Finally there is an independent investigation, and not a word about it on ATS?

reply to post by coyotepoet


Saying that details like scientific research don't matter is of course a giant cop out. Each time one of these "many, many sources, including eyewitnesses and video" is highlighted it turns out to be either wrong or a baseless assertion. Then the truther says "Yes but it is not just this issue, it is many many more".

Many many wrong sources do not make up a correct big picture.

reply to post by VBarbarino


actually not a single wall would need to be opened up....all the lift shafts were in the core structure.....remove sections of the core and voila' you have a collapse that takes on the look of a pancaking effect.....blasts then stay internal to the structure....and people fail to think about the Cd as in normal Cd's windows are removed....this was not normal....would not have the same look or even sounds of a normal CD.....the whole point being as always.....WHY was not all options of investigation on the table in the first place.....SIMPLE.....coverup.

reply to post by -PLB-

Saying that details like scientific research don't matter is of course a giant cop out. Each time one of these "many, many sources, including eyewitnesses and video" is highlighted it turns out to be either wrong or a baseless assertion. Then the truther says "Yes but it is not just this issue, it is many many more".

I'm not saying that scientific research doesn't matter, just that there are other aspects to consider as well. I wonder how many of those "wrong or baseless assertions" were intentional. Have you ever heard of the idea of an "agent provovateur?" They are pretty popular when you want to discredit one side of things and they are used. Whether they are used for this i don't know, but it certainly is within the realm of possibility.

Heck, as I pointed out in a post above and then in another thread, even a few of the Senators that were on the 9/11 Omission have admitted that the investigation was incomplete. I personally am not sure about the truther side completely, but I am sure there is something fishy about the OS and it stinks to high heaven.

I'm glad though, that despite the incomplete investigations, the unfollowed up on leads, and the general indication of cover up that you have your mind made up so solidly that you can ridicule the people that are questioning and disagree with you and the OS. Good for you.

Originally posted by SmArTbEaTz

Originally posted by Human_Alien
Okay okay, I'll bite. Forget the James Randi connection. Maybe irrelevant but of ALL forums, I find that one to be interesting.

First I have to ask, was that dust-piece authenticated as dust from WTC buildings? If so, how? Many buildings were in ruins afterward, how can they tell WTC dust from Holiday Inn dust?

Now, where does it say that every single molecule of dust would contain traces of thermite? Is every single piece of dust, inflicted? What if for argument sake, denotations were set off: In basement. 10th, 20th, 30th, 40th, 50th, 60th and 70th floor. Would dust.....from the 110th story, show signs of thermite from the floors below?

Is kerosene compound stronger than thermite?

Could 3 months of fire extinguishing and fire-hose water, saturate and dissipate traces of thermite? Or is thermite everywhere, at all times, forever and ever?

This is what I asked pteridine but he answered it like a politician... No real answer... Is it really that hard to say "I don't know" and cut your losses?

Oh good. Glad I'm not alone.
The whole idea of testing 'dust' to conclude an investigation, 10-years later sounds ridiculous.

However, on the flip side, if ANY dust, from ANYWHERE at ANY time contains thermite, explanations need to be given. The opposite of that, as ironic as it is, is irrelevant. Conclusions sometimes can't work when applied in the wrong manner.

reply to post by coyotepoet


At most I ridicule people who make baseless assertion or flat out lies and present them as truth. Those people deserve to be ridiculed. They mock the motto of this site.

reply to post by pshea38


not positive and i could be waaaaay wrong on this but i think independence day used extensive models and gas filled bags for explosions so i think that video you posted is not cgi but a model going boom (i could be thinking of a diffrent shot but i know the fireball caused by the alien motherships beam was not cgi)www.cracked.com...

reply to post by -PLB-

At most I ridicule people who make baseless assertion or flat out lies and present them as truth. Those people deserve to be ridiculed. They mock the motto of this site.

I can't disagree with you there. Point being that just because there are people like that does not mean that there is no truth to the truth movement, nor does it automatically make the OS unquestionably so.

Originally posted by coyotepoet

 

I can't disagree with you there. Point being that just because there are people like that does not mean that there is no truth to the truth movement, nor does it automatically make the OS unquestionably so.

So at what point does the truther movement lose all credibility at "wanting to find the truth"? Someone comes along and says "there were no airphones in the planes" and that's been shown to be false. Someone else comes along and claims "thermite was found in the wreckage" and that's been shown to be false. Yet another person comes along and claims "the core columns were cut" and that's been shown to be false. A whole other person comes along and claims "there were no fires in WTC 7" and THAT's even been shown to be false. Again and again and again, the truthers come along and make a claim, and again and again and again their claims have been shown to be false.

At what point do you say, "well, maybe all these reports showing it really was a terrorist attack might have something to them after all"? Or do you simply continue looking through every garbage can and beneath every rock until the end of time becuase you're "so sure" a conspiracy has to be hidden somewhere?

More to the point, when we say the truthers WANT there to be a conspiracy and they're simply grasping at any straw that allows them to continue believing in them, how is it wrong?

Originally posted by KilrathiLG
reply to post by pshea38

 

not positive and i could be waaaaay wrong on this but i think independence day used extensive models and gas filled bags for explosions so i think that video you posted is not cgi but a model going boom (i could be thinking of a diffrent shot but i know the fireball caused by the alien motherships beam was not cgi)www.cracked.com...

edit on 4-3-2012 by KilrathiLG because: (no reason given)

Just an visual (1996) technological illustration! The point being it could have been
realistically faked for the silver-screen, which it was!
A non-issue to have faked the twin towers collapse, CGI- wise, even way back when!

The point proven:
www.septemberclues.info

But so much more subsequently:
www.cluesforum.info

We Were Punk'd, Big Time!
Do yourself a favour! It is well past serious.
Seriously!

reply to post by GoodOlDave

At what point do you say, "well, maybe all these reports showing it really was a terrorist attack might have something to them after all"?

I'm not arguing that it wasn't a terrorist attack. But the question of who was pulling the strings, who set it up, why 3 buildings fell, all of the strange coincidences. Those are still open. Why wouldn't the President testify alone and under oath? There's a lot more ground than just that.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
I'm not arguing that it wasn't a terrorist attack. But the question of who was pulling the strings, who set it up, why 3 buildings fell, all of the strange coincidences. Those are still open. Why wouldn't the President testify alone and under oath? There's a lot more ground than just that.

I don't find those events "strange coincidences". Two building fell because jet liners crashed into them, and burned for over 1 hour. Another building fell after burning uncontrolled for 7 hours. Those are not coincidences, but the intentions of the hijackers, so it happened on purpose. Of course no one could predict the extend of the damage in advance.

All the claims that the damage we saw is impossible has been debunked. There is left one huge argument from incredulity. But just because a couple of people can't imagine that 2 jets can cause the observed damage, doesn't mean it is impossible. It just means that those people lack the proper knowledge, imagination or intelligence, or a combination, but think they do have the proper qualification to make such an assessment. That is why you will never see anyone come with the physics that show how it could not happen. Its just meaningless remarks like "conservations of momentum" and "newtons 3rd law", the physics that show these laws are in any way violated by the official story are nowhere.

Your point is mainly that you have an overall "feeling" there is something fishy. Well, maybe there is, maybe there was foreknowledge or something like that. We can''t be sure there was not. But, the only way to show your feeling to be correct and convince others is to show evidence. And of that, there isn't any. Feelings often turn out to be wrong.

Anyway, this is getting a bit off topic. The actual topic is why the truth (chips are paint) is not big news in the truth movement.

Originally posted by coyotepoet

 

I'm not arguing that it wasn't a terrorist attack. But the question of who was pulling the strings, who set it up, why 3 buildings fell, all of the strange coincidences. Those are still open. Why wouldn't the President testify alone and under oath? There's a lot more ground than just that.

The two possible reasons that come immediately to mind are...

a) any discussion on what the gov't knew about Al Qaida would necessarily involve how it got the information, and Bush knew that revealing too much information would jeopardize sources we would desperately need in the war on terror. It'd be like someone demanding Eisenhower reveal the names of the French resistance agents slipping the allies information on the Germans just before Normandy.

b) Bush was a little boy sent to do a man's job and he knew it was his own incompetence that allowed the attack to succeed, and he needed a coach to be there with him because he didn't want to admit that a drunk guy lying in his own urine in a back ally on Saturday night would have been a more effective president than him.

There are a number of possible reasons for why Bush would want to testify behind closed doors and with someone else. The issue I have is that the truthers are deliberately ignoring all the reasonable ones and going straight to the outrageous "sinister secret plot to take over the world" paranoid ones. May I ask why?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

There are a number of possible reasons for why Bush would want to testify behind closed doors and with someone else. The issue I have is that the truthers are deliberately ignoring all the reasonable ones and going straight to the outrageous "sinister secret plot to take over the world" paranoid ones. May I ask why?

“Pearl Harbor” It has been known for quite some time that the Untied States had no intention of entering World War II. The attack on pearl harbor was out right incited and allowed to happen. F.D.R. purposed on febuary 11th 1941 sacrificing 6 cruisers and 2 carriers at Manila to get into war. (PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT AND THE COMING OF WAR 1941 pg. 424) In March of that same year he sold weapons and ammunition to belligerents Europe which is a violation of international law. There were warnings in advance of the attack but was ignored and allowed so F.D.R. could have his war.

1964 ” The Golf Of Tonkin” In 1964 the American people were once again fooled into going into war. Whats known as “The Golf of Tonkin” incident was the pretext to enter war with Vietnam. It was claimed that Vietnamese P.T. boats fired upon U.S. destroyers, provoking an attack, which led to the U.S. invasion of Vietnam. Only one problem….IT NEVER HAPPENED. It has been declassified, it is part of the historical record.

March 13th 1962 “Operation NORTHWOODS “Operation northwoods” was a covert operation, that was put to paper that planned to stage terrorist attacks in the United States as a pretext to war with Cuba. This plan described such events : 1. Start Rumors (many). Use clandestine radio. 2. Land Friendly Cubans in uniform “over-the-fence” to stage attack on base. 3. Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base. 4. Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans) 5. Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires 6. Burn aircraft on air base 7. Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations This Document goes on for quite some pages in which it desribes the hi-jacking of a commercial airliner via remote control. Blowing the aircraft up over the ocean and blaming it on Cuba Below is the pdf of “operation northwoods” where you can read the entire document.northwoods

www.truthusa.info...

Smedley Butler Two-time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley Butler explains the situation better than I can. From his book, War is a Racket: I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Read more: www.disclose.tv...

Just a few lapses in judgement that led to wars. No big deal. Certainly doesn't point to long term family controlled affairs. Prescott Bush worked for Brown Brothers.

1931 The Puerto Rican Cancer Experiment was undertaken by Dr. Cornelius Rhoads, under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, infects human subjects with cancer cells. He later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. While there, he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.

Rhoads, of the Cecil Rhodes, Rhodes Scholar family, Round Table, CFR, etc,

1945 Project Paper clip is initiated. The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence, and the CIA recruit Nazi scientists and offer them immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top secret government projects in the United States.

1950 In an experiment to determine how susceptible an American city would be to biological attack, the U.S. Navy sprays a cloud of bacteria from ships over San Francisco. Monitoring devices are situated throughout the city in order to test the extent of infection. Many residents become ill with pneumonia like symptoms.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

1953 CIA initiates Project MKULTRA. This is an eleven year research program designed to produce and test drugs and biological agents that would be used for mind control and behavior modification. Six of the sub projects involved testing the agents on unwitting human beings.

1994 Senator John D. Rockefeller issues a report revealing that for at least 50 years the Department of Defense has used hundreds of thousands of military personnel in human experiments and for intentional exposure to dangerous substances. Materials included mustard and nerve gas, ionizing radiation, psycho chemicals, hallucinogens, and drugs used during the Gulf War .

There's a really long list here:

www.thetalkingdrum.com...

Rockefeller of Standard Oil of which Smedley Butler spoke so highly. Rockefeller a senator. Heck, Nelson Rockefeller was Vice President. Who was around the White House when he was VP under Gerald Ford?

White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld (1974–1975) Dick Cheney (1975–1977)
Director of Central Intelligence George H. W. Bush (1976–1977)
In 1975, Rumsfeld was named by Ford as the youngest-ever Secretary of Defense

en.wikipedia.org...

So back to 9/11, when we had another oil man No Bid Halliburton Cheney as Vice President (did you know that there were more Cheney's than Bush's in Skull and Bones, and there were a lot of Bushes. Sometimes there were up to 3 Cheneys in a S&B class of 17. In 1923 There was a Bush and Cheney in Skull and Bones together.)

[from lists published in Anthony Suttons book about S&B]

We see the same players that were all stirring around the Ford White House with a Rockefeller. Only in America can the Director of the CIA rise to not only become President, but also be the father of a President surrounded by his buddies.

When you think about it he went from Director of CIA to Vice President in 4 years. Is it not then suspicious when just 69 days (good occult number by the way) into Reagan's presidency there is an attempt on his life by John Hinkley Jr.? Especially when (and I love this "coincidentally" almost as a footnote) his family and the Bushes are tight?

Coincidentally, Hinckley's father was a financial supporter of George H.W. Bush's 1980 presidential primary campaign, where Bush was Reagan's closest rival for the Republican nomination prior to becoming his Vice President. Hinckley's older brother, Scott, had a dinner date scheduled at the home of Neil Bush the day after the Reagan assassination attempt.[19][20] Neil's wife Sharon indicated in a newspaper interview the day after the shooting that Scott was coming to their house as a date of a girlfriend of hers, and that she didn't "know the brother [John]" but understood "that he was the renegade brother in the family." Sharon described the Hinckleys as "a very nice family" and that they had "given a lot of money to the Bush campaign."[21] In another coincidence, Neil Bush had lived in Lubbock, Texas, in 1978, where Hinckley lived from 1974 to 1980.

en.wikipedia.org...

4 years and 69 days! That's okay though. I suspect Reagan was what he was, an actor. So you have 8 years of Bush as VP followed by 4 yrs of Bush as President, followed by 8 years of Bush pal Clinton, only to have the baton literally handed to Bush Jr by the Supreme Court for another 8 years surrounded by daddy's buddies. That's almost a family dynasty.

Sorry for the digression but I thought it was necessary to establish the moral and ethical character of actors within the government and intelligence agencies as well as a willingness to sacrifice American people to draw us into war.

Do you honestly think that because it was admitted that it has stopped? That is the height of naivete if you do. Fool me the first thousand times.

And then there is the PNAC report.

So forgive me GoodOlDave, if I believe in an, as you so derisively say, "outrageous sinister secret plot to take over the world"

American scientists are nothing like I've seen on TV. It appears as though scientific study is never conclusive and always open to interpretation.

Please...please...please collect some samples and ship them to Miami at CSI headquarters. Ask for a guy named Horatio. His team will analyze the samples in a couple of minutes, and have the culprits in custody by sundown.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
American scientists are nothing like I've seen on TV. It appears as though scientific study is never conclusive and always open to interpretation.

Though there is a large range in the degree of conclusiveness. For example, the study by Millette is very conclusive, while the one by Harrit is not at all.


Some interesting additional information (I got this from JREF, but don't shoot the messenger), one of the tests that is very conclusive in showing what the material is, is called FTIR. Quoted from the Harrit paper (page 26):

Indeed, the red chips can be ignited using a torch and they have properties of a pyrotechnic nanocomposite. All the required ingredients are present – aluminum, iron, oxygen, silicon, and carbon – and they are incorporated in such a way that the chip forms (and sometimes ejects) very hot material when ignited. The Gash report describes FTIR spectra which characterize this energetic material. We have performed these same tests and will report the results elsewhere. We note that polymers in the matrix may be responsible for absorption of MEK and the subsequent swelling which we observed [29].

So they already had those results in 2009, but never released it. Why have they never reported those results elsewhere, if they show that it is indeed thermite? I can think of only one reason, Harrit and his team know it is not thermite, and are lying through their teeth. Millette also did this test and did include the results. It of course showed beyond any doubt it is not thermite but paint.

Just another example that the truth movement has nothing to do with truth. If you still give any credit to Harrits team, you are either incredibly gullible, or you are a liar too. If you realize you have been lied to, maybe it is time to start questioning other aspects of truth movement too.

Me thinks thermite or no thermite is irelevant to the whole 9/11 issue. Too much time is spent debating it, while time is slowly passing by. It's quack science if you ask me. We've been led to believe that science is about facts and drawing conclusions from those facts...yet both sides have "scientists" which contradict each other's conclusions. You have pilots claiming (and I regard pilots as scientists when it comes to debating avionics or piloting skills) that it's impossible for the untrained pilots to slam that jet in the Pentagon at that angle, yet you have also some of them claiming that it is doable. You have experts saying it's a controlled demolition, and other experts saying it's not. We are obviously not going to get the answers from experts. Other side can always bring their own expert who will claim differently. Experts saying it's thermite, others say paint. You have eye witness testimonies claiming they heard bombs go off, others say there weren't bombs. Some say they saw a plane, yet some media reported men saying they saw a missle. In the mean time, reading and watching all this, you can get seriously mind fu****d.

I'll have to reject everything since there is no uniform perspective of the events, which is really really weird and sad, since it was an event witnessed by many, and as if it is a matter of an opinion..they have different "truths"...which than leads me to conclude that...we indeed do create our own reality whether it is polluted by expert conclusions or our own ignorance.

IMO, more important issues are things that escape my primitive logic. For instance, why didn't the FBI disclose all videos confiscated of the Pentagon hit? What is there to hide? What grave security measures can account for that undisclosure of important evidence?

Why did Bush stop any investigation in to the Bid Laden family ?

Why did the white house members refuse to give their testimony on record?

Why was Able Danger Lt. Schaffer ordered not to disclose any info concerning the hijackers to the commission ?

There was at least one proven fake fireman hero story, which leeds me to question...are there more ?

I have many more questions as I'm sure many of you do. I like to go by my, hopefully, common sense about some things.

I claim...truth needs no hiding by the innocent...only the guilty. And no amount of "classified" or "top secret" stamps will convince me otherwise.

Originally posted by plube


actually not a single wall would need to be opened up....all the lift shafts were in the core structure.....remove sections of the core and voila' you have a collapse that takes on the look of a pancaking effect.....blasts then stay internal to the structure....and people fail to think about the Cd as in normal Cd's windows are removed....this was not normal....would not have the same look or even sounds of a normal CD.....the whole point being as always.....WHY was not all options of investigation on the table in the first place.....SIMPLE.....coverup.

Can you please explain how you get into the shafts and plant these bombs?

Obtaining access into the hoistways in a building like the WTC - covertly wouldn't be possible. ACE Elevator had technicians on property 24 hours a day. Eighty Mechanics were on duty on 9/11.
You need to be a licensed elevator technician to be allowed access into these areas. IF you know anything about the unions in NYC, you too would realize your plan is bunk.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

The issue I have is that the truthers are deliberately ignoring all the reasonable ones and going straight to the outrageous "sinister secret plot to take over the world" paranoid ones. May I ask why?

Because that's the way they live their lives.

Every red light is a government event just to delay them by another 45 seconds.

reply to post by Six Sigma

Can you please explain how you get into the shafts and plant these bombs? Obtaining access into the hoistways in a building like the WTC - covertly wouldn't be possible. ACE Elevator had technicians on property 24 hours a day. Eighty Mechanics were on duty on 9/11. You need to be a licensed elevator technician to be allowed access into these areas. IF you know anything about the unions in NYC, you too would realize your plan is bunk.

There were people that worked in the building that reported that they saw ceiling dust on tables in the morning in the week or so leading up to 9/11. Drop ceilings are good access points.