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

Originally posted by thegameisup



48:24 "This people come forward and say there were explosives bang bang"

Did the firefighters really say that? No.

What investigation did he accomplish? NADA ... he pretty much took foot notes from every leading truther out there and threw them on a PP Presentation. He offered nothing new.

It's an independent historical investigation. I think you are totally missing the concept of the video.

Okay... lets KISS this. (keep it simple stupid)

Was there any information and or evidence provided in the video that was new to you? What did you learn?

It was a history of 9/11 from the angle of a historian, it was not meant to offer anything new, but he presented it in a new way, never siding with inside job, or terrorists.

No, it wasn't. It was a power point presentation of CT's collected over the past 8+ years.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by thegameisup



48:24 "This people come forward and say there were explosives bang bang"

Did the firefighters really say that? No.

What investigation did he accomplish? NADA ... he pretty much took foot notes from every leading truther out there and threw them on a PP Presentation. He offered nothing new.

It's an independent historical investigation. I think you are totally missing the concept of the video.

Okay... lets KISS this. (keep it simple stupid)

Was there any information and or evidence provided in the video that was new to you? What did you learn?

It was a history of 9/11 from the angle of a historian, it was not meant to offer anything new, but he presented it in a new way, never siding with inside job, or terrorists.

No, it wasn't. It was a power point presentation of CT's collected over the past 8+ years.

Iam not a historian, and I do not think like a historian, so what I learnt is the way they view 9/11 from the angle of documenting the history of it.

It showed me that there are serious issues when documenting history, especially with when politics and war are concerned.

The 9/11 information was not new to me, I didnt know a lot about able danger, or the anthrax situation, but it only briefly touched on them anyway, it was more the way the inforation was presented, and the perceptions and different views people have, based on the information that they personally receive that interested me.

Again, I do feel you missed the whole concept of the video.

Originally posted by thegameisup

he showed a video of firemen talking about secondary explosions, in fact 3 explosions just from those firefighters,

Let me post this for you again, You obviously missed it the first time.

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.

Originally posted by thegameisup

Why is it a fallacy?

I said 'IF', so if the OS is in question, which it is by many people, then thsoe same people will question everything they are told relating to 9/11 that is presented by the government. That stands to reason.

Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers a logical fallacy.[1]

A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false, relevant or irrelevant) about person A (the target) is presented by another. (e.g., "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail.")

Although it has not been proven in an American court that the governemnt were involved in 9/11, it certainly is the belief of many people based on many factors that we discuss here daily, and also because of many other factors throughout history.

Flat Earth Society


theflatearthsociety.org...

Mission Statement
The mission of the Flat Earth Society is to promote and initiate discussion of Flat Earth theory as well as archive Flat Earth literature. Our forums act as a venue to encourage free thinking and debate.

Moon Hoaxers:

THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN TO PROVE, ONCE AND FOR ALL, THAT WE ARE NOT BEING TOLD THE TRUTH ABOUT THE NASA FILM FOOTAGE OF THE APOLLO MISSIONS. THIS WILL ASTOUND EVEN THE MOST HARDENED SCEPTIC AND CONVINCE MANY PEOPLE THAT THE WHOLE APOLLO MOON PROJECT OF THE LATE 1960's AND EARLY 70's WERE A COMPLETE HOAX. VIDEO LINKS ARE PROVIDED SO YOU CAN WATCH WITH YOUR OWN EYES THE 'OFFICIAL NASA FOOTAGE' THAT PROVES THAT WE REALLY HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

So if people think the American governement are not to be trusted, they will also think that these figures can be fabricated.

Do you feel that this is a logical way to look at evidence?

The trust for American government is diminishing.

I believe it was... but I haven't seen any current reliable data....do you have some?

Originally posted by waypastvne

Originally posted by thegameisup

he showed a video of firemen talking about secondary explosions, in fact 3 explosions just from those firefighters,

Let me post this for you again, You obviously missed it the first time.

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.

What you have to undertsand is English is not his native language, he does make a few English errors, Swiss/German people do pronounce words slighly wrong at times, I used to go out with a Swiss/German, and she used to make me laugh with her pronounciations.

However, after his wrong pronounciation, he shows the clip, and in that clip, the viewer can clearly hear firemen saying 'explosions' so they would have been able to realise what he meant, and draw their own conclusions from the video. If they were in any doubt themsleves, they had the video to clarify. You're making something out of nothing, trying to pick at this presentation, weh nthere is nothing to pick at.

It's all about the context and the concept of the presentation.

As for the firefighters, that pictures proves nothing! You are also incorrect, they were in the lobby of WTC1!

reply to post by thegameisup


Now you are making excuses for him...

Originally posted by thegameisup
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

Also, you should have posted this link, for Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth

www.ae911truth.org...

It says 1701 Architects & Engineers, and 14, 841 other supporters.

I posted the link to AE 9/11 petition... go back there and count the Architects. Tell me if there are 1,500 like your "historian" states.

reply to post by Six Sigma


What is all that unrelated crap you posted?!? Hahaha!

Mixing it up with some wacky non-related stuff huh!

I believe it was... but I haven't seen any current reliable data....do you have some?

There may be a poll out there if you really want to search for one, but listening to public opinion is enough to tell me the trust in the American government is going down hill fast.

reply to post by Six Sigma


I've already answered this!

No need to repeat myself!

Originally posted by thegameisup
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

What is all that unrelated crap you posted?!? Hahaha!

Mixing it up with some wacky non-related stuff huh!

Flat Earthers
Moon Hoaxers
9/11 Truthers

The point is that they are all theory based groups (or indepedent). They all have two commonalities: Theories devoid of proof and failure to comprehend facts when they are presented.

Originally posted by thegameisup


As for the firefighters, that pictures proves nothing! You are also incorrect, they were in the lobby of WTC1!

They were in the lobby of the Marriot Hotel that is a fact.

Originally posted by waypastvne
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.

As someone who is trying to look credible and provide accurate information, you certainly must not have watched the video you posted. The firemen explicitly state that they were in the lobby staging area waiting to go upstairs.

Why would they want to go upstairs in the Marriot Hotel? The Marriot had not been hit by a plane, nor was it on fire. The command center was inside the lobby of the north tower.

Originally posted by waypastvne
They were in the lobby of the Marriot Hotel that is a fact.

I'll ask you to provide proof of this fact. Again, the firefighters had no reason to go upstairs in the hotel when the towers were the ones on fire and hit by planes.

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by thegameisup
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

What is all that unrelated crap you posted?!? Hahaha!

Mixing it up with some wacky non-related stuff huh!

Flat Earthers
Moon Hoaxers
9/11 Truthers

The point is that they are all theory based groups (or indepedent). They all have two commonalities: Theories devoid of proof and failure to comprehend facts when they are presented.

They unconnected, different topics, cannot be remotely compared!

NIST based a lot of their data on theories, why did you exclude NIST from that group, therefore OS'ers too?

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

I'll ask you to provide proof of this fact.

Tyrone Jackson is the fireman on the left. Check the number on his helmet he is with ladder 24.

My name is Tyrone Johnson, firefighter first grade, assigned to Ladder 24.......


Then maybe about five, ten minutes later, we were ordered to go into the Marriott Hotel. At that time the company and three other companies in front of us went inside the Marriott Hotel......

We went to the Marriott. We got inside the lobby. The chief told us take your gear off, relax, until you find out what you want us to do.
Maybe 10 or 15 minutes later he gave us the command put the gear on because we're getting ready to head upstairs. There were about three companies in front of us. We were the last company to go up the steps. Maybe about five minutes into the process of going up the steps, that's when the building collapsed on us.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

The firefighter on the right is James Duffy.

James Duffy. CHIEF CONGIUSTA: Firefighter third of
Ladder 24 of the New York City Fire Department....

We were told to report to the south tower, but the only way to get to the south tower -- you couldn't walk down Liberty Street to get into the main entrance because of the jumpers and the falling debris, so we had to go in through the corner entrance of the Marriott, which is on West and Liberty. We went in there......

over there right next to us. 22 Truck was in the lobby also. Then we were just waiting to go into the south tower. As we were waiting, we looked up and all I saw was -- I heard this huge noise, and I saw hundreds and hundreds of people running towards us. They were running out of the south tower to the Marriott, to the lobby.

We just turned. We started to like run also. We got about ten feet before getting blown across the lobby. We got blown across the lobby, just got covered with debris.

graphics8.nytimes.com...


Happy now ?

I love how this has gone from an independent investigation to what firemen said.... this is classic ATS 9/11 forum goodness...

Originally posted by esdad71

I love how this has gone from an independent investigation to what firemen said....

this is classic ATS 9/11 forum goodness...

Yep, that's the whole idea. Just keep changing the topic from crap to more crap until it wears everyone down and they just leave in disgust. That way they win! Something or other....

Deleted....

Originally posted by thegameisup


It's a very balanced presentation, investigating the history of 9/11, it presents all the known accurate facts, and it is put across in an interesting way. It's not just another 'truther' video, it is never biased to one side or the other,

Could you please give us the timestamps of when he provided evidence in support of the "official story".

I watched the entire 1:29:48 of this Little Swiss Witch Hunt. I must have missed the part where he balanced out the evidence he presented for the Official Truther Story.

Originally posted by thegameisup



However, after his wrong pronounciation, he shows the clip, and in that clip, the viewer can clearly hear firemen saying 'explosions' so they would have been able to realise what he meant, and draw their own conclusions from the video. If they were in any doubt themsleves, they had the video to clarify. You're making something out of nothing, trying to pick at this presentation, weh nthere is nothing to pick at.

Here is another quote from James Duffy the fireman on the right.

I cherry picked it myself. Enjoy.

Q. When either tower came down, did you have any advanced warning?

A. Oh, no. I didn't know what it was when we were inside. I didn't know the building had collapsed, actually. I thought it was a bomb. I thought a bomb had gone off. That's why I really didn't know until after.

Q. Afterwards?

A. Yeah, that that's when it came down. I wasn't expecting that. I thought it was a bomb or something that went off.

Q. Glad you made it.

A. Yeah.

Q. Thanks for the interview.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Don't you think a fair and balanced presentation should have this quote in it ?

Originally posted by thegameisup
Fighting on forums like this is just a waste of time, it turns into personal competitions, and it's just not about that, and as intelligent adults, and people that want to see the best for our planet we should at least try and work together with the data we have available and push for a fresh investigation that will resolve the whole 9/11 saga once and for all. Surely everyone wants to know the whole story, and not just part of the story?

Indeed, however I find it outstanding that people cannot seem to debate a topic properly. Nearly everytime someone posts in this forum who has an alternative view to what the conspiracy theorists think they get jumped on even if they provide their reasons why they think 9/11 was carried out by terrosists. Personally, I don't believe 9/11 was an "inside job" because I just can't understand why the government would want to destroy what was the heart of its financial industry and before anyone suggests this was over oil don't even go there. At that time there was no collective need for oil. Yes, there are some discrepancies with the official story and I have read various threads on here although generally after two or three posts they descend into bickering and trying to score points against each other. Perhaps what would be better is if a thread was created that FULLY compared the original story and the conspiracy theory as well as the original news and eye witness videos from that day. Until I see definitive proof I am sticking with the original story.