Let’s Agree to Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument’s

Revealing the truth about 911 is the ultimate weapon in the hands of the Zionists....They will keep American government their hostage for years or decades to come,to make sure if they go down they drag you down with them as well....Let's face it what do you really think would happen if they seriously investigated the matter and reached to the conclution that 911 was in fact an insider job?!

reply to post by shapur


I think you make an excellent point.....one argument I have heard many times by those believing the OS is "How could soo many people in government keep quiet if it was an inside job?" Blackmail, threat of death, and thier careers where threatened that's a possible reason......

reply to post by MountainLaurel

And yet the head of the CIA can't get a little on the side without it making international news?????

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by MountainLaurel

 

And yet the head of the CIA can't get a little on the side without it making international news?????

Well, you sort of make my point, although I don't know all the facts, his career was ruined, was that his "punishment" for something?

Why were Bush and Cheney permitted to testify about this behind closed doors, off the record, NO legal accountability or Honest and Reasonable questions surrounding this Nightmare to the World have been addressed to the satisfaction it more than deserved, especially because then we went to War over it....if I was a soilder that endured that horror, I would be pissed......

Nothing short of Lie Detector Tests given to key suspects, would convince me that this wasn't an inside job, Cruel and Diabolical beyond comprehension to many still....

reply to post by MountainLaurel


I do not assume too many people have been knowingly and directly involved in the process of the event.The elites never trust individuals with any secrets,specially with the biggest one of them all! and they know despite all the bribes or the threats sooner or later they might somehow leak the truth....So i am guessing the actual mission have had involved not more than 100 people at the most,which have most likely been selected from a very closed and trusted circle with a lot of documented dirty records and possibly with a promise of a kingdom in the ME or something!

reply to post by MountainLaurel


They were allowed to talk without being under oath so they could admit we got caught with our pants around our ankles. There are too many political opportunists that would have jumped on the smallest mistake made under oath. We would have ended up with a decade worth of hearings that would have only been yet another political witch hunt it would have ended up another Kimmel and Short fiasco.

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
reply to post by DrEugeneFixer

 

I withdraw my comments on the exif data. I was in error. NIST has consistently timed the penthouse sinking the same as the timestamp on the cianca photo.

You have earned my respect again.
It takes quite some courage to admit an error in public.
Well done.

Do you now have a better understanding of my seismic chart of WTC 7, and all its grave implications, or do you still have questions about my printed remarks on it ?

reply to post by ALF88


Hell no.. I agree with you .. WE NEED TO NEVER let them think they got away with it .. UNKNOWN..

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by MountainLaurel

 

They were allowed to talk without being under oath so they could admit we got caught with our pants around our ankles. There are too many political opportunists that would have jumped on the smallest mistake made under oath. We would have ended up with a decade worth of hearings that would have only been yet another political witch hunt it would have ended up another Kimmel and Short fiasco.

That is soo silly, I'm not sure what to say Let me get this straight... if one president is caught with his pants down with an intern, we turn the country upside down in the name of "Law", morality?

Another president might be involved in the mass murders of thousands of innocent people and treason against the USA and the World and you think a reasonable investigation is an unecessary fiasco? Again, I just don't know how to even respond to such bizzare thinking......

reply to post by MountainLaurel


You can always count on a truther to bring partisan politics into it. Besides, had they said anything indicating possible criminal activity, not being under oath would not have mattered.

And we had a reasonable investigation. What we did not have, was a witchhunt that would have torn both parties and a large chunk of the government apart, which would not have done anyone any good.

Originally posted by LaBTop

Which delivered me here and at their forums a lot of bad press.
But you know what? I don't give a flying fart about peoples misrepresentation of clear facts, I believe in real historical truth.

But you, Dave, want to beat a dead horse 200 times. And that's what I call derailing a good developing thread.
I am on my way to give so much old and new evidence that WTC 7 was a clear demolition, and the TWIN Towers too, that hordes of fresh and old members will HAVE to change their mind on the 9/11 subject, and start to dig into it themselves. When they are honest to themselves.

And such strong EVIDENCE will Put an End to the Petty 9/11 Argument's, which was exactly this thread's title.

You have to know this is misdirection. We weren't discussing the likelihood of WTC 7 being a demolition. We were discussing why these co-conspirators would falsely announce the collapse of WTC 7 before it did, even though according to the conspiracy theorists everyone in the world could recognize building 7 before 9/11 and they could see the report was false simply by looking out the window. The BBC said it was a screwup on their end and we shouldn't read into it...but of course that's just an invitation for conspiract theorists to read into it.

Do you agree that this whole "the BBC announced the pre-collapse of WTC 7" bit is one of the very petty arguments we need to put an end to? A simple yes or no will suffice.

If you want to attack my arguments, why don't you go and read my earlier post here, where I rowed-up all the EVIDENCE already laid before you by me in these two threads now, and NONE of you Believers have reacted on one of these strong indications of foul play by one or more governments.

How can I attack your argument when getting a straight answer from you on what your argument actually is, is like trying to nail jam to the wall. I ask you about the BBC, you respond with a nonsequitor "it was a controlled demolition". Where is it written in stone it can't be the case the WTC 7 was destroyed by demolitions AS WELL AS the BBC genuinely made honest mistakes during their broadcast? The two don't cancel each other out.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by MountainLaurel

 

You can always count on a truther to bring partisan politics into it. Besides, had they said anything indicating possible criminal activity, not being under oath would not have mattered.

And we had a reasonable investigation. What we did not have, was a witchhunt that would have torn both parties and a large chunk of the government apart, which would not have done anyone any good.

edit on 21-12-2012 by vipertech0596 because: (no reason given)

For the record, I do not support either the Republicans or Democrats, I voted 3rd party in the last election. Obama did not repeal the Patriot Act, and spported the NDAA....I could go on ......The USA hasn't had an honest President in my lifetime....JFK was murdered before I was born...and we know what happened to him when he tried to stand-up to the "big boys" on behalf of the American people.

No witch-hunt needed.....like I already suggested, Lie Detector Tests would work just fine. If I may ask you a question ? If you were suspected of being behind mass murder and treason, and you were innocent, wouldn't you do everything in your power to prove that?

reply to post by MountainLaurel

Back then, only the absolute nuts believed in the goofy conspiracies. It has only been the last five years or so that more and more normally reasonable people have been fooled in to believing that it was George Bush ot Dick Cheney involved.or that it was death rays from outer space or "mini" nukes. At the time they testified, there was only the concern of covering up thirty years of bad decisions made by politicians on both sides.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by MountainLaurel

 

Back then, only the absolute nuts believed in the goofy conspiracies. It has only been the last five years or so that more and more normally reasonable people have been fooled in to believing that it was George Bush ot Dick Cheney involved.or that it was death rays from outer space or "mini" nukes. At the time they testified, there was only the concern of covering up thirty years of bad decisions made by politicians on both sides.

Well...covering up years of "mistakes" we can agree on......Those "nuts" back then were right about alot of things considered "conspiracies".......your playing the same game they do, avoiding direct questions, claiming people that use reason and logic are crazy people that believe in "death rays" causing 9-11...

"Normal" people are waking up and facing the sad reality of the mess we need to fix.....MSM and the TPTB that control it, have been challenged by the internet, and now we see the UN (NWO) trying to limit those rights too?

In honor of all that have died ......I will speak out on this ....nothing "petty" about that....I hope we all remember as we have another day to live and breath....how precious life is........sorry this time of year makes me sentimental, lol...especially on doomsday......... beautiful day here on west coast of USA.....

reply to post by MountainLaurel


No, people who start believing in the goofy conspiracies lose sight of the real issues. They get too wrapped in looking for someone to blame.

Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to post by MountainLaurel

 

No, people who start believing in the goofy conspiracies lose sight of the real issues. They get too wrapped in looking for someone to blame.

No, people who believe in the goofy official theories lose sight of the real issues. They get too wrapped up in looking for some official person or theory, to defend.

Like Shyam Sunder from NIST, who had to admit after resisting it for more than a year, that WTC 7 had a 2.5 second first collapse period of PERFECT FREE FALL. And anyone working in the demolition industry can tell you that such an event is THE major evidence of removal of resistance for a falling part of a building, so it can speed up downwards in truly free fall fashion.

When are you going to address all my strong and convincing arguments, I made a short list of them for your convenience in a former post here.
Start f.ex. by trying to prove David Chandler's 31 online YouTube videos even slightly wrong.

This is a particularly convincing one :

The FREE-FALL ACCELERATION of WTC Building 7, David Chandler, AE911truth.org
www.youtube.com...



An ultra low frequency (1-10 Herz) loud "booomm" to be heard clearly in this video, in the right channel speaker, when quality headphones are being used, and then a whole row of explosions in perfect cadence :

" WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions "
Uploaded on July 5, 2010 by DavidChandler911, see his 31 video's.
www.youtube.com...

There is ample evidence, from both witnesses and recordings, of explosions associated with the destruction of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7). NIST sidestepped investigating explosions and explosives by setting up an artificially high threshold of interest. They swept aside any testimony or recordings of explosions that would not register 130-140 dB one kilometer away. They established this criterion using RDX (one of the loudest explosives) in a scenario that produced a far higher sound level than other possible uses of explosives to bring down the building. Then they turned around and used sound level as the sole criterion for deciding whether the use of explosives was a credible hypothesis. By this maneuver, they sidestepped investigating the testimony of explosives or possible evidence of explosive residues. This is just one more instance of fraudulent behavior on the part of the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center disaster.

Now would be the time for believers, to offer a video with audio, recorded at 1 km away from a snapping steel column of the size used in the lower floors of WTC 7. Not a bending one, no, a snapping one, failing and shearing off in an instant.
Since one believer in this thread wrote that the sound of such snapping would be a very loud one.
The problem with his remark will be, that its sound profile will have a very high pitch, and what we hear in the David Chandler and Rick Siegel video's are very low pitch sounds, more like an ultra low frequency sound.

""EXPLOSION JUST BEFORE WTC BUILDING 7 FELL"".
Uploaded on September 5, 2010 by ricthuse. He has 2124 video's.
www.youtube.com...

A loud, low-frequency boom can be heard just before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls.
David Chandler will soon be publishing a video that contains a more in depth analysis of this footage, including audio enhancements of the explosion. YouTube channel = DavidChandler911

And that"s the above first video by DavidChandler911, which was already posted on July 5, 2010.
Which is one of the best convincing video's I have ever seen on the subject of evidence for WTC 7 explosions.
The exact cadence, side by side, of the real explosion sounds to be heard in those video's just a few seconds before the roof of WTC 7 starts sinking down combined with Craig Bartmer saying ''Boom Boom Boom Boom'' and then saying that he ''knows an explosion when he hears one'', is surely grabbing your attention.
Mr. Chandler is an example figure for clear and honest teaching.
That's one man who has for sure earned a Professor Honorate title.

Originally posted by LaBTop
When are you going to address all my strong and convincing arguments, I made a short list of them for your convenience in a former post here.
Start f.ex. by trying to prove David Chandler's 31 online YouTube videos even slightly wrong.

This is a particularly convincing one :

Please don't be so rude LaBTop. You asked politely that I do such a thing and I did: www.abovetopsecret.com...

You've ignored it for over a week. You're also still making completely unsupported assertions like the 'pitch' of an explosive. Perhaps you don't understand the mechanism by which this sound is produced. It's an extremely high amplitude single pressure wave. It doesn't ring like a sine wave, it hits like a gunshot. A huge amount of force at once.

An explosion where you hear only bass tones is generally one that has travelled through tens of miles of air or significant soil and rock and has become attenuated. There are videos of WTC1 and 7 directly in-line with their faces with only 1km or so of air to attenuate signals. This is nowhere near sufficient to produce what you describe.

You need to spend some time researching facts more than theories. Chandler's presentation appears to have blinded you with science, even though the quality of his science wouldn't pass the first undergraduate course. The minute he mentions 'margin of error' without being able to state it would have failed him that test. I don't mean this as an opinion either. It is a fundamental failure to not know your margins of error but yet claim they are validated.

This is the video, where you can find the 23.5 minutes lecture by David Chandler, between the 3hrs:04 - 3hrs:27:38 times, called :
''David Chandler. WTC 7: A Refutation of the Official Account'' :
www.youtube.com...



Exponent, I totally forgot I also posted in this thread, after a re-start of my box caused by a power failure last week. I'm glad you helped me to remind me of it. Next time use a PM when you like me to answer a post, then I see under every page window I click open, that ATS-reminder sentence flickering that I have a PM.
I am still very busy with my huge visualization post about my earlier posted list of evidences that 911 was a planned set-up.

So, you viewed that above Chandler lecture and offered two links, both are however single image links without the needed link to the article you took them out.
The Indymedia.uk image link sends me not to the article, when I cut it down to its main page. Thus, offer a link please.
For the Femr ''WTC7-Displacement vs Acceleration'' link I could cut some slack away from its link and arrived at his main page where he writes that :

The WTC Collapse Simulator is an interactive application which models the collapse of World Trade Centre 1 & 2 using straightforward physics and energetics principles, and renders the results in real-time using OpenGL.

That's nice, but that's not a WTC 7 article, while you post a WTC 7 image. So, offer a link to the article where that image is used, please.

Before I go any deeper into your review, may I point you to the fact, that Femr started his timeline at the 11 seconds position on his graph.
That's I suppose, 11 secs after the Cianca photo timestamp that showed the first sign of collapse at WTC 7, which NIST introduced as the initiating of the collapse, but not of the global collapse, that one started 8.5 secs later.
Thus, when we call that the zero point on femr's timeline, it took another 8.5 secs before the WTC 7 roof rim started to move, and then the 2.5 secs of proven freefall period began.
Thus, femr shows us NOT the 2.5 secs freefall period in his graph, just before his 11 secs starting point in his graph timeline , which I and you would both expect. I find that highly curious and misleading, if he wanted to show that no free fall occurred.
I suppose however, that he used this graph to make another point, and that you try to use it for another reason. I hope. It looks now as if you try to show with the wrong graph, that Chandler's method was a sloppy one. That's why it is so wrong to not link to the article where this graph came from.

By the way, are you aware that NIST admitted that Chandler was right, about that 2.5 secs freefall period, in which at least an 8 storeys high space, worth normally a block of very heavy resistance, was in fact zero. Otherwise those 2.5 secs period would have looked very different in that graph.

I see that femr graph as a grave misrepresentation of your refute to Chandler's words in his video at the Toronto Hearings.

Chandler mentioned also that his graph line fell within the one second uncertainty error margin of the software used, so I don't understand that you missed that.
It is just as big a fundamental failure to not know his margins of error but yet claim they are not validated.

About your explosion text : did you miss the video's of -BoneZ- and the one I posted, where you can hear in both, a distinct VERY LOW FREQUENCY rumble about 1 second before the east penthouse roof starts to sink away. (when you use a quality headset.)
If you listen to them on your tv-set speakers or flatscreen speakers, you will hear nothing of it at all, so, get that headset.

Do you perhaps want to say that that must have been the "snapping" of column 79 ? As NIST tries to let us believe.

Because my next question to you, and Vipertech too b.t.w., will be why we then do not hear a thirty fold louder rumble, when the roof line starts to sink 8.5 seconds later, at the moment we may assume that all internal columns must have "snapped" too.

In both video's, you hear ONLY that 1 sec pre-collapse deep rumble, and nothing more, only the conversations, yelling and background noises around the camera microphone. While the whole 44 storeys high WTC 7 sinks out of sight. Silently.....

So, your whole remark :

An explosion where you hear only bass tones is generally one that has travelled through tens of miles of air or significant soil and rock and has become attenuated. There are videos of WTC1 and 7 directly in-line with their faces with only 1km or so of air to attenuate signals. This is nowhere near sufficient to produce what you describe.

is nullified by the simple fact that we all can hear these ULF rumbles 1 sec before collapse initiation, and no distinct sound at all when the whole damn building collapses with all its columns and beams giving way.
Which must have been quite a loud event when standing near it.
But those two camera's only picked up that rumble, no more, at just a few blocks away.
That renders your whole remark void and wrong, the simple facts from reality as can be seen and heard in those video's.
Everybody can hear those ''bass tones'', that's b.t.w. your expression.
And they were certainly not recorded ''through tens of miles of air'' as you say can only cause a conversion of an explosive sound to such low rumble sound.
BUT WE ALL CAN HEAR IT ALREADY FROM ABOUT 300 METERS.....! In these two video's.