Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Mainstream media now questioning the official 9/11 narrative

Options
124»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 81,979 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Different time zone?
    My apologies, I wasn't aware that debunking conspiracy theories was a multi-time zonal around the clock activity. I will set my alarm earlier from now on and invest in trays of red bull for the long nights ahead.

    Tell me, do you guys work shifts?

    On the personal insults, well as they say, if you dish it out then you better be able to take it too. What was it one of you said a few posts back, 'the deranged ramblings of a madman..'. Now that's not very nice, is it?

    Nice try playing the wounded victim though.....

    Both sides knock it off, and report substandard posts. /mod


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Al Qaeda attacked various buildings in the US using planes.

    But because there is still somewhat of a grey area over exactly how many people may have known about those attacks within Saudi Arabia, where 15 of the hijackers were from, you are using that as a springboard..

    a gigantic springboard

    ... to launch yourself into cuckoo land, a self-created land where you believe men secretly planted silent explosives and blew up the trade towers with Mossad, and the President and all that zany stuff, without a shred of credible evidence

    It's a technique of exploiting any modicum of doubt in order to insert an entirely false and silly narrative that has nothing to do with it

    "Hold on, there's a lapse in info about one of the attackers whereabouts for a period prior to the attacks.. theeerefore the CIA blew up the towers!"

    See now trying to downplay the significance of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in helping the hijackers. What not getting is these people had to have known about the 9/11 plot ahead of time. These people implicated by FBI agents are Saudi princes and government officials, and they conspired with Al Qeada to kill American citizens on 9/11. The 9/11 hijackers were met when they arrived at the airport. They were provided housing, bank accounts, transport, flying lessons. The entire Al Qeada operation was dependent on reaching support inside the United States. They are not meeting an Al Qeada support network. The network is Saudi Intelligence and Pakistan ISI. 

    Why are you downplaying CIA allowing Al Qeada terrorists inside the United States? The CIA has never told the American public why they were allowed to come in freely and operate inside the United States. You don't seem all that curious about it. They were on a terrorist watch list and Al Qeada was previously bombing Embassies in Africa and attacking a US Warship in Yemen pre 9/11. Both these men were linked to the attacks. 

    Lost them how? Care to explain how that's possible when they were using their real names? These men were meeting the others 9/11 cells throughout their time in America. Different Countries were warning the United States Al Qaeda was planning an operation inside the United States early 2001 and here you have the CIA recovering information two high level operatives had already entered the country. Anyone with a brain would have known they only there to carry out an attack. The White House repeated lies that nobody could have known an attack was coming, that completely false. Look back at the history and you see the received numerous warning planes would be used to attack buildings.

    I don't use it as a Springboard. I look at the evidence. Repeated claims made by people there they saw molten steel. I also look at the history of structural engineering and never in history has a steel beamed skyscraper collapsed due to fire. They're not a single reference you have that shows an entire building would come down during a fire. You one outline in Iran and basically a building that Iranian reports said had gas canisters and oil tanks inside the building. Plus, the building was structurally unsound for decades. When WTC7 came down like a controlled demolition, and history doesn't support a fire collapse hypothesis, it's not Odd question the official 9/11 story.

    Even NIST had to go to ridiculous scenario to get their global model to collapse due to fire. You find they cheated to get the building fall due to fire, most sane people don't accept their theory. They have never shown how fire would cause the building to collapse with its structural components in place as they were when the building was constructed. They removed construction elements throughout the floors to have the columns buckle and girders fail in a fire condition.

    All the lies and distortions lead me to the conclusion they covering up the building was demolished by explosives. NIST fire scenario did not work, they cheated, and still refuse to release their building seven computer data for others verify it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Ipso wrote: »
    Now Robert Mueller is involved. As for Tucker Carlson, his whole schtick is not believing what he’s hearing, and I seem to remember him being very supportive of the Iraq war. In fact he was one of those who thought anyone against it was unpatriotic, a pattern I’m sure he has in common with people who don’t like Robert Mueller (which lets face is down to their support of a particular person who has done nothing but brown nose the Saudis).

    It's the 9/11 families believe Robert Muller covered up the Saudi Arabia involvement. FBI agents who have given court testimony allege the White House told Muller to shut down investigations, and he was just acting on orders given. Or just maybe you hear the truth and not really an agenda at play here? The 9/11 family's lawyer doesn't care if you democrat or Republican. 


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Indeed, and add time to that equation - the more time that passes, the more likely that the real information will come out. Deathbed confessions, leaks, admissions, anonymous whistle-blowers.

    Especially so in a "false flag" involving hundreds of co-conspirators to treasonously murder thousands of their countrymen for no other reason than to start unpopular wars that cost thousands more lives

    Whistleblowers have come forward. You don't follow conspiracy sites so you don't see these people videos. Many people in the military and FBI have come out and said there was a coverup. Even the 9/11 commission council admitted they were set up to fail. Two commisoners even resigned over not receiving documentation and materials from the agencies involved in investigating 9/11.

    I agree to this.
    What's missing is a whistleblower who admits the blew up buildings on 9/11.  
    What's missing is a high level whistleblower who admits the US allowed the attacks to take place and helped it succeed.

    I don't understand why there needs two be hundreds or thousands of people involved in planting explosives or helping the hijackers complete the mission. Skeptics have never explained this for 9/11 conspiracy theorists to understand. Planting explosives is something achieved pre 9/11 in secret and only a number of people need to know or be told.


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    See now trying to downplay the significance of Saudi Arabia’s involvement in helping the hijackers.

    Nope you are trying to distort and exploit it in order to push your extreme theory.

    Is there a grey area anywhere at all in the event? that means it's a gigantic conspiracy involving silent bombs and President Bush and Jews and Joe Biden. This is the level of debate we are constantly dealing with here.
    Whistleblowers have come forward.

    Really? name one who directly supports your vast conspiracy.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Taking you up on your challenge 'to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites'

    Probably the most widely read 9/11 debunker book was produced by the guys behind Popular Mechanics - Debunking 9/11 Myths - Why 9/11 Conspiracy Theories can't stand up to the facts.

    So one would imagine it would be instructive to hear a radio interview with Davin Coburn whose job was to fact-check the material in the book. Mr Coburn was interviewed on the Phoenix, Arizona radio station Independent Talk 1100 KFNX, by Radio host Charles Goye shortly after the release of the Popular Mechanics, in Aug 2006

    This really makes for very, very interesting listening.



    Three questions remain from this 13 year old interview:

    1.Why did Mr. Coburn claim that there were DNA tests proving the identity of the 9/11 hijackers when he could offer no proof of this when challenged.

    2. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that he had pictorial proof that a third of the south side of Building 7 was, to use his term, 'scooped out' which made the building structurally unsound when no pictures of this have since emerged and NIST made no mention of this when they released their official findings on Building 7's collapse in 2007.

    3. Why did Mr. Coburn contend that the only CCTV image that was released to the public from the Pentagon crash site was from a camera that ran at a frame rate of 1 frame a second. The minimum ips (image per second ) "frame rate" of any CCTV system built in the last 20 years in about 60 ips. We are to believe that the most secure building in the world had one antiquated camera shooting at a frame rate that equalled an 8mm camera from the 60s. Pathetic.

    You said: 'In the case of 911 conspiracy theories, hundreds of videos have been uploaded over the years, these are carefully crafted collections of "anomalies" designed to cause the viewer to doubt the event. The creators of these videos deliberately leave out explanations, context, counter-information, and so on because their aim is to convince the viewer that something was awry (without ever actually explaining the conspiracy theory itself)'

    This is not one of those videos. This is an unedited live recording of a radio interview.

    Looking forward, as ever to your response, this time in debunking the debunker who helped write the ultimate debunking book.

    And you guys wonder why we have doubts?

    Good watch. The host gave him a hard time and rightly so.

    Identifying the hijacker DNA. What DNA was the comparison to? Hijackers Families would likely have to give DNA samples to carry out a comparison check. Since the bodies were burned to ash that likely never happened. You may find scraps of bones and human tissue, maybe?

    I have seen photographs of damage on the southwest side of building seven. There are images that appear to show a long hole down the side of building seven, but the image is blurry and obscured by smoke. All engineering studies agree the final collapse started on the eastside of the building whereas the damage is on the opposite side south side corner. The building stood for another 6 hours- so most people think the damage caused by the towers falling had very little impact on the structure stability.

    I was given an official document recently explaining what happened to the cameras around the building. Just say discovered some new things about the event. I leave it for another thread.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Nope you are trying to distort and exploit it in order to push your extreme theory.

    Is there a grey area anywhere at all in the event? that means it's a gigantic conspiracy involving silent bombs and President Bush and Jews and Joe Biden. This is the level of debate we are constantly dealing with here.



    Really? name one who directly supports your vast conspiracy.

    You asking me to trust the explanation given and just ignore NIST silently removed construction elements in their local and global models to achieve a progressive collapse scenario. You live in a totally different world to me. Cheating is unacceptable and if they were positive about the outcome, they would have told the truth about it.

    NIST can release their computer data and let the engineering world verify it. If they show fire could still collapse the building with the construction elements, I will accept your post that nobody rigged the building in secret. Their computer collapse model is an obvious deception of what happened on 9/11. Most people have eyes and can see it fell very differently to the way NIST says it did.

    Your word Vast, that have no meaning here. You believe the demolition conspiracy needed hundreds of people?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    You asking me to trust the explanation given

    I'll ask again, which whistle-blower supports your personal theory?
    You believe the demolition conspiracy needed hundreds of people?

    It's not "the" demolition theory (there are none that are in any way detailed or credible), this is your personal demolition theory. It's entirely yours with your own suspects and your own subjective descriptions of what "really happened", your own story, unique to you. Of an event that happened in the world.

    I forget, in your version are the explosives totally silent, or are they actual explosives that.. explode with noise and sound?

    Or are they special ones that are somewhere in between? they make a faint thud perhaps?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    I'll ask again, which whistle-blower supports your personal theory?



    It's not "the" demolition theory (there are none that are in any way detailed or credible), this is your personal demolition theory. It's entirely yours with your own suspects and your own subjective descriptions of what "really happened", your own story, unique to you. Of an event that happened in the world.

    I forget, in your version are the explosives totally silent, or are they actual explosives that.. explode with noise and sound?

    Or are they special ones that are somewhere in between? they make a faint thud perhaps?

    What difference does that make no whistleblower have stepped forward?

    The fact is NIST was charged with finding an explanation for the collapse and when they found one they had to remove the supports beams, shear studs, web plates, and stiffeners to help it collapse due to fire. How is this scenario going to work in reality? It amazes me people accept this study, knowing all this happened and is verified. Even Mick West is aware of these problems, but seems to think it doesn't hurt NIST credibility. I know Skeptics want to believe fire caused this somehow, but you still have to show work that matches reality on 9/11 and conforms to the construction of the building.

    If the fire theories are suspect what you left with?  The fire caused the collapse on the eastside there only one or two probable theories how it started. NIST theory is nonsense. They even have half the building collapsing on one side and other side just waiting to collapse. NIST, for some reason, thinks internal collapses don't affect the whole floor. 

    Demolition theory is supported by outside observables and how the building came down on 9/11. Nobody provided a credible fire scenario, i have seen yet. 


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    What difference does that make no whistleblower have stepped forward?
     
    Whistleblowers have come forward.

    Lol. Slight contradiction here.
    I was given an official document recently explaining what happened to the cameras around the building. Just say discovered some new things about the event. I leave it for another thread.
    And a big old fib here.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,449 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    Good watch. The host gave him a hard time and rightly so.

    Identifying the hijacker DNA. What DNA was the comparison to? Hijackers Families would likely have to give DNA samples to carry out a comparison check. Since the bodies were burned to ash that likely never happened. You may find scraps of bones and human tissue, maybe?

    I have seen photographs of damage on the southwest side of building seven. There are images that appear to show a long hole down the side of building seven, but the image is blurry and obscured by smoke. All engineering studies agree the final collapse started on the eastside of the building whereas the damage is on the opposite side south side corner. The building stood for another 6 hours- so most people think the damage caused by the towers falling had very little impact on the structure stability.

    I was given an official document recently explaining what happened to the cameras around the building. Just say discovered some new things about the event. I leave it for another thread.

    Why leave for another thread? If you have an "official document" and you have a new discovery then why not share it here?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    What difference does that make no whistleblower have stepped forward?

    You literally wrote the below a few posts ago

    "Whistleblowers have come forward."
    Nobody provided a credible fire scenario, i have seen yet. 

    There have been at least four separate investigations which came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse.

    There have been none that point to explosives, whatsoever

    So in your mind it must be explosives. Silent ones, that make explosive sounds sometimes, or not, when it suits.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,295 ✭✭✭corcaigh07


    This thread seems oddly familiar


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    You literally wrote the below a few posts ago

    "Whistleblowers have come forward."



    There have been at least four separate investigations which came to the conclusion that fire caused the collapse.

    There have been none that point to explosives, whatsoever

    So in your mind it must be explosives. Silent ones, that make explosive sounds sometimes, or not, when it suits.

    Whistleblower has not come forward to date he planted explosives. Personally, not expecting someone to come forward, when highly likely this was military-style operation that involves compartmentalization. My opinion only a handful of people are read in and are aware of this operation.

    Whistleblowers have come out and spoken about different topics related to 9/11 attacks.  I see Richard Clarke as a whistleblower who revealed he was kept out of the loop about Al Qeada terrorists entering the country. Richard Clarke was employed by the White House Chief Counter Terrorism Advisor to George Bush. Yet he only learned after 9/11 that the CIA had tracked 9/11 terrorists inside the United States and kept this information secret from the FBI and local enforcement agencies.  

    There Coleen Rowley an FBI agent who passed information to FBI headquarters that she suspected there was Muslim men in her area training to hijack planes. A flight instructor in her area Minnesota, suspected Muslim men there were up to know good and phoned the local FBI office in August 2001.  The local FBI agents tried to get a warrant to look into it and this can only be issued by FBI headquarters when it was about terrorism. The FBI agents were denied the warrant and still an open question who was denying the request to monitor them suspected of being terrorists? Many more people who pointed out the US government had all the information needed to arrest and capture the 9/11 cells.

    Engineering WTC7 fire research
    Arup and Partners and Guy Nordenson and Sons were hired by Aegis Insurance to find defects in the structural design of the building. They were as a conflict of interest when you hired to stop paying out a large sum. They reached a very different conclusion to NIST and claimed sagging beams pulled the girder of its seat at column 79. NIST said it beams thermally expanded. They totally dismissed the thermal expansion theory NIST came up with.

    None of these groups claimed fire brought down the building on a different floor, they just disagree about where it started.

    Engineering study that disagrees with all three studies
    Weidlinger engineering group was hired by World Trade center company. They claimed the failure started on 9th and 10th floor. The girder unseated would not come through the floors below like the other Engineering firms stated. They claim the floors just collapsed due to extreme heat.  
    None of these groups agree with each other about how it all started- the only agree fire was the cause correct. Hulsey has looked at these theories and none of them making sense.

    Silent explosives:
    There was a noise bang heard on CBS video. NIST states no noise was heard at all before collapse on any video. Skeptics often make the mistake thinking this a masonry building being taken down. It was a steel framed building, therefore only a number of floors needed to be loaded with cutter charge explosives. There not blowing up the whole building. They're taking out columns on a specific number of floors. Hulsey computer model dropped the building when eight floors of core and exterior columns got removed. It's false when people claim 47 floors need to the loaded with explosives. It curious you always claim silent explosives rules out demolition, yet 47 floors internally coming down crashing silently you never question? I would think 47 floors collapsing would make more noise than explosives causing damage to steel in the building on eight floors? It not bomb going off. Demolitions can be muffled for sound if needed ( CDI demolition expert said so on video) and wireless radio demolitions can be used. Wireless it not used commercially as it very expensive. US Military was a setting of demolitions for decades by wireless methods. 


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Why leave for another thread? If you have an "official document" and you have a new discovery then why not share it here?

    If you want to read it.
    https://history.defense.gov/Portals/70/Documents/oral_history/OH_Trans_AustinBrian%20Steve%20Pennington111-9-2006.pdf

    Interviews with people who installed the cameras and looked after them.

    Poles were taken down during the construction to be replaced near the roadway. They had cameras some did not.
    The Heliport had two cameras and never knew this. Was destroyed on 9/11. Had a field of view on impact site.
    What i found strange when guy turned up the next day and looked to see if it had footage, it recorded nothing he says there is nothing there?
    He said normally more cameras would be looking at the impact site area, but due to construction were not.
    Images are captured inside the building. 
    VDOT had a traffic camera, but the guy did not know what happened to the camera and footage.

    Whereabouts did they remove the poles on the roadway?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Whistleblower has not come forward to date he planted explosives.

    Exactly, no one has come forward with anything about bombs or secret explosives, zero.
    Whistleblowers have come out and spoken about different topics related to 9/11 attacks.  I see Richard Clarke as a whistleblower who revealed he was kept out of the loop about Al Qeada terrorists entering the country.

    Richard Clarke doesn't believe the buildings were blown up, he completely contradicts your theory
    There Coleen Rowley an FBI agent who passed information to FBI headquarters that she suspected there was Muslim men in her area training to hijack planes.

    The FBI investigation absolutely points to no explosive devices in the buildings. They contradict your theory of exploding buildings.
    Arup and Partners and Guy Nordenson and Sons were hired by Aegis Insurance to find defects in the structural design of the building.

    Not a single investigation, including the above pointed to explosives in the buildings.
    Weidlinger engineering group was hired by World Trade center company.

    Their conclusion? fire bought it down. Again, no mention of explosives
    There was a noise bang heard on CBS video. NIST states no noise was heard at all before collapse on any video.

    No explosive blast were recorded at the times each building fell. To summarise, you have no credible evidence for these "explosives", every talking point you bring up further contradicts you, and the theory itself doesn't make any sense

    Why would they rig WTC 1 and WTC 2 with explosives just to get them hit by planes?

    What if one of the planes missed and they discovered this entire building rigged with incriminating evidence, why would they take that risk?

    Was the hijacking of the planes real, then how did they plan the rigging of all the buildings perfectly with explosives around the hijacking? If the hijacking wasn't real, then who were the men on board, what, were they paid to kill themselves?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,705 ✭✭✭Cheerful Spring2


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Exactly, no one has come forward with anything about bombs or secret explosives, zero.



    Richard Clarke doesn't believe the buildings were blown up, he completely contradicts your theory



    The FBI investigation absolutely points to no explosive devices in the buildings. They contradict your theory of exploding buildings.



    Not a single investigation, including the above pointed to explosives in the buildings.



    Their conclusion? fire bought it down. Again, no mention of explosives



    No explosive blast were recorded at the times each building fell. To summarise, you have no credible evidence for these "explosives", every talking point you bring up further contradicts you, and the theory itself doesn't make any sense

    Why would they rig WTC 1 and WTC 2 with explosives just to get them hit by planes?

    What if one of the planes missed and they discovered this entire building rigged with incriminating evidence, why would they take that risk?

    Was the hijacking of the planes real, then how did they plan the rigging of all the buildings perfectly with explosives around the hijacking? If the hijacking wasn't real, then who were the men on board, what, were they paid to kill themselves?

    Richard Clarke was kept of the loop known terrorists had entered the country to carry out an attack and you seem to ignore that if it's not relevant and not suspicious. Richard Clarke, believing my demolition theory is irrelevant here. His testimony gave us insight into what the CIA was up to and they kept information private about Al Qeada members planning an attack.The 9/11 demolitions can only have taken place if the terrorists succeeded with their mission. It's the reason I am highly suspicious they kept Richard Clarke and others of the loop so the plan would not fail.

    FBI never investigated explosives at the site. FBI role in the investigation was to find out who organised the terrorist attacks.We know the White House then obstructed this ongoing FBI investigation and shut it down. 

    Even all the WTC7 steel was taken away and never seen again. NIST admitted during their investigation could not locate any steel member from the WTC7 site. You investigating a collapse and the building steel the vital evidence gone!

    The private engineering firms are like you they can't imagine someone would rig the building for demolishing prior to the attack. Since the steel evidence gone, they too are guessing what caused the collapse. What we know based on construction drawings NIST lied to achieve a fire collapse scenario.

    If this building had collapsed on another day in history and this same report came out, i bet nobody would accept it. It only accepted because of the terrible events seen on TV. History never repeated itself since or before 9/11 a Steel framed high rise collapsed just to fire alone. You have this one-off event on 9/11 and that looks like a controlled demolition and the fire study NIST did was false and that's a proven fact. 


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,800 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Richard Clarke

    Richard Clarke doesn't believe the buildings were blown up.
    FBI never investigated explosives at the site. FBI role in the investigation was to find out who organised the terrorist attacks.We know the White House then obstructed this ongoing FBI investigation and shut it down. 

    The FBI don't for one second maintain the buildings were blown up
    Even all the WTC7 steel was taken away and never seen again. NIST admitted during their investigation could not locate any steel member from the WTC7 site. You investigating a collapse and the building steel the vital evidence gone!

    Nope
    The private engineering firms are like you they can't imagine someone would rig the building for demolishing prior to the attack. Since the steel evidence gone, they too are guessing what caused the collapse. What we know based on construction drawings NIST lied to achieve a fire collapse scenario.

    No credible evidence the buildings were blown up
    If this building had collapsed on another day in history and this same report came out, i bet nobody would accept it.  

    You can't support any other theory, no one can. That's because it doesn't exist.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,372 ✭✭✭Homelander


    Conspiracy theories around 9/11 are amazing. It's like claiming a 1000 piece jigsaw of a dog may in fact be a cat because a handful of pieces are missing.


Advertisement