The final 9/11 conspiracy thread

Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:21 pm

There's a fair bit of info in there that I've never seen publically discussed, for whatever that's worth. I have, however, heard plenty about all of the wacky claims that Alex Jones and Co. spew constantly.

Rook, I see the author's tack as relevant because blowing away all the dipshits' theories is necessary to get at the key issues at stake. Sure, it's all just background noise in the grand scheme of things, but it's what a lot of the public is focused on. Many people are simply too thick to understand the science involved, and they don't trust the government to begin with, so they latch right on to things like "OMG! IT WAS TEH JEWESH MISSILE WUT HIT THE PENTAGIN!"

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:21 pm

I'm realy shocked that people who I assume care about this issue can wade through the 'truth' movements sea of bullshit but have no tolerance for the tone of this pdf and therefore will dismiss it without even reading it.

I just don't understand.

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:30 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:I'm realy shocked that people who I assume care about this issue can wade through the 'truth' movements sea of bullshit but have no tolerance for the tone of this pdf and therefore will dismiss it without even reading it.

I just don't understand.

Because, after tons of research on the issue I have my own opinions. And however ridiculous the tone of some of the "Truth Movement's" articles are, they are much less offensive to me because they don't directly insult me. It's human nature. It's the same reason a lot of right wing rednecks won't listen to the academic elite. It's also the same reason a lot of academic elites won't listen to people like the ID activists - it offends their sensibilities.

I put "Truth Movement" in quotes, because I'm aware that a lot of the people out there aren't interested in the truth. They have a grudge or a chip on their shoulder, and they are thirsty to prove that everything was organized by some shadow government in a secret missile bunker planning room. They have their own reasons for feeling this way, and - even though it is irrational - some of them still dig up things that others have not seen. This may be the case with your article as well, but as I said, the article was immediately offensive to me, and every thing I saw in the opening summary was a repeat of things I have already heard.

If there is new, compelling information in here, I will read it.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 5:36 pm

don't make me post the obvious.jpg...

Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:11 pm

Sorry, but I'm really not seeing the offensive tone of the article.

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:16 pm

The context in which the article was presented (one that anyone who doesn't believe the official story should read so they can be shown where they've gone wrong), coupled with statements like this:

I snap out of it and remember that these people give absolution to terrorists while accusing innocent people of mass murder, all without a shred of evidence. And they do this at Ground Zero. They are the most delusional people I have ever met, and their delusions are dangerous.

Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Sorry dude, but I see that as a pretty much factual statement.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:18 pm

terrorism is a tactic...why do ppl think its something more? oh wait...40 years of propaganda...

Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:19 pm

Freakaloin wrote:terrorism is a tactic...why do ppl think its something more? oh wait...40 years of propaganda...

Idiots think it's something more. It's not 40 years of propaganda, it's 6 years of fucking fear-peddling from the White House, you nutjob.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:20 pm

lol...like the israelis haven't been doing it for 40 years...mr. usa?...

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:31 pm

Nightshade wrote:Sorry dude, but I see that as a pretty much factual statement.

So you think I and others like me "give absolution to terrorists while accusing innocent people of mass murder, all without a shred of evidence?"

Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:35 pm

No, and the author of that article doesn't either. People like Alex Jones and his ilk that scream shit like "THE FIREFIGHTERS ARE PAID OFF!" and impugn the efforts of people that tried to save lives on 9/11 are the dickwads he's talking about. People that do nothing but blather on about ridiculous conspiracies ala Fecalgroin with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.
At least, that's the tone I take from the paper. I didn't read once where the author said people asking honest questions were absolving terrorists of guilt.

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:52 pm

I can understand that - and I also understand that the brunt of his criticism is aimed at the slack-jawed fools who try to get in shouting matches with him when he corrects them.

But he makes no distinction between these people and others in the 9/11 truth movement (which he endearingly calls "Truthies"). Likewise, the context this article was posted in makes no distinction either. Hence, that characterization is aimed at myself and everyone who questions the official account.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 6:54 pm

jones never said firefighters were paid off...he said some of them were told by the fbi they were under court order not to talk about it...

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:17 pm

Freakaloin wrote:lol...they(the govt shills) claim there was a hole in the build 20 stories high...of course there is no proof of this..only a few morons who claim to have seen it...

yea i've always wondered why the gov't never released those photos, except to the authors of that popular mechanics piece.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:26 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:
Freakaloin wrote:lol...they(the govt shills) claim there was a hole in the build 20 stories high...of course there is no proof of this..only a few morons who claim to have seen it...
yea i've always wondered why the gov't never released those photos, except to the authors of that popular mechanics piece.

theres a clear photo of it in the pdf i linked to.

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:42 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: theres a clear photo of it in the pdf i linked to.

same one mentioned in the interview here?

http://www.v911t.org/M/Pop%20Mech%20-%20Goyette.mp3

also, what about the DNA evidence - how did they confirm the hijacker's DNA? That was a question that the pop sci dude completely avoided in the interview.

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:55 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: theres a clear photo of it in the pdf i linked to.

same one mentioned in the interview here?

http://www.v911t.org/M/Pop%20Mech%20-%20Goyette.mp3

also, what about the DNA evidence - how did they confirm the hijacker's DNA? That was a question that the pop sci dude completely avoided in the interview.

This guy, through a Freedom of Information request, got the official autopsy results from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP):

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

This is just for flight 77, unfortunately.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:57 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: theres a clear photo of it in the pdf i linked to.

same one mentioned in the interview here?

http://www.v911t.org/M/Pop%20Mech%20-%20Goyette.mp3

also, what about the DNA evidence - how did they confirm the hijacker's DNA? That was a question that the pop sci dude completely avoided in the interview.

Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.

"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said.

"We haven't finished our work, so it may be more," she added.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

more on this here...

http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers_ ... files.html

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:29 pm

GONNAFISTYA wrote:
HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
SplishSplash wrote:"he said, she said"

No new information, just interpretation.
idiot
Actually HM-PuFFNSTuFF...he's right.

I read the entire thing and several of the corresponding links within the article, the links posted above and watched several of the videos that have been linked in this article plus several others.

While I can appreciate the huge amount of "evidence" that is presented here to refute the 9/11 truth group...it isn't any more substantiating than what the conspiracy theorists present. The article spends several pages outlining that nearly all firemen quoted in the article agreed that "they were told to pull back because the building was going to collapse". Fine. This shows that several firefighters knew two things: they were told to abondon WTC 7 and that it was going to collapse. But it doesn't go into detail from ANY of them as to how they came to that conclusion except by hearing it from others.

Hayden: By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o�clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o�clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?
Hayden: No, not right away, and that�s probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn�t make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.

From the pdf page 42
also found here...

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/ ... ayden.html

It was fully engulfed. That whole building -- there were pieces of tower two in building seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot. But just looking up at it from ground level, however many stories it was, 40-some-odd, you could see the flames going straight through from one side of the building to the other. That's an entire block. -Firefighter Tiernich Cassidy
page 48

also here...

http://artful-blogger.blogspot.com/2005 ... apses.html

lots of eyewitness testimony which goes beyond what you claim is there if you read through pages 40-64

WTC Building 7 appears to have suffered significant damage at some point after the WTC Towers had collapsed, according to firefighters at the scene. Firefighter Butch Brandies tells other firefighters that nobody is to go into Building 7 because of creaking and noises coming out of there. [Firehouse Magazine, 8/2002] According to Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, there is a bulge in the southwest corner of the building between floors 10 and 13. [Firehouse Magazine, 4/2002] Battalion Chief John Norman later recalls, “At the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.” [Firehouse Magazine, 4/2002] Deputy Chief Nick Visconti also later recalls, “A big chunk of the lower floors had been taken out on the Vesey Street side.” Captain Chris Boyle recalls, “On the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors.” [Firehouse Magazine, 8/2002] The building will collapse hours later.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/enti ... 1846767-73

Post by **[xeno]Julios** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:30 pm

cool tx - what about the photos of the building - is the one mentioned in the interview the same on in the pdf u linked?

also, why would they keep that stuff confidential?

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:41 pm

those r holes? looks like alot of smoke blocking the view or making it look like a hole...still doesn't explain how a building with a giant hole on the sw side of the builing would fall symmetrical...

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:42 pm

[xeno]Julios wrote:cool tx - what about the photos of the building - is the one mentioned in the interview the same on in the pdf u linked?

also, why would they keep that stuff confidential?

don't know and don't know

how much significance does this point hold for you in the scheme of things?

Maybe rook or freak or someone could tell me what they feel is the (most) compelling evidence which indicates wt7 was demolished? (or the key pieces to the puzzle)

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:44 pm

symetrical fall of a burning building is impossible...

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 9:58 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.

They have matched DNA body parts from 2 victims with some DNA samples that the FBI gave them.

In one article from early 2003, they claimed that the FBI lifted the samples from the van and hotel room the hijackers were using. In the 2005 article, the same department is quoted as saying they have no idea where the FBI got the evidence.

Do you have any more clarification on this?