New 9/11 witness and ground zero worker tells his story

BTW... The ones discrediting themselves, are the ones that are so stuck on their insane conspiracy theories, that they don't bother to see the reality of that day. That way, it remains status quo for that nightmare called Washington D.C.

So insane conspiracy theories huh.

Its not a theory if its backed up with solid evidence.

3 Buildings defying physics is not a theory.

Nano-Thermite being found in 4 seperate samples by Steven Jones and his peers, that is not a theory.

Able Danger evidence getting destroyed is not a theory.

Why the evidence was destroyed is another story. You say it was so they can cover their asses of incompetance, but that is mere speculation backed up with zero facts.

Now tell me this....why would they destroy the evidence before anything happened? Yes thats right, they were ordered to destroy the evidence in 2000. That isn't covering up inompetance it is destroying damning evidence about something that is going to happen in the future.

www.nationalreview.com...

In fact if they presented it im sure they would have all got a promotion and delayed the false flag at least for awhile. So in that sense they were trying to hide compitance.

Again obviously you just come up with the best answer that fits your story. Show me evidence to the contrary and not just mere opinion.

At this point, why a person defends the official story and refuses to consider the truth staring them straight in the face is more a matter of psychology than interpretation of facts.

The discussions here on ATS are a very good example the point I am making above.

There are a number of individuals who argue for the official story and if you read one or two of their comments they seem to make sense of at the least what they write is not totally unreasonable.

However, if you read a dozen or more of their comments you see a pattern espeically when you read the comments they make about subjects other than 9/11.

Many of the 9/11 official story supporters support all official stories on every subject.

You could say they swallow all government propaganda and the mainstream media fairy tale in one gulp.

Now, we should be able to read a single comment and judge it on its validity and not judge the writer first and the disregard the comment based on the fact that we do not like the person's general orientation. You will notice however that some members on this site just disrupt all serious conversations with discrediting comments so maybe it is fair to discount what they say.

Obviously, at the highest levels the Bush Administration tried everything in their power to block an honest investigation of the crime of 9/11 and as you said "experts" seem to want to block any and all unofficial investigations by claiming anyone who even asks a question about 9/11 is crazy.

We have the same thing here on this site and if you notice it is the same few members who do the same thing.

As I said, reading one of their comments might leave you with the impression that they are interested in a real discussion but if you read many of their comments you will see clearly that their real intention is to block all challenges to 9/11 as your experts in the German documentary and the Bush Administration did.

Why they do that I am not quite sure but as I said at the start it is a psychological issue they have not a result of a reasoned examination of the facts.

Originally posted by ManFromEurope
Some days ago there was a documentary about 9/11 here in the German TV on N24.

They let "experts" do some debunking of (in my opinion) very serious questions like "other steel towers burned for days without breaking down, why not the towers?" - the answer to this was NOT "these towers were hit by planes therefore weakened" but "steel gets weaker in those temperatures", without explaining why other burning skyscrapers didn't crash.

The whole show was like this - they raised a critical question and let some guys answer them usually in a way which showed that those experts thought that the questioneer was a crazy man even thinking about this. "Those people should stop worrying about these physically obviously possible incidents!"

Were did Flight 93 go? Yepp, straight in squashy moorlands, directly above some collapsed mines. Thats why there was no large hole or huge masses of debris or wingparts or whatever. They are soooooo deep in the mud right now!


I stopped looking after about 15 minutes of this, it was so absolutely biased I couldn't endure more of it..!

You do see the pattern here, don't you?

We have four of the main ATS deniers on this thread.

I did not write "9/11 alternative narratives" deniers. I wrote deniers without qualification because they deny everything except the official story on every subject.

The deniers not only deny specific conspiracies but all conspiracies and deny the possiblity of a conspiracy.

Or wait, I should say that they deny all conspiracy on the part of groups they see as being on their side.

I am sure they feel that there are and were Communist conspiracies and fascist conspiracies but their fellow ideologues would never under any circumstance attempt a conspiracy.

This sort of denier even denies that Iran / Contra was a conspiracy!

Originally posted by Wizayne

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by Wizayne

 

The shafts were unsealed by the large airplanes crashing into them. And each tower had at least one shaft that ran the entire building.

Wow, sounds like a SOLID defense.
2nd line. solid.

reply to post by godfather420


Able danger gathered evidence in a way that was considered illegal. They were ordered to destroy it, so no one would get fired/charged with criminal activity (especially their superiors) another example of the bureaucratic crap I posted about. Their information should have been acted on then...but the lace panty bunch of our government did not want to be seen as violating people's rights or the law, so the evidence was destroyed.

reply to post by BRAVO949


No, Iran/Contra was a damn good plan till the cargo plane got shot down. Iran gets crappy weapons missing certain parts, the Contras get aid, and we get some of our hostages back. We couldn't negotiate directly for them, and the lace panty bunch had a cow every time the military did something in the 80s, so they tried something else.

reply to post by BRAVO949


Try actually reading his post.


Able Danger was ordered to destroy their evidence in 2000. Now, who was President in 2000? It wasn't George Bush, nor was it Dick Cheney. Oh yeah, it was Bill Clinton....you know, the guy whose NSA stole documents from the Natioanl Archive and one of whose Justice Department appointees (Jamie Gorelick) ended up on the 9/11 Commission?


But go ahead and keep believing the "Bush family is all-knowing, all evil" crap...."

Just in case anyone read what I had to say today and did not believe me, read the posts following my original posts just above this post.

There are some people that are so locked into an intellectual box and I use the term "intellectual" with total abandon in this case, that they just can not see how ridiculous they sound to reasonable people.

All I had to do was to bait the hook with Iran / Contra and the usual bottom feeders, to mix a metaphore, jumped to the surface, were blinded by the light of day and bit.

I really wish that more Americans understood the details of the Iran / Contra conspiracy and knew why it was wrong on every level. To be more specific, if Americans can grasp the proven fact that a small rogue group within the government can defy every rule and every principle then then can understand how and why 9/11 happened and how it was covered up.

Again, it just shows the profound ignorance of some that they can scream about the Constitution in one breath and then argue that Iran / Contra was a good plan in the next breath.

Message to all the honest well-meaning contrbutors on this site.
**************************************************************************

When you argue with deniers you argue with an example of the personality you see in this short video.



He lied, then he lied about lying, then he said he couldn't believe he had lied and 50% of the American public swallowed it as a reasonable statement.

By the way I am not here to argue with anyone, especailly with people who are not arguing at all but just demonstrating their psychological issues with life and reality.

reply to post by BRAVO949


Our Constitution does not apply to Iran, Nicaragua, Lebanon or to any of the Islamic nut jobs we have captured in the Middle East. Period. It applies to the United States and it's citizens. We had our citizens taken captive by Islamic terrorists in the 80s, we as a nation were duty bound to get them back. We also had a Soviet puppet state (Nicaragua) trying to establish itself as a base for the Soviet Union on our continent. (don't believe me....start researching Soviet documents that became public in the late 90s)

Were the Contras 100% good? Of course not, but at the time we had a common enemy. We also had a large chunk of Democrats hellbent on destroying our national security, so they fought tooth and nail against the majority of the things Reagan wanted to do. They even wanted to let those hostages disappear forever. Oliver North was detailed to find a way to take care of the Contras and find a way to bring the hostages home since direct military action was never going to fly.....thanks to people like Ted Kennedy, Tom Foley et al.

So Col North found a way to do it. And it was working, we started getting them home one or two at a time. Till that cargo plane went down and the plan came apart, thanks to a bunch of glory seeking politicians bent on making political hay. Several hostages ended up spending years more in captivity because of it.

reply to post by BRAVO949


You mention rules and principles as if you truly believe that. That lumps you in with the bureaucrats who in the name of what they think is right, make it so Marines stand guard with unloaded weapons in combat zones, so American servicemen are not allowed to defend themselves until they have been shot at, makes it so the CIA cannot tell the FBI about a suspected terrorist because the way they gathered the info was against the rules.

If breaking a politicans rule means saving someone, I will do it everyday of the week.

Originally posted by Godhood
pair this with the missing gold,

What missing gold? it was all recovered.... but do not let that fact get in the way of your silly conspiracy theory.

As usual, dogs howling at the moon.

I wrote my comment above to prove the sort of personality that defends the official story is a certain personality type that is not interested in a real discussion and only interested in denying anything that does not match their black and white world-view.

An honest person truly trying to understand what happened on September 11, 2001 should watch the video in the original post and ask themselves if it supports the official story then read what the deniers are saying and how they are saying it and ask themselves if the deniers are really trying to make a positive contribution to the discussion.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by dannotz

 

The only person I am aware of to claim an explosion prior to plane impact was William Rodriguez. He has little credibility because of the way his story has developed over time. He was working in the basement and his account from the time refers to a rumble , nothing about an explosion below. As pointed out in this item, what would have been the point of an explosion below the basement when the collapse obviously originated from the impact point :-

www.911myths.com...

Willy's story is part of the OS propaganda barrage. Yeah folks, that's right; Willy is a shill.
William Rodriguez is a Fraud

reply to post by BRAVO949

To be more specific, if Americans can grasp the proven fact that a small rogue group within the government can defy every rule and every principle then then can understand how and why 9/11 happened and how it was covered up.

I no longer buy the alleged "fact" the group was either small or rogue. Conquest and plunder has been official US policy for hundreds of years. Manifest Destiny, anyone?

"This report contends that not only were the buildings targets, but that specific offices within each building were the designated targets. These offices unknowingly held information which if exposed, subsequently would expose a national security secret of unimaginable magnitude. Protecting that secret was the motivation for the September 11th attacks. This report is about that national security secret: its origins and impact. The intent of the report is to provide a context for understanding the events of September 11th rather than to define exactly what happened that day. Initially, it is difficult to see a pattern to the destruction of September 11th other than the total destruction of the World Trade Center, a segment of the Pentagon, four commercial aircraft and the loss of 2,993 lives. However, if the perceived objective of the attack is re-defined from its commonly suggested ‘symbolic’ designation as either ‘a terrorist attack’ or a ‘new Pearl Harbor,’ and one begins by looking at it as purely a crime with specific objectives (as opposed to a political action), there is a compelling logic to the pattern of destruction. This article provides research into the early claims by Dick Eastman, Tom Flocco, V.K. Durham and Karl Schwarz that the September 11th attacks were meant as a cover-up for financial crimes being investigated by the Office of Naval Intelligence(ONI), whose offices in the Pentagon were destroyed on September 11th."

Source

Due to the nature of the story, and the accompanying secrecy, details and “mainstream” source material are understandably hard to find, giving mainstream media reason to discount the story. None the less, the revelations produced by Heidner expose a motive that makes much more sense than the B-movie script version we are all familiar with. When 911 is investigated as a crime, and not an act of terrorism, what can we surmise by examining what was accomplished? The main goals appear to have been intended to at least:

1. Destroy evidence of institutional lawlessness in government, finance, military and business.
2. Silence investigations into the above.
3. Demolish the white elephants known as the Twin Towers.
4. Provide pretext for world war and hegemony in the guise of the Global War on Terrorism.
5. Allow the continuation of a culture of plunder and corruption

Source

Originally posted by BRAVO949
At this point, why a person defends the official story and refuses to consider the truth staring them straight in the face is more a matter of psychology than interpretation of facts.

The discussions here on ATS are a very good example the point I am making above.

There are a number of individuals who argue for the official story and if you read one or two of their comments they seem to make sense of at the least what they write is not totally unreasonable.

That's because they do make sense. Isolate any "individual" part of the 9/11 story and the conspiracy line soon falls apart. The only way to keep it alive is to step back and go "yeah, but if you look at everything in its entirety something isn't right. And what about Building Seven?"

However, if you read a dozen or more of their comments you see a pattern espeically when you read the comments they make about subjects other than 9/11.

Many of the 9/11 official story supporters support all official stories on every subject.

You could say they swallow all government propaganda and the mainstream media fairy tale in one gulp.

Now, we should be able to read a single comment and judge it on its validity and not judge the writer first and the disregard the comment based on the fact that we do not like the person's general orientation. You will notice however that some members on this site just disrupt all serious conversations with discrediting comments so maybe it is fair to discount what they say.

This is the most illogical - indeed anti-logical - comment possible. Basically you're saying that you want to discredit points based on who the person bringing them happens to be.

Can you see why that is essentially ad hominem, and ridiculous? You're going to let yourself say "Yeah, your point is a good one, but basically because you are you I don't have to address it."

Obviously, at the highest levels the Bush Administration tried everything in their power to block an honest investigation of the crime of 9/11 and as you said "experts" seem to want to block any and all unofficial investigations by claiming anyone who even asks a question about 9/11 is crazy.

Truthers always say that debunkers swallow everything governments say. I don't see any evidence of that here. In fact most "deniers" think the government performed a coverup during the investigation process!