Official Statement Confirms Detonations on 9/11

#201
#201
OrangeEmpire said:
LOL!

Every thing that you do not agree with is misleading...

I love it!
Click to expand...

No crap - the stuff that says the conspiracy "evidence" is misleading is in reality misleading itself thereby proving the conspiracy evidence is in fact not misleading...

Got it?
 
#202
#202
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Sorry VK, I will reserve my extensive Google searching skills for something that I actually need to research. No sense in wasting bandwidth for something I don't find an interest in. Besides looks like you have went at least 10 pages deep in Google for us anyways. Everyone knows that once you pass Page 10 its all crap after that. I do wonder something though, do you have a command center like the guy in Live Free or Die Hard??
Click to expand...

g8ter, you're severely mistaken! Just take a look at the people who endorse David Ray Griffin's books. What has to be done for something to "jump start" your brain? These are prominent, well respected individuals siding with David Ray Griffin, who dissents the Official Conspiracy Theory (official account). Research this! You will learn that the official account is not what it seems and that many facts left out by mainstream media are mind-boggling.

The list of nuts would hence include economist Michel Chossudovsky, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern, British Minister of Parliament Michael Meacher, former Assistant Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of Housing Catherine Austin Fitts, journalists Wayne Madsen and Barrie Zwicker, Institute for Policy Studies co-founder Marcus Raskin, former diplomat Peter Dale Scott, international law professors Richard Falk Burns Weston, social philosopher John McMurtry, theologians John B. Cobb, Harvey Cox, Carter Heyward, Catherine Keller, and Rosemary Reuther, ethicists Joseph C. Hough and Douglas Sturm, writer A.L. Kennedy, media critic and professor of culture Mark Crispin Miller, attorney Garry Spence, historians Richard Horsley and Howard Zinn, and the late Rev. William Sloane Coffin, who, after a stint in the CIA, became one of the country's leading preachers and civil rights, anti-war, and anti-nuclear activists.

Futhermore, if anyone who believes the alternative conspiracy theory, rather than the official conspiracy theory, is by definition a nut, then Cockburn would have to sling that label at Philip J. Berg, former deputy attorney general of Pennsylvania; Colonel Robert Bowman, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and earned a Ph.D. in aeronautics and nuclear engineering before becoming head of the "Star Wars" program during the Ford and Carter administrations; Andreas Von Bulow, formerly state secretary in the German Federal Ministry of Defense, minister of research and technology, and member of parliament, where he served on the intelligence committee; Lt. Col. Steve Butler, formerly vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California; Guiletto Chiesa, an Italian member of the European parliament; Bill Christison, formerly a national intelligence officer in the CIA and director of its Office of Strategic and Political Analysis; A.K. Dewdney, emeritus professor of mathematics and computer science and long-time columnist for Scientific American; General Leonid Ivashov, formerly chief of staff of the Russian armed forces; Captain Eric H. May, formerly an intelligence officer in the US Army; Colonel George Nelson, formerly an airplane accident investigation expert in the US Air Force; Colonel Ronald D. Ray, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran who became deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan administration; Morgan Reynolds, former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis and former chief economist at the Department of Labor; Robert David Steele, who had a 25-year career in intelligence, serving both as a CIA clandestine services case officer and as a US Marine Corps intelligence officer; Captain Russ Wittenberg, a former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions, after which he was a commercial airlines pilot for 35 years; Captain Gregory M. Zeigler, former intelligence officer in the US Army; all member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, Veterans for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and S.P.I.N.E.: the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven; and most of the college and university professors listed under "Professors Question 9/11" on the Patriots Question 9/11 website.
 
#203
#203
volinbham said:
No crap - the stuff that says the conspiracy "evidence" is misleading is in reality misleading itself thereby proving the conspiracy evidence is in fact not misleading...

Got it?
Click to expand...


*motions hand passing over head*

Would you mind re-wording that, Dr. Coincidence Theorist? :neener2:
 
#204
#204
Volunteer_Kirby said:
They're dancing around the key points right in front of your eyes, bham. Take a harder look at the 'other side' and research this stuff yourself!
Click to expand...

Your own arguments are circular - anything that doesn't fit your view is attacked either on the messenger or message.

It's ironic that you plead with others to do research and have an open mind when you use the very tactics you say are being used to dupe us.

As I've stated again and again - you can't have it both ways.
 
#206
#206
volinbham said:
Your own arguments are circular - anything that doesn't fit your view is attacked either on the messenger or message.

It's ironic that you plead with others to do research and have an open mind when you use the very tactics you say are being used to dupe us.

As I've stated again and again - you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Don't try and turn this around on me, bham. Popular Mechanics is complete bunk. Really, bham, level with me. I don't want to argue with you. But, what are we supposed to believe when Popular Mechanics fires it's veteran members and shortly thereafter the new hires, the new crew shows up television appearances and writes books/articles supporting the official account/marginalizing the "conspiracy theory"? I see foul play. The tactics the new crew uses is a thesis, antithesis approach. They are NOT tackling the main, most damning points, like you would expect. I plead with others to do the research because I've done the research. Both sides of it, bham. I've looked into more than enough to know that the official account of what happened that day is impractical and false. For crying out loud, we saw the biggest destruction of evidence in history and this means nothing to the "coincidence theorist". That investigation should have been tiredly researched because it defied not only a law of motion, but structural engineering. Many building were the say type as WTC 1/2. The Sears Tower is one of them. The WTC collapse broke Newton's law of motion. I'm pulling this right in front of your eyes and you're dismissing it without even looking into yourself! The collapse times of WTC 1, 2, & 7 all added up is less than it takes for you to TAKE A PISS. WTC 7 would have been the biggest building in 33 states and it collapsed, symmetrically, in 7 seconds! Those are just minor points, bham. Look into this event yourself and stop dismissing like you've searched both sides of the argument! Please, for your sake, research, learn, READ. If you are truly interested in why MILLIONS of people think the government was complicit, buy a used book by David Ray Griffin on Amazon.com for under $10. I honestly don't believe you will give this a second thought. Not because it's impractical or not possible, but because you don't want to even consider the possibility of there being an ounce of truth in the "conspiracy theory".

Just another sweep under the rug. :sick:
 
#213
#213
My age can be viewed my profile, allvol. I hope you didn't think I was being sincere about the Greys/Planet X. :)
 
#215
#215
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I believe he stated a while back he is 17, I could be wrong though. If I am wrong I am sure he will copy and paste 4 pages of Google responses to show that I am wrong and that the government is out to kill me.
Click to expand...

Yes, you know how old I am, g8ter. The hissy-fit you had over my age in the last thread was hilarious.
 
#217
#217
Volunteer_Kirby said:
Yes, you know how old I am, g8ter. The hissy-fit you had over my age in the last thread was hilarious.
Click to expand...

No hissy-fit there VK. All I was pointing out is you need to spend less time trying to convince people twice your age about black helicopter theories and focus more on where you want you life to take you. You may not believe me, but most adults don't take what a 17 year old says about government and such seriously at all. You are entitled to your opinion, but you don't want an opinion you want "Your" truth and you want everyone to believe you. I don't like to be talked down by a 17 year old and especially one that doesn't have a clue about what really happened that day because they were 11 years old. One day you might realize how you come across to people or maybe you won't. I remember what it was like to be 17 and believe everything that comes out of your mouth is absolute truth, unfortunately there was very little I was right about.
 
#218
#218
Volunteer_Kirby said:
I honestly don't believe you will give this a second thought. Not because it's impractical or not possible, but because you don't want to even consider the possibility of there being an ounce of truth in the "conspiracy theory".

Just another sweep under the rug. :sick:
Click to expand...

You have no idea what I would consider or not. I've looked at much more of this than you give me credit for.

It adds up to nothing in my mind. For every "expert" on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, there are many more who would consider the NST version to be the most likely scenario and entirely consistent with the evidence. Likewise for all the other "smoking guns". The conspiracy case is inconsistent and weak.

Because I don't buy the crap your selling doesn't make me close minded or uninformed.

Arrogance is a conspiracy theorist's most annoying trait...
 
#219
#219
g8terh8ter_eric said:
No hissy-fit there VK. All I was pointing out is you need to spend less time trying to convince people twice your age about black helicopter theories and focus more on where you want you life to take you. You may not believe me, but most adults don't take what a 17 year old says about government and such seriously at all. You are entitled to your opinion, but you don't want an opinion you want "Your" truth and you want everyone to believe you. I don't like to be talked down by a 17 year old and especially one that doesn't have a clue about what really happened that day because they were 11 years old. One day you might realize how you come across to people or maybe you won't. I remember what it was like to be 17 and believe everything that comes out of your mouth is absolute truth, unfortunately there was very little I was right about.
Click to expand...

g8ter, I do not want everyone to believe my truth. I want you to look into 9/11 yourself, rather than pull the "black helicopter" card and avoid legitimate discussion.

And just like you don't like being talked down upon, I don't either. Because I was eleven at the time, I honestly didn't know what really happened. You're damn right about that, g8ter. I was told airplanes were hi-jacked by terrorists and that the Twin Towers collapsed due to some freak, "catastrophic" structural failure. 3 years ago was my first time even hearing of WTC 7. WTC 7 would have been the biggest building in 33 states, yet the air time this collapse received was minute in comparison to WTC 1/2. This absence of knowledge about WTC 7 wasn't just common around 11 year olds, but it is also prevalent among many adult Americans today. You know it's absurd to assume I didn't know what was going on around me at the time, g8ter. Everyone immediately grasped the seriousness of the attacks that day. I did, especially, because my Aunt worked in the Pentagon. As soon as I heard of the Pentagon, I had to run down to the school office and make a phone call just to see if my Aunt was alive and well. Just like you, I have bad memories from that day. Besides that month, I didn't pay any special attention to 9/11, until my family began to question the official story. Only then was my interest piqued enough to search for the truth.

I can only perceive how I'm coming off to you all. I sound like a misguided 17 year old kid who has become disillusioned with reality. Was that close? I'm persisting because I want you people to take a deeper look at the details to understand what really happened that day. I can't even drag you all into a meaningful discussion by saying, "a law of motion was broken during the collapse". I shouldn't have to try and spoon feed this to you all. The information is out there if you search.
 
#220
#220
volinbham said:
You have no idea what I would consider or not. I've looked at much more of this than you give me credit for.

It adds up to nothing in my mind. For every "expert" on the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, there are many more who would consider the NST version to be the most likely scenario and entirely consistent with the evidence. Likewise for all the other "smoking guns". The conspiracy case is inconsistent and weak.

Because I don't buy the crap your selling doesn't make me close minded or uninformed.

Arrogance is a conspiracy theorist's most annoying trait...
Click to expand...

Is there any chance you would mind elaborating on which "smoking guns" you viewed? Also, are you aware that NIST is under a nondisclosure agreement? Can't you see that someone above is constricting NIST? Were you aware that over a month ago NIST stated in a reply to family members of lost ones, that "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse"?

bham, if you can't take my word for it, take this man's. I think it's important you take into consideration what he has to say. James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.”

“I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” “Let's look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what's the significance of one cause versus another.” “I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way,” he said. (Research this, damn it.)

He emphasized, “In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report.”

Dr. Quintiere on World Trade Center Building 7: “And that building was not hit by anything,” noted Dr. Quintiere. “It’s more important to take a look at that. Maybe there was damage by the debris falling down that played a significant role. But other than that you had fires burning a long time without fire department intervention. And firefighters were in that building. I have yet to see any kind of story about what they saw. What was burning? Were photographs taken? Nothing!”

Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

“I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all.” Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said, “I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.”

“In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations by not definitively finding cause, by not sufficiently linking recommendations of specificity to cause, by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding."

And I'd like to pose two question, if you all wouldn't mind answering:

First off, would any of you agree that the collapse of WTC 1, 2, & 7 was eerily reminiscent of a controlled demolition?

wtc7.gif



And lastly, do you believe what you see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told? Just something to ponder.
 
#221
#221
Volunteer_Kirby said:
Besides that month, I didn't pay any special attention to 9/11, until my family began to question the official story. Only then was my interest piqued enough to search for the truth.
Click to expand...

Now it makes a bit more sense. It doesn't seem you ever went into this with an open mind but were influenced at a young age to believe there was a conspiracy and to look from that direction. No wonder you believe all the "evidence" being offered by the people you quote and discount any official story.
 
#222
#222
Perhaps you want it take make seem like that. The people who questioned were ex-Military and in the reserves.

I really don't understand this mind-set you all have. Still, after all the "coincidences" and lies surrounding the status quo, people go the extra yard to avoid any substantive 9/11 discussion. I cannot fathom why that is. At the worst this reveals something far more troubling than mass ignorance; it is indicative of a familiarized reliance on deep seated emotional positions: an irrational attitude of submission to authority. Hence an impluse for projective "characterization" against those not likewise afflicted, of the Establishment's 24/7 media (instructive) manipulation of base chauvinistic/jingoistic tendencies, resulting in a widely adhered to un-reality, reinforced via familiarity.
 
#223
#223
Volunteer_Kirby said:
And lastly, do you believe what you see with your own eyes, or do you believe what you are told? Just something to ponder.
Click to expand...

Looks can be deceiving. I would no more trust your opinion of what happened based on that video than I would mine.

There is substantial evidence supporting the NIST view.

Lack of complete evidence is not evidence of a conspiracy. If you apply this criteria, the conspiracy theory is woefully weak since it lacks an enormous amount of evidence. It is built on character defamation and scientific theory put forth either by non-experts in the field or those in the minority of their field.

I'm sure if I dig hard enough I can find the same type of "discrediting" information about the former NIST guy. Since your group uses this tactic to discredit anyone and any entity that provides evidence and rationale counter to your claims.

For the last time - you should practice some of the open-mindedness you chide us for not using.
 
#224
#224
Okay VK - here's the part you left out about James Quintiere:

Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”
Dr. Quintiere summarized the NIST conclusion about the cause of the collapses of the Twin Towers. “It says that the core columns, uninsulated due to the fact that the aircraft stripped off that insulation; they softened in the heat of the fire and shortened and that led to the collapse. They pulled in the external columns and it caused it to buckle. They went on further to say that there would be no collapse if the insulation remained in place.”Dr. Quintiere then presented his and his students’ research that contradicts the NIST report and points to a different cause for the collapses; the application of insufficient fire-proofing insulation on the truss rods in the Twin Towers. “I suggest that there’s an equally justifiable theory and that’s the trusses fail as they are heated by the fire with the insulation intact. These are two different conclusions and the accountability for each is dramatically different,” he said.
Click to expand...

Taken in this context, his complaint is that he thinks the reason the planes brought down the building is different than the NIST account.

He does not question that planes and the fires brought down the buildings.

Typical of what we see from you - take the quotes out of context.
 
#225
#225
Thing about it is VK, I have been on both sides looking. You still think that because I don't use Google to copy and paste my agreement or argument that I am lacking in the information department. Well I did all this research about 3 years ago, in books and on the internet because I had nothing better to do at the time. I found that it was nothing more than a conspiracy theory that was trying to masquerade as some type of truth. I have also said many times VK that if this were true in any way the liberal media would be on it like white on rice. This is why I am very argumentative with this type of nonsense. Only I can convince myself VK, not you or anyone else on this planet. I have seen all the evidence that I need to see and I have come to my own conclusion just like you have. Pleading and begging with me to just look at it one more time is a sign that you yourself may want to step away from your family and other that influence you and take a look at it from an unbiased opinion. Trust me, when I was your age my family and others that influenced me weren't right about everything and I am still trying to convince myself about what is right in life so I don't repeat some stupidity my family brought upon me and I didn't even know it at the time. VK, you seem like a cool kid bro. Go and enjoy yourself and stop worrying about this because before you know it you will become an adult and all the time you had for play will be down to a very small window of fun.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top