A few debunking links

So why don't you post this information instead of just telling us you have all this information? We hear this from truthers all the time. "Oh we have TONS of evidence!" "What is your evidence" *crickets* Can't you come up with something better than excuses?

 

That is one aspect of an entire event that you have provided. That isn't considered evidence, it considered "motive". You have discovered a possible motive for why the government would allow or make this event happen. However, there are still several steps you need in order to prove that the government did it. As in, actual evidence supporting your case.

I have proven that there was no thermite.
No explosives in the dust
Too many people required to pull off the conspiracy
There is no way to know building 7 would start on fire from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2
Explosives cannot survive hours of fires, it's a fact.

Just a few things that are evidence. You need to prove other things than just a clean break

 

There's different kinds of evidence.

Back when Koko was talking about evidence I refrained from commenting because Patriot was doing a good enough job to drive home the point that a supposed lawyer should know a little more about evidence than was expressed.

Now, however, I think it's important to mention that there's different kinds of evidence. There's circumstantial evidence, and there's direct evidence. Direct evidence supports a conclusion directly. With circumstantial evidence you have to make an inference to come to a conclusion of fact. Therefore a piece of direct evidence for one conclusion can be circumstantial evidence to support an inference.

For example, let's say that I testify that I saw a man at a bar drinking a beer at 7:00am. If you believe my testimony, it is direct evidence that the man was at the bar drinking at 7:00am. It's circumstantial evidence that the man was inebriated when he got into an accident at 10:00am. It's circumstantial evidence of alcoholism, that he was just dumped by his girlfriend, that he's depressed, and a host of other conclusions. On it's own, a single piece of circumstantial evidence is typically not enough to form a conclusion, but you can link many pieces of circumstantial and direct evidence to form a conclusion. This is called corroborating evidence.

Sometimes it can be difficult to tell the difference between direct and circumstantial evidence simply because we are so used to making inferences. This is why magicians are able to make a living. Often times we take our senses for granted. We make assumptions about the information we are gathering. We automatically fill in missing pieces without even thinking about them because the human brain simply doesn't have enough time to analyze all the information it has access to at once. The human brain does not multitask. Because of this, we often find single pieces of circumstantial evidence compelling despite there being multiple possible inferences that can be made from the evidence.

Examples relevant to this discussion are witnesses who reported hearing explosions, finding a hijacker's passport laying on the ground near the collapse, or a photograph of a "toasted" car.

A witness who reports a noise is direct evidence of a noise. Any attempt to infer what caused the noise is circumstantial.

The finding of a hijacker passport is evidence that the passport was in NYC and in the location it was found. Any attempt to infer how the passport got there is circumstantial.

A photograph of a "toasted" car is evidence that a car experienced heat. Any attempt to infer what caused the heat, where the car was toasted, when the car was toasted, and who toasted the car are all circumstantial.

In order to make a case for these circumstantial claims, you need corroborating evidence. Ideally, you want corroborating direct evidence. If you want to prove the noise the witness heard was a bomb, you should try to locate bomb parts. You should try to locate a bomb maker. You should try to locate objects that could only have been affected by a bomb.

If you want to establish that the passport was in the possession of the hijacker on the aircraft you should locate a timed stamp from the airport in the passport. You should find witnesses who saw the hijacker in the airport. You should review video that shows the hijacker in the airport. You should produce passenger manifests that show the hijacker was aboard. You should show DNA of the hijacker from the crash site. You should play voice recordings of the hijacker from the CVR.

That is how circumstantial evidence is corroborated.

 

Circumstantial evidence can be legitimate, but it requires corroborating evidence. As was stated before, a valid motive is just one piece of the puzzle. You also need to show that the person with the motive had the opportunity, the ability, and the intent to act out this motive.

Let's pretend we're investigating a bank robbery. I think it would be agreed upon that the majority of Americans have a motive to become rich. But just because most of us have that motive, that does not mean we all stole the money from the Wells Fargo truck. We need more evidence to decide who specifically did the crime.

We could even have 3 pieces of the puzzle and still be wrong. Let's say you think I robbed the truck. You have a motive; I want to be rich. You find out I've robbed 2 trucks before in 1993. You have the ability. You find out I've been talking to friends about hitting another truck. You have the intent. But then I show I was in prison in San Francisco during the time when the crime was committed in Philly.

 

To take Fangbeer's example and apply it to 9/11,

There was an event on 9/11. The evidence of the event shows a group of 19 hijackers took over 4 planes. 3 of those planes crashed into buildings. One plane crashed in a field. The evidence also shows those hijackers were members of Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization that hates the US and everything she stands for, kind of like some people around here. Several leaders of Al Qaeda, including one in custody, have freely admitted that Al Qaeda was responsible. No evidence exists of anyone else being involved.

Some of the evidence is direct such as the photos of the hijackers getting on the plane, the ground personnel that remember the hijackers, and the calls from the flight attendants identifying the hijackers. Some of the evidence is indirect or circumstantial such as the flight classes taken by several of the hijackers. That doesn't prove they were behind 9/11, but it reinforces all the other evidence.

The case against Al Qaeda is air tight despite truther claims. The ONLY people rooting for getting Al Qaeda off the hook for 9/11 is truthers. Nobody else, INCLUDING AL QAEDA, is trying to pin 9/11 on anyone else.

You claim the government knew about the attack. To date you have not provided a single shred of evidence, direct or circumstantial, to back up that claim. Before you can go any further trying to pin 9/11 on the Jews or PNAC, you must first back up the lynchpin of your argument which is the government knew about 9/11 and, together with the PNAC, made plans on how to capitalize on that attack.

 

Jango,

These guys are doing nothing but taking you in circles. No matter how much evidence you present they will say, "Where's the evidence?".

They say they have proven this and proven that when they have proven nothing. At the same time you can show them pictures of melted sulfidated steel and they will act like blind men. Well, they are NOT BLIND. They are just dishonest.

They represent the same bunch who wanted the Iraq invasion, the same bunch who is removing people from their homes and settling in Palestinian lands against US and UN wishes. In short, they are all for Jewish hegemony. It's as simple as that.

Call them dishonest or just call them liars. It amounts to the same thing. To these people "All's fair in love and war." In other words, it doesn't matter to them HOW they get their way, only that they get it. You can not deal with these people without receiving low blows, deceit, treachery, and back stabbing. They are two faced.

THAT is why people turn against them. THAT is why "anti-semitism" appears here, there, and everywhere they go.

They PRETEND not to get it. They do. It is not that other peoples are not guilty of the same things. The difference is whether the people in question belong to a culture which institutionalizes and follows these principles as a religious code. Evil naturally comes to people. It is compounded when it receives a social seal of approval.

In the Christian churches people may sin. But teaching them to do so or that it is permitted is NOT a part of Christian dogma. People who want to trash the foundations of Christianity do not realize the social benefits that result from the social stigma that gets associated with the violation of those codes when they are publicly taught and encouraged. The social pressure that Christian ethics brings upon people to "behave" is beneficial to society in general DESPITE whatever hypocrisy survives within the physical establishments.

What is truly evil about the use of these tactics is that their effectiveness depends on the gullibility of the people they use them on or to the extent of the trust that anyone is willing to place in them. They were welcomed in Germany until their political factions betrayed Germany itself. Likewise they have prospered in the US because Americans were steeped in traditions of "justice and liberty for all". These concepts in turn were rooted in the Christian concept that all men are created in the image of God and that when man sins against man, he sins against God.

All of these concepts are foreign and antithetical to the Talmudic traditions of Jewish supremacism. As long as these people cling to these ideas they will remain fundamentally corrupt as a social order. They will prosper by their Machiavellian ethics for a while, but eventually the rot must expose itself.


We have posted page after page of evidence which implicates the Zionist involvement in the controlled demolition of the WTC towers and the subsequent wars they it resulted in. They will continue to deny it no matter what. What else can they do. As long as the media and finance remain in Jewish control they will be able to do this.

They will be able to do this so long as there are an ample supply of Goyim who will accept their bribes and cow-two to their threats. Unfortunately, there are all too many of them. I am afraid that the number of people who worship Mammon far exceed those who hate it enough to sacrifice a smidgeon of their personal comfort or security. They love the faux praises of Tinsel Town which whispers in their ears how "brave" they are for the sacrifices they make on behalf of the Great Harlot.
But very few of these heroes seem to have the sense to see how they are being used. They can trot off to work or off to war while the Chosen ones laugh all the way to the bank and they still can't see who THEY are.


Here is just one example of what I mean:

http://www.vosizneias.com/118527/2012/12/01/645-finland-finish-politician-jews-control-money-media-in-us

Here a high ranking diplomat in Finland can make a remark which is not only the simple truth, but should be obvious to everyone, only to receive a tongue lashing and an implied threat from one of the titular heads of the Holohoax industry.

Politicians in the US all the way down to the man in the street knows what the implications are of making such remarks publicly, or even privately to the wrong people.

This is the State of the Union. And it is "politically incorrect" to even say so. Worse than that, speaking the simple truth can earn one the label of "anti-semite". This means you can kiss any career hopes you may have good-by.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/10/do_jews_really_control_the_media.html

Notice how freely that Jews may call people bigots and liars. Try returning the compliment and see where it gets you.

 

Ladies and Gentleman, I give you the master race: Too gullible to see it coming.

 

The so called Jews are the ones who claim to be the master race.

Trust and gullibility are two different things. A gullible person may continue to allow himself to be subjected to abuse. A person who has vested trust in another may become incensed once he sees that his trust has been violated. Thereafter it may be difficult or impossible to reestablish.

I have a cat that I picked up as a stray. It was abused before and it still responds reflexively according to it's past experiences. One of the very bad products of the TV produced generation is the false ideas and expectations they get from it about reality. Children especially are inclined to accept these fairy tales. Even adults take their cues from it, even the poisonous aspects of it.

They may fail to realize that mistakes are not so easily remedied in the real world, that words and actions will follow them the rest of their lives. Furthermore, the people who plant these erroneous ideas in their heads will not be the ones who will suffer for them.


As ol' Bush said (or tried to say) "Fool me once............"

You are not fooling me.

Be careful about the bed you are making. You may have to sleep in it.

 

Gullible was your word. Not mine. It makes sense, if these Jews you're so afraid of really do trick you so well and so often.

 

That's what I love about Holston's anti-semite theories. He claims that they own everything in the world, but they had to pull off 9/11. I wouldn't know why, since they already have all the money and all the media. That whole post was off topic, it was talking about religion. Degrading Jewish people, calling me Jewish, despite knowing I'm not.

He makes outright accusations stating that I am dishonest, a liar, and a supporter of Jews. Then in the same breath insists he'sa Christian and upholding Gods word. How does that make sense?

Holston, I call you an anti-semite because you're an anti-semite. You hate people that are Jewish and you accuse them of things you cannot possibly prove. It was once said that Hate breeds Hate, and you are a direct product of it.

In no part of your post did you, Holston, provide any evidence that anyone other than the 19 muslims and the organization known as Al-Qaeda committed the destruction on 9/11. Try again.

 

http://ehpg.wordpress.com/israel-did-911/

According to Israeli daily Haaretz, Silverstein was such good friends with Netanyahu that he would receive a telephone call from him every single sunday.

 

If Jews really did control the world, people like holston would quietly disappear, yet there is no shortage of skinheads out there. Paranoid delusions can make people think up some really funky (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

Jesus was a Pharisee.

 

I just wanted to make a bit of a point. I am providing a link to a list of technical papers that are related to 9/11 and it's collapse. Feel free to google any and all of the papers to read up. I know you truthers aren't much for actual, phyisical proof, but these papers hold all of your answers.

I have one simple request from truthers. Since I have now provided links crushing almost every 9/11 meme throughout this thread I would like the truthers to provide something tangible. The above link holds more peer reviewed, scientifically proven documentation in regards to 9/11.

Enough BS, enough anti-semite sites, post something real. Something peer reviewed, something factual, something verifiable. No conjecture, no lies, none of the same rehashed crap. Come up with something new, or just admit your movement is a sham.

 

Haha the Jews didn't go to work meme! I love it! I was waiting for it!

 

Lowy left Israel in 1952,and there was a good reason he avoided the WTC


He was in Australia

 

Check out Operation Northwoods, it was a plan in the 1960's to start a war with Cuba by initiating fake terrorism within the United States and blaming the resulting casualties on Cuba/Soviet Union. It was approved all the way up to the Joint Chiefs of Staff but was never enacted(thank god for kennedy right?). ABC did a big article about it a while back. Point being that if they were planning that way back then why wouldn't they try it again with a more cooperative administration?

The controlled demolition is some of the weakest evidence for government knowledge or involvement, there are far more convincing articles of evidence. For instance, NORAD was running drills (Vigilant Guardian, Global Guardian and others) at the exact time of the attack simulating exactly what was going on! So I don't know what the deal is but it seems like an awful big coincidence. And what about building seven? No plane hit that building. And no other skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire before. That doesn't mean it's not possible but the NIST report wasn't even able to explain why it collapsed. It really looks like a controlled explosion (plus people inside the building said they heard explosions coming from inside the buildings) I don't know what else it could be. There's so much other evidence out there too like the plane that hit the Pentagon. Some hole right? And no wreckage? Same with flight 93? No wreckage at all? Another first.

 

Different people, different time, different administration. Because a thinktank thought of it before isn't proof a different group entirely would do something many times larger down the road.

That is incorrect. There was one drill that was simulating a small private aircraft hitting an NRO building, but that wasn't the military, nor was it part of any of the military excercises. It took Boston FAA exactly five seconds to find out if this was real or not by asking NEADS (NORAD) if this was real world or not. If these military excercises affected our response in any way, we would have found out about it by now, but every investigation has come up with the same conclusion; the excercises did nothing to hamper our response on 9/11.

Sometimes that is all something is; a coincidence.

WTC 7 didn't have a plane hit it, but two 110 story sky scrapers next to it collapsed causing both structural damage and fires that burned uncontrolled for seven hours. The fire department knew in short order that WTC 7 was probably going to collapse because it was showing signs of structural damage and the fire department was unable to fight the fires. The fire department announced to everyone that WTC 7 would probably collapse hours before it actually did.

The NIST, contrary to your claim, has come out with a report detailing the cause of the collapse. Maybe you should read it.

How about a collapse started by fire? Nobody but Jennings claimed to have heard explosions from within WTC 7 and that was long after it had been evacuated. Maybe you are talking about WTC 1 and 2, but even then the case against controlled demolition is massive. Neither tower collapsed in anything that could be described as a controlled demolition.

Wrong. There was a hole that would fit the fuselage of an airliner and damage to the walls that is consistant with wings. As for no wreckage, the wreckage at both the Pentagon and Shanksville is very well documented. Trying to pretend there was no wreckage at all is a blatant lie.

 

If this is the way the government functions, why do you know about Northwoods? If they can't keep that a secret, how could they keep the planning and operation of something like 9/11 secret?

Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian are training exercises that take place every year. Beyond that there are very few days the military isn't running a training exercise. Beyond THAT all evidence shows that there was no confusion between the exercise and the real world event.

This is a false statement. NIST explained why. What they couldn't detail was exactly how. This was more of a lack of precise measurement, than an admission that someone was wrong with their conclusion. If you build a building with only 52 elements, like a stack of playing cards it's very difficult to detail the exact failure mode and time of failure of every card in the stack. Those 52 elements each have hundreds of variables that must be tracked for the duration of the collapse in order to do so. Even with a very strong computer model, exactly modelling the collapse of a 52 card tower would be very difficult. At this time, modeling the exact collapse of a building with millions of variables would be impossible. Not knowing the exact location of a case of paper on 1 side of the tower could throw all your calculations off by enough that it would change the exact way the building collapsed. Instead, NIST determined how the collapse initiated, and they showed that once initiated, the collapse would progress.

 

Well said, truthers also bring in the pancake collapse theory. Most don't realize that once global collapse was initiated NIST was tasked with doing nothing else. Once global collapse was imminent than it didn't matter. What they do know is that explosives didn't cause any of the buildings to go down. I said before, how do explosions happening at 10 a.m. make a building drop at 5 p.m. It doesn't make sense.

 

The Northwoods documents are real and weren't discovered until many years after the fact. Those drills may be run every year but what are the odds it would happen on the exact same day replicating the exact same attack? At the very least it suggests there was someone working on the inside.

As for building seven, I don't know how anyone can look at the video footage and not think it was a controlled demolition. Not to mention the BBC report saying that building seven had collapsed while you can see it in the background still standing. But again that's one of the weaker pieces of evidence. What about the hole in the Pentagon? No where near big enough for a 757 to go through. What happened to the engines? Where are the holes from those? What about Hani Hanjour, a man who could barely fly a single engine Cessna, executing a perfect 720 degree descending corkscrew turn right into the only reinforced section of the Pentagon? What about the distinct lack of any identifiable wreckage from flight 93? And geez you want to talk about smoking guns what about PNAC? Project for a New American Century, written by the very Neocons who got into office during that time. They all but spelled it out, saying that America needed to fight and win multiple wars simultaneously. They also said that change was likely to be a slow one absent a new pearl harbor. One year later we get one and they get everything they wanted. New wars, world conquest military budget. I mean really. The 9/11 commission report was a cover up from start to finish. The government didn't even want to do an investigation they had it all figured out didn't they? It was only because of the families pushing so hard that we got any sort of investigation at all. Oh and the Afghan war was being planned a year beforehand. It's so obvious its sickening. America needed a new enemy now that communisms done with and one was provided for us. Next it'll be domestic extremists.

 

The drills run daily, so it would be more mysterious if one wasn't happening.
The holes in the Pentagon are exactly big enough.
Parts of the engines, as well as DNA from the passengers was found in the wreckage at the Pentagon.
Hani Hanjour was an accredited pilot, with time spent training for large passenger jets.

Welcome to 2007.

 

Live and let live as it were. But when the next attack comes you can bet it wasn't domestic extremists or Iran behind it. Just food for thought.

One final question. Did you know that we got involved in the Vietnam war because of an incident that never actually happened?

 

It was not even close to the scale of 9/11 either. Operation Northwoods was supposed to be a tourist plane, that could hold maybe 4-5 people, shot down in Cuban Airspace that would crash into the water. That isn't even in the same boat as murdering 3,000 people by flying passenger jets into buildings, collapsing those buildings, and causing millions of dollars of damage. The whole point of an conspiracy is to get something you want while causing minimal damage to yourself. It would make no sense to start an expensive war after doing massive, expensive damage to ourselves. I've said this before, America would have gone to war for much less. A bomb that could have been pegged on someone like '93. That would have had us enter war, something on the scale of 9/11 wasn't needed.

I want to add in regards to the NORADS running a drill. If they're running a drill that means that they are looking to defend against a particular attack by being ready for it. If your stance is that the government allowed or made 9/11 happen then training for it would make no sense, wouldn't it? The powers that be would want the country as defenseless as possible. Why is it truther ideas always work against them?

 

Here you go. That is all the possible information proving that it was a jet that hit the Pentagon you will ever need. It includes hundreds of witness statements, break downs of the pictures, and a recreation of the flight path using RADAR. There is nothing that is mind blowing about Hani's flying. It was still subpar, if you don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the plane than you can fly it however you want. He didn't, so he flew it like a stole it. Which he did as well.