I'm no truther, but dude, these areguments are s**t. Any truther would respond:
1. Why would it take hundreds or thousands of people? If you say less than 20 terrorists could have done it, then maybe less than 20 government people did it.
2. James Robbins was in on it, they planted a "witness."
3. All the people on the planes were killed one way or another (btw, I have never heard a truther say the WTC was not hit by a plane).
4. Bin Laden said he did it cause they always lay claim to unclaimed attacks. It makes them look strong, and they've done it before.
5. None of the government agencies found anything out BECAUSE they ARE the government that was behind it.
6. Because a full and controlled demolition would require multilevel bombs. The demolition was controlled, planes were used as the excuse, and the "bombs" were of thermite paint, literally painted on during renovation. They were not triggered until all the key people were out.
7. Donald Rumsfeld was somehow not in the path of the missle that hit the pentagon. He didn't need to not be there, it's a big building. He just stayed on the other side.
8. They already thought he had them, why plant them. They thought they just needed to find them.
9. Afghan was an excuse to be in the middle east, and let us focus on the real agenda, that's why we never pushed so hard there.
10. Maybe they are in on it. Mayeb they haven't found out. Maybe they don't want to reveal it and spark huge protests and investigations and deal with the fallout that would occur if people knew the government actually was behind it.
If anyone can explain building 7's near free-fall speed collapse adequately, I would not be a 9/11 truther. That building was not brought down by fire.
It is also telling that no one lost their job as a result of 9/11. A complete and utter failure of a multi-billion dollar air defense and screening system and no one is held accountable.
Also, why not release the video tape of the plane hitting the Pentagon? There are hundreds of cameras around that building. When the government holds back information it makes them look guilty.
@torrange - Don't bother producing facts for these "birthers". It doesn't matter how many times you post a link with the proof, it's not enough for these people.
The real question is why is this the first president to be asked this over and over again. Nobody questioned any other presidents nationality over and over again. I wonder what is so different about this president?
1) Manhattan project anyone? Secrecy is not hard at all for the government.
2) Planes definitely hit the trade center, but the government has not provided a single piece of convincing evidence that a plane hit the pentagon, and actually confiscated videos that would prove their claim if they were speaking the truth,
3) We may never know
4) Usama bin Laden has NEVER taken responsibility for the attacks, although has has praised them.
5)All of the bodies mentioned have had, not only members with known conflicts of interest, but have blatantly altered or ignored facts. Even members of the 9/11 Commission themselves have said that they were extremely limited by the white house, and that they were only allowed to cover certain related subjects. 9/11 Commission doesn't even mention building 7, and it was supposed to analyse ALL events relating to the attacks that day. Thats a big item to miss.
6) There are many many pieces of scientific evidence that show that there was not only thermite residue, but un-ignited thermite in the WTC dust, as well as irom micro-spheres that can only form in the presence of liquefied iron, which cannot be produced by office fires or jet fuel.
7) 9/10/2001: Donald Rumsfeld announced that the pentagon cannot account for 2.3 Trillion dollars in spending. The next day, nobody cared. A little strange if you ask me.
8)Bush went to war off of KNOWN bad intelligence on WMDs. Their "Informant" admitted he lied, and Bush ran with it anyways. Whats the need to plant WMD's when you have an "Insider" giving you the info that you need to present to the public to get support for the war. They didnt need to plant anything, they already had the excuse they needed.
9) Opium, Lithium
10) That's a great question. Obama may not be willing to, but i know of a few candidates that are actually LISTENING to the victims families cries and demands for a new, truly independent investigation.
There is a lot more than that. The 9/11 Truth Movement gets ripped on much more than they deserve. Its something that should be obvious that it was not investigated or handled properly. There was MASSIVE destruction of evidence, many extremely basic fire investigative proceedures were skipped, and the commission, as well as being limited in the content and research they could do, was also provided an EXTREMELY limited budget.
Clinton Affair Investigation: $40+ Million
9/11 Investigation: $11 Million
This is not some crazy idea like "Paul is Dead", This is not tinfoil hat stuff, this is extremely serious, and rather disgusting. This event has been used to completely change the way of life for every man and woman in america, and indirectly, the whole world.
@Laborer - hey - you're appearing very level headed about this. Objective skepticism - Kudos. However on the other hand you're asking others to do all the footwork for you...even though it's been done ad nauseum for others (from my perspective anyway).
You're asking others to change your reality - from safe contemporary skeptical analysis to...well I bet you don't even want to contemplate what the outcome might be after being "convinced". Can you imagine it? Can you articulate to yourself what that other unwanted reality might be trying to tell you? I'm not talking about a superficial and perhaps temporary OMG PANIC! state - but a more comprehensive state where you actually get what the "crazy" people are trying to "clue you in on".
You really should do the footwork yourself - delve into it and stop demanding an official tour guide or someone to tell you what to think. But maybe you can't. I don't blame you if you can't. It's too mind boggling of a reality shift. That's why I try to maintain some denial myself...holding out for the delightful possibility that it's all a delusion.
But alright. Maybe >you< can help disrupt the delusion and add clarity. In that hope I offer this video of a "confession" by a claimed witness of underlying motives:
There is a large body of similar vids - more specific to 911. If you can debunk this with enough intellectual rigor I will offer more...assuming you still are reluctant to use your own skills to find and grasp them yourself. Ever hear of Google?
But I suspect on sensing "how deep the rabbit hole goes" you will turn tail and pretend you feel nothing whatsoever - intellectually or otherwise....back to business as usual?
I could be wrong though. It would be fantastic if you prove the trepidation as wrong and unwarranted - though I'm afraid the challenges will only escalate for you.
Just in case you find yourself slipping over the deep end maybe this will help:
If you want someone to take charge of your reality I do recommend that you start by looking deeply within yourself. But I give you credit for being perturbed - that's recognizably human enough.
The in depth planning of these staged attacks to start a war should put half these questions to rest. The rest I could answer individually if someone would like.
911 "truthers" want answers to questions like:
- Why was nanothermite (an highly-explosive compound) in the WTC dust?
- Why did multiple news agencies report the collapse of building 7 BEFORE it collapsed?
- Why are explosions edited out of videos NIST was forced to release after challenging a FOIA request?
- How did building 7 fall at a speed equivalent to gravity? (buildings cannot collapse at such a speed due to air resistance, resistance from lower floors pushing back against upper floors, and so on)
Actually, the laws of physics dictate that a collapsing building will not fall at free-fall speed because there are materials underneath it that would slow it down. Plenty of buildings tip to the side that aren't demolished using explosives because the framework of the building is still in tact.
I never got #1. Why would it take hundreds or even thousands for the US to do it if the real group that did it pulled it off with did it with 19? Is the US government really that inefficient that we would need a cast of thousands?
So a missile managed to
* knock over a bunch of light poles on the highway?
* convince dozens of motorists that they saw a plane?
* leave plane wreckage all over the place?
* mysteriously make Flight 77 disappear without a trace?
Thank you very much for your kind words. Very often these comment chains get ugly when its a controversial topic, and when people start throwing insults around (which they often do) its hard to continue to converse.
I don't know the truth whatsoever and make no claims of such, but i have quite a few questions that dont have answers, and i've done extensive enough research over the past 8 or so years (since i started to realize some of the strange facts about that day).
There are very many that have researched the issue more than myself.
I'd like to believe the official story, i just can't.
Not to mention the accounts of the numerous first-responders who worked around the wreckage.
That 16-ft hole was a small hole made in Ring C (NOT the building's exterior, Ring E) made by the landing gear. The plane's impact on the building's exterior instantly made a 75-foot "hole" before the subsequent collapse of the exterior facade.
I have compiled a top list of questions I can recall from memory, that "Truthers" (people who seek the truth) want answered. "Truthers" are more concerned about a new investigation than trying to theorize about what happened. A new focused investigation on these questions and more is what they want, so they will have concrete proof either way.
1) When buildings fall they are subject to some resistence which slows the accelleration of the fall. These are things like air resistance, resistance from lower floors, or any other upward force. How did building 7 accelerate at the speed of gravity? One explanation is a controlled demolition, which would create a vaccum allowing for such accelleration. The 911 report does not mention building 7 at all. Why do thousands of engineers confirm the science behind this?
3) Why was the explosive compound nano-thermite found in the dust? The 911 report does not address this.
4) Hani Hanjour reportedly couldn't fly well at all, but managed to pull off a manuever that expert pilots say would be impossible: http://911review.org/Wiki/Hanjour,Hani.shtml
Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory show even had a profession pilot attempt the same path in an air simulator and the pilot couldn't do it on several attempts.
How do you explain this?
5) NIST refused to comply with a FOIA request for videos of 9/11 citing national security. After a court battle, they were forced to release them. How come in some of these videos: the sound was edited out at point where you can hear what appear to be explosions in other videos? the penthouse on building 7 collapsing was edited out?
7) Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about 2.3 trillion unaccounted for dollars the day before 9/11. Is it really just coincidence that this was under investigation, and the exact section of the pentagon that held these documents was hit?
9) Why do workers and rescue crew report hearing explosions on the ground and in the buildings? TV news channels also reported hearing these explosions.
10) Why do ground level workers at WTC report explosions before the buildings were even hit?
11) How are these the first three skyscrapers in history to fall due to fire? Other buildings have burned for hours and not collapsed, but then 3 on one day... ?
They wouldnt have used thermite to weld in the WTC. There are much more practical ways to weld.
In the dust, they found evidence for standard thermite and "super thermite"
Super thermite can be painted on, and could even have been painted on by people who didnt know that the paint they were using was thermite.
Its extremely unlikely that the thermite was their for any reason other than the destriction of the WTC towers and WTC7.
BTW...WTC 7 Collapsed from the base of the building, exibiting all noticeable features of a controleld demolition, but without ever having been hit by a plane, and suffering less damage than the otehr remaining WTC complex buildings such as 5 and 6. Buildings 5 and 6 had to be intentionally demolished by explosives well well after the fact, and the WTC towers fell on top of them.
apokalyps2547Apr 7, 2011Buried
Conspiracy theorists ask us to prove the obvious, but swallow the preposterous.
theonewhoknowsApr 7, 2011Buried
I'm no truther, but dude, these areguments are s**t. Any truther would respond:
1. Why would it take hundreds or thousands of people? If you say less than 20 terrorists could have done it, then maybe less than 20 government people did it.
2. James Robbins was in on it, they planted a "witness."
3. All the people on the planes were killed one way or another (btw, I have never heard a truther say the WTC was not hit by a plane).
4. Bin Laden said he did it cause they always lay claim to unclaimed attacks. It makes them look strong, and they've done it before.
5. None of the government agencies found anything out BECAUSE they ARE the government that was behind it.
6. Because a full and controlled demolition would require multilevel bombs. The demolition was controlled, planes were used as the excuse, and the "bombs" were of thermite paint, literally painted on during renovation. They were not triggered until all the key people were out.
7. Donald Rumsfeld was somehow not in the path of the missle that hit the pentagon. He didn't need to not be there, it's a big building. He just stayed on the other side.
8. They already thought he had them, why plant them. They thought they just needed to find them.
9. Afghan was an excuse to be in the middle east, and let us focus on the real agenda, that's why we never pushed so hard there.
10. Maybe they are in on it. Mayeb they haven't found out. Maybe they don't want to reveal it and spark huge protests and investigations and deal with the fallout that would occur if people knew the government actually was behind it.
anomaly100Apr 7, 2011Buried
The same could/should be said for birthers.
mdonatoApr 7, 2011Buried
If anyone can explain building 7's near free-fall speed collapse adequately, I would not be a 9/11 truther. That building was not brought down by fire.
It is also telling that no one lost their job as a result of 9/11. A complete and utter failure of a multi-billion dollar air defense and screening system and no one is held accountable.
Also, why not release the video tape of the plane hitting the Pentagon? There are hundreds of cameras around that building. When the government holds back information it makes them look guilty.
killersquirelApr 7, 2011Buried
@torrange - Don't bother producing facts for these "birthers". It doesn't matter how many times you post a link with the proof, it's not enough for these people.
The real question is why is this the first president to be asked this over and over again. Nobody questioned any other presidents nationality over and over again. I wonder what is so different about this president?
continuouslifeApr 7, 2011Buried
1) Manhattan project anyone? Secrecy is not hard at all for the government.
2) Planes definitely hit the trade center, but the government has not provided a single piece of convincing evidence that a plane hit the pentagon, and actually confiscated videos that would prove their claim if they were speaking the truth,
3) We may never know
4) Usama bin Laden has NEVER taken responsibility for the attacks, although has has praised them.
5)All of the bodies mentioned have had, not only members with known conflicts of interest, but have blatantly altered or ignored facts. Even members of the 9/11 Commission themselves have said that they were extremely limited by the white house, and that they were only allowed to cover certain related subjects. 9/11 Commission doesn't even mention building 7, and it was supposed to analyse ALL events relating to the attacks that day. Thats a big item to miss.
6) There are many many pieces of scientific evidence that show that there was not only thermite residue, but un-ignited thermite in the WTC dust, as well as irom micro-spheres that can only form in the presence of liquefied iron, which cannot be produced by office fires or jet fuel.
7) 9/10/2001: Donald Rumsfeld announced that the pentagon cannot account for 2.3 Trillion dollars in spending. The next day, nobody cared. A little strange if you ask me.
8)Bush went to war off of KNOWN bad intelligence on WMDs. Their "Informant" admitted he lied, and Bush ran with it anyways. Whats the need to plant WMD's when you have an "Insider" giving you the info that you need to present to the public to get support for the war. They didnt need to plant anything, they already had the excuse they needed.
9) Opium, Lithium
10) That's a great question. Obama may not be willing to, but i know of a few candidates that are actually LISTENING to the victims families cries and demands for a new, truly independent investigation.
There is a lot more than that. The 9/11 Truth Movement gets ripped on much more than they deserve. Its something that should be obvious that it was not investigated or handled properly. There was MASSIVE destruction of evidence, many extremely basic fire investigative proceedures were skipped, and the commission, as well as being limited in the content and research they could do, was also provided an EXTREMELY limited budget.
Clinton Affair Investigation: $40+ Million
9/11 Investigation: $11 Million
This is not some crazy idea like "Paul is Dead", This is not tinfoil hat stuff, this is extremely serious, and rather disgusting. This event has been used to completely change the way of life for every man and woman in america, and indirectly, the whole world.
cmpashdngApr 7, 2011Buried
@Laborer - hey - you're appearing very level headed about this. Objective skepticism - Kudos. However on the other hand you're asking others to do all the footwork for you...even though it's been done ad nauseum for others (from my perspective anyway).
You're asking others to change your reality - from safe contemporary skeptical analysis to...well I bet you don't even want to contemplate what the outcome might be after being "convinced". Can you imagine it? Can you articulate to yourself what that other unwanted reality might be trying to tell you? I'm not talking about a superficial and perhaps temporary OMG PANIC! state - but a more comprehensive state where you actually get what the "crazy" people are trying to "clue you in on".
You really should do the footwork yourself - delve into it and stop demanding an official tour guide or someone to tell you what to think. But maybe you can't. I don't blame you if you can't. It's too mind boggling of a reality shift. That's why I try to maintain some denial myself...holding out for the delightful possibility that it's all a delusion.
But alright. Maybe >you< can help disrupt the delusion and add clarity. In that hope I offer this video of a "confession" by a claimed witness of underlying motives:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUUPp8b2dR8
There is a large body of similar vids - more specific to 911. If you can debunk this with enough intellectual rigor I will offer more...assuming you still are reluctant to use your own skills to find and grasp them yourself. Ever hear of Google?
But I suspect on sensing "how deep the rabbit hole goes" you will turn tail and pretend you feel nothing whatsoever - intellectually or otherwise....back to business as usual?
I could be wrong though. It would be fantastic if you prove the trepidation as wrong and unwarranted - though I'm afraid the challenges will only escalate for you.
Just in case you find yourself slipping over the deep end maybe this will help:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF61lhEeGng
If you want someone to take charge of your reality I do recommend that you start by looking deeply within yourself. But I give you credit for being perturbed - that's recognizably human enough.
torrangeApr 7, 2011Buried
the document has been produced
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
breadfredApr 7, 2011Buried
He is kind of a nutmeg color. Now, everyone knows you cannot trust nutmeg.
/s
njdoo7Apr 7, 2011Buried
Most of these questions can be answered by these declassified documents about operation northwoods:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
The in depth planning of these staged attacks to start a war should put half these questions to rest. The rest I could answer individually if someone would like.
Additionally, no logical "truther" as people like to call them don't suggest that "the government was behind 9/11." They just see flaws in the official story, that the majority of the 911 commission members themselves say is not accurate:
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_cleland.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index4.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html
911 "truthers" want answers to questions like:
- Why was nanothermite (an highly-explosive compound) in the WTC dust?
- Why did multiple news agencies report the collapse of building 7 BEFORE it collapsed?
- Why are explosions edited out of videos NIST was forced to release after challenging a FOIA request?
- How did building 7 fall at a speed equivalent to gravity? (buildings cannot collapse at such a speed due to air resistance, resistance from lower floors pushing back against upper floors, and so on)
And so on.
torrangeApr 7, 2011Buried
not sure if The Daily Show, Rap Artists, or MTV push conspiracy theories - your statement contradicts itself, stereotypes, and generalizes.
andrewh7Apr 7, 2011Buried
Actually, the laws of physics dictate that a collapsing building will not fall at free-fall speed because there are materials underneath it that would slow it down. Plenty of buildings tip to the side that aren't demolished using explosives because the framework of the building is still in tact.
wonderchemistApr 7, 2011Buried
I never got #1. Why would it take hundreds or even thousands for the US to do it if the real group that did it pulled it off with did it with 19? Is the US government really that inefficient that we would need a cast of thousands?
apokalyps2547Apr 7, 2011Buried
So a missile managed to
* knock over a bunch of light poles on the highway?
* convince dozens of motorists that they saw a plane?
* leave plane wreckage all over the place?
* mysteriously make Flight 77 disappear without a trace?
Okay, guy.
continuouslifeApr 7, 2011Buried
Thank you very much for your kind words. Very often these comment chains get ugly when its a controversial topic, and when people start throwing insults around (which they often do) its hard to continue to converse.
I don't know the truth whatsoever and make no claims of such, but i have quite a few questions that dont have answers, and i've done extensive enough research over the past 8 or so years (since i started to realize some of the strange facts about that day).
There are very many that have researched the issue more than myself.
I'd like to believe the official story, i just can't.
Thank you again for your comments and posts.
robbh66Apr 7, 2011Buried
I think we can all, liberal or conservative, agree that the 9/11 Truthers are idiots.
apokalyps2547Apr 7, 2011Buried
Google Image Search: Flight 77 wreckage
http://conspiracyscience.com/images/articles/911-images/pentagon-debris-007-landinggear.jpg
http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/debris1_wheel.jpg
http://www.frot.co.nz/sift/images_conspiracy/flight_77.jpg
Not to mention the accounts of the numerous first-responders who worked around the wreckage.
That 16-ft hole was a small hole made in Ring C (NOT the building's exterior, Ring E) made by the landing gear. The plane's impact on the building's exterior instantly made a 75-foot "hole" before the subsequent collapse of the exterior facade.
I'll add another piece of well-documented evidence: they found fragmentary human remains of the Flight 77 passengers.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/FirstFloor_Pentagon_Bodies.png
Nothing on the light posts? The multiple eyewitnesses?
Long on speculation, short on fact.
njdoo7Apr 7, 2011Buried
I have compiled a top list of questions I can recall from memory, that "Truthers" (people who seek the truth) want answered. "Truthers" are more concerned about a new investigation than trying to theorize about what happened. A new focused investigation on these questions and more is what they want, so they will have concrete proof either way.
1) When buildings fall they are subject to some resistence which slows the accelleration of the fall. These are things like air resistance, resistance from lower floors, or any other upward force. How did building 7 accelerate at the speed of gravity? One explanation is a controlled demolition, which would create a vaccum allowing for such accelleration. The 911 report does not mention building 7 at all. Why do thousands of engineers confirm the science behind this?
2) Why do 5 of the commission members question their own findings?
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_cleland.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2006/06/27/911_conspiracies/index4.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-11panel.pentagon/index.html
3) Why was the explosive compound nano-thermite found in the dust? The 911 report does not address this.
4) Hani Hanjour reportedly couldn't fly well at all, but managed to pull off a manuever that expert pilots say would be impossible:
http://911review.org/Wiki/Hanjour,Hani.shtml
Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory show even had a profession pilot attempt the same path in an air simulator and the pilot couldn't do it on several attempts.
How do you explain this?
5) NIST refused to comply with a FOIA request for videos of 9/11 citing national security. After a court battle, they were forced to release them. How come in some of these videos: the sound was edited out at point where you can hear what appear to be explosions in other videos? the penthouse on building 7 collapsing was edited out?
6) How come BBC reported on building 7 collapsing 20 minutes before it collapsed? How did they do it, not once but twice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s
7) Donald Rumsfeld was questioned about 2.3 trillion unaccounted for dollars the day before 9/11. Is it really just coincidence that this was under investigation, and the exact section of the pentagon that held these documents was hit?
8) Why does donald rumsfeld pretend to not know about building 7? Wouldn't the head of DoD know such information about a terrorist attack?
http://dailypaul.com/158077/rumsfeld-tells-mancow-yesterday-that-he-never-heard-of-building-7-falling-on-9-11
9) Why do workers and rescue crew report hearing explosions on the ground and in the buildings? TV news channels also reported hearing these explosions.
10) Why do ground level workers at WTC report explosions before the buildings were even hit?
11) How are these the first three skyscrapers in history to fall due to fire? Other buildings have burned for hours and not collapsed, but then 3 on one day... ?
4bitApr 7, 2011Buried
Al Queda is thousands, but not all of them were in on it.
continuouslifeApr 7, 2011Buried
@torrange
They wouldnt have used thermite to weld in the WTC. There are much more practical ways to weld.
In the dust, they found evidence for standard thermite and "super thermite"
Super thermite can be painted on, and could even have been painted on by people who didnt know that the paint they were using was thermite.
Its extremely unlikely that the thermite was their for any reason other than the destriction of the WTC towers and WTC7.
BTW...WTC 7 Collapsed from the base of the building, exibiting all noticeable features of a controleld demolition, but without ever having been hit by a plane, and suffering less damage than the otehr remaining WTC complex buildings such as 5 and 6. Buildings 5 and 6 had to be intentionally demolished by explosives well well after the fact, and the WTC towers fell on top of them.