The final 9/11 conspiracy thread

[Dave]

For those of you who can't get enough of 911, check this
http://tinyurl.com/3dg

[Turbine]

99% chance of it being a typo :/

:icon14:

[shadd_]

For those of you who can't get enough of 911, check this
http://tinyurl.com/3dg

bastard.

system volume++

[Nightshade]

99% chance of it being a typo :/

Twice? And in that context? 99% chance of being a retard.

[Dave]

troo

[R00k]

it fell to the side, there are fucking photos of it. I'm sorry that Alex doesn't want you to see them and that you refuse to examine the other side's photographic evidence.

deal with it

Are the photos in that 134-page pdf?

3 or 4 around page 99 somewhere afair

Okay, there isn't a single photo of it falling to the side. None of these pictures mean anything when you can clearly see it falling straight down - not to the side - in public broadcast videos of the collapse.

All it shows is that some surrounding buildings were damaged from the collapse. I don't recall ever using the word "tidy" in reference to any of the collapses, as the author is claiming in his straw-man argument -- saying a 50 story building fell into its own footprint is a fairly messy affair by any standards. I never tried to imply that there was some cavern below that everything disappeared into - a 50 story building has to go somewhere - even in known controlled demolitions they have to create a wide safety area because debris will be flying from the building.

[Nightshade]

There's usually not a whole lot of large chunks thrown in controlled demolitions. Hell, when any reinforced concrete structure falls much of it gets pulverized.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I don't want to get caught up in the discussion of planted explosives - as I said, they are tangents to the real issue in my opinion.

I will say, however, that I haven't seen some of the pictures you've provided before - have never seen any evidence that refutes the footprint-fall I have always heard described and seen evidence of in the past. So I'll continue to look at this stuff, and I may even be convinced thoroughly that there were no explosions involved. My opinions of that day have changed a dozen times since the events, and I expect they will continue to change as I see more things that I haven't seen before.

But I still want to stress that there are many more aspects to the events of 9/11 than whether the buildings were demolished, which has been my point throughout this thread.

There was evidence of foreknowledge, and there is evidence of a political whitewash and cover up, and these are the things that point to serious questions that remain to be answered, regardless of discussions about how the towers fell.

you won't answer my question. what are you hiding?

seriously though, you won't engage in this discussion except to try and poke holes in the rational explanation (see your later post about the building failing in a tidy fashion)

is there or is there not any evidence to back up a controlled demolition of wtc7 and if not what are you getting at when you say things like...

Okay, there isn't a single photo of it falling to the side. None of these pictures mean anything when you can clearly see it falling straight down - not to the side - in public broadcast videos of the collapse.

All it shows is that some surrounding buildings were damaged from the collapse. I don't recall ever using the word "tidy" in reference to any of the collapses, as the author is claiming in his straw-man argument -- saying a 50 story building fell into its own footprint is a fairly messy affair by any standards. I never tried to imply that there was some cavern below that everything disappeared into - a 50 story building has to go somewhere - even in known controlled demolitions they have to create a wide safety area because debris will be flying from the building.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

oh and i take exception to the clearly seeing it fall straight down comment as the Alex Jones' video is only showing one side (the side opposite the one in question) of the building.

I also take exception to your claim that controlled demolition is a messy affair. They implode buildings and they do fall into their own footprints and it's nowhere near as messy as the wtc1 wtc2 or wtc7 collapse. And it generally takes weeks to rig a building like that for demoltion.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

see page 102 of the pdf about this stuff... videos of controlled demolition with full sound (so you can hear the initiation charges)

i'm seeing loads of evidence which contradicts the claims of those in the 'truth' movement.

[Freakaloin]

there were reports of explosions and there wasn't sound in the videos of the wtc7 collapse...

looks pretty straight here...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... window.wmv

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGE ... street.wmv

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

there were reports of explosions and there wasn't sound in the videos of the wtc7 collapse...

hey dumbo there's seismic data you can check. sorry no explosions

[Freakaloin]

where are these multiple sources of seismic data they speak of in this pdf? lol...nice hack job pdf...and ur a gullible chump...rofl...

[R00k]

I don't want to get caught up in the discussion of planted explosives - as I said, they are tangents to the real issue in my opinion.

I will say, however, that I haven't seen some of the pictures you've provided before - have never seen any evidence that refutes the footprint-fall I have always heard described and seen evidence of in the past. So I'll continue to look at this stuff, and I may even be convinced thoroughly that there were no explosions involved. My opinions of that day have changed a dozen times since the events, and I expect they will continue to change as I see more things that I haven't seen before.

But I still want to stress that there are many more aspects to the events of 9/11 than whether the buildings were demolished, which has been my point throughout this thread.

There was evidence of foreknowledge, and there is evidence of a political whitewash and cover up, and these are the things that point to serious questions that remain to be answered, regardless of discussions about how the towers fell.

you won't answer my question. what are you hiding?

seriously though, you won't engage in this discussion except to try and poke holes in the rational explanation (see your later post about the building failing in a tidy fashion)

I'm still not sure what you are referring to as the "rational" explanation. Do you believe that the official version of events is the complete and authoritative chronology of what transpired that day? Or by rational do you mean "buildings weren't demolished with explosives?" quid pro quo

is there or is there not any evidence to back up a controlled demolition of wtc7 and if not what are you getting at when you say things like...

What I'm getting at is that the official story which has been sold as a hardback book offers an explanation that is inconsistent with the events of that day as I have observed them.

This encompasses people hearing and even being injured by explosives, firefighters and chiefs reporting explosions, news anchors remarking that the building collapses look exactly like controlled demolitions, no explanation of the entire core of the towers practically disappearing (pancaking does not cover this), no evidence being available for independent analysis - much less investigation - and also a building that did not get hit by any planes collapsing in the same manner that the towers did....

And multiple, even repeated, intelligence warnings about an attack being apparently deliberately ignored, some of the alleged hijackers being alive and talking to reporters, no Arabs found on the military autopsy of flight 77's passengers, the FBI stating that there was no hard evidence to prove who the hijackers were, Israelis posing as art students and surveying military and intelligence buildings prior to the attacks, Israeli intelligence operatives working in the areas the hijackers lived prior to the attacks for quite some time, Israelis dancing on a van and high-fiving while watching the towers fall, a 4-part series on Fox News about this which was pulled from the air and the transcripts removed from their website....

An administration that has battle plans and perpetrators laid out so quickly that it seems they had time to plan in advance... A President, sitting in a school classroom after the first plan had hit, and his Secret Service made no move to protect him or move him to protect the children around him, according to their SOP...


There are more things like this that make the official version of events ring falsely in my ears - many more - but I feel like I have stated all this before, multiple times in multiple threads already.

My stance is that this is a watershed tragedy of massive proportions, and the closest thing we have had to an investigation is a group of hand-picked politicians who not only didn't even answer most of the questions the victims' families presented to them, but even omitted testimonies from their final report which were highly relevant to the inquiry, but contradicted their assertions.

And nearly every one of these points I have posted here already - many of them more than once - and sourced them.

My position on this is that I don't know exactly what happened -- who can fully claim to? -- but I know when someone is telling me to believe something when I have seen the opposite with my own two eyes. That is why I do not posit theories as facts, and why I seem to only want to poke holes in the 'rational' explanation.

This model of thought, to me, seems to closely resemble the scientific method. What is wrong with not claiming to know what happened when you can't prove it?

What's wrong is that I cannot do that without being called a nut, or without someone trying to pigeon-hole me into a category of 9/11 "Truthies" -- but the government has beeng getting away with it for more than 5 years now.

Where is the proof of what happened? Why is the onus of evidence on people who only ask for an investigation?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

where are these multiple sources of seismic data they speak of in this pdf? lol...nice hack job pdf...and ur a gullible chump...rofl...

oh i don't know, maybe on page 69?

[R00k]

oh and i take exception to the clearly seeing it fall straight down comment as the Alex Jones' video is only showing one side (the side opposite the one in question) of the building.

Could you show me some videos of it from other angles? I don't have some kind of plugin for animated images to display in the pdf.

I also take exception to your claim that controlled demolition is a messy affair. They implode buildings and they do fall into their own footprints and it's nowhere near as messy as the wtc1 wtc2 or wtc7 collapse. And it generally takes weeks to rig a building like that for demoltion.

Sure it can be done - it's exactly what every demolition aims to do - but the majority of demolitions don't approach that kind of perfection, and the taller and heavier the building is, the harder it is to accomplish.

[R00k]

see page 102 of the pdf about this stuff... videos of controlled demolition with full sound (so you can hear the initiation charges)

i'm seeing loads of evidence which contradicts the claims of those in the 'truth' movement.

The video Memphis posted has some recorded sound as well as seismic data.

[MKJ]

i agree with puff, seriously

rook you're supposed to be one of the smarter peiple around here. act like it

[Freakaloin]

where are these multiple sources of seismic data they speak of in this pdf? lol...nice hack job pdf...and ur a gullible chump...rofl...

oh i don't know, maybe on page 69?

no moron...thats a single source...they claim multiple sources...yet don't site them...its a hack job...and u think its legit...rofl...

[Freakaloin]

i agree with puff, seriously

rook you're supposed to be one of the smarter peiple around here. act like it

obviously ur too dumb to know what smart is...rofl..

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

I don't want to get caught up in the discussion of planted explosives - as I said, they are tangents to the real issue in my opinion.

I will say, however, that I haven't seen some of the pictures you've provided before - have never seen any evidence that refutes the footprint-fall I have always heard described and seen evidence of in the past. So I'll continue to look at this stuff, and I may even be convinced thoroughly that there were no explosions involved. My opinions of that day have changed a dozen times since the events, and I expect they will continue to change as I see more things that I haven't seen before.

But I still want to stress that there are many more aspects to the events of 9/11 than whether the buildings were demolished, which has been my point throughout this thread.

There was evidence of foreknowledge, and there is evidence of a political whitewash and cover up, and these are the things that point to serious questions that remain to be answered, regardless of discussions about how the towers fell.

you won't answer my question. what are you hiding?

seriously though, you won't engage in this discussion except to try and poke holes in the rational explanation (see your later post about the building failing in a tidy fashion)

I'm still not sure what you are referring to as the "rational" explanation. Do you believe that the official version of events is the complete and authoritative chronology of what transpired that day? Or by rational do you mean "buildings weren't demolished with explosives?" quid pro quo

is there or is there not any evidence to back up a controlled demolition of wtc7 and if not what are you getting at when you say things like...

What I'm getting at is that the official story which has been sold as a hardback book offers an explanation that is inconsistent with the events of that day as I have observed them.

This encompasses people hearing and even being injured by explosives, firefighters and chiefs reporting explosions, news anchors remarking that the building collapses look exactly like controlled demolitions, no explanation of the entire core of the towers practically disappearing (pancaking does not cover this), no evidence being available for independent analysis - much less investigation - and also a building that did not get hit by any planes collapsing in the same manner that the towers did....

And multiple, even repeated, intelligence warnings about an attack being apparently deliberately ignored, some of the alleged hijackers being alive and talking to reporters, no Arabs found on the military autopsy of flight 77's passengers, the FBI stating that there was no hard evidence to prove who the hijackers were, Israelis posing as art students and surveying military and intelligence buildings prior to the attacks, Israeli intelligence operatives working in the areas the hijackers lived prior to the attacks for quite some time, Israelis dancing on a van and high-fiving while watching the towers fall, a 4-part series on Fox News about this which was pulled from the air and the transcripts removed from their website....

An administration that has battle plans and perpetrators laid out so quickly that it seems they had time to plan in advance... A President, sitting in a school classroom after the first plan had hit, and his Secret Service made no move to protect him or move him to protect the children around him, according to their SOP...


There are more things like this that make the official version of events ring falsely in my ears - many more - but I feel like I have stated all this before, multiple times in multiple threads already.

My stance is that this is a watershed tragedy of massive proportions, and the closest thing we have had to an investigation is a group of hand-picked politicians who not only didn't even answer most of the questions the victims' families presented to them, but even omitted testimonies from their final report which were highly relevant to the inquiry, but contradicted their assertions.

And nearly every one of these points I have posted here already - many of them more than once - and sourced them.

My position on this is that I don't know exactly what happened -- who can fully claim to? -- but I know when someone is telling me to believe something when I have seen the opposite with my own two eyes. That is why I do not posit theories as facts, and why I seem to only want to poke holes in the 'rational' explanation.

This model of thought, to me, seems to closely resemble the scientific method. What is wrong with not claiming to know what happened when you can't prove it?

What's wrong is that I cannot do that without being called a nut, or without someone trying to pigeon-hole me into a category of 9/11 "Truthies" -- but the government has beeng getting away with it for more than 5 years now.

Where is the proof of what happened? Why is the onus of evidence on people who only ask for an investigation?

what's wrong is there should be some evidence and there is none. give me one piece of evidence of controlled demolition.

i agree there's evidence of foreknowledge of the attack and there's evidence that the administration let the attacks happen. now i'd like some evidence of controlled demolition.

i don't think you are dumb or crazy rook, but the 911 truth movement has spread so much misinformation about 9/11 that you are starting from deeply flawed premises and you're accepting spurious information as fact.

[MKJ]

i agree with puff, seriously

rook you're supposed to be one of the smarter peiple around here. act like it

obviously ur too dumb to know what smart is...rofl..

like you dont know any better.. you raise a valid point though

[Nightshade]

R00k, I think you're being very defensive in regards to the tone of that article. I don't dispute most of the points you just enumerated, with the exception of the demolitions bit. Yeah, there are shitloads of questions that are unanswered and uninvestigated. But there's also a lot of evidence that goes a long way towards clarifying many of these same questions. Those that don't have hard evidence to support or refute them, well, then we get to the crux of your stance, the lack of investigation.
What I wonder is why is it that you're so quick to bring forth claims like Silverstein's alleged monetary gain from the WT buildings being brought down, yet you dismiss the clarification of same that this article highlights? Also, your comment about the cores "disappearing" and "not being covered by pancaking" seems to me to be comments that only one with some pretty advanced structural engineering knowledge could reasonably make. Yet you seem to assert them confidently.
I say this because in a lot of the discussions I've had with a dude I used to work with, issues like this came up frequently. What we as laypeople suspect versus what is known or can be calculated. Perhaps not by us, but by experts in the respective field. MANY people that argue this stuff seem to act rather authoritatively with little or no basis to do so. I'm not attacking you here, just pointing out a common modality for these discussions.

[Freakaloin]

nightshade has feelings for rook...how cute!...

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

where are these multiple sources of seismic data they speak of in this pdf? lol...nice hack job pdf...and ur a gullible chump...rofl...

oh i don't know, maybe on page 69?

no moron...thats a single source...they claim multiple sources...yet don't site them...its a hack job...and u think its legit...rofl...

the funny thing here is, the 'truthies' used the exact same data from the same source to try and argue for demolition but they didn't know what the fuck they were talking about and got it all wrong.