USA Military Officers Challenge Official Account of September 11

reply to post by zorgon


It simply does not matter anymore what anyone says on this case Zorgon. The 'official' believers are set in stone and quote 'facts' from government institutions and the 'truther's' still ask for an independant investigation yet get SHOT DOWN for even questioning the official story that is backed by the 'facts' provided to us by the government backed institutions.

Who do we feel has a heavy hand in this event? The GOVERNMENT! So why would they allow their own institutions to incriminate them?

Okay, I'm preaching to the choir on this one and preaching to the blind on the other side. All we are asking for is a REAL investigation. Not a half ass attempt that is riddled with holes and blatant withholdings.

So keep up the good fight my friend but you have to know that the 'official' believers will never budge due to their 'facts'.

Originally posted by beachnut
Not a fact or piece of evidence between them to support one of the doltish ideas and conclusions of 9/11 truth. After wasting time reading what they said, they all produce more hearsay and no facts.

Strange, the same can be said for the people that still believe the official story. Almost 7 years and no one can produce 1 piece of hard evidence to support the official story.

There are no photos or videos released that show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon.

Witness statements that they did not see what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757 (thats real hearsay)

There are no reports matching any of the parts found to any of the 9/11 planes.



[edit on 3-6-2008 by ULTIMA1]

Here it is, -Extraterrestrial technology- being abused by humans on 911!


Steel would stay hot if it came from the suns rays . The question should be how do you (direct the suns rays) up a building. That one I want answers too.

-I was told it was a large number of secret service agents that did it.-

If it was a pre-planned arrangement it could be done, sequentially, but what isn't explained from our laws of physics and technological mechanics.

You have to -take time out of the equation- if it wasn't done by linear mechanics, then something supernatural lit that # up like a tree. Outside our law of gravity which is a different technological means.

That mechanics being something within the realm of unknown to the common society, then you got some E.T. TECHNOLOGY being used.

That means something outside mans Mechanical physics to the KNOWN SOCIETY.

But how many weapons of destruction are not put out on the platform?

Forty years ahead of mainstream science at least, at most two hundred years ahead of us.





[edit on 3-6-2008 by menguard]

reply to post by menguard


No need for E.T technology..for this job... The explanation for steel being melted after so long is thermite\therm ate.. Which is a chemical reaction that causes 4,000 F plenty enough to melt steel.. And is used in cutter charges so when the charges go off the thermate rips through the steel like a knife though butter.. Conventional charges would not have worked with a steel building such as WTC or would have been extremely difficult.. Evidence of therm ate residue has been found on WTC steel.











[edit on 3-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

[edit on 3-6-2008 by thefreepatriot]

reply to post by thefreepatriot



"" No need for E.T technology..for this job... The explanation for steel being melted after so long is thermite\therm ate.. Which is a chemical reaction that causes 4,000 F plenty enough to melt steel.. "


Cutting the steel is one thing, but that does not address what vaporised damn near everything!!!!!

It was freaking POWDER!!!!! WTF????!!!!



I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe cutter charges and thermite DID ALL THAT! hello!!!



There is way more to them bldgs going down, than any of us here will ever be able to figger out

without the info being leaked....

and Alien?....mmmmmwell, I consider the aliens to be the fallen angels,

it's the only thing that makes sense. So, it sure could be.

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Following your logic, 3,000 people killed out of 300,000,000 is no big deal, right?..

Ah, but let's take a look at the Constitution's definition of Treason...After all, Bush did swear a legally-binding Oath (as well as all Federal & State Officers in all three Branches) to obey it:

Article 3, Section 3
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Therefore, by the Supreme Law of the Land, Merriam-Webster's (modern) definition does not apply...Because the Framers of the Constitution would have used either the prevailing definition of their time or would have specified their own definition for legal purposes. This is the precedent used when the Supreme Court & sanctioned Constitutional lawyers "interpret" the Constitution...If the issue is still in doubt, they look back on legal cases in history & try to find cases that may have already set the precedence.

At least, that's the way it's supposed to work...The way that Bill Clinton & Bush Sr. & Jr. have stacked the courts, the Shrub seems to have "self-qualified" himself to act as Legislative, Executive & Judicial all in one Office. All done illegally, of course. The Constitution designates that Congress has the full power of Legislation...Which means that Bush can't legally use "signing statements" or even make use of any Executive Orders. Just the fact that he does so...And enforces non-legal "laws" against his Constitutional Oath...Regardless of any responsibility of "conspiracy" involving the 9/11 attacks, Bully Boy Bush & his Corporate Crony Gang are already criminals of extreme magnitude.

Even so, please notice that the Constitutional definition does not include attacks against the Federal Government. Thus, in the case of a revolt against the Federal Government, it's not considered to be Treason...But if the Federal Government attacks the States or the People, it's still defined as Treason. It may be up to the Supreme Court (under the full terms as described for due process of law) to pass judgment, but it's up to Congress to declare the punishment.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Have you been paying attention to who Rupert Murdoch has been giving money too in regards to the Presidential Election? I think not.....

Are you also aware that Bush has been doing a bunch of fund raising for McCain's campaign (also a DIGG link here)? So guess who's most likely to get "levered into Office" this time around?...And how fast the USA is going to keep spiraling down?

I would like people to pay a visit to the movie database website and look at the message boards on films like 'World Trade Centre' and 'United 93'.

The arguments have raged for a few years now and show no signs of cooling.

All opinions are welcome. One thing is clear - the debunkers usually end up insulting you if you disregard the official story.

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by SlightlyAbovePar
Wow! 1,330 people (you list one group in the 'artist' category?) signed an internet petition!

Petitions are meaningless and rarely ever do any good. Most people never take the time to sign them even those that believe in the cause... and in this case putting your real name and address on a paper like that will deter many who support it

Exactly.

The so-called truth club “Gaining Momentum Every Second” ™ can only muster 1,330 names out of a country of 300,000,000 + on an internet petition that has zero consequences.

This is in a country where local ballet initiatives (I am talking at the rural county level) need a plurality of residents’ signatures to be included in ballet initiatives. State-wide initiatives usually require thousands of signatures; as in five to thirty thousand. These signatures are obtained after a two second speal from a representative of said cause while shoppers exit a grocery store, for example. They actually require someone who is willing to sign the petition to take the 10 seconds to sign their name(s). This is a low-result approach (say 1/25 will even bother to stop long enough to listen to you and perhaps ¼ of the 1/25 will agree to sign. Using methods like this yield the thousands of signatures required for ballet initiatives.

So, the so-called truth club “Gaining Momentum Every Second!”, after almost seven years has managed to reach .00004 of one (1) percent who feel strongly enough to sign an internet petition with zero consequences.

The question I find myself pondering: if the leaders of the so-called truth movement honestly believe they are becoming more mainstream, how on earth can outside observers believe much of anything they have to say? If their, IMO, basis for perception and context is so flawed, with something as transparent public support, how can you follow the absurdly complex, twisted (again, IMO) and convoluted theories that change almost as the wind blows? Forget the actual theories (holograms!). Forget if they are right or wrong. Is it not patently obvious that the movement is very, very, very niche? Come on now, this is the reality. There is nothing wrong with that either, BTW. I’m not implying niche is meaningless, I am just saying not too many people buy into the various theories. We can agree on this, no?

So back to my question: if the so-called truth club doesn’t have the perception skills to accurately gauge where the “movement” stands, in an honest critique, why should anyone believe anything they have to say? When the so-called movement can’t even acknowledge the obvious, and basic, why do the disciples of this religion follow their leaders into the absurdly complex and convoluted?

Is this not a reasonable position?

[edit on 4-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


May I offer an opposing view?

I find the label "debunker" is used more and more as a slur meant to minimize what someone 'brings the table'. Meaning, if someone is so-called "debunker" then they are to be ignored. The charge of being a debunker, on these forums, is right up there with 'dis-info agent', 'paid government spook', etc (and equally laughable).

Truthers are so emotionally invested in the conclusion of their various theories they see any critique of their “work” as a personal attack. This should serve as a huge red flag. Truthers can not separate themselves from the subject matter. They are (IMO) so closely tied to the conclusions they are literally unable to see what’s right in front of them. IMO, die-hard truthers think the “movement” is as much about them as it is the subject matter. Truthers don’t understand that they should be embracing skeptics, not separating themselves. Then again, truthers (IMO) don’t care what skeptics think. To them, 9-11 being a conspiracy is a forgone conclusion. That’s why there is such a negative, hostile reaction from truthers when you critize the far too easy contradictions. That is, they know what they know, they don’t need facts to come to the (to them) obvious conclusions and how dare you say something about their theory! Remember, it’s as much about them, as it is the subject matter.

Do yourself a favor and research the various leaders of this sham "movement". These are the same fear pimps that have been making the rounds on Coast to Coast and various conspiracy-type symposiums for years and years.

9-11 is just another alarm bell these con-artists use to support their income made from dealing in conspiracies, paranoia, "us versus them" mentality, the NWO, the illuminate, etc, etc, etc. IMO, the only people debating, are truthers and those that enjoy engaging them. The “average Joe” doesn’t buy into the various conspiracies. This “debate” has never been a debate and only exists with those sad individuals (all five or six of them) that ‘protest’ at ground zero every Saturday, in internet forums and on various radio shows. The idea there is a raging debate among serious people is a total sham. Sure there are busy threads on internet forums, like this one, but consider the audience when compared to available population.

It’s been seven years. The time to bring forth real, credible evidence (any!!) is long gone. For goodness sake, this is why theories like “hologram projectors” are talked about with a straight face. That is, the so-called movement has failed so miserably to provide absolutely anything that can be considered proof they are left to create fantasies as to how the buildings were “demolished”.

I mean this with no nastiness: I think the whole movement is truly sad. I respond to these messages because if I can prevent just one person from being sucked into this kind of nonsense, it will be worth it.


[edit on 4-6-2008 by SlightlyAbovePar]

reply to post by SlightlyAbovePar


Strange how certain "debunkers" can write so eloquently with only emotion/opinion against those interested in (actual) 9/11 truth, whereas those interested in truth tend to cite physical/scientific realities that don't mesh with the government/media (propaganda) spiel. Btw, pseudoskeptics (or reactionary doubters without sound science or facts to substantiate their claims) should always be referred to as "debunkers" with quotation marks. Otherwise ACTUAL debunking is always a good thing.

1. There's NO physical evidence of a plane crash at the Pentagon or Shanksville... or a GROSSLY insufficient amount of wreckage to believe the rest just "vaporized" (to quote the NIST Report). Or IF they really did "vaporize," it was done with technology FAR beyond that which is known/revealed. That's just REAL physics.

2. The twin towers came down with a physical force FAR in excess of what a tank full of jet fuel can accomplish in such an incredibly short amount of time (if really any amount of time considering the towers were built specifically to withstand a jet impact). I suggest watching 9/11 Mysteries. Search it on Google Video. It's a rather spellbinding 1.5 hours.

reply to post by Lightworth


I must respectfully correct you on your point number 2. The towers were, according to the architectural designers, designed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts from jetliners.

Originally posted by menguard
then you got some E.T. TECHNOLOGY being used.

E.T. TECHNOLOGY

Well menguard with your connections maybe you can send me some details on that

I have one problem with the thermate answer ... the fact that the steel was red hot 6 weeks after in the ground...

But before we go calling on ET to meddle in our nefarious deeds... I did a lot of study on the Qui tam case in the courts..

They are saying particle beams... they list companies involved...

So instead of ET how about we just use THIS?


TRW Directed Energy Weapon

The following set of photos were taken at the 4th Annual Directed Energy (DE) Symposium, 29 October - 1 November 2001, held in Huntsville, Alabama by a clandestine camera. This is the unveiling of the Space Based Laser (SBL)










So for me I am following this court case really closely... I have no way of knowing if beam weapons were used or not... but you don't file such a case without supporting evidence... and since the judge reviewing the evidence felt there was enough to allow it to proceed... well that says a lot

I expected to see this thrown out... but it hasn't been...

Time will tell..

But in the meantime I have uncovered so much about the state of the art of beam weapons, but in space and on the ground its frightening... and all findable in PUBLICLY accessible places



[edit on 4-6-2008 by zorgon]

Originally posted by Maxmars

I must respectfully correct you on your point number 2. The towers were, according to the architectural designers, designed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts from jetliners.

No it wasn't.

The guy who made that statement - DeMartini? - was hired to head the refit after the '93 bombings. So he has no idea what he's talking about.

It was never designed for ANY plane impacts. Robertson did a study AFTER the final design, but before construction began, in response to people protesting the construction of the towers. He says his calcs show it could take a hit from a landing 707 at low speed. there are no surviving documentation at this time, because it wasn't a requirement to design a building like that at that time.

Of course, you could provide evidence that it was designed that way.

reply to post by Seymour Butz


Thank you for your correction. I was unaware he wasn't part of the original design team (or rather, he never specified such - although I admit he wasn't directly asked.)

Interestingly, it seems you have some sources you might want to share here too.

reply to post by zorgon


Hey Zorgon,

What better weapon then to focalize the suns energy into a beam. I had a person in one of my threads that had done some secret work, with underground projects in New York. There was somebody that said this area is of interest. I was talking about 'energy vortices' at that time. I will locate it the time period.

Now to direct that energy from space to an underground conduit of some type could hold some stability.

The supposed tremors a few minutes before would explain some type of energy being directed from underneath.

The Technology being used is foreign to the common society, but I do know we are having some underground wars between nations. What better way to be at war then beneath the surface.

I'm sure every Nation has all there good stuff underground or on some other planet.

Sound technology

Sound creates form and destroys it. A high pulsed beam of energy up the building might do it.

Remember there are people all across the World that will perform a function to disrupt our LINEAR WORLD. A lot of contactees, experiencers, abductees, hidden sleepers and unhidden ones.

There is two sides to that coin, those that want to embrace it and those that want to do away with it.

Bush talked a lot about Space Wars, knocking sattelites out with other remote recievers and laser guided weapons on sattelites.

also I would like to point out, that if you want to keep society in a three dimensional grid, you will put an electrical fence around it. That being our internet, fiber optics system. Every home if full of radiation or some type of electrical discharge, not seen on the eye level.

(A.)You do this to keep a barrier up so others can't come in, an electrical fence to keep others out, a hands off policy. (No other aliens welcome).

(b.)You setup the world with a three dimensional grid that only allows those beings into this Dimension.

(c).Putting up three dimensional grids up keeps us locked in this dimension.

(d)You modify the world to your own enviroment. This of course being extraterrestrials.

Just food for thought.



[edit on 4-6-2008 by menguard]

reply to post by Seymour Butz


The buildings WERE made to withstand plane crashes. ALL tall skyscrapers are. It would be foolish to ignore the possibility that a plane could hit the tower you are building.

Now, apparently WTC wasn't designed to hold together after long exposure to extreme heat caused by jet fuel.

This of course is still in questions because:
1. If they are designed to withstand a crash, the fact is that most likely they would consider fuel starting fires as thats inevitable with such a crash.

2. Alot of engineers still claim that it wouldn't melt the steel.

Anyways heres a source for the original statement:
community.emporis.com...

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS

The buildings WERE made to withstand plane crashes. ALL tall skyscrapers are. It would be foolish to ignore the possibility that a plane could hit the tower you are building.

Anyways heres a source for the original statement:
community.emporis.com...

No, they weren't, and your source doesn't say that they were DESIGNED to survive a hit. If I missed it, please point it out. Thx.

Here's the original statements:

scott-juris.blogspot.com...

Robertson took the time to calculate how well his towers would handle the impact from a Boeing 707, the largest jetliner in service at the time. He says that his calculations assumed a plane lost in a fog while searching for an airport at relatively low speed, like the B-25 bomber.

One architect working for the Port Authority issued a statement to the press, covered in a prominent article in The Times, explaining that Robertson's study proved that the towers could withstand the impact of a jetliner moving at 600 miles an hour.

There were only two problems. The first, of course, was that no study of the impact of a 600-mile-an-hour plane ever existed. ''That's got nothing to do with the reality of what we did,'' Robertson snapped when shown the Port Authority architect's statement more than three decades later.

How the Towers Fell" (1 of 13)-Architect Richard Gage