I have never convinced anyone else that 9/11 was an inside job

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

So quit trying to be the thread police

Did that make you feel good.

reply to post by mmiichael

The Titanic was designed not to sink,

Yes but at lease we got the truth of why it sank (The iceberg.)

the Hindenberg not to blow up, and endless other examples of things not supposed to happen.

Again, we got the truth to why it blew up; unlike all that happened to the WTC, we have not.

You cannot say the building would have remained standing. No one knows that.

I can say that because the designers of the WTC made that claim repeatedly.
You cannot compare the Titanic and Hindenburg with the WTC event and the reason you cannot is the Titanic and Hindenburg where “accidents”, unlike, 911 and the WTC were acts of terror something very different. Your analogy is not very good.

Truther science claims that.

Your smugness is noted, however, there is no such thing as truthers science so let’s stop with the ridiculing ok. Tell you what give me a definition of what “Truthers science” is?

No proof other than the demonstrably fraudulent claims of Jones, et al.

If you think, Professor Steven Jones science is fraudulent, I would like to see you demonstrate that it is, and please show your sources. Are you debating me, or are you just giving your opinions without any facts to support them.

I guess you haven't researched anything and accepted the usual Truther disinformation bunk.

I think it is time to put you on “ignore”.

Northwood was a draft proposal rejected by the military in the early 60s.

That is a lie! Do you care to prove this ridiculous assertion?

Is the hunt so desperate to show American perfidy they have to search trough waste baskets?

You obviously have not been paying attention to our discussion; this is not about rejecting through old garbage. It is about uncovering a cover up. However, if you just want to spew venom and disinformation that is your right. Acting despicable, and deceitful will only get ATS posters, to put you on their ignore list.

This is my description of the Truther Story, and that of the other 99% of worldwide independent engineers, demolition experts, physicist, chemists, forensic experts, architects, etc.

Your opinion only. I like to see the report that shows 99% of these people believe in the OS. Oh, that’s right there isn’t any.

When it comes to facts why do people look the other way? Oh yeah! They'd rather argue... clearly I'm in the wrong place on this thread.

www.ae911truth.org

Go there if you want to stop arguing and actually get what professional architects and engineers have to say about thermite, melting temperature of steel,video of freefall rate imploded buildings, etc. FACTS.

Maybe some of you should try out the chemtrails threads, lots of argumentation with no facts there....

laterz

Originally posted by impressme

I can say that because the designers of the WTC made that claim repeatedly.
You cannot compare the Titanic and Hindenburg with the WTC event and the reason you cannot is the Titanic and Hindenburg where “accidents”, unlike, 911 and the WTC were acts of terror something very different. Your analogy is not very good

Prefect analogy, something happened that the designers said should not. Check the Lexis Nexis legal archives for buildings that have collapsed just through poor design planning. It happens a lot. A couple huge fuel laden airplanes ramming into a complex within minutes puts an extra level of stress and fires weaken steel more than the designer in 1963 can anticipate.

If you think, Professor Steven Jones science is fraudulent, I would like to see you demonstrate that it is, and please show your sources. Are you debating me, or are you just giving your opinions without any facts to support them.

Jones has been debunked many times even on ATS.

I think it is time to put you on “ignore”.

Please do. I guess hearing someone who does not buy into "Loose Change Vol III" is hard to take. I will return the compliment.

" Northwood was a draft proposal rejected by the military in the early 60s."

That is a lie! Do you care to prove this ridiculous assertion?

Not a lie. An established fact in every properly researched military history book. There are people who actually look at source material and interview people with direct knowledge.

Just because the same lie is repeated on a thousand bunk 9/11 sites does not make it any truer.

No point in addressing your other retorts. I said 99% of architects and engineers do not accept the Truther stories. If a few hundred of the 140,000
engineers sign up somewhere saying they support an investigation or don't support the OS - what does that mean?

0.7% have a problem with NIST et al, 99.3% don't. The ones who can read and understand the complex detailed reports don't bother setting up some hokey website to tell the world they believe in the facts. The loose cannons wanting to be part of some dissenters club feel the need to.



M

[edit on 12-6-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by notreallyalive
[Also a special invitation to GoodOlDave and mmiichael to please read the facts on this post and verify them yourselves at the given website before responding]

Ok, fair enough, but I need to tell you, I don't have to look any of these points up. I've seen them many, MANY times already from other conspiracy theorists and conspiracy websites, and I already know why your information is flawed...

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane, but it WAS hit by falling wreckage from the north tower, critically damaging it and causing fires. Aerial photos taken of ground zero by NOAA show a trail of devestation leading from the north tower, bulldozing right through and flattening WTC 5 and 6, and leading directly into WTC 7.

Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

There were explosions going off within the towers all throughout the time it was burning, not just "a second propr to collapse". Thsi was almost certainly the flammable objects within the towers I.E. fuel tanks, electrical transformers, pressurizd pipes, etc that would have exploded as the fires reached them. We know that's what it was becuase the explosions were at random time intervals, rather than sequentially like CD need to be.

Besides, the point of initial structural collapse was at the impact area of the aircraft, not the ground floor. This is proven by every video of the collapse in existence and it cannot be refuted.

Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

Actually, the path of least resistance woulkd have been straight down becuase of the reason that caused the building to fall to begin with-cascading structural failure. As each floor failed, the floor below it would have been exponentially less able to withstand the structural failure becuase the cascading mass of falling wreckage was becoming exponentially heavier as the next floor's weight was added to it.

Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

This is a false factoid being circulating around the internet. When the towers collapsed they threw wreckage all over the place, not just in its own footprint. The Deutchbank had a huge hole in its side, they flattened most of WTC 5 and 6, and the Trinity church some two blocks away got hit by wreckage, too. Plus, it hit and brought down WTC 7 which was behind WTC 5 and 6.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

The towers irrefutably had fires burning inside, and the towers irrefutable collapsed while the fires were still burning. Becuase of this, there'd almost certainly be pyroclastic dust clouds when the building collapsed. There were no shock waves nor obvious flashes when this occurred so these could not have been explosives.

Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

This metal was all underground (I.E. the lower levels of the WTC covered up by the upper levels), and were recovered during the cleanup of ground zero, after the fires had been burning for some time. There were also fires raging underground all throughout the cleanup process, which would have continued to damage/destroy the steel the fires were still in contact with.

Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

Thermite is essentially aluminum powder, and the WTC was entirely clad in a gigantic sheath of aluminum. The chance that it was even found in so many separate areas necessarily means it had to have come from a gigantic source of the stuff, and Jones hasn't shown that the sample he analyzed was a different material than the WTC's aluminum. Logic necessarily says it had to have come from the structure itself from some as-yet undocumented method.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

This would necessarly had to have been caused by the collapse itself. All the steel was protected by a fireproofing coating so any such structural damage could only have occurred once the sheathing had been stripped off, such as a 500MPH aircraft crashing into it.

Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

If you're referring to the same person I think you're referring to, you should know that was his opinion on WTC 7 *only*. He agrees that it was the fires that brought down towers 1 and 2, so even he things these conspiraies are wrong.

Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

Everyone who was physically there knew full well the structures were goign to collapse. NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact areas at the towers reported the support beams were glowing red from the fires and looked as if they were about to collapse, and 1/2 hour later, they did. Even the conspiracy peopel themselves admit with their Silverstein quote that the NYFD told him they simply couldn't contain the fires in WTC 7.

(By the way, Big Unit, I have noticed Mr. gage and many of those guys do not seem to behave like paid actors...)

Neither did Bernie Madhoff.

Okay, now here's a question for YOU- when I say that all these conspiracy web sites are pushing out blizzards of bad information and innuendo specifically to trick people into believing these 9/11 conspiracy stories, how does this prove me wrong, exactly?

Originally posted by StellarX
Operation northwoods, Prescott bush and some American industrialist fines for trading with Germany in wartime, gulf of Tonkin, secret bombing of Loas and Cambodia during Vietnam war ( hidden from US senate& thousands of personal involved) and such incidents should set the stage for just what the American government has done in the past.

a) You clearly never read the actual Operation Northwoods report. It was a plan to stage falsified Cuban hostilites to give ther US justification to invade, so the plan was to *not* kill any innocent American people becuase they wanted live witnesses to Cuban hostilities. Besides, the gov't itself saw the plan was pretty stupid and they threw it away.

b) Bringing up Prescott Bush is nothing but a five degres of separation "Kevin Bacon" game put out by these conspiracy websites. His total sum of "collaborating with the Nazis" was that he worked for a bank, that was owned by a Dutch corporation, that was owned by a German corporation, that was owned by a German industrialist that once gave money to the Nazis before they decided to throw him in a concentration camp, too. I don't need to tell you that the five degrees of separation links YOU to the Nazis, too, once you find the right five people.

c) The USS Maddox really did exist, it really was in the Gulf of Tonkin, there really were N. Vietnamese torpedo boats, and they really did shoot at each other. The debate is over who fired first, and whether or not a second reported engagement actually happened.

d) The US bombed Laos and Cambodia becuase the North Vietnamese were violating their neutrality by setting up military staging areas there, whcih they themselves admitted to doing after the war. The US military bombed these areas secretly because they were in areas protected by international neutrality laws, which was the whole reason the bases were hidden there to begin with.

Once you set the stage in that way 9-11 will not seem such a significant conspiracy by comparison

Intellectually dishonest logic. The very fact that all those other supposedly "secret" conspiracies" couldn't be concealed from you...whcih you admit to yourself becuase you obviously know about them... necessarily means any such 9/11 conspiracy coulnd't be concealed from you either.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Hi dave,

a) You clearly never read the actual Operation Northwoods report. It was a plan to stage falsified Cuban hostilites to give ther US justification to invade, so the plan was to *not* kill any innocent American people becuase they wanted live witnesses to Cuban hostilities.

Didn't read the entire report but did i have to to be able to catch the headlines?

Have you heard of wikpedia?

en.wikipedia.org...

Please do not tell me what sort of documents, or how much of them, i should read before i am 'allowed' to arrive at the logical conclusion that when the JCS chairman signs and passes on something to the secretary of defense it is something we can consider with some suspicion.

Besides, the gov't itself saw the plan was pretty stupid and they threw it away.

But they staged the bay of pig's invasion and somehow managed to be fooled into thinking the Cuban's would rally to support the invasion? Please don't tell me how 'smart' they were when we are all aware of the dismal foreign policy 'failures' ( or maybe the conspiracy is that they were trying to destroy the United States of America?) of that era.

b) Bringing up Prescott Bush is nothing but a five degres of separation "Kevin Bacon" game put out by these conspiracy websites.

oooooooh! The 'conspiracy websites'! That MUST disqualify this evidence.....

His total sum of "collaborating with the Nazis" was that he worked for a bank, that was owned by a Dutch corporation, that was owned by a German corporation, that was owned by a German industrialist that once gave money to the Nazis before they decided to throw him in a concentration camp, too.

He did not just 'work there' or perhaps you mean it in the sense that directors do not work or in this case don't know what is going on?

www.guardian.co.uk...

The connection was much closer than that and he well understood who he was cooperating ( not calling him a nazi; just a pure capitalist) with. The fact that the US government at the time fined him for STILL doing so in 1942 should give you some idea of how much he loved money.

I don't need to tell you that the five degrees of separation links YOU to the Nazis, too, once you find the right five people.

So you managed to turn me into a Nazi for saying something about the Bush family/ Nazi connection? Admittedly i could have left Bush out of it as there was a much larger number of US industrialist/financiers who got got fined or implicated under the same act. The fact that Prescott was also a good friend of Roosevelt was part of why i chose to bring up the name instead of so many others. The corruption did and still goes right to the top.

c) The USS Maddox really did exist, it really was in the Gulf of Tonkin, there really were N.

Why was it in the Gulf of Tonkin within torpedo boat range in the first place? Why are we surprised that US boats get into skirmishes off unfriendly shores?

Vietnamese torpedo boats, and they really did shoot at each other. The debate is over who fired first, and whether or not a second reported engagement actually happened.

I know and apparently you do too. Again the sources are there for anyone to see and it's pretty clear that the second engagement never happened. But hey, there was a first skirmish but they had to make up a second one just to find some additional cause for escalation.

d) The US bombed Laos and Cambodia becuase the North Vietnamese were violating their neutrality by setting up military staging areas there, whcih they themselves admitted to doing after the war.

Yup, it's pretty clear that the resistance to the US occupation of South Vietnam came from all sides and that there was staging bases in these countries. That's not what i am trying to point out.

The US military bombed these areas secretly because they were in areas protected by international neutrality laws, which was the whole reason the bases were hidden there to begin with.

And what is most interesting is how the managed to drop more tonnage of bombs on those two countries than they did on Germany during the second world war; all without the knowledge ( at least express) of the US senate. Basically a entire air campaign against two countries were done in secret. Perhaps that doesn't strike you as noteworthy but it does me.

Intellectually dishonest logic.

I make my mistakes but your argument holds even less water when you pretend that there were no serious conspiracies or that they were any better understood in the first years after they were commited.

he very fact that all those other supposedly "secret" conspiracies" couldn't be concealed from you...whcih you admit to yourself becuase you obviously know about them... necessarily means any such 9/11 conspiracy coulnd't be concealed from you either.

Well the crimes of 9-11 hasn't been concealed from me and very many others but considering the disagreements in the 'truther' community ( and i don't wish to be associated with them) i can understand your anger.

What i do not understand is why you believe that our lack of solid knowledge ( Much of which could still be employed to flesh out the details of the above noted historic cases) on 9-11 in any ways 'proves' the official story line. I mean how where the previous conspiracies and crimes exposed if not trough the actions of the same people that are leaking info about 9-11?

You did catch me at a bad time but i will see if i can add some comments later today or only in a few weeks time.

Stellar

[edit on 13-6-2009 by StellarX]

Originally posted by StellarX
Please do not tell me what sort of documents, or how much of them, i should read before i am 'allowed' to arrive at the logical conclusion that when the JCS chairman signs and passes on something to the secretary of defense it is something we can consider with some suspicion.

No, actually, it IS your responsibility to have a full understanding of what it is, especially when you're using it to support these other conspiracies. You're not going around telling people that Pepsi is better than Coke, you know. You're accusing people of committing mass murder, so you'd better have something more substancial than just some vague familiarity with the information you're posting.

But they staged the bay of pig's invasion and somehow managed to be fooled into thinking the Cuban's would rally to support the invasion? Please don't tell me how 'smart' they were when we are all aware of the dismal foreign policy 'failures' ( or maybe the conspiracy is that they were trying to destroy the United States of America?) of that era.

So let me get this straight...the gov't royally f**king up an attempted coup in Cuba...which you yourself admit to as a "dismal foreign policy failure we're all aware of" is somehow proof that an even more complex secret conspiracy on 9/11 was successfully pulled off without anyone noticing...?

oooooooh! The 'conspiracy websites'! That MUST disqualify this evidence.....

Since these websites have been caught red handed at passing bad information...and I will give you all the examples of this that you'd want... it necessarily means that yes, their credibility is low.

The connection was much closer than that and he well understood who he was cooperating ( not calling him a nazi; just a pure capitalist) with. The fact that the US government at the time fined him for STILL doing so in 1942 should give you some idea of how much he loved money.

It wasn't a fine. They seized the foreign assets of two German front companies in his bank under the Trading with the Enemy act. Prescott Bush had one, O-N-E share of those companies. You overlook the fact that before the war, EVERYONE was doing business with the Germans because they were the only ones with money.

Sheesh, hasn't Bush done enough REAL stupid things, without having to manufacture silly things like this? And just WHAT does that have to do with the 9/11 attack, anyway?

So you managed to turn me into a Nazi for saying something about the Bush family/ Nazi connection?

Go back and reread my statement carefully. In no way did I say you were a Nazi. I'm saying that the five degrees of separation links you to the Nazis, too, as it does me, Pres. Obama, and George Washington, and this cannot be refuted. You just have to find the right five people.

If *this* is an indication of how you digest the information given to you, then please tell me now before I go any further.

Why was it in the Gulf of Tonkin within torpedo boat range in the first place? Why are we surprised that US boats get into skirmishes off unfriendly shores?

What does this have to do with the 9/11 attack?

I know and apparently you do too. Again the sources are there for anyone to see and it's pretty clear that the second engagement never happened. But hey, there was a first skirmish but they had to make up a second one just to find some additional cause for escalation.

What does this have to do with the 9/11 attack?

Yup, it's pretty clear that the resistance to the US occupation of South Vietnam came from all sides and that there was staging bases in these countries. That's not what i am trying to point out.

What does this have to do with the 9/11 attack?

And what is most interesting is how the managed to drop more tonnage of bombs on those two countries than they did on Germany during the second world war; all without the knowledge ( at least express) of the US senate. Basically a entire air campaign against two countries were done in secret. Perhaps that doesn't strike you as noteworthy but it does me.

What does this have to do with the 9/11 attack?

I make my mistakes but your argument holds even less water when you pretend that there were no serious conspiracies or that they were any better understood in the first years after they were commited.

It's true, there WERE no serious conspiracies, becuase anything that was serious (I.E. the development of the atomic bomb, the moon landing) wasn't a conspiracy, and anythign that was a conspiracy (I.E. Watergate, Iran-Contra) wasn't serious enough to succeed. This is what history tells us, so I don't need to pretend anything.

Well the crimes of 9-11 hasn't been concealed from me and very many others but considering the disagreements in the 'truther' community ( and i don't wish to be associated with them) i can understand your anger.

It's not anger, it's disgust. If you put two truthers together they're going to get into fistfights with each other over what the "real" conspiracy really is. One will think it's controlled demolitions, one will think there weren't any planes to begin with, another will think there were nukes in the basement, and there are even those who think it was laser beams from outer space. They can't even agree amongst themselves who did it. Was it the Bush cabal? Was it the Jewish World order? One person even told me it was the work of a secret Satan worshipping cult.

What i do not understand is why you believe that our lack of solid knowledge ( Much of which could still be employed to flesh out the details of the above noted historic cases) on 9-11 in any ways 'proves' the official story line. I mean how where the previous conspiracies and crimes exposed if not trough the actions of the same people that are leaking info about 9-11?

Simple. Becuase the gov't f**ked them up I.E. Bay of Pigs, Iran Contra, Watergate, Bush outing the CIA agent, etc etc etc, tellign me that the gov't is largely incapable of pulling any such conspiracy off. A gov't that can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels is highly unlikely to pull off any convoluted 9/11 conspiracy using controlled demolitions in an occupied building.

I actually did just that on the biggest paintball forum on the internet, so far at least one serious debunker from the very beginning is now contemplating our government was behind it. What actually did it was the BBC reporting of building 7 collapsing before it had been.

Look at this guy in the beginning:
"I cite ae911.com"

Apple face: because there are crazys in every field.
because you ( all conspiracy nutjobs) writeoff the 911 commision report and the nist report as corrupt.
because you CANT provide a citation that isnt 911truth.# or
911lies.jewsdidit or any real scholarly report at all.

You'd think that guy would never be convinced of an alternate story.
12 pages later, all it took was the BBC reference to building 7:

"I dont know how else TO explain it.

it actually seems pretty clear cut to me.
but..... why would they be told to report it when they would clearly find out about it eventually and obviously report it anyways?"

Anyone reading this; make sure to reference the building 7 report from BBC, when you're trying to convince anyone. That seemed to do it for me.
Here's the thread, and the page where I start chiming in: www.pbnation.com...

read the last pages to see how the information sunk in to the member "Apple face".






[edit on 6/17/2009 by bl4ke360]