martin, who'd recently transferred to the detail.

Next year more JFK files are due for declassification, it will be interesting to see if they actually get classified, simply buried again, or decided they were 'lost' along the way. I'm not sure how anyone in their right mind, with critical thinking applied can few the JFK affair as Kosher, or due process, or done in good faith. It was a cover-up, the CIA themselves say as much.

9/11 will end up being in the same boat many years from now. I think it's hilarious that just as they declassify the "pages" from the 9/11 commission, pointing to Saudi Arabia, Donald Trump (numerous Zionist-allegiances) claims that 'jihadi muslims were cheering the towers fell' but we know already those were Mossad agents. I haven't spent a ton of time into both subjects, as they are a lynchpin standpoint for government, if these two cases become acknowledged conspiracies the entire house of cards might fall. And I realize that. Probably have to wait for a few more important people to die off.

She was a U.S. Congressional Staffer... and an activist/journalist, nothing more and nothing less.

Says? Can you get me a list of all CIA assets being used at the time and any scheduled off the books or private meetings with Libya/Iraq consulates? No? Of course not. So the simply fact is you cannot verify the claim she's made.

It's what is referred to as plausible deniability. Did you really think it stopped existing?

Examples?

JFK is one of course. UFO/Alien subject (numerous files have not been declassified, tell-tale signs of cover ups everywhere). Occult files never released from Nazi intelligence brought over with PAPERCLIP. Sirhan Sirhan. Every Mossad False Flag carried out: USS Liberty, USS Cole, Lockerbie, LaBelle Disco, Yvonne Fletcher, & pretty much any operation that Abu Nidal was involved in, later in life his CIA/Mossad connections were breached---making total sense as to why his operations conveniently helped Israel while damaging Palestine on the world stage, even though he was supposedly fighting for them.

And the best one of all but lacks a complete paperwork history, the advent of 'pseudo-skepticism' labeled as 'the scientific skeptic' movement. Taking the true meaning of 'skeptic' & reversing it entirely. Which began with Martin Gardner on his book about UFOs & paranormal/unexplained, coining the terms "quack" "crackpot" & "crank", used for attacking anyone that challenged key establishment topics. This would later breed CSICOP and pseudo-skeptic James Randi, who hired 'plants' to disprove them, to prove they were frauds...(the irony), later on it would come out Uri Geller was Mossad/CIA & conveniently and coincidentally, CSICOP & the CIA would be tied together like rubber & glue, throughout their history. This was of course after the USAF committees had recommended 'debunkery on all topics to the common public, by scientists, doctors/psychologists, celebrity personalities & others'... and the result we saw was to attack anyone who might push the subject, at the professional level, while mocking the stories simultaneously in CIA funded National Enquirer. Something still done today (judging by the very absurd view count we see on tabloid misrepresentations of real stories, or the high view count/recommendations on the most absurd YT videos-disinformation.

As explained in another thread, you cannot create something from nothing (you can, but its very short lived). Memes last weeks, maybe months or might go a year if they are really good. But remember Kony 2012? That's what you get when you meme something from nothing. All of these subjects have had interested parties/victims/scholars/critical-thinkers challenging them year over year... for a reason.

a reply to: boncho

I suggest researching the parallels from CIA & JFK to the current various operations (which we are not privy to, but can deduce

You need to stop right there.
That is not investigating. That's speculating.
If you are "not privy to" then you have zero knowledge about.
You cannot build any theory based on zero knowledge.
Try walking into court with nothing more than deductions and watch any first year law student wax your butt.

a reply to: samkent

Well, it's basically the same as seeing a dead body inside the house from an outside window. You don't know who was murdered or who did it, but you can be damn sure there is a dead body (victim) and someone who killed that person (murderer) out on the loose. This is where people could call their local authorities & report it, or demand it be investigated, but instead we argue about semantics: 'was it a man or woman'/'was she really dead or was it ketchup?'/'was there a weapon at the scene?'/'the police said it was normal'/'the politician spotted at the scene had left before the murder happened''/'these records on the house are false, no real, no false, no real, no false'----and so goes the murder no one cared about to solve.

In a free & open society this is where people would demand answers. Instead we just have plausible deniability, as peoples' lives are ruined to obtain it, and people like you**, saying "stop right there, we don't know for sure, so lets put it out of our minds, out of sight, and pretend nothing happened. Because that's what we're supposed to do...

----you know, or the equivalent. Aka: nothing to see here, move along now.

(**-and me, as I'm guilty of doing it to in the past.)

Essentially it's nothing different from a Dictatorship or Authoritarian state, different only in its subtlety. There are flaming warning fires that have been burning since the National Security Act 1947 - and it's culminated into everything opposite from the ideals the country was founded on (unrealistic as they might've been). It has disastrous worldwide & longterm implications, and even if people wanted to, I doubt it could be stopped.

Case in point: Housing/Subprime crisis, not a single person went to jail who was responsible for what happened. In fact, one of the people who should've been hailed as a hero (in a truly Capitalistic, Free market System) was instead audited numerous times, & investigated by the FBI. He was one of the few "canaries in the coal mine", when he bet against the 'BB' and 'BBB' rated MBS, they actually lowered the 'AAA' and raised the B-rated securities. Moodys and S&P were in on it. It was a fraudulent market. Fraud. All laid out in emails, but the banks that caused it, the rating agency, the complicit SEC & the poisonous FED, out of all of them, there was no punishment. They walked out of it unscathed, with taxpayer funds no less.

Now, you might ask 'what does finance have to do with 9/11 or JFK' -------everything. It's the same breed, the same level of secrecy, the same expected & delivered immunity, and the financial stranglehold that has allowed all of this to come to fruition. Freedom is dead. Democracy never was. The human race is headed back into serfdom with an avalanche behind it & the military industrial complex, the central banking system & corrupted/bribed/complacent politicians blazing the path.

a reply to: boncho

Well, it's basically the same as seeing a dead body inside the house from an outside window. You don't know who was murdered or who did it, but you can be damn sure there is a dead body (victim) and someone who killed that person (murderer) out on the loose.

No you are assuming (parallel to 911) that some one knocked out the person and another evil entity came in and finished the person off. Based on looking in the window (zero evidence).

Now, you might ask 'what does finance have to do with 9/11 or JFK' -------everything. It's the same breed, the same level of secrecy, the same expected & delivered immunity,

You just can't accept that an unknown minority (911/JFK) can inflict such grievous damage.
And yet we have lone wolf/group bombings monthly now days.

Imagine if the web and ATS were around during the Lincoln assassination.