View Active Topics          View Your Posts          Latest 100 Topics          Switch to Mobile

9/11 Truth News and Updates

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby NinjaPuppy » 31 Dec 2012, 04:30

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Check out this new great summary of critical objective evidence contradicting the official 9-11 story which will convince fence sitters, presented by Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org:

Hold on to your socks, but I actually watched this!!!

It's a frickin' Christmas miracle! :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby Scepcop » 31 Dec 2012, 14:35

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Check out this new great summary of critical objective evidence contradicting the official 9-11 story which will convince fence sitters, presented by Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org:


Hold on to your socks, but I actually watched this!!! Absolutely nothing new and it's the same ol' half truths and biased jargon he's been spitting out for years now. This wouldn't convince the most leaning of "fence sitters" if they look at this video objectively and realize he doesn't present a shred of evidence that he's making claims about (thermite, for example). Overall, I would give him an "Incomplete" rather than the "F" he comically gives the Commission's report.


WTF are you talking about? Are you saying that because you've been paid to? No honest person would say that. What did Gage say that was untrue? Be specific.

Did you see the part where he explained why a car can't smash through a big rig truck? Did you understand the point he was trying to make?

Are you sure you're not sitting in an NSA or CoIntel Pro office, where you are assigned to argue with everything that's true?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3258
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby Arouet » 31 Dec 2012, 21:41

Scepcop wrote:Are you sure you're not sitting in an NSA or CoIntel Pro office, where you are assigned to argue with everything that's true?


Scepcop, this site was on life support when I joined, and frankly, despite some new blood, still is. The way I see it, it is the skeptics who have kept this site going. If not, it would have faded away.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby The23rdman » 31 Dec 2012, 22:56

Arouet wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Are you sure you're not sitting in an NSA or CoIntel Pro office, where you are assigned to argue with everything that's true?


Scepcop, this site was on life support when I joined, and frankly, despite some new blood, still is. The way I see it, it is the skeptics who have kept this site going. If not, it would have faded away.


I agree. Only been here a while, but nothing ever gets discussed properly when emotional posting happens. If something someone says irks you then it is always prudent to step away for a while before posting back. Idolatry of any position is fundamentalism and being convinced of an argument is not skepticism.

The only way to be absolutely sure about everything is to absolutely sure one has all the facts and that all the facts presented are true. It makes much more sense to work on probabilities.
If you think you know what's going on you're probably full of shit - Robert Anton Wilson
User avatar
The23rdman
 
Posts: 97
Joined: 16 Dec 2012, 17:57

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby FatFreddy » 12 Jan 2014, 04:14

This three-part video is pretty comprehensive.

"September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DegLpgJmFL8

It has the latest analyses. I even recommend it to people who've seen the earlier videos.

This video explains the motives.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/new-american-century/

It's not always easy to get people to look at the proof that the government did it. We can get people's attention with something really clear that doesn't take long to look at such as this.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm
(fifth picture from top)

That might make them think a long video is worth watching.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 13 Jan 2014, 02:49

FatFreddy wrote: We can get people's attention with something really clear that doesn't take long to look at such as this.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm
(fifth picture from top)

What about it?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby FatFreddy » 13 Jan 2014, 04:41

We can get people's attention with something really clear that doesn't take long to look at such as this.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm
(fifth picture from top)

What about it?



You're being deliberately obtuse. It's a proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757. Therefore, terrorists didn't fly flight 77 into the Pentagon. Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 13 Jan 2014, 05:35

FatFreddy wrote:You're being deliberately obtuse. It's a proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757. Therefore, terrorists didn't fly flight 77 into the Pentagon. Therefore, 9/11 was an inside job.

Uhhhhh, no it's not "proof." Far from it. Do your own research Mr. Freddy. I beg of you.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby FatFreddy » 13 Jan 2014, 05:46

Uhhhhh, no it's not "proof." Far from it. Do your own research Mr. Freddy. I beg of you.


I checked the math.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=243

Tell us why this proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757 is wrong.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby NinjaPuppy » 13 Jan 2014, 21:01

FatFreddy wrote:You're being deliberately obtuse.

Ohhhhh, FatFreddy..... get used to it. Obtuse is ProfWag's favorite color! :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 15 Jan 2014, 19:22

FatFreddy wrote:
Uhhhhh, no it's not "proof." Far from it. Do your own research Mr. Freddy. I beg of you.


I checked the math.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... tcount=243

Tell us why this proof that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757 is wrong.
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

I would say that the folks over on the Randi forums showed quite extensively how your math was wrong so I won't go there (besides, I was a management professor, not a mathematician.)

What your math doesn't show are the hundreds of witnesses (including several friends of mine) who were there. They saw plane wreckage and body parts with their own eyes. I'm not sure how to tell them they were hallucinating.

Also, one thing that has always made me wonder about CTers is what, exactly, are they comparing with what happens when a 757 flies into the Pentagon? How hard were the walls? How easy do wings pin back? Is there a previous example of this happening? If so, would it always happen the same way?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby FatFreddy » 17 Jan 2014, 01:40

I would say that the folks over on the Randi forums showed quite extensively how your math was wrong so I won't go there (besides, I was a management professor, not a mathematician.)

This statement would get you laughed out of the debating hall.


What your math doesn't show are the hundreds of witnesses (including several friends of mine) who were there.

There were people who said they's seen a 757 hit the Pentagon and there were people who said they's seen a smaller plane.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/inde ... opic=10632

This is consistent with a conspiracy in which there were planted lying witnesses and a few real witnesses who saw what really happened.


They saw plane wreckage and body parts with their own eyes.

All the wreckage that was there was plantable and bodies could have been planted in the part of the Pentagon that was destroyed beforehand.

Watch the first part of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mDXHn_byA

Look at the damage to the tower caused by a 767.
http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d834 ... 95d8834-pi

Now look at the third picture from the top of this page.
http://physics911.net/missingwings/

That's quite a difference.

Here's something else.
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 19 Jan 2014, 06:22

FatFreddy wrote:All the wreckage that was there was plantable and bodies could have been planted in the part of the Pentagon that was destroyed beforehand.

Yea, 'cause there was a lot of time from the moment of impact until cameras and witnesses were all over that area. (sarcasm intentional)
Sorry Freddy, but your evidence just doesn't hold up. Witnesses seeing slightly different things may be consistent with a conspiracy (?), but it's also consistent with human nature. The point is, a lot of people died at the Pentagon. To say that it wasn't AA77 means that you have to find that plane with all of the people that are missing from that flight. Additionally, think about this, if our government wanted to damage the Pentagon, an aircraft flying into the building would have been the best way to do it? Why would ANYONE risk exposure to a conspiracy by flying a missile (or whatever) when it would have been exponentially easier to have just done it the way it happened?
Again, my life was impacted severely by the events of that day and many of my friends were there so yea, there's some personal emotion and first-hand knowledge. But trust me Freddy, AA Flight 77 flew into the Pentagon on 9/11/01.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby FatFreddy » 19 Jan 2014, 21:19

To say that it wasn't AA77 means that you have to find that plane with all of the people that are missing from that flight.


No it doesn't. It's perfectly plausible that all four planes landed at military bases and the passengers were disposed of and chop jobs were done on the planes.

Additionally, think about this, if our government wanted to damage the Pentagon, an aircraft flying into the building would have been the best way to do it? Why would ANYONE risk exposure to a conspiracy by flying a missile (or whatever) when it would have been exponentially easier to have just done it the way it happened?

http://killtown.blogspot.com.es/2006/06 ... tagon.html
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 116
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: 9/11 Truth News and Updates

Postby ProfWag » 19 Jan 2014, 21:57

FatFreddy wrote:
To say that it wasn't AA77 means that you have to find that plane with all of the people that are missing from that flight.


No it doesn't. It's perfectly plausible that all four planes landed at military bases and the passengers were disposed of and chop jobs were done on the planes.

Additionally, think about this, if our government wanted to damage the Pentagon, an aircraft flying into the building would have been the best way to do it? Why would ANYONE risk exposure to a conspiracy by flying a missile (or whatever) when it would have been exponentially easier to have just done it the way it happened?

http://killtown.blogspot.com.es/2006/06 ... tagon.html

I'm sorry, but I will refuse to respond to anything in reference to killtown. His posts have been shown over and over through the years to be inaccurate as well as his insensitivity to the families of the tragedy.
And in response to your comment, no, it is not "perfectly plausible that all four planes landed at military bases and the passengers were disposed of and chop jobs were done on the planes." It is not plausible at all. Although I try to remember that nothing is impossible, I would say that the plausibility that you presented is about as close to impossible as there is.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests