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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Mainstream media now questioning the official 9/11 narrative
Comments
-
Where do these things you mentioned, intersect with the attacks on 9/11?
Earlier incidents or pre 9/11 events need to be understood.
19 hijackers plan was doomed to fail if they acted alone. We know the Saudi government officials gave them money when they arrived, paid their rent and, paid for their flying lessons.
Do you believe it was an intelligent failure by the CIA? Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi ( two of 9/11 hijackers were alleged to be involved in USS Cole bombing in Yemen in 2000. They are on terrorist watch list pre 9/11
Al-Bayoumi a Saudi spy met these two when they arrived. Even gave them a apartment and social security cards. We know too he paid for their flying lessons in Florida.
The Saudis who were never charged set this whole event up to go down. The hijackers are just patsies used by Bin Laden and his friends in Saudi Govenment like Prince Turki. He send Bin Laden to Sudan to help the Saudi government with development projects.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Earlier incidents or pre 9/11 events need to be understood.
19 hijackers plan was doomed to fail if they acted alone. We know the Saudi government officials gave them money when they arrived, paid their rent and, paid for their flying lessons.
Do you believe it was an intelligent failure by the CIA? Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi ( two of 9/11 hijackers were alleged to be involved in USS Cole bombing in Yemen in 2000. They are on terrorist watch list pre 9/11
Al-Bayoumi a Saudi spy met these two when they arrived. Even gave them a apartment and social security cards. We know too he paid for their flying lessons in Florida.
The Saudis who were never charged set this whole event up to go down. The hijackers are just patsies used by Bin Laden and his friends in Saudi Govenment like Prince Turki. He send Bin Laden to Sudan to help the Saudi government with development projects.
What is this dilution?
You have repeatedly claimed that 911 is an inside job by all of the below- Larry Silverstein
- His insurers
- Saudi Princes and officials
- Bush
- Rumsfeld
- Cheney
- NORAD
- CIA Mujahideen
- NIST investigators
- Mossad (possibly)
- US military (unspecified generals)
- Various unspecified businessmen
- Pakistani ISI
They all worked together to blow up all three towers in New York in broad daylight and fly a missile, military plane, flight 77 at a different angle into the Pentagon
You can't support this bonkers stuff, so, like all truthers your M.O. is to attack the facts, dragging everything down to obtuse granular details and trying to find any grey areas, which you believe magically conjures your personal conspiracy into existence
Sounds like the ravings of a madman. And we are just as bad for debating with such irrationality.0 -
What is this dilution?
You have repeatedly claimed that 911 is an inside job by all of the below- Larry Silverstein
- His insurers
- Saudi Princes and officials
- Bush
- Rumsfeld
- Cheney
- NORAD
- CIA Mujahideen
- NIST investigators
- Mossad (possibly)
- US military (unspecified generals)
- Various unspecified businessmen
- Pakistani ISI
They all worked together to blow up all three towers in New York in broad daylight and fly a missile, military plane, flight 77 at a different angle into the Pentagon
You can't support this bonkers stuff, so, like all truthers your M.O. is to attack the facts, dragging everything down to obtuse granular details and trying to find any grey areas, which you believe magically conjures your personal conspiracy into existence
Sounds like the ravings of a madman. And we are just as bad for debating with such irrationality.
Inside job list.
Saudi officials and princes
Pakistan ISI agency generals
Donald Rumsfield: Yes I do believe his involved
NORAD: I don’t accuse the workers. My believe is a number of Airforce generals knew planes were going to be hijacked on 9/11. This rogue deep state group then prearranged in advance multiple airforce exercises to take place on 9/11 across the country. The exercises helped the hijackers carry out their mission unhindered for two hours. The drills were not ended when it was known the country was being attacked after 8am. The exercise cancel order was only received at Norad when flight 93 went down around 10am.
Al Qeada: is actually Makhtab-al-Khidimat a Pakistan organisation that got established in the late 80s to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Bin Laden, Saudi Royals, Pakistan generals helped finance the group renamed the group Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda fighters during the 90s were send to fight proxy wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. The US supported the Al Qeada jihad war against the Serbs in Yugoslavia. Al Qaeda has been used for least a decade by the US government and its middle eastern friends to overthrow hostile regimes. Since 9/11 it continues in Syria.
NIST : You already know my feelings about this study.
CIA: solid evidence exists they protected 9/11 hijackers plot to attack the United States.
My suspicion list. I open to be wrong about them.
Cheney
Bush
Silverstein
Isreal involvement
I have not seen a whole lot to accuse them.0 -
Sounds like the ravings of a madman. And we are just as bad for debating with such irrationality.
Well, that's obviously offensive. It got me thinking, though......
Why are you spending so much time on threads such as these if you firmly believe that the events of 9/11 were as reported?
Like, I don't believe the moon landings were faked or that UFOs exist, so I'm sure as f*** not going to waste my time and energy arguing with strangers who hold the opposing view. I do not visit these threads and never will.
Also the vehemence and aggression from the 9/11 Truth-deniers makes me wonder....why do you care so much? You don't believe that there is anything to see here but you'll still devote time into delivering lengthy posts defending your position.
'At times it sounds like the ravings of a madman.' You're okay though 'cos you have a group of like-minded accolades here ready to flame anyone who takes the opposing view to yours.0 -
Scrummyscrammy wrote: »Well, that's obviously offensive. It got me thinking, though......
Why are you spending so much time on threads such as these if you firmly believe that the events of 9/11 were as reported?
Same reason people tackle anti-vaxxers. If some individuals decide to make disinformation their hobby on a public forum, they may find others correct that disinfoAlso the vehemence and aggression from the 9/11 Truth-deniers makes me wonder....why do you care so much? You don't believe that there is anything to see here but you'll still devote time into delivering lengthy posts defending your position.
What's a 911 truth-denier?
The events of 911 are widely accepted as historical fact, there is little solid debate over the event outside of fringe circles.
Just because Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, Sandy Hook truthers, 911 truthers, Bigfoot hunters, etc exist doesn't mean there is truth to their claims. Threads like this examine their arguments and expose them.
We've been discovering it's unhealthy and counter-productive to let this stuff fester on the internet, which is why major platforms (youtube, google, twitter, etc) have been actively taking steps to tackle disinformation like 911 truth and anti-vaxx stuff0 -
Advertisement
-
The events of 911 are widely accepted as historical fact, there is little solid debate over the event outside of fringe circles.
Look this not right. Sep 13th 2019 BBC news piece.
On Thursday, the department said the decision to unmask the name of the Saudi official was taken by Attorney General William Barr.
It said Mr Barr had decided not to invoke state secrets, and share the person's identity with the attorneys for the victims' families.
"The FBI recognises the need and desire of victims' families to understand what happened to their loved ones and to hold those responsible accountable," the justice department said.
"The families are dedicated to getting to the truth, and we shouldn't have to beg for this sort of basic information, or be kept in the dark, about the Saudi role in the attacks," Terry Strada, a member the 9/11 Families & Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism, was quoted as saying by the AFP news agency.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49686128
All these findings change our understanding of the 9/11 events. The official narrative is Al Qeada acted alone!0 -
What aggression are you referring to?Scrummyscrammy wrote: »Also the vehemence and aggression from the 9/11 Truth-deniers makes me wonder....
Why do you not believe the Moon landings were faked?
The level of evidence for that is about the same as the level of evidence produced to show that the real explanation for 9/11 is questionable.0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »
All these findings change our understanding of the 9/11 events. The official narrative is Al Qeada acted alone!
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!"0 -
Tucker Carlson had the 9/11 famillies lawyer on recently and could not believe what he heard about the cover-up.
They have names of eleven people- Saudi princes and officials. Robert Mueller
covered it up for the White House
0 -
Just because Holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, Sandy Hook truthers, 911 truthers, Bigfoot hunters, etc exist doesn't mean there is truth to their claims. Threads like this examine their arguments and expose them.
You forgot The Loch Ness Monster.
Never forget Nessie when you are trying to discredit those who are trying to comprehend the many anomalies of 9/11.0 -
Advertisement
-
Its all coming out now the US government in 2001 concealed the truth about the 9/11 attacks
But former FBI investigators say their old boss didn’t feel the same concern when they uncovered multiple, systemic efforts by the Saudi government tassist the hijackers in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks — a far more consequential, to say nothing of deadly, foreign influence operation on America
As the head of the FBI at the time, they say Mueller was not nearly as interested in investigating that espionage conspiracy, which also involved foreign intelligence officers. Far from it, the record shows he covered up evidence pointing back to the Saudi Embassy and Riyadh — and may have even misled Congress about what he knew.
“In October of 2001, Mueller shut down the government’s investigation after only three weeks, and then took part in the Bush [administration’s] campaign to block, obfuscate and generally stop anything about Saudi Arabia from being released,” added Premoli, now a plaintiff in the 9/11 lawsuit against Saudi Arabia.
A Mueller spokesman declined to comment. But some agents say he was merely following White House orders.Any letting the Saudis off the hook came from the White House,” former FBI Agent Mark Rossini said. “I can still see that photo of Bandar and Bush enjoying cigars on the balcony of the White House two days after 9/11.”
This part will people inside the US government be arrested for this?
Time and again, agents were called off from pursuing leads back to the kingdom’s embassy in Washington, as well as its consulate in Los Angeles, where former FBI Agent Stephen Moore headed a 9/11 task force looking into local contacts made by two of the 15 Saudi hijackers, Moore testified in an affidavit for the 9/11 lawsuit. He concluded that “diplomatic and intelligence personnel of Saudi Arabia knowingly provided material support to the two hijackers and facilitated the 9/11 plot.” Yet he and his team were not allowed to interview them, according to the suit.
Excellent piece by the New York Post. Disgusting they got away this for 18 years.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/07/robert-mueller-helped-saudi-arabia-cover-up-its-role-in-9-11-attacks-suit/
Will you skeptics demand a new 9/11 investigation to uncover the real truth?0 -
But you don't seem all that interested in comprehending them when you have no interest in either considering the rational likely explanations or providing or thinking about alternative explanations...Scrummyscrammy wrote: »You forgot The Loch Ness Monster.
Never forget Nessie when you are trying to discredit those who are trying to comprehend the many anomalies of 9/11.
There isn't that much difference between people who believe the moon landing or the holocaust was a hoax and your position.
They also "are just trying to comprehend the many anomalies."0 -
Scrummyscrammy wrote: »You forgot The Loch Ness Monster.
Never forget Nessie when you are trying to discredit those who are trying to comprehend the many anomalies of 9/11.
Indeed, anomalies is the key word - it's how denialism works. 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)
If an unsuspecting viewer has little or no knowledge of 911 and they come across one of these videos, (some of which are extremely convincing) then it's understandable that the video info (disinfo) becomes their only reference point. As we know, watching those videos would, in the past, lead down a rabbit hole of more conspiracy videos (they've been changing the algorithms on this to actually stop this effect)
It doesn't take long for a belief to take root and once it does, the person can easily become resistant to the actual facts or context, or become completely blind to it. Rational changes to irrational.
Typically these individuals who believe some conspiracy took place will have a list of these "anomalies" ready to spring on anyone, "explain this", "explain that", and so on
That's because a conspiracy video will highlight e.g. that a hijacker's passport in perfect condition laying in the street, by a policeman
.. but it won't contain the info that many perishable items, such as passports, identify cards, paper itineraries, tickets, seat covers, luggage, clothes, etc were also discovered. That a plane crashing into a building doesn't automatically incinerate everything on board.
If you go to a credible source of information you will receive proper information. If you go to a conspiracy source you will only receive information that is crafted to lead to some conspiracy
As an example, if you wanted to find out about vaccination, well it makes sense to go to credible sites, get the normal information. I presume that's what you would do. However if you went to an anti-vaxx site instead, then went down the rabbit hole of watching questionable youtube videos, reading low quality studies by controversial isolated experts, relying on the subjective views of a handful of doctors and physicians, instead of the overwhelming consensus - then it's easy to understand why you may have a skewed or faulty view of the topic
In this case, posts here by yourself have contained typical truther talking points and deceptive information. After 18 years of trial and error some of these "anomalies" are quite "refined", but it's still nonsense. Easily debunked and explained within reason.
I can understand why individuals may believe 911 was an inside job considering the volume of disinfo out there, but there is no excuse for anyone not to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites, no excuse whatsoever0 -
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: »Tucker Carlson had the 9/11 famillies lawyer on recently and could not believe what he heard about the cover-up.
They have names of eleven people- Saudi princes and officials. Robert Mueller
covered it up for the White House
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).0 -
Indeed, anomalies is the key word - it's how denialism works. 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)
If an unsuspecting viewer has little or no knowledge of 911 and they come across one of these videos, (some of which are extremely convincing) then it's understandable that the video info (disinfo) becomes their only reference point. As we know, watching those videos would, in the past, lead down a rabbit hole of more conspiracy videos (they've been changing the algorithms on this to actually stop this effect)
It doesn't take long for a belief to take root and once it does, the person can easily become resistant to the actual facts or context, or become completely blind to it. Rational changes to irrational.
Typically these individuals who believe some conspiracy took place will have a list of these "anomalies" ready to spring on anyone, "explain this", "explain that", and so on
That's because a conspiracy video will highlight e.g. that a hijacker's passport in perfect condition laying in the street, by a policeman
.. but it won't contain the info that many perishable items, such as passports, identify cards, paper itineraries, tickets, seat covers, luggage, clothes, etc were also discovered. That a plane crashing into a building doesn't automatically incinerate everything on board.
If you go to a credible source of information you will receive proper information. If you go to a conspiracy source you will only receive information that is crafted to lead to some conspiracy
As an example, if you wanted to find out about vaccination, well it makes sense to go to credible sites, get the normal information. I presume that's what you would do. However if you went to an anti-vaxx site instead, then went down the rabbit hole of watching questionable youtube videos, reading low quality studies by controversial isolated experts, relying on the subjective views of a handful of doctors and physicians, instead of the overwhelming consensus - then it's easy to understand why you may have a skewed or faulty view of the topic
In this case, posts here by yourself have contained typical truther talking points and deceptive information. After 18 years of trial and error some of these "anomalies" are quite "refined", but it's still nonsense. Easily debunked and explained within reason.
I can understand why individuals may believe 911 was an inside job considering the volume of disinfo out there, but there is no excuse for anyone not to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites, no excuse whatsoever
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?0 -
Scrummyscrammy wrote: »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 sinse 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?
Interesting article here
https://gumshoenews.com/2016/09/10/analysis-of-9-11-part-7-what-really-happened-to-bobby-mcilvaines-son/
The dad of the guy that died is heavily involved trying to get answers.0 -
Scrummyscrammy wrote: »Taking you up on your challenge 'to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites'
It's not a challenge, it's common sense1.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.
Dunno, I don't speak for him.2. Why did Mr. Coburn contend 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 sense emerged and NIST made no mention of this when they released their official findings on Building 7's collapse in 2007.
A side of building 7 sustained significant damage from debris from the adjacent WTC tower.
There are no clear photos (due to smoke, angles, etc) but there are photos where the damage can partially be seen, e.g. in the Weidlinger report
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tt_assets/pdf/WTC_7_Collapse_Analysis_and_Assessment_Report.pdf3. 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.
Yup, most CCTV footage from that era was pretty awful in comparison to what we have today, have watched footage released from FOI requests, a lot of it is grainy 1 FPS type stuff. Most cameras were pointing at parking lots, foyers, entrances. Few were pointing at the sky. Maybe the Pentagon has "better" footage, maybe they don't, up to them if they want to release.
Due to the overwhelming evidence, it's not requiredYou 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.
CoolLooking forward, as ever to your response, this time in debunking the debunker who helped write the ultimate debunking book.
Doesn't matter what a magazine editor says or claims. He could be full of lies, or mistakes, or errors, or not. It's irrelevant.And you guys wonder why we have doubts?
I don't, but you are coming across like you are deep into all this truther nonsense.
We know what happened on 911, it's not some mystery
Be aware we are very used to this "explain that!" fallacy being abused here(as already mentioned). Whereby someone will go through all the perceived anomalies and truther talking points one by one demanding that each be explained to them personally, and they will decide, subjectively, that if they don't "get it" it's some conspiracy.0 -
Scrummyscrammy wrote: »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.
Again I can't speak for that Coburn guy, but it literally took me 10 seconds to find this article (from 2008)
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/21hijackers.html"For the World Trade Center site, with a much larger area to search and an initially undetermined number of victims, the F.B.I. identified the 10 terrorists’ DNA profiles from personal items, Mr. Kolko said, which included recovered luggage and cigarette butts left in a rental car. The unnamed DNA profiles of those terrorists were then supplied to the medical examiner’s office.
But, since the DNA profiles were unnamed by the bureau, the office could not say which hijackers have been identified, just that 4 of the 10 have been so far.
Three of them were identified as hijackers within two years of the 2001 attack. But the fourth set of remains was not found until September 2007, when the discovery of numerous bone fragments at a building near the World Trade Center site prompted a reinvestigation of the entire site."0 -
Maybe instead of bringing up random new points, you could go back and address some of the points you did not address in previous posts?Scrummyscrammy wrote: »Taking you up on your challenge 'to go and read about it using proper sources and credible sites'
Or maybe you could explain why you did not address them?0 -
Re: the CCTV FPS, it’s not a capabilities question of the camera, it’s a capacity question at the pentagon, circa 2001, for storing/managing security tapes. At 1 FPS vs 20 FPS you use 1/20th the storage.0
-
Advertisement
-
Maybe instead of bringing up random new points, you could go back and address some of the points you did not address in previous posts?
Or maybe you could explain why you did not address them?
Maybe you should ask yourself why you are posting on a 'Conspiracy Theories' thread after midnight on a Sat night/ Sun morning.
You've ether got a vested interest in this **** or you have a particularly sad life.0 -
Different time zone.Scrummyscrammy wrote: »Maybe you should ask yourself why you are posting on a 'Conspiracy Theories' thread after midnight on a Sat night/ Sun morning.
Why are you resorting to personal insults?Scrummyscrammy wrote: »You've ether got a vested interest in this **** or you have a particularly sad life.
Why do simple direct questions upset you so much?
I honestly don't understand this.0 -
Scrummyscrammy wrote: »Maybe you should ask yourself why you are posting on a 'Conspiracy Theories' thread after midnight on a Sat night/ Sun morning.
You've ether got a vested interest in this **** or you have a particularly sad life.
Why the personal insults?
It's an historical event. You are attempting to revise that history, but appear to be annoyed when asked questions about it. On top of that you are dodging those questions and now dishing out personal insults
That's a very weak position. We haven't even gotten to your version of events (which I suspect will not stand up to any form of basic scrutiny)0 -
Different time zone.
Why are you resorting to personal insults?
Why do simple direct questions upset you so much?
I honestly don't understand this.
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.....0 -
It wasn't me.Scrummyscrammy wrote: »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.....
But again you have avoided questions and points directed at you.
Why are you so upset about people asking you simple questions that you have to insult them, then accuse them of being paid shills?0 -
Why the personal insults?
It's an historical event. You are attempting to revise that history, but appear to be annoyed when asked questions about it. On top of that you are dodging those questions and now dishing out personal insults
That's a very weak position. We haven't even gotten to your version of events (which I suspect will not stand up to any form of basic scrutiny)
Sorry, to disappoint you but I don't have a version of events.
I am not a pilot, firefighter, structural engineer or an expert on the inner workings of government or terrorist groups so why would I feel qualified enough to offer my opinion on the real story on the tragic events of 9/11.
You guys have set yourselves up as paragons of the official narrative of the day. The rest of us are here to pick holes with that narrative.0 -
Atlantic Dawn wrote: »Even if the entire operation to knock that building down took 10 people, one of them would have revealed it by now. In reality hundreds of people would have had to be in on it.
Absolutely. You put hundreds of people in a room tell them a secret - someone bound to squeal0 -
Scrummyscrammy wrote: »Sorry, to disappoint you but I don't have a version of events.
I am not a pilot, firefighter, structural engineer or an expert on the inner workings of government or terrorist groups so why would I feel qualified enough to offer my opinion on the real story on the tragic events of 9/11.
No one has anything credible. That should give you a pretty big clueYou guys have set yourselves up as paragons of the official narrative of the day. The rest of us are here to pick holes with that narrative.
The facts speak for themselves.
By your own admission you are a part of this bizarre hobby of "picking holes" in an event, the same way individuals do with the moon landings, Newtown shootings, Boston marathon bombing, Aurora shooting, 7/7, Charlie Hebdo shootings, Paris attacks, London attacks, the list is endless
Precisely the same technique - attacking something to hint at some vague conspiracy that they haven't the faintest interest in detailing or supporting. The art of planting a false narrative by sowing doubt.
The irony of these individuals lecturing others on the truth is pretty staggering when you think about it0 -
Absolutely. You put hundreds of people in a room tell them a secret - someone bound to squeal
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 lives0 -
Advertisement
-
I think that's being too generous. A lot of the time these holes aren't new or revolutionary. They are simply rehashes of claims made by conspiracy theory producers that have been around forever.By your own admission you are a part of this bizarre hobby of "picking holes" in an event, the same way individuals do with the moon landings, Newtown shootings, Boston marathon bombing, Aurora shooting, 7/7, Charlie Hebdo shootings, Paris attacks, London attacks, the list is endless
So it's more a hobby of repeating these catchphrases without actually understanding them.
Then I believe the aim is to play the victim and misunderstood enlightened rebel when people wave off the idea as a silly conspiracy theory.
However, when someone asks them to detail their opinion and treats the conspiracy theory seriously, that ruins the fun.0
Advertisement