9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

[Ganymede]

There were firefighters in and around the area of the building outside of it; there were firefighters all over the place that day. Nigro pulled those men back.

There NYFD discovered that the waterlines were broken at 11:30am per the NIST report. Also, there was no manual firefighting taking place in WTC7 as the FEMA and NIST reports state. You supporters of the Governments story started arguing against me that pull it meant pull them out of the building since they were inside the building fighting the fire, once I eviscerated that argument providing with official sources that no firefighting was taking place inside WTC7, you moved to the "Pull it means, evacuated the surrounding area". Your argument is pathetic.

"Facts"?? You are here to peddle the theory that that because "pull" has a certain meaning in the demolition trade, that you can read the minds of two men who were not in that trade and determine that that is the sense in which they meant it...definitely....no question about it is even possible. That's no fact, it's spurious speculation.

It was you pro Government supporters that posted that no one in the building industry has ever heard of the term pull. I obliterated that falsehood with a mountain of evidence to the contrary. I'm not arguing what was going on in peoples minds, YOU ARE, I'm debating about what was said, not what was thought like you are. And what he said was, building 7 was pulled. Which means to demolished, let it soak in, absorb it, accept it.

 

[Reiku]

Jesus fracking Cristo. The topic that wouldn't die.

Yawwwwwwwn. Yeah. Aliens did it, Fox Mulder.

~String

He's away fucking Scully at the moment. I can give you the ghost-busters number if that helps? :shrug:

 

[scott3x]

"Facts"?? You are here to peddle the theory that that because "pull" has a certain meaning in the demolition trade, that you can read the minds of two men who were not in that trade and determine that that is the sense in which they meant it...definitely....no question about it is even possible. That's no fact, it's spurious speculation.

I agree that the 'pull' word, while it can be used for demolition, can also be used for pulling people away from the scene. Perhaps Larry knew the building was going to be blown up and made a gaff in choice of wording. Or perhaps he just used an inconvenient word. I have no idea if Larry knew or didn't know if the building was pulled.

I do, however, believe that there is plenty of evidence that the building was indeed pulled. There are lots of books on the subject, there are sites with lots of information.. to me it seems obvious, but then I've read 2 books on the subject, a movie (zeitgeist) and I'm on a third. Most people haven't gotten near that amount of reading done on it.

 

[KennyJC]

There was no one to rescue from WTC 7, it was evacuated 7 hours before it collapsed. And there were no manual firefighting taking place as the FEMA report states, so there was no firefighters to pull.

And yet I have provided enough evidence that rescuers and firefighters were pulled from the area surrounding WTC7. Video evidence and testimony from firefighters, no less.

It's in accurate when he reports that no loud noises were reported by witnesses or recorded on videos. What a blatant lie. I present exhibit A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

Where were those explosions coming from? And what time of day was this explosion heard? This video answers none of these important questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbbZE7c3a8Q

These "bombs" went off hours before the building collapsed? When demolition charges are detonated, the building typically goes down seconds later. Accounts of explosions many hours before the collapse just proves that whatever these sounds were, they were not demolition charges.

Look how tame this fire is, the building is not a towering inferno. Rare CBS building 7 fire video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4SEhMpbo74

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.

Consider yourself once again debunked by the firefighters.

 

[KennyJC]

I agree that the 'pull' word, while it can be used for demolition, can also be used for pulling people away from the scene. Perhaps Larry knew the building was going to be blown up and made a gaff in choice of wording. Or perhaps he just used an inconvenient word. I have no idea if Larry knew or didn't know if the building was pulled.

I do, however, believe that there is plenty of evidence that the building was indeed pulled. There are lots of books on the subject, there are sites with lots of information.. to me it seems obvious, but then I've read 2 books on the subject, a movie (zeitgeist) and I'm on a third. Most people haven't gotten near that amount of reading done on it.

Why don't you try reading other material that debunks these "good books"? But if you are a dishonest person, it wouldn't matter much. You will believe in aliens in Area 51, fake moon landings, JFK killed by someone other than a lone gunman, Diana killed by the royal family, and Bush made 9/11.

All of these books are nothing but entertainment for credulous fools like you.

 

[Ganymede]

Why don't you try reading other material that debunks these "good books"? But if you are a dishonest person, it wouldn't matter much. You will believe in aliens in Area 51, fake moon landings, JFK killed by someone other than a lone gunman, Diana killed by the royal family, and Bush made 9/11.

All of these books are nothing but entertainment for credulous fools like you.

KennyJC, just remember, 90% of the American people would think you're fucking nutjob because you say God doesn't exist in nature. I actually agree with you, but the vast majority would tell you the same thing, why don't you look at the pro religion books. 911 and Religion are the same, it takes an astronomical amount of blind faith to believe what the powers that be want us to believe.

 

[KennyJC]

KennyJC, just remember, 90% of the American people would think you're fucking nutjob because you say God doesn't exist in nature. I actually agree with you, but the vast majority would tell you the same thing, why don't you look at the pro religion books. 911 and Religion are the same, it takes an astronomical amount of blind faith to believe what the powers that be want us to believe.

The 9/11 commission interviewed 1,200 people and reviewed over 2 million documents, two NIST reports rule out controlled demolition, no demolition company agrees that there was a demolition on 9/11

It is anything but blind faith to side with the experts. The experts will expose any administration for it's ineptitude or wrong doing, like they did with Bush and Katrina or the Iraq war.

It's blind faith to take your beliefs of 9/11 from dishonest peices such as Loose Change.

 

[Ganymede]

The 9/11 commission interviewed 1,200 people and reviewed over 2 million documents, two NIST reports rule out controlled demolition, no demolition company agrees that there was a demolition on 9/11[/quoute]

The NIST isn't a independent agency. It's the Government investigating themselves. That's why many don't respect the validity of the findings. Because it's based on allot of classified evidence that the public isn't privy to.

It is anything but blind faith to side with the experts. The experts will expose any administration for it's ineptitude or wrong doing, like they did with Bush and Katrina or the Iraq war.

Government experts, the same ones that promised us WMD's.

It's blind faith to take your beliefs of 9/11 from dishonest peices such as Loose Change.

I haven't quoted loose change once. However, I do stand by their conclusions.

 

[KennyJC]

The NIST isn't a independent agency. It's the Government investigating themselves. That's why many don't respect the validity of the findings. Because it's based on allot of classified evidence that the public isn't privy to.

That's obscene statement:

NIST employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel. Also, NIST hosts about 2,600 associates and facility users from academia, industry, and other government agencies. In addition, NIST partners with 1,600 manufacturing specialists and staff at about 400 MEP service locations around the country.

Trying to get all of those people to standby a report which you allege to be full of lies and deceit is an impossibility. Those people have nothing to do with the Bush administration.

You also fail to notice the lack of demolition companies supporting your claims. You get them on your side, and I will join you too.

Government experts, the same ones that promised us WMD's.

Another claim without evidence. However, I agree that the Bush administration did overexaggerate flimsy evidence and also lied about many things RE the Iraq war. But that's the Bush administration, and a different issue.

I haven't quoted loose change once. However, I do stand by their conclusions.

Loose Change is debunked by anyone with honesty and integrity. You've been shown up on this forum to be a liar, and you are the kind of person that makes up the audience of Loose Change, a movie which was made by liars.

 

[Trippy]

I feel obliged to point out (and no, I don't have a link on hand, but I'm sure I do have one somewhere) that there was one firmean that was interviewed, that explicitly stated that at least for a time, WTC 7 was being used as a base of operations for the emergency services, for the evacuations of WTC 1, and WTC 2, and after the collapses, there was still some activity centered around that area until it was pulled further back.

I'm fairly sure it was one of the officers that was interviewed for the NYT article, I just don't have time at this juncture to go digging for it.

 

[scott3x]

Why don't you try reading other material that debunks these "good books"?

I haven't heard of any that debunk the 9/11 books written by Jim Marrs in particular, but the government has already trotted out the same tired arguments over and over again. It just gets to be so very dull to hear the same rebuttals by the conspiracy theorists go unanswered and yet it seems that most people don't really care and the next republican presidential candidate seems to virtually be tied to the democratic one. On the plus side, it seems that a fair amount of americans actually do believe that the official version of the story is seriously off.

In terms of Jim Marrs books not related to 9/11, I have seen some internet research that puts into question -some- of what Jim Marrs says on Aliens (yes, he does get into area 51 as you may well know). And yes, I do believe that JFK wasn't killed by a lone gunman; Jim Marrs first book, "Crossfire", was about this very subject and Oliver Stone decided to use it as a foundation for his movie "JFK" (I saw the movie, but haven't yet read Jim Marrs' book).

There was once a comment by someone to some high up official that if people actually -read- the warren commission, they'd find out how flawed it was. To which, the high up official said "The American people don't read". Ofcourse, -some- of them do. But not enough to have investigated the whole thing more thoroughly then they did at any rate.

The same is still true to some extent today, although I believe that the american people are reading more these days and it's not so easy to pull the wool over their eyes; the fact that so many more people died may have something to do with it as well (some of the families who lost loved ones on 9/11 are suing the government).

 

[moementum7]

Not sure who to listen to...the conspiracy theorists, or the coincidence theorists.
Hmmm...tough call.

 

[thecollage]

excellent thread. what are you talking about?

 

[shaman_]

It just gets to be so very dull to hear the same rebuttals by the conspiracy theorists go unanswered .

Which rebuttals go unanswered?

 

[nietzschefan]

Like - how come building 7 collapses from the bottom?

 

[Ganymede]

That's obscene statement:

NIST employs about 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, and support and administrative personnel. Also, NIST hosts about 2,600 associates and facility users from academia, industry, and other government agencies. In addition, NIST partners with 1,600 manufacturing specialists and staff at about 400 MEP service locations around the country.

The NIST didn't use any outside personal for it's 911 investigation,. The lead investigator Dr. Sunder is a NIST (Government) employee.

Trying to get all of those people to standby a report which you allege to be full of lies and deceit is an impossibility. Those people have nothing to do with the Bush administration.

The FEMA report stated that no manual firefighting was taking place inside of WTC 7. The NIST report says the following.

According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building (no firefighters to pull).

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-8.pdf

You also fail to notice the lack of demolition companies supporting your claims. You get them on your side, and I will join you too.

They did, they said that the term pull it is a demolition term. When you went on the record and stated that it wasn't. No one has ever confirmed your hypothesis that "pull it" is a term used to evacuate firefighters.

Another claim without evidence. However, I agree that the Bush administration did overexaggerate flimsy evidence and also lied about many things RE the Iraq war. But that's the Bush administration, and a different issue.

No it's not, 911 was the catalyst and justification for Bush's preemptive doctrine. They are directly related.

Loose Change is debunked by anyone with honesty and integrity. You've been shown up on this forum to be a liar[/quot
and you are the kind of person that makes up the audience of Loose Change, a movie which was made by liars.

I am the audience that makes up Loose Change. Concerned American Citizens! And I've never lied to make a point, unlike you, when you lose a point, you just conveniently change your questions as if the one that was obliterated was never the subject of discussion.

 

[Ganymede]

If this was a "New Phenomena" as NIST stated, then HOW did the firefighters in the following video KNOW the building was going to collapse before it did? (Listen for “Keep your eye on that building, it’ll be coming down soon.”)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4

Interesting Video. That video does indicate pre-knowledge.

 

[Ganymede]

Here's another GEM, the Government is just digging themselves into a deeper hole.

FBI Conceals Flight Data Recorder Info That Could Confirm Registry ID’s Of 2 9/11 Planes

A December 8, 2007 Freedom of Information Act request of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, seeking the release of all data contained by the Solid State Flight Data Recorders recovered from the crash scenes of American Airlines flight 77 and United Airlines flight 93, has been denied. The data sought, would presumably confirm the commercial flight histories and thus the federal registry identifications of N644AA (AA 77) and N591UA (UA 93), already provided by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, obtained by a December 28, 2007 FOIA release. (See BTS release letter)The FDR data requested of the FBI, was that which would presumably reveal the identity of flights occurring just before the final 9/11 flights (presumably matching flight history data provided by the BTS, for the said aircraft), carried out by N644AA (AA 77) and N591UA (UA 93), 2 of the 4 federally registered aircraft reportedly used to carry out the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

http://wearechangeseattle.org/2008/...t-could-confirm-registry-ids-of-2-911-planes/

How convenient, another critical piece of evidence that's being suppressed by the Government.

 

[KennyJC]

The NIST didn't use any outside personal for it's 911 investigation,. The lead investigator Dr. Sunder is a NIST (Government) employee.

My wife is a government employee too, yet she has nothing to do with the Bush administration.

The FEMA report stated that no manual firefighting was taking place inside of WTC 7. The NIST report says the following.

According to the FDNY first-person interviews, water was never an issue at WTC 7 since firefighting was never started in the building (no firefighters to pull).

That must be the 10th time you've said that, and for the 10th time let me debunk it: I've shown you video footage of rescuers pulled from ground zero due to fear of collapse of building 7. I have provided you with firefighter quotes and quotes/video footage of Dan Nigro backing all of this up. You consistently ignore all that which proves your dishonesty.

They did, they said that the term pull it is a demolition term. When you went on the record and stated that it wasn't. No one has ever confirmed your hypothesis that "pull it" is a term used to evacuate firefighters.

Because you can find the word "pull" on a couple of demolition websites this means they support the theory that the WTC was demolished in a controlled fashion? That's fucking stupid!

Find me one well known demolition firm that subscribes to your bullshit conspiracy theory. And by that, "pull" worded on any of it's websites doesn't cut it.

No it's not, 911 was the catalyst and justification for Bush's preemptive doctrine. They are directly related.

Pure conjecture. Even if Bush did willingly take advantage of 9/11 does not mean he orchestrated the whole thing.

I am the audience that makes up Loose Change. Concerned American Citizens! And I've never lied to make a point, unlike you, when you lose a point, you just conveniently change your questions as if the one that was obliterated was never the subject of discussion.

LOL.. you CONSTANTLY lie to make a point. Remember when you posted pictures of a plane crash that had their fuselage intact in an attempt to prove that planes shouldnt break up into tiny peices? I still laugh at that... Oh and when you said that the planes shouldn't have damaged the towers because the towers were designed to withstand wind? :crazy:

 

[KennyJC]

Interesting Video. That video does indicate pre-knowledge.

rofl... there are no words for people like you.

The fact you would say that firefighters and police forces were involved/had knowledge of the conspiracy when they lost hundreds of lives that day just illustrates your conniving nature. Please don't breed.

The more honest amongst us will simply come to the conclusion that they knew it would probably collapse because they were close to the tower and could hear and see what a terrible state it was in. Firefighter quotes state they knew it was coming down because it was in a deteriorating condition... not that they knew it was coming down because it had bombs in it.