9/11 Cover Is Blown - The New Evidence

Originally posted by Zerbst
To argue this event by dissecting every individual detail is only causing confusion? It is also ignoring that obvious gut feeling of suspicion? There's no need to complicate it, just keep it simple. They possess the resources and ability to explain every detail of this event. Refusal to expose this truth can only imply guilt? Sabotaging evidence relating to this truth can only imply guilt? Creating false investigations, phony reports and directly lying about this truth can only imply guilt? Makes no difference what side you're on, these are easily provable facts that cannot be debated. This alone is enough to sway, even the hardcore deniers, towards government involvement. Covering up facts, destroying evidence and perjury are themselves serious crimes, and many places a direct admission of guilt to the crime one is attempting to cover? Nevertheless, mounting physical evidence continues to accumulate and will easily expose the guilty when given the chance!

Nobody can realistically believe anything is impossible for the US government to carry out? To do so would be to deny similar events, carried out by them successfully, throughout all of history. This, getting away with crime, pattern of behavior is literally their only success. It's seriously their only area of provable accomplishment that is consistent? Not to mention how weak it is of an argument? Saying "they could never pull it off" is about as legitimate a defense as "I know you are, but what am I?" commonly used prior to 2nd grade? There is so much support to this argument it would undoubtedly be comical to even challenge it? On the other hand, what possible support can be found to shine an opposite light on these criminals? Where can anything positively good can be shown as their doing? I challenge anybody to show proof, even one single act, of them acting for unselfish good? Takers? Any one want to humiliate themselves?

Peace.

You don't need evidence or science to disprove a conspiracy theory...

All I have to say is.

Do you know how many people it would take!
They could never pull it off without people knowing about it!
Not everything is a conspiracy!
Tinfoil hat!

Those phrases automatically refute all the logical, scientific, and physical evidence for the conspiracy theory...

Originally posted by Jezus

You don't need evidence or science to disprove a conspiracy theory...

Actually, at least one counterexample is needed to disprove a theory. Armed only with an illogical opinion, you still come up short.

All I have to say is.

Do you know how many people it would take!

They could never pull it off without people knowing about it!
Not everything is a conspiracy!
Tinfoil hat!

Below is a brief "counterexample" that thoroughly disproves the "Do you know how many people it would take?" and the "They could never pull it off!" theories.

www.911hardfacts.com...
But there are ultimately two main problems with the argument. Firstly, it does not in any way answer any of the hard, relevant evidence relating to the case and narrative of 9/11 covered in this paper that does point to some kind of conspiracy. Instead, it is simply a stated notion of disbelief. And secondly, there did not, in actual fact, need to be that many people involved with the overall vision, of every detail and every implication of the plan. There only needed to be a select few people at the top of the chain of command who knew exactly what was being carried out, where and how to create confusion, and why. The military and intelligence community is made up of people accustomed to following orders, without question. And many researchers who have spent time in the CIA and military intelligence have stepped forward into the 9/11 truth movement to explain the notion of 'compartmentalization'. A phenomenon and strategy that explains why not very many people need be in on the overall plan and execution of a covert operation for it to be successful.

"Compartmentalization is an organizational strategy analogous to the old parable of the blind men and an elephant -- each of the men is asked to describe what the elephant is, and all accurately describe their perception (trunk, tusk, legs, ears, tail, body), but none of them understand what the entire elephant is. Covert operations succeed by keeping most of the participants focused on their particular task, unaware of the full situation. Compartmentalization means that only key people in key places need to know what their role in a covert operation is -- others nearby might not be aware of those ensuring the success of the operation. This practice refutes the claim that too many people would have had to know about 9/11 for a conspiracy to allow it to have been possible."

Here are real examples of them "pulling it off" quite successfully. The Manhattan Project required the silence of 100,000 people involved. You would look rather asinine to argue this many people were needed for 911? These two examples alone destroy your lame beliefs. Like I said previously, there are many more to add to the debate. Dozens, maybe hundreds is more accurate, of historical facts to "refute" accusations placed on "conspiracy theorists" claims. I asked for one good deed to be shown to defend them and all you brought was an asinine opinion and childish name calling?

"This argument is, for one thing, based partly on the belief that it is impossible for big government operations to be kept secret very long. However, the Manhattan Project to create an atomic bomb, which involved some 100,000 people, was kept secret for several years. Also, the United States provoked and participated in a civil war in Indonesia in 1957 that resulted in some 40,000 deaths, but this illegal war was kept secret from the American people until a book about it appeared in 1995. It also must be remembered that if the government has kept several other big operations hidden, we by definition do not know about them. We cannot claim to know, in any case, that the government could not keep a big and ugly operation secret for a long time.

Educate yourself on these matters and turn away from flawed thinking. Make it hypothetical, if you have to, that nearly everything IS a conspiracy, so you look at the other side.

Those phrases automatically refute all the logical, scientific, and physical evidence for the conspiracy theory...

To simply deny something is hardly a refute? Unlike denial, to refute a proposition or theory is to establish or prove that it is false. Your denial here only proves your lack of intelligence, as does your name calling. Fear and denial won't make it go away? Pull your pants up and be a man!

Peace.

reply to post by Zerbst


The Manhatten project used many people scattered over the entire country. Often their tsaks were such that they did not see any connection with other activities. Setting demolition charges in occupied office buildings is setting demolition charges. There is nothing else it can be. Precutting girders and columns and cabling the structure for collapse is precutting girders and columns and cabling the structure for collapse and nothing else. There is no evidence of demolition.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by Zerbst

 

The Manhatten project used many people scattered over the entire country. Often their tsaks were such that they did not see any connection with other activities. Setting demolition charges in occupied office buildings is setting demolition charges. There is nothing else it can be. Precutting girders and columns and cabling the structure for collapse is precutting girders and columns and cabling the structure for collapse and nothing else. There is no evidence of demolition.

Individual tasks performed so that no connections are made with other activities is compartmentalization, and is exactly how they operate. I mentioned this government protocol in my prior response?

You're assuming that only these demolition methods would have been used, as well as them being the only choice? Ironically, your skepticism further supports the need for an actual investigation, which is all the "crazy conspiracy nuts" are asking for. So basically your supporting the very thing debunkers oppose?

There are several logical reasons to find the truth, but what rationality is there for denying it? Besides the obvious closure it would bring to those that lost loved ones, there's a multitude of possible criminal behavior? If there is even the slightest chance our government is involved wouldn't it be in the interest of everyone to find out? I mean, what logic is there in obstructing the discovery of the truth? Especially coming from average citizens in the US? Citizens that SHOULD be more concerned than anyone seeing how, if true, they are atop the targeted list of possible future deeds?

What, sadly, doesn't get talked about enough here is how embarrassingly shameful it is to fight against truth? Those of you that insult and demean others for simply asking for answers are pitifully shameful, and embarrassing! Calling names and belittling anyone is far from righteous, but to do it because they're seeking truth is despicable! It's also the opposite of "RIGHTEOUSNESS" and even opposes everything "PATRIOTISM" and being "AMERICAN" is all about! Not to mention, there's no logical reason to support objecting truth? Not one!

Peace.

It is called "shills".

Or "trolls".

People seemingly clutching at straws to promote the official agenda.

I would not waste any more time with them, whatever your findings or evidence presented, a monkey will always have a counter answer.

Heck, I could write a program doing just that. O wait, already been done.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum

The good thing? As always, the truth and common sense will prevail, no matter how long it takes..

Maybe not in here, but hey, who can win against those odds?

The counter indications and smoking guns are NOT going anywhere...

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Truth4hire]

Originally posted by Zerbst

You're assuming that only these demolition methods would have been used, as well as them being the only choice? Ironically, your skepticism further supports the need for an actual investigation, which is all the "crazy conspiracy nuts" are asking for. So basically your supporting the very thing debunkers oppose?

Some demolition methods had to have been used. There is no evidence for conventional demolitions. A new investigation without any reason to initate it or evidence to investigate would seem to be fruitless. What methods do you propose were used and how would you search for them? How would you know when you found them?
But should it come to pass, as has been asked on another thread, what if a new investigation provided the same conclusions? What would you say then? It seems that the gut feelings of the many that drive this will not allow any conclusions except those that they have already arrived at. We will continue to investigate until our predetermined conclusions are reached as we search for the dogmatic "truth".
As to your gratuitious comments regarding righteousness, patriotism, and being American, disagreement with your position has nothing to do with them, correct? The truthers never insult, provoke, or verbally attack those who disagree with them, do they?

reply to post by pteridine

Some demolition methods had to have been used. There is no evidence for conventional demolitions.

There's been multiple scientific studies on debris found providing evidence of intense thermal conditions, as well as non conventional compounds used in explosives? Do you doubt these findings?

A new investigation without any reason to initate it or evidence to investigate would seem to be fruitless. What methods do you propose were used and how would you search for them? How would you know when you found them?

Destruction of evidence is considered admission of guilt, at least cause for suspicion? Do you find this irrelevant as well? The best reason for a new investigation is there hasn't been one yet. Not even close. Supporting that is the suspicion created by the 911 Commission and NIST Report. Both are incomplete for sure, possibly even fraudulent? Important facts are either glossed over, or left out all together? Until suspicions like Building 7, Wall Street activity, molten steel and, lets not forget, the first 3 steel buildings in history to collapse from fire are thoroughly studied, you cannot claim there was investigation?

But should it come to pass, as has been asked on another thread, what if a new investigation provided the same conclusions? What would you say then?

A complete investigation would include evidence ignored originally, so it would not be the same. If everything possible was investigated I would definitely accept the findings. As I would now, if current findings would have proved the hijacker theory true, but that isn't the case?

It seems that the gut feelings of the many that drive this will not allow any conclusions except those that they have already arrived at. We will continue to investigate until our predetermined conclusions are reached as we search for the dogmatic "truth".

How do you know this? The official story is being accepted on predetermined conclusions that the government doesn't lie, or commit crime? These are easily provable falsehoods that are holding up a literal fantasy? There is no comparison between these theories. The official one is riddled with suspicion, incompleteness and improbabilities? The alternative is, not only more possible and likely, it's backed by much more motive and evidence.

Another, huge, difference is that only the alternative theory accounts for every detail. It explains the miracle collapses and vanishing jumbo jets! The total and absolute absence of any national security defense by our military! The instantaneous synchronicity of the MSM! The official story can't even explain gravity, or fire temperatures? Or, where the Pentagon surveillance videos are? They're so dumbfounded on explaining Building 7 they leave it out completely?

Then there's the overwhelming motive! Years later we have this never ending trail of profit still going strong today? Even their profit methods are filled with scandals? Fraud, war mongering, even poisoning and killing of our own military troops are rampant? All easily traced back to the enablers, our despicable federal government!

As to your gratuitious comments regarding righteousness, patriotism, and being American, disagreement with your position has nothing to do with them, correct? The truthers never insult, provoke, or verbally attack those who disagree with them, do they?

I never said anything, remotely, close to agreeing with my position makes you patriotic, or anything else? Disagreement with pursuing the TRUTH is what I claimed to be wrong! Insults are as totally irrelevant as they are useless in my opinion?

reply to post by Zerbst


Your comment "There's been multiple scientific studies on debris found providing evidence of intense thermal conditions, as well as non conventional compounds used in explosives? Do you doubt these findings?"

How do intense thermal conditions indicate explosives? What non-conventional compounds used in explosives have been discovered?

Originally posted by Zerbst
The official story is being accepted on predetermined conclusions that the government doesn't lie, or commit crime? These are easily provable falsehoods that are holding up a literal fantasy? There is no comparison between these theories. The official one is riddled with suspicion, incompleteness and improbabilities? The alternative is, not only more possible and likely, it's backed by much more motive and evidence.

Another, huge, difference is that only the alternative theory accounts for every detail. It explains the miracle collapses and vanishing jumbo jets!

Governments often lie and withhold information. But there are also knowledgeable people tracking their words and actions.

Truther websites lie and withhold information as well. Few care to correct their corruptions of truth.

From what I've seen you base your understandings on these sources.

Thousands of people worldwide have tracked the long evolution of the Middle Eastern based funding and planning of 9/11. Independent professionals worldwide have looked at the evidence with an open-mind.
They base their analysis on tangible evidence and documentation, not just speculation.

Video hawker find fault with these detailed systematic analysis of evidence. And because you want to believe them, you accept their claims without applying critical faculties.

It's easy to be confident you know the real truth when you choose to believe what supports your conclusions and dismiss anything conflicting as disinformation.

There are a lot of lies circulating, not just from one source.


Mike







[edit on 30-7-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by Zerbst
The official story is being accepted on predetermined conclusions that the government doesn't lie, or commit crime? These are easily provable falsehoods that are holding up a literal fantasy? There is no comparison between these theories. The official one is riddled with suspicion, incompleteness and improbabilities? The alternative is, not only more possible and likely, it's backed by much more motive and evidence.

Another, huge, difference is that only the alternative theory accounts for every detail. It explains the miracle collapses and vanishing jumbo jets!

Governments often lie and withhold information. But there are also knowledgeable people tracking their words and actions.

Truther websites lie and withhold information as well. Few care to correct their corruptions of truth.

From what I've seen you base your understandings on these sources.

Thousands of people worldwide have tracked the long evolution of the Middle Eastern based funding and planning of 9/11. Independent professionals worldwide have looked at the evidence with an open-mind.
They base their analysis on tangible evidence and documentation, not just speculation.

Video hawker find fault with these detailed systematic analysis of evidence. And because you want to believe them, you accept their claims without applying critical faculties.

It's easy to be confident you know the real truth when you choose to believe what supports your conclusions and dismiss anything conflicting as disinformation.

There are a lot of lies circulating, not just from one source.


Mike







[edit on 30-7-2009 by mmiichael]

I have absolutely nothing to do with "truther websites", or anything alike. I look at everything available and see obvious questions continue to go unanswered? Neither side of this debate seems to have all the answers, but only one side seems open to finding them.

You said yourself "There are a lot of lies circulating, not just from one source." and I agree with you. Thank you for supporting my point!

Peace.

Originally posted by Zerbst
Here are real examples of them "pulling it off" quite successfully. The Manhattan Project required the silence of 100,000 people involved.

Apples and oranges. For one thing, the gov't didn't try to deny the existence of the atomic bomb after the fact. Once it was used, Truman himself announced it existed. For another thing, despite the compartmentalization of duties every single person who contributed to the bomb development knew immediately what they were building, despite not fully understanding how what they were doing had contributed to it. Even then there were still blabbermouths who not only couldn't keep their mouths shut, but they sold the information off to other countries I.E. the Rosenbergs.

On the other hand, it is unrealistic to assume that someone forging NY port authority technician papers for a gov't demolitions team, or someone painting a cruise missile to look like a passenger jet, wouldn't be able to put two and two together and figure out what happened afterwards, and it's beyond ridiculous to presume a demolitions team sent in to plant explosives in an occupied building wouldn't understand they'd be killing off a lot of innocent people to begin with. It also overlooks the blatant fact that the prime motivation for the bomb was to defeat the Japanese, which everyone supported, so it came with its own mechanism for motivation. Any similar operation to kill innocent American civilians would have NO such motivation mechanism, and in fact would come with motivation mechanisms to stop it and/or expose it.

Therefore, your "example" only offers more reason to dismiss these 9/11 conspiracies, than it does to accept them.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Hello, GoodOlDave.

Like usual, those that oppose investigating 911 dance around the bulk of theory and reason given, countering only certain fragments they feel comfortable with? Stating my TWO reasons given offer an example for dismissal, although only half of it was even acknowledged? This is not a shot solely at you, rather typical rationalizing practiced by all who try to support a weak argument.

The original point made had nothing to do with 911. Some here state on a regular basis that scandals can only be carried out successfully until a specific point related to their size is reached, though specifics are never given? They claim that something as large as 911, not 911 specifically, breached that unspecified limit, therefore rendering any cover up impossible. My rebuttal to their theory, not the 911 event itself, was used to show error in their theory. Proof that it is indeed possible to commit a 911 size event, not literally 911 itself, is evident in the Manhattan Project. As does what took place in Indonesia in 1957.

Only half of my response to the "little scandals only" debate was then used by you to dismiss the reasoning for investigating 911? What YOU are doing is comparing apples to oranges, not me! You're also basing your argument on only HALF of my statement? Even if it was relevant, it's incompleteness exposes the weakness contained within it anyway.

This is exactly the problem inherent in every aspect of the 911 event. From the beginning, whether it be motives, evidence, facts, reasons, even the way events themselves unfolded that day, I've yet to see any part of 911 debated, nor explained, in its entirety? Only dissected and cherry picked points of interest are used, despite them being able to hold up to complete scrutiny? If it doesn't fit every fact in cannot be truth! Truth stands up to ALL scrutiny! Likewise, to call it an investigation, you must include all the relevant information in its entirety? It MUST be dissected COMPLETELY with absolutely ZERO exceptions.

If you were to go and murder someone that society deems important, you would be examined so thoroughly that everything, from your kindergarten teacher to how you take your coffee, would be recited before you. So thorough that even you would learn things about yourself. Why do you think they do this? They do it because they want to show your guilt as many different ways they possibly can. They will do this even if you confess. What gives anyone the right to avoid this?

Nothing and no one can give reason to escape this requirement to the rule of law. That single point alone gives credence to a new investigation. Under the rule of law, if you can show new evidence to a crime, you have shown legitimate reason for reopening its investigation. Even if you oppose, like you do, a new investigation, the fact it's not being allowed should bother all Americans? Right and wrong should be a concern to everyone! To care nothing for injustices because they don't effect you is cowardice. It's also a very shameful example of what's becoming of the citizenry in America. Vanishing is honor, pride, virtue, respect and decency. Replacing it with selfishness, greed, boastfulness, cowardice and lowly morals in general. Soon there will be little left to be proud of. Sad.

Peace.

reply to post by Zerbst


A new investigation would be supported if cause for such existed. There has, as yet, no evidence brought forth to support the claims of demolition, only heresay and subjective interpretations of videos. These claims are without merit.

If there was a giant conspiracy that was executed so perfectly as to leave no trace of itself, what would the new investigation investigate? Certainly, if you have evidence, bring it forward.

reply to post by Zerbst


A new investigation would be supported if cause for such existed. There has, as yet, no evidence brought forth to support the claims of demolition, only heresay and subjective interpretations of videos. These claims are without merit.

If there was a giant conspiracy that was executed so perfectly as to leave no trace of itself, what would the new investigation investigate? Certainly, if you have evidence, bring it forward.