My sudden change of heart

Originally posted by Asktheanimals

I forgot to add that the Pentagon spends Billions of $ on "cyber warfare" (not to mention the NSA/CIA/FBI etc)
Don't you think they could have possibly infiltrated the truth movement?

edit on 20-11-2010 by Asktheanimals because: added commentary

Possibly? I say there's no question they have placed undercover agents within the most radical truther movements(at one point or another). There's no question they(the truthers) are regarded as a possible threat to national security, that reason alone would allow them to legally investigate them. Especially, now that Iran's president has jumped on the bandwagon.


To the OP, I'm not even going to attempt to go into everything you mentioned. Suffice it to say though, (to me anyways) you are seriously misinformed. Innocently enough, you seem to be a victim of the debunkers mission to counter and propagate the most wild 9/11 conspiracy theories as their(truthers) actual theories. Along with desperately trying to convince the fence sitters that they(the debunkers) are really on the side of truth and justice.

To each, his own. I think it's a heck of a lot easier to believe the official 9/11 conspiracy, the officials wrapped it up about as best as they could, giving the public at large the perfect cover story and hopeful ending. Then backed it right up with two massive wars against "the suspects".

reply to post by weedwhacker

Answer to #2 is simple. Simple. 100%

Are you saying that a pilot that has never flown a jet plane in his life would have managed to use flight navigation and controls to hit all three target 100% of the time??

I guess the obvious question is, why do we need pilots like yourself with decades of experience when people who have NEVER flown a jet can do better than is expected of you on an avereage day...

Care to argue that??

reply to post by demonseed


I apologize (am actually laughing at my lack of will-power) but, I can't read what you're saying without my mind screaming out a (possible) explanation. So it's very hard for me to get through this.
But you ask "who would orchestrate something (of this magnitude and this intricate) ?

Well, people in the upper brass are not like you or I.

There are top level think-tanks within governments whose soul purposeis to think out and plan covert missions like this.
So every minute detail of this day (that the average person shakes their heads and says: No way this was conjured up....) was probably purposefully woven in to put it all on a very confusing level!

Not all the NORAD personnel that day were filled in. So it's my belief Flight 93 was supposed to hit the White House (or wherever) but, someone within did shoot it down.
Now you ask: Why not mention it? Because that would invite too many Q's & A's which everyone wanted to avoid.


The three buildings that fell? It's my deep belief those buildings were built with demolition devices already in place for future demolition. The right hand doesn't always know (nor covey to) what the left hand is doing.

It's been suggested if tenants knew beforehand their office was equipped with nuclear detonators then many people wouldn't want to pay top dollar to rent out an office space that can possibly accidentally blow up.

www.disclose.tv...
www.disclose.tv...

reply to post by backinblack

Are saying that a pilot that has never flown a jet plane in his life would have managed to use flight navigation and controls to hit all three target 100% of the time??

You are confusing the situation, and the timeline...with the attempt to "argue from incredulity" there.

Get one thing straight, first: A person with fixed-wing airplane experience knows how the flight controls work, in ALL fixed wing airplanes. Just because one is a jet, and one has a piston engine, the flight controls work and react in the same way, regardless.

You posted just 30 minutes after I completed my post. Fast reader? I guess we can keep making them long, after all?

If you'd care to go back and review, you will see the mention of the Boeing simulator experience, in regards to the hijackers. So, the "never flown a jet airplane in his life" claim is not a valid "argument", at all.

Finally, another slight misconception: The navigation aspects were only to get to the areas they wanted to, after taking control, up at cruise altitude. Isn't difficult, especially for any pilot who understands the airspace system, and how to use even the most basic navigation aids that are taught from the beginning. It was interpreting how those indications are PRESENTED in the various airplane cockpits, and instrumentation that is an issue...and, they studied to become familiar there.

But the "controls to hit all three targets"? Hand flown. Hand-eye coordination, it's the basis of all flying. Just as it is the basis of operating an automobile. How hard would it be for you, or anyone else, to hit something with their car, if they wished to???

reply to post by weedwhacker

You posted just 30 minutes after I completed my post. Fast reader? I guess we can keep making them long, after all?

I know your post was the usual long drawn out hmmm, whatever. but 30 minutes is a long time...
So I take it your short answer is yes, a pilot that has NEVER flown a jet aircraft before would have NO trouble hitting ALL three targets 100% of the time?

That about sum it up?

reply to post by backinblack


Yes.

Trying to tell you that anyone who has a pilot's license will find that a jet will fly just the same way as his Cessna will.

Did you know that with modern Level D flight simulators a pilot can transition from one model airplane, to another, and then be fully qualified, without ever actually flying the actual airplane? Happens all the time, nowadays. At major airlines everywhere.

Pilot 'A' gets hired at Airline 'B' Previous experience before getting hired was in airplane types 'C' - 'H' (or whatever)...

Airline 'B' has Boeing 737 equipment. Pilot goes through all training (most, nowadays, all computer-based, BTW...as opposed to old days, with Instructor, videos, filmstrips, etc).

After all the systems and details instruction of the B-737, and after passing the Oral and Written tests, the Simulator training syllabus is begun. In the Level D quality sims, the FAA determines they are so accurate, there is no need to ever set foot on the real thing. ("Level D", in short, infers that they are "landing certified", due to realism of the controls, and the visual systems).

Once that is complete, with the final check-ride (and/or Type Rating ride) ...THEN the pilot transitions to the "line training" phase. This is called "Initial Operating Experience" (I.O.E.) and is done on live passenger flights, regularly scheduled passenger flights. WITH specially trained, regular pilots who are also "Check Captains"....instructors who are qualified for this purpose, and who provide the final evaluations and real-life, real-world acclimation to operating environments.

In the older days, it was just about the same, except we had (in order to comply with the FAA) make at least THREE landings (and that is all) in the real airplane, before moving on to IOE. That is expensive for the airlines, so the simulators are used exclusively today.

THAT is how it's done, with professionals.

So, even an amateur, with some simulator practice, could easily do what was seen on 9/11. THEY didn't have to demonstrate any great finesse, nor skills, as do REAL airline pilots. There are a great deal many more demanding and exacting tasks than just steering an airplane in flight, in order to hit an obstruction.

Here's a segment from a Dutch TV documentary. The first part tears up the stupid "mock"umentary "Loose Change". Jump to 4:40 to see the simulator demonstration, with an inexperienced pilot, to re-create the Pentagon attack profile....:

Why are we even arguing here? This thread was about a guy who had "a sudden change of heart". First of all we should make a separate thread, second of all if 3 guys want to keep on believing in the official tale, your reaction should be, yeah whatever while you seek out input from people who are actually interested in the truth. You kow, truthers.

reply to post by Cassius666


Well......I'd say that the "sudden change of heart" came about from actually SEEKING TRUTH!! And, as a result, learning to separate real truth from the crap that has been spewing.....

....not relying on the crap fallacies and lies and distortions that have infested this topic since starting sometime 12 November 2001.

The majority of the nonsense comes from people woefully unqualified to spout it...and then others repeat it so often, that some people don't realize the original source had no credibility whatsoever.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes nonsense, of course to a sane person this is what an building engulfed in raging fires would look like XD.

farm3.static.flickr.com...

And this is a collapsed building according to a sane person

farm3.static.flickr.com...

We have all seen the video

www.youtube.com...

Not to mention that aaaall the scientists and experts not payed to produce the NIST report are whoefully unqualified.
So were the New York firefighters who were there. I am sure those explosions they heard were really cars exploding.

You seem to be very concerned to englighten us to the truth. I admire your dedication and persistence . Keep on soldiering XD .

Originally posted by demonseed
At this point, there are too many 9/11 conspiracy theory loopholes that in all honesty add up a million times worse than even the "official" story.

That's where real research and knowledge comes into play. When someone does real research, they can easily weed out the loopy "theories" like no planes, nukes, holograms, CGI, DEW, etc.

Originally posted by demonseed
Who in the hell orchestrated this thing?

Easy: The same people who orchestrated "Operation Northwoods" which would have used similar tactics and had similar outcomes.

Originally posted by demonseed
hijacking 4 airliners(along with convincing TSA agents to go along)

Really? Did you really say this? Have you actually done any real research into 9/11 at all? The TSA wasn't formed until after 9/11 and directly as a result of the "hijacked" planes.

All I can say is "wow" to that statement.

Originally posted by demonseed
this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.

Of course it's not and nobody has said otherwise. But 9/11 is the first and only time in history that a steel-structured highrise has collapsed from fire. And not just collapsed, but collapsed globally and completely to the ground. Oh, and THREE times in one day, by the way. A feat that controlled demolitions have only ever accomplished in the past.

Originally posted by demonseed
Buildings in heavily populated areas are built in a way that they collapse inward.

I noticed you didn't post a source for this claim, but I don't agree with the accuracy of your claim. Suffice it to say, the towers didn't collapse inward, but outward because they were blown from the inside out.

Originally posted by demonseed
it simply indicates that buildings that lose a large amount of structural integrity will most likely fall onto their own footprint.

Except that the towers did not lose a large amount of structural integrity. In fact, the damage from the plane impacts was minor. According to NIST's own numbers, there was only 15% of the structure in the impact zones that was damaged. That leaves 85% of the structure on the four floors of impact, completely intact and undamaged. That is not a large amount of structural damage.

Originally posted by demonseed
Why in the world would the penthouse fall into the footprint of the building if its being demolished?

Why in the world would the building fall straight down if the penthouse on one side of the building fell? Usually, buildings fall toward the side that's damaged, not straight down. The penthouse falling into the building isn't going to cause every single column across the entire building to fail simultaneously.

Originally posted by demonseed
If you told me that aliens fired a laser beam to bring down the building, i would believe that over explosives.

It's absolutely disgusting that you would even say or believe in such a thing.

Originally posted by demonseed
We are also talking about a LOT of weight, causing the building to collapse faster as it progresses.

Collapsing faster is one thing, collapsing in free fall, even for 2 seconds of a 6-second fall, is very damning evidence. Natural collapses don't cause buildings to fall in free-fall with zero resistance. The only thing in the world that can take out the resistance is explosives.

Originally posted by demonseed
There are also no signs of explosives being used throughout the building.

Then you haven't done much research into controlled demolitions. But don't feel bad, most other people haven't either. There are controlled demolitions that look and sound exactly like the towers and WTC 7.

Originally posted by demonseed
After watching countless controlled demolitions, NONE of them looked anything remotely close to the collapse of WTC 7.

Then you didn't really watch "countless" demolitions. There are plenty that look even remotely close. Kinda like this one:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a39ae149b0f6.gif[/atsimg]



Looks pretty damn close to me. Oh, and let's add the south tower in the mix as well:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/379570d95fd1.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by demonseed
The only people hearing explosions are the people inside of the buildings, yet for some reason people outside recording cannot hear them?

Are you kidding me? You can't be serious. Either you (again) haven't done the least bit of research, or you're being dishonest. I made a short video with a few of the many witnesses that heard the explosions:

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by demonseed
There is still no concrete proof that there was a controlled demolition.

Really? I think witnesses in my above video described the sounds of a controlled demolition pretty well. And if that's not enough, did you even read the First Responder Oral Histories? There are many firefighters that saw flashes coming from the lower and middle floors of both towers while the buildings were collapsing above. They also said the flashes were going "up, down and around" both towers and had "popping or exploding sounds" associated with the flashes. That is yet another sign of controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by demonseed
But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above,

I don't know where you got that information from. The following is from a 1200-page structural analysis by the engineering firm Worthington, Skilling, Helle & Jackson that built the towers:

The building as designed is sixteen times stiffer than a conventional structure. All the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.

"Live loads" meaning the actual weight on and above. 85% of the columns in the four floors of the impact zones were intact, easily carrying the live loads of the damaged 15% of columns.

Originally posted by demonseed
having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim

It must be an outrageous claim since NIST even did away with the "pancake theory" years ago.

Originally posted by demonseed
poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition

They absolutely do:


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6dab83d90c0f.jpg[/atsimg]


You won't find those ejections in any other building collapse except for controlled demolition because they are the direct result of high-powered explosives being detonated. This is the THIRD proof of controlled demolitions with the witness testimony I provided in my above video, and the flashes seen by the firefighters.

Flashes, booms, and ejections are all absolute signs of controlled demolitions and you will not find any of those in fire-induced or natural collapses. I have challenged trusters for years to prove me wrong, but none have to this day.

Originally posted by demonseed
no sound during the collapse of explosives going off.

As I stated earlier, there are videos of controlled demolitions on the internet that sound exactly like the towers and WTC 7. There are over 1000 different types of explosives that can be used in controlled demolitions. Some are not as loud as others. Some are more powerful than others.

Originally posted by demonseed
If you believe the government "did it", then i want to ask you.. just how in the hell did they do it?

Not a single person can answer that question without speculating. That's why a new investigation is needed.

Explosives alone, especially in WTC 7, proves inside job. WTC 7 was one of the most secure buildings in NYC.

Originally posted by demonseed
Stephen jones with a bag of powder is not evidence.

With each statement you type, you are showing more and more that you either did not do any real, actual research, or you're being dishonest and ignorant.

Dr. Steven Jones Ph.D, along with Dr. Jeff Farrer, Ph.D, tested dust samples and came to conclusions based on lab testing. Perhaps you missed their interviews?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile obtained a dust sample from the same source as Dr. Jones, tested the dust and came to the same conclusions as Dr. Jones and Dr. Farrer. He independently confirmed that the red layer on the chips was thermitic.

Furthermore, Mark Basile obtained a second dust sample from a museum in NYC, and again found the chips and confirmed that the red layer is thermitic. That's two dust samples, from two separate entities, tested by three separate people, all confirming that the red layer is thermitic, and constructed on the nano-scale.

Perhaps you missed his interview here:

www.youtube.com...


So, your statement "Steven Jones with a bag of powder" automatically shows your lack of research and knowledge into 9/11, and further shows your disregard for any scientific evidence or research into 9/11.

Originally posted by demonseed
Remember, i was at truther.

No, actually you weren't. By your own admission, you were only skeptical about WTC 7 and that's it. That does not equate to you being a truther. There's so much to learn and research about 9/11, and it seems you haven't even scratched the surface.

A real truther would never turn sides without some sort of coercion or threat, because facts are facts and evidence is evidence.


One thing I will say in conclusion, and that I keep saying, is that at the very beginning of the NIST report, it states that nothing in their report can be used as evidence in a court of law or be taken as factual. NIST used guesses, calculations, and made-up computer models to support their report. But all they have are theories like the rest of us. 9/11 was simply Operation Northwoods, upgraded.

So, no matter what side of the fence you stand on, you're still believing in a conspiracy theory.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Well loud booms and exploding buildings as seen on 911 would indicate explosions for me, but I guess smoke puffs on top of it are a good too

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Cassius666

 

Well......I'd say that the "sudden change of heart" came about from actually SEEKING TRUTH!! And, as a result, learning to separate real truth from the crap that has been spewing.....

....not relying on the crap fallacies and lies and distortions that have infested this topic since starting sometime 12 November 2001.

The majority of the nonsense comes from people woefully unqualified to spout it...and then others repeat it so often, that some people don't realize the original source had no credibility whatsoever.

I find it odd that you say the word "crap" so often and yet I lost 1000 points for saying "Thats crap"...
I guess Springer likes you more than me

No bias from admin there right ?

Funny, I had the exact opposite happen to me. I was sure that the government wasn't involved in 9/11 up until this year came around.

I'm convinced now that building seven is a controlled demolition. I can't say exactly the same for one and two as they suffered significantly more damage from the initial impact of the planes, which are capable of carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel. This isn't the point though.
'Truthers' or anyone who doesn't believe the government official story in its entirely, are left at a complete disadvantage, considering they cannot go directly back to ground zero and do any sort of independent investigative work. Nor can the 9/11 event be repeated for further analysis. What you see is what you get basically. And the government (implicated by truthers) ends up cleaning up the mess rather quickly.
The New York attacks, the pentagon and flight 93 are the outcome of a well though-out plan that managed to somehow slip by all of our intelligence agencies operating at the time....(or so the official story states).

The icing on the cake for me are the questionable actions by the US government during 9/11 and after 9/11...
And the fact that the US has never shied away from involving itself in other false flag operations (in and outside the country)...or even having a documented false flag operation on paper.....One of such scale as Operation Northwoods is alarming enough.

But hey...if you want to go with the official story...more power to you. It's a free country after all...I suppose.

Once a truther, but reverting back to the OS?

It took me a long time after 9/11 to have the Official Conspiracy Theory dissolve into a lie; reality fundamentally shifting was very shocking. After that, can one un-take the red pill? Can one crawl out of the rabbit hole? Can one un-see what has already been seen? Stop kidding yourself(ves). Have the courage to see the truth, or we will never be free again. Don't be afraid to be a truther. The truth sometimes hurts, but it is better than a lie. We can handle the truth.

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


Depending on where you live it might be hard. Assume you work for the media in america or in politics. If it becomes known you dont swallow the official tale, that it, youre done. Its like being a nazi and saying, you know, maybe going after the women and children is taking it too far. Off the the eastern front you go.

reply to post by Cassius666


Well then you can be a closet truther like so many in my big old military town! But don't just give up and tell everybody why. Try in some way to get the truth out. You don't have to stand on a street corner with a megaphone.

In your OP you say that the weight of the floors above would cause a pancake-type collapse.

My question for you is: have you ever seen a pancake-type collapse? Floors stack on one another with the column still being somewhat in tact. On 9/11 the buildings disintegrated, the floors did not stack on one another. I don't think the buildings would have collapsed anyway, but if they would have, they would collapse in a pancake manner; there wouldn't be a COMPLETE disintegration of the entire tower.

reply to post by demonseed


Congratulations young Jedi - You have rejected the dark forces of the TRUTH. The TRUTH is strong and difficult to resist....

I'm sick of trying to explain 9/11 to people who refuse to do the math.. 2+2 doesnt equal 5.. You know something isnt right when people on the 9/11 Commission went public stating they were denied important information, and stated that the investigation was a "national scandel" and a "fraud".

"Really? Did you really say this? Have you actually done any real research into 9/11 at all? The TSA wasn't formed until after 9/11 and directly as a result of the "hijacked" planes."

Hey, with research and investigation skills like that, it is no wonder he/she has had a "change of heart".

You have no clue of something as basic as when the TSA was formed, however, you expect us to take your analysis seriously about how something as complex as 9/11 was accomplished? Looks like somebody needs to get back to the drawing board and start at square one. Now I know why all of the cookie cutter debunkers are giving you a pat on the head: they're just as clueless as you are.

Is it just me, or has it suddenly become in fashion to be an uninformed ex- truther who turns into an Official Fairy Tale pimp? Funny how desperate people will do desperate things to prevent their lies and deceptions from being exposed.

"But the "controls to hit all three targets"? Hand flown. Hand-eye coordination, it's the basis of all flying. Just as it is the basis of operating an automobile. How hard would it be for you, or anyone else, to hit something with their car, if they wished to???"

Yep...because driving a car at 50 MPH on the ground is the exact same thing as flying a commercial airplane at over 500 MPH at a low altitude. And just in case you didn't know, commercial jets are not designed to fly at those high speeds at such low altitude. Therefore, the plane becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible to control, if it stays in one piece that is.