PROOF 9/11/01 was an inside job

Originally posted by dfens
That is ridiculous. Everyone knows that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Besides, who would have the manpower or resources to attempt such a thing?

Errrr. A Neocon faction of the US Government?

After all. They were the ones who spoke of a "new Pearl Harbor" to establish American supremacy in their "Project for a New American Century" publication.

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by DeeKlassified

There was an unprecedented power-down, just before 9/11, and a team could have rigged the crucial areas of the building during this period

No there was not actually, that is just a silly truther claim not based on any fact.

You ignore the fact that no one noticed the tonnes of explosives being carried into the building, holes bashed in the walls and km of wiring needed all went unnoticed....

You seem to be another 'debunker' that opens their mouth before doing some research..



It's well documented that there was a power down, many WTC office staff spoke on video about it..

If you were really interested in 9/11 then you would have watched the video I posted, you know, the one you were replying to with this comment! So you commented without watching the video I posted or without doing any form of research?! How can you be taken seriously if you're not doing thorough research on the subject you are debating?

If you had bothered to watch the Gordon Ross video, you would realise that he said it would not take that much explosives to bring down the WTC, just well placed charges.

The 'miles and miles' of cable that you 'debunkers' keep spouting is for a traditional demolition, 9/11 was not a traditional demolition! Traditional demolitions use wires etc because it's cheaper than modern wireless explosives, and wireless explosives leave no trace, like wired explosives, so it's very probable that wireless explosives were used, so your 'miles and miles' of cable theory is just irrelevant.

reply to post by exponent



There are numerous videos showing flashes, smoke ejections and explosive noises at the WTC towers, all of which are characteristic of demolition charges, and do not relate to anything else that happened on 9/11.

How do you keep missing the obvious time and time again?

For someone who tries to convey intelligence on the subject of 9/11 you do fall a long way short on your accurate research. I haven't found one debunker that has come up with any accurate information about 9/11, just obfuscation of 9/11 facts is all I see.

Is a pride thing, or is it just blatant obfuscation?

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by hellobruce
True, and your lack of knowledge of physics shows in your claims about 9/11

And yet you cannot point out my "ignorance", just like you can't explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns.

You never will get a proper answer to this 9/11 issue Anok, because it cannot be debunked.

This is a problem for 'debunkers' shame they wont admit they cannot answer the question, even though they try to make out that they are right! If they accepted the obvious then all the 12 years they have been apparently debunking on the internet will go down the toilet, so they will never accept the obvious truth because the debunking/troll game would be over. I'm surprised the mods have allowed so much trollery from 'debunkers' for so long. Deny ignorance seems not to apply to debunbkers.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by ANOK
And yet you cannot point out my "ignorance", just like you can't explain how sagging trusses can pull in columns.

ANOK I have shown you this now more than 10 times. You keep pretending the posts don't exist. Stop embarrassing yourself. If you feel so confident in this position then here:

I challenge ANOK to a formal debate. I will advocate the position that fire can damage trusses in the WTC, cause them to sag and put an inward force on columns. This force is sufficient to deform the wall inwards until it collapses

Put up or shut up ANOK.

I've been watching your attempts to 'debunk' anok for some time now, and each time you have failed, and have not provided anything that proves what anok is saying..

Although you keep saying you have showed him 'X' amount of times, and on each of those occasions you have provided nothing of importance..

So again, for the last time, to save yourself from further embarrassment, please post your counter-argument to anok's on this issue, no some dubious link to a paper that cost $40, that is not acceptable, and if you have purchased that paper yourself, then write a summary of why you think it contradicts what Anok is saying..

As it stands, you have made a lot of noise, but provided nothing of significance to give your 'argument' any weight..

We all await your written summary, failure to provide this meant that you have no argument...

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
Not to mention, Rick says the wind was at his back. If he was behind his camera, his body would be blocking those light winds from hitting the microphone anyway. Every single thing is stacked against your magical wind "theory". It's not happening.

Oh the guy selling you the DVD that contains special evidence that nobody else managed to capture is telling you that it's definitely real evidence? Well that convinced me.

No, no it didn't.

Sound engineers are now laughing at your lack of understanding of sound. Don't forget, sound engineers, or even folk at home with the right equipment can analyse frequencies contained in sound recordings, and there were a lot picked up in the lower audio spectrum, that may not be noticeable on average speakers, because unless they are specialised studio monitors, then speakers do not generally go low enough to hear these low frequencies.

So in quite a few 9/11 collpase/pre-collapse videos there were explosive frequencies picked up by sound engineers that have studied a lot of 9/11 recordings, frequencies that most have not even detected.

A lot of sound was deliberately edited from some videos, especially WTC7, but there are many recordings that provide evidence of explosive noises in these frequency ranges.

All the 9/11 issues added up all together, show overwhelmingly that 9/11 was an inside job. If there was the occasional anomaly then you could brush it under the carpet, but your carpet is stacked so high right now that there's no more room to hide the issues relating to 9/11.

Originally posted by dfens
That is ridiculous. Everyone knows that 9/11 wasn't an inside job. Besides, who would have the manpower or resources to attempt such a thing?

Can you provide evidence that 'everyone knows that 9/11 wasn't an inside job'??

I didnt think so! You seem to forget that there are many people worldwide that do not believe the official story one iota, and these same people have been researching the subject for years.

If you look beyond the official story that you got from your TV/MSM and do some serious research, then the dots will start to be connected, and in time you will learn that there is no way it could have been done with someone on the inside.

We all believe the TV at first, that is the job of the media, to control people's perceptions, but when you think outside the black plastic box, and get a broader range of information, not just one-sided info forced down you thought by the MSM, then you will see all is not as they want you to believe.

I just find it bizarre that these so called 'debunkers' are so narrow-minded to think that everything they are told by their government or by the MSM is as they say it is!

This is the problem in the world, people are too gullible/malleable and this is why debunkers even exist because they are gullible to what the authorities tell them. When we eradicate all this weak thinking, then we might start making progress in the world. Maybe debunkers do not want progress?

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I just find it bizarre that these so called 'debunkers' are so narrow-minded to think that everything they are told by their government or by the MSM is as they say it is!

With respect, that is a straw man.

You are attacking an argument nobody has raised, in an unreasonable and entirely unjustified generalisation about the overwhelming majority of people who hold an opinion that differs from your own.

This thread is getting to be like that Bull Murray movie "Ground Hog Day" where certain events keep repeating over and over no matter what anybody does. That whole Nanothermite claim had been thoroughly debunked a while ago and it was determined over ten years ago the "explosions" in the basement were the same fireballs that William Rodrigues reported to have pushed the cargo elevator down into the basement and severely burn the occupant. Yet, every few months or so we get a new post claiming PROOF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB which does nothing but repeat the same old nanothermite myths and the explosions-in-the-basement deceptions, which ignites the exact same pointless arguments all over again. I have no doubt this time next year someone else will be posting videos "proving" the plane that hit the Pentagon was really a missile in the next iteration of discovery.

The only explanation I can arrive at which explains this phenomena is that Richard Gage, Dylan Avery, and the other con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites routinely find a whole new generation of audiences to sucker with their snake oil. I do not post this to be insultive. I post this because we are seeing a legitimate regognizable pattern; this NEW proof the OP posted is literally the same as the OLD proof presented in a new video. That didn't happen by accident; someone deliberate repackaged this stale material to get people to believe it's something new.

Originally posted by Sankari

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I just find it bizarre that these so called 'debunkers' are so narrow-minded to think that everything they are told by their government or by the MSM is as they say it is!

With respect, that is a straw man.

You are attacking an argument nobody has raised, in an unreasonable and entirely unjustified generalisation about the overwhelming majority of people who hold an opinion that differs from your own.

You what?

Debunkers only believe the official story, can you provide evidence to prove otherwise?

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
reply to post by exponent

 

There are numerous videos showing flashes, smoke ejections and explosive noises at the WTC towers, all of which are characteristic of demolition charges, and do not relate to anything else that happened on 9/11.

Sorry, flashes are now 'characteristic' of demolition charges? I thought huge ear shattering explosions were the key thing to look out for. They seem to be absent except in one video filmed from several kilometres away that has suspicious audio editing. Shocking isn't it.

How do you keep missing the obvious time and time again?

I research, that's why what seems obvious to you seems ridiculous to someone who knows both sides.

I've been watching your attempts to 'debunk' anok for some time now, and each time you have failed, and have not provided anything that proves what anok is saying..

Although you keep saying you have showed him 'X' amount of times, and on each of those occasions you have provided nothing of importance..

Except you immediately admit you haven't even bothered to research what I have said:

if you have purchased that paper yourself, then write a summary of why you think it contradicts what Anok is saying

I have done this, not only have I provided excerpts, but I started using another paper by the same authors as ANOKs. Freely available. Neither of you seem to have bothered to read it.

Sound engineers are now laughing at your lack of understanding of sound. Don't forget, sound engineers, or even folk at home with the right equipment can analyse frequencies contained in sound recordings, and there were a lot picked up in the lower audio spectrum, that may not be noticeable on average speakers, because unless they are specialised studio monitors, then speakers do not generally go low enough to hear these low frequencies.

Really? That's odd because I posted spectrographs of the low frequency noise which quite easily proves that it has been dubiously edited. Did you miss them or just not understand them?

A lot of sound was deliberately edited from some videos, especially WTC7, but there are many recordings that provide evidence of explosive noises in these frequency ranges.

Please show proof of any of this. You seem to be implying that you have some audio engineering experience or a pair of studio monitors (I primarily use headphones but I also have a full range speaker set should I need it)

You post a lot about how little you think of debunkers, but it seems you made your mind up based on what conspiracy sites told you and have now decided that anything that disagrees with you must be ridiculous.

Find a way to discredit the paper I linked please, or actually just find it and read it, that would be a start.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
You what?

Debunkers only believe the official story, can you provide evidence to prove otherwise?

That's not what you said, can you not even remember what you posted earlier?

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
I just find it bizarre that these so called 'debunkers' are so narrow-minded to think that everything they are told by their government or by the MSM is as they say it is!

That is a straw-man. I am not even American. I believe in science, and youtube videos of wind noise and reposting denial 20+ times is not science. There's a strong reason that 911 conspiracies are dying out even on ATS.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
This thread is getting to be like that Bull Murray movie "Ground Hog Day" where certain events keep repeating over and over no matter what anybody does. That whole Nanothermite claim had been thoroughly debunked a while ago and it was determined over ten years ago the "explosions" in the basement were the same fireballs that William Rodrigues reported to have pushed the cargo elevator down into the basement and severely burn the occupant. Yet, every few months or so we get a new post claiming PROOF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB which does nothing but repeat the same old nanothermite myths and the explosions-in-the-basement deceptions, which ignites the exact same pointless arguments all over again. I have no doubt this time next year someone else will be posting videos "proving" the plane that hit the Pentagon was really a missile in the next iteration of discovery.

The only explanation I can arrive at which explains this phenomena is that Richard Gage, Dylan Avery, and the other con artists behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites routinely find a whole new generation of audiences to sucker with their snake oil. I do not post this to be insultive. I post this because we are seeing a legitimate regognizable pattern; this NEW proof the OP posted is literally the same as the OLD proof presented in a new video. That didn't happen by accident; someone deliberate repackaged this stale material to get people to believe it's something new.

If you are so bothered about groundhog day why have you been debating 9/11 for all these years?

It's been the same questions asked, and the same topics investigated/researched for all this time, but that has not stopped you going over the same subject matter. If you're so bored of 9/11 then why are you still participating?

Nothing has been 'debunked' as you say, an opinion by some like yourself doesn't mean something is officially debunked! It'd take a whole lot of independent unbiased experts to actually debunk something properly. NIST/FEMA etc have debunked nothing, their reports are biased, as are your views because you are not open minded to anything outside the 'official story'.

You have said the same scripted comments for years now, you are an expert on groundhog day it seems.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
reply to post by exponent

 

There are numerous videos showing flashes, smoke ejections and explosive noises at the WTC towers, all of which are characteristic of demolition charges, and do not relate to anything else that happened on 9/11.

Sorry, flashes are now 'characteristic' of demolition charges? I thought huge ear shattering explosions were the key thing to look out for. They seem to be absent except in one video filmed from several kilometres away that has suspicious audio editing. Shocking isn't it.

How do you keep missing the obvious time and time again?

I research, that's why what seems obvious to you seems ridiculous to someone who knows both sides.

I've been watching your attempts to 'debunk' anok for some time now, and each time you have failed, and have not provided anything that proves what anok is saying..

Although you keep saying you have showed him 'X' amount of times, and on each of those occasions you have provided nothing of importance..

Except you immediately admit you haven't even bothered to research what I have said:

if you have purchased that paper yourself, then write a summary of why you think it contradicts what Anok is saying

I have done this, not only have I provided excerpts, but I started using another paper by the same authors as ANOKs. Freely available. Neither of you seem to have bothered to read it.

Sound engineers are now laughing at your lack of understanding of sound. Don't forget, sound engineers, or even folk at home with the right equipment can analyse frequencies contained in sound recordings, and there were a lot picked up in the lower audio spectrum, that may not be noticeable on average speakers, because unless they are specialised studio monitors, then speakers do not generally go low enough to hear these low frequencies.

Really? That's odd because I posted spectrographs of the low frequency noise which quite easily proves that it has been dubiously edited. Did you miss them or just not understand them?

A lot of sound was deliberately edited from some videos, especially WTC7, but there are many recordings that provide evidence of explosive noises in these frequency ranges.

Please show proof of any of this. You seem to be implying that you have some audio engineering experience or a pair of studio monitors (I primarily use headphones but I also have a full range speaker set should I need it)

You post a lot about how little you think of debunkers, but it seems you made your mind up based on what conspiracy sites told you and have now decided that anything that disagrees with you must be ridiculous.

Find a way to discredit the paper I linked please, or actually just find it and read it, that would be a start.

Yes flashes are present during demolitions, and combined with all the other tell tale signs that are present during a controlled demolition, that were also present on 9/11 it does not take much to see it was a controlled demolition.

By the way, your assumption are wrong, this is the only website I frequent that can be considered a 'conspiracy theory' website, and get this, you are on a conspiracy website yourself, which is kind of hypocritical and laughable!

So by your own reasoning, nobody should listen to you on this website because people on CT websites are full of crap, according to 'exponent'.

I don't use CT websites for knowledge, I have a lot of real video footage and other sources to use to come to my conclusions.

I cannot even attempt to discredit a paper I have not seen, and a paper that costs $40!
I doubt you have even read the paper yourself, you are just attempting to use this 'paper' that costs $40 to purchase to add weight to your argument, because you know most people would not waste $40 on such an ambiguous paper!

Like you have been asked numerous times before by myself and others, share the paper with us and we can then comment, until you do your argument holds no truth.

Send the paper or shut up about the paper!

If it was so great it'd be in the public domain! You are so full of jokes exponent! Weak arguments as usual.

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
Yes flashes are present during demolitions, and combined with all the other tell tale signs that are present during a controlled demolition, that were also present on 9/11 it does not take much to see it was a controlled demolition.

You're still missing the point. Are you saying that if you see a building fire, and you see a bunch of flashes in the middle of it, then that must be a controlled demolition? What other tell tale signs did several hundred firefighters, several thousand engineers and tens of thousands of professionals miss?

By the way, your assumption are wrong, this is the only website I frequent that can be considered a 'conspiracy theory' website, and get this, you are on a conspiracy website yourself, which is kind of hypocritical and laughable!

So by your own reasoning, nobody should listen to you on this website because people on CT websites are full of crap, according to 'exponent'.

I didn't say listening was the problem, accepting without doing any research is. People definitely should research my posts and I'll even provide them with as much information as I can.

I don't use CT websites for knowledge, I have a lot of real video footage and other sources to use to come to my conclusions.

Apparently none of those sources are professionals.

I cannot even attempt to discredit a paper I have not seen, and a paper that costs $40!
I doubt you have even read the paper yourself, you are just attempting to use this 'paper' that costs $40 to purchase to add weight to your argument, because you know most people would not waste $40 on such an ambiguous paper!

• I'm talking about a completely different paper, you said you've read my posts but you didn't even notice this so how much reading have you done exactly?
  
• PDF page 5, journal page 307, first word is "itself". Feel free to try and call me on that.

Like you have been asked numerous times before by myself and others, share the paper with us and we can then comment, until you do your argument holds no truth.

Send the paper or shut up about the paper!

That would be copyright infringement. If a few dollars or going to a library is all that's stopping you from actually researching then you obviously don't care much at all.

If it was so great it'd be in the public domain! You are so full of jokes exponent! Weak arguments as usual.

Yeah shame you didn't bother reading the publicly available paper I've referenced in 4 or 5 posts now. You know, the one by the same authors as a paper ANOK trusts? The one that explicitly describes this behaviour? I await your analysis of it.

***ATTENTION***

I'm just going to leave this here:

Any Terms & Conditions infraction in the 9/11 forum may result in the termination of your account without warning.

~Tenth
ATS Mod

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
Yes flashes are present during demolitions, and combined with all the other tell tale signs that are present during a controlled demolition, that were also present on 9/11 it does not take much to see it was a controlled demolition.

You're still missing the point. Are you saying that if you see a building fire, and you see a bunch of flashes in the middle of it, then that must be a controlled demolition? What other tell tale signs did several hundred firefighters, several thousand engineers and tens of thousands of professionals miss?

By the way, your assumption are wrong, this is the only website I frequent that can be considered a 'conspiracy theory' website, and get this, you are on a conspiracy website yourself, which is kind of hypocritical and laughable!

So by your own reasoning, nobody should listen to you on this website because people on CT websites are full of crap, according to 'exponent'.

I didn't say listening was the problem, accepting without doing any research is. People definitely should research my posts and I'll even provide them with as much information as I can.

I don't use CT websites for knowledge, I have a lot of real video footage and other sources to use to come to my conclusions.

Apparently none of those sources are professionals.

I cannot even attempt to discredit a paper I have not seen, and a paper that costs $40!
I doubt you have even read the paper yourself, you are just attempting to use this 'paper' that costs $40 to purchase to add weight to your argument, because you know most people would not waste $40 on such an ambiguous paper!

• I'm talking about a completely different paper, you said you've read my posts but you didn't even notice this so how much reading have you done exactly?
  
• PDF page 5, journal page 307, first word is "itself". Feel free to try and call me on that.

Like you have been asked numerous times before by myself and others, share the paper with us and we can then comment, until you do your argument holds no truth.

Send the paper or shut up about the paper!

That would be copyright infringement. If a few dollars or going to a library is all that's stopping you from actually researching then you obviously don't care much at all.

If it was so great it'd be in the public domain! You are so full of jokes exponent! Weak arguments as usual.

Yeah shame you didn't bother reading the publicly available paper I've referenced in 4 or 5 posts now. You know, the one by the same authors as a paper ANOK trusts? The one that explicitly describes this behaviour? I await your analysis of it.

All the hallmarks of a controlled demolition were there, you know what I'm saying.

As for the paper, if you cannot post a excerpt of what it is you are trying to use as an argument, then you argument has no substance. Until the paper you are basing your argument on is in the public domain for all to access then it's an argument with yourself.

Please do link the 'publicly' available paper, and not one you expect people to pay for, without knowing what it is they are really paying for..

Your words on a forum are all you have until you start sharing some of this 'evidence' with us..

Waiting for the contents of this paper, so we can dissect it................

Originally posted by DeeKlassified
All the hallmarks of a controlled demolition were there, you know what I'm saying.

I really don't. The one hallmark I have noticed in all controlled demolitions is large obvious explosions occurring immediately before collapse. Loud enough to max out local microphones and make people flinch and cover their ears within a kilometre or so.

These did not occur at the WTC, we know this because there are cameras running with unedited audio at short distances from the WTC that pick up the sounds of collapse clearly.

This is why thermite was proposed. However if thermite was used, neither flashes, nor explosions, nor dust ejection would be a sign of demolition, so that wouldn't make sense either.

Therefore I ask you, if flashes and dust ejections are signs of controlled demolition? Shouldn't there be ear splitting explosions going on at the same time too?

As for the paper, if you cannot post a excerpt of what it is you are trying to use as an argument, then you argument has no substance. Until the paper you are basing your argument on is in the public domain for all to access then it's an argument with yourself.

I'm afraid that this is how science works. I am all for more public domain journals and I would post this paper if it were legal for me to do so. The fact remains though that it's published in a reviewed journal and by known authors and is available for a pretty trivial fee. Lots of local libraries have arrangements with journals and there's a moderate chance you'd be able to find a copy there too.

Please do link the 'publicly' available paper, and not one you expect people to pay for, without knowing what it is they are really paying for..

The only one I can find at the moment is fire-research.group.shef.ac.uk...

They definitely have had more available in the past, but it's hard to keep up with changing sites etc. I also found this: www.scribd.com...

Not sure that that is legitimately published but it's available and a later paper by the same authors as I was discussing before. Both detail the effects of fire affected trusses on columns.

Your words on a forum are all you have until you start sharing some of this 'evidence' with us..

Waiting for the contents of this paper, so we can dissect it................

I really really hope you will read these and discuss them, I look forward to it.

reply to post by exponent

No offense friend, but Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are not interested in talking to you, whoever you are.

The 2.000 or so architects, engineers and demolition experts are challenging the US government to an open, factual debate so that they can disprove the government's flawed THEORIES.

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by exponent

 

No offense friend, but Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth are not interested in talking to you, whoever you are.

I've noticed they don't seem to be interested in criticism. It's hardly a point to be proud of though.

The 2.000 or so architects, engineers and demolition experts are challenging the US government to an open, factual debate so that they can disprove the government's flawed THEORIES.

Have they published anything anywhere yet or are they still begging for donations?