I Was A Deluded 9/11 OS'er

reply to post by DerekJR321


Perhaps you didn't know, but the 767's that hit the towers were going way faster than "cruising speed." One (the second plane) hit way faster than the other, having been at a steady descent at full throttle. Interestingly, that tower fell first... faster plane, more energy, more damage? Naaaaah, that's impossible, right?

Anyway, that's my tidbit. I don't know how the designers could have possibly "designed" the towers to withstand an airplane deliberately crashing into it. Perhaps they designed them so that if an accident like with the Empire State Building happened, the towers would be fine, but they probably never had an airliner attack in mind.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Too many things to quote back, I'll just add my points.

I've spent about 20,000 hours looking at mostly crap in my researching, how many hours have you put in to watching or reading anything you didn't agree with?
I don't see what I want to see, I see what is in front of my face. You seem to like to clump people into categories and stereotypes, which is hardly accurate.

I'm not sure how that's relevent to anything, but if you want to know, back in 2002 I was on a political forum discussing Bush's policies when it was invaded by a 9/11 truther. He was insisting "Bush staged 9/11" and when I said I didn't agree with him he called me a murderer(!) because "Bush murdered 3000 people in a fake attack, and since I was letting him get away with it, that made me a murderer too". This is how you truthers have gotten onto my radar, and I've been horrified/fascinated by you people ever since.

I've talked to many, many, MANY conspiracy people, on many different boards, so I already know what you're going to say before you say it. Yes, I watched Fahrenheit 9/11, yes, I watched Loose Change, and yes, I listened to Richard Gage and read Jones' "thermitic" report. I then looked at what the opposing side was saying and saw that Moore, Avery, Gage, Jones, Griffin, Reynolds, etc etc etc were lying through their teeth. Every single one of these characters artfully misrepresents the facts in such a way so that it appears the way they want it to appear. It's the difference between...

WHAT THE NEWS SAID: In September of 2001, immediately after the attack, Pres. Bush called representatives of the Taliban to the US and demanded they hand over Osama Bin Laden to US custody, and the demand was non-negotiable

...and...

WHAT MICHAEL MOORE CHANGED IT INTO: In the summer of 2001, pres. Bush representatives held a friendly meeting on US soil with the Taliban gov't. This was a gov't the US didn't recognize and these were the very people who were harboring the terrorist who would one day attack the US. Did this meeting have any connection to the plan to build pipelines across Afghanistan?

So between 2002 and now, that makes it, what, 55,000 hours or so?

Do you listen to yourself? "You conspiracy people"... I'm a human being who has no title or cult I belong to.
"Bush staged 9/11".... that guy is obviously not all there, Bush couldn't tie his shoes, he could dodge a shoe pretty good though.

Do you believe everything they tell you, or do you pick and choose what you prefer to believe?
The LAST thing I want to believe is that my gov't was incompetent, in on it, or did it themselves, but when you look at who gained from it, I'd have to say I smell a rat.

If I was a detective trying to solve this case, I'd be looking at who profited first, look at the motives.

Does this FDNY member seem fringe or a nutcase to you?



Just a guy with his eyes open and knows how things really work in government.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave, you know the more I hear from you the more I am convinced you have nothing to add of any substance to any thread.

Well done Jib, there is so much information there and when you start connecting the dots, a picture of how we have been manipulated by the MSM and our Governments emerge. It's not a very pleasant picture, but one everybody needs to see in order to free themselves.

I too was hooked to the cable channel for my hourly update of breaking news, but the way we were lied to concerning the WMD's in Iraq was a real wake up call for me. This one event demonstrated that not only could they lie, but they acted outside of International Law and got away with it. They must have some very powerful friends in high places not to be hauled up in front of the Hague.

I then started to research. Reacquainted myself with a guy I thought was a complete Loon, because that's what the MSM told me he was. That man was David Icke.

From there I learned more about 9/11, 7/7, The NWO/Illuminati etc.

Still not swayed on the Reptilillians though, although the people he claims are, certainly are snakes. I won't ever hold that against him however.

Once again, great counter thread.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Do you believe everything they tell you, or do you pick and choose what you prefer to believe?
The LAST thing I want to believe is that my gov't was incompetent, in on it, or did it themselves, but when you look at who gained from it, I'd have to say I smell a rat.

Who is the "they" you're referring to? When a NYFD firefighter says the fires in WTC 7 were burning out of control and that he saw a three story tall bulge in the side of the building from the fires causing deformation in the structure, yes, I do believe him. When an eyewitness in WTC 7 says the lobby looked like King Kong came through and destroyed the place, yes, I'm goign to believe him. When I talk to a woman who worked at the WTC at the time of the attack and she saw sheets of flame coming from the elevator shafts and pushing a man across the room, yes, I'm going to believe her. They were there, and I wasn't, so I'm NOT going to accuse these people of being "Secret gov't disinformation agents" simpy because they're saying things I don't want to be true.

By the same reason, I'm NOT going to accuse William Rodriguez of being crazy when he said he felt an explosion down in the basement. He was there and I wasn't, so I'm going to wonder how his statement fits into the chain of events as a whole, namely, that if the force of the fireball was powerful enough to push the elevator down numerous floors, it's certainly powerful enough to go down the elevator shaft and hit the bottom like a hammer. So yes, somethig weird could have happened AND still have a completely rational non-conspiracy explanation for it.

BTW why would you not want to believe the attack to be the result of incompetence? The US gov't's inability to even hand out bottles of water to hurricane victims in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels says rightt there that there had to be a lot more incompetence involved in handling the 9/11 attack than they care to admit, regardless of whether you want to face the fact or not. People covering up the fact they screwed up and caused the deaths of 3000 people is by definition a conspiracy, but the conspiracy people don't care about this because it's not sinister sounding enough.

If I was a detective trying to solve this case, I'd be looking at who profited first, look at the motives.

Well, I'm glad you're not a detective, 'cause the first thing detectives actually do is to get a description to see if anyone in the mug shot book fits the description. That's because odds are pretty good that whoever committed the crime committed a similar crime in the past.

Let's face it, it's not the Portuguese who have the reputation of hijacking aircraft and murdering innocent people in acts of terrorism, and it wasn't the Jehovah's Witnesses who tried to blow up the WTC back in 1993.

reply to post by Varemia


Yes. I am well aware of the speed of the plane upon impact. Are you also aware that the angle of the aircraft during the second strike took it almost completely away from the center columns? So how could there have been more damage when it hit the least structurally sound area of the building.

Second.. how could they build it to withstand an airplane strike?? How do they build bridges or buildings to withstand earthquakes? Or hurricane forces? Every single skyscraper is OVER engineered when they are designed. Meaning if it has to withstand "x" amount of force, they usually design it to withstand "x * 10".

reply to post by GoodOlDave


I'm glad you believe people because you weren't there. These men in the video below were "there" also. Are you going to now tell me there testimony is less credible?



And you still have yet to answer my last post.

S & F to the OP,

I also really like the people you listed for helping you with your "awakening"

Max Igan's video series "The Calling" is one of my favorites



I also wanted to ad another names to your list, William Cooper.

I believe he deserves to be placed among the top 10 truth say'ers



Also Michael Tsarion would be another pick of mine

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Who is the "they" you're referring to?

People who have to ask that usually believe the President is the top of the command chain.
The world's top wealthiest people getting together in a room once a year and carving countries up finer among themselves? .... what a whacky concept!

Are you sure you aren't just believing the eye witnesses/testimonies you want to believe?
Willy Rodrigues's stories throw the whole OS off right there alone. The guy's skin was hanging off his arms, how'd that happen when the elevator shafts were airtight? Not enough O2 for the flames to reach the basement.... and BEFORE the plane hit??

What about the ridiculous evidence/ lack of evidence at the crash site?
** bandana and passport found at Shanksville
** some weird plane wreckage under a tarp near the WTC
** where the Hell did the plane wreckage go in Shanksville? That hole was there in 1996 too.
** the Pentagon.... nuff said.
** WTC towers got hit at the top, but fell to the ground in an hour.... not even Jenga pieces do that.
** fires up to 1000s of degrees months after the towers fell, "it was like a foundry..."
** "pull it"
** melted cars and emergency vehicles??

I can go on and on all night if you want. Just the above mentioned warrant further investigation and scrutiny.

Then there's the strange coincidences....


9/11 witnesses...

reply to post by MathiasAndrew


So many names to mention, I tried to just give the headliners but I could have really loaded up this thread with Cooper, Tsarion, Igan, Project Camelot, Zacheria, Terrence McKenna, Chris Everad, Alan Watt, Ian Lungold, etc, etc.

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Second.. how could they build it to withstand an airplane strike?? How do they build bridges or buildings to withstand earthquakes? Or hurricane forces? Every single skyscraper is OVER engineered when they are designed. Meaning if it has to withstand "x" amount of force, they usually design it to withstand "x * 10".

Hurricanes and earthquakes are naturally occurrences which are expected, and caused structures to collapse severely in the past. The entire bridge design was changed after one massive bridge got completely destroyed.

Planes crashing into buildings does not happen every day. The only type of crash one would tend to account for would be accidental crashes, not head-on collisions at speeds way beyond recommended safety speeds for an airplane. Also, being able to withstand a crash is not the same as being able to withstand a crash along with its ensuing fire. Firefighters were unable to get attention to the damaged, flaming floors fast enough because they were so high up. If they had been able to get water to the floors, I bet the steel would have never been able to reach high enough temperatures to collapse. The water would protect it.

I personally think it's baffling to imagine an engineer in 1960 saying, "You know, we should make it so that a plane traveling around 500 mph can't make the building collapse. Totally, all we have to do now is figure out what a plane going that speed would do... anybody have a simulator? Oh, wait, it's 1960."

Originally posted by DerekJR321
I'm glad you believe people because you weren't there. These men in the video below were "there" also. Are you going to now tell me there testimony is less credible?

Of course not. They were in a building and the building came banging and crashing down around them. Of course they're going to hear explosions. Pressurized pipes, electrical transformers, fuel tanks for the emergency generators, etc are naturally going to go BOOM when they're on fire. That doesn't mean they were explosives, and I know full well these firefighters aren't saying they heard actual explosives going off.

These firefighters aren't supporting your conspiracy claims. I know this because if they did testify they heard actual explosives, the headline FIRE FIGHTERS TESTIFIED THEY HEARD ACTUAL EXPLOSIVES would have been repeated on every conspiracy web site from here to Mars. As it stands now, the only thing you have to rely on is a ten year old footage of shocked-out of-their-minds firefighters. They said EXPLOSIONS.

Besides, why are you so concerned for what they're saying, anyway? You conspiracy people are the ones insisting the NYFD planted the secret controlled demolitions in the building to begin with, or have you forgotten that little detail?

And you still have yet to answer my last post.

That's becuase I haven't seen it. There are lots of other people posting here too, after all.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
reply to post by eyesdown

 

Like Hunter Thompson, I ask the question.... Who benefits?
Who gained from the events of 9/11?
Did the terrorists as we sat there and lost our freedoms?

The US government basically said, "The terrorists hate us for our freedoms. So, to fight the terrorists, we are going to take away your freedoms!"

Am I the only one who finds that fascinating?

edit on 15-9-2011 by JibbyJedi because: (no reason given)

I am with HST's perspective on most things (that is why I have the GONZO logo tattooed on my right forearm)
I wish the man was still here with all his sanity and insanity intact. I too was a late bloomer. I never felt right about 9/11, but I too became complacent and resigned to "look into it" later. It was a few years back I ran into a copy of "Endgame" while organizing my uncles storage units after his passing, from that point I decided to make up my own mind...I will let you know when I am done with that
Do your research folks. Learn to adjust your bulls**t filters and walk the right path.


Gonzo Logo (my tat is all black no text)

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

If I was a detective trying to solve this case, I'd be looking at who profited first, look at the motives.

Well, I'm glad you're not a detective, 'cause the first thing detectives actually do is to get a description to see if anyone in the mug shot book fits the description. That's because odds are pretty good that whoever committed the crime committed a similar crime in the past.

Let's face it, it's not the Portuguese who have the reputation of hijacking aircraft and murdering innocent people in acts of terrorism, and it wasn't the Jehovah's Witnesses who tried to blow up the WTC back in 1993.

Most irrational people would jump to conclusions and accuse people just because they fit the profile. But isn't this considered racial profiling? Hope you aren't a LEO, if you are, it wouldn't surprise me...

Also what do you mean by a similar crime? Are you implying there was another 9/11 somewhere we don't know about? Where novice pilots hijack commercial airliners and perform maneuvers that even some of the experienced pilots aren't capable of doing? Who knows, maybe Allah guided the planes huh?

Just wondering, but am I the only person who thinks that the explosions for a demolition are supposed to go off "before" the building begins to come down? Why would there be bombs going off only after the collapse started, when there are a lot of heavy things now impacting other things in rapid succession?

reply to post by Varemia


Good point. Truthers used to claim (some still do, but it's less common now) that the collapses "resembled" demolitions because of the 'squibs'. But they don't. In every video of demos you see/hear the explosives go off - followed instantly by the squibs - and then there's usually a brif pause, and the building falls.

The twin towers don't look like that at all. One of the reasons I suppose for the move away from "it looked like a demo" to "phizzicks sez...".

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by DerekJR321

 

Perhaps you didn't know, but the 767's that hit the towers were going way faster than "cruising speed." One (the second plane) hit way faster than the other, having been at a steady descent at full throttle. Interestingly, that tower fell first... faster plane, more energy, more damage? Naaaaah, that's impossible, right?

Anyway, that's my tidbit. I don't know how the designers could have possibly "designed" the towers to withstand an airplane deliberately crashing into it. Perhaps they designed them so that if an accident like with the Empire State Building happened, the towers would be fine, but they probably never had an airliner attack in mind.

According to Les Robertson, they were designed to withstand a loaded 707 impact. I have to take his word for it I guess.

The Empire State was hit by a Mitchell B-25 bomber which I believe is a light bomber and not comparable to a 767 in terms of size and weight. Nonetheless, the building handled the impact and subsequent fire with ease, despite being nowhere nearly as well designed or built. I doubt if it had much bearing on the consideration of necessary tolerences for the WTC.

Originally posted by blah yada
According to Les Robertson, they were designed to withstand a loaded 707 impact. I have to take his word for it I guess.

The Empire State was hit by a Mitchell B-25 bomber which I believe is a light bomber and not comparable to a 767 in terms of size and weight. Nonetheless, the building handled the impact and subsequent fire with ease, despite being nowhere nearly as well designed or built. I doubt if it had much bearing on the consideration of necessary tolerences for the WTC.

Yeah, with the Empire State building, you have a concrete/limestone construction, and the B-25 accidentally hit it due to fog. With low speed and smaller plane in general, the damage would be very manageable.

One of the biggest issues with the WTC was the fire and the damage to the stairs and elevators. Firefighters being unable to combat the fire in time is a huge problem.

Excuse me, moderators....

This topic went from near the top of the "Newest topics getting flags" and "Newest topics getting replies" to completely invisible, except for this page - www.abovetopsecret.com...

I thought it advanced when it was removed, but it seems to have gotten misplaced perhaps?

Just curious as to where it can be located in comparison to it's counterpart thread.

U2U me if it's been removed from higher visibility for other reasons.

edit: thank you, the problem seems to have been fixed.

reply to post by JibbyJedi


Welcome to the Rabbit Hole. It's dark way down here isn't it? I'll strike a match, see if you can see me. I have been aware since my junior year of high school which was in 1975. A good teacher hipped me to the JFK Assassination, which occurred when I was in Kindergarten.

Since I attended a Catholic school the funeral of our first Catholic President was shown to us on t.v.s which were brought in for that purpose - every class in the grade school. Also since I attended Catholic school all my life I also began to research religions. What I found in this area I generally keep to myself, unless confronted by one of the more zealous.

Eventually you will find - if you have not already - that you wish you had opted for the blue pill instead of the red one. Or that there was some chance that you were horribly deluded and found suddenly that everything was alright after all. We all know in our hearts that is just wishfulness and not really possible, but wouldn't it be a relief? Wouldn't it be wonderful? I try to keep a sense of humor through all this and when that is not enough and I start to feel bummed, I open up my Microsoft Briecase and read these words by the late Bill Hicks. This was read during the first edition of Esoteric Agenda, but it has since been cut, though I cannot figure out why. On the film I am pretty sure one of the guys reading is David Icke (more on him in a moment)

“The world is like a ride in an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it you think it's real because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills and it's very brightly coloured and it's very loud and it's fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time and they begin to question: "Is this real, or is this just a ride?" And other people have remembered, and they come back to us, they say, "Hey, don't worry, don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride." And we kill those people.”

“It's just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one.”

Anyway, that is how I hang on...

Now a word of caution. About ten years ago I was Field Engineer for a telecom company. Fiber Optics and that sort of junk. I was on my laptop in the hotel room before I went to work, and I was in Omaha NE. I read David Icke saying, on his own website, that he was Dr. Cameron of the notorious Montauk Project. Hmm!

Jim Marrs, author and esteemed member here on ATS has written that Dr. Joseph Mengele worked there under the name of Dr. Black, and worked elbow to elbow with Cameron. Hmmm!

So just a word to the wise. And I have to say that I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the Reptilian Shapeshifter "theory". According to Icke, visa vis a caller, Zechariah Sitchin is one of these. I have read Sitchin and there are a few things that bother me about him, but Reptilian Shapeshifter? The American Indians believe something close to this so that lends some credence to it but still... I don't know. Sounds like disinfo to me.

As for Alex Jones, I advise caution where he is concerned also. I have several reasons for this but the most easily illustrated is this;



Did Alex think by turning the other way he would avoid disrupting the rally? We see him look right at the speakers, and the megaphone still goes up to his mouth. Why would he not want to join the organizers and show the solidarity and unity that he preaches most of the time? The more I watch this video, the more things I wonder about. Anyhow just a heads up.