Dirty details of the fraud that was 911

Discussion in '9/11' started by RtWngaFraud, Aug 25, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,665
    Likes Received:
    3,702
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That doesn't answer the question.

    The link that you promoted as "intricate details and irregularities" asserts that no planes were used in the attack. Do you believe that is a factual statement?
     
  2. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nothing but silence from 'Fraud. The embarrassment must be crippling.
     
  3. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0


    By your own admission, you're a "no-planer". You opinion in this conversation no longer matters because you lack the ability to deal with facts, evidence and reality.
     
  4. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why would I be embarrassed for not stepping into your controlled lair, boss?
     
  5. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You link to 'no plane' sites and cower when it's pointed out. Gotta be embarrassing, little boy.
     
  6. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <yawn>..
    Okay...thanks, boss.
     
  7. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're welcome, Child.
     
  8. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, again, cite your best single piece of evidence of 9/11 being an "inside job".
     
  9. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Building 7. Slam dunk.
     
  10. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh so VERY wrong.....You can't even cite ANY evidence on building 7
     
  11. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    <yawn>
    Yeah, okay.
     
  12. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Nope,no fake yawning either...you have NO evidence that doesn't invole your or someone elses perception of events on 9/11.

    Period.
     
  13. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0

    This is a little off track but, forgive me, if you would. I'm curious. The assassination of JFK..was that Oswald, one gun, alone in your opinion?
     
  14. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unless you can positively prove otherwise.

    It's only been 50 years....
     
  15. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So the damage caused by the debris from the North tower had nothing to do with it, right?
     
  16. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The video in the OP is so full of lies, errors and junk it is amazing that people still cite it. And when someone mentions Building 7 I just can't help but laugh in their face.

    So for conspiracy nuts here is what is real.

    Kennedy was killed by Oswald with one gun, no other shooter

    The United States landed men on the Moon

    AIDS is a naturally mutated virus that likely jumped from monkeys to people and spread wildly through sexual contact and shared drug needles.

    Oklahoma City Bombing was the result of a confused man being manipulated by anti-government cowards into doing something stupid

    There are no UFOs flying around making crop circles, abducting people nor did the build the pyramids of Puma Puku.

    and yes, a group of Muslim extremists plotted and carried out a tragic event on 9-11, using planes as missiles and taking advantage of the freedom that we have to hit a soft target.

    These are facts that no one has shown credible evidence to dispute.
     
  17. SMDBill

    SMDBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    83
    There's no way debris hitting one or two sides externally could bring the building down symmetrically and in near perfect free fall.

    We also need to recognize there is a group of over 2,000 architects and engineers who all believe the story from NIST to be untrue and the science behind it to be faulty. It's not a few people believing a conspiracy theory when thousands of people, experts in their fields, object to the evidence and provide their own to support what they believe happened.
     
  18. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    it didn't fall symmetrically or in 'near free fall',and there are FAR more who support the report from the NIST.
     
  19. SMDBill

    SMDBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    83
    It didn't? That first kink at the top left in the video of it, followed by it falling into its own footprint. Is there a scientific organization banded together in support of the NIST report? Regular people believing the NIST report was really the intent anyway, so that would be logical that far more support it. I just tend to think something further exists when so many experts in their fields believe evidence suggests something not in the NIST report is the truth.

    The biggest problem is what it takes to make a building fall into its own footprint. None of those things happened as a natural part of the other towers falling and the pressures or other effects damaging WTC7 in such a way.
     
  20. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It did NOT 'fall into it's own footprint......And the suppport given to the NIST report came from the engineers .architects,etecetera putting their NAME on it.
    NOT just one whose primary goal is to make money
     
  21. LogicallyYours

    LogicallyYours New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2013
    Messages:
    2,233
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Debris didn't just hit WTC, it scoop out the SW corner of the building starting at the 1th floor.

    The NIST report isn't a story, it's a report supported by the facts. What you believe IS a story because you lack the facts and the science to prove you postion.
     
  22. SMDBill

    SMDBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    83
    What I do understand is how to listen to experts when they speak, beyond those with a direct interest for the government. I've been in government service most of my adult life either as a military member or civilian, so I'm not dreaming up reasons for disbelieving everything we're told. What we get on TV is often different than what is real and it's odd when people act as though others are less intelligent because they don't just believe at face value everything presented by the government. When a body of engineers and scientists get together because they all dispute the claims of what really happened, it's worth considering their pool of expertise may be larger than the pool of expertise used to compile a government investigation or report. Further, we often hear about the political influence that makes its way into investigation in many ways, which could be by limiting funding for the investigation, such as this one, or for other reasons.

    It's not implausible that the truth isn't what was reported, but it's quite easy to stand on it as gospel and accuse others of not understanding. That's, after all, the side the government wants you to take.

    If you have evidence of any other structures failing under similar circumstances (fire, damage to a portion of the building, etc.) completely falling nearly symmetrically, it would be interesting to see it. Experts in demolition, and without government affiliation, have reviewed WTC7 and refuted the NIST claims over and over.

    Extensive scientific investigation, in video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xif0jIT_ZM Somewhere just before the 11:00 mark is where the NIST reviewer states that WTC7 came down due to normal office furniture fire, not from fuel oils or other materials. That's probably the biggest clue in the entire claim since the fire would be far too cool to burn through steel, especially all steel support beams simultaneously (roughly) sufficient to bring it down nearly symmetrically.
     
  23. Karma Mechanic

    Karma Mechanic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    8,054
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Except you are ignoring the vast majority of real experts that are saying that NIST was mostly correct.

    No you appear to want to appear important here, with special knowledge...

    And this is the truther creed with a twist. I will not question Richard Gage's intelligence, I will out and out call him a liar. He is a pathetically incompetent man who wants to seem important and expert, but truly what gives him the expertise? I mean his supporters are less than credible: http://lies-of-the-truth-movement.blogspot.com/2010/10/richard-gages-structural-engineers.html


    See above.

    Show your work

    Just because something could be, doesn't mean it is. When every piece of so-called evidence that the truthers produce is nonsense I think we can take a lot of what the government said as fact.

    Find me a building with the same structure that another building fell on and we can talk.

    That is simply not true.


    And more of the creed. NO ONE SAYS THAT THE STEEL WAS BURNED THROUGH WHATEVER THE HELL THAT MEANS.

    Fire, structural damage and the design of the building all contributed to its' collapse. If you have other evidence please post it.
     
  24. SMDBill

    SMDBill Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,715
    Likes Received:
    260
    Trophy Points:
    83
    First, I have no desire to appear important. I know where I work and what I have seen that drives my perspective. Whatever you choose to believe is fine with me.

    I'm not scouring the web for even more sources to provide you with sufficient information to just refute with "not it's not" gibberish. The A&E group consists of thousands of people who agree, suggesting the experts know something you do not. They're independent and not at all guided by politics. Your decision to believe NIST and CNN is yours to decide, and apparently you have. But "no it's not" arguments don't do much. The experts have made posts all over the web in video and text form, but you choose to refute it as conspiracy theory. And yes, the NIST claim was in fact that fire caused the structural failure. That's fact and you only need to click the link and start at about 10:20 and watch for a couple minutes. You'll see it claimed quite clearly that it was office furniture burning that caused the failure. If you believe that, do you also believe office furniture burning actually led to the simultaneous failure of all of the supports within the building?

    Step out of the bias you're carrying toward the issue. Forget what you have been told and just look at it fresh. Think of steel structures, the size and number of beams that hold up buildings like that, then what it would take to make them all fail within milliseconds to allow what happened to actually happen. The critical thinking hat is much more challenging than watching some guy from NIST give you the answers freely, but it can also enlighten you when you listen to others as freely.

    I'm not trying to change your mind. You wish to believe all that you are presented with. But did you believe Gulf of Tonkin? WMD's? Bin Laden masterminded 9/11? That ACA would let you keep your plan and save on average $2500? The lies we get fed are almost repetitive motion, but ignoring them is a choice.
     
  25. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's what I though..."official'...all the way. Common sense be damned. Thanks for the confirmation.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Not with it suddenly imploding into itself, almost straight down, in almost free fall speed...no.
     

Share This Page