Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: POLL - Are 911 Truthers bumbling idiots?

Posted 1 year ago on June 19, 2012, 3:49 a.m. EST by shadzhairart (-357)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Do you think 911 Truthers are bumbling idiots? People who have no idea what logical fallacies are? Are they worse than republicans and/or religious fanatics, or just merely the same?

Yes, No, Undecided?

300 Comments

300 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

"911 Truthers" is a silly derogatory term,. the truth is true. 9/11 happened, and it was a conspiracy, period. You may choose to believe the conspiracy story of the 1%,. the official lie,. or you may choose to look for the actual truth. Steel framed buildings do not fall down like that,. not due to a fire, not due to an airliner crashing into them. Physics is a difficult issue to get around, and the THREE sky-scrapers that 'fell' on 9/11 did so in ways that defy basic physics,. unless there was more than the fires to cause them to explode all the way to the ground. It really is simple just follow the money, the evidence is clear, we see who benefited and still benefit from the official conspiracy lie.

But you clearly care little for the truth, or reason,. or even sanity. You my friend, are a simpleton, and an ass-hat. Good luck with that.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

basic physic would have all material

elevated to a higher state of potential energy

move to a lower state of potential energy

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Why would it move? a plane hits a building,. building stands for an hour,. and only then explodes all the way to the ground?

[-] 4 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

And this skyscraper (WTC7) was not hit by a plane; but came down anyway.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc7.html

"Hey, World Trade 7 fell down like because, because, because, um, the mayor stored thousands of gallons of diesel fuel in an office building. Yeah, that's it. Diesel fuel. It's just a coincidence that every single load bearing member on the ground floor failed at the exact same moment in time. Coincidence. CO-IN-SEE-DUNCE! Trust us. We're the government."

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Good clip - Clearly shows that WT7 was "pulled" and the motivation behind that decision - thanx

[Removed]

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Quite right! This also shows that the government isn't really smart. Had they wanted to fool us properly, they would have blown the explosives right after the plane hit. For some reason, they waited a long time before detonating. I wonder if they had second thoughts? Maybe they were cocky and wanted to show off in our faces?

Sir Truth Hurtsalot

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

they would have blown the explosives right after the plane hit. For some reason, they waited a long time before detonating. I wonder if they had second thoughts?

nope

they went straight to Invading Iraq

I mean Afghanistan

[-] 1 points by RobertHod (1) 10 months ago

Obvious HE on planes would have justified much more scrutiny than control could have managed. For that reason, collision and fire needed to be the major events.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by EagleEye (31) 1 year ago

Who benefits from the official conspiracy lie?

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 10 months ago

the corporate/military war machine,. . the intelligence contractors, the bomb/plane/tank manufacturers, the warMedia,. etc.

the eyes of fear for profit basically, as opposed to these of love and the people.

[-] -2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

"Steel framed buildings do not fall down like that,. not due to a fire, not due to an airliner crashing into them. Physics is a difficult issue to get around,.."

Because we have so much actual observational experience with jets of this type crashing into buildings of the WTC design? Of course we don't so we must assume a great deal and crunch numbers that have little meaning to reality to obtain psuedoscientific proclamations of certainty like your statement.

Engineers look up tables and obtain open air combustion temperatures of jet fuel and it ends there... they look up the melting point of steel and fail to consider how degradation of structural properties happen at much lower temperatures at about half the listed melting point.

Variables such as the added heat from the oxidation(burning) of aluminum which is an exothermic reaction - aluminum found in most office desks, wall supports, floor supports, overhead ceiling hangers, wiring conduits, etc... do not get added in the equations because no one knows how much they would have contributed.... but they would have contributed to the overall heat.

I haven't seen one '9/11 truther' report take into consideration that there exists ONE large canister for chemical oxygen generation for each seat on the plane in case of cabin decompression. These canisters contain sodium chlorate. Sodium Chlorate releases large quantities of both heat and oxygen when ignited.... as this fire would have done.

What happens when you add a good amount of oxygen to a fuel like acetylene? It burns significantly hotter. Same thing happens to jet fuel.

Then there are the concepts of heat capacity and thermal transference. Temperature alone doesn't begin to tell the whole story. I can light an oxy-acetylene torch that burns at 2500 deg and keep my hand a foot away from it all day long without any problems. I can also burn logs in a fireplace, load that fireplace up to the max with burning logs that burn at 600 deg and make it hot enough in that room that no one would be able to stand in it but for a few minutes because of thermal transference.

One doesn't have to melt the steel beams....just get them hot and soft enough to fail, which is very plausible.

But to those that believe that Math is Science, and that models are reality.... these variables, which I mentioned, that can't be quantified get discarded.

My final question is these same people who consider the government to be so grossly inefficient, is capable of pulling off a stunt like this, and keeping it secret. How many people do you think would have had to be in on it? I mean planting explosives in two of the tallest buildings in the world, coordinating the attacks, and not a single leak from the people who knew they were killing Americans? Either the government is really that good and efficient or its not. You can't have it both ways in arguments about the government.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Dude, really? Three (3) towers where demolished on 9/11. Watch a video of building 7, and tell me ALL the steel supports just "gave out" at precisely the same second? Really? Do you actually believe this? Because other wise it could not have collapsed exactly into its footprint. (toppled over perhaps) That was a 47 floor tower, NO plane hit that building, so all you "models and math are not enough" and planes have oxygen tanks and aluminum is an catalyst is a not relevant. Many office towers have burned in the past and all contained these same materials, some burned until nothing was left,. but the steel frame,. and yet NONE have ever, or since, exploded all the way to the ground, while falling into their own footprints.

Like most people the idea that the 1% would kill thousands of Americans for personal gain is rather difficult to accept,. however do consider that MANY MORE people have been killed because of the actions of these people after the fact; the invasions and wars have killed more Americans than the terror attack on 9/11, they care little for these folks,. why would you think for a second that they would be unwilling to facilitate the terror attack that gave them the largest military/police-state expansion in the history of the world? Also recall that D. Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon had lost/misplaced some $2.3 trillion dollars that day before the attack,. coincidence ? The info. whet lost in the days to follow. And on, and on,. there where just too many benefits to the 1% due to that terror attack, to not consider who benefited from it!

As far as "how" well that is what an investigation if for, and there never was one. You don't think the military/government can keep secrets? Really? Do recall the Manhattan project, or look through some wikileaks releases. People can keep secrets when they are paid for doing so. It was not "the government" it was some individuals,. some in gov./military, some not, all agents of the 1%.

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Former CIA Asset, Susan Lindauer, provides an extraordinary first-hand account from behind the intelligence curtain that shatters the government's lies about 9/11 and Iraq, and casts a harsh spotlight on the workings of the Patriot Act as the ideal weapon to bludgeon whistle blowers and dissidents. A terrifying true story of "black budget" betrayals and the Patriot Act, with its arsenal of secret evidence, indefinite detention and threats of forcible drugging.

CIA WhistleBlower EXPOSES Everything!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

If you read most of what I wrote, I don't know what happened to wtc 7.... a lot of material with came down with a great deal of force and hit that building. Maybe there isn't a good enough explanation for wtc7, but I find it very conceivable that the planes brought down wtc1 & 2.

I find it hard to believe a plot this size with the number of people it would have required to pull off would remain secret. I remember the Manhattan project and recall that all those people were isolated and kept out in the middle of the desert.... because they know people do indeed eventually talk.

Until there is real evidence uncovered all you have is speculation and correlation.

"and planes have oxygen tanks and aluminum is an catalyst is a not relevant.."

This is a prime example. You cherry pick the variables you want and claim science.

I've mentioned in another thread that my brother in law worked the pile for 3 months. The heat from those fires was so great that they continued to burn building material for 100 days after the buildings collapsed. There were fuel tank and secondary explosions for 2 weeks after the collapse.... meaning that there was quite a bit of fuel in the towers that people don't think about. I know that there were two large tanks of diesel up on the 110th floor of WTC1 to run the backup generators that powered the power supplies to our data center. There were also hundreds of batteries (marine engine size) up there that create hydrogen gas and explode when heated. Then there were propane tanks.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Did you or your brother in law get to testify for the Commission? In a real investigation you'd have been under subpoena and oath and cross examined. Coming to a website eleven years later and anonymously claiming to be a witness, a credible one at that, well, it doesn't wash. It just ain't scientifical.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

No, neither of us testified nor were questioned....the same with most of the 50,000 people who worked there. Does that make their experiences irrelevant?

Did this website exist 11 years ago? I'm not following your logic here. The topic of discussion came up now, so I contributed. Sorry if that doesn't wash with you as I can't control the timing of forum discussions.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

You might be anyone with any sort of agenda. Your words here of being a witness mean nothing. That should be easy to grasp. You are anonymous. You are legion. You might be full of shit, I can't know...

[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

And that is the perfect attitude. Keep it, for all stories concerning this tragedy. Until hard proof is presented, we don't know.... and if you reread my posts that is all that I have really advocated. There is a lack of hard proof for the conspiracy theories.

[-] 3 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

" There is a lack of hard proof for the conspiracy theories." (That the government and MSM have put out.) That's why a real investigation is needed.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I have never said no to the calling for a new investigation in any one of my posts.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Good. I guess that makes you a "truther" like me.

[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

No. It's the nature of science. We always call for more investigations as the more observations made the better we can understand a phenomena. The more evidence gathered the more insight we get, regardless of the subject matter.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

How am I cherry picking evidence? Steel-framed buildings do not fall straight down like there is NOTHING under them, because there is! A steel frame!

"I find it very conceivable that the planes" why the delay then? How did the "jet fuel fire" last more than seconds?? it was all used up in the initial huge fire ball. (try to pour some fuel on fire, it just don't work so well) and in no conceivable way could that fuel have fallen all the way to bottom of the building to "soften the steal" at the bottom as would have been needed to get the results we all saw,.

It is, just as you say, "conceivable" that the panes brought them down (at least the first two of them) and that is what the lie counts on, vague plausibility. Hay,. I believed it too,. for a while, till I saw video if building 7 ( http://wtc7.net ) and did some looking into ACTUAL research on the topic,. not the bull sht that floods the net with "space lasers", "holograms",. and all the rest of the silly crap that is used to try and misdirect, and discredit the observable facts.

That is ALL I am talking about, the clearly observable facts. (zero conjecture) The way these three giant towers all fell (exploded) exactly into their footprints just like controlled demolition. But alas, people will choose to believe what lets them sleep at night I suppose.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

" But alas, people will choose to believe what lets them sleep at night I suppose.' OR SAY WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO SAY?

[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

",,,towers all fell (exploded) exactly into their footprints just like controlled demolition."

"Just like" does not mean it actually was. As I wrote above, hundreds of wedding rings, shoes, employee ID cards, pictures, even firearms were found at the site..... where are all the detonators? Without hard proof, not picture analysis or mathematical modeling these are just guesses.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Video is not proof? Better tell the court system then,. perhaps astronomers, etc. should be informed that observations do not count as 'proof'?

There is in fact a great deal of proof,. physical and otherwise. ( http://www.ae911truth.org )

However, you do seem rather determined to dismiss anything that does not conform to your view. Why is that? You claim to be a scientist, yet your posts show you have a problem getting around a conspiracy theory (the official one) that has little proof to back it up?? Why are the official unfounded claims so compelling to you? It strikes me as rather odd that you keep adding other issues to the one point I made that the way the building came down (given their steel frame construction) is not supported by simple basic physics. The planes hit near the top of the towers, the top falls first, yet the whole thing comes down, and leaves nothing standing more than a few floors, and all this at an incredible speed!

Basic physics would have the bottom of the towers steel frame provide some resistance to the falling top of the building, most likely causing the top to fall to the side not straight down THROUGH the existing structure. So instead of telling me why the official story is the only truth,. tell me how that is even possible.

But first, please just watch a few videos of WTC7 and think about it. It make no logical sense at all, unless there where some mechanism to cut all the support at the exact same moment. No other information is needed. I am not explaining 'what really happened', I am just pointing out that the official story can not be accurate.

[-] -3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

If you are claiming explosives are the murder weapon.... then produce the murder weapon. Everything else is circumstantial evidence. Traces of thermite have been found in dust samples around the WTC site but there is no clear chain of custody that links them directly to the WTC.

In Astronomy there is no choice but to use photographs. A spectral analysis of the Moon to determine what minerals are there is good, rock samples brought back by Astronaut nails it... Hard evidence.

2500 people died and you want to lay blame, then you better have hard evidence to support your accusation.

Right now the government theory is the best one that explains what happened. Are there holes in it? Yes. You bring up WTC7. Not being a structural engineer, I can't say either way whether its plausible for that building to have collapsed. I have my doubts.

As I've said before, I think its highly probable that WTC1 & 2 did collapse as per the government story.

"Basic physics would have the bottom of the towers steel frame provide some resistance to the falling top of the building, most likely causing the top to fall to the side not straight down THROUGH the existing structure."

That is a hypothesis based on visual observation. The only way to prove this hypothesis is to design an experiment and test it. So far this hasn't been done.

" I am not explaining 'what really happened', I am just pointing out that the official story can not be accurate."

A theory is the best explanation of all the observations of a phenomena. The competing theory (controlled demolition) doesn't have the physical evidence to back it.... that still leaves the government theory as the best explanation. Until more tangible evidence is produced, thats the one logic says to go with.

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

"2500 people died and you want to lay blame, then you better have hard evidence to support your accusation."

What like the gov. did with their conspiracy theory? Who was it again, Iraq or Afghanistan I forget,.

"chain of custody" for dust spread all over the city? again, really? You are like a brick wall and nothing gets through, You have no desire to learn the truth, only to push the 1% military/corporate/government line,. They used this lie to declare war on "terrorists everywhere" with zero hard evidence to back that up. Funny how I have to prove to you with "hard evidence" something that can be easily observed from the mounds of video evidence.

Why do you think the first responders ran into the building? It is because steel-framed sky-scrapers do not fall-down due to fire,. this is a fact. I am done with this thread, as you just don't want to know,. watch the video evidence,. and if you still can stomach the official lie, then good luck to you. Head in the sand, leaves you ass in the air.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Obviously you have never had a course on thermo dynamics - or if you have you have forgotten it.

Metal changes state/property when placed under varying conditions of stress heat cold applied weight ect.

Hell back in junior high their were experiments conducted to show the strength and resistance variables between a wood beam or an "I" beam when under load during a fire - this is basic engineering destructive testing.

The "I" beam was shown to give way upon being heated in a fire prior to a wood beam giving way due to loss of material/structure.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

" You have no desire to learn the truth, only to push the 1% military/corporate/government line,..."

Way to judge. Bravo!

I have every desire to learn the truth and I have a deep personal interest in doing so. 658 of my friends and co-workers died there. But I want the truth to be the truth, and not some theory.

Myself, and other IT people who had free access to all parts of Cantors infrastructure know for a fact that there were no explosives in that building. Talking to our equivalent IT people in the other companies occupying the spaces below us yielded the same observations.... there were no explosives in the building.... ceilings, floors, closets, or core areas.

So if I am a bit stodgy on the demolition theory... oh well. I was there, you weren't. I was able to verify personally that there were no explosives.

Until detonators or other triggering devices show up.... which they tend to do in explosives cases, in this case there would have been lots of them. I have to go with what I know from experience.

This has nothing to do with pushing any government story or supporting the 1%...... the typical fall back line for those who don't agree with a concept here.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

It has nothing to do with a "fall back line for those who don't agree with a concept here", (lame insult,. way to judge, yourself!) It has to do with the line you are pushing and vehemently defending; that two planes somehow caused three giant sky-scrapers to self-destruct. This is a lie, and you know that.

Your little story about searching the twin 110-story towers (and building seven?) for explosives before the event is quite funny.

detonators? why do you keep talking about detonators? ? These are the size of a cigarette or smaller, and explode or burn, why do you think this would remain or be found??

Anyway, there is no need for any physical evidence, as I am not attempting to prove anything that is not clearly observable from all the ample actual video of the demolition of the towers. All your objections to the proof available right there, is clearly misdirection, and an attempt to cloud the issue. detonators? really??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Watch the video of building 7 it falls PERFECTLY. Denial of the observable truth is faith. I am only pointing to reality. deal.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

1) the video shows nothing but the building collapsing it shows nothing leading up to that event.

2) There were no signs of demo charges going off - I have seen more than one building brought down with demolition charges. Where were the explosions and debris flung out in a cloud by the explosions?

3) on that brief video clip was that the ambient background noise? No explosion registered.


Again the building came straight down the clip shows no evidence of cause.

Skyscrapers are designed to collapse straight down so as to minimize the destructive area.

Show an angle which shows the base of the building as well as the top - and that shows the time period leading up to the event.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Your little story about searching the twin 110-story towers (and building seven?) for explosives before the event is quite funny.

Now who is distorting the truth? I never said that I searched for explosives.... I said that I didn't notice any. We are trained as technicians to look for things that may be out of the norm, because they may be a source for concern in troubleshooting. I said that I could speak for WTC1, Cantor's floors 101-105 specifically, and through discussions after the attack, the rest of the building.

detonators? why do you keep talking about detonators? ? These are the size of a cigarette or smaller, and explode or burn, why do you think this would remain or be found??

Detonator or any other component of the explosive device. It is no secret that in the forensic sciences these types of components survive explosions and are looked for. As for their size, that does not really matter. Much larger and smaller items have been found intact from wedding rings, ID Cards, buttons, and telephones.

Anyway, there is no need for any physical evidence, as I am not attempting to prove anything that is not clearly observable from all the ample actual video of the demolition of the towers.

And this is where we disagree completely. I believe in physical evidence. To claim no need for physical evidence is to rely on faith. I have seen those videos interpreted many ways, both pro and con. Physical evidence is what is real.... that's what you need to learn to deal with.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"Detonator or any other component of the explosive device. It is no secret that in the forensic sciences these types of components survive explosions and are looked for."

THE STATE HAD TOTAL CONTROL OF THE CRIME SCENE. THEY EVEN BANNED CAMERAS AND CARTED AWAY TONS OF EVIDENCE TO BE MELTED DOWN IN ASIA.

http://photofocus.com/2009/04/10/who-started-the-war-on-photography/

An Editorial

By Scott Bourne

(I apologize in advance for any who might be offended at my frank discussion of this touchy subject, but I wanted to get this off my chest.)

I’ve written about the war on photography extensively. I’ve commented on it on almost every photography forum that exists. But it occurred to me, I haven’t talked about, when it started; What started it; or Who started it? My research on this subject has led me to an inescapable conclusion that has no political motivation. But it’s one which I doubt anyone can really deny is at least worthy of consideration when looking at the facts.

The events of September 11 are so vivid because of photojournalism. Moving photos of brave firefighters and police officers have graced many a magazine and newspaper cover since that tragic day. In New York, a photo exhibition of September 11 events was created and to this date, outdraws tourists visiting the Empire State Building.

Several photojournalists were injured or killed documenting the horror of Nine ­ Eleven. Many others risked their lives and their liberty to record the important story of that fateful day. It is the latter that particularly bothers me.

Several freelancers as well as some credentialed photojournalists were jailed for days without charge or trial in the days immediately after September 11. New York Mayor at the time, Rudy Giuliani, seemed to declare war on photographers. He had the police block off more than a square mile surrounding the World Trade Center, calling it a crime scene. The Mayor ordered that anyone with a camera who even stopped or stood still near the area should be arrested and jailed.

Why did he do this? Was the former Mayor trying to get back at a press who was not always kind to him? Giuliani likes to think of himself as a serious photographer. Did he want to save the photo opportunities for himself?

What Rudy Giuliani did was impose undue restriction on a free press. And the cost of that decision may never be known. What photos did we miss? What if we had missed Tom Franklin’s moving photograph of the three firemen raising an American flag over the WTC rubble? Now that was an important photograph. It was so important that it is already the basis of a US postage stamp and the memorial to the slain firefighters to be erected at the WTC. But few realize that Franklin risked arrest by making the picture. If the police had seen Franklin, he would have been arrested and the world would not have had the chance to be moved by the story his photo told.

Like dozens of other photographers who were forced to sleep on the floor of cramped city jails while they choked on the soot that covered their bodies, Franklin would not have been able to call his family to tell them he was okay. His film and cameras would have been confiscated. He would not have received medical care or food for the first few days of his incarceration. And of course, he would not have been able to tell the story of the firefighters’ bravery.

Perhaps it is time for the Rudy Giulianis of the world to recognize that freedom of the press is important for a reason. We need to see the images that come out of national tragedies so that we can work to stop history from repeating itself. We need to know the stories these photos tell so that we can heal. We need to see the truth of what happened so that we can know in our hearts that the “war on terror” is just.

Other jurisdictions over-reacted to September 11th and photographers were jailed in a number of cities without cause. But it was Rudy and New York that led the way. In New York, photographer’s film, their cameras and their livelihoods were confiscated. In some cases, the equipment and film has been returned and all charges dropped. In still others, proceedings continue with no end in sight and no guarantee that the photographers will get their equipment or film back.

While New York has a right to see that order is maintained at Ground Zero, the almost Nazi-like complete ban on photography in the area is an inappropriate and disproportionate act. The moves made to confiscate property and deny liberty to the brave storytellers who still go to New York with nothing more than a camera in their hand, is an abomination in a supposedly free society.

Let’s remember the brave firefighters and police who worked to save lives on September 11th. But let’s also remember the photojournalists who were equally brave and who served a very important role that day the world stopped making sense. They made images that touched our hearts, motivated us to get on with our lives and gave us a drop of hope for the tough times ahead.

The war on photography started on the day of those attacks at the World Trade Center so many September 11ths ago. Let’s stop using the tragedy of that day as an excuse to arrest, detain, question, harass, harm, deter, interfere with or injure photographers today who are merely trying to tell a story with their camera.

It belittles the sacrifice of all involved in the tragedy of nine-eleven.

EDITOR’S NOTE: About the timing of this editorial…it’s deliberate. I have written pieces of this before and posted pieces of it before. I updated it and gathered it together for this blog months ago. But I didn’t want to publish it near the 9.11 anniversary, because I didn’t want people thinking I was trying to cash in on Google juice around a keyword. I am not that cynical, but some of you may be. Also, I didn’t want to publish it before the elections, assuming once again, that people would say there was a political motivation. I wanted to put it up at a time when the argument could at least have a chance to stand on its merit. Thank you

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

This link gives you an idea of what was recovered at Freshkills where the debris was taken and sifted and categorized.... from keys to airliner parts.

NYPD, FBI, and Red Cross personnel were allowed to sift the debris at Freshkills:

Recovered: 4,257 human remains, that have resulted in the identification of over 300 individuals to date

Approximately 4,000 personal photographs

$78,318.47 in domestic and foreign currency

54,000 personal items such as identification cards and driver licenses

1,358 vehicles including 102 fire apparatus and 61 Police Department vehicles

http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf

1500 volunteer construction workers and hundreds of first response personnel wandered ground zero in recovery efforts that first week. Many of them had previous combat military backgrounds as my brother in law, or as with construction workers familiar with building demolition, and would have had a good chance to recognize bomb components.

[-] 1 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

Don't even give me this sht about what I "need to learn" you condescending dip-sht.

The videos ARE evidence, and you simply refuse to acknowledge the facts they convey, or just fail to understand what you see,. Faith? the videos are VIDEO EVIDENCE, admissible in any court in the land. You are grasping at distractions, with your calls for additional "evidence", when all that is needed, is provided.

I see that some of you just don't want to know,. and that is really too bad for you,. as life in ignorance is a wast, like living in a dream.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

"I see that some of you just don't want to know,. and that is really too bad for you,. as life in ignorance is a wast, like living in a dream."

Well, I am not alone in this as indicated in the post below. Must be awesome to be as enlightened as you. Should I ever be accused of a crime I sincerely hope someone like you does not sit on my jury...

"[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (9480) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 hour ago 1) the video shows nothing but the building collapsing it shows nothing leading up to that event. 2) There were no signs of demo charges going off - I have seen more than one building brought down with demolition charges. Where were the explosions and debris flung out in a cloud by the explosions? 3) on that brief video clip was that the ambient background noise? No explosion registered.


Again the building came straight down the clip shows no evidence of cause. Skyscrapers are designed to collapse straight down so as to minimize the destructive area. Show an angle which shows the base of the building as well as the top - and that shows the time period leading up to the event."

[-] -1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Good. Truth owns this thread. Thanks.

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Holograms were used to fake the planes, and explosions were used to bring the buildings down.

I read everything this site says: http://www.debunking911.com. They're pretty good, but it's time to debunk the debunkers.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

It appears that over 1700 Architects & Engineers disagree with your assessment.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You sound like an anti-Global Warming shill. Same logic. Good thing science isn't based on consensus. Thats the difference between scientists, and architects and engineers.

[-] 3 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I hate to inform you, but science IS based on consensus. One person cannot declare something is a 'scientific fact' without the consensus of his peers. Einstein had to wait many years before astronomers were able to prove, without a doubt, his Theory of General Relativity. Only then (after a consensus) was it labeled The LAW of General Relativity.

Architects and engineers use the scientific method and mathematics in their everyday work. It's why they've spoken up about the lies of 9/11. They know that the numbers don't add up. They realize that 3 skyscrapers, falling into their own footprint at free fall speed, like they had no support under them at all, because of fires, on the same day, is not just unlikely, but virtually impossible. This is why the industry of building demolition has come into being. It's because of the unlikelihood that buildings will fall in that manner without their center supports taken out and why they charge millions to perform that service.

BTW - Global Warming IS one of the largest threats to our existence and I think it's being accelerated by man.

[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

"I hate to inform you, but science IS based on consensus. One person cannot declare something is a 'scientific fact' without the consensus of his peers."

Any person can declare something as fact if it indeed fact with or without consensus of his peers. Objective truth is independent of what we think.

Your analogy to Einstein fails for this very reason. He was not part of mainstream physics. He did not work at a University. He was a clerk.... an anybody, a nobody.

He theorized.... and what he theorized shook mainstream science. Since he had no objective proof, we had to wait until objective evidence was obtained to substantiate what he theorized.... not until a 'consensus' was reached as you claim. In fact the consensus was against him for decades. Books were published by german scientists (100 scientists) denouncing his claim. But those scientists like Lorentz and Heisenberg pushed on with the new knowledge he gave.

He is the perfect example of all it takes is one person with objective facts to back up his theory to change everything.

So Sparky, please learn about real Science and how it operates before you speak.

Until firm objective evidence is produced regarding 9/11 all that exists is unfounded guesses. Mathematical modeling is not reality.

BTW - I am a firm believer in AGW.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

I stand behind my post - so we can agree to disagree. Personally I don't like the taste of the crap that the government shovels on 9/11. It tastes like shit. If you enjoy the taste ................ fill your gut !!

[-] -2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I don't enjoy the taste of shit whether its from the government or conspiracy theorists. If there was a controlled demolition.... where are the detonators? Where is the hard proof of the explosive devices?

Hundreds of wedding rings, employee ID cards, pictures, watches, shoes, buttons, even firearms where found in the rubble.... where are the detonators?

Provide real hard evidence besides mathematical models and analysis of pictures and movies and you will have a believer here.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Those are NOT detonators found on location. Thermite dust was found all over the place with samples as far away as the Brooklyn Bridge. There could very well be alternate explanations for this. What if to hedge the attack the hijackers brought thermite in suitcases on board the jets that targeted the twin towers?

[-] 3 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

and it winds up interspersed at great concentrations through hundreds of tons of dust? A couple suitcases of thermite a high concentration of particles through hundreds of tons of rubble does not make. Whatever the source, it was uniform and in extremely large quantities.

They are not detonators, they are evidence of explosive residues...specifically nanothermite which is incredibly hard to manufacture...especially on the scale that it was seemingly used for.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Which then brings up a really tough question.... how and when it was planted and without detection? I know others here don't believe me, but I was a network engineer for Cantor Fitzgerald, WTC1 floors 101-105 with access to 110 as well, we kept our battery backup system there for the data center.

No one came in and planted anything that we ever saw (talking to other NE's in my company and our talks with NE's from companies that occupied floors lower than us.)

[-] 2 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

When a police officer comes across a crime or a murder and can't figure it out before he's investigated, that shouldn't sway the fact that a thorough investigation is still needed based on clear evidence that hasn't been addressed. I don't claim to know the answer to your question about how it was done....but that doesn't replace the fact that there is glaring evidence that should be addressed.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Agreed.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You obviously don't understand english. You no longer warrant any more meaningful discussion means that.... you proved yourself to be a total asshole and I could care less what you may think or what you have to say.

The least of all that I should have to prove anything to you. I have posted information about myself before on this forum, I won't post it for a fuck up like you just because you are having a tantrum. Be gone asshole.... back under that rock from where you came from.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Thanks. You said it in a much more direct way than I did but YES!

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Like I said, you no longer warrant any meaningful discussion.... I no longer care about how you believe the buildings were prepped or by whom, you no longer matter to me in this discussion.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

What if this, what if that. We need a subpoena enabled investigation complete with cross examinations and imprisonment for perjury. With me on that?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Yes.

[-] 3 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

where is the prove of weapons of mass destruction? dont be silly. Ask some older people who got the wisdom or ask people who studying Strength of materials or physics or relatively science. you got to understand how is possible to destroy something. play this game until you achieve at least 5 levels without using "beef" http://occupywallst.org/forum/12-years-for-911-cancers-to-be-covered/#comment-763336 don't believe to yellow press, they can tell only half true. Tell them that you tired of this bullshit, go to the beach, have fun =) http://brokentractorparts.wordpress.com/category/asterios-polyp/

[+] -4 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

BTW - Bring The Wine? AGW - Age Gains Wisdom?

[-] -2 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Don't be stupid, there is no "Law of General Relativity", it's called "The Theory of General Relativity". There are many laws which are talked about within the confines of Einstein's theory.

What geo's talking about is argumentum ad populum. Science is based on evidence, not consensus.

Now, there's a mountain of evidence that show there were no planes!!! We were duped by military grade holograms!!!

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

The Manhattan project is a good place to look at for a ridiculously big government operation kept completely under wraps. But whatever..i'm not saying the government did it....i don't claim to know who carried it out..but i do without a doubt believe those buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.

You really need to dig into some of the specific papers written on the topic. here's a good one analyzing some of the substances obtained in the dust by reputable scientists:

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Full_Thermite_paper.pdf

Listen to a few engineers who have studied the dust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23n0Vr_A1TQ&feature=relmfu

The thing that really jumps out at me the most (i graduated and work in the field with a degree in civil engineering with a focus in structures) is the free fall acceleration of building #7. This is a glaring problem if you understand how buildings are designed....huge problem. It is impossible for a building to fall in this manner (and uniformly i might add) without all support columns being destroyed at close to the same time...period.

Why not have an independent investigation? What is the harm? We spend 20 million studying monica lewinsky's dress and hardly dig into the evidence of the worst terrorist attack in american history.

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I have read the thermite paper and made comments about it to the steelhorseman. I have no objection to another inquiry, because as of now there still doesn't exist a direct tie of physical evidence to the controlled demolition of the towers. I do have a problem with WTC7, I believe that the NIST got it wrong.... that doesn't mean that the conspiracy theorists have it right.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I agree...i don't think we can assume who the perpetrators were...but i think it warrants a thorough investigation.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

you worthless POS....Liar!

Fuck you asshole. You are no longer worthy of any meaningful discussion. All you can do is spout videos, innuendo, and insults.

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Thats right yes they can asshole..... here is the reply I made to you concerning the thermite paper that you are calling me a liar about... fucking asswipe.


[-] 0 points by geo (1886) from Concord, NC 47 minutes ago

I'm not a liar. I first opened up the link and found the page of vids. I have no reason to lie about that. I tried again and just finished watching your vid as I was indeed interested. How quick we go to personal attacks.... I have already conceded the possible use of thermite. Its found in the dust....everywhere in small quantities. There is no way to tie this dust to any specific building. Furthermore, NYC is a dynamic place where thermite is used in demolitions. Buildings go up and down quite a bit. There is no way to quantitate how much thermite was used. I have read the original lab reports when the thermite discovery was made. As I have said, bring on another investigation. There is still no solid physical evidence linking demolition to the towers. ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply edit delete permalink

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I did not provide a link because if you had done any research on the topic you would have already known that the original was published in the Open Chemical and Physics Journal in 2009.....

When reading english try to comprehend what is being written.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Literally just a few...

"Refereed papers have already been published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals: Fourteen Points...[Bentham] and Environmental Anomalies at the World Trade Center: Evidence for energetic materials [SpringerLink], and Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe [The Open Chemical Physics Journal] . "

as in 3, from refereed journals, including the one I mentioned. There are not hundreds.

How old are you 12? Does your mother know that you are running amok with her iPad?

Someone disagrees with you and you hold a tantrum.... write in big bold letters in a childish attempt to shout down the opposition?

Go away TROLL and leave the intelligent discussions to the adults.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

YOU HAVE NO CREDIBILITY. You just joined today. How many other ID's do you use TROLL???? What makes you the grand authority that I have to prove myself to YOU TROLL??

Go crawl back under that rock, bridge, or sewer hole you came from TROLL

[-] 0 points by JackHall (439) 1 year ago

Blunders?WMD in Iraq, Katrina, bin Laden escapes in Afghanistan, the economic collapse of the finance sector during Bush's last 4 months in office after 8 years in the Whitehouse.

"PS. There were no explosives in the towers. I don't need to speculate on that one at all. I was there and saw with my own eyes."

Did you hear anything unusual?

Do you think terrorists with box cutters commandeered the jet airliners flew around unchalleneged by USAF interceptors for over 30 minutes? Do you believe the first 9/11 Commission Report? Why not do that over?

aftermath reordered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZku5KQneL8&list=PL61A84EF774590006&index=1 [right click]

The Truth Behind 9 11 Attacks http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8564772103237441151&q=cameraplanet+9%2F11#docid=3117338213439292490 [right click]

In this lecture by Michel Chossudovsky, he blows away the smokescreen put up by the mainstream media, that 9/11 was an attack on America by "Islamic terrorists". Through meticulous research, he has uncovered a military-intelligence ploy behind the September 11 attacks, and the cover-up and complicity of key members of the Bush Administration. According to Chossudovsky, the "war on terrorism" is a complete fabrication based on the illusion that one man, Osama bin Laden, outwitted the $40 billion-a-year American intelligence apparatus. The "war on terrorism" is a war of conquest. Globalisation is the final march to the "New World Order", dominated by Wall Street and the U.S. military-industrial complex. September 11, 2001 provides a justification for waging a war without borders. Washington's agenda consists in extending the frontiers of the American Empire to facilitate complete U.S. corporate control, while installing within America the institutions of the Homeland Security State.

War and Globalization + The Truth Behind 9 11 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490#docid=-2151801911010073280 [right click]

[-] 2 points by timirninja (263) 1 year ago

ONLY controlled explosions can cause building collapse, asshole =)

[-] -1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Tell earthquakes about that theory, or wind bringing down bridges and other structures.... like buildings....

[-] -1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

show me evidence, at least one video. i want to see how concrete building being tears out off foundations and throwed away.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Yeah I'd like to see that as well for that didn't happen at the WTC. The core beams of the towers were firmly entrenched in the foundation and had to be cut out.

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You didn't address a thing I wrote.... yet rambled on with speculation. Personally, I can't address any of the speculation you bring up.... and YouTube videos aren't going to convince me of a thing, as they aren't fact checked, reviewed sources of information.

Did you hear anything unusual? No.... nor saw anything unusual. It would have taken Houdini to have wired up WTC1 without anyone's notice.

[-] 2 points by JackHall (439) 1 year ago

Address what? The NIST Report on BLDG 7? BLIND,and DEAF or stupid? There were hundreds of witnesses on record willing to testify that they heard loud explosions before the collapse of the buildings at WTC. Tell me what the Bush Administration did right for 8 years.

Worst Presidents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxb9y3u96_Q&feature=autoplay&list=PLB2D49C0052A45996&playnext=13 [right click]

Do you believe in Fox News totally? Do you know what a controlled demolition looks like?

Controlled Demolition Explained

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cwO8loSeaA&list=PL367F81550FFF0EBB&feature=plpp_play_all [right click]

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Do you have ADD?

[-] 2 points by JackHall (439) 1 year ago

No. I don't have ADD. Did you know or forget Houdini died in 1926? That's his alibi.

Architects and Engineers solving the mystery of WTC 7 collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw&feature=bf_next&list=PL367F81550FFF0EBB [right click]

[-] 0 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago
[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

That was good... ok...ok...lol

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

A consensus does not make for truth. Mathematical modeling is not reality. We have little real world observational evidence for this type of impact, fire, materials, for a building of this design. There were/are no other buildings with the towers design in existence that have experienced this.

So everything on that YouTube page is conjecture. Like I've said before if demolition is claimed to be the murder weapon..... where are the detonators or other components? Where is the real world evidence?

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You're funny. Speculation and conjecture reign. I hope another inquiry happens.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Your link didn't lead to a specific video but a page of vids.... most of them I have already reviewed. I have been looking into this for the past 11 years. Nothing new in the form of physical evidence has been produced.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I'm not a liar. I first opened up the link and found the page of vids. I have no reason to lie about that. I tried again and just finished watching your vid as I was indeed interested. How quick we go to personal attacks....

I have already conceded the possible use of thermite. Its found in the dust....everywhere in small quantities. There is no way to tie this dust to any specific building. Furthermore, NYC is a dynamic place where thermite is used in demolitions. Buildings go up and down quite a bit. There is no way to quantitate how much thermite was used. I have read the original lab reports when the thermite discovery was made.

As I have said, bring on another investigation. There is still no solid physical evidence linking demolition to the towers.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Yeah I don't buy crap. If you claim controlled demolition as a murder weapon you better have the gun and matching bullets, as in any murder case. Finding thermite in the dust doesn't prove controlled demolition of the twin towers, some of that dust was found at the Brooklyn Bridge.

That burden of proof has yet to be met.

I see you for what you are....

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 1 year ago

"But you clearly care little for the truth, or reason"

a lot of "birthers" say the same thing

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

And a lot of birhters say "please pass the salt" at the dinner table. So do I. And so?

[-] 0 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 1 year ago

truthers and birthers are just alike. they both hate a political party so much that they are all wrapped up in fantasy, only difference is the party and the fantasy

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Truthers as you call us have facts and also valid questions that the government has not answered.

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Indeed, we have MANY facts. I challenge anyone here to refute the "no plane" theory!

[-] 0 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Sorry but my son in law saw a plane hit one of the WTC towers. Are you speaking of the Pentagon? It's besides the point because in any case the government left the Pentagon undefended which is a ridiculous circumstance to begin with.

http://www.consensus911.org/point-pent-1/

http://www.consensus911.org/point-pent-2/

http://www.consensus911.org/point-pent-3/

http://www.consensus911.org/point-pent-1/

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Sorry but my son in law saw a plane hit one of the WTC towers.

The point of the hologram was EXACTLY that; to make your son in law THINK he saw a plane. The holograms were military grade, super efficient!

The four planes where holograms. There were no planes!

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-advisor-sunsteins-conspiracy.html Sunstein co-wrote a paper titled "Conspiracy Theories" with Adrian Vermeule. The paper can be downloaded HERE. The co-author is identified in the paper as a Professor of Law at Harvard and will be referred to as "the other guy" since he deserves no respect. That isn't to say Sunstein does but since he will be working for the Constitutional Scholar in the White House I focus on him.

To get started please listen to the founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) , Richard Gage AIA, at the 5:41 mark respond when he is asked for a theory as to who he thinks is behind the attacks of 911 if the official story is false. This follows his discussion of evidence from the crime scene that does not support the official hypothesis - in fact - it supports a hypothesis the 911 commission refused to consider - controlled demolition. Pay special attention to the fact that he doesn't start with a conspiracy theory - he starts with a discussion of evidence and resists the

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Really? So that was a fake plane with fake engine pieces and fake wheels and parts that passed over my co-workers head, after hitting the building... exploded, and landed near him as he cried on the phone to me, explaining the carnage that was happening?

I think not. Nor was there any explosives planted in WTC#1 from the 101st to 110th floors. As a network engineer for Cantor Fitzgerald I was in and out of those floors, walls, and ceilings on a daily basis. Nothing was planted there.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-advisor-sunsteins-conspiracy.html

Sunstein co-wrote a paper titled "Conspiracy Theories" with Adrian Vermeule. The paper can be downloaded HERE. The co-author is identified in the paper as a Professor of Law at Harvard and will be referred to as "the other guy" since he deserves no respect. That isn't to say Sunstein does but since he will be working for the Constitutional Scholar in the White House I focus on him.

To get started please listen to the founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) , Richard Gage AIA, at the 5:41 mark respond when he is asked for a theory as to who he thinks is behind the attacks of 911 if the official story is false. This follows his discussion of evidence from the crime scene that does not support the official hypothesis - in fact - it supports a hypothesis the 911 commission refused to consider - controlled demolition. Pay special attention to the fact that he doesn't start with a conspiracy theory - he starts with a discussion of evidence and resists the

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

I can only speak for WTC#1. There was no controlled demolition. Between the other IT engineers at Cantor, myself, and talking to our counterparts in the other companies below us, there were no explosives set in the building.

There were no work crews who came into the building to set anything either. Bringing down a building like that through controlled demolition is not an easy task and requires quite a bit of explosives.

I am aware of the dust samples that have been found that contain traces of thermite. But the best explanation for that seems to be that thermite may have been present in the luggage or cargo of the plane, brought on by either the terrorists or others unknown.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Up on the 110th floor of WTC1 we had two huge tanks of diesel that powered the generators for our battery backup system for the power supply of our large data center.

In addition there were 100's of marine size batteries... that emitted hydrogen gas and explode upon heating. There were also propane tanks around.

My brother in law worked the pile for 3 months after the attack. There were other fuel tanks and secondary explosions that went on for about 2 weeks after the collapse. The fires burned for 100 days.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

"The fires burned for 100 days."

Hot enough to melt steel too. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc_fires_911.html

[-] -2 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Have you heard of military grade atomic explosives. They are extremely small and pack a very big punch.

I have a feeling one of the plotters really liked you since they didn't make the building go down as you were working. Some might even say this is highly suspicious. By what means did you escape catastrophe?

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Have you heard of the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny?

They are a terrorist team. One gives away a hell of lot of cash for rotten body parts and the other supplies candy to rot away those parts.

Those in the know strongly suspect that they work clandestinely for Nestle Corporation.

[-] -1 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

So that was a fake plane with fake engine pieces and fake wheels and parts that passed over my co-workers head

Military grade holograms have minute details.

after hitting the building... exploded, and landed near him as he cried on the phone to me, explaining the carnage that was happening?

The plane did not land near your friend. Your friend was most likely panicking and did not realize what was going on. The hologram made it look like the plane entered into the building. At that point there was a huge explosion. Even if we are fooled into believing that the planes were real, the videos show that the planes did not land after impact. They clearly entered the buildings and exploded.

I do salut the pilot who can land a plane after such an impact.

I think not. Nor was there any explosives planted in WTC#1 from the 101st to 110th floors. As a network engineer for Cantor Fitzgerald I was in and out of those floors, walls, and ceilings on a daily basis. Nothing was planted there.

If you weren't part of the people plotting 911, then you would not have had access to the area where the explosives were planted. If your job was to systematically go in each and every wall on each of the floors to install wiring, then it's likely that the plotters simply waited for you to finish in one wall before going back and planting the explosives. In fact, this is to their advantage since it makes you a believer of their official theory.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

The plane did not land near your friend. Your friend was most likely panicking and did not realize what was going on. The hologram made it look like the plane entered into the building. At that point there was a huge explosion.

One of the turbines from the jet flew over his head an landed a block away. Hell of a hologram..... you're fucking nuts.

  • If your job was to systematically go in each and every wall on each of the floors to install wiring, then it's likely that the plotters simply waited for you to finish in one wall before going back and planting the explosives.*

Now you are going to tell me how and when I conducted my job? There was nothing systematic about most of the work orders, and as a network engineer I had access 24/7 to all parts of the company infrastructure when I so desired. I often revisited many locations within any given week, so there would be no chance of someone coming in and planting something without I or others finding it...... what is so hard to see about that?

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Your turbine is quite magical. A plane hits 100 stories above, a turbine breaks lose and falls down, then by some unknown force it is pushed sideways to travel over your friend's head and land one block away?

I think your friend is lying. And, I think you are too. I'm starting to think you work for the government and that is why you were spared and are now trying to cover things up with fantastic stories of turbines that fall down and then fly sideways.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Personally? I could give a flying fuck what you think since you weren't there. It's easy to be an arm chair quarterback and make predictions about turbine trajectories (pushed sideways? WTF? where did you get that from?) when I doubt you even possess the math skills to do so.

Please go back to the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny conspiracy. At least you have more actual evidence for that. The Nestle Corporation exists.

[-] -1 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Personally? I could give a flying fuck what you think since you weren't there.

That's what Bob Lazar used to tell me so that I would believe his crackpot UFO stories. Ah! Witnesses are evidence for anything. We both know that.

You said the turbine flew over your friend's head and landed a block a away. Before flying in such a way, it had to fall down from 100 stories up. Do you really think a turbine can fall 100 stories, then stop in midair and change its direction from falling down to sideways so as to pass over your friend's head and land a block away! Puhhhhleeeease....

Lol! Your "most likely imaginary" friend has eyes of the hawk. In the midst of all the commotion, the fact that your friend was crying like a baby with acidic tears blurring his vision, and the speed at which a plane turbine would fall from 100 stories means your friend had extremely sharp eyes if he was able to positively identify a plane turbine.

Eyes of the hawk!

Too bad those hawk eyes couldn't identify the holograms!

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

Too bad those hawk eyes couldn't identify the holograms!

Your tin foil hat is slipping.

Your other comments disparaging a WTC attack survivor, who was witnessing the loss of 658 of his friends and co-workers, plus another 2,000 people that day is deplorable.

Your turbine flying sideways comment is still from out in left field as you don't know from where he was calling from.... now do you. So you justify insults and accusations based on your assumptions.

Our conversation is over.

[-] -2 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Too bad those hawk eyes couldn't identify the holograms! Your tin foil hat is slipping. Your other comments disparaging a WTC attack survivor, who was witnessing the loss of 658 of his friends and co-workers, plus another 2,000 people that day is deplorable. Your turbine flying sideways comment is still from out in left field as you don't know from where he was calling from.... now do you. So you justify insults and accusations based on your assumptions. Our conversation is over.

I see, so your friend was in one of the offices where the plane entered and was able to talk to you on the phone as the plane parts were flying around him and was able to identify them correctly even though his eyes were full of acidic tears.

I guess you believe in UFOs and BigFoot. There are thousands of witnesses who claim to have seen these things. Some even say their anus's were probed (by aliens, not bigfoots).

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

And cast shadows on the ground as they pass by.

You should ply your audience with LSD 1st before trying to tell such a whopper.

[-] -1 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Military grade holograms do come with shadows. Nothing special here.

[-] 0 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

LSD magic mushrooms peyote - something as you truly are full of shit. Was Bigfoot piloting the drone that emitted the hologram? or was that Nessie?

[-] 0 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

You need to review your military technology. Drones don't need pilots. What they need is an operator, but evidence shows that the drone flight patterns and the holograms were all pre-calculated by a US super computer.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 1 year ago

you're being baited by an idiot (sirtruth) you're better than that.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

True (idiot) and thanks ( your opinion ). I just can not believe that this idiot is here try to serve up his load of steaming BS.

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

" Physics is a difficult issue to get around, and the THREE sky-scrapers that 'fell' on 9/11 did so in ways that defy basic physics"

so the literally THOUSANDS of engineers, physicists, scientists, etc. who studied this and do not think that basic physics were defied are all wrong? each and every one of them is wrong? they all made the same basic high school physics level mistake, huh? or are they all in on it? are each and every one of them in on the conspiracy?

maybe it is a combination? did, say, 45.5% of them make a high school level mistake and 54.5% of them are in on it?

explain, please. you seem so certain, it should be easy to explain how all these people got it wrong and you didn't.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by SteadyRock (63) from New York, NY 10 months ago

You are Moran. How is it possible like two "bullets" hits tree building? here is the map of flight 93, http://www.history.com/interactives/9-11-maps#shanksville which by official reports suppose to hit Washington. Simple logic tells me that is the 3rd bullet. No building Never in world history has been fully collapsed by the flying craft but remain to stand damaged. I don't know about flight 93, but other two has auto pilot which can be preprogramed from the earth. Now build the bigger picture in your silly head

[+] -5 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

The holograms are the key. When one understands those, then everything comes into place.

[-] 2 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

yeah, you are a shill. thanks for playing.

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

The government has the technology to create holograms. It's obvious it would use this technology in its plot instead of risking it with real planes. Do you know how hard it would be to fly a plane perfectly into such targets? Near impossible!!! By using holograms, every target get "hit". It's much easier and cleaner. It would be ridiculous if the government did not use the technology at it's disposal!

[-] 3 points by jph (2652) 1 year ago

This is the type of pointless shill crap, that agents of the 1% lie, tend to spout off about,. just to try and keep the truth down, by adding noise and confusion, to clear issues,. like buildings falling in ways that are not supported by even high-school level physics. Anyone talking about "death-rays" from space of "micro-nukes" is a gov. provocateur, or a simpleton.

It is too difficult to fly a slow moving passenger jet into a giant sky-scraper? Really? How then do all those pilots land their plains on RUNWAYS or even AIRCRAFT CARRIERS ! This "Holograms" bullsht is just an attempt to reduce the issue by attaching silly baggage. Keep your Sci-fi in the fiction section.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-advisor-sunsteins-conspiracy.html

Sunstein co-wrote a paper titled "Conspiracy Theories" with Adrian Vermeule. The paper can be downloaded HERE. The co-author is identified in the paper as a Professor of Law at Harvard and will be referred to as "the other guy" since he deserves no respect. That isn't to say Sunstein does but since he will be working for the Constitutional Scholar in the White House I focus on him.

To get started please listen to the founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) , Richard Gage AIA, at the 5:41 mark respond when he is asked for a theory as to who he thinks is behind the attacks of 911 if the official story is false. This follows his discussion of evidence from the crime scene that does not support the official hypothesis - in fact - it supports a hypothesis the 911 commission refused to consider - controlled demolition. Pay special attention to the fact that he doesn't start with a conspiracy theory - he starts with a discussion of evidence and resists the

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

You can't dismiss all the evidence so easily. How do you explain the discrepancies in the videos showing plane parts disappearing and appearing, the fact that no plane parts were found, the fact that the hijackers are still alive!, the fact that those flight numbers DID NOT even exist.

It looks to me like you didn't do your research! I'm giving you a stinkle. You shouldn't attack other Truthers man. We are in this together! Let's look at the evidence and find the truth.

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

You get a stinkle from me, you are but a Sunstein stand in.

http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-advisor-sunsteins-conspiracy.html

Sunstein co-wrote a paper titled "Conspiracy Theories" with Adrian Vermeule. The paper can be downloaded HERE. The co-author is identified in the paper as a Professor of Law at Harvard and will be referred to as "the other guy" since he deserves no respect. That isn't to say Sunstein does but since he will be working for the Constitutional Scholar in the White House I focus on him.

To get started please listen to the founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://www.ae911truth.org/) , Richard Gage AIA, at the 5:41 mark respond when he is asked for a theory as to who he thinks is behind the attacks of 911 if the official story is false. This follows his discussion of evidence from the crime scene that does not support the official hypothesis - in fact - it supports a hypothesis the 911 commission refused to consider - controlled demolition. Pay special attention to the fact that he doesn't start with a conspiracy theory - he starts with a discussion of evidence and resists the

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Of course, the holograms hit the towers, then the buildings were brought down with controlled demolition.

[-] 3 points by Mowat (164) 1 year ago

Some "Conspiracy Theorists" also claimed that John F. Kennedy was assassinated by gangsters with help from the "inside". They were idiots too, right?

[-] -1 points by JenLynn (692) 1 year ago

I think idiot is a bit harsh, they are simply wrong.

[+] -9 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

Yes they were/are.

[-] 2 points by Mowat (164) 1 year ago

You hate JFK so much, you think his killers shouldn’t be sought after!

[-] 3 points by vvv0617 (8) 1 year ago

Our position would be that people who refer to insult-filled forum posts as "polls" are the bumbling idiots. Our suggestion would be that you learn more and accuse less. Start here:

http://open.salon.com/blog/watchingfrogsboil/2012/01/13/freedom_to_fascism_redux_a_timeline_of_recent_us_history

Note especially the content and timing of this letter:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[+] -7 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

OK, so you're a conspiracy theorist. Why? Didn't you study proper research methods while in school.

[-] 3 points by vvv0617 (8) 1 year ago

No one could have absorbed all the information contained and linked into the references I provided above in the span of 6 minutes between my comment and your mindless reply. I will waste no more time with the likes of you.

[+] -8 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

I had seen those links before. Conspiracy theorists like to throw them around.

[-] 7 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

'Tr@shy' : Of course you've "seen these links before" as 9/!! is Your Fixation !!!

temet nosce ...

[-] 0 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago
[+] -6 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

You have to know your enemy. I do my homework.

[-] 5 points by flip (4973) 1 year ago

does that mean that you have studied the official government conspiracy theory and know the criticisms of it and can refute those criticisms? if not it is sloppy homework don't you think?

[-] 1 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago
[+] -5 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

Yes, I've studied all sides left and right. I made a thesis paper on it. You could say I spent the last 5 years studying 911.

[-] 4 points by flip (4973) 1 year ago

and your conclusion is that the official conspiracy theory is correct is every way or are there a few holes?

[-] 1 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago
[+] -6 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

My conclusion is that the government's story is essentially tight with a few unanswered questions, but that the 911 Truthers have failed to do any serious research capable of answering those few questions, what they have done is make matters worse by asking ludicrous questions and trying to answer some with a slew of logical fallacies.

All in all, the 911 Truther movement has been a complete failure and an insult to the families of the victims.

[-] 6 points by flip (4973) 1 year ago

can you answer some of my questions on the subject - i am curious about the phone calls from the plane - seems that the story changed a few times - was there a phone in that model plane or did they use cells. and have you seen the original hole in the pentagon - before the wall fell - very small don't you think - how about the exit hole (the lawn is unmarked also). and the plane in pa - are these all photo shopped deals or is there an explanation for the weirdness?

[-] 0 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago
[+] -6 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

You'll find all your answers on the best debunking site on the web. It goes in great detail, and some of my work is featured there. http://www.debunking911.com/

[-] 4 points by flip (4973) 1 year ago

no time to look carefully but could not find what i was looking for. i have not looked into this in any detail but have heard some of the critics and am curious about some of their claims. i have looked at the pictures at the pentagon and find it incredible that a plane did the damage. same in pa. now photo shop is possible so i would like to know the counter argument. i am convinced that osama was not the mastermind but as to the rest the whole thing is hard to believe - official version and the critics. you are also hard to believe since you are religious fanatic on the subject - doesn't mean you are wrong of course, just not too credible.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

did YOU watch the video? or just the poor quality still frame truthers look at and dismiss the rest based on?

the gold ring bullshit excuse. there are pictures of osama and an iranian ayatollah wearing what look like gold rings and pictures of osama using the "wrong" hand. but you never bothered to look, did you? a truther site asserted something and you swallowed it, never bothering to look into it yourself and see how easily those two bullshit points are refuted. how does it feel to be a tool of the paranoia industry?

so that's all you got? gold ring, wrong hand, and stating it isn't him. what a joke.

what about all the known OBL associates in the video? were those impostors too? wait, you don't even know what I'm talking about because you never saw the video, you just saw the still frame and read some shit on a truther site, you liked it, and decided it was true.

what about the video itself and not the still frame? it is so obviously him only a truther who thinks it makes sense to look at a torn, piss soaked and blurry page ripped from a 500 page book and decide if the book is good or not based on just that.

you're an idiot.

[-] 1 points by flip (4973) 1 year ago

the fbi disagrees with you - weak - very weak - and yes i did watch the video - it ain't him - check out pictures and compare. don't read truther sites and am not obsessed like some people! you still haven't explained the back of kennedy's head. - here -

President Bush has said he has evidence that Osama bin Laden was behind the attacks, so it would seem obvious that the FBI would include him and other suspects on its 10 most wanted fugitives Web page.

Think again.

Bin Laden is listed, but only for the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. There is no mention of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing or the attacks on the USS Cole in October 2000, both of which he is widely believed to have orchestrated. And forget about Sept. 11.

The reason? Fugitives on the list must be formally charged with a crime, and bin Laden is still only a suspect in the recent attacks in New York City and Washington.

“There’s going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged,” said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI’s chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. “To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court.”

Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer who was deputy director of the U.S. State Department Office of Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993, said in a Sept. 12 interview conducted by Frontline that there is no concrete proof that bin Laden is responsible for the USS Cole and the 1993 WTC attacks, but bin Laden celebrates those attacks and associates himself with people who are responsible for it.

President Bush promises to reveal evidence linking bin Laden to the suicide hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bin Laden has applauded the attacks but denies direct involvement.
[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

" i have not looked into this in any detail"

Bullshit. A certain percentage of truthers use this soft approach and it is so transparent when you've seen it 2 or 3 times. You've looked into it plenty, but exclusively on truther sites. Just like the rest of Alex jones' army of ignoramuses.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

FTFY... "no time to look carefully at anything that gets in the way of my truther fantasy but could not find any flyshit in the pepper I could obsess on and assert it makes the entire case invalid"

Osama confessed on video. What more do you want?

[-] 2 points by flip (4973) 1 year ago

is that your evidence - he confessed - really - did you watch the video? that is not osama - sure found by marines in some house they just happened to be checking out - probably looking for porn vhs tapes. read the fbi report -they don't think he was the one! look at him with his gold ring and writing with the wrong hand. there are some that think this is all disinformation by cia types to foster conspiracy theories - to distract the population. to get people distracted from the real problems - i could buy that. but no - you have to say he confessed on video. and the buildings didn't fall in 10 seconds it was 16 or some such - very weak. now go off on some sort of rant - come on you can do it! you need to be reborn again - we can stop now - this will go nowhere. the sad thing is that you made me more convinced that you have no idea of what is going on. you have no good answers if that is the response

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

an end to US aggressive policy

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

The 9/11 Families http://www.911pressfortruth.com/#

Although independent investigations began within weeks of both Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, the same was not true of the attacks of September 11th. Most are unaware that formation of the 9/11 Commission was strongly opposed by many in Washington, including the Bush administration. It was only due to pressure from the 9/11 families, led by a particular twelve calling themselves the Family Steering Committee, that, fourteen months after the attacks, the first hearing finally began. These twelve remained active in monitoring the Commission’s investigation, providing a list of hundreds of specific, well-researched questions to the Commissioners. In the end, the Final Report failed to answer seventy percent of them.

In ‘9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH’, five of the most prominent members of the Family Steering Committee tell their story for the first time, providing the most powerful argument yet for why 9/11 still needs investigation.

Lorie Van Auken

One of the four famous “Jersey Girls”, Lorie is the widow of Kenneth Van Auken, 47, who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 105th floor of WTC Tower One. She served as a member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission, and with fellow widows Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Cazassa, Kristen Breitweiser, and Monica Gabrielle runs September 11th Advocates. She continues raising her children in east New Jersey.

Mindy Kleinberg

Another of the famous “Jersey Girls”, Mindy is the widow of Alan Kleinberg, 39, who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 104th floor of WTC Tower One. She served as a member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission, and with fellow widows Lorie Van Auken, Patty Cazassa, Kristen Breitweiser, and Monica Gabrielle runs September 11th Advocates. She continues raising her children in east New Jersey.

Patty Casazza

A third famous “Jersey Girl”, Patty is the widow of John F. Casazza, who worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 104th floor of WTC Tower One. She was one of the twelve members of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission, and with fellow widows Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser, and Monica Gabrielle serves on the board of September 11th Advocates. Originally from Colts Neck, New Jersey, she now lives in upstate New York.

Monica Gabrielle

Jokingly referred to by the others as “the fifth Jersey Girl”, Monica is the widow of Richard Gabrielle, who worked for Aon in WTC Tower Two. She was one of the twelve members of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission, and with fellow widows Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser, and Monica Gabrielle serves on the board of September 11th Advocates. She is also co-chair of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign with Sally Regenhard. She continues to reside in Manhattan.

Sally Regenhard

Sally is the mother of Christian Michael Otto Regenhard, a Red Hook probationary firefighter, Ladder 131, who went missing at the WTC. She founded the Skyscraper Safety Campaign and co-chairs it with widow Monica Gabrielle. Sally continues to reside in Bronx, New York.

Bob McIlvaine

Bob is the father of Bobby McIlvaine, 26, Assistant V.P. of media relations at Merrill Lynch, who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center. A retired counselor to troubled teenagers and one-time tavern owner from Philadelphia, he was at the hospital in suburban Philadelphia where he worked with teenagers when he heard the news of the attack. Not a member of the Family Steering Committee, Bob became involved early on in the fight for an investigation, attending the families’ June 2002 rally at the Capitol and subsequently joining Committee members at every Commission hearing. He continues to live with his wife in Pennsylvania.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (20418) 1 year ago

LOL. You are such a comedian. So your PhD is in 9/11 science?

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

Sorry to but in - but please don't encourage him ! The only 'PHDuh' he ever got was in higher level "Pedantry & Hubristic Delusion" !! Also 'Dr.TrashyMask' most probably has advanced knowledge of 'the below' referenced "Illogical Fellatio" !!!

verum ex absurdo ...

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

'Tr@shyMask' - keep sticking to your 'Illogical Fellatio' !!!

verum ex absurdo ...

[-] 2 points by HempTwister (667) from Little Rock, AR 1 year ago

My money says the NeoCons were praying for it and that Bush ignored the warnings in hope that it would happen. They did take down the document saying they needed a Pearl Harbor incident to implement their evil plan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_Harbor.22

[-] 2 points by Mowat (164) 1 year ago

Osama bin Laden denied involvement in 911 the first week of it happening. Check out:.

http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-16/us/inv.binladen.denial_1_bin-laden-taliban-supreme-leader-mullah-mohammed-omar?_s=PM:US

[-] 2 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago

New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims

“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon

By Jordan Michael Smith

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.

The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida’s relationship with America’s ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn’t get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn’t get the institutional support they needed,” says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.

Read on...

http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

the pentagon and Osama both killers ?

no way!

the CIA conducts government control though terrorism ?

[Deleted]

[-] 1 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

shadzhairart does not mock anybody. There's nothing mocking about it. It's my sister's store in nz: http://www.shadz.co.nz/

If I wanted to mock shadz66, I'd call myself shadz666, shadz69, shadzagoodboy, shadzwedance, or something of the sort.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 1 year ago

lulz you're a clever little bugger. I must be wrong then. I've seen people do that so many times to users on this site. First time I've seen something like this. Hahaha as you were.

[-] -3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 1 year ago

The paranoid people on this web site are really entertaining. People who are constantly spotting trolls or Thrasymaque or paid government agents working for the 1% or whatever.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (20418) 1 year ago

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

Hey ! Wake Up !! The Football Is On !!!

LOL - actually, yours is the correct response !!

You win as everyone (incl. me) who commented here - lost !

pax et lux ..

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (20418) 1 year ago

LOL! :)

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

Cool ! Keep Winning !! England v Ukraine awaits and a nation expects !!! pax, amor et lux ...

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I thought that was you Trash.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

@ '54-40' : You Thought Right !!!

& 4 U (but you must add 6!~:-) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjg6flu3zuc !!

fiat lux !

[+] -5 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

That's fine if you think I'm a bumbling idiot, I agree. What do you think about 911 Truthers?

[-] 4 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

In the last few weeks the FBI, in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, have sent out 25 flyers that label normal everyday activities as possible terrorist indicators.

These flyers also specifically target political speech and the belief that the CIA and others had a part in 9/11 in order to justify, among other things, multiple foreign wars.

That’s right, our government is teaching state and local law enforcement nationwide that 9/11 truthers should be immediately looked at as possible terrorists.

In an FBI, Bureau of Justice document on spotting potential sleeper cells within the United States it specifically states that someone may be a terrorist sleeper agent if they believe that the CIA had a hand in 9/11. (A fact that has been heavily documented by thousands of experts. Rogue elements does not mean the entire CIA)

http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/13/fbi-911-truthers-should-be-treated-as-possible-terrorists/

[-] -3 points by salta (-1104) 1 year ago

van jones , good buddy of obama, is a truther. van jones was obamas green energy czar .

[-] 2 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Yeah, he asked a logical question like "let's have a real investigation, okay?" and the roof fell in on him.

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Tucson shooting rampage perp Jared Loughner was a 9/11 truther.

Truther Sean Fitzgerald murdered his father.

Would anyone be surprised to learn the Ohio wannabe bridge bombers are truthers?

Seems like good advice to keep an eye on these dangerously stupid imbeciles.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Yeah, like I haven't seen and laughed at the monument to stupidity the shitpile on those sites contain.

Truthers are pathetic morons who ignore all facts that get in the way of their precious little angry teen fantasy.

But you keep pissing n 3000 graves and defending the honor of jihadist mass murderers, ok scumbag?

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Those pissing on the graves of millions are the likes of you piece of crap.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Truthers can't even look and count at the same time. They STILL insist any of the 3 buildings came down at close to free fall acceleration.

But never mind how long seconds actually take and pretend the east penthouse of wtc7 never existed, that gay shit gets in the way of a sacred talking point.

Right, truther?

[-] 2 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Huh? Listen let's do this as you proposed above, one question at a time. Let's try and be civil. No more cursing or claiming moral turpitude on the part of the other. Let's take the points one at a time, calmly. I'd like to be wrong BTW. It's not pleasant having the feeling that my own government attacked my city to create an excuse to wage two horrific wars.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/poll-are-911-truthers-bumbling-idiots/#comment-767229

[-] 1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Ok, answered above.

But I should add that you have to understand that situations can be exploited by those who did not cause them. Not saying you are necessarily stuck on this, but the majority of truthers are. They actually cite gulf of Tonkin as proof of 9/11 inside job. I hope you can see the fault in this kind of thinking,

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

True that. The Gulf of Tonkin doesn't prove anything except that governmental lying and conspiracies can and do happen and that mas media follow the lead of the4 conspirators at times.

[-] 1 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I do agree.

[-] 0 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago

Swell... Now please do something that actually helps Julian Assange, and please do it fast.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/free-julian-assange-ask-ecuador-to-grant-him-polit/

[+] -6 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

That’s right, our government is teaching state and local law enforcement nationwide that 9/11 truthers should be immediately looked at as possible terrorists.

They are intellectual terrorists. They destroy logical thought and promote logical fallacies galore. I applaud the government for taking action. I say let's jail Alex Jones and friends.

[-] 3 points by Builder (4202) 1 year ago

Bravo. Toss in some Cheneys and Rumsfelds, and we'll have one big happy family.

[+] -7 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

No problem. Damn Truthers already wasted 11 years of our time! Lunatics! I say to the funny farm!

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

Really ?!!! Very revealing that is I'd say - 'TrashBucket', innit ?!!

Why have you "already wasted 11 years of (y)our time" ?!!

Maan, get a grip 'onan' - worra sad cunt you are et QED !!

Gnothi Seauton ...

[+] -5 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

You don't like cunts? Are you a misogynist?

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

Nope ! I just H8 U !! Now Fuk Off - The Football Is On !!!

[+] -5 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

You use the word cunt as an insult, so I assume you think vaginas are bad, unholy, or something of the sort. Have you ever encountered a vagina?

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

LOLOL !!! Yes, you little prick !! Have You ?! et nosce te ipsum ...

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

Really? You mean everything stopped cold while the media and state looked into their claims? No? eh? " Damn Truthers already wasted 11 years of our time! "

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago
[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks

CIA Executive Director “Buzzy” Krongard managed firm that handled “PUT” options on United Airline Stock by Michael C. Ruppert

http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

is insider trading counted in the GDP?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

NO - But it is counted in the GOP & DNC

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I know a stock will rise

I invest large sums of money in it

(Money was exchanged for goods? stock)

that isn't counted in the GDP ?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

It does not count financial transactions, such as the sales of stocks and bonds. These transactions involve sales of ownership or debt and do not spring directly from the production of final output. The total of all transactions not counted is much larger than the size of GDP; the transactions of GDP are only a tiny fraction of total transactions of the economy.

http://ingrimayne.com/econ/Measuring/GNP1.html

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

are services included at all beyond added value to products?

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Yes they are. When a GDP is calculated, it includes all private and government spending, goods and services produced, and exports. The GDP is adjusted for imports and inflation to arrive at a number which is believed to accurately reflect the sum total of the nation's goods and services.

GDP accounting also does not allow for the quality of the goods and services produced, or the purpose for which those goods and services were produced. A nation recovering from a severe hurricane, for example, might spend a lot of money to repair hurricane damage, thereby boosting its GDP, but the hurricane recovery would not necessarily be linked to economic growth. Environmentalists have also criticized the GDP for failing to weigh environmental factors, as in the instances of goods which produce pollution. In fact, the GDP can even reward environmental damage, because funds distributed for cleanup efforts are counted as part of the overall GDP.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-gdp.htm

The GDP claims to measure the total value of all goods and services produced within a nation. Seeking to paint the economy in such broad strokes is bound to leave out some details. For example, marriage can exert downward pressure on GDP.

Imagine a masseuse and a deli-owner. The masseuse buys all her lunches at the deli, and the deli-owner gets all his massages from the masseuse. In a romantic haze of pastrami and shiatsu, the two decide to marry. The deli-owner now makes lunch for his wife without charging her and she, in turn, gives him free massages. In this case, GDP has dropped because less lunches are being bought and less massages are being paid for.

http://www.thebull.com.au/experts/articles_detail.php?id=10285

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

followed it to the table math and lost it

something about nominal gdp over real gdp but I can't find the definitions

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 1 year ago

Basically, GDP is a bad way to gauge the health of the economy. It measures financial activity in and out. Sometimes that's good; sometimes that's bad; but it's not a good way to take the temperature of the economy. Activity does not indicate health. So nominal vs real is irrelevant. My opinion.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 1 year ago

Over 200 comments!

Waste of time and energy!

Zionist shills want us to waste our time discussing issues that stir argument and keep us from achieving our goals.

I should have ignored this and other silly posts.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

This poll was designed to confuse and confound seekers of the truth about 9/11 by disciples of Cass R. Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule.

To find some sanity and truth try this link:

http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/01/obama-advisor-sunsteins-conspiracy.html

[-] 1 points by monetarist (40) 1 year ago

Is that even a question? ;-)

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

if the US wanted war with Iraq,

911 was a convenient excuse to keep the war industry grinding

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by LilyMayesThorthon (0) 10 months ago

Yes, they are!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (17768) 10 months ago

Here you go scumbag - http://occupywallst.org/forum/911-a-geo-political-monster-a-cris-de-coeur-by-tim/ - go ahead and bump it, lol. Wassup ? Weather not so great in Bali ? Your marriage of convenience wife left you (again!) ? Not enough young Western hippy chicks with trustfunds to try take advantage of there yet, this early in the season ? Paid Troll work drying up ? Awwwwwwwwww ... mon cher - Pouvre Petit !!

verum ex absurdo ...

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by john23 (-272) 1 year ago

I think they assume a lot that isn't known...but I do believe that those buildings came down by controlled demo....who did it i think is beyond available facts and jumps into the realm of speculation.

[-] 0 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Truthers are here to save the day.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

When did the day need saving from intellectual honesty, math, science, engineering, fire science, logic, reason and reality?

Was it when Alex Jones gave his moron army their marching orders?

[-] 1 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Truthers have been honest from the start! The government is the one who lies! Get your facts straight.

[-] -3 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

Bumbling idiot!

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

Not bumbling idiots. They've taken a mix of isolated facts, questions, fears, faith and blended them into a story. Not unlike the religious faithful or the political believers.

[-] 2 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago

"They've taken a mix of isolated facts, questions, fears, faith and blended them into a story."

Please take as an example WTC-7 and explain what you mean here. Be sure to support your contention with links to generally accepted authoritative sources that are NOT .gov or government front sites.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

Sorry I have no intention of indulging you. If you believe this was some kind of false flag, black operation, then there is no logic or fact that you would allow to upset your belief. You have your opinion, you're entitled to it, I disagree and believe the matter is settled.

I've read about the collapse of WTC-7 and believe the non-conspiritorial explanation. If you do not,then you most likely never will. There is no point in either of us wasting resources and time trying to convert the other.

[-] 2 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago

So if all the laws of nature, chemistry and physics say that neither kerosene (jet fuel) nor office fires burn hot enough to melt or weaken steel enough to bring down three skyscrapers built to withstand the impact of a jetliner - one of which was never hit a plane anyway - but a corrupt government assures us that's what exactly happened, we should just accept it and move on?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 1 year ago

You wouldn't know the laws of nature, chemistry or physics if they bit you in the ass.

[-] 0 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

Believe what you wish. I've seen explanations that convinced me the official version of events is the correct one and not violating any laws of science. I've also seen what controlled demolition requires and don't believe that could be arranged in secret. I've also seen the explanations from those that believe it was a conspiracy and found them unconvincing.

You may move on or not as you wish. I have no stake in how you spend your time, for me the matter has been explained, proven as much as thee things can be, is closed for me, and I've chosen to move on.

[-] 2 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 1 year ago

People who have far more education, experience, and a position of importance in society would all disagree with you. I don't need some kooks or crazy stories to display this fact either.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/030316post

I confirmed this story was published by the Washington Post but the contents of the article short the title and author are missing or require an account that I am unaware of. The link I provided give the contents of the article. Feel free to fact check any information in the article.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

People disagreeing with me isn't all that new. Connecting the Carlyle group to one of bin Laden's over 50 siblings is interesting but not proof of anything. I'm not really going to debate the whole 911 conspiracy theory, I have an opinion that differs from that to the truthers.

[-] 1 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Finally, someone who KNOWS the truth! You have the Truther's eye for detail!

[-] 1 points by ForgetMarx (-10) 1 year ago

"I've also seen what controlled demolition requires and don't believe that could be arranged in secret."

It wasn't. It was done in broad daylight as part of a weeks-long "upgrade"of the three towers.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

You have your beliefs, I consider them harmless, so enjoy them. I disagree with your conclusion and so do a number of experts that may or may not be in on the conspiracy, if there is one.

[-] 2 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

Except that the combined story has been pushed as a unit for a decade.

Faked video "evidence" is being pushed 24/7/365.

Distrust of democracy is the ultimate product.

[-] 7 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Truthers are bumbling idiots!

Hmmm.... not sure I agree

Sir Truth Hurtsalot

[-] 1 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago
[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

How disappointing. I had hope it was a story about assholes screaming inside job at GZ being mowed down with machine guns by firemen tired of being called liars and accomplices by truther scum.

[+] -5 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

Yep. True indeed.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 1 year ago

You simply can't argue with believers without being accused of being part of the conspiracy. It's an unsatisfying course of action, but best just to let it go, leave them to their theories.

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Who could possibly argue the wisdom one gets from immortal technique and mos def? Sages, they are, so well versed in science, math, engineering and physics.

Too funny, good one!

Oh, wait. You're serious aren't you?

Wow.

[-] 2 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

you can't be serious enough with such a poll in the header. Not all people are idiots. there is two category of people. who are very concerned about 911. And majority, who donesnt pay closely attention, who had recieved information from relatively similar sources without a doubt. i'm about to leave you here with the questions.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"Not all people are idiots."

True, but almost all truthers are. Some are willfully ignorant, getting all their info from truther sites. The few who have seen and absorbed the reality-based side and still think inside job are either too dumb or want to believe it too much.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

Caveat : Troll Post from a 'TrashyTroll' Cunt !!! QED !! ilol!

Gorra Go - Football Beckons ; "Come on England" !!

per ardua ad astra ... et cave, 'anguis in herba' !!!

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Birthers, truthers, etc.... I love the freakin media.

Anyways, are most birthers also truthers? And are most truthers also birthers?

Eh? hmmm? Ahhh?

[-] -2 points by OccNoVi (415) 1 year ago

There's been at least $25,000,000 put out to generate "9/11 Truther" lying films and web sites.

Anything to pollute the information environment.

Also, have a look at "The Assault" and the history of Air France Flight 8969 from Christmas holidays in 1994.

America was the only country that did not adopt the basic cockpit security standards from ICAO and AF after that attempt at a suicide-hijacking. The hijackers were Al Qaeda veterans, back in Algeria from Afghanistan.

Distracting people/CT_freaks with bull about explosives in the buildings -- it's a designed cover up.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Since you never bothered to think too far into it, do some research on just how much therm*te would be needed to do what truthers think it did.

They'd be trucking the shit in for days.

It's ridiculous.

And why demolish 7? was America not angry enough with the twin towers collapsing? No, not until the world-reknowned, beloved and iconic wtc7, a building no one had ever heard of, went down would the diabolical plan really work. That's when bush and cheneny and Larry s rubbed their hands together and said "moohoohoohooohahahahahahahahahahahaaaaa"

Right, truther?

It's like i was there or something, huh?

[-] 0 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 1 year ago

Actually they were stroking their Persian cats and enjoying a toast to "evil". James Bond super genius villains like Bush don't half ass it, they go all the way.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

In those diamond studded crystal glasses...infant blood, right?

Well done.

[-] 1 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 1 year ago

Same to you. I love the wtc7 bit.

"Oh darn, the two towers went down, no big deal. Wait! WTC7's down!!!! Quick, let's invade Iraq! Revenge!"

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

But...but...the tenants! Enron evidence! No, no, forget that paper shredder and hard drive-erasing magnet, that shit's for fags! What we need is a 456-step plan with secret demo installations, the FDNY to lie about the state of the building on camera hours in advance while we murder hundreds of their own, and hushaboom super quiet explosives. but remember, we don't go until the landlord tells us to! We'll put a commercial real estate investor in charge. He's evil enough. After all, he's Jewish!

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

it was early morning

mostly janitors and yes men

[-] -1 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

you were there?

[-] 0 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 1 year ago

South Park nailed it.

Stan: He was right, you did cause 9-11.

George W. Bush: Yes. Quite simple to pull off, really. All I had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers, then on 9-11 we pretended like four planes were being hijacked when really we just rerouted them to Pennsylvania then flew two military jets into the World Trade Center filled with more explosives and shot down all the witnesses in Flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the pentagon with a cruise missile. It was only the world's most intricate and flawlessly executed plan ever.

Of course only Bush had the IQ to pull that off

[+] -5 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Hijackers? The planes were holograms. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ek-Q0T9wK2g

"All of the so called victims of the staged " t.v fakery'd " plane crash's were fictitious characters created out of a computer database,and the family's who had relatives die on the fake planes,well ,they were hired actors..when you begin to dig down the rabbit hole it gets uglier and darker as you go.. ..its just sickening how the mass majority is a slave to the lie fed to them,the arrogant,brainwashed and blind leading one another...ugghh,what a total turn off !!"

Sir Truth Hurtsalot

[-] 3 points by francismjenkins (3713) 1 year ago

Surely you're joking? I guess you're not from NYC ... some of us watched, it was no hologram (ass wipe), so shut the fuck up (go infect some other movement with your delusional bullshit).

[-] -2 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

Those holograms were for you, the witnesses. You were tricked by them. You shouldn't always trust your senses. Trust the evidence.

Sir Truth Hurtsalot

[-] 1 points by doitagain (234) from Brooklyn, NY 1 year ago

go on.bring more tension to the topic.share your thoughts

[-] 1 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

All sorts of bullcrap is put out to discredit those who are asking the right questions. http://occupywallst.org/forum/poll-are-911-truthers-bumbling-idiots/#comment-767135

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Can you ask one, specific "right question" and respond to the answer?

My extensive experience tells me 95% of truthers cannot. They ask questions, some are ok most are not, and when they get the answer, they bring up 25 other things as if they were not just informed of something that proved them wrong.

Are you one of those? If not, please...ask away!

[-] 4 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I don't know if this would be appropriate, but I am going to ask until this post gets banned.

So, here's question number one: How do we know Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks? Why didn't the FBI list Bin Laden as wanted for the attacks? Has any official body presented any evidence of Bin Laden's culpability?

What you will find in the link below is what I understand, so please go and demolish it! After you demolish this one, why we can then go to question number 2.:

http://www.consensus911.org/point-g-1/

The Official Account

Osama bin Laden was responsible1 for the 9/11 attacks.

The Best Evidence

The FBI did not list 9/11 2 as one of the terrorist acts for which Osama bin Laden was wanted.

When asked why, Rex Tomb, when he was the head of investigative publicity for the FBI, stated3 that the FBI had no hard evidence4 connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.

Also, although Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the 9/11 Commission promised5

to provide evidence of Bin Laden’s responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, they also failed.6

References for Point G-1

The 9/11 Commission Report, 2004 ↩ Federal Bureau of Investigation,” Most Wanted Terrorists.” ↩ Ed Haas, “FBI says, ‘No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11‘” Muckraker Report, June 6, 2006. ↩ Federal German Judge Dieter Deiseroth, in a December 2009 statement, stated that no independent court has verified the evidence against bin Laden.

“Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over,” Guardian, October 14, 2001. The Taliban said they would turn bin Laden over if the US provided evidence of his guilt.

“Taliban Met With U.S. Often: Talks centered on ways to hand over bin Laden,” Washington Post, October 29, 2001. The Taliban asked for evidence of bin Laden’s guilt but it was not forthcoming.

“The investigation and the evidence,” BBC News, October 5, 2001. “There is no direct evidence in the public domain linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks.” ↩

Powell: “Meet the Press,” NBC, September 23, 2001.

Blair: Tony Blair: Office of the Prime Minister, “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States,” BBC News, October 4, 2001. ↩

Powell: “Remarks by the President, Secretary of the Treasury O’Neill and Secretary of State Powell on Executive Order,” White House, September 24, 2001.

Seymour M. Hersh, “What Went Wrong: The C.I.A. and the Failure of American Intelligence,” New Yorker, October 1, 2001.

Blair: Tony Blair: Office of the Prime Minister, “Responsibility for the Terrorist Atrocities in the United States,” BBC News, October 4, 2001. The government’s document stated that it “does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.”

9/11 Commission Report (2004). All statements of bin Laden’s responsibility were based on interrogations of KSM, under torture. See 9/11 Commission Report notes at Ch. 5, notes 1, 10, 11, 16, 32, 40, and 41. ↩

This post is also available in: French

Bookmark It

[-] 0 points by vvv0619 (19) 1 year ago
[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

He admitted he did it on video. What more do you want than a confession?

He wasn't on the most wanted list for 9/11 because he was already on it for other terrorist attacks and there was no point in taking the time and expense for a redundancy.

[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18923

by Prof David Ray Griffin ...(In which Prof. Griffin confesses to error in calling the "confession tape" fake let's jump to the meat of the confession--)

"Criticism #2: The Video Mentioned by Tony Blair in November 2001 Is Authentic

As I have already indicated, I agree with this criticism, along with Osseiran’s further point that I should have known that the bin Laden interview to which Blair referred was one that had been videotaped by Al Jazeera but then not aired.21 Now that I am aware of these stories, I am mystified as to how I could have missed them.22

The fact that the video was authentic does not, however, undermine my contention, argued in other writings, that there is no good evidence that bin Laden had planned or even specifically authorized the 9/11 attacks.23 Osseiran’s contrary view may be based in part on the assumption that bin Laden confessed responsibility for these attacks during the Al Jazeera interview.

This assumption was, in any case, widely expressed when the tape was first reported. As pointed out above, Telegraph writer David Bamber, in speaking of the importance of this video, said: “Osama bin Laden has for the first time admitted that his al-Qa'eda group carried out the [9/11] attacks.” The Telegraph itself supported this view with the title it put on the article: “Bin Laden: Yes, I Did It.”24 Prime Minister Tony Blair then endorsed this interpretation a few days later by claiming that bin Laden had, during the interview, said that he had “instigated” the 9/11 attacks.25 It was, in fact, these descriptions of the tape’s content that made me suspect it to be a fabrication.

The idea that bin Laden had in this interview admitted responsibility for the 9/11 attacks was, in any case, also promoted by CNN on January 31, 2002, when it aired a portion of the interview. After bin Laden was shown saying – in response to the American claim that he was responsible for 9/11 – that the description of him as a terrorist was unwarranted, CNN commentator Wolf Blitzer said: “That may sound like a denial but listen to what he says only moments later.” CNN then showed footage of bin Laden saying: “If inciting people to do that is terrorism and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.”26

After the entire transcript was published, Sarah Sullivan of Turner Broadcasting System gave the same interpretation, writing: “The transcript of the interview makes bin Laden's defense of Sept. 11 and implicit acknowledgement of responsibility even clearer than the excerpts broadcast by CNN.”27

Not all journalists, however, described this interview as one in which bin Laden had acknowledged responsibility, even implicitly, for the 9/11 attacks. Guardian writer Oliver Burkeman, for example, said that bin Laden “dodges questions about his responsibility for the September 11 attacks, but says they were justified.”28

A close examination of the transcript shows, moreover, that bin Laden did not even dodge the question. Rather, he simply made the same twofold point about the attacks that he had previously articulated – namely, that he rejoiced in the attacks but had not been responsible for them or even known about them in advance.

On September 12, for example, this twofold point was made on bin Laden’s behalf by one of his aides, who told Al Jazeera that bin Laden had had “no information or knowledge about the attack” but that he had “thanked Almighty Allah and bowed before him when he heard this news.”29 Continuing to deny responsibility in the following days, bin Laden himself told Al Jazeera on September 16: “I stress that I have not carried out this act, which appears to have been carried out by individuals with their own motivation.”30 On October 7, he praised the “vanguards of Islam . . . [who] destroyed America," but he did not withdraw his earlier statements denying involvement.31

During the Al Jazeera interview of October 21, bin Laden made this same twofold point. On the one hand, he expressed his approval of the attacks in New York and Washington, calling them “great on all levels” and saying, in particular, that “the collapse of the twin towers is huge.” On the other hand, he denied responsibility. After saying that the designation of him as a terrorist was unwarranted, he responded to the American government’s claim that it had convincing evidence of his complicity in the attacks by stating: “We never heard in our lives a court decision to convict someone based on a ‘secret’ proof it has. The logical thing to do is to present a proof to a court of law.”32

At this point, however, bin Laden did - contrary to Al Jazeera’s statement that there was nothing new in this interview - go beyond what he had previously said in public statements: Having denied direct responsibility for the attacks, he suggested that he might have been indirectly responsible. Speaking of “the brave guys who took the battle to the heart of America and destroyed its most famous economic and military landmarks,” bin Laden said: “They did this, as we understand it, and this is something we have agitated for before, as a matter of self-defense, in defense of our brothers and sons in Palestine, and to liberate our sacred religious sites/things.”33 His point was that he had encouraged (“agitated for”) Muslims to strike back at Americans and Israelis, as an act of self-defense against their attacks on Muslim holy places and people. This striking back was self-defense, he argued, because Americans and Israelis would quit killing Muslims only if Muslims killed enough of them in return to make them stop: Having spoken of the killing of Muslims in Palestine and Iraq, where “more than 1 million children died . . . and others are still dying,” bin Laden said: “If they kill our women and our innocent people, we will kill their women and their innocent people until they stop.”

Making still clearer the sense in which he might be given some credit for 9/11, he said: “We have agitated for this [an attack on America] for years and we have issued statements and fatwas to that effect.” He then referred to an event in Saudi Arabia in which four young men, who had been “influenced by some of the fatwas and statements that we issued,” had destroyed “an American center.” Bin Laden then commented: “If they mean . . . that there is a link as a result of our incitement, then it is true. . . . We have incited battle against Americans and Jews. This is true.”34

In other words, just as bin Laden was not involved in planning the attack on the American center in Saudi Arabia, but was indirectly responsible for it in the sense that the four young attackers were “incited” by his fatwas against America, he may also have been indirectly responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It is in this sense that we should understand the passage of his interview quoted by Blitzer: “If inciting people to do that [namely, attacking America in self-defense] is terrorism, and if killing those who kill our sons is terrorism, then let history be witness that we are terrorists.”35 To summarize: Having denied that he was a “terrorist” in the sense of having planned or specifically authorized the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden added that, if the word “terrorist” is used (unreasonably) for Muslims who strike back at America in self-defense, or who encourage fellow Muslims to do so, then he and the “brave guys” who attacked America on 9/11 are indeed terrorists.

I am grateful to Osseiran for pointing out the existence of the Al Jazeera interview, thereby giving me the opportunity to provide this analysis of it. By showing the falsity of the widespread assumption that bin Laden confessed direct responsibility for the 9/11 attacks in this interview, this analysis strengthens the case against the authenticity of the tape released December 13, in which the bin Laden figure claimed to have been directly involved in planning the 9/11 attacks.

To explain: If bin Laden during his Al Jazeera interview had expressed direct responsibility for those attacks, then it would not be surprising if he had also done so in a private interview with a visiting sheikh (see the discussion below). But because bin Laden in the Al Jazeera interview once again denied responsibility for the attacks – except possibly in the indirect sense that his fatwas against America may have influenced the attackers – then the video released December 13, 2001, would, if authentic, be the one and only recording we have in which bin Laden claimed direct responsibility.36"...

And so, Bin Laden denied foreknowledge of the attacks but praised the attacks and embraced the notion that he may have inspired the attacks with his words.

You fail

Next - why the FBI never named Bin Laden as culpable for 911: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Connecting_bin_Laden_to_9-11

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

I pay no more than a $1 a pound for meat

which pretty much means no meat

Cheese has also expensive

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

so when he confessed, you don't believe it?

and you take the word of a theologian involved in the cold fusion hoax? a man who believes, not on faith, that the historical jesus christ visited central america.

and I fail?

please. you want to believe it. enjoy.

[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

I sort of guessed you'd punk out and descend to ad personal attack followed by your own retreat. I'd have you for lunch. You have nothing.

The words Osama spoke are the words he spoke. There was no confession. And a man who believes that Jesus Christ visited central america (and it is a religious dogma of mormons) is about to be nominated for president by the republican party, and he has unlimited cash from a zionist criminal named Sheldon Adelson.

Jones though, is a scientist. His fusion work is not and was not a scam or fraud. You are you are confusing his modest and respected work with that of of Pons and Fleischmann who I don't believe are either Mormons or involved in 911 truth. And I do believe that you are disrupting Truth on this forum for odious reasons and your errors aren't errors at all - they are deliberate lies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#Muon-catalyzed_fusion

Muon-catalyzed fusion

In the mid-1980s, Jones and other BYU scientists worked on what he then referred to as Cold Nuclear Fusion in a Scientific American article, but is today known as muon-catalyzed fusion to avoid confusion with the cold fusion concept of Pons and Fleischman . Muon-catalyzed fusion was a field of some interest in the 1980s, but its low energy output appears to be unavoidable (due to alpha-muon sticking losses). Jones led a research team that in 1986 achieved 150 fusions per muon (average), releasing over 2,600 MeV of fusion energy per muon, a record which still stands.[8] Around 1985 Jones then became interested in the anomalous concentration of helium-3 found in the gases escaping from volcanoes. He hypothesized that the high pressures in the Earth's interior might make fusion more likely, and began a series of experiments on what he referred to as piezofusion, or high-pressure fusion. In order to characterize the reactions, Jones designed and built a neutron counter able to accurately measure the tiny numbers of neutrons being produced in his experiments. The counter suggested a small amount of fusion was going on. Jones said the result suggested at least the possibility of fusion, though the process was unlikely to be useful as an energy source. Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann (Pons and Fleischmann or P&F) started their work around the same time. Their work was brought to Jones' attention when they applied for research funding from the Department of Energy, after which the DOE passed their proposal along to Jones for peer review. Realizing their work was very similar, Jones and P&F agreed to release their papers to Nature on the same day, March 24, 1989. However, P&F announced their results at a press event the day before. Jones faxed his paper to Nature.[9]

A New York Times article says that while peer reviewers were quite critical of Pons and Fleishchmann's research they did not apply such criticism to Jones' much more modest, theoretically supported findings. Although critics insisted that his results likely stemmed from experimental error,[10] most of the reviewing physicists indicated that he was a careful scientist. Later research and experiments supported the metallic cold fusion reports by Jones.[11]

And so sleazo, as we say in the Bronx "fuck you and fuck the horse you came riding in on."

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

"personal attack"

where?

must you truthers lie about EVERYTHING? OBL confessed. if that doesn't work for you, you WANT to believe it.

probably because you're an anti-semite "a zionist criminal "

there, you can now say I did use a personal, ad hom attack even though it happened after your accusation. that's how truthers "debate" so enjoy it.

you're also delusional "Jones though, is a scientist. His fusion work is not and was not a scam or fraud."

probably yet ANOTHER conspiracy that he was discredited for the greatest invention of all time.

and as we in the reality-based community like to say, "you can't be reasoned out of what you were never reasoned into."

so keep announcing to the world that you're a kook and a bitter clinger to the most laughable talking points in the proud and honest world of conspiracy paranoia.

[-] 3 points by fiftyfourforty (1077) from New York, NY 1 year ago

You have fun with your big lie technique. To repeat: THERE WAS NO BIN LADEN CONFESSION. You can say over and over agina that there was but there wasn't.

Jones was NOT a part of Pons and Fleischman's cold fusion "scam". His work was separate, not so grandiose in any claim or objective and was well received by his peers.

Again, you can repeat your lies over and over. This is the right country for doing that.

As for me being an "anti semite" I hate no person for any circumstance of birth such as ethnicity or parent's religion. I do find Sheldon Adelson both threatening and fully despicable. It is no fault of mine that he is Jewish and appears to have been sent by central casting to be an odious Jew in a passion play.

I happen to be of the opinion that Pons and Fleischman may be the victims of anti Jewish prejudice in fact. Your repetition of slams against them may in fact be feeding into that. It's true that Jones worked separate from them and it's true his work was more modest in its goals and claims and was much better received by his peers than their work was. Still I can see no reason to impugn their sincerity as you have (and for good measure throwing in the scientist Jones who you claim is a theologian.) As well, the jury may still actually be out on Pons and Fleischman's work. I cannot judge it . I am not anywhere near competent to do so. Others though seem to think so and if they were indeed right, which I do not know, well that would have been the greatest discovery of all time or at least the past century, you'd agree. Then these two Jewish scientists whose honesty and integrity have been dragged through the mud by ignoramuses and bigots like you would as far as possible be repaired.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/02/will-pons-and-flieschmann-be-vindicated/

Will Pons and Fleischmann be Vindicated? February 7, 2012 It no longer seems that we are dealing with the question of whether LENR/Cold Fusion is real or not. Regardless of what you call it, there is a growing body of evidence that unexpectedly large amounts of energy can be produced from some kind of non-chemical nuclear reaction in a desktop environment — exactly what Pons and Fleischmann announced in 1989. While there is certainly room for debate about exactly what might be causing excess energy production, it is difficult to make a rational case that it is not possible to find a cold fusion effect at all (which has been the prevailing opinion in the mainstream scientific world since 1989). One need only browse the Library at LENR-CANR.org to see hundreds of research reports that indicate that over the last decades many researchers have been able to detect a real cold fusion effect and that LENR is a legitimate field of scientific inquiry.

Slowly, public, academic and media perception of the cold fusion/LENR field seems to be changing. We are now seeing LENR discussed more openly and more frequently by people from respected institutions such as NASA, MIT, the U.S. Navy, University of Bologna and other places. Some of the stigma associated with working in the cold fusion field seems to be wearing off it seems, as scientists are willing to publicly discuss their work and interest in this area.

And of course we have Andrea Rossi involved in the most ambitious LENR project to date — bringing his E-Cat into the homes of people around the world as a practical low-cost source of heat and (eventually) electricity. Rossi’s contribution, if his goal is achieved, would be by far the most significant of all. He has said that his only interest is to create working products — working in the laboratory and writing scientific papers holds no interest for him. Science is really only beneficial to the human race if it has a practical application, and Rossi wants to be the first to do that with LENR.

If Rossi is successful in his quest the world will certainly change, and we will no doubt see huge amounts of interest directed into the LENR field, and research and development in the area will explode. In time we could well see Pons and Fleischmann’s contribution to the world of science re-evaluated and be considered one of the most important in history.

So again, fuck you and fuck the horse you came riding in on.

[-] 0 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Keep living in truther la-la land, son.

Reality would have you shitting your pants 24/7/365.

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

As if you know the first thing about holograms and the technology needed to project an airplane in the sky.

What's the matter? Plain old trutherism isnt stupid enough for you?

[-] -3 points by sirtruthhurtsalot (7) 1 year ago

You do know what orbs are right? You know of lasers, and our drone technology right?

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Ace Baker, nitwit godfather of the no-planer kooks got his ass handed to him by a video professional. Search for it on YouTube. But get a fresh box of Kleenex before you start. You'll either be crying your eyes out or jerking off all over yourself.

[-] -3 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

9/11 truthers are exactly like religious fanatics. All of them are fundamentalists. Their huge list of empty, nonsensical talking points are their holy scribes and not a single one can be denied, no matter how stupid or magical the thinking needed to support them are.

Alex Jones is their Jay-suss and now that he has admitted he doesn't believe inside job any longer, Dylan Avery is their Judas.

[-] 2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

^ Always believes his government, a good establishment tool. Would not have fit in with founding fathers at all.

[-] 0 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

@ 'sleazo' - still talking outta yer (x) I see ... sad cunt !

nosce te ipsum ...

[-] -2 points by slizzo (-96) 1 year ago

Don't you love how she took my position, explained why it was wrong, added her own set of facts, and then resented them so clearly?

I mean, no wonder the 9/11 truth movement is growing every day.

No really' it is! ask any truther, they'll tell you.

[+] -4 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

You don't like cunts? Are you a misogynist?

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (17768) 1 year ago

IT is 'a power word' and without doubt potentially highly offensive. I use it for effect & to offend if offence be taken. If "misogyny" be the charge does my calling you 'a little prick' constitute misanthropy', dolt ?!!!

Further from your exchange with 'DKAt' below, it strikes me that your ...

  • [-] 0 points by shadzhairart (0) 6 hours ago You no longer enjoy vaginas? "I collect willing vaginas like the sea collects rain." ↥twinkle ↧stinkle reply permalink ...

... absolutely indicates a mind which has 'objectified' women and is on all but the estimation of a freakazoid psycho-sexual deviant - actually far more misogynistic and sexist !!

You had just better stick to 'The Sin of Onan' and your 'special happy time' in your 'room below the stairs' in the recesses of your dark, nasty little mind !

Temet Nosce ...

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Cunt is a derogatory word so it is appropriate in use when describing U.

[-] 1 points by frogmanofborneo (602) from New York, NY 1 year ago

It's a commonly used derogatory word true but progressive people ought to think what it means. Better to not use tht term, I'd say.

[+] -4 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

Yes, cunt is a derogatory word. It turns the innocent and beautiful vagina into something evil and horrible. Have you encountered a vagina in your orthopedic bed?

I suggest you listen to the vagina monologues.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Nope.

Have you ever encountered a willing vagina in your bed?

[+] -4 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

You no longer enjoy vaginas?

I collect willing vaginas like the sea collects rain.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

U wish. Sad that you only have a phantasy world.

Sex is not the be all and end all for me. Money is not the be all end all for me. Possessions are not the be all end all for me.

BS seems to be yours though.

[+] -4 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

Sex is not the be all and end all for me. Money is not the be all end all for me. Possessions are not the be all end all for me.

In other words, I don't have sex, much money, or many possessions at the moment and that's OK because I had to learn to live without those things. I'd love to have those things, but I just can't.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Fuck-Off.

R U a Hedonist?

Believe it or don't there are people who are not.

[-] -3 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

Ya, you could say that I'm a hedonist. I believe in enjoying the many various orchids that the world has to offer.

[-] 4 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

Shallow is as shallow does.

How deep are you?

One micron?

[-] -3 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

Are you asexual? It's perfectly OK if you are. Just curious.

How deep am I? Sorry, my back tunnel, aka chocolate river, is closed for boys. Don't bother trying next year, it will still be closed.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (33128) from Coon Rapids, MN 1 year ago

I think that again you are living in denial.

You should hook-up with RustyButtBrucie.

You have so Much in common.

[-] -2 points by shadzhairart (-357) 1 year ago

He's all yours. Who am I to get in the way of your dive in the deep end.