Debunking 911 conspiracy theories

weisses · 03-04-2014 1:41pm

Burky126 wrote: »

Just going to post this here.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-two/

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/

2 minutes reading reagarding building 7

it is far more logical to assume "pull it" means "pull people out of the building" or "pull the plug on the fire fighting". In fact, that is almost certainly what he meant

Wrong conclusion .. According to NIST

while the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by fire fighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires

Rubbish debunking attempts

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 1:56pm

weisses wrote: »

No I'm only stating they weren't lax

Even today you have to agree that airport security is a joke only to give us a false sense of security

And even pre 9/11 it took me a while to clear US customs .. Remember the "interrogation" at Schiphol very well

Quite frankly, I have no idea if airport security is a joke or not. Not being funny and while I fly several times a year I could not say that it's an area within my area of expertise. I have never put airport security to the test!

As the US authorities said, they did not expect the threat to come internally. They were fixated on an external threat hence the tighter security into the US as opposed to internal flights.

Jaysus, just had a flashback. I can remember (pre 9/11) cabin crew taking small children into the cockpit during flight for a look around.

weisses · 03-04-2014 2:09pm

partyguinness wrote: »

As for the missile hitting the Pentagon..this is hilarious stuff. There is CCTV footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Can you link me to any CCTV footage that shows a Plane (757) hitting the pentagon ... note that for your claim to be accurate we must be able to identify the/a plane

MayoSalmon · 03-04-2014 2:12pm

There's been way to much evidence to suggest the government had nothing to do with it, or at the very least, knew closely to the time a strike/attack was immiment.

weisses · 03-04-2014 2:13pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Quite frankly, I have no idea if airport security is a joke or not. Not being funny and while I fly several times a year I could not say that it's an area within my area of expertise. I have never put airport security to the test!

As the US authorities said, they did not expect the threat to come internally. They were fixated on an external threat hence the tighter security into the US as opposed to internal flights.

Jaysus, just had a flashback. I can remember (pre 9/11) cabin crew taking small children into the cockpit during flight for a look around.

And i don't know about the domestic flight screening that took place in the US pre 9/11

all you could see on the CCTV from the hijackers that they had to undergo a second check

In the 90's I took a peak into the cockpit several times on European flights ... they often had the door open and even explained some of the systems

weisses · 03-04-2014 2:19pm

MayoSalmon wrote: »

There's been way to much evidence to suggest the government had nothing to do with it, or at the very least, knew closely to the time a strike/attack was immiment.

I didn't see any evidence

If there is any evidence it suggest the opposite

http://www.911truth.org/tag/foreknowledge/

loads of info here .... don't know if its all accurate but its a start

MayoSalmon · 03-04-2014 2:25pm

weisses wrote: »

I didn't see any evidence

If there is any evidence it suggest the opposite

http://www.911truth.org/tag/foreknowledge/

loads of info here .... don't know if its all accurate but its a start

Open your eyes so....vast amounts of insider trading occurred before 9/11.

Money never lies!

weisses · 03-04-2014 2:32pm

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Open your eyes so....vast amounts of insider trading occurred before 9/11.

Money never lies!

I didn't see any evidence the government knew nothing

you said

There's been way to much evidence to suggest the government had nothing to do with it

That's why i said that i didn't see any evidence

Or do you believe that although vast amounts of insider trading occurred the government knew nothing ?

MayoSalmon · 03-04-2014 2:34pm

weisses wrote: »

I didn't see any evidence the government knew nothing

you said

That's why i said that i didn't see any evidence

Or do you believe that although vast amounts of insider trading occurred the government knew nothing ?

Sorry, I mis-read your response. Were in agreement so.

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 2:50pm

weisses wrote: »

I didn't see any evidence the government knew nothing

you said

That's why i said that i didn't see any evidence

Or do you believe that although vast amounts of insider trading occurred the government knew nothing ?

How are you supposed to prove you knew nothing?

In law, it is called the burden of proof e.g. a defendent does not go on trial having to prove he did not kill someone. It is up to the prosecution to prove he did.

So the onus here is on the doubters to prove that the gov knew something rather than the Gov to show they knew nothing.

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 3:55pm

partyguinness wrote: »

How are you supposed to prove you knew nothing?

In law, it is called the burden of proof e.g. a defendent does not go on trial having to prove he did not kill someone. It is up to the prosecution to prove he did.

So the onus here is on the doubters to prove that the gov knew something rather than the Gov to show they knew nothing.

there's no onus on us to prove anything (although the evidence is plain to see when you understand their modus). this isnt a courtroom. cheney, rumsfeld et all are lying murderous scum. they can sue me for liable if they like

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 4:09pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

there's no onus on us to prove anything (although the evidence is plain to see when you understand their modus). this isnt a courtroom. cheney, rumsfeld et all are lying murderous scum. they can sue me for liable if they like

Oh I hate those Btards as much as anyone...cold war dinosaurs.

ps Hate to be a grammer Nazi but it would be libel- liable is a different legal term.

Seanachai · 03-04-2014 4:10pm

Only a few people on the inside know for sure what happens in events like 9/11 , there would be others on the fringe who are better informed than the guy on the street but they know well enough to keep their mouths shut for fear of their own lives or their families. Dyed in the wool debunkers are usually university educated males with a severe comtempt for anybody who they see to be intellectually inferior. They're also often tight fisted meanies.

There are open minded commentators and scientists out there who seem to be genuine in their belief in the official story or something closely resembling it but you won't find them spewing condescending bile on internet forums. Scoffing at people who have genuine concerns that a lot of mainstream news information , science etc is skewed or completely bogus is these people's food and water. If you think that flouride in the form of sodium flouride is harmful to your health when ingested over a long period then avoid it. If you think that you're being spun a line of bull**** on the RTE/BBC/Sky news then don't buy it , I'm all for healthy skepticism and agnosticism but **** this tribe that they call debunkers!!.

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 4:23pm

Seanachai wrote: »

Only a few people on the inside know for sure what happens in events like 9/11 , there would be others on the fringe who are better informed than the guy on the street but they know well enough to keep their mouths shut for fear of their own lives or their families. Dyed in the wool debunkers are usually university educated males with a severe comtempt for anybody who they see to be intellectually inferior. They're also often tight fisted meanies.

There are open minded commentators and scientists out there who seem to be genuine in their belief in the official story or something closely resembling it but you won't find them spewing condescending bile on internet forums. Scoffing at people who have genuine concerns that a lot of mainstream news information , science etc is skewed or completely bogus is these people's food and water. If you think that flouride in the form of sodium flouride is harmful to your health when ingested over a long period then avoid it. If you think that you're being spun a line of bull**** on the RTE/BBC/Sky news then don't buy it , I'm all for healthy skepticism and agnosticism but **** this tribe that they call debunkers!!.

Did a university educated male clutching the Irish Times recently walk past you on the street and not drop a few coins into your cup??:D

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 4:37pm

weisses wrote: »

Can you link me to any CCTV footage that shows a Plane (757) hitting the pentagon ... note that for your claim to be accurate we must be able to identify the/a plane

LOL....I am not falling for that one.

There are several links online but of course you know that already and no doubt you have your rebuttals lined up to cast doubt on the footage and eye witness accounts. So really just a waste of time.

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 4:57pm

partyguinness wrote: »

LOL....I am not falling for that one.

There are several links online but of course you know that already and no doubt you have your rebuttals lined up to cast doubt on the footage and eye witness accounts. So really just a waste of time.

what about the eye witness accounts of the mystery plane above washinton as the pentagon went boom?

CNN's Senior White House correspondent John King saw it while standing in Lafayette Park, directly across from the White House. King reported live that "about 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky

As it happened, a second individual also filmed the mystery plane on September 11 as it made a banking turn over Washington; and this short video segment even appeared in a made-for-TV docudrama about Flight 93. The two-hour movie was titled The Flight that Fought Back, and it aired on the Discovery Channel in August 2005. Once alerted to its existence, I had no difficulty locating this short segment on the internet. Someone had pulled it from the film and posted it at You-Tube as part of a short melange of video footage about 9/11. Anyone with access to cyberspace may view it on line.[5] The following still-shot was taken from this footage.

those markings look familiar, dont they?

The plane's electronics cover the full radio spectrum, from extremely low frequency (ELF) to high frequency (UHF). Which enables the E-4B to communicate with all US military commands, world-wide, including tactical and strategic forces, naval ships, planes, nuclear-armed missiles, even submarines.

weisses · 03-04-2014 6:26pm

partyguinness wrote: »

LOL....I am not falling for that one.

There are several links online but of course you know that already and no doubt you have your rebuttals lined up to cast doubt on the footage and eye witness accounts. So really just a waste of time.

You said there is CCTV footage showing a plane hitting the pentagon ..

I didn't see anything that even resembles a plane hitting the pentagon

I don't mind your not able to show what you say is there but don't claim your assumption as being fact

You say above there are several links online ... Care to share which one shows the plane hitting the pentagon ?

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 6:45pm

weisses wrote: »

You said there is CCTV footage showing a plane something hitting the pentagon ..

i fixed it for him.

whatstherush · 03-04-2014 6:51pm

weisses wrote: »

See it as a gulf of Tonkin scenario only now the attacks are used as justification to go to War in the Middle east

Since the war in Iraq began in 2003 there have been 4344 Americans killed, 3474 of those in combat. The total Americans wounded is 31494, with over 10000 being wounded in combat.

Puts 9/11 in a different perspective doesn't it

Specially when you realize they had no justification to invade Iraq in the first place but conveniently used the 9/11 attacks to go to war

Sorry don't know what happened in the gulf of tolken incident, can you explain it, in terms 911 so I can answer your question.

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 6:57pm

whatstherush wrote: »

Sorry don't know what happened in the gulf of tolken incident, can you explain it, in terms 911 so I can answer your question.

http://911review.com/precedent/century/tonkin.html

"The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack had happened," he wrote. "So a conscious effort ensued to demonstrate that an attack occurred."

partyguinness · 04-04-2014 11:31am

DamagedTrax wrote: »

what about the eye witness accounts of the mystery plane above washinton as the pentagon went boom?

those markings look familiar, dont they?

So what are you saying?

partyguinness · 04-04-2014 11:33am

This pretty much sums up my position:

"In the absence of having every single thing about that day explained, conspiracy theories arise among the paranoid and narcissistic."

"The fact at the end of the day is that you’ll never explain every single thing about 9-11. Some questions will always remain unanswered, either because those who have the answers are dead, or because those who have the answers have legitimate national security reasons to remain silent, or because life is full of anomalies that require no nefarious reason for their existence. To require that every single thing about 9-11 be wrapped up tight with ribbons and bows is to require the impossible. Real life doesn’t work that way. For the Truthers, anomalies or the few unexplained aspects of 9-11 are room for irresponsible conjecture and accusations. For the rest of us, the adults in the room, it’s hardly remarkable that there are things about that day that remain unexplained. Real life does work that way."

Taken from http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/13/cnn-looks-into-9-11-white-plane-mystery/

Seanachai · 04-04-2014 1:03pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Did a university educated male clutching the Irish Times recently walk past you on the street and not drop a few coins into your cup??:D

I read the letters section sometimes , there's some interesting information from time to time especially health professional's rebuttals of James Reilly's policies. I also like to check in on Hillary Fannin's hectic middle class life from time to time and her side splitting anectodes , she really is the living end!!. I take it from the tone of your response that you object to having to see beggars on the street. Have you ever spoken to any of them?.

Seanachai · 04-04-2014 1:06pm

partyguinness have you ever read the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth research? - www.ae911truth.org/.

Globalresearch.ca also has some interesting pieces on 9/11

partyguinness · 04-04-2014 1:10pm

Seanachai wrote: »

I read the letters section sometimes , there's some interesting information from time to time especially health professional's rebuttals of James Reilly's policies. I also like to check in on Hillary Fannin's hectic middle class life from time to time and her side splitting anectodes , she really is the living end!!. I take it from the tone of your response that you object to having to see beggars on the street. Have you ever spoken to any of them?.

Mate relax...it was very much tongue in cheek..:D

partyguinness · 04-04-2014 1:21pm

Seanachai wrote: »

partyguinness have you ever read the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth research? - www.ae911truth.org/.

Globalresearch.ca also has some interesting pieces on 9/11

Yes and I have seen plenty of docs on youtube and where ever else and I admit they are very convincing.

But what snaps me back to reality pretty quick is when I consider that the architects and engineers are speaking from the theory of what should have happened when they evalute their desktop data versus what did happen.

Fact remains, the crash into the WTC was unprecedented and what happened in reality was quite different to the desktop analysis.

That's why I laugh at computer generated weather predictions that dont work out...who are the kidding.

Yes, I know some people dont want to believe something as banal s this but....engineers and architects got it wrong. Just like the Titanic should not have gone down so quick (according to desktop calculations). Guess what....it did!!

weisses · 04-04-2014 1:40pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Fact remains, the crash into the WTC was unprecedented and what happened in reality was quite different to the desktop analysis.

That's why I laugh at computer generated weather predictions that dont work out...who are the kidding.

What kinda plane crashed into WTC7 ?

Fact is also NIST fabricated a computer generated hypothesis model to explain how building 7 collapsed but when experts asked for the data they used to reach their conclusions .. that request was denied

So when using your own reasoning the official story should be laughed at ... Who are they kidding right

weisses · 04-04-2014 1:43pm

partyguinness wrote: »

This pretty much sums up my position:

"In the absence of having every single thing about that day explained, conspiracy theories arise among the paranoid and narcissistic."

"The fact at the end of the day is that you’ll never explain every single thing about 9-11. Some questions will always remain unanswered, either because those who have the answers are dead, or because those who have the answers have legitimate national security reasons to remain silent, or because life is full of anomalies that require no nefarious reason for their existence. To require that every single thing about 9-11 be wrapped up tight with ribbons and bows is to require the impossible. Real life doesn’t work that way. For the Truthers, anomalies or the few unexplained aspects of 9-11 are room for irresponsible conjecture and accusations. For the rest of us, the adults in the room, it’s hardly remarkable that there are things about that day that remain unexplained. Real life does work that way."

Taken from http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/13/cnn-looks-into-9-11-white-plane-mystery/

Ahh for a second i thought you found footage showing a plane hitting the pentagon ..... hotair claim indeed

Was a long shot anyway ... specially when there were only a couple of dozen of cameras recording it

partyguinness · 04-04-2014 1:52pm

weisses wrote: »

What kinda plane crashed into WTC7 ?

Fact is also NIST fabricated a computer generated hypothesis model to explain how building 7 collapsed but when experts asked for the data they used to reach their conclusions .. that request was denied

So when using your own reasoning the official story should be laughed at ... Who are they kidding right

No...they denied the request for information. You are somewhat jumping the gun with that conclusion.

"request was denied" = "fabricated"..interesting nexus.:rolleyes:

partyguinness · 04-04-2014 1:56pm

weisses wrote: »

Ahh for a second i thought you found footage showing a plane hitting the pentagon ..... hotair claim indeed

Was a long shot anyway ... specially when there were only a couple of dozen of cameras recording it

Unfortunately, on my work computer, video content & youtube is blocked by employers is I can't link in videos.

Debunking 911 conspiracy theories

Comments