10 Years after the Terror Attacks on 9/11 (Independent investigation)

Originally posted by ALF88
Where exactly did Ganser lie? One by one... lets go...

P.S.: You call other people liars without proving it, and when someone does that to you, you can't get to the ALERT button fast enough? You know how this kind of behavior is called, do you?

edit on 9-7-2012 by ALF88 because: (no reason given)

I'm putting together a huge list of stuff I'll post in a bit.

Also yes, it's called following the forum rules. When people lie in a way that I am sure of then I'll accuse them of it. I do however admit that I have been quick to accuse in the past, and try to be more moderate. The reason your posts are getting deleted is that you're not actually responding, just calling me a shill. At least, that's how I understand it.

If you think any of my posts breech the rules, please use the ALERT button on them. I should not be any exception to any rules, and indeed before I have received warnings for bad posts. Luckily more applause than warnings so far

Originally posted by exponent
How would I know the facts I posted if I hadn't watched it?

You posted earlier in the thread and admitted you had not watched it, and your comments come across like you have not watched it.

He does not present truthful facts. He lies directly, by omission and by misrepresentation. I don't know if it's intentional or not but it is incredibly unbiased.

All he presents are verifiable facts, it's only you, as usual that thinks not! How can some lie if they don't say something that you want to hear? A lie has to have substance, and if he omitts some of it then he cannot be lying about what he omitts!

I could quite easily say the same thing about the NIST report or the 9/11 commission report, because they left stuff out, but I wont even go there!

It's never going to have every finite detail that pleases you in it, but everything in it is verifiable and truthful.

Sure, he claims DRG is an "outstanding scholar"

I'll post a more full analysis later, the last 30 minutes are incredibly tedious.

If you don't think DRG is not an outstanding scholar that is up to you, doesn't mean he isn't to many other people. Nothing wrong with the last 30 mins, maybe because you do not like to see people presenting the truth.

This is faith at its most bare. You're obviously completely ignorant with regard to 911 if you think this video is remotely accurate. No unbiased video gives mere seconds to the NIST report but minutes to DRG. He literally spent more time on special pleading than explaining the official theory behind WTC7.

edit on 9/7/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)

Wow, you cannot dispute anything in this video, all verifiable facts, but yet you still deny real facts! I'm sure most people will see it is truthful, because it is, but there is always one cantankerous person, like you, that will disagree because it does expose the OS, and their failed reports for what they are, but he does it without being biased.

You obviously have beef with David Ray Griffin, and also Gordon Ross it seems, why is that, is it because they both present information that does not conveniently fit the OS you worship? If you have beef with them, then write to them, it's as simple as that.

If an independent investigation was done thoroughly in the first place, then this chap would not have needed to make that video, it's an amazing presentation, and anyone interested in 9/11 should watch it. Most will like it and see all the facts are truthful and verifiable, but there will be the odd cantankerous person that will try and shoot it down.

Originally posted by Reheat

Originally posted by thegameisup

Originally posted by samkent
Just what would you expect GWB to say under oath?

Why was Bush and Cheney not asked questions in public? Why behind closed doors?

This is the big problem, their lack of transparency.

Have you never heard of "separation of powers"? Do you know what that means and why it exists?

Why do you want to change the topic of the thread?

edit on 9-7-2012 by Reheat because: (no reason given)

Yes I have heard of seperation of powers, but that does not answer the question which was:

Why was Bush and Cheney not asked questions in public? Why behind closed doors?

Spearation of powers does not prevent Bush & Cheney from testifying in public.

I'm not changing the topic of the thread, I was replying to another member, if you were so concerned about the topic, you would not comment on this yourself.

Also, not only did I make the thread, but this very question was raised in the video, so it's definitely on topic.

I'll pose it one more time, maybe someone can answer the actual question properly?


Why was Bush and Cheney not asked questions in public? Why behind closed doors?

TONS OF LIES>>>>>

Lies....lol...ok here are a few...

1. He calls this an international research project because he lives in a different country than some people that set his up. Classic....

2. He then says a few years ago this could not have happened.- why fear monger the crowd???

3. When he first states that Cheney and Bush are corrupt..yada yada yada

4. Who forgot a war in Afghanistan happened...seems he forgot to mention the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud 2 days before 9/11....

He then says it (Afghanistan) is complicated and we will not talk about it, it is too difficult...

then he starts with the invasion of Iraq which was a UN resolution that he does NOT mention either but links it to 9/11 as well as says 85% of all combat vets in Iraq think they are there for 9/11..He is mixing two subjects and then throws in Colin Powell's testimony a month before 9/11. Now, if this was a false flag, why testify....he would have known there was an attack coming, right?


I am done pointing out the lies in this drivel and I am not 10 minutes in....it is all opinion...that is all this video is. It is not giving options to research but

Originally posted by thegameisup
You posted earlier in the thread and admitted you had not watched it, and your comments come across like you have not watched it

No I didn't, I said I skipped through it, which I did. I also promised I'd watch it in full.

All he presents are verifiable facts, it's only you, as usual that thinks not! How can some lie if they don't say something that you want to hear? A lie has to have substance, and if he omitts some of it then he cannot be lying about what he omitts!

Do you really think there's no such thing as a lie of omission?

It's never going to have every finite detail that pleases you in it, but everything in it is verifiable and truthful.

I'll show this to be false later.

If you don't think DRG is not an outstanding scholar that is up to you, doesn't mean he isn't to many other people. Nothing wrong with the last 30 mins, maybe because you do not like to see people presenting the truth.

DRG is objectively an extremely poor scholar. Most of the statements he makes are false, and easily provable, there are threads on here detailing it explicitly.

I cut out the rest of your post as it's just you insisting that the presentation is 100% truthful. I'll try and finish up a thorough response to it tonight but I already have over 100 lines of notes so it takes time.

Originally posted by esdad71
This is not an independent investigation but a collection of videos. I skimmed it because it is ALL information that has been rehashed and rehashed.

It is listed as a historical independent investigation. It is what it is.

An OSer is not defending anything and does not have to. Physics were not suspended on 9/11. 1000's of people sae planes hit the towers and Pentagon and there are 100's of videos. There are NO videos of no planes hitting the WTC or remote controlled planes. NONE. Blurry overlayed Photoshop from 2006 does not count either.

Contrary to popular belief, there are still active investigations regarding 9/11 for those who may have perpetrated or were involved or who have been captured. PENTTBOM is the largest investigation the FBI has ever had. Many of the Truthers seem to leave that out because it would hurt your argument of a total investigation.

If there is a suspicion of an inside job then the OS is under question, and if you have a good understanding of physics, you will know that NIST were not very good at presenting their data accurately.

Many people saw planes with no windows, some people heard missiles, so many differing eye witness accounts, videos can be fabricated if necessary to fit the official story, anything is possible, and the government have proved in the past they cannot be trusted (Operation Northwoods), so until a funll, unbiased independent investigation is done, with every shred of evidence analysed, and nothing left out of the report, only then can should we be satisfied.

There were 3 separate and official investigations regarding 9/11.

1. NIST- this was the determine how the buildings could have failed and prevent in the future. That is it. That is the job of NIST. Do a little research and see that they are not government appointed drones but independent.

2. Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - This is the 9/11 Commission report. It's job was to find the intel failures prior to 9/11. They did. If you read it, it will show you that the intelligence community missed opportunities and in what was a glorified pissing contest did not give key pre 9/11 documents on the hijackers.

3. PENTTBOM - This is the largest FBI investigation ever. There is a plethora of information that would allow your perception of the events that day to change.


Once you have read and investigated those 3 incidents, start to pick them apart. Do not use websites that 'point' to the same drivel...find something new. That is an investigation. I have watched every video that claims something new and 10 minutes in you hear Northwoods, remote control or thermite. I turn it off at this point because there is nothing new and as the OP stated the same arguments begin.

What,out of those THREE separate investigations, missed anything? You have the before, the during and the after investigations.

When you have a possibility of an inside job, and when the government acutally have a motive, then it would stand to reason their reports would fit the story they want to present to the public. A lot of scientific evidence was not investigated, and until a fresh, thorough, independent investigation is done, the OS will always be in question.

For example, are you happy with the Pentagon CCTV footage they released? Does it show a plane to you?

Are you happy that NIST said there was nothing about WTC7 that made them believe explosives were used?

Are you happy NIST did not test for explosives at all?

There are tonnes of questions yet to be ansered, and if they had done the job accurately first time round, then there would be no suspicions.

Originally posted by exponent
I'm putting together a huge list of stuff I'll post in a bit.

Maybe you should just stop posting until you are done. That would be better for all of us.

Originally posted by esdad71
TONS OF LIES>>>>>

Lies....lol...ok here are a few...

1. He calls this an international research project because he lives in a different country than some people that set his up. Classic....

2. He then says a few years ago this could not have happened.- why fear monger the crowd???

3. When he first states that Cheney and Bush are corrupt..yada yada yada

4. Who forgot a war in Afghanistan happened...seems he forgot to mention the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud 2 days before 9/11....

He then says it (Afghanistan) is complicated and we will not talk about it, it is too difficult...

then he starts with the invasion of Iraq which was a UN resolution that he does NOT mention either but links it to 9/11 as well as says 85% of all combat vets in Iraq think they are there for 9/11..He is mixing two subjects and then throws in Colin Powell's testimony a month before 9/11. Now, if this was a false flag, why testify....he would have known there was an attack coming, right?


I am done pointing out the lies in this drivel and I am not 10 minutes in....it is all opinion...that is all this video is. It is not giving options to research but

edit on 9-7-2012 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

Some of these questions are not relevant and not worth replying to, so I will reply to the ones that are relevant.

I dont see any evidence of fearmongering, why do you feel he was fearmongering? Your comment does not show evidence on fearmongering!

He states that Bush and Cheney had been proven to have told lies, this is fact, and well documented.

You are shooting down the video because it exposes the USA government to be liars, and shows they had a motive, and all evidence in the video are verifiable facts.

Originally posted by esdad71
1. He calls this an international research project because he lives in a different country than some people that set his up. Classic....

LOL, now that is absurd. Got nothing to do with the actual events on 9/11 and is clearly not a lie. It is an international cooperation. Nothing wrong with that statement.

Originally posted by esdad71
2. He then says a few years ago this could not have happened.- why fear monger the crowd???

Fear mongering? What has that to do with fear mongering? It is a fact that some US officials are calling people who question the official story of 9/11 terrorists. That is what I call fear mongering.

Originally posted by esdad71
3. When he first states that Cheney and Bush are corrupt..yada yada yada

That description fits almost every politician on earth. And yes they are both corrupt to the core.


Now where exactly are the lies in his presentation? Is that all you got?

Originally posted by exponent

No I didn't, I said I skipped through it, which I did. I also promised I'd watch it in full.

Skipping through is is the same as not watching it, you cannot comment until you have watched it all!

Do you really think there's no such thing as a lie of omission?

He told no lies in the video.

Do you think the 9/11 commission report & NIST was a lie because they left a lot of evidence and data out?

I'll show this to be false later.

Everything in the video can be verified, good luck with that, you will just convincing yourself!

DRG is objectively an extremely poor scholar. Most of the statements he makes are false, and easily provable, there are threads on here detailing it explicitly.

That is just your opinion, many people think he does great work.

Just because there are threads here that means jack all in the real world.

I persoanlly think 99% of what you say is false, but that is just my opinion!

I cut out the rest of your post as it's just you insisting that the presentation is 100% truthful. I'll try and finish up a thorough response to it tonight but I already have over 100 lines of notes so it takes time.

Don't rush for me, I'm not in a hurry to read more of your lies!

reply to post by thegameisup


Since you are trying to first discredit NIST and try to state I don't understand physics.etc, you start the same argument and are not presenting both sides as always....

This OP is a power point presentation that was given to a room full of people. It is what it is and the first 10 minutes, as I stated, are filled with garbage. So, since the OP is out of the way, let's start the same old arguments, shall we. I will be happy to answer your questions.....


For example, are you happy with the Pentagon CCTV footage they released? Does it show a plane to you? Rhetorical questions, as no, there is no plane in the video. However, the 1000's, not 2 or 3 who saw a jet I think I will believe. There is no jet because it was not captured based on the time frame. No conspiracy it is how they(security footage) are made.

Are you happy that NIST said there was nothing about WTC7 that made them believe explosives were used? Yes, as NIST is not supposed to test for explosives, that is the job if the FBI. If you don't know what NIST does then leave it alone.I am sorry, but there is no one on this site who can tear apart the NIST report for what it is and that is an investigation to make sure, structurally, this does not happen again. They gave the recommendations and the new WTC7 was built to its standards.

Are you happy NIST did not test for explosives at all? It is NOT the job of NIST to do that and there were no explosives needed nor is there ANY physical evidence. I would pay anything to anyone to send me definiticve proof of explosives. If you are scared you might be killed, IM me and I will take it to some government people I know and get it to the right people but it never happens. Conjecture and paint chips...

Originally posted by esdad71
Since you are trying to first discredit NIST and try to state I don't understand physics.etc, you start the same argument and are not presenting both sides as always....

For what reason does NIST hold back over 3000 files, because it could jeopardize public safety?

Originally posted by esdad71This OP is a power point presentation that was given to a room full of people. It is what it is and the first 10 minutes, as I stated, are filled with garbage. So, since the OP is out of the way, let's start the same old arguments, shall we. I will be happy to answer your questions.....

Your opinion, not based on facts, state the lies and "garbage".

Originally posted by esdad71For example, are you happy with the Pentagon CCTV footage they released? Does it show a plane to you? Rhetorical questions, as no, there is no plane in the video. However, the 1000's, not 2 or 3 who saw a jet I think I will believe. There is no jet because it was not captured based on the time frame. No conspiracy it is how they(security footage) are made.

Where is the footage of the rest of the over 80 cameras around the pentagon? Why does the FBI still doesn't make it available to the public? Got something to hide?

Originally posted by esdad71Are you happy that NIST said there was nothing about WTC7 that made them believe explosives were used? Yes, as NIST is not supposed to test for explosives, that is the job if the FBI. If you don't know what NIST does then leave it alone.I am sorry, but there is no one on this site who can tear apart the NIST report for what it is and that is an investigation to make sure, structurally, this does not happen again. They gave the recommendations and the new WTC7 was built to its standards.

Where does it say that? Sources?

Originally posted by ALF88

Originally posted by esdad71
1. He calls this an international research project because he lives in a different country than some people that set his up. Classic....

LOL, now that is absurd. Got nothing to do with the actual events on 9/11 and is clearly not a lie. It is an international cooperation. Nothing wrong with that statement.

Originally posted by esdad71
2. He then says a few years ago this could not have happened.- why fear monger the crowd???

Fear mongering? What has that to do with fear mongering? It is a fact that some US officials are calling people who question the official story of 9/11 terrorists. That is what I call fear mongering.

Originally posted by esdad71
3. When he first states that Cheney and Bush are corrupt..yada yada yada

That description fits almost every politician on earth. And yes they are both corrupt to the core.


Now where exactly are the lies in his presentation? Is that all you got?

You asked for lies and those are. Those are not truths they are his thoughts and assumptions. That is not truth. He is puffing himself up as an International collaboration as if a government body is backing him. This guy is the same as someone who rents space and talks about Bigfoot although Bigfoot is more believable than his presentation.

The fear mongering of how this investigation could not have happened a few years ago...why? The Gestapo...creating fear of those he wants to blame. Man you guys are lemmings....

Lastly, stop grouping people together based on traits. His references to Bush and Cheney are, again, weighted with personal opinion.

To conclude tough guy

This is am Open invite to ANYONE who wants to debate in an open Forum on ANY 9/11 topic. I will state this also again for those who pussied out last time...I have tried 4 separate times to debate someone and somehow it never happens...hmmmmm......


1. Message a mod and ask to set up a debate.
2. Give them my name and reference this post that I agree
3. Pick ANY topic you want.

The fact is that you are listening to someone without fact checking and jumping to conclusions based not on research but what you think is correct and agree with.

Also, for the record, I do not buy the 9/11 story myself so please do not think I am a Bush tit sucking conservative who hates Muslims. 93 is the coverup and as soon as you guys stop dicking around with the towers something might come out but right now you are only doing what they want which is what makes the "truther' so comical. It is you that perpetuates the lies and does not allow the truth.

Many of you suffer from this ...www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by esdad71
This is am Open invite to ANYONE who wants to debate in an open Forum on ANY 9/11 topic. I will state this also again for those who pussied out last time...I have tried 4 separate times to debate someone and somehow it never happens...hmmmmm......

Debate here. Why somewhere else?

Originally posted by esdad71
The fact is that you are listening to someone without fact checking and jumping to conclusions based not on research but what you think is correct and agree with.

Now, where is Ganser lying? You are still running away from answering that question, tough guy!

And I am not talking about your negligible comments on whether the study is "international" or not.

reply to post by ALF88


No, no debate here. I already made my feelings known about the OP. Pick ONE of his 12 entries and I will debate you on it. Any. You want to debate it is me and you and not you and teh star chasers in the 9/11 forums.

You seem mostly afraid because you would have to actually come up with something to contribute or actually form a few sentences or maybe even a paragraph.

33:05 Chapter 3: Conspiracies
37:10 Chapter 4: WTC 7
55:25 Chapter 5: Pentagon
59:34 Chapter 6: Put options
01:02:07 Chapter 07: Able danger
01:05:34 Chapter 08: Osama Bin Laden
01:13:53 Chapter 09: Northwoods
01:17:40 Chapter 10: Conclusion
01:20:35 Q&A: Anthrax Attacks and 911
01:21:44 Q&A: The 911 reinvestigation
01:23:03 Q&A: The press
01:27:44 Q&A: Scholars for truth

Pick one.

reply to post by thegameisup


How about I won't watch the video because I don't feel like sifting through the BS? Does that one work?

Yeah. Let's deal with straight out facts and not have to go through an entire investigation just to get the bare bones and incongruencies.

I watched the entire video, I thought it was very biased, the guy is a Truther not a historian.

At 46:30 he starts a video presentation with this video:

Daniele Ganser
"We now have firemen who say there were explosives."

As a historian he should have checked the exact location of his witnesses. It turns out the firemen in that video were not in the lobby of one of the trade towers. They were in the lobby of the Marriot Hotel when this happened.



They mistook WTC 1 collapsing on the building they were in for an explosion.

He continued the video presentations with clips from:
Eric Lawyer.
Steven Jones.
Lynn Margulis.
Tony Zamboti.
and Ricrard Gage

I didn't see him present any rebuttal video clips even though we know they exists.

To say this video is unbiased,,,,,, is a very biased statement.

reply to post by thegameisup

Why was Bush and Cheney not asked questions in public? Why behind closed doors?

Because they were being asked questions that may pertain to national security.

Originally posted by esdad71
No, no debate here. I already made my feelings known about the OP. Pick ONE of his 12 entries and I will debate you on it. Any. You want to debate it is me and you and not you and teh star chasers in the 9/11 forums.

Only one person here seems to "pussy out" and that is you.

Originally posted by esdad71
You seem mostly afraid because you would have to actually come up with something to contribute or actually form a few sentences or maybe even a paragraph.

You seem seem mostly afraid, because you would have to come up with something to contribute or actually form a few sentences or maybe even a paragraph.

I guess that's why you don't go into detail, as we can see in the following part.

Originally posted by esdad71
33:05 Chapter 3: Conspiracies
37:10 Chapter 4: WTC 7
55:25 Chapter 5: Pentagon
59:34 Chapter 6: Put options
01:02:07 Chapter 07: Able danger
01:05:34 Chapter 08: Osama Bin Laden
01:13:53 Chapter 09: Northwoods
01:17:40 Chapter 10: Conclusion
01:20:35 Q&A: Anthrax Attacks and 911
01:21:44 Q&A: The 911 reinvestigation
01:23:03 Q&A: The press
01:27:44 Q&A: Scholars for truth

Now where are the lies?

Originally posted by hooper
Because they were being asked questions that may pertain to national security.

Bush and Cheney are in danger, should the American people find out that their own government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Not national security.