9/11, WTC 7, and stuff

Miscellaneous General
101

Daniel Muffinburg wrote: “OBF, Our arguement is whether airplanes hit the towers; thus, the videos being faked to show airplanes.”

Why would you assume we are arguing? I have no intention of arguing with you or anyone else here. I am not here to “change your mind”. What you believe about 9/11 is your responsibility alone, no differently from your beliefs about economic theory.

Is an arguement what you want? [If so please look elsewhere].

Daniel Muffinburg wrote:" Where are the witnesses that claim that no airplane hit the second tower? With regards to the second strike, there must have been hundreds on people looking at the towers from buildings that were facing the towers when the second projectile hit (unless you’re arguing that no projectile hit the second towers).

Why would you believe non cross-examined non- in-depth-background-investigated alleged witnesses who support the governments story? Aren’t you thereby already employing a pro-government story evidentiary review bias?

Do you believe that such a pre- bias is in any way a useful investigative methodology? If so, why?

Daniel Muffinburg wrote: " Where are the witnesses that claim that no airplane hit the second tower?"

Why haven’t you checked yet to see if such witnesses exist [ they do]. Why do you need me to provide links for you?

If you found some that claimed “no airplane hit” [or if I bothered to provide links to such individuals for you], would you even believe their testimony?

Or, would you simply say that you know fror a fact that there “had” to be planes,[because “everyone knows” there were] so those persons are either genuinely mistaken, or they are untrustworthy liars?

Last question : no offense intended, but why would you you assume that I would want to even “argue” [or even politely discuss] with a person so badly informed and so lacking in motivation to become informed that they have not even checked to see if there are some, or possibly many people who claim that they saw no plane hit WTC2?

What would be my benefit here, my gain, as you see it? [i.e. What’s in it for me?]

Regards onebornfree.

102

Maynard, whatever it was, I missed your comment. You need to clearly, directly quote me[ or whomever] so I know who you are replying to. Or you can simply ignore me from now on, seeing as how the self appointed commander in chief here suggests that I should be "excluded " from serious consideration because of my “mysterious” swooping in etc. :slight_smile: .

In other words my comments are deemed invalid because I don’t post here often enough - not sure I see any logic in that train of thought, but it is definitely worth a chuckle or two. [ Personally speaking , I would be inclined to take someone/anyones opinion here about what “really happened” on 9/11, or about anything else, and who regularly employed such “deductive logic” /" reasoning" with a straight face, with a huge grain of salt .]

Regards, onebornfree.

103

The logic is obvious. By offering up an extraordinary hypothesis, you make the discussion far more complicated and incredible. The fact that you dont often post on other topics suggests that you arent interested in those topics, so you appear to be a single-issue incredible hypothesis advocate. Now, heres the thing. If you really were a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who was trying to determine the truth and raise awareness, you would be conscious of your affect on the discussion. This isnt an extraordinary assertion, your own hypothesis refers to disinformation so you cannot play innocent. But then you already said you werent here to convince anyone of anything, so you must be here for something else. Sowing disinformation and confusion perhaps?

whether you are a disinfo troll or simply confused, I dont know. But you have to be really REALLY confused not to understand why people might think you were a disinfo troll.

104

I guess that would all depend on whether I had assumed that I was dealing with rational, intelligent, thinking individuals, or not, now, wouldn’t it?

Are you also claiming that it is somehow logical to deliberately dismiss an opinion because a person does not post often enough, or on not enough subjects?

Enquiring minds want to know! :slight_smile:

Regards, onebornfree.

105

Its logical to form opinions on people based on their actions, i.e. demonstrated preferences. You would know that if you got into a few economics discussions. As to what assumptions you had or had not made about your audience, well, you should know better than to assume things like that on the internet. What is your purpose for coming to this forum?

106

Clayton:

Valuable post. Thank you. I apologize for quasi-derailing your thread. Back to finding 9/11 truth:

I watched an unhealthy amount of footage last night on YouTube. It occurred to me that the explosion of the plane flying into the Pentagon was minuscule compared to the enormous balls of flame that erupted from the WTC crashes. As far as I know, this hasn’t been brought up in any discussion. Is there a way to explain the discrepancy that would fit in the official story?

107

I finally got around to reading that article.

Interesting bits:

  • They couldn’t go to war without permission.

Undermines the official reason behind pretty much any war since the discovery of the new world. Of particular import are the US Civil War and WWII. For example, what if Pearl Harbor was the 9/11 that TPTB devised to get their subjects to accept war? Mind you, the Emperor of Japan is a member of the order.

  • Non-royals could not be a member of another order.

No loyalty to anyone else. But it makes you wonder of other order/societies and their members. For example, Skull & Bones also requires exclusive loyalty and portrayed as pretty high up the food chain, but maybe because it is not the ultimate order, the Bushes are used as fall guys because it diverts attention from the OOTGF.

  • The order itself.

It’s ancap.

Does anyone know what this means: “at each chapter the deeds of each knight were held in review, and punishments and admonitions were dealt out to offenders”?

Lastly: Noooooooooo!

108

Nice!

I’ve posted this before but I think it’s a good “wedge” to help get a toehold of doubt in the minds of “true believers” in the official 9/11 story:

If I recall it rightly no plane flew into building 7, yet the building imploded?!

What’s the official excuse that it did implode that way?

109

Fire! LOL, no seriously: uncontrolled fires leading to “thermal expansion” of floor joists, which led to shearing of the support bolts on all 24 columns in near simultaneity (milliseconds), and which then somehow led to the symmetrical, straight-down collapse seen in the video.

Clayton -

110

Also, I noticed that the 5-minute 9/11 video (thx James Corbett of the Corbett Report) was not linked in this thread:

Clayton -

111

Wouldn’t a building as wide as that fall more or less into its own footprint?

112

Well, the outer walls should tend to fall outward because there is no resistance in that direction, but there is resistance in the other direction. Of course, the outer walls are also attached to the floors and inner walls (and, thus, support columns) so you could argue that the internal structure could “pull the walls in with it”. However, it can’t do this in every direction at once - if the building is collapsing towards the West, it might pull the Eastern outer wall in and push the Western outer wall out. In the case of WTC7, all four walls are pulled in. Such an event is impossible without demolition, or at least, astronomically improbable. And this is precisely why a person would want to look at the NIST model of the WTC7 collapse. If you can change any one of the model parameters by an infinitesimal amount and get a completely different collapse, then that would be evidence that NIST had fine-tuned the collapse model until they got the desired, astronomically improbable result.

But the NIST model is classified because, as James Corbett notes, releasing it would Jeopardize Public Safety.

Clayton -

113

The wtc 7 collapse footage was all faked [i.e.prefabricated on computers prior to 9/11]. Therefor it is impossible to glean anything useful about its demolition from any of the videos that purportedly show that event .

WTC 7’s demolition could even have occurred before those of WTC1 or 2 or other WTC complex buildings [9 in total], but it is impossible to know for sure.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4Vrsjs_cLg

Regards, onebornfree

114

Wow, lots of information here. I’ve been completely unaware the level of skepticism folks have leveled at the 9/11 events. I’ve never given it much thought either way, but have never really considered the skeptics case. I watched several of the video’s and wasn’t very impressed. I am impressed at the depth of analysis in some of the arguments presented, but they are not fully convincing.

I was particularly intrigued by the September Clues video. Most of the evidence I could write off as coincidence or propose a reasonable explanation for but it did raise a few questions and pose some intriguing bits of info. However, I was mostly left with confusion about their argument for what they believe really happened. It’s clear they are arguing that no planes hit the towers, but it wasn’t made clear if they are claiming JASSM Missiles hit the towers or that nothing at all hit the towers and they just blew up from inside.

115

Orthogonal said: “I was particularly intrigued by the September Clues video. Most of the evidence I could write off as coincidence or propose a reasonable explanation for but it did raise a few questions and pose some intriguing bits of info. However, I was mostly left with confusion about their argument for what they believe really happened. It’s clear they are arguing that no planes hit the towers, but it wasn’t made clear if they are claiming JASSM Missiles hit the towers or that nothing at all hit the towers and they just blew up from inside.”

Although I am not an “official” representative of either “September Clues” or of its author/creator, Simon Shack, I have spoken with both him and his partner Hoi Polloi via Skype and email and on various message boards, and have followed Mr Shacks research since around 2008 on a daily basis. so I consider myself fairly conversant with his 9/11 research to date.

My present understanding of his position is that because all of the original so-called “live” MSM footage of the plane strikes [i.e. the various MSM network “live feeds”] is demonstrably false/not live, and was instead 100% digitally pre-fabricated computer generated simulations that were then deliberately broadcast on 9/11 as live footage [including, but not limited to,both of the plane strikes themselves and the resultant impact “explosions”], it is impossible to know for sure whether or not missiles or planes were really used, whether or not actual impact explosions ever actually occurred [the ones seen in the videos are all faked, digitally created,Hollywood-style explosions], or whether or not actual impact/penetration holes [or even the fires] ever actually existed in the real 9/11 world, pre-demolition.

In his “September Clues” presentation he is merely raising the possibility for consideration that missiles might have been deployed , but he does not [and cannot ] know for sure at this point in time, and freely admits to this. He has even thought about doing an updated “September Clues” with the entire missile strike hypothesis removed.

So Simon Shack would himself tell you that he does not know for sure if anything actually hit the towers in the real world.

All he [and I] know for sure is that the footage showing both plane strike events and resultant impact explosions was faked on computers and then broadcast on 9/11 as live footage; real planes may or may not have been in the NYC area, and missiles may or may not have been deployed; because the MSM footage showing those events is fake, it is impossible to know for sure, and it is a minor point in any case.

[And of course, we know for certain that the WTC complex was there on the morning of 9/11, but by the end of that day had ceased to exist/been deliberately demolished.]

The main point he is trying to make us aware of is that the media knowingly broadcast 100% digitally faked "live " footage for 102 minutes on 09/11/01 [i.e. of plane strikes and of WTC buildings collapsing].

Regards, onebornfree.

116

So what do you folks think of the recent find of landing gear from one of the Boeing planes found between some buildings in lower manhatten?

http://news.yahoo.com/part-9-11-planes-landing-gear-found-nyc-211517007.html

117

"

“WTC “Boeing landing gear”: Lamest planted evidence ever?”

Regards, onebornfree

118

See also: " NY police claim to have found part of landing gear from 9/11"

regards, onebornfree.