My 9/11 Research

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

don’t know if anyone has mentioned this in previous posts, but this video is very, very interesting. Long…2 hours, but it sucks you in and really makes you ponder shit.

I am always interested in government scandals anybody with me on this idea:

I believe that there will never be a cure for cancer or AIDS. I believe that there is a cure, but higher powers that be would never allow it to come forth. I say this because:

  1. Aids and cancer is population control

  2. Too much money would be lost on companies profiting off of medications to treat both health issues.

  3. Too much money would be lost for doctors, hospitals, and companies that make the equipment for the treatment centers in hopsitals.

Anybody else with me on this topic?

Sorry to hijack your post, but i think this goes along in the 9/11 scandal somewhere…

42

I heard the earth is flat too! We’ve been lied to, conspiracy!

43

I don’t generally buy into the 9/11 conspiracy theories. But it has never sat well with me that the Pentagon was allowed to be hit. That seems inexcusable. The fact that it was hit in a less occupied part of the building(due to remodeling) is weird too.

9/11 probably could have been averted very easily, but there is no sense in wasting time on how things could have been. Just like the Iraq war. It’s shit, and we’re stuck with dealing with it regardless.

44

JustTheFacts’ avatar says it all. Spy vs. spy in the world of power politics/megadollars.

They’re capable of anything in the land of “Can Do”.

45

Does anybody know if anyone in the FAA has written of their experiences on that day?

46

9/11 was done to have a massive wealth transfer, followed by bankruptcy of the USA, via the destruction of the currency. War is the instrument of the wealth transfer.

When we are collapsing and our currency is worthless, we’ll adopt a World Federal Reserve System. The bankers will then basically rule the world — all financing and government budgets will have to go through the Reserve System.

JTF and Smedley have nailed it.

47

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:

And quite simply…what is more likely? A small group of 20 guys pulling this off amongst themselves or the entire government working secretly to destruct two of the biggest buildings in the world unbeknownst to everyone working in the buildings and everyone that had information about it keeping quiet. [/quote]

People knowing part of the truth and wanting to come forward would face up:

  • military witnesses/ gouvernament employees face tens of years of jail time for breaching the secrecy seal they agreed upon joining

  • being sacked they would also forfeit any job benefits

  • have possibly their families threatened

  • face criminal charges in a court of law for being part of a terrorist entreprise and be jailed for life, if not possibly put to death.

  • suffer the scorn of mainstream media

Nowithstanding these details, i agree with you that it is a logical fallacy to believe witnesses to this crime wouldn’t come forward, mate…

Really…

By tha way,let us also remind ourselves that the firefighters at the pentagone incident initially agreed to comment on radio, only to recant a few hours later citing contractual obligation to secrecy.

It took a lenghty legal battle in the New York courts to release the live radio testimony of the firefighters that died in the towers.

And last but not least,6 years after the events, 2 wars on, the pentagone still uses the obligation to secrecy argument as the main reason for not releasing dozens of pentagone camera footage showing what really happened.

And let us also remind ourselves that when it comes to JFK, over 115 witnesses along the motorcade route in the Zapruder film have died or fallen victim to death by strange circumstances, suicides or murder in a short period of time.

A mathematician hired by the London Sunday Times in February of 1967 concluded that the odds of that incidence were 100,000 trillion to one…

But it’s all a logical fallacy, nothing more…

48

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Your pissed because I just showed you how bias Popular Mechanics is toward the military – the same entity that pulled off 9/11.
[/quote]

No, I didn’t even read your links, or much of what you said.

You are so far out there it is laughable, and really not worth my time.

Oh and nothing really pisses me off. If anything actually pissed me off here, I wouldn’t be posting.

49

[quote]ragingbassist wrote:
don’t know if anyone has mentioned this in previous posts, but this video is very, very interesting. Long…2 hours, but it sucks you in and really makes you ponder shit.

I am always interested in government scandals anybody with me on this idea:

I believe that there will never be a cure for cancer or AIDS. I believe that there is a cure, but higher powers that be would never allow it to come forth. I say this because:

  1. Aids and cancer is population control

  2. Too much money would be lost on companies profiting off of medications to treat both health issues.

  3. Too much money would be lost for doctors, hospitals, and companies that make the equipment for the treatment centers in hopsitals.

Anybody else with me on this topic?

…[/quote]

They will never cure polio and smallpox for the same reasons.

50

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
…
9/11 probably could have been averted very easily,…[/quote]

We could have rounded up all the Muslims and put them in camps like Roosevelt did with the Japanese Americans or we could have permanently stopped civilian air travel.

51

sigh Just found this thread. A lot of you need to start reading here:

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/pscindx.htm

(look for nutty 9-11 physics, about halfway down the page.)

As for debating with conspiracy theorists, it is highly unlikely they will be convinced of anything since they are no operational notion of disproof. If you allow paranoia, everything is quite possible to prove. Indeed, a lack of proof is the best evidence of a massive plot.

So, here is something to ponder. Right about Jan. 2000 I was surfing the web for camping equipment. After some googling I found a site and started reading. There were great prices but I eventually ended up getting a page that made me do a double take. The owner had oversold his stock and was in bankruptcy (so no orders were being taken).

He went on to explain the he was really going to try and make good with it all, but he was figuring that there wouldn’t be anything left after Y2K (remember that you nutsos? Yup, end of the world, government plots out the wazoo – sound familiar?). Seems he hadn’t planned on an alternate scenario aside from Ragnarok. There started one of the most amazing rants I’ve ever read that proved that Y2K had actually happened (!!) and that it was all a MASSIVE GOVERNMENT COVERUP that we didn’t know about it!!! What’s more of course, this was all done to target his poor little business. But he’d figured it out. Sheer genius it was too.

Wish I’d copied that rant. It was truly priceless.

– jj

52

[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
And quite simply…what is more likely? A small group of 20 guys pulling this off amongst themselves or the entire government working secretly to destruct two of the biggest buildings in the world unbeknownst to everyone working in the buildings and everyone that had information about it keeping quiet. Give me a break.[/quote]

A worthwhile quote from Steve Dutch’s site (I posted the link elsewhere) since the folks that need to read it probably won’t get that far down the page:

The Ultimate Best Words on Conspiracies

Jonah Goldberg, Skepticism Versus Paranoia, The Corner, National Review On Line, Wednesday, September 13, 2006

"I distrust the government but as a realistic conservative I think government is staffed with mostly well-intentioned but incompetent people �?? not because they're dumb, but because bureaucracies are dumb. These conspiracy theorists reverse this entirely. They think government is evil-intentioned but supremely, even divinely, competent. That's crazy-talk, Count Chocula."

Neal Boortz is a conservative-libertarian talk show host who gets under a lot of folks’ skins, but he has one saving grace. He’s death on conspiracy theories (and creationism). A listener e-mailed him asking him to explain about “chemtrails,” which the government is supposedly using for mind control. His reply works just as well for 9-11 conspiracy thinkers.

"OK, Jim. I'll explain. You're a nutcase. Those "chemicals" you think the military is spraying on citizens are nothing more than ice crystals formed by the condensation created by high-flying aircraft. Somewhere along the line some lonely demented hysteric decided that the military was crop dusting people with all sorts of chemicals designed to make us sick, change our behavior or neuter us. I have no idea in the world what went wrong in your education, upbringing or mental health history that caused you to actually believe this insane nonsense ... I can only hope that you don't vote."

Then there’s Mark Steyn’s wonderful observation:

"There's a kind of decadence about all this: If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn't be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it. Fantasy is a by-product of security: it's the difference between hanging upside down in your dominatrix's bondage parlor after work on Friday and enduring the real thing for years on end in Saddam's prisons."

I think it’s rather interesting that, although you find moonbat leftists and rightists alike arguing for an inside job, all the comments above come from rock solid conservatives.

53

What makes me laugh is when people source the New York Times or similar, then refuse to believe professor after professor, witness after witness, cop after cop, scientist after scientist, who say 9/11 was an inside job or there were bombs in the buildings, or whatever.

There is no level of proof the anti-conspiracy theorists will accept. They do what they claim the conspiracy theorists do!!

If GW Bush got up and announced on national TV that 9/11 was an inside job, they’d try somehow to turn that around into some sort of ‘Bush is an idiot!’ or what not.

54

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What makes me laugh is when people source the New York Times or similar, then refuse to believe professor after professor, witness after witness, cop after cop, scientist after scientist, who say 9/11 was an inside job or there were bombs in the buildings, or whatever.[/quote]

“People”? Which “people”? In the case of Dutch, he is a career scientist (and a good one too) who simply insists that serious statements, such as the government is corrupt, unspeakably evil and wants to kill its citizens indiscriminately as part of some murky plot to steal a pittance of gold from the WTC (or whatever) as requiring serious proof and the best methodologies available. That scientists take it every bit a seriously as they would designing an aircraft you use (think about scientific methods next time you are strapped in one for takeoff) should give you cause for relief rather than invoking a comfortable disdain for “experts”.

As for the professors and other ones who buy into 9-11 and other theories, a good example is Roedy Green (http://mindprod.com/) who is a very good computer scientist but a complete loon otherwise. This sets the pattern for a lot of conspiracy theorists: Quote sympathetic professionals who speak outside of their field and have no better training than laymen while ignoring people who are actually accredited with a great deal of competence in their field.

Not true, but if you make an exceptional claim, you must supply exceptional evidence. It is not up to me to accept your claim at face value if it completely contradicts any standard methodology and relies on huge gaps in logic. There have been many cases in the Sciences where unexpected results have been accepted, such as continental drift, Relativity, Quantum effects and so forth. As a matter of fact, as a scientist myself, there is a huge pull to look at a lot of alternate theories simply as a career move. If I could, for instance, prove cold fusion I could have my own scientific revolution. The trick though is doing it to a rigorous, reproducible level with well thought out independently verifiable hypotheses.

Not if he supplied documentation and a plausible explanation for how they did it. This means we would put it up on blocks, take it apart and understand like the good obsessive-compulsives we are. Once it has been dissected and subjected to the same sorts of rigorous analyses that other theories have undergone would we accept it. Wouldn’t want them to just take credit for actually being competent enough to pull one off now, would we? :o)

– jj

55

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

There is no level of proof the anti-conspiracy theorists will accept. They do what they claim the conspiracy theorists do!!
[/quote]

Good observation.
As i explained earlier, it’s not so much the available evidence for a controlled demo that is lacking.
It’s more like a lot of people can’t question an inner belief system that our gouvernaments wouldn’t hurt us for profit.

I looked for years at the demolition sequence of the towers, and some inside thought was telling me something wasn’t right with the images. But i never listened to it, because the alternative explanation would defy any common belief about society and medias that i was taught.

Then i learned the towers had come down at free fall speed and told myself: yeah, that’s a good point, and i wish i could see explosives being set up, but i won’t, it’s just a conspiracy theory.

Then you see the demolition squibs slow-motion, and it’s like a hammer has just been dropped on the top of your head.

Then the words of the firefighters " it was as if they had planned to take down the building: boom-boom-boom-boom-boom-boom" from the Naudet footage comeback to your memory, and you say: OH SHIT.

The bigger the lie, the more people will fall for it". Ain’t that true ?

56

Not one demolition article ever published in an independent peer-reviewed Engineering journal. Ever. Now, I can link articles published in Engineering Journals showing that structural damage and heat caused the collapses.

At this point believing in the demo theory is like believing in geocentrism.

57

Do you know what the word BOLT means jeff? Did you know that the structural beams and floors in the world trade center were bolted together with bolts? Did you not see that I have written about bolts in my last two posts? That piece of rebar in that video is no different from a bolt the same size.

But since you feel you know more than I do why don’t you explain what it is really supposed to sound like when steel fails. I think you are the one who is all talk.

58

The first set of videos you posted were proof of nothing. In the supposed bomb going off at the wtc scaring the firemen video, we can not see what is making the noise. It could easily have been a girder or a desk falling a thousand feet that made that noise.

In the interview with the fbi official the lips weren’t synched with the video. So we don’t even know if the people talking are even the ones in the video. He said the unconfirmed working theory was bombs might have been involved. That is not conclusive proof of your theorem.

The third one was sound bites from people on the street. I didn’t hear any of them say that they had personally witnessed an explosive device. In fact the first interviewee says the second building was a bomb there was no airplane. There is a lot film of an airplane slamming into the building in front of millions of people, yet you are telling us it didn’t happen.

59

There is no such thing as being anti-theory. When you postulate a theorum you have to give proof of theorum. Your so called proof has holes in it. When people point out the holes in your proof you attack them as gullible rather than admit there are flaws in your theory.

I am not all trusting of the government. Your conspiracy theory videos could be part of a government disinformation campaign. If someone ever did come up with a real 9/11 conspiracy it is going to have to overcome all the half baked theories on youtube and a widespread perception that these theories a rubbish.

Your theories are polarizing and doing a huge disservice by dividing people.

60

I certainly would like to think of our government as benevolent, or at least benign. But I also know that power is a magnet for scum who love to exert power over others.

Our government is the most powerful on earth. It can fight a war on the other side of the globe and sustain a couple of hundred thousands of troops there for years. This MUST attract human ‘rats’, just like chickens to corn. Let’s face it: we ain’t Switzerland.

Therefore, while I don’t know for 100% certitude that 9/11 was an inside job, if it increased someones power, then I think it possible. Did 9/11 increase anyone’s power?