9/11: Where the evidence has led me so far

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by C64Warrior

 

oNE OF THE ACCOUNTANTS escaped through the hole the "plane hit" moments after the explosion, even before the firefighters got on scene.

There was a Jesse Ventura show on this, its also on YouTube. I believe this is the person in his show, you are talking about. She was lightly injured and told everybody that there was no plane. Until she was met by some government guys while she was hospitalized. They told her to repeat her story. She had to repeat it again and again. Then they told her, there is a part they don't like and want her to tell the "correct" story. The whole thing worked to scare her, which she even was at Jesse's show where she only participated without showing her face...

Originally posted by Varemia
Instead, yup, it's just a massive circle-jerk of people drawing conclusions from the assumption that the OS is false. No one even considers the possibility. That's a huge bias and would disqualify you from any academic paper.

I am going to spell this out one more time. Hopefully you will get it.

There are two different forms of argument being used where 9/11 is concerned. One of them is honest.

The other uses appeals to pedantry, atheistic/scientistic (not scientific) materialism, bogus academia, and psychological warfare, and then falsely refers to that collection of tactics as rational argument. The primary goal of it is censorship; to use whatever method is necessary to bludgeon the speaker into silence, while still attempting to superficially resemble legitimate rational argument.

It is collectively what I could refer to as the "Wikipedia school," of argument. It is inherently corrupt, hostile, and completely devoid of integrity. I refuse to communicate with anyone who is identifiably using it.

As another point, generally speaking, as far as our different methods of thinking are concerned, I consider the science-worshipping, atheistic crowd wrong, and myself right. So don't bother trying to convert me to your own pathetic excuse for logic. I've seen far too many times, just how demonstrably false it is, and how you are being played.

reply to post by Varemia


John Lear 9/11 Affidavit

8. No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted for the following reasons:



A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.

americankabuki.blogspot.com...


B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact. (photo, www.cbsnews.com... shtml)


D. The argument that the energy of the mass of the Boeing 767 at a speed of 540 mph fails because:
a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feetabove sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.
b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to acceptthe volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.




nahhhh, it just cannot happen the way you claim. It betrays logic, physics and common sense

reply to post by C64Warrior


Her name is April Gallop, I always found her story fascinating. She had just returned from maternity leave on the day of the attack and had her baby with her on that day. She tried to sue over the 9/11 attack but her case was thrown out of court (Big Surprise eh ?)

www.thepentacon.com...

Originally posted by C64Warrior

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by C64Warrior

 

oNE OF THE ACCOUNTANTS escaped through the hole the "plane hit" moments after the explosion, even before the firefighters got on scene.

There was a Jesse Ventura show on this, its also on YouTube. I believe this is the person in his show, you are talking about. She was lightly injured and told everybody that there was no plane. Until she was met by some government guys while she was hospitalized. They told her to repeat her story. She had to repeat it again and again. Then they told her, there is a part they don't like and want her to tell the "correct" story. The whole thing worked to scare her, which she even was at Jesse's show where she only participated without showing her face...

I think the person you and hanyak69 have in mind is April Gallop. She was in the Pentagon that morning with her child and subsequently sued American Airlines for injuries and distress caused by their plane. She took the money but later decided there had not been a plane after all and launched further litigation on the basis that it was all an inside job. The judge in dismissing her case commented that her allegations were "frivolous and based on fantasy and delusion."

Her story of walking out of the Pentagon through the impact hole is patent nonsense unless she is made of asbestos. Just look at the scene :-

911research.wtc7.net...

Check the woman out; she has zero credibility.

reply to post by Alfie1


I always enjoy seeing pics like this that have arrows pointing to something...

Especially something that cannot be seen, such as "Holes".

More like just looks like a bombed out building, no definition in any "Holes" at all, really.

Yeah man, it is so obvious what happened we need some arrows to point it all out, kinda like looking at those moon pictures with no definition and being told what those Blobs are, they may be that indeed, but we cannot tell so you gotta use pointers for us.

Originally posted by GrinchNoMore
reply to post by Alfie1

 

I always enjoy seeing pics like this that have arrows pointing to something...

Especially something that cannot be seen, such as "Holes".

More like just looks like a bombed out building, no definition in any "Holes" at all, really.

Yeah man, it is so obvious what happened we need some arrows to point it all out, kinda like looking at those moon pictures with no definition and being told what those Blobs are, they may be that indeed, but we cannot tell so you gotta use pointers for us.

Yeah, you will have noticed that the picture I posted is from a truther site so take it up with them.

.The arrows had no relevance to my point.

I am still fairly new to this site. I am certainly not steeped in the 911 conspiracy theories and have really only scratched the surface of what those theories suggest (specifically) happened on that day. There are many references to those theories in this thread, so I will take some time and begin to look at what the conspiracies are proposing.

However, in the meantime, I have a couple of questions for Petrus (or anyone else on this thread that might want to answer) relating to the 911 conspiracies.

If the 911 conspiracy theories are correct, if you are correct, what are you going to do about it?

This event happened over 10 years ago, and if the majority of the American public has not been swayed into believing that those attacks were initiated by some other group than Al Queda, how will you ever convince them?

Thank you.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by psikeyhackr

 

Again......it was a "wound" to each building....and that proved fatal.

IF the WTC were constructed of more conventional design? Then, they'd still be standing......"conventional" as in typical girders, and vertical columns through-out.

This is well-covered already, in countless treatises.

So well covered a 10,000 page report can't specify the total for the concrete in the towers.

It also admits that the distribution of weight of the building must be known to analyse the impact and then doesn't have the information to do the analysis. No one ever even specifies the weight of all of the trusses and corrugated pans in the standard floor. Curious information to not have when everyone wants to blame the collapse on the design that uses those floors.

People just need a hook to hang their silly beliefs on.

psik

I have always had a niggling question.

At the very start of 9/11 the POTUS is reading a story book to some young children at a school.

It could not have been scripted any better! (Yes, I know, it was!)

Just how many Presidents have read books to school kids and how often do they do it. And George, actually reading, the mind boggles!

P

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by 4hero

 

The ('so-called') "OS" is as truthful as has been presented......it's only the silly nonsense ever since, that has polluted the narrative.

Oh, and the actual basis for "doubting" the so-called 'OS'?? Comes from the covering of butts that occurred, in the Bush administration, AFTER the fact....to "cover" up the gross negligence and intelligence failures.

So do you believe everything that is presented to you? Obviously so...

I question everything, especially a story with so many holes in it that it has turned into a fairy tale.

Keep 'believing' the OS dude, but they are pulling the wool over your eyes and somehow you fail to see this.

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by L00kingGlass

 

Huh?

Here's just the first sentence, from the OP:

The World Trade Center was destroyed via deliberate, controlled demolition.

There is NO evidence, at all, to support that assertion.

Rest is the "same old, same old" long-ago-debunked rhetoric.......rhetoric fueled by the persistence of the Internet, and the same garbage that has been posted, gets re-posted, and along comes an entire next generation of people unable to discern fact from fiction.

No evidence? Did you not see the footage of the collapses? I think that is enough evidence on it's own, but all the physics research has proven it was a demolition time and time again.

BTW, have you also not seen the numerous videos with explosions and people talking about explosions?

There are also videos of people saying the buildings were coming down way before they did.

My guess is you are on the payroll, or a very cantankerous person!

reply to post by whyamIhere


you said you wanted sources .....how about the first crew with a reporter and a video on the pentagon scene and the shanksville scene......what did they both state......minutes after the fact.....?

the first news crews, well. what did they say?

"not enough debris to fill a suitcase"......see their video, dudlious!

reply to post by petrus4


your listed item:

- I do not believe that Osama bin Laden was likely to have to been alive, much later than 2004. I do not believe that the claimed assassination of him was genuine, but was staged because the American government realised that it was stretching credibility to an unacceptable degree, to continue to claim that he was still alive at this point.

I personally think the assassination claim by Øbama... was staged principally for his record of achievements scorecard entering his 2012 re-election campaign year.

so, he will have the 'bragging rights' of doing-away with OBL, something that GW Bush could not accomplish even with a $25 million Most Wanted bounty on the al Qaida leader


fiction-made-realistic

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
I knew it was only a matter of time until certain ATSers showed up to remind those questioning 911 that they're delusional. Anytime a 911 thread pops up, they're all over it like flies on dung, they use tactics meant to wear you down and leave you scrambling for more information. I'll admit, they're good at what they do. Very good.

edit on 22-4-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)

Oh, don't worry. I'm still here.

I'm also well aware of the trolls and their tactics. I'd be very interested to know more about some of the pseudo-skeptics I've seen in the 9/11 forum. Very, very interested.

I'm not sure I believe the claims of some here, that governments actually send paid COINTELPRO people here, though. I don't think the government needs to do that. The atheists do the government's work for it very willingly, without any need to either be told or paid.

Originally posted by Another10Pin
If the 911 conspiracy theories are correct, if you are correct, what are you going to do about it?

This event happened over 10 years ago, and if the majority of the American public has not been swayed into believing that those attacks were initiated by some other group than Al Queda, how will you ever convince them?

Thank you.

This is a good question. Honestly, I'm not sure. I don't think the truth will completely come out about this, until the majority of the public want it to; and at the moment, they don't. Right now, the public are still sufficiently willing to believe what they are told, while the government has released the pseudo-rationalist hounds against those few of us who are questioning it; as you can well see in this thread.

We might get a public admission in 30-40 years, perhaps; but then again, it is unlikely, because even given that length of time, the idea that any government could be willing to do such a thing to its' own people, would destroy the credibility of the republic in general, irrespective of the administration in office at the time.

So it could well stay buried for good.

I think one thing that is definitely going to need to change, is the publically perceived definition of logic, and what constitutes rational argument. You will notice that the trolls in the 9/11 forum, are consistently those people who claim to be the most rational, when in reality, they are the exact opposite. They are cowards with zero moral or intellectual integrity; but they are also the most persistent and have the loudest voice, and at the moment, they have the public's ear.

So all we can really do is wait, and endure the inevitable rhetorical rotten vegetables that the pseudo-rational trolls will continue to throw at us.

reply to post by petrus4


So, you're not going to argue facts... you're just going to talk about how attacked you are, and how people like me are just trying to brainwash everyone? Honestly, if that was the case, there would be a lot more "OS believers" on this board. No one is that crappy at their job while still getting paid to do it.

No, I genuinely don't understand how you're drawing your conclusions. Everything seems to stem from the universal dismissal of the possibility of the "OS" being true, and then you start fantasizing about what the "new truth" might be, based on your dismissal of the initial possibility.

I see similar "tactics" from others, though I know you're not being intentionally dense. Like a religion, the belief is illogical, and nothing can sway you, no matter how much evidence there might be. Even had you seen it with your own eyes, you would swear it was holograms before you accepted that the "OS" was true.

As for the other fellow who thinks the planes could not have even hit the buildings, all based on the authority of some un-named internet experts, here's a video showing the trajectory based on the flight data from the black box found at the pentagon:



I know, I know. You think it's made up because you already dismissed the "OS" as being possible, but do you actually have any real reasons to believe it's made up? Repeatedly saying it's impossible does not validate your position. It just makes you sound crazy. What's impossible about it? Can we do any tests or simulations to prove that it is, indeed, impossible?

If we cannot even argue any points, because you refuse to make any, then this is exactly as I described it. It's a big 9/11 circle-jerk of conspiracy theorists making their egos bigger by going on a rant about the government with other conspiracy theorists. Logic flew out the window a long time ago, especially when you start sounding like "persecuted Christians" in your arguments. If your logic is sound, no argument should be able to destroy your position. It will be self-evident and provable.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Varemia

I watched the video. That does seem plausible, if the plane was brought in at a greater height above the light poles. I would have expected to see a steeper descent if the plane was still at an altitude of 480 feet, however. That seems a little odd.

Have you seen many pictures of plane wreckage outside the Pentagon, at all? I didn't see any of that myself, which was another point.