http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jazdG3-ZETM The piece points out several contradictory findings and things that don't fit with the "official" BS story. Please....intelligent reader. Watch the video (23 minutes) and be honest with yourself, and ask yourself if what it shows is likely to be an accurate presentation. Open minded opinions welcome.
There are a lot of quotes I don't remember hearing before, especially about the planes, and their appearances. Thank you for posting the video.
Why should anyone watch yet another video when all you do is run away from answering questions, RWAF. You posted what you think happened in Shanksville and ran like a little girl from all the questions you SHOULD be able to answer if your lies were true. And what do you need a video for? Why can't you just point out the "new evidence" that must have just popped up over a decade later? What? The new video just rehashes the same old bull(*)(*)(*)(*) you couldn't defend then and still can't defend now? Big surprise.
No...I do not think the moon landing was fake. Thank you for your input, your honesty about NOT checking the information I post, and for the usual sarcasm. Good day.
Thank you for your input, and NOT addressing anything raised in the video (in an any kind of respectable fashion). Acknowledged.
Why waste 23 minutes of everyone's time? Can't you make the claim and present the evidence? Oh wait. You have no evidence. You prove that time and time again. Why should I think THIS time is going to be any different?
I'm still learning things about 9/11, and the video showed me some things I didn't previously know, like quotes from eye witnesses.
It's important to know when dealing with eyewitness quotes if the were taken out of context or cut short as in "quote mining". Most truther videos do that a lot. Watch this one. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC_Not_A_Demolition and compare it to the one RWF posted then decide for yourself which one is most likely the truth.
I appreciate your concern, but these eye witness quotes didn't appear to be taken out of context. They were in regards to explosions in the basement, and the appearances of the planes themselves. I didn't buy into everything the video had to offer, so rest assured
I'm a good sport, I watched the video you posted too, even though it was way longer! Good video. Thank you for posting it, Dave. I really doubt that there were explosives placed in the buildings, but it is possible. However, how does one explain the injuries people were receiving in the basement?
OK, I broke down and started watching the videos. OMG HILARIOUS!!!! At 3:55 the video claims WTC 1 and 2 were HERMETICALLY SEALED which would prevent fuel from going down the elevator shafts. First off, NO building is hermetically sealed. The moment you put a door on it, you've lost the hermetic seal. That right there shows you the complete and utter lack of honesty, integrity and credibility of the authors of this video. At 18:48 there are more blatant lies. They claim there were "unprecidented power outages and evacuations". BULL(*)(*)(*)(*)!!!! The last time the towers were evacuated was in 1993 the last time Al Qaeda bombed the towers. Power outages were claimed by exactly one person with zero credibility who seemed to think if the power goes out, everyone just goes home and leaves everything unlocked and unguarded. They also blatantly lie about the bomb sniffing dogs being removed. Were dogs removed? Yes. Prior to 9/11 there was a heightened state of security at the towers so they brought in MORE dogs to insure no bombs got in. Three weeks prior to 9/11, the heightened state of security ended and the EXTRA dogs were removed. The two dogs normally on duty were still there. One died on 9/11. Dedication to Sirius Here is another problem with their nano thermite bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Nano thermite is not an explosive and requires direct contact with the metal so the super heated iron can cut.... down. They talk about just moving in cases near the columns and calling it good. Even high explosives have to be placed ON the steel so the pressure wave can cut the steel and even then they usually have to pre-cut the columns. The reason I wanted to watch the video, though, was to see if they used William Rodriguez as one of the "witnesses" to explosions in the basement. Why? Because he is a real piece of (*)(*)(*)(*) liar who is trying to cash in on 9/11 for personal gain. Want proof? Watch how his story changes from 9/11 until now. Wow. Not much of an explosion. In 2002, Willy R. confirms that the fuel went down the elevator shafts By 2007, the story had altered quite drastically. So as you can see from his own words, the "explosion" went from a rumble to an explosions so powerful it threw everyone around and cracked the walls. All that aside, one fact still stymies the truthers who wish to try and pretend the core of the towers were rigged to explode. 13 people survived the collapse of the North tower in stairwell B. Where were the stairwells? In the core. Did they hear explosions? Nope. Were they shredded when the explosions reached them 20 floors up in the very place the truthers claim the explosives were planted? Nope. No explosions. All they heard was the approaching collapse and the wind generated by the collapse.
It is a long video but it contains lots of information. Burning jet fuel cascading down the elevator shafts. There is so much contradictory information out there now 10 years after the fact that one really has to look at both sides and decide for themselves which seems more logical and credible. When people start talking about voice morphing and remote controlled airliners it boggles my mind how the same people can claim that the "official" story is a fairy tale and impossible to believe.
Right. I try to look at things and be as realistic as I possibly can be. As I mentioned in another thread, I do not buy into the master plots, which involve thousands of people, and lots of working parts, loose ends, and too many hands doing too many things. Things just don't work that way. No, generally, I play by a simple set of rules: KISS. I have to ask you Dave, and Patriot, and even Hannibal and Fangbeer, in your opinion, or just as a matter of fact, are there miscalculations, or errors in the official story?
In any study or endeavor there will be errors and miscalculations. That's why there isn't such a thing as an 'official story': different studies will disagree with each other about minutiae. There is, however, a generally accepted narrative. This has been tested and investigated worldwide. If there were major discrepancies, they would have been published and heralded by America's enemies (and even our allies would have had something to say).
That's also my issue with these kind of claims. If this was truly a fake terrorist attack, there would be much easier and subtler ways to achieve the same effect that what is being proposed by the likes of these videos? Why put so much explosives in several buildings and arrange the hijacking of several airliners when either alone would be sufficient? It simply makes no sense.
I'm sure there are. Since most of the people who really know exactly what happened on the planes and elsewhere are unfortunately dead. The only way to piece together what happened is to gather evidence and arrive at a conclusion based on the preponderance of the evidence. If you have read the 9/11 Commission Report, you will notice many instances where they state that they do not know for sure what happened on several points.
I am sure there are errors in the 9/11 commission report, nor do I believe the 9/11 commission report is complete. Do I believe it is wrong? No. It takes a truther to pretend that if an investigation gets any one part wrong or if it is in any way incomplete (even if they can't quantify what is missing) that this invalidates the entire report and that the polar opposite must be true. The difference between the "official story" and the "truther story" is that the official story changes as new information becomes available. The truth is the truth. Truthers, on the other hand, will continue to repeat the same proven lies or worship the same dishonest sources even when they've been proven to be lying. When you have two sides claiming to represent the truth and one is willing to change to fit the evidence while the other is unwilling to look at the evidence nor willing to alter their theories to fit the facts, it isn't that hard to figure out who is really representing the truth and who is knowingly representing the lies. This is also why I keep asking truthers for evidence instead of opinions and lies. I am more than willing to change my viewpoint based on the evidence if the evidence is real. If evidence presented itself that there were people that knew specifics about the attacks and did nothing, participated in hindering our response to the attacks, participated in the attacks themselves, or covered up for the true perpetrators of the attacks, I would be first in line demanding justice. Ten plus years later and not one shred of real evidence has presented itself.
While you didn't ask me directly, I'll weigh in one of my personal points of interest concerning 9/11: possible involvement by factions within the Pakistani ISI. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have any hard evidence they were involved, but there were decades of actions within that organization that are big red flags. Everything from their training and support of extremist factions, possible involvement in Ahmed Shah Massoud's death, religious fanaticism within their leadership ranks, involvement in the death of Daniel Pearl, and decades of giving Osama Bin Laden support, warning of impending US attacks, and even possible direct protection until his death. They have a whole laundry list of items on their ledger that I personally think warrants some serious finger pointing. I suspect it was known by the US, but was brushed under the rug for political expediency, since they kind of "needed" Pakistan in the region as an "ally". I wouldn't be surprised at all if the ISI's name was buried in many redacted portions of the Commission Report. You'll notice that the one time the US didn't give Pakistan a heads up concerning an assault on OBL was the one time they were successful. There were many attempts in the past that weren't successful that Pakistan was involved in or when the US gave them prior warning of an attempt.
I read that excerpt you posted a while back, but not the entire thing. Meant to but busy life got in the way. I'll make sure to go read the entire thing. What was the take the author had on what I was referring to (condensed version obviously). My personal opinion on this comes from reading many different books and articles on the topic over the years. The circumstances surrounding OBL's ultimate demise pretty much confirmed what I've felt for a long time.
There are errors and miscalculations in every story. We are human and our perception and perspective is limited. That does not mean we can never derive an understanding of truth or reality from the limited amount that we do perceive from our perspective. The problem with many of the arguments that you find among the conspiracy minded is that a narrative or story is not necessarily the sum of its parts. You can't simply show one piece of an argument to be false in order to inherently show an entire argument to be false. You see this tactic employed by holocaust deniers that try to show that if you can't show evidence for the remains of exactly 6 million Jews then the holocaust never happened. You see this tactic employed by moon landing deniers who claim that if a shadow isn't where they expect it to be then the entire moon landing was a hoax. And you see this tactic here when truthers claim things like not enough pictures of debris in PA means that the plane was shot down with space lasers.
Okay then. The consensus is that there are errors in the 9/11 Commission Report then. I'm curious as to what they are. And also, to find a copy of a non-edited version of it. And, thank you for everyone's response, I appreciate you all taking the time to address the question I directly posed to you, as well, thanks to you NAB
The report is in the public domain. It is not that hard to find. Nor is FEMA's report, the NIST report, the Purdue study, the MIT study, Bazant's paper, Urich's paper, and myriad other reviewed scholarly articles that detail the events that took place that day.
I won't say if it's got errors or not, but at the very least, the report is undersubstantiated, somewhat speculative and filled with ommissions. Some 9/11 familes who attended the commission hearing expressed great irritation of the fact that their main questions weren't being answered, rather they moved on to tangential less important questions (playing softball).
