In my dream, the Plaza is packed, people in every direction as far as the eye can see. All highways into Dallas are clogged with cars, and millions of people have left them, now walking to Dealy with JFK & 911 signs to be there for the Nov. 22, 50 year shakeup. The whole world watches in awe, as now, all roads into Texas are parking lots..
and then a chemtrail tanker fleet doses them with vallium and prozac....
This guy RKOwens4 is full of shit. Why would someone put so much time & effort into posting all these "9/11 physics", Oh sorry, I meant "9/11 debunked" videos if they wheren't being paid to do so?
JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. HE'S ON THESE 9/11 PAGES SPREADING DISINFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01. LIKE OTHER SHILLS HE CLAIMS TO BE AN "EXPERT", IN THIS CASE A FORMER "NAVIGATOR" FOR THE AIR FORCE. HE IS 100% FULL OF CRAP & CAN'T BE TAKEN AT HIS WORD. HE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DISINFORMATION PUSHER. HE WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY RESEARCH & RESEARCHERS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICIAL STORY & WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE
After 10 years of allowing 9/11 CT's their right to free speech and them not having a whiff of proof for any of this I for one am sick and tired of their BS discrediting our country in the international arena. They discredit our attempts to prosecute the war on terrorism, how does it look to other countries when they see Americans claim our President staged this attack to fight wars on fake premises? Their attempts to shoot us all in the foot thus should be opposed. AKA SHUT IT TRAITOR. .
@batvette RE:They discredit our attempts to prosecute the war on terrorism"
Do you really believe this "war on terror" is legitimate? You are begging the question. False flag attacks are common (read Northwoods) and are used to gain support of the people to go to war. Hitler used this technique to stir the people up against the Polish. The question is begged because we are making the case that the whole thing is a sham! Read your history. It's all been done before.
@batvette REHow does Operation Northwoods discredit every future event?"
I'm not really understanding your question but i brought up Northwoods to PROVE that our gov't employs deceptive false flag attacks. They do this overseas and tried to do it under Kennedy as the documents prove. So why would any criminal investigation ignore one of the most plausible suspects? Simple, the investigation was under their control (led and funded). Would you accept an investigation from Al Quaeda?
@dwheel39 It looks like batvette has covered everything you sent to me. No sense in going over it again, as you are simply regurgitating long-ago debunked truther talking points. Nothing new here. Just a couple points that need addressing:
"NIST itself also stated that the jet fuel was not a factor in the building collapse"
Now, that's a prime example of the deceptive tactics the truth movement attempts to use. NIST said no such thing. What they said was that the jet fuel burned off...
@dwheel39 ....in about 10-15 minutes AFTER igniting the contents inside the buildings which DID cause the buildings to collapse.
Congratulations! You're a perfect example of the half truths offered by the TM. No wonder you can't get any one to take you seriously. You're nothing but liars!
@cantonear1968 "Congratulations! You're a perfect example of the half truths offered by the TM. No wonder you can't get any one to take you seriously. You're nothing but liars!"
I couldn't agree more, what the hell is their problem- why are they shooting us all in the foot? How do they think it looks to the world with Americans claiming we attacked ourselves to invade other countries? How do you like the economy, (anything but the) truthers? They give the world an excuse to dump on us.
@batvette RE: why are they shooting us all in the foot? How do they think it looks to the world with Americans claiming we attacked ourselves to invade other countries?"
Did you read my pedophile analogy? Dude you are that one i described .."don't expose Uncle Ned because you will destroy the family!" The problem is the uncle. In this case, the problem is with the corruption that has infiltrated our gov't. Stop with the "shoot in foot nonsense
@dwheel39 Secondly was your accusations against Cass Sunstein. Which were nothing more than conspiracy speak. You offered his paper as some sort of sinister govt plot. When I pointed out what his paper is actually about, offering factual information, your response was nothing more than anti-govt conspiracy paranoia of "How can we trust him?". You built yourself a nice little circle where you can allow your unfounded suspicions to fuel your delusional conclusions!
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY MY SON RYAN KYLE OWENS IS PAID TO MAKE THESE VIDEOS AND POST THEM ON YOUTUBE
Just wondering if this story is real. Never seen you post a comment anywhere to respond to this post, or any other. Would you kindy direct me where I can glean wisdom from your immeasurable mind? In your vast library of 6 fav's & 61 loads of lard I saw no dynamic dialogue or deep diagnosis from one so learned in all aspects of just who harbours the pearls of knowledge about the new Pearl Harbor.
@dwheel39 Oh really? How about you post some evidence to show that he has been debunked and then I might take you seriously. Anyone can just state something has been debunked here allow me to demonstrate... Newton did not have a clue. He's been debunked a long time ago... why do we still believe in gravity. See that is how stupid you just sounded because you provide no evidence.
@MrAwsome514 RE: Oh really? How about you post some evidence to show that he has been debunked and then I might take you seriously"
Fair enough and i appreciate your skepticism. I hope you are this critical with the government's version of the 9/11 events :)
Anyway, sure, check out citizenfor911truth1 channel and also visit 911debunkers dot blogspot dot com . Search RKOwens4 there and especially read through a debate with him ..it speaks for itself. Hope this helps. Peace to you.
@dwheel39 "visit 911debunkers dot blogspot dot com ."
You can't be serious!
If you want to play that game, visit JREF 9/11 Conspiracies and see where every single truther argument has been folded, packed and stored away 5 years ago!
Or you can try to assert for yourself where RKOwens has been "debunked" and I will address it.
@cantonear1968 hey man, believe what you want. You can believe what the government is telling you..people once believed the Nazi propaganda too so i guess there will always be loyal sheep. :) Go back to sleep then and continue to believe the government fairy tales.
@wheel Yes, and people also believe they've been carried off by aliens,we've never been to the moon, they're being poisoned by airplanes flying over head and the govt can control the weather and cause earthquakes! In other words, they like believing outlandish fantasies to fill the pathetic inadequacies of their lives by pretending they're smarter than everyone else because they have it "all figured out!".
Some even like comparing the freest country in the world to 1930's Nazi Germany!
@cantonear1968 Google Cass Sunstein (Obama czar) and his strategies for combating "conspiracy theories". This kind of disinfo is purposeful and is meant to confuse. If you take in both sides like a juror and examine the evidence, it's no contest. The government was complicit in the attacks beyond reasonable doubt. We need a new investigation to get the answers. But like someone said, "if they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?" This should be very revealing.
@dwh Let me deal with your 2nd claim first, because it's the most ridiculous. Cann you not realize you contradicted yourself? You state the "The government was complicit in the attacks beyond reasonable doubt." and in the very next sentence you say "We need a new investigation".
If the evidence is so obvious, why do you need a new investigation!?
I'll tell you why: it's so Richard Gage can continue ask for something he's never going to get and play the martyr who's "fightin' the man"..
@cantonear1968 RE:The government was complicit in the attacks beyond reasonable doubt." and in the very next sentence you say "We need a new investigation"."
How is this a contradiction? The most plausible suspects (those in Bush admin.) were not even investigated. The evidence comes from all the whistleblowers, eyewitnesses, scientists, architects/engineers, political leaders, investigative journalists, international leaders, scholars, lawyers etc who HAVE done the research.
@dwheel39 yet between all these"experts" they have not been able to publish a research paper in a peer review journal to detail an alternative theory for the towers collapse, to counter the NIST report. That's where science starts and ideology ends, sir, that's all you people have is your beliefs, not a whiff of evidence. Publish a report to dissent from the NIST or move along, your destructive activities are becoming tiresome.
@batvette RE:yet between all these"experts" they have not been able to publish a research paper in a peer review journal"
I think you're living back in the mid 2000's. Much has been written in peer review since then. How much more do you need before you say a new and REAL investigation is in order?
@dwhe Nope. Changed my mind. I really wanted to address this one:
"How is this a contradiction?"
Seriously? You don't see it?
"We have proof beyond a reasonable doubt the govt was complicit in the attacks on 9/11 and if we could just have a new investigation we could get that proof!"
If you had proof of an inside job, then you have your evidence and you don't need a new investigation.
If you need a new investigation then you do not have proof of an inside job.
@dwheel39 ...so you'll all continue to fund his crusade! What none of you seem to realize is that there have been numerous independent investigations run outside out NIST in Universities and science journals, all in agreement with NIST.
None of you have even given a thought to the logistics of a new investigation beyond the rally cry!
Who will run this "New Investigation"? Civilians? No subpoena power. The govt? You mean the ones who ran the first one you don't believe?
@cantonear1968 RE:Who will run this "New Investigation"? Civilians? No subpoena power. The govt? You mean the ones who ran the first one you don't believe?"
Well i would think that an independent, international investigation would be a good start. Also, the data for their computer models should be made public for other scientists to review. I think if they did, their whole story would be seen for what it is..B.S.
@dwheel39 you just want to keep having investigations until they come to a conclusion you want them to. you people have this bizarre concept that if you drag certain individuals into court and intimidate them they will finally break down and spill the beans about some silly vast conspiracy you believe in. thank goodness you nutters are a small minority and your brand of witch hunting was outlawed long ago. too bad you do so much harm to the country when the world listens.
@batvette REyou just want to keep having investigations until they come to a conclusion you want them to"
Not at all. We are asking for an investigation that doesn't cherry pick the evidence to suit their own myth, or ignore hundreds of eyewitness testimony and whistleblowers from just about every govn't agency involved. Watch Sibel Edmonds: war on whistleblowers .
@batvette RE:Eyewitnesses with stories of all the loud noises they heard that day. Big surprise, huh?"
Okay, now things are becoming clear. You haven't looked at ANY of the evidence. You are probably just parroting what you heard from some skeptic society or youtube debunker.
There are eyewitness accounts of explosions on basement levels BEFORE plane impact...how does that hold up to the fire theory nonsense? Oh yeah, they purposely left out those testimonies since it refutes their fable.
@dwheel39 "There are eyewitness accounts of explosions on basement levels BEFORE plane impact...how does that hold up to the fire theory nonsense?"
Um, and how does it support the controlled demolition hypothesis? Have you ever seen a demo job where charges went off and the building collapsed around an hour later?
There's nonsense here all right, but it's not the fire theory.
@unRompecabezas RE:Um, and how does it support the controlled demolition hypothesis?" (regarding explosions in basement levels)
Well, which is more compatible? Explosive devices to account for EXPLOSIONS or a fire that hasn't happened yet because the plane hadn't hit the tower? The latter requires some kind of "magic fire" wouldn't it? So the former is obviously most plausible.
It's not my job to tell you how they did it. That's why we need a REAL investigation!
@dwheel39 How exactly did the people in the basement know the plane hadn't hit the building yet? Wouldn't the explosion most likely have been the sound of the plane impact?
And like I said before, controlled demolition works by bringing the building down instantly, not over the course of an hour. It wasn't explosives.
You know what a witness contributes is called "testimony" and is not an exhibit of evidence?
Accounts of explosions at basement levels before the plane impacts... Really? So of course you have tapes from 911 call centers which recorded people calling in these emergencies, right? Something tells me you don't.
@dwheel39 sad you cite sibel edwards. This is what she tried to tell the FBI:
Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks (ctd)
@dwheel39 (ctd)." They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this."
What was she talking about Mr Conspiracy Theorist? What does Sibel have to say that supports your claims about 9/11? Doesn't she actually support the official story?
@batvette RE:What does Sibel have to say that supports your claims about 9/11? Doesn't she actually support the official story?"
No, google her interviews!! she's fighting the official fable! Did you watch "war on whistleblowers"? please watch here on youtube, seriously. So much will make more sense when you hear what she went through.
Also, the claim is the government was complicit in the attacks. Most believed the hijackers were used as patsies. They not only let it happen, they helped it.
@dwheel39 Actually I read the wiki article on her, for all her complaints about gov't corruption she is NOT a 9/112 CT. Don't you realize what got her into trouble with the FBI, leading to her becoming a whistleblower, is that as a translater she found intelligence about Bin Laden and the hijackers before 911 and tried to warn her superiors about it but they didn't do anything? They destroyed her later for trying to reveal incompetence. Sibel Edmunds story DESTROYS the inside job claims!
@batvette RE:Sibel Edmunds story DESTROYS the inside job claims!"
it does not. Did you watch the interview i suggested, War on Whistleblowers? You obviously didn't. The hijackers were used as patsies. I told you that. For them to be helped along IS by definition AN INSIDE JOB.
I told you to put on your critical thinking cap and you haven't yet.
@dwheel39 The hijackers were patsies, same old story with you people. Everyone else is a dupe,or a sucker, only YOU truthers know what's really going on.
So tell us, Obi-wan-jablowme, great swami, seer of all thruths, how exactly were the twin towers brought down again? Bldg 7?
@batvette RE:What was she talking about Mr Conspiracy Theorist?"
please stop with this labeling. Remember that the official is by definition a conspiracy theory. Watergate was a conspiracy and so was Iran Contra...why don't you believe there are scandals in the White House?
@dwheel39 Sibel Edmunds is consistent wioth your silly claims about operation northwoods, etc. You think just throwing her name out there proves an inside job on 911? That's as dumb as me finding a case of a guy in NYC raping and killing a woman and using it as evidence any random person from NYC raped and killed some one.
You wanted me to accept Sibel's credentials and evidence of unrelated government misdeeds- why don't YOU accept her statements of warning before 911 about Al Qaeda?
@batvette RE:your silly claims about operation northwoods,"
Have you read the documents? i will send to your inbox here. You must read. Once you do you will see the govn't does indeed plan these things out. They even mention painting a drone to look like a commerical airliner. So you wonder why some 9/11 truth people get that crazy idea? it's from official declassified documents. So it's not so crazy after all to think they would do this. They tried before with Cuba. Read them!!
@batvette RE:You think just throwing her name out there proves an inside job on 911?"
There are dozens of whistleblowers from just about every govn't agency. You need to watch the interview with Sibel because she discusses why they can't be heard. WATCH IT. Also, there are those from the EPA who came out and testified that the EPA knew that the air at ground zero wasn't safe to breathe. They buried this and now people are dead and/or dying. But you still trust the govn't . unbelievable
@batvette RE:why don't YOU accept her statements of warning before 911 about Al Qaeda?"
no one is disputing that so what's with the straw man? So far you've argued with straw man (you make stuff up and then attack it) and ad hominems. The evidence for the official fable is so weak that's what "debunkers" resort to. I've heard countless debates and have been researching this stuff for 2 years now and that's what convinces me most, namely how the other side argues. They have nothing.
@dwheel39 I would expect a reasonable person to look at what got her in trouble with the FBI and realize if they were putting this person on a pedestal for ME to accept merely on her professional credentials but it turned out she had firsthand knowledge of the attacks happening as the story goes, and isn't a 911 CT, that person would stop and take stock of his whole position.
Not a 9/11 CT. You will just skip along without a care. You have no reason at all. .
@batvette RE and your brand of witch hunting was outlawed long ago. "
Witch hunting? are you serious? So are you saying there is no such thing as scandals in our government? Do you think they always tell you the truth about war? Our political history in the last few decades has been a thread of continuous lies. Why would you use the term witch hunting? Do you apply that to every political investigation?
I'm sorry, but that is just plain ignorant. If you read history, you will learn it tends to repeat itself. Look for the patterns..it's the same crap Hitler did...false flag attacks, war on terror, homeland security, patriot act, eradication of free speech, government control...exactly what is happening in America now. All of this hinges on 9/11. That's why there is so much opposition from our gov't to suppress the debunking of their fable.
@dwheel39 your rhetoric displays your views are all belief driven and have no factual substance. you are paranoid and probably suffering from mild delusions.
So how many people do you believe are in on this vast conspiracy to take over the world? Would involve hundreds of thousands, easily. All of them evil and only you and your fellow truthers have the moral fiber to bring this evil to bare in the light, right? The rest of us are sheeple, ignorant if we don't share your extreme paranoia.
@batvette RE:your rhetoric displays your views are all belief driven and have no factual substance. you are paranoid and probably suffering from mild delusions."
I'm sorry but that's just plain idiotic man. Seriously.
9/11 truth proponents are the ONLY ones using all the facts and evidence. They are the ones doing the physical experiments to show you people the gov't story is nonsense. Why don't you psychoanalyze yourself? Ditch your cognitive dissonance and wake up!
@batvette REThe rest of us are sheeple, ignorant if we don't share your extreme paranoia."
The only paranoid ones here are you people who can't let go of the MYTH that our gov't looks out for it's own people, that the "evildoers are jealous of our freedom", that banks are looking out for our interests, that politicians are generally honest, that money and power do not corrupt, that false flag attacks don't happen etc.
Bad things happen in government..look at history and wake up.
@dwheel39 "I think if they did, their whole story would be seen for what it is..B.S. "
Have to do this one too!
The NIST investigations into WTCs 1, 2 & 7 were fully endorsed by both the NFPA and the ICC. The ICC is the International Code Council which regulates the way buildings are constructed. They adopted 25 of the building code changes suggested by NIST as a result of their investigation. These changes have added thousands if not millions of dollars to new building construction.
@dwheel39 So, these changes have REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS to REAL WORLD ENGINEERS, none of whom have challenged the NIST findings for "shoddy" or "incomplete" work!
In other words, REAL WORLD ENGINEERS have looked at this, and do not consider it "B.S.".
Try another tract! Knowing the opinions of actual engineers doesn't seem to be working for you!
@cantonear1968 RE:REAL WORLD ENGINEERS have looked at this, and do not consider it "B.S."."
Based on what? the conclusions of the data may be correct but the data itself is what is shown to be false or is questioned. Their computer models MADE their fire theory work. It wasn't based on the facts of the case though. The most plausible theory, CD, wasn't even looked into in the beginning. Watch "a new standard of deception" (kevin ryan) to see this dishonesty of NIST.
@dwheel39 I find it funny how you guys ask structural engineers questions reguarding demolition work and ask demolition experts about structural engineering, and then use the answers you get back to back up your claims. It is really easy to get the answers you want when you ask the experts questions that fall outside of their field of expertise...
@dwheel39 "Watch .... (kevin ryan) to see this dishonesty of NIST"
Ok. Seeing as how you are referencing this movie, which Kevin made back in 2005 & 2006, before the WTC 7 report was released, I assume you are referring to WTCs 1 & 2. Which also shows that you are blissfully unaware that NIST actually has released their raw data to people who have gone through the proper procedures and signed the appropriate non-disclosure agreements:
@cantonear1968 RE:It hurts a little when you don't know what you are talking about, doesn't it?"
First of all, why wouldn't they release their data to begin with? Second, that doesn't cover for their dishonesty and fraud whatsoever. Lastly, in light of all that, why do you trust them?
@dwheel39 Now, you and the truth movement can continue to whine and pretend there's something sinister here, or you can actually do something and purchase the software NIST used and run your own simulations with your own parameters.
But, you know, that actually requires doing something.
@dwheel39 Now, do you even know what Sunstein's paper was about? In a nutshell, he proposed that FACTUAL INFORMATION be introduced in these forums as massive amounts of wrongful information gets bandied around.
Imagine that! A radical idea as Factual Information being given to people!
@cantonear1968 Sunstein's "factual information" begs the very question! If there is a scandal in the White House and researchers expose this on the internet, then what exactly IS the factual information Sunsein would put out? Something like "we wouldn't do anything like that, that's ridiculous. We need to stop these foolish conspiracy theories"? Do you ever notice that the debunkers more often use straw man and ad hominen tactics? Why is that if the evidence is on their side?
@cantonear1968 (cont) Also compare fire collapse photos on the internet with the WTC buildings. Do they look anything alike? If not, why would you still hold to a fire collapse theory? Also, it must be kept in mind that all 3 investigations were headed and/or funded by the government. Google Philip Zelikow ..is this someone you trust? Consider that several staff members of The Commission already said the investigation was a sham.
@dwheel39 Lastly, if you limit yourself to comparing fires on conspiracy sites, you';re not going to come away with anything except the same filtered information they want to feed you. If you are truly interested in finding Factual Information I suggest you search for NIST NCSTAR 1-5a, Chapters 1-8. Start at pages 188, but especially page 268. Tell me if you come away thinking the WTCs were a "small fire".
@cantonear1968 So i take it you can't provide photographic evidence or experiments to show that fires can cause buildings to collapse on itself symmetrically at virtual freefall speed?
@wheel Excuse me, now lastly, please tell me exactly what Members of the Commission described the investigation as a sham, exactly what they said, and if they think 9/11 was committed by anyone besides the 19 hijackers on the planes, funded by Khalid Sheik Muhammed and Osama bin Laden.
Let me guess here: you'll probably find Lee Hamilton's "set up to fail" and John Farmer's "we were lied to".
Please come with something much, much better than that. It will not go well for you otherwise.
@cantonear1968 RELet me guess here: you'll probably find Lee Hamilton's "set up to fail" and John Farmer's "we were lied to".
Even if those were the only sources, wouldn't that be enough to cause doubt about the whole investigation? Not to mention the eyewitnesses and whistleblowers who's testimonies were withheld from the record? Why do you trust their investigation? Our political leaders aren't exactly the paradigm for truth and honesty.
@dwheel39 "wouldn't that be enough to cause doubt about the whole investigation?"
No, because I know the context of those quotes. You apparently don't. Or that both members fully endorse the Commission and its conclusions. Which kind of eliminates your "members think it was a sham" deception; your current backpedaling notwithstanding.
@cantonear1968 Listen, on 9/11, planes hit buildings. The government gave us their conspiracy theory that afternoon. Many have come forward exposing all the holes in their story (the true debunkers and skeptics). So why would you still defend such nonsense? Bush lied about Iraq and that's public knowledge now. Why do you still believe his story? Do you really believe the "evildoers are jealous of our freedom"? Come on man...the Northwoods docs alone prove means and motive.
@dwheel39 You made the claim that this video has been debunked. How can you debunk math and science? We know the hight of the towers, we know the rate at which a free fall occurs, we can use those two to determine how long a free fall collapse should take, we know that a free fall would have taken just under 10 seconds, and we know that the towers actually took 15 seconds to collapse. These are facts.
@MrAwsome514 REYou made the claim that this video has been debunked. How can you debunk math and science"
Most debunkers rely on NIST "science" which has been proven fraudulent. They manipulated the data in their computer models and when pressed to show their work they refuse to release the data...how is this science in any kind of peer reviewed manner when so much is done is secret? Search: kevin ryan "a new standard of deception" .
@dwheel39 This video was posted by RKOwens4... Therefore if he has been debunked then that would mean his videos have been aswell. Unless ofcourse you are going to try and say you have some how managed to debunk a person rather then what that person says maybe? But ofcourse that would not make any sense. He uses factual information in his videos. This video is clearly a demonstration of that. The web site you linked however... does not do this.
@dwheel39 truthers claim free fall speed because they are trying to use it to claim that there was no resistance to the fall and that the only way this could be achieved was through a controlled demolition. They are ignorant. I say this because even if a controlled demolition was used there would still be some resistance (less but still some), and thus there would also be no free fall speed. The towers fell 50% slower then free fall. That is a big difference and takes quite a lot of resistance.
@MrAwsome514 The claim is "virtual" freefall speed. Of course it's not a true freefall since there IS resistance. However the towers were pulverized to dust and fell so fast that the fire theory is completely implausible, if not physically impossible. Have you seen ANY examples of buildings coming down in that manner (exactly like CD) via fire alone? Any historical precedents or experiments? CD is the most scientifically rational explanation. Or do you believe their non physical comp. models?
@dwheel39 " Have you seen ANY examples of buildings coming down in that manner (exactly like CD) via fire alone? "
Why have you omitted the fact they were first hit by planes weighing a quarter of a million pounds moving at 500 mph first, which knocked off most of the already deficient fireproofing on affected floors? Was that dishonesty or an oversight?
Aren't you also discounting the role of jet fuel as accelerant which ignites the entire floors' contents immediately?
@batvette RE:Why have you omitted the fact they were first hit by planes weighing a quarter of a million pounds moving at 500 mph first,"
You might have a point were it not for Building 7. Ever wonder why they refuse to show the vid footage in the mainstream media? Why is that when it's simply a fire collapse? Why this effort to hide this fact from public knowledge? The fire explanations for building 7 are ridiculous.
@batvette RE:Why have you omitted the fact they were first hit by planes weighing a quarter of a million pounds moving at 500 mph first,"
How do you know this? Do you get this from the NIST "shotgun test"? lol NIST itself also stated that the jet fuel was not a factor in the building collapse so why are you still believing that?
@batvette I'm still waiting for examples of fire collapses that look like WTC...at least Building 7...can you show me? It's been 11 yrs and no one can PHYSICALLY show that fire can bring a steel framed building down symmetrically at virtual freefall speed. What a day of magic that was huh? How fortunate that hijacker passports survived the fiery inferno and pulverization of building...what a coincidence that the collapses ALL had the characteristics of CD and none from fire. 3 times in one day!
@dwheel39 why did you reply to that and not mention the planes' impact and the fuel? If fires don't endanger steel structures why do they require fireproofing? Wasn't the fireproofing knocked off? So what's the logical disbelief here? All of this info is not secret. All of your questions have surely been answered again and again yet you ask them again conveniently missing vital details like the planes issue.
You don't want the truth at all. You have an agenda, destroying America.
@dwheel39 You wanted examples of steel buildings that collapsed solely due to fire. Weren''t the impacts and fuel the contributing factors? Nobody needs to explain anything about building 7.
It had a 20 story gash in it, burned all day with diesel and oil fueled fires, and firefighters noted hours before it collapsed the structure was leaning, making noises, and even sighted a transit up to it and there were bulges several stories high in outer columns.
@batvette RENobody needs to explain anything about building 7."
WHAATT???? A 47 story steel framed skyscraper collapses into it's own footprint symmetrically at virtual freefall speed with eyewitnesses testimonies of explosions (and vid evidence) no one needs to explain that????
@dwheel39 Are there a lot of controlled demolitions like WTC7, where the crew allows a building to burn out of control for several hours before demolishing it?
And you seriously don't expect a falling skyscraper to collapse in a downward direction very, very fast?
A fire collapse would have brought the building down gradually and in the direction of the gash. It didn't. It also would have been a partial collapse, like building 5 which had the most severe fires but looked perfectly normal afterwards, namely, exactly how a burned building SHOULD look. Then look at building 7...controlled demolition.
@dwheel39 "A fire collapse would have brought the building down gradually, etc. etc."
Could I ask how you're so sure of this? It just seems improbable that there are so many people online who are experts in structural engineering, metallurgy, and collapse mechanics. I gather you just believe whatever Richard Gage and his cohorts tell you.
AE911Truth is all about Truth, but they want you to buy books and DVDs too.
@unRompecabezas RE"A fire collapse would have brought the building down gradually, etc. etc."
Could I ask how you're so sure of this?"
Yes you can ask. This is known from the evidence of EVERY building fire on record. They don't ever fall straight down symmetrically at virtual freefall speed into their own footprint. Like i told the other guy here, if you can provide evidence of buildings coming down like that via fire, i will discard the CD theory. Real examples please, good luck :)
@unRompecabezas RE:AE911Truth is all about Truth, but they want you to buy books and DVDs too"
Everything AE puts out is available to watch for free online..so what's your point? By your reasoning that would apply to the Popular Mechanics mag and book too. Deal with their arguments.
@dwheel39 I wanted to know whether it's conceivable that you may be mistaken in your analysis of the collapse of WTC7. I get a little suspicious when I hear amateurs telling me how a burning skyscraper should and shouldn't collapse. Could it be that a skyscraper falling straight down very fast simply isn't prima facie evidence of controlled demolition?
@unRompecabezas RE:Could it be that a skyscraper falling straight down very fast simply isn't prima facie evidence of controlled demolition?"
Sure, that's possible. But that's not the only characteristic of CD. These building exhibit all the characteristics of CD and none of fire-collapse. The comparisons are made from the historical record of both CD's AND towering infernos. Like i said, look at pics or vids of BOTH. The WTC's look nothing like fire collapses.
@dwheel39 "The WTC's look nothing like fire collapses."
Except they were on fire. Is there any precedent for a building rigged for precision demolition, struck with a fuel-laden jet, then left to burn for an hour before being brought down? It seems unlike any demo in history.
And CD is more than just packing a building with explosives, it involves severing columns and removing support structure. None of that was done in the WTCs.
You're right about that! But there are more than a few peer reviewed papers proving the existence of explosives in the dust, eyewitness testimonies to explosions and building 7 can't be explained with plane impact. Compare building 5 which was hit with falling debris from one of the towers with building 7. They are obviously not the same. Fire cannot bring buildings like that. Explosives are required.
@dwheel39 "there are more than a few peer reviewed papers proving the existence of explosives in the dust"
Nope. The Harrit paper simply postulates that the Al and FeO2 are from a thermitic reaction. His work has been published for three years, but hasn't generated any interest in the scientific community. It's a classic example of concluding that there's only one explanation for a phenomenon that could have many explanations. If you're convinced, that's great. But not everyone is.
@unRompecabezas Also, keep in mind that if the fire/jet fuel theory is accurate, then wouldn't it make sense for CD companies to just pour tons of jet fuel in one small portion of a building and sit back and watch it collapse perfectly as if they had strategically placed explosives in the exact locations required for symmetrical collapse into it's own footprint? Hey, it happened 3 times in one day ,right? So why aren't they considering doing it that way?
@dwheel39 Your notion that the WTCs collapsed into a tidy pile is contradicted by the video evidence, which shows rubble spewing throughout WTC Plaza. I hope you were kidding that CD companies would be inspired to do demolitions that way.
@unRompecabezas RE:And CD is more than just packing a building with explosives, it involves severing columns and removing support structure"
Yep! you're right. The steel beams were sliced. Amazing how fire can do that huh?
No wonder they had to destroy the evidence and ship steel overseas. Google the photos of the sliced steel and also FEMA appendix where there is a picture of the steel with holes like swiss cheese.
@unRompecabezas Once again, back to your statement of how we (you and i) don't have the expertise to decide these technological issues. The most compelling evidence, to me, is that if they (gov't) have nothing to hide, why are they hiding and destroying the evidence? This is in EVERY area, from the war games that morning to the towers collapse...they hide, lie, destroy evidence, silence whistleblowers and lie again...lies, lies lies. This is why i don't believe ANYTHING they say. Why do you?
@dwheel39 I'm not convinced the government would have the ability either to engineer and execute such a vast precision operation, or to effectively cover it up afterward. I lived through Watergate, where the Nixon Administration was undone by a penny ante break in.
Sorry if I'm a little skeptical of the notion of our government's staggering abilities in the areas of organization and secrecy.
@unRompecabezas RE:Sorry if I'm a little skeptical of the notion of our government's staggering abilities in the areas of organization and secrecy."
Well i'm glad you have at least SOME skepticism about the gov't . But they DON'T have those staggering abilities and secrecy. So many people have come forward and lost their jobs/careers because of it. The truth is all over the net. On youtube, watch Sibel Edmonds: war on whistleblowers. Please. It will shed light on much of this.
@dwheel39 Um, but Sibel Edmonds wasn't persecuted because she spilled the beans on the Inside Job. She actually got in trouble because she described (in great detail) the lapses and systemic problems that caused the intelligence agencies and the government to lose sight of terror suspects and underestimate threats from Al Qaeda.
You know, the Al Qaeda you say wasn't involved in 9/11.
@unRompecabezas RE:You know, the Al Qaeda you say wasn't involved in 9/11."
I never said that. I said they were helped along, which is by definition an "inside job", is it not? Sibel's testimony is evidence that the gov't could have prevented this but went out of their way not to.
Hitler did the same thing when he instigated false flag attacks and blamed on the Polish. Here, we just wanted vengeance for WTC, myself included. We wanted their heads and were deluded by our emotions.
@dwheel39 "Sibel's testimony is evidence that the gov't could have prevented this but went out of their way not to"
Baloney. She described the ratcatcher mentality prevalent in the intel world at that time. Agencies were too busy infighting to focus on the threats. Plenty of people have discussed the way Al Qaeda was low on the priority list throughout the 90s, when Bin Laden was focusing on foreign targets.
The US government's negligence left us vulnerable. Is that so hard to believe?
@unRompecabezas RE: I get a little suspicious when I hear amateurs telling me how a burning skyscraper should and shouldn't collapse"
That's kind of a loaded statement isn't it? I'm not going by the testimonies of amateurs but rather experts. Many have over 20 yrs experience as demolition experts, structural engineers, fire engineers and architects. The A&E vid "explosive evidence: the experts speak out" has over 2 hrs of interview footage of experts giving their opinions on the WTC's.
@dwheel39 "I'm not going by the testimonies of amateurs but rather experts"
But neither you nor I have the expertise to assess the claims of these experts. And what about all the experts who don't happen to believe the collapses were CDs? You seem to think that anyone who tells you what you want to hear is trustworthy, while each one of the millions of engineers who don't affirm the CD hypothesis must be ignorant, inept, or dishonest. Is that plausible?
@unRompecabezas RE:But neither you nor I have the expertise to assess the claims of these experts"
Technologically, i see your point. But jurors in criminal cases must assess the weight of evidence even if they don't understand some of the technical points. Google some of the debates on the subject and critically analyze the arguments. You will find those supporting the official story rely on straw men, ad hominem and other rhetorical methods to win their case. That's what convinces me.
@dwheel39 "those supporting the official story rely on straw men, ad hominem and other rhetorical methods to win their case"
I find the truthers use a lot of the same methods as creationists and other conspiracy theorists, though. You yourself just handwaved away all the official investigations just because they were official investigations. And like I said before, you cherry-pick your "experts." Anyone who tells you what you want to hear is by definition a reliable source.
@unRompecabezas RE:You yourself just handwaved away all the official investigations just because they were official investigations"
No i didn't. My point was that the very suspects themselves (consider Northwoods) led their own investigations. This is conflict of interest. Again, why do YOU trust them? have you read Northwoods?
@unRompecabezas Imagine you have a neighbor that says he wants to kill a particular person and then blame it on someone else. A year later that someone is found dead. Wouldn't it be most rational to consider your neighbor as a suspect, if not the #1 suspect?
This is what Northwoods proves, motive and means. So the fact they led their own investigations, which weren't planned at first (victims families had to push them), shows not only conflict of interest, but foul play.
@dwheel39 Northwoods also got deep-sixed by Kennedy and MacNamara, so all it proves is that some operations are too complicated, too extreme, or too risky for our soulless overlords.
@unRompecabezas RE:Northwoods also got deep-sixed by Kennedy and MacNamara, so all it proves is that some operations are too complicated, too extreme, or too risky for our soulless overlords"
Yes, i think you're right. But consider what happened to Kennedy soon after he refused to sign the documents. That was in the 60's and they now technology to pull off some very convincing false flags. Northwoods doesn't prove 9/11 but it proves they plan false flag attacks. They are suspects then. right?
@unRompecabezas RE:And like I said before, you cherry-pick your "experts."
The cherry picking was done by the gov't. The true skeptics of the official story pointed out that they left out hundreds of eyewitness testimonies of explosions in the buildings. There is a demand for a real investigation because the others were based on cherry picked evidence to make the Al Qaeda story work. Even Zelikow had the Commission report pre-outlined before the investigation.
@dwheel39 You're convinced the government cover story was Al Qaeda, but if 9/11 happened so the US could invade Iraq, why wouldn't the 9/11 Commission Report have implicated Saddam too?
I'm not paranoid about terrorism by any means. But I don't think it's realistic to deny that Al Qaeda exists. And I don't think there's anything impossible about educated Saudis hijacking planes and flying them into huge buildings.
@unRompecabezas RE:But I don't think it's realistic to deny that Al Qaeda exists."
I'm not denying their existence. But i question their origin. There is too much evidence that Al Qaeda was funded and trained by our own (CIA). Bin Laden was a known CIA asset. Islamic radicals already hate us so they were the perfect patsies. They were helped along. This is evidence by the dozens of whistleblowers in various agencies.
@dwheel39 There's a real racist stench to the notion that Middle Eastern people are cavemen who can't do anything without white Westerners pulling the strings. Like I said before, I'm not paranoid about terrorism. But it sounds like you won't accept that terrorists even exist unless they're just tools of the Big White Powers That Be.
Weren't Al Qaeda blowing up US embassies in Africa during the 90s? Didn't they bomb the USS Cole? Step away from WTC7 and look at some history.
@unRompecabezas RE:And I don't think there's anything impossible about educated Saudis hijacking planes and flying them into huge buildings."
According to their flight instructors here, they were called "dumb and dumber" because they were horrible pilots. But it's about who you trust. Do you trust independent flight instructors or political leaders who needed 9/11 to happen in order to go to war? I'll take the word of the people, not Bush.
@unRompecabezas RE:while each one of the millions of engineers who don't affirm the CD hypothesis must be ignorant, inept, or dishonest. Is that plausible?"
There aren't "millions of engineers" who support the gov't story. But by your reasoning, is it plausible that 1600+ experts are ignorant, inept or dishonest? These guys put their careers on the line. Most NIST "scientists" hide in the shadows. It's the rhetoricians who write the articles and create websites attacking the truth movement.
@dwheel39 "is it plausible that 1600+ experts are ignorant, inept or dishonest?"
There's always a minority opinion in any industry. That doesn't mean the minority is always wrong, but it doesn't mean they're always right, either. And the ad hoc explanations for why there isn't more support for AE911Truth aren't convincing. The simple fact of the matter is that many, many experts don't find the CD hypothesis plausible.
@unRompecabezas RE:There's always a minority opinion in any industry."
The minority is growing though. There were 800 experts supporting the CD theory when i first began looking into this, now it's doubled. Why? because the truth is getting out there and people can see the vids for themselves. Why would they never show building 7 on mainstream news programs? If it's just a building fire then no worries, right? The fact they hide it speaks volumes. Think about that.
@dwheel39 No one tried to "hide" WTC7. It was just a building collapse with no casualties, that's all. It's truthers who have fetishized Building 7 and turned it into a big deal. Which, considering the amount of people who have died in the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, is kind of silly.
on the contrary, yes they did and still do on mainstream tv. I've seen much of the footage myself. You can google it. When a 9/11 truth rep is arguing his case and asks for building 7 footage to be shown, they are always denied. Why?
@dwheel39 Just because you didn't know what Al Qaeda was before 9/11 is no reason to assume they didn't exist until Bush needed a fall guy for the attacks. Terrorism is real, and our government isn't controlling it.
@unRompecabezas RE:many experts don't find the CD hypothesis plausible."
many experts haven't even looked into the issue. When A&E do their presentations for their peers (engineers, scientists etc) they had no clue about most of this. Remember building 7 was only shown on the day of 9/11 itself and was not allowed on news after that. I myself had no idea a 3rd building collapsed that day. The more they give their presentation the more experts are added to the number.
@unRompecabezas RE:many experts don't find the CD hypothesis plausible."
Oh, also, some experts probably got their info from Pop Mechanics or some other pseudo-scientific mag and have read their STRAW MAN arguments but not the real ones.
@dwheel39 You can make up whatever ad hoc explanations you want about how ignorant most engineers are of the sacred 9/11 wisdom that Richard Gage possesses. Maybe they're brainwashed, or fear for their livelihoods, or are psychologically unable to entertain such thoughts about 9/11.
But it's easier for me to believe that most experts simply don't find the CD hypothesis persuasive.
@unRompecabezas RE:But it's easier for me to believe that most experts simply don't find the CD hypothesis persuasive."
I don't think A&E would have lasted this long if their theories were implausible. Also the fact the number of experts are growing supports their case. Many do not even care to look into these things. They are busy designing buildings or whatever they do. Plus, cognitive dissonance plays a huge psychological role. But when presented with evidence, most agree with with Gage.
@dwheel39 "cognitive dissonance plays a huge psychological role"
If we're playing amateur psychiatrists here, I'll point out that there's a great need in truthers to have a single monolithic enemy that they can blame for all the bad stuff that happens. The notion that our leaders weren't in control and couldn't have protected us even if they'd tried is too horrible for some people to believe. If you need any more proof than 9/11 that our leaders are useless, you're not paying attention.
@unRompecabezas RE:The notion that our leaders weren't in control and couldn't have protected us even if they'd tried is too horrible for some people to believe. "
Except the evidence against that theory is that no one was even reprimanded for blunders let alone fired or prosecuted for negligence. Instead the record is that those on top in just about every agency involved were PROMOTED!
That's why i don't buy the "inept theory". There's more going on here.
@dwheel39 The fact that no one was canned or jailed for their gross negligence on 9/11 is evidence that the government doesn't feel like they have to answer to the victims of their ineptitude.
If you're dying to see it as evidence of their diabolical precision and organization, knock yourself out.
@unRompecabezas RE:If you're dying to see it as evidence of their diabolical precision and organization, knock yourself out."
There is a mountain of evidence against the official story. The timelines don't add up, they keep changing their stories, they go out of their way to make sure whistleblowers are not heard, they ignore eye witness testimonies, they withhold evidence, they destroy evidence, they create disinformation websites, they resort to ridicule when questioned...come on.
@dwheel39 "There is a mountain of evidence against the official story."
It's so predictable that you don't consider the results of the FBI investigation or the research that went into the 9/11 Commission Report evidence, but any anomaly or factoid you can dredge up constitutes evidence.
And you criticize the tactics of people skeptical of the Inside Job theory as dishonest?
@unRompecabezas RE:the research that went into the 9/11 Commission Report evidence,"
Why in the world would you trust the "research" by the Commission? Headed by Zelikow who pre-outlined the investigation and restricted the staff on what constituted as evidence, the investigation was "set up to fail" (in the words of staff members). Many in the Commission have testified to what kind of investigation this actually was..."a sham". So in light of this, why would you trust Zelikow?
@unRompecabezas (cont) also consider the point of conflict of interest. Zelikow is affiliated with the White House and even co-wrote a book with Condo Rice. How could this POSSIBLY be an independent investigation?
Northwoods documents proves that our leaders would kill Americans, blame it on another country and go to war with them. So, they are suspects.
Would you approve of any other criminal case where the suspects lead their own investigation?
@unRompecabezas RE:And you criticize the tactics of people skeptical of the Inside Job theory as dishonest?"
Listen, on 9/11 planes hit buildings. We were spoon fed the original conspiracy story that afternoon. However, their story is full of contradictions, conflicting timelines and outright lies. So the true skeptics are challenging this conspiracy story.
It's 100% beyond reasonable doubt that there is a cover up. To what extent our leaders were involved we don't know.
@dwheel39 "So the true skeptics are challenging this conspiracy story."
Well, I accept the hijacker story, and that our government failed miserably in protecting Americans on 9/11.
If you have a better story, one that doesn't sound like some maniacal sci-fi fantasy, show me the evidence that supports it. Until then, step away from WTC7 and read a little about the story of Al Qaeda. If you're convinced Bin Laden was a CIA stooge, you might need to educate yourself.
@unRompecabezas RE:Well, I accept the hijacker story, and that our government failed miserably in protecting Americans on 9/11."
Fair enough. Will you please watch (available here on youtube) the full film "911 Press for Truth"?
It's about how the victim's families had to fight to get any investigation at all. It's very revealing. You seem a bit more open than others on this thread. Please watch and consider the case.
@unRompecabezas RE:Until then, step away from WTC7 and read a little about the story of Al Qaeda"
there is no conflict between the two..it's not either controlled demolition or Al Qaeda. The claim is that none of the events could have been pulled off without people on the inside.
@dwheel39 "it's not either controlled demolition or Al Qaeda"
Sure it is. Occam's Razor, amigo. If terrorists flew the jets into buildings and the fires caused them to collapse, that's the end of the story. No need for magic ninja demo crews, sinister stand-downs, or vast cover-ups.
Do I think we got the whole story? Probably not. But does that mean Bush & Co. engineered it? Nope.
@unRompecabezas RE:If terrorists flew the jets into buildings and the fires caused them to collapse, that's the end of the story"
That's begging the very question. It's highly implausible, if not impossible for fires to bring buildings down exactly like controlled demolition. Again, please show me at least one example from history or by experiment that shows buildings coming down like building 7 by fire.
it's been 11 yrs and still no one has an example. Ridicule is offered as a refutation.
@unRompecabezas RENo need for magic ninja demo crews, sinister stand-downs, or vast cover-ups."
Just by the very fact a commercial airliner even hit the pentagon after the 2 impacts at the towers had occurred supports the idea of stand down orders, not to mention there are testimonies to this.
Why would a covert act of loading buildings with explosives be considered "magic"? Is it really that unreasonable to you?
@dwheel39 I've never been convinced about the need for CD. It seems like another nonsensical bit of truther dogma. Why exactly would anyone want to wire buildings for demo if he knew fuel-laden jets were going to hit them? What was the urgent need for symmetrical collapses? Why destroy building 7 in broad daylight?
Why go to all the effort and risk? I'm sorry if these are just matters you take on faith and I'm not supposed to question them.
@unRompecabezas "What was the urgent need for symmetrical collapses?"
That statement nailed it for sure. The simple answer is there was no need for it. The same terrorists tried to bomb the WTC once before so why couldn't they just plant a bigger bomb and blame it on them? Or why would they need CD charges when they could have just loaded up the plane with explosives? I mean the plane has a maximum take off weight of 200,000 pounds. It could carry one hell of a pay load.
@dwheel39 "Just by the very fact a commercial airliner even hit the pentagon after the 2 impacts at the towers had occurred supports the idea of stand down orders, not to mention there are testimonies to this."
Flight 77 had been hijacked even before the second jet hit the WTC towers. You should read up on the details of the confusion that morning. The FAA wasn't sure which flights had already crashed, and since Flight 77 wasn't on the radar anymore, they thought it might have crashed.
@dwheel39 I wish I could see real evidence from truthers, evidence of the planning and execution of this vast plot. Because so far you seem to think that the collapse speed of WTC7 and Operation Northwoods are evidence.
@unRompecabezas RE:I wish I could see real evidence from truthers, evidence of the planning and execution of this vast plot"
If you are truly open to the evidence i can send you links to your inbox. If you already have your mind made up that our leaders would never do such a thing, well, there's nothing i can show you to change your mind. Northwoods is the starting point because they prove our leaders would do such a thing.
@unRompecabezas Remember that the government led the 3 investigations (FEMA, NIST and 9/11 commission). It would be like members of organized crime leading investigations into one of their own people. Would you believe them?
"uh...no...uh...joey didn't burned down the building. Protection money? now that's just ridiculous. We need to put an end to these 'conspiracy theories'. How dare you accuse Joey of doing such a thing..blah blah".
Would their investigation carry any weight to you?
@dwheel39 "Everything AE puts out is available to watch for free online"
Ae911truth's latest tax return, which is publicly filed because they are classified as a non-profit organization, shows they collected over $400,000 in donations and materials sales for the year 2010. Gage paid himself almost $100,000 in salary from said donations, which does not include travel expenses for his "quest for Truth" tours.
So don't pretend they are a benevolent, vow-of-poverty society.
This has been flagged as spam show
In my dream, the Plaza is packed, people in every direction as far as the eye can see. All highways into Dallas are clogged with cars, and millions of people have left them, now walking to Dealy with JFK & 911 signs to be there for the Nov. 22, 50 year shakeup. The whole world watches in awe, as now, all roads into Texas are parking lots..
and then a chemtrail tanker fleet doses them with vallium and prozac....
they forget why they came....
and go home & watch the "nooz"
MrNoblemanoflove 3 days ago
This guy RKOwens4 is full of shit. Why would someone put so much time & effort into posting all these "9/11 physics", Oh sorry, I meant "9/11 debunked" videos if they wheren't being paid to do so?
mrh785 5 days ago
Comment removed
mrh785 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
JUST FYI, THE USER KNOWN AS cantonear1968 IS A KNOWN SHILL. HE'S ON THESE 9/11 PAGES SPREADING DISINFORMATION ABOUT THE EVENTS OF 9/11/01. LIKE OTHER SHILLS HE CLAIMS TO BE AN "EXPERT", IN THIS CASE A FORMER "NAVIGATOR" FOR THE AIR FORCE. HE IS 100% FULL OF CRAP & CAN'T BE TAKEN AT HIS WORD. HE IS NOTHING MORE THAN A DISINFORMATION PUSHER. HE WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT ANY RESEARCH & RESEARCHERS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICIAL STORY & WILL ATTEMPT TO DISCREDIT THE TRUTH MOVEMENT AS A WHOLE
mrh785 5 days ago 2
After 10 years of allowing 9/11 CT's their right to free speech and them not having a whiff of proof for any of this I for one am sick and tired of their BS discrediting our country in the international arena. They discredit our attempts to prosecute the war on terrorism, how does it look to other countries when they see Americans claim our President staged this attack to fight wars on fake premises? Their attempts to shoot us all in the foot thus should be opposed. AKA SHUT IT TRAITOR. .
batvette 1 week ago
@batvette RE:They discredit our attempts to prosecute the war on terrorism"
Do you really believe this "war on terror" is legitimate? You are begging the question. False flag attacks are common (read Northwoods) and are used to gain support of the people to go to war. Hitler used this technique to stir the people up against the Polish. The question is begged because we are making the case that the whole thing is a sham! Read your history. It's all been done before.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 How does Operation Northwoods discredit every future event?
Read Al Qaeda's 1998 fatwa. Of COURSE we pissed them off.
batvette 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batvette REHow does Operation Northwoods discredit every future event?"
I'm not really understanding your question but i brought up Northwoods to PROVE that our gov't employs deceptive false flag attacks. They do this overseas and tried to do it under Kennedy as the documents prove. So why would any criminal investigation ignore one of the most plausible suspects? Simple, the investigation was under their control (led and funded). Would you accept an investigation from Al Quaeda?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 It looks like batvette has covered everything you sent to me. No sense in going over it again, as you are simply regurgitating long-ago debunked truther talking points. Nothing new here. Just a couple points that need addressing:
"NIST itself also stated that the jet fuel was not a factor in the building collapse"
Now, that's a prime example of the deceptive tactics the truth movement attempts to use. NIST said no such thing. What they said was that the jet fuel burned off...
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@dwheel39 ....in about 10-15 minutes AFTER igniting the contents inside the buildings which DID cause the buildings to collapse.
Congratulations! You're a perfect example of the half truths offered by the TM. No wonder you can't get any one to take you seriously. You're nothing but liars!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 "Congratulations! You're a perfect example of the half truths offered by the TM. No wonder you can't get any one to take you seriously. You're nothing but liars!"
I couldn't agree more, what the hell is their problem- why are they shooting us all in the foot? How do they think it looks to the world with Americans claiming we attacked ourselves to invade other countries? How do you like the economy, (anything but the) truthers? They give the world an excuse to dump on us.
batvette 5 days ago
@batvette RE: why are they shooting us all in the foot? How do they think it looks to the world with Americans claiming we attacked ourselves to invade other countries?"
Did you read my pedophile analogy? Dude you are that one i described .."don't expose Uncle Ned because you will destroy the family!" The problem is the uncle. In this case, the problem is with the corruption that has infiltrated our gov't. Stop with the "shoot in foot nonsense
dwheel39 5 days ago
@dwheel39 Secondly was your accusations against Cass Sunstein. Which were nothing more than conspiracy speak. You offered his paper as some sort of sinister govt plot. When I pointed out what his paper is actually about, offering factual information, your response was nothing more than anti-govt conspiracy paranoia of "How can we trust him?". You built yourself a nice little circle where you can allow your unfounded suspicions to fuel your delusional conclusions!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@dwheel39 So let me know when you actually have something for me. This is all bus league stuff that people gave up on back in 2008.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY MY SON RYAN KYLE OWENS IS PAID TO MAKE THESE VIDEOS AND POST THEM ON YOUTUBE
Just wondering if this story is real. Never seen you post a comment anywhere to respond to this post, or any other. Would you kindy direct me where I can glean wisdom from your immeasurable mind? In your vast library of 6 fav's & 61 loads of lard I saw no dynamic dialogue or deep diagnosis from one so learned in all aspects of just who harbours the pearls of knowledge about the new Pearl Harbor.
Disdain4Lies 1 week ago
RKOwens4 does not have a clue. He's been debunked a long time ago...why is this clip still posted?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 Oh really? How about you post some evidence to show that he has been debunked and then I might take you seriously. Anyone can just state something has been debunked here allow me to demonstrate... Newton did not have a clue. He's been debunked a long time ago... why do we still believe in gravity. See that is how stupid you just sounded because you provide no evidence.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 RE: Oh really? How about you post some evidence to show that he has been debunked and then I might take you seriously"
Fair enough and i appreciate your skepticism. I hope you are this critical with the government's version of the 9/11 events :)
Anyway, sure, check out citizenfor911truth1 channel and also visit 911debunkers dot blogspot dot com . Search RKOwens4 there and especially read through a debate with him ..it speaks for itself. Hope this helps. Peace to you.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 "visit 911debunkers dot blogspot dot com ."
You can't be serious!
If you want to play that game, visit JREF 9/11 Conspiracies and see where every single truther argument has been folded, packed and stored away 5 years ago!
Or you can try to assert for yourself where RKOwens has been "debunked" and I will address it.
I don't see this ending well for you!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 hey man, believe what you want. You can believe what the government is telling you..people once believed the Nazi propaganda too so i guess there will always be loyal sheep. :) Go back to sleep then and continue to believe the government fairy tales.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@wheel Yes, and people also believe they've been carried off by aliens,we've never been to the moon, they're being poisoned by airplanes flying over head and the govt can control the weather and cause earthquakes! In other words, they like believing outlandish fantasies to fill the pathetic inadequacies of their lives by pretending they're smarter than everyone else because they have it "all figured out!".
Some even like comparing the freest country in the world to 1930's Nazi Germany!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 Google Cass Sunstein (Obama czar) and his strategies for combating "conspiracy theories". This kind of disinfo is purposeful and is meant to confuse. If you take in both sides like a juror and examine the evidence, it's no contest. The government was complicit in the attacks beyond reasonable doubt. We need a new investigation to get the answers. But like someone said, "if they have nothing to hide, why are they hiding everything?" This should be very revealing.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwh Let me deal with your 2nd claim first, because it's the most ridiculous. Cann you not realize you contradicted yourself? You state the "The government was complicit in the attacks beyond reasonable doubt." and in the very next sentence you say "We need a new investigation".
If the evidence is so obvious, why do you need a new investigation!?
I'll tell you why: it's so Richard Gage can continue ask for something he's never going to get and play the martyr who's "fightin' the man"..
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 RE:The government was complicit in the attacks beyond reasonable doubt." and in the very next sentence you say "We need a new investigation"."
How is this a contradiction? The most plausible suspects (those in Bush admin.) were not even investigated. The evidence comes from all the whistleblowers, eyewitnesses, scientists, architects/engineers, political leaders, investigative journalists, international leaders, scholars, lawyers etc who HAVE done the research.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 yet between all these"experts" they have not been able to publish a research paper in a peer review journal to detail an alternative theory for the towers collapse, to counter the NIST report. That's where science starts and ideology ends, sir, that's all you people have is your beliefs, not a whiff of evidence. Publish a report to dissent from the NIST or move along, your destructive activities are becoming tiresome.
batvette 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batvette RE:yet between all these"experts" they have not been able to publish a research paper in a peer review journal"
I think you're living back in the mid 2000's. Much has been written in peer review since then. How much more do you need before you say a new and REAL investigation is in order?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwhe Nope. Changed my mind. I really wanted to address this one:
"How is this a contradiction?"
Seriously? You don't see it?
"We have proof beyond a reasonable doubt the govt was complicit in the attacks on 9/11 and if we could just have a new investigation we could get that proof!"
If you had proof of an inside job, then you have your evidence and you don't need a new investigation.
If you need a new investigation then you do not have proof of an inside job.
Thought that was obvious!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@dwheel39 ...so you'll all continue to fund his crusade! What none of you seem to realize is that there have been numerous independent investigations run outside out NIST in Universities and science journals, all in agreement with NIST.
None of you have even given a thought to the logistics of a new investigation beyond the rally cry!
Who will run this "New Investigation"? Civilians? No subpoena power. The govt? You mean the ones who ran the first one you don't believe?
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 RE:Who will run this "New Investigation"? Civilians? No subpoena power. The govt? You mean the ones who ran the first one you don't believe?"
Well i would think that an independent, international investigation would be a good start. Also, the data for their computer models should be made public for other scientists to review. I think if they did, their whole story would be seen for what it is..B.S.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 you just want to keep having investigations until they come to a conclusion you want them to. you people have this bizarre concept that if you drag certain individuals into court and intimidate them they will finally break down and spill the beans about some silly vast conspiracy you believe in. thank goodness you nutters are a small minority and your brand of witch hunting was outlawed long ago. too bad you do so much harm to the country when the world listens.
batvette 1 week ago
@batvette REyou just want to keep having investigations until they come to a conclusion you want them to"
Not at all. We are asking for an investigation that doesn't cherry pick the evidence to suit their own myth, or ignore hundreds of eyewitness testimony and whistleblowers from just about every govn't agency involved. Watch Sibel Edmonds: war on whistleblowers .
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 whistleblowers with evidence Bush had explosives planted to bring the towers down? do you have that?
Eyewitnesses with stories of all the loud noises they heard that day. Big surprise, huh?
batvette 1 week ago
@batvette wonder how many of those eyewitnesses voted for Gore in 2000 and are still sore/
batvette 1 week ago
@batvette RE:Eyewitnesses with stories of all the loud noises they heard that day. Big surprise, huh?"
Okay, now things are becoming clear. You haven't looked at ANY of the evidence. You are probably just parroting what you heard from some skeptic society or youtube debunker.
There are eyewitness accounts of explosions on basement levels BEFORE plane impact...how does that hold up to the fire theory nonsense? Oh yeah, they purposely left out those testimonies since it refutes their fable.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 "There are eyewitness accounts of explosions on basement levels BEFORE plane impact...how does that hold up to the fire theory nonsense?"
Um, and how does it support the controlled demolition hypothesis? Have you ever seen a demo job where charges went off and the building collapsed around an hour later?
There's nonsense here all right, but it's not the fire theory.
unRompecabezas 5 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:Um, and how does it support the controlled demolition hypothesis?" (regarding explosions in basement levels)
Well, which is more compatible? Explosive devices to account for EXPLOSIONS or a fire that hasn't happened yet because the plane hadn't hit the tower? The latter requires some kind of "magic fire" wouldn't it? So the former is obviously most plausible.
It's not my job to tell you how they did it. That's why we need a REAL investigation!
dwheel39 5 days ago
@dwheel39 How exactly did the people in the basement know the plane hadn't hit the building yet? Wouldn't the explosion most likely have been the sound of the plane impact?
And like I said before, controlled demolition works by bringing the building down instantly, not over the course of an hour. It wasn't explosives.
unRompecabezas 5 days ago
@dwheel39 There is no evidence.
You know what a witness contributes is called "testimony" and is not an exhibit of evidence?
Accounts of explosions at basement levels before the plane impacts... Really? So of course you have tapes from 911 call centers which recorded people calling in these emergencies, right? Something tells me you don't.
batvette 5 days ago
@dwheel39 sad you cite sibel edwards. This is what she tried to tell the FBI:
Bin Laden’s group is planning a massive terrorist attack in the United States. The order has been issued. They are targeting major cities, big metropolitan cities; they think four or five cities; New York City, Chicago, Washington DC, and San Francisco; possibly Los Angeles or Las Vegas. They will use airplanes to carry out the attacks (ctd)
batvette 1 week ago
@dwheel39 (ctd)." They said that some of the individuals involved in carrying this out are already in the United States. They are here in the U.S.; living among us, and I believe some in US government already know about all of this."
What was she talking about Mr Conspiracy Theorist? What does Sibel have to say that supports your claims about 9/11? Doesn't she actually support the official story?
batvette 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batvette RE:What does Sibel have to say that supports your claims about 9/11? Doesn't she actually support the official story?"
No, google her interviews!! she's fighting the official fable! Did you watch "war on whistleblowers"? please watch here on youtube, seriously. So much will make more sense when you hear what she went through.
Also, the claim is the government was complicit in the attacks. Most believed the hijackers were used as patsies. They not only let it happen, they helped it.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 Actually I read the wiki article on her, for all her complaints about gov't corruption she is NOT a 9/112 CT. Don't you realize what got her into trouble with the FBI, leading to her becoming a whistleblower, is that as a translater she found intelligence about Bin Laden and the hijackers before 911 and tried to warn her superiors about it but they didn't do anything? They destroyed her later for trying to reveal incompetence. Sibel Edmunds story DESTROYS the inside job claims!
batvette 5 days ago
@batvette RE:Sibel Edmunds story DESTROYS the inside job claims!"
it does not. Did you watch the interview i suggested, War on Whistleblowers? You obviously didn't. The hijackers were used as patsies. I told you that. For them to be helped along IS by definition AN INSIDE JOB.
I told you to put on your critical thinking cap and you haven't yet.
dwheel39 5 days ago
@dwheel39 The hijackers were patsies, same old story with you people. Everyone else is a dupe,or a sucker, only YOU truthers know what's really going on.
So tell us, Obi-wan-jablowme, great swami, seer of all thruths, how exactly were the twin towers brought down again? Bldg 7?
batvette 5 days ago
@batvette RE:What was she talking about Mr Conspiracy Theorist?"
please stop with this labeling. Remember that the official is by definition a conspiracy theory. Watergate was a conspiracy and so was Iran Contra...why don't you believe there are scandals in the White House?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 Sibel Edmunds is consistent wioth your silly claims about operation northwoods, etc. You think just throwing her name out there proves an inside job on 911? That's as dumb as me finding a case of a guy in NYC raping and killing a woman and using it as evidence any random person from NYC raped and killed some one.
You wanted me to accept Sibel's credentials and evidence of unrelated government misdeeds- why don't YOU accept her statements of warning before 911 about Al Qaeda?
batvette 5 days ago
@batvette RE:your silly claims about operation northwoods,"
Have you read the documents? i will send to your inbox here. You must read. Once you do you will see the govn't does indeed plan these things out. They even mention painting a drone to look like a commerical airliner. So you wonder why some 9/11 truth people get that crazy idea? it's from official declassified documents. So it's not so crazy after all to think they would do this. They tried before with Cuba. Read them!!
dwheel39 5 days ago
@batvette RE:You think just throwing her name out there proves an inside job on 911?"
There are dozens of whistleblowers from just about every govn't agency. You need to watch the interview with Sibel because she discusses why they can't be heard. WATCH IT. Also, there are those from the EPA who came out and testified that the EPA knew that the air at ground zero wasn't safe to breathe. They buried this and now people are dead and/or dying. But you still trust the govn't . unbelievable
dwheel39 5 days ago
@batvette RE:why don't YOU accept her statements of warning before 911 about Al Qaeda?"
no one is disputing that so what's with the straw man? So far you've argued with straw man (you make stuff up and then attack it) and ad hominems. The evidence for the official fable is so weak that's what "debunkers" resort to. I've heard countless debates and have been researching this stuff for 2 years now and that's what convinces me most, namely how the other side argues. They have nothing.
dwheel39 5 days ago
@dwheel39 I would expect a reasonable person to look at what got her in trouble with the FBI and realize if they were putting this person on a pedestal for ME to accept merely on her professional credentials but it turned out she had firsthand knowledge of the attacks happening as the story goes, and isn't a 911 CT, that person would stop and take stock of his whole position.
Not a 9/11 CT. You will just skip along without a care. You have no reason at all. .
batvette 1 week ago
@batvette RE and your brand of witch hunting was outlawed long ago. "
Witch hunting? are you serious? So are you saying there is no such thing as scandals in our government? Do you think they always tell you the truth about war? Our political history in the last few decades has been a thread of continuous lies. Why would you use the term witch hunting? Do you apply that to every political investigation?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 history is irrelevant. If you have no evidence to prove this particular allegation then move along.
batvette 1 week ago
@batvette RE: history is irrelevant."
I'm sorry, but that is just plain ignorant. If you read history, you will learn it tends to repeat itself. Look for the patterns..it's the same crap Hitler did...false flag attacks, war on terror, homeland security, patriot act, eradication of free speech, government control...exactly what is happening in America now. All of this hinges on 9/11. That's why there is so much opposition from our gov't to suppress the debunking of their fable.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 your rhetoric displays your views are all belief driven and have no factual substance. you are paranoid and probably suffering from mild delusions.
So how many people do you believe are in on this vast conspiracy to take over the world? Would involve hundreds of thousands, easily. All of them evil and only you and your fellow truthers have the moral fiber to bring this evil to bare in the light, right? The rest of us are sheeple, ignorant if we don't share your extreme paranoia.
batvette 5 days ago
@batvette RE:your rhetoric displays your views are all belief driven and have no factual substance. you are paranoid and probably suffering from mild delusions."
I'm sorry but that's just plain idiotic man. Seriously.
9/11 truth proponents are the ONLY ones using all the facts and evidence. They are the ones doing the physical experiments to show you people the gov't story is nonsense. Why don't you psychoanalyze yourself? Ditch your cognitive dissonance and wake up!
dwheel39 5 days ago
@batvette REThe rest of us are sheeple, ignorant if we don't share your extreme paranoia."
The only paranoid ones here are you people who can't let go of the MYTH that our gov't looks out for it's own people, that the "evildoers are jealous of our freedom", that banks are looking out for our interests, that politicians are generally honest, that money and power do not corrupt, that false flag attacks don't happen etc.
Bad things happen in government..look at history and wake up.
dwheel39 5 days ago
@dwheel39 "I think if they did, their whole story would be seen for what it is..B.S. "
Have to do this one too!
The NIST investigations into WTCs 1, 2 & 7 were fully endorsed by both the NFPA and the ICC. The ICC is the International Code Council which regulates the way buildings are constructed. They adopted 25 of the building code changes suggested by NIST as a result of their investigation. These changes have added thousands if not millions of dollars to new building construction.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@dwheel39 So, these changes have REAL WORLD APPLICATIONS to REAL WORLD ENGINEERS, none of whom have challenged the NIST findings for "shoddy" or "incomplete" work!
In other words, REAL WORLD ENGINEERS have looked at this, and do not consider it "B.S.".
Try another tract! Knowing the opinions of actual engineers doesn't seem to be working for you!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 RE:REAL WORLD ENGINEERS have looked at this, and do not consider it "B.S."."
Based on what? the conclusions of the data may be correct but the data itself is what is shown to be false or is questioned. Their computer models MADE their fire theory work. It wasn't based on the facts of the case though. The most plausible theory, CD, wasn't even looked into in the beginning. Watch "a new standard of deception" (kevin ryan) to see this dishonesty of NIST.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 I find it funny how you guys ask structural engineers questions reguarding demolition work and ask demolition experts about structural engineering, and then use the answers you get back to back up your claims. It is really easy to get the answers you want when you ask the experts questions that fall outside of their field of expertise...
MrAwsome514 6 days ago
@dwheel39 "Watch .... (kevin ryan) to see this dishonesty of NIST"
Ok. Seeing as how you are referencing this movie, which Kevin made back in 2005 & 2006, before the WTC 7 report was released, I assume you are referring to WTCs 1 & 2. Which also shows that you are blissfully unaware that NIST actually has released their raw data to people who have gone through the proper procedures and signed the appropriate non-disclosure agreements:
razor occams info/nist-wtc/
cantonear1968 6 days ago
@dwheel39 It hurts a little when you don't know what you are talking about, doesn't it?
cantonear1968 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cantonear1968 RE:It hurts a little when you don't know what you are talking about, doesn't it?"
First of all, why wouldn't they release their data to begin with? Second, that doesn't cover for their dishonesty and fraud whatsoever. Lastly, in light of all that, why do you trust them?
dwheel39 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 "First of all, why wouldn't they release their data to begin with?"
Because much of what they wouldn't release was proprietary information that legally could not release; such as the aircraft design.
"Second, that doesn't cover for their dishonesty and fraud whatsoever"
You've yet to come close to proving that.
"Lastly, in light of all that, why do you trust them?"
See #2.
cantonear1968 5 days ago
@dwheel39 Now, you and the truth movement can continue to whine and pretend there's something sinister here, or you can actually do something and purchase the software NIST used and run your own simulations with your own parameters.
But, you know, that actually requires doing something.
cantonear1968 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cantonear1968 RE:or you can actually do something and purchase the software NIST used and run your own simulations with your own parameters."
People have and have written about it. Why don't you read the critiques? Please put your critical thinking cap on.
dwheel39 6 days ago
@dwheel39 "People have and have written about it."
Really?
Someone has run the ANSYS and LS-DYNA programs? Along with the Fire Dynamic Simulator [FDS]?
Pray tell, where can I find these results!!??
You can link that, right?
You really don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?
cantonear1968 5 days ago
@dwheel39 Now, do you even know what Sunstein's paper was about? In a nutshell, he proposed that FACTUAL INFORMATION be introduced in these forums as massive amounts of wrongful information gets bandied around.
Imagine that! A radical idea as Factual Information being given to people!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 Sunstein's "factual information" begs the very question! If there is a scandal in the White House and researchers expose this on the internet, then what exactly IS the factual information Sunsein would put out? Something like "we wouldn't do anything like that, that's ridiculous. We need to stop these foolish conspiracy theories"? Do you ever notice that the debunkers more often use straw man and ad hominen tactics? Why is that if the evidence is on their side?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 (cont) Also compare fire collapse photos on the internet with the WTC buildings. Do they look anything alike? If not, why would you still hold to a fire collapse theory? Also, it must be kept in mind that all 3 investigations were headed and/or funded by the government. Google Philip Zelikow ..is this someone you trust? Consider that several staff members of The Commission already said the investigation was a sham.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 Lastly, if you limit yourself to comparing fires on conspiracy sites, you';re not going to come away with anything except the same filtered information they want to feed you. If you are truly interested in finding Factual Information I suggest you search for NIST NCSTAR 1-5a, Chapters 1-8. Start at pages 188, but especially page 268. Tell me if you come away thinking the WTCs were a "small fire".
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 So i take it you can't provide photographic evidence or experiments to show that fires can cause buildings to collapse on itself symmetrically at virtual freefall speed?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@wheel Excuse me, now lastly, please tell me exactly what Members of the Commission described the investigation as a sham, exactly what they said, and if they think 9/11 was committed by anyone besides the 19 hijackers on the planes, funded by Khalid Sheik Muhammed and Osama bin Laden.
Let me guess here: you'll probably find Lee Hamilton's "set up to fail" and John Farmer's "we were lied to".
Please come with something much, much better than that. It will not go well for you otherwise.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cantonear1968 RELet me guess here: you'll probably find Lee Hamilton's "set up to fail" and John Farmer's "we were lied to".
Even if those were the only sources, wouldn't that be enough to cause doubt about the whole investigation? Not to mention the eyewitnesses and whistleblowers who's testimonies were withheld from the record? Why do you trust their investigation? Our political leaders aren't exactly the paradigm for truth and honesty.
dwheel39 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 "wouldn't that be enough to cause doubt about the whole investigation?"
No, because I know the context of those quotes. You apparently don't. Or that both members fully endorse the Commission and its conclusions. Which kind of eliminates your "members think it was a sham" deception; your current backpedaling notwithstanding.
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@cantonear1968 Listen, on 9/11, planes hit buildings. The government gave us their conspiracy theory that afternoon. Many have come forward exposing all the holes in their story (the true debunkers and skeptics). So why would you still defend such nonsense? Bush lied about Iraq and that's public knowledge now. Why do you still believe his story? Do you really believe the "evildoers are jealous of our freedom"? Come on man...the Northwoods docs alone prove means and motive.
dwheel39 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 "Many have come forward exposing all the holes in their story"
Who?
Let me guess:
"1600 professionals!".
LOL!
"the Northwoods docs alone prove means and motive."
LOL!
Only a conspiracy theorist would think a 50 year old document has any relevance!
cantonear1968 1 week ago
@dwheel39 You made the claim that this video has been debunked. How can you debunk math and science? We know the hight of the towers, we know the rate at which a free fall occurs, we can use those two to determine how long a free fall collapse should take, we know that a free fall would have taken just under 10 seconds, and we know that the towers actually took 15 seconds to collapse. These are facts.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 REYou made the claim that this video has been debunked. How can you debunk math and science"
Most debunkers rely on NIST "science" which has been proven fraudulent. They manipulated the data in their computer models and when pressed to show their work they refuse to release the data...how is this science in any kind of peer reviewed manner when so much is done is secret? Search: kevin ryan "a new standard of deception" .
dwheel39 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 REYou made the claim that this video has been debunked."
I made the claim that RKOwens4 was debunked. Did you read through the debate?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 This video was posted by RKOwens4... Therefore if he has been debunked then that would mean his videos have been aswell. Unless ofcourse you are going to try and say you have some how managed to debunk a person rather then what that person says maybe? But ofcourse that would not make any sense. He uses factual information in his videos. This video is clearly a demonstration of that. The web site you linked however... does not do this.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 RE:Therefore if he has been debunked then that would mean his videos have been aswell. "
Read through the debate he had. Put your critical thinking cap on and be a good juror.
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 Oh I read through the debate. It was utter trash. If that is the best you have then you have nothing.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@dwheel39 truthers claim free fall speed because they are trying to use it to claim that there was no resistance to the fall and that the only way this could be achieved was through a controlled demolition. They are ignorant. I say this because even if a controlled demolition was used there would still be some resistance (less but still some), and thus there would also be no free fall speed. The towers fell 50% slower then free fall. That is a big difference and takes quite a lot of resistance.
MrAwsome514 1 week ago
@MrAwsome514 The claim is "virtual" freefall speed. Of course it's not a true freefall since there IS resistance. However the towers were pulverized to dust and fell so fast that the fire theory is completely implausible, if not physically impossible. Have you seen ANY examples of buildings coming down in that manner (exactly like CD) via fire alone? Any historical precedents or experiments? CD is the most scientifically rational explanation. Or do you believe their non physical comp. models?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 " Have you seen ANY examples of buildings coming down in that manner (exactly like CD) via fire alone? "
Why have you omitted the fact they were first hit by planes weighing a quarter of a million pounds moving at 500 mph first, which knocked off most of the already deficient fireproofing on affected floors? Was that dishonesty or an oversight?
Aren't you also discounting the role of jet fuel as accelerant which ignites the entire floors' contents immediately?
batvette 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batvette RE:Why have you omitted the fact they were first hit by planes weighing a quarter of a million pounds moving at 500 mph first,"
You might have a point were it not for Building 7. Ever wonder why they refuse to show the vid footage in the mainstream media? Why is that when it's simply a fire collapse? Why this effort to hide this fact from public knowledge? The fire explanations for building 7 are ridiculous.
dwheel39 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@batvette RE:Why have you omitted the fact they were first hit by planes weighing a quarter of a million pounds moving at 500 mph first,"
How do you know this? Do you get this from the NIST "shotgun test"? lol NIST itself also stated that the jet fuel was not a factor in the building collapse so why are you still believing that?
dwheel39 1 week ago
@batvette I'm still waiting for examples of fire collapses that look like WTC...at least Building 7...can you show me? It's been 11 yrs and no one can PHYSICALLY show that fire can bring a steel framed building down symmetrically at virtual freefall speed. What a day of magic that was huh? How fortunate that hijacker passports survived the fiery inferno and pulverization of building...what a coincidence that the collapses ALL had the characteristics of CD and none from fire. 3 times in one day!
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 why did you reply to that and not mention the planes' impact and the fuel? If fires don't endanger steel structures why do they require fireproofing? Wasn't the fireproofing knocked off? So what's the logical disbelief here? All of this info is not secret. All of your questions have surely been answered again and again yet you ask them again conveniently missing vital details like the planes issue.
You don't want the truth at all. You have an agenda, destroying America.
batvette 1 week ago
@batvette RE:conveniently missing vital details like the planes issue."
NIST itself said that plane impacts and jet fuel were not the causal factors of the building's collapse. So where are you getting this from?
Also, this does not explain Building 7
dwheel39 1 week ago
@dwheel39 You wanted examples of steel buildings that collapsed solely due to fire. Weren''t the impacts and fuel the contributing factors? Nobody needs to explain anything about building 7.
It had a 20 story gash in it, burned all day with diesel and oil fueled fires, and firefighters noted hours before it collapsed the structure was leaning, making noises, and even sighted a transit up to it and there were bulges several stories high in outer columns.
Didn't you know?
batvette 5 days ago
@batvette RENobody needs to explain anything about building 7."
WHAATT???? A 47 story steel framed skyscraper collapses into it's own footprint symmetrically at virtual freefall speed with eyewitnesses testimonies of explosions (and vid evidence) no one needs to explain that????
Are you really that dense?
dwheel39 5 days ago
@dwheel39 Are there a lot of controlled demolitions like WTC7, where the crew allows a building to burn out of control for several hours before demolishing it?
And you seriously don't expect a falling skyscraper to collapse in a downward direction very, very fast?
unRompecabezas 5 days ago
@batvette RE:It had a 20 story gash in it"
A fire collapse would have brought the building down gradually and in the direction of the gash. It didn't. It also would have been a partial collapse, like building 5 which had the most severe fires but looked perfectly normal afterwards, namely, exactly how a burned building SHOULD look. Then look at building 7...controlled demolition.
dwheel39 5 days ago
@dwheel39 "A fire collapse would have brought the building down gradually, etc. etc."
Could I ask how you're so sure of this? It just seems improbable that there are so many people online who are experts in structural engineering, metallurgy, and collapse mechanics. I gather you just believe whatever Richard Gage and his cohorts tell you.
AE911Truth is all about Truth, but they want you to buy books and DVDs too.
unRompecabezas 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unRompecabezas RE"A fire collapse would have brought the building down gradually, etc. etc."
Could I ask how you're so sure of this?"
Yes you can ask. This is known from the evidence of EVERY building fire on record. They don't ever fall straight down symmetrically at virtual freefall speed into their own footprint. Like i told the other guy here, if you can provide evidence of buildings coming down like that via fire, i will discard the CD theory. Real examples please, good luck :)
dwheel39 5 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:AE911Truth is all about Truth, but they want you to buy books and DVDs too"
Everything AE puts out is available to watch for free online..so what's your point? By your reasoning that would apply to the Popular Mechanics mag and book too. Deal with their arguments.
dwheel39 5 days ago
@dwheel39 I wanted to know whether it's conceivable that you may be mistaken in your analysis of the collapse of WTC7. I get a little suspicious when I hear amateurs telling me how a burning skyscraper should and shouldn't collapse. Could it be that a skyscraper falling straight down very fast simply isn't prima facie evidence of controlled demolition?
unRompecabezas 5 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:Could it be that a skyscraper falling straight down very fast simply isn't prima facie evidence of controlled demolition?"
Sure, that's possible. But that's not the only characteristic of CD. These building exhibit all the characteristics of CD and none of fire-collapse. The comparisons are made from the historical record of both CD's AND towering infernos. Like i said, look at pics or vids of BOTH. The WTC's look nothing like fire collapses.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 "The WTC's look nothing like fire collapses."
Except they were on fire. Is there any precedent for a building rigged for precision demolition, struck with a fuel-laden jet, then left to burn for an hour before being brought down? It seems unlike any demo in history.
And CD is more than just packing a building with explosives, it involves severing columns and removing support structure. None of that was done in the WTCs.
So it's not really like CD at all.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:It seems unlike any demo in history."
You're right about that! But there are more than a few peer reviewed papers proving the existence of explosives in the dust, eyewitness testimonies to explosions and building 7 can't be explained with plane impact. Compare building 5 which was hit with falling debris from one of the towers with building 7. They are obviously not the same. Fire cannot bring buildings like that. Explosives are required.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 "there are more than a few peer reviewed papers proving the existence of explosives in the dust"
Nope. The Harrit paper simply postulates that the Al and FeO2 are from a thermitic reaction. His work has been published for three years, but hasn't generated any interest in the scientific community. It's a classic example of concluding that there's only one explanation for a phenomenon that could have many explanations. If you're convinced, that's great. But not everyone is.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas Also, keep in mind that if the fire/jet fuel theory is accurate, then wouldn't it make sense for CD companies to just pour tons of jet fuel in one small portion of a building and sit back and watch it collapse perfectly as if they had strategically placed explosives in the exact locations required for symmetrical collapse into it's own footprint? Hey, it happened 3 times in one day ,right? So why aren't they considering doing it that way?
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 Your notion that the WTCs collapsed into a tidy pile is contradicted by the video evidence, which shows rubble spewing throughout WTC Plaza. I hope you were kidding that CD companies would be inspired to do demolitions that way.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:And CD is more than just packing a building with explosives, it involves severing columns and removing support structure"
Yep! you're right. The steel beams were sliced. Amazing how fire can do that huh?
No wonder they had to destroy the evidence and ship steel overseas. Google the photos of the sliced steel and also FEMA appendix where there is a picture of the steel with holes like swiss cheese.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 "The steel beams were sliced"
Not before the clean up they weren't.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas Once again, back to your statement of how we (you and i) don't have the expertise to decide these technological issues. The most compelling evidence, to me, is that if they (gov't) have nothing to hide, why are they hiding and destroying the evidence? This is in EVERY area, from the war games that morning to the towers collapse...they hide, lie, destroy evidence, silence whistleblowers and lie again...lies, lies lies. This is why i don't believe ANYTHING they say. Why do you?
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 I'm not convinced the government would have the ability either to engineer and execute such a vast precision operation, or to effectively cover it up afterward. I lived through Watergate, where the Nixon Administration was undone by a penny ante break in.
Sorry if I'm a little skeptical of the notion of our government's staggering abilities in the areas of organization and secrecy.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:Sorry if I'm a little skeptical of the notion of our government's staggering abilities in the areas of organization and secrecy."
Well i'm glad you have at least SOME skepticism about the gov't . But they DON'T have those staggering abilities and secrecy. So many people have come forward and lost their jobs/careers because of it. The truth is all over the net. On youtube, watch Sibel Edmonds: war on whistleblowers. Please. It will shed light on much of this.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 Um, but Sibel Edmonds wasn't persecuted because she spilled the beans on the Inside Job. She actually got in trouble because she described (in great detail) the lapses and systemic problems that caused the intelligence agencies and the government to lose sight of terror suspects and underestimate threats from Al Qaeda.
You know, the Al Qaeda you say wasn't involved in 9/11.
Hmm.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:You know, the Al Qaeda you say wasn't involved in 9/11."
I never said that. I said they were helped along, which is by definition an "inside job", is it not? Sibel's testimony is evidence that the gov't could have prevented this but went out of their way not to.
Hitler did the same thing when he instigated false flag attacks and blamed on the Polish. Here, we just wanted vengeance for WTC, myself included. We wanted their heads and were deluded by our emotions.
dwheel39 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 "Sibel's testimony is evidence that the gov't could have prevented this but went out of their way not to"
Baloney. She described the ratcatcher mentality prevalent in the intel world at that time. Agencies were too busy infighting to focus on the threats. Plenty of people have discussed the way Al Qaeda was low on the priority list throughout the 90s, when Bin Laden was focusing on foreign targets.
The US government's negligence left us vulnerable. Is that so hard to believe?
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE: I get a little suspicious when I hear amateurs telling me how a burning skyscraper should and shouldn't collapse"
That's kind of a loaded statement isn't it? I'm not going by the testimonies of amateurs but rather experts. Many have over 20 yrs experience as demolition experts, structural engineers, fire engineers and architects. The A&E vid "explosive evidence: the experts speak out" has over 2 hrs of interview footage of experts giving their opinions on the WTC's.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 "I'm not going by the testimonies of amateurs but rather experts"
But neither you nor I have the expertise to assess the claims of these experts. And what about all the experts who don't happen to believe the collapses were CDs? You seem to think that anyone who tells you what you want to hear is trustworthy, while each one of the millions of engineers who don't affirm the CD hypothesis must be ignorant, inept, or dishonest. Is that plausible?
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:But neither you nor I have the expertise to assess the claims of these experts"
Technologically, i see your point. But jurors in criminal cases must assess the weight of evidence even if they don't understand some of the technical points. Google some of the debates on the subject and critically analyze the arguments. You will find those supporting the official story rely on straw men, ad hominem and other rhetorical methods to win their case. That's what convinces me.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 "those supporting the official story rely on straw men, ad hominem and other rhetorical methods to win their case"
I find the truthers use a lot of the same methods as creationists and other conspiracy theorists, though. You yourself just handwaved away all the official investigations just because they were official investigations. And like I said before, you cherry-pick your "experts." Anyone who tells you what you want to hear is by definition a reliable source.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unRompecabezas RE:You yourself just handwaved away all the official investigations just because they were official investigations"
No i didn't. My point was that the very suspects themselves (consider Northwoods) led their own investigations. This is conflict of interest. Again, why do YOU trust them? have you read Northwoods?
dwheel39 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas Imagine you have a neighbor that says he wants to kill a particular person and then blame it on someone else. A year later that someone is found dead. Wouldn't it be most rational to consider your neighbor as a suspect, if not the #1 suspect?
This is what Northwoods proves, motive and means. So the fact they led their own investigations, which weren't planned at first (victims families had to push them), shows not only conflict of interest, but foul play.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 Northwoods also got deep-sixed by Kennedy and MacNamara, so all it proves is that some operations are too complicated, too extreme, or too risky for our soulless overlords.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unRompecabezas RE:Northwoods also got deep-sixed by Kennedy and MacNamara, so all it proves is that some operations are too complicated, too extreme, or too risky for our soulless overlords"
Yes, i think you're right. But consider what happened to Kennedy soon after he refused to sign the documents. That was in the 60's and they now technology to pull off some very convincing false flags. Northwoods doesn't prove 9/11 but it proves they plan false flag attacks. They are suspects then. right?
dwheel39 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:And like I said before, you cherry-pick your "experts."
The cherry picking was done by the gov't. The true skeptics of the official story pointed out that they left out hundreds of eyewitness testimonies of explosions in the buildings. There is a demand for a real investigation because the others were based on cherry picked evidence to make the Al Qaeda story work. Even Zelikow had the Commission report pre-outlined before the investigation.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 You're convinced the government cover story was Al Qaeda, but if 9/11 happened so the US could invade Iraq, why wouldn't the 9/11 Commission Report have implicated Saddam too?
I'm not paranoid about terrorism by any means. But I don't think it's realistic to deny that Al Qaeda exists. And I don't think there's anything impossible about educated Saudis hijacking planes and flying them into huge buildings.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:But I don't think it's realistic to deny that Al Qaeda exists."
I'm not denying their existence. But i question their origin. There is too much evidence that Al Qaeda was funded and trained by our own (CIA). Bin Laden was a known CIA asset. Islamic radicals already hate us so they were the perfect patsies. They were helped along. This is evidence by the dozens of whistleblowers in various agencies.
dwheel39 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 There's a real racist stench to the notion that Middle Eastern people are cavemen who can't do anything without white Westerners pulling the strings. Like I said before, I'm not paranoid about terrorism. But it sounds like you won't accept that terrorists even exist unless they're just tools of the Big White Powers That Be.
Weren't Al Qaeda blowing up US embassies in Africa during the 90s? Didn't they bomb the USS Cole? Step away from WTC7 and look at some history.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:And I don't think there's anything impossible about educated Saudis hijacking planes and flying them into huge buildings."
According to their flight instructors here, they were called "dumb and dumber" because they were horrible pilots. But it's about who you trust. Do you trust independent flight instructors or political leaders who needed 9/11 to happen in order to go to war? I'll take the word of the people, not Bush.
dwheel39 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 Hani Hanjour's flight instructor said he wasn't much of a pilot, but he said he could have hit the Pentagon.
I mean, this isn't precision flying, you know. It's crashing a jet into a building that covers 29 acres. Why should I think that's impossible?
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:while each one of the millions of engineers who don't affirm the CD hypothesis must be ignorant, inept, or dishonest. Is that plausible?"
There aren't "millions of engineers" who support the gov't story. But by your reasoning, is it plausible that 1600+ experts are ignorant, inept or dishonest? These guys put their careers on the line. Most NIST "scientists" hide in the shadows. It's the rhetoricians who write the articles and create websites attacking the truth movement.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 "is it plausible that 1600+ experts are ignorant, inept or dishonest?"
There's always a minority opinion in any industry. That doesn't mean the minority is always wrong, but it doesn't mean they're always right, either. And the ad hoc explanations for why there isn't more support for AE911Truth aren't convincing. The simple fact of the matter is that many, many experts don't find the CD hypothesis plausible.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:There's always a minority opinion in any industry."
The minority is growing though. There were 800 experts supporting the CD theory when i first began looking into this, now it's doubled. Why? because the truth is getting out there and people can see the vids for themselves. Why would they never show building 7 on mainstream news programs? If it's just a building fire then no worries, right? The fact they hide it speaks volumes. Think about that.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 No one tried to "hide" WTC7. It was just a building collapse with no casualties, that's all. It's truthers who have fetishized Building 7 and turned it into a big deal. Which, considering the amount of people who have died in the US invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, is kind of silly.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:No one tried to "hide" WTC7"
on the contrary, yes they did and still do on mainstream tv. I've seen much of the footage myself. You can google it. When a 9/11 truth rep is arguing his case and asks for building 7 footage to be shown, they are always denied. Why?
dwheel39 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dwheel39 Just because you didn't know what Al Qaeda was before 9/11 is no reason to assume they didn't exist until Bush needed a fall guy for the attacks. Terrorism is real, and our government isn't controlling it.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:many experts don't find the CD hypothesis plausible."
many experts haven't even looked into the issue. When A&E do their presentations for their peers (engineers, scientists etc) they had no clue about most of this. Remember building 7 was only shown on the day of 9/11 itself and was not allowed on news after that. I myself had no idea a 3rd building collapsed that day. The more they give their presentation the more experts are added to the number.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:many experts don't find the CD hypothesis plausible."
Oh, also, some experts probably got their info from Pop Mechanics or some other pseudo-scientific mag and have read their STRAW MAN arguments but not the real ones.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 You can make up whatever ad hoc explanations you want about how ignorant most engineers are of the sacred 9/11 wisdom that Richard Gage possesses. Maybe they're brainwashed, or fear for their livelihoods, or are psychologically unable to entertain such thoughts about 9/11.
But it's easier for me to believe that most experts simply don't find the CD hypothesis persuasive.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:But it's easier for me to believe that most experts simply don't find the CD hypothesis persuasive."
I don't think A&E would have lasted this long if their theories were implausible. Also the fact the number of experts are growing supports their case. Many do not even care to look into these things. They are busy designing buildings or whatever they do. Plus, cognitive dissonance plays a huge psychological role. But when presented with evidence, most agree with with Gage.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 "cognitive dissonance plays a huge psychological role"
If we're playing amateur psychiatrists here, I'll point out that there's a great need in truthers to have a single monolithic enemy that they can blame for all the bad stuff that happens. The notion that our leaders weren't in control and couldn't have protected us even if they'd tried is too horrible for some people to believe. If you need any more proof than 9/11 that our leaders are useless, you're not paying attention.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:The notion that our leaders weren't in control and couldn't have protected us even if they'd tried is too horrible for some people to believe. "
Except the evidence against that theory is that no one was even reprimanded for blunders let alone fired or prosecuted for negligence. Instead the record is that those on top in just about every agency involved were PROMOTED!
That's why i don't buy the "inept theory". There's more going on here.
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 The fact that no one was canned or jailed for their gross negligence on 9/11 is evidence that the government doesn't feel like they have to answer to the victims of their ineptitude.
If you're dying to see it as evidence of their diabolical precision and organization, knock yourself out.
unRompecabezas 4 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:If you're dying to see it as evidence of their diabolical precision and organization, knock yourself out."
There is a mountain of evidence against the official story. The timelines don't add up, they keep changing their stories, they go out of their way to make sure whistleblowers are not heard, they ignore eye witness testimonies, they withhold evidence, they destroy evidence, they create disinformation websites, they resort to ridicule when questioned...come on.
dwheel39 3 days ago
@dwheel39 "There is a mountain of evidence against the official story."
It's so predictable that you don't consider the results of the FBI investigation or the research that went into the 9/11 Commission Report evidence, but any anomaly or factoid you can dredge up constitutes evidence.
And you criticize the tactics of people skeptical of the Inside Job theory as dishonest?
unRompecabezas 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unRompecabezas RE:the research that went into the 9/11 Commission Report evidence,"
Why in the world would you trust the "research" by the Commission? Headed by Zelikow who pre-outlined the investigation and restricted the staff on what constituted as evidence, the investigation was "set up to fail" (in the words of staff members). Many in the Commission have testified to what kind of investigation this actually was..."a sham". So in light of this, why would you trust Zelikow?
dwheel39 3 days ago
@unRompecabezas (cont) also consider the point of conflict of interest. Zelikow is affiliated with the White House and even co-wrote a book with Condo Rice. How could this POSSIBLY be an independent investigation?
Northwoods documents proves that our leaders would kill Americans, blame it on another country and go to war with them. So, they are suspects.
Would you approve of any other criminal case where the suspects lead their own investigation?
dwheel39 3 days ago
@dwheel39 The fact that Northwoods was never implemented proves that our leaders find it impractical or too risky to kill Americans.
I told you that before.
unRompecabezas 3 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:The fact that Northwoods was never implemented proves that our leaders find it impractical or too risky to kill Americans."
No, it wasn't implemented because Kennedy refused to sign. He was going against the wishes of his Joint Chiefs.
It should be shocking that our leaders would even consider such carnage and deception for their own monetary/ political gain.
Many don't accept the "inside job theory" because they still believe we are the good guys. NW puts that to rest.
dwheel39 3 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:And you criticize the tactics of people skeptical of the Inside Job theory as dishonest?"
Listen, on 9/11 planes hit buildings. We were spoon fed the original conspiracy story that afternoon. However, their story is full of contradictions, conflicting timelines and outright lies. So the true skeptics are challenging this conspiracy story.
It's 100% beyond reasonable doubt that there is a cover up. To what extent our leaders were involved we don't know.
dwheel39 3 days ago
@dwheel39 "So the true skeptics are challenging this conspiracy story."
Well, I accept the hijacker story, and that our government failed miserably in protecting Americans on 9/11.
If you have a better story, one that doesn't sound like some maniacal sci-fi fantasy, show me the evidence that supports it. Until then, step away from WTC7 and read a little about the story of Al Qaeda. If you're convinced Bin Laden was a CIA stooge, you might need to educate yourself.
unRompecabezas 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unRompecabezas RE:Well, I accept the hijacker story, and that our government failed miserably in protecting Americans on 9/11."
Fair enough. Will you please watch (available here on youtube) the full film "911 Press for Truth"?
It's about how the victim's families had to fight to get any investigation at all. It's very revealing. You seem a bit more open than others on this thread. Please watch and consider the case.
dwheel39 3 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:Until then, step away from WTC7 and read a little about the story of Al Qaeda"
there is no conflict between the two..it's not either controlled demolition or Al Qaeda. The claim is that none of the events could have been pulled off without people on the inside.
dwheel39 3 days ago
@dwheel39 "it's not either controlled demolition or Al Qaeda"
Sure it is. Occam's Razor, amigo. If terrorists flew the jets into buildings and the fires caused them to collapse, that's the end of the story. No need for magic ninja demo crews, sinister stand-downs, or vast cover-ups.
Do I think we got the whole story? Probably not. But does that mean Bush & Co. engineered it? Nope.
unRompecabezas 3 days ago
@unRompecabezas RE:If terrorists flew the jets into buildings and the fires caused them to collapse, that's the end of the story"
That's begging the very question. It's highly implausible, if not impossible for fires to bring buildings down exactly like controlled demolition. Again, please show me at least one example from history or by experiment that shows buildings coming down like building 7 by fire.
it's been 11 yrs and still no one has an example. Ridicule is offered as a refutation.
dwheel39 3 days ago
@unRompecabezas RENo need for magic ninja demo crews, sinister stand-downs, or vast cover-ups."
Just by the very fact a commercial airliner even hit the pentagon after the 2 impacts at the towers had occurred supports the idea of stand down orders, not to mention there are testimonies to this.
Why would a covert act of loading buildings with explosives be considered "magic"? Is it really that unreasonable to you?
dwheel39 3 days ago
@dwheel39 I've never been convinced about the need for CD. It seems like another nonsensical bit of truther dogma. Why exactly would anyone want to wire buildings for demo if he knew fuel-laden jets were going to hit them? What was the urgent need for symmetrical collapses? Why destroy building 7 in broad daylight?
Why go to all the effort and risk? I'm sorry if these are just matters you take on faith and I'm not supposed to question them.
unRompecabezas 3 days ago
@unRompecabezas "What was the urgent need for symmetrical collapses?"
That statement nailed it for sure. The simple answer is there was no need for it. The same terrorists tried to bomb the WTC once before so why couldn't they just plant a bigger bomb and blame it on them? Or why would they need CD charges when they could have just loaded up the plane with explosives? I mean the plane has a maximum take off weight of 200,000 pounds. It could carry one hell of a pay load.
MrAwsome514 3 days ago
@dwheel39 "Just by the very fact a commercial airliner even hit the pentagon after the 2 impacts at the towers had occurred supports the idea of stand down orders, not to mention there are testimonies to this."
Flight 77 had been hijacked even before the second jet hit the WTC towers. You should read up on the details of the confusion that morning. The FAA wasn't sure which flights had already crashed, and since Flight 77 wasn't on the radar anymore, they thought it might have crashed.
unRompecabezas 3 days ago
@dwheel39 I wish I could see real evidence from truthers, evidence of the planning and execution of this vast plot. Because so far you seem to think that the collapse speed of WTC7 and Operation Northwoods are evidence.
Which they're not.
unRompecabezas 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unRompecabezas RE:I wish I could see real evidence from truthers, evidence of the planning and execution of this vast plot"
If you are truly open to the evidence i can send you links to your inbox. If you already have your mind made up that our leaders would never do such a thing, well, there's nothing i can show you to change your mind. Northwoods is the starting point because they prove our leaders would do such a thing.
dwheel39 3 days ago
@unRompecabezas Remember that the government led the 3 investigations (FEMA, NIST and 9/11 commission). It would be like members of organized crime leading investigations into one of their own people. Would you believe them?
"uh...no...uh...joey didn't burned down the building. Protection money? now that's just ridiculous. We need to put an end to these 'conspiracy theories'. How dare you accuse Joey of doing such a thing..blah blah".
Would their investigation carry any weight to you?
dwheel39 4 days ago
@dwheel39 "Everything AE puts out is available to watch for free online"
Ae911truth's latest tax return, which is publicly filed because they are classified as a non-profit organization, shows they collected over $400,000 in donations and materials sales for the year 2010. Gage paid himself almost $100,000 in salary from said donations, which does not include travel expenses for his "quest for Truth" tours.
So don't pretend they are a benevolent, vow-of-poverty society.
cantonear1968 4 days ago