A question for believers or 'OSers'....

Originally posted by GenRadek
You want to investigate 9/11? Start there. Dont go looking for magical thermites, fake planes, and silent but powerful explosives, and thousands of paid off potential whistleblowers that had a hand in committing the worst case of treason since Benedict Arnold.

edit on 8/14/2011 by GenRadek because: (no reason given)

have you yourself investigated the massive failure and collossal display of negligence and incompetence of the tptb on 9/11? if not, do you have any recommendations for resources where one can find such information? do you know of a "debunker" website where they cover that certain aspect of 9/11? also, have you seen video evidence of both collapses? what do they look like? start there. also, forget about enron. there. start there too. cheers.

Originally posted by Cassius666
Who are you calling missinformed? One of the architects compared an airliner impacting the WTC to a pen being stuck into a mosquito net, the pen would simply fit between the mashes. I think the people who designed the WTC know their stuff.

Yet another truther lie - the person who made that statement was not in anyway involved in the design or construction of the WTC, as you very well know!

I believe that the bottom line to 9/11 or any other large event that happens world-wide or in the US, is the American public, as a whole, are apethetic. We're living in a land and time where we are so over-run with information, that people just shut it off.

The staunch supporters of the OS are generally enjoying the fruits of their labor and don't want their world to change or be modified in the slightest. Therefore, they will believe whatever the OS is that happens to come their way. They are too busy with their own lives to be bothered.

The down trodden, however, are anxious to see real change. We know that Oz is corrupt and we would like to see a better world. "It is easier for a camel to go through the head of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven."

Are 9/11 conspiracy theories still relevant? Thought they all got hammered down and dismissed? Oh well. There's always gonna be a few folks who will believe anything they read on a forum or see in a film made by some dude with Final Cut Pro on his Mac in his attic, and faced no threats or anything from the federal government if the government was actually behind the 9/11 attacks.

Here's what I believe and the most logical (even though theorists will claim I don't know anything and I'm just a sheepie. Yep, me. A Ron Paul sheepie. Go me) story behind September 11th:

-We support Israel.

-We enter the Middle East, military wise.

-Our troops stay in Saudi Arabia.

-A militant, who was grateful for our assistance and aid in fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, became furious at our foreign policy.

-He organizes a group and carried out multiple attacks on US targets in Africa.

-Clinton launches missile attacks in response but no success at actually capturing or killing Bin Laden, the angry militant.

-Bush receives warnings about possible attacks but does not take them seriously and dismisses them, claiming they were "historical documents" and not actual warnings.

-The attacks of 9/11 take place.

-The country finally wakes up.

-The country thinks we were attacked for our "freedoms."

-America is no longer awake.

-Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and now Libya were all attacked since 2001 in the name of the "War on Terrorism."

-Bin Laden is shot in the head by the Seals.

-The US continues to occupy the Middle Eastern countries.

-Nothing is learned.





Solutions to avoid future Islamic terror attacks:
-Abolish foreign aid to Israel.
-Pull troops out of the Middle East.
-Stay out of the Middle East's issues and problems and business.

Thanks.

Originally posted by donbot1000

The staunch supporters of the OS are generally enjoying the fruits of their labor and don't want their world to change or be modified in the slightest. Therefore, they will believe whatever the OS is that happens to come their way. They are too busy with their own lives to be bothered.

100% Wrong. We believe the events of 9/11 are exactly why we need to change our foreign policy in drastic forms ASAP. The longer we support Israel's occupation of Palestine, the longer we keep our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the longer we keep dropping bombs on Yemen and Libya, the longer we keep harassing Iran, the more likely we are to develop more enemies who are willing to carry out the same and perhaps more horrific style of attacks like the ones we witnessed on September 11th.

reply to post by vipertech0596

Until you wake up to reality and understand that it wasn't scattered, random fires and it wasn't just lightly damaged, you are never going to get away from your delusions about WTC 7.


Once you do wake up, you will start to realize how wrong most of the rest of your ideas about 9/11 are.

You didn't explain how fires could cause the core columns to fail symmetrically, you just told me to "wake up" and talked about my "delusions".

First off, I never said the building was "lightly damaged", I said it was asymmetrically damaged. Second, it was scattered random fires, because fire does not burn symmetrical, and there was not a fire burning on the left side of the building on floor 8 while a fire simultaneously burned on the right side of building 8, and so on in a symmetrical orientation.

So the fires were random and asymmetrical, as was the damage from the falling debris, making a symmetrical collapse impossible. I will repost what I said so maybe you can actually try to debunk something rather than calling facts "delusions":

For the building to collapse symmetrically, the steel columns would have to be severed symmetrically, and the idea that fire could do this is insane. If the symmetrical failure of the columns was off by even 2 seconds, the building would not have fallen straight down.

I'm always told it's an assumption that explosives were used to bring down the towers, because there was fire damage in the building and it looked pretty bad. However, there is a MASSIVE assumption used by official story believers: the assumption that fires scattered randomly throughout the building caused the core columns to fail symmetrically within milliseconds of each other, meaning that they burned for the exact same amount of time at the exact same temperature in a symmetrical orientation.

The odds of fire and falling debris causing that to happen are astronomically slim; the odds of explosives causing that to happen in a controlled demolition are almost 100%.

Believing in fires causing a 1 in 1,000,000 symmetrical collapse is delusional.

Are you going to back up your assumption that the fire/falling debris damage caused a perfectly symmetrical failure of the columns within milliseconds of each other? Because that is a huge assumption, you can't just say "there was damage to the building", and expect everybody to believe that a next to impossible symmetrical collapse occured because there were fires burning.

The fires were asymmetrical, as was the damage from falling debris, making the official story of the collapse impossible. I take back my previous statement, it's not next to impossible, there's not even a 1 in 1,000,000 chance of that occurring, the damage pattern that the building sustained could not have possibly caused a symmetrical collapse.

You believe a fully impossible theory and call me delusional and tell me to wake up.

reply to post by sir_slide

Thanks for the response TUPAC! Was waiting for you to appear. WTC7 is just a giant alarm bell, its interesting that [color=limegreen]no one seems to be addressing the point.

Exhibit A: vipertech, unless you count pointing out the glaringly obvious fact that the building sustained fire and falling debris damage as debunking a fact-filled analysis of the requirements of a symmetrical collapse.

reply to post by sir_slide


I can tell by your questions and responses that you are a reasonable and genuine
man who is only out for the truth of how 9/11 went down, no matter how ugly.
Although alot here (and elsewhere) dismiss and ridicule (without proper investigation)
the whole notion of video and victim fakery on 9/11, the vast amount of evidence speaks
for itself. I will direct you to two links which, if you are genuine,
you will investigate (though it make take time) and evaluate the conclusions arrived at
based on logic and common sense. It appears to be beyond any reasonable doubt
that 9/11 was a massive haox with most of the broadcast footage consisting of
computer generated imagery and most of the victims themselves being computer
generated identities with no basis or existence in reality. Although it is a shocking
notion to the newcomer, the more you look into it, the more sense it makes.
The main stream media are implicated as being complicit in the scam along
with many other areas and sections of society. It is far easier to get people on
board a mass hoax than a mass murder. This would also more reasonably explain
the continuing silence of most governments on the 9/11 issue. I hope you will take
the time to go through the groundbreaking and paradigm shifting links and come to
see the extents of the corruption that is now so widespread worldwide.

9/11 Video Fakery Evidence
9/11 (Victim+Other Fakery) Revealed

Originally posted by pshea38
It appears to be beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was a massive haox with most of the broadcast footage consisting of computer generated imagery and most of the victims themselves being computer
generated identities with no basis or existence in reality.

One thing about the conspiracy theorists is as time passes, their conspiracy theories get stupid and stupider.

Just when you think they reached the depths with their silly conspiracy theories with mini nuclear weapons and beam weapons from space, they come up with the silly theory that 9/11 never actually happened at all....

Originally posted by sir_slide
......

Mohamed Atta (one of the main hijackers) was a coc aine snorting, vodka drinking hedonist who spent much of his time prior to the attacks motor boating strippers and doing lines of coke off them. He had even gone into the world trade center building completely out of his mind demanding blue prints for the building and generally acting deliberately suspicious. Few problems here. Extremist Muslims, especially martyrs are likely by definition to be incredibly religious, well needless to say Atta's behavior does not seem to fit here, it seems more like the behavior of a deranged hedonist. This doesn't fit.

That sounds like perfectly normal behavior for a man who knows he's about to end his own life. I'd spend a whole lot of time with strippers too.

The idea of the furiously devout Muslim suicide attacker is a lot like the idea of the chivalrous knight; it makes a good story, but the reality is a little less black and white. Very very many of the computers seized in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., belonging to extremists who were either stopped prior to or who had already carried out a suicide attack were packed to the brim with any and all pornography you can imagine, and a lot that you wouldn't want to. Human nature is still human nature.

Originally posted by sir_slide
The hole that was left in the side of the pentagon. We are told that without a doubt, a Boeing 757 slammed into the pentagon. Well sorry but the hole is absolutely tiny and anyone who payed attention can clearly see that a Boeing 757 would make a far larger hole, and there would also be a great deal of debris laying about. Donald Rumsfeld was also seen clearing the Pentagon lawn after the 'attack', pretty odd for the secretary of defense to do that. I would also like to know how people think that the hijacker who apparently flew the pentagon plane, who could barely handle a single engine Sesler according to his American flight instructor, was able to make such difficult maneuvers and actually successfully hit the pentagon.

I have a good friend that was working at the Pentagon that morning. He helped clear debris from one of the hallways in order for the emergency response teams to look for survivors. He's convinced that the pieces he pulled away that day were from a plane. I'm pretty inclined to believe him seeing as he's got his flight certification and he's a good honest man with more examples of that than I have time to type.

As for Rummy "clearing" the lawn....I would too. That's a show of solidarity, get's the troops working hard, lifts the spirits a bit. I don't think he meant a damn bit of it, mind you, just that the man's a good manipulator.

On to the flying...I'm not a pilot, but I did go rock climbing once. Part of an outing my unit put together. I climbed up the part of the wall they picked out, or so I thought. Turns out, I strayed to the right and into the more advanced section of the wall. That section included little leaps you had to make, which I did. When I was done, people were telling me how insane it was, and that I must have done that before because it was an advanced maneuver. Never underestimate the power of ignorance to risk to overcome lack of training.

Originally posted by sir_slide
The pentagon is one of the most protected and secure buildings in the US. It has missile defense systems that automatically take out incoming targets, as it is a military zone and an absolute no fly zone for a 30km perimeter. So what happened? Do you really think that a 757 could make it all the way to the pentagon without having any issues? Norad's missile defense systems would have shot it out of the sky before it got anywhere near the pentagon.

And where would that plane have come down? If I understand the approach correctly, Metropolitan DC. That, above all else, makes me think it was a comedy of errors rather than an evil scheme. Taking out more civilians in a failed attempt on the Pentagon would be better press, and better for them (by not breaking their own stuff in the process), than what occurred. I hope that made as much sense as it did in my head.

Originally posted by sir_slide
Building 7. How can a building that was not hit by any plane, apparently had no explosives in it and only some tiny fires on a couple of floors collapse demolition style, in free fall? People may say that it was damaged when the towers fell. Why didn't other buildings collapse like that then?

Because they weren't as heavily damaged? That one was easy.

Originally posted by sir_slide
The exercises taking place on that day. Military exercises were taking place that day that predicted the exact same situation that was took place on 9/11, a lot of fighter pilots and so forth thought that the actual attacks were an exercise so they did not respond to the threat out of confusion. Strange that, not really relevant but the same thing happened on the day of the London bombings.

There's a Military exercise taking place every single day. Is it odd that the exercise going on was remarkably similar to what was actually occurring? Very. Could there be information they had on that day that has since been buried (to cover up their folly), that they were practicing for with this exercise on exactly the wrong day? I'd say most likely.

Originally posted by sir_slide
The explosions. Many many people have said they heard explosions on the ground and in the basement, witnesses saw their friends killed by exploding walls in the basement. So if we listen to the hundreds of witnesses claiming to have heard explosions, then who planted the explosives, video evidence has also revealed explosive flashes occurring as the towers fall. So do you believe there were no explosives? or that the terrorists planted them and the commission was just too lazy to investigate it or?

Which walls? What kind of explosions? Why point the explosion toward the interior of the basement (where the people are) instead of toward the load bearing structures and foundation? I think it is more likely that in a panicked, stressful, and unfamiliar situation moving at a fast pace, peoples memories of the events and the time line of events is a bit skewed. I've seen it many times with After Action Reports conducted after a firefight.

reply to post by pshea38


Thank you so much. I will definitely look into those links. And you're right, I really just want to find out what happened, I don't find the arguments that support the OS to be compelling in any sense, it seems very fabriacted to me. Thanks again and I will certainly look into it. Cheers


reply to post by RedGod


Really great response here. I'll have to look over it as it's pretty big, but thanks for that.




So far Tupac seems to have provided more meaningful date in regards to my points.

reply to post by TupacShakur


And you still spew about random fires and spout off about symmetry, when all the actual evidence shows you don't know what the heck you are talking about. You can post all the cute videos showing demolition you want......and they don't prove squat. Any investigation into the collapse of WTC7 is going to be an educated guess, and we had that investigation already.

reply to post by RedGod

That sounds like perfectly normal behavior for a man who knows he's about to end his own life. I'd spend a whole lot of time with strippers too.

Agreed.

The idea of the furiously devout Muslim suicide attacker is a lot like the idea of the chivalrous knight; it makes a good story, but the reality is a little less black and white. Very very many of the computers seized in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., belonging to extremists who were either stopped prior to or who had already carried out a suicide attack were packed to the brim with any and all pornography you can imagine, and a lot that you wouldn't want to. Human nature is still human nature.

Yeah, I don't think there's really anything too suspicious about some guys partying and having a good time before killing themselves. Maybe there is some suicide bomber procedure that I haven't read, but it sounds normal to me.

I have a good friend that was working at the Pentagon that morning. He helped clear debris from one of the hallways in order for the emergency response teams to look for survivors. He's convinced that the pieces he pulled away that day were from a plane. I'm pretty inclined to believe him seeing as he's got his flight certification and he's a good honest man with more examples of that than I have time to type.

IDK about the Pentagon, it's a sketchy location. First, we have a small hole for a massive aircraft, and not a ton of large debris on the lawn but a decent amount. Then there's no video evidence of the airplane hitting, and only some witness testimonies to rely on. Some of these testimonies however contradict the official flight path and say the plane made a different approach, making the light pole damage impossible. Then the guy who's taxi was actually damaged by the light poles has a wife who works for the FBI, and flat out admits that 9/11 was planned, he was involved in it and didn't want to be. But then there's photographic evidence of damage caused by the engines of a commercial airliner.

Taking all of those things into consideration, it makes me think that a commercial aircraft could have hit the Pentagon, but since Lloyd England claimed that it was planned and he was used, it makes me wonder why it's even necessary to have him there? Physical evidence of the flight path? And how could those responsible for the planned attack manuever such a large aircraft so precisely, striking the light poles according to the plan, and flying just a few feet above the ground before striking the building?

It's a lot to think about.

As for Rummy "clearing" the lawn....I would too. That's a show of solidarity, get's the troops working hard, lifts the spirits a bit. I don't think he meant a damn bit of it, mind you, just that the man's a good manipulator.

I agree with you here, he's the Secretary of Defense, and even if we was involved in the planning of the attacks, he could have just been out there as a show of publicity or showmanship, getting the "troops working hard" as you put it.

On to the flying...I'm not a pilot, but I did go rock climbing once. Part of an outing my unit put together. I climbed up the part of the wall they picked out, or so I thought. Turns out, I strayed to the right and into the more advanced section of the wall. That section included little leaps you had to make, which I did. When I was done, people were telling me how insane it was, and that I must have done that before because it was an advanced maneuver. Never underestimate the power of ignorance to risk to overcome lack of training.

IDK if you can compare rock climbing to flying a commercial aircraft with expert precision. Based on the testimonies of people who had seen that guy fly, he could barely control a single engine aircraft, yet he hopped into a Boeing 757 and pulled off a crazily accurate manuever with no apparent trouble. That's a detail that's always had me doubting the official story of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon.

Because they weren't as heavily damaged? That one was easy.

No way dude, WTC7 is proof of a controlled demolition. Asymmetrical falling debris and fire damage cannot cause the core columns of the building to fail symmetrically and within milliseconds of each other. That's impossible according to the official story, but completely possible in a controlled demolition.

There's a Military exercise taking place every single day. Is it odd that the exercise going on was remarkably similar to what was actually occurring? Very. Could there be information they had on that day that has since been buried (to cover up their folly), that they were practicing for with this exercise on exactly the wrong day? I'd say most likely.

Since the fighter jets were sent far away from where the attacks went down, I've always had the impression that this was intentional. Whoever made that decision wanted our air defense system to be crippled, allowing the planes to strike and allowing the false flag attack to go down. But I think we eventually got it together and shot down the Shanksville plane, plus testimonies of those in the military back the shot-down Shanksville theory.

Which walls? What kind of explosions? Why point the explosion toward the interior of the basement (where the people are) instead of toward the load bearing structures and foundation? I think it is more likely that in a panicked, stressful, and unfamiliar situation moving at a fast pace, peoples memories of the events and the time line of events is a bit skewed. I've seen it many times with After Action Reports conducted after a firefight.

No, these testimonies of explosions:

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by pshea38
It appears to be beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was a massive haox with most of the broadcast footage consisting of computer generated imagery and most of the victims themselves being computer
generated identities with no basis or existence in reality.

One thing about the conspiracy theorists is as time passes, their conspiracy theories get stupid and stupider.

Just when you think they reached the depths with their silly conspiracy theories with mini nuclear weapons and beam weapons from space, they come up with the silly theory that 9/11 never actually happened at all....

You are so obvious mr. Poor. Whoever is paying you is paying you too much.
Because you are terrible at your job.
The notion of video fakery is out of this world right?
You should take a break and go take in a movie sometime.

???get stupid and stupider???? Hahaha
It was the fool who followed the fool!

Check it out yourselves folks, and Don't be said and lead by turncoats.

9/11 Video Fakery Evidence
9/11 (Victim+Other Fakery) Revealed

reply to post by vipertech0596

And you still spew about random fires and spout off about symmetry, when all the actual evidence shows you don't know what the heck you are talking about. You can post all the cute videos showing demolition you want......and they don't prove squat. Any investigation into the collapse of WTC7 is going to be an educated guess, and we had that investigation already.

What "actual evidence" shows that I don't know what I'm talking about? There were some fires and falling debris damage? We know this.

For a building to collapse symmetrically, the damage to the supports would have to be symmetrical. Don't believe it? Prove me wrong with experimentation or another example in which the supports of something were severed asymmetrically and it produced a symmetrical collapse. You won't be able to produce those results though, because it's impossible.

You haven't even established your stance, do you believe that the damage that the core columns sustained was indeed symmetrical, or do you believe that a symmetrical collapse does not require a symmetrical damage pattern?

Tom Sullivan, an explosive technician, explains the requirements for the collapse of WTC7, and explains how a controlled demolition must have brought down the building because fire damage causing that is not possible: The collapse of WTC7 is impossible, at least according to the official story that fire and falling debris damage caused it.

There is nothing you can say that would make it possible, because your words cannot alter reality and change the asymmetrical damage pattern that the building sustained. There is literally nothing you can say that will change that fact, so don't even bother responding because trying to prove how the impossible is possible is a waste of your time.

reply to post by sir_slide


I do not believe they "did everything they could" but you should rethink your idea about the hole in the pentagon. An airplane will disintegrate when it comes into contact with things like building materials, leaving a relatively small hole compared to the size of the aircraft. If you have any information to support the claim I'd love to hear it. I do think a 757 actually hit the pentagon though. Whether or not it did so on a clean trajectory is also another point of argument. Trying to land one of those things is difficult. Trying to hit a building within a city, dead on for maximum damage, would be difficult at best, impossible at worst.

Originally posted by sir_slide
reply to post by pshea38

 

Thank you so much. I will definitely look into those links. And you're right, I really just want to find out what happened, I don't find the arguments that support the OS to be compelling in any sense, it seems very fabriacted to me. Thanks again and I will certainly look into it. Cheers

No problem. I think you will find your worldview transformed.

Just a drop in the ocean of clear evidence of video fakery:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8ee638e4c766.jpg[/atsimg]

Half the plane has melted into the building before any hole has even appeared!!
This is of course impossible in real life, where immediately upon impact, a hugh
fireball should be observed, with most of the wreckage plummeting to the ground,
with the much weaker aluminium plane unable to penetrate the hardened steel columns.
So we must be dealing with something other than a snapshot of Reality


Also: Doesn't 9/11 truth movements Mannie Badillo bear a remarkable resemblance
to 9/11 'victim' Robert T. Lane? Hmmm.
Again just one example in an ocean of peculiarities, oddities and co-incidences!!


Mannie Badillo
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3affeb47820.jpg[/atsimg]


Robert T. Lane
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bbc8b252e393.jpg[/atsimg]


You will discover just how big a role Media Fakery has played in virtually All
major news events in the last 10 years, and beyond, (up to and including recent events
in Norway). We are being played (for fools) Big-Time.

Good luck Sir. Don't let it Slide

reply to post by pshea38


I would like to know what the benefit of hoaxing said video would be, and what point it intends to prove, as far as I can see it seems very legitimate, how and why could/would you try to fake such a video? There is so much footage available it doesn't seem clever to even attempt this. And what would be the point? To prove some holographic theory??


I'm confused as to what you are trying to illustrate by your post....

Thank you though, I let nothing slide. My eyes are wide open and asking for some answers. I have always been awake, just haven't craved such a stimulating wake up call....[

ETA: Good points Tupac, staying on topic would be really helpful for the thread, it tends to make people look like they're needlessly distracting and derailing.. The more I read the more I understand the frustration.........

Let's keep it on topic guys.

reply to post by pshea38

You're looking at all of the wrong "evidence". Who cares about whether or not the videos were faked (I don't think they were), that's not important, and that's sure as hell not enough to convince official story believers of anything.

Focus on the facts dude.

reply to post by pshea38


Different nose, different cheeks, different ears and different lips. Yep, that's the same guy. Good grief.

Originally posted by samkent
I think people believe the main points of the OS because it’s backed up by respected news outlets and the evidence presented by people in respected positions.
None of the evidence presented by the truther side comes from respected sources. Or the conclusions drawn by the truthers are flawed.

Much like your report of missile batteries protecting the pentagon. It is flat out wrong. And your conclusion that the Pentagon should be protected with active defense systems is also wrong.

According to you it was tested and it failed? Just when was this missile fired? And since it failed it must have missed its intended target drone. And since it missed its drone it must have fallen somewhere in DC. So who’s house was blown up by this errant missile?

Just who would give the OK to fire a live missile in one of the most heavily populated areas on the east coast? This is just another example of the silly premises the truthers use to prop up their beliefs in some grand conspiracy.

To my knowledge there are no active missile batteries protecting anything in the 50 states. We are not at war with any country that might attack up from the air. The military could not justify the cost to congress. And they are not going to use their regular funds for this purpose at the exclusion of other projects. Now ask yourself just when was the last attack from the air on US soil? Uhh 1941? So why do we need them now? Do you want to pay more taxes for this purpose?

Care to explain how 116ton 757 jet holding 22,000 gallons of jet fuel can pulverize 500,000 tons of concrete(10,000psi) and mild steel.?


Cause the government can't.. they expect people like you (who don't know jack about construction) to drink the koolaid with ease.