9/11 Reports 2

wage zombie wrote:

9/11 happened more than 12 years ago.  I don't think the 9/11 truth movement has been effective because I don't see the results.

What I just posted on the other page:

Quote:

New Poll Finds Most Americans Open to Alternative 9/11 Theories

is a strong indication to me of 9/11 truth moving into the mainstream.

Architects and Engineers now have over 2,000 signers to their petition. I remember five years ago when they had maybe 300. The ReThink 9/11 ad campaign was active throughout this September in twelve major cities. That's never happened before. There is a massive billboard on Times Square still today informing New Yorkers about building 7. More people now know that a third building collapsed to the ground that day. Babblers know because some of us have been shouting about it for a while. But the majority of North Americans didn't know about it.

So everywhere I look I see growth in the movement, but the growth has maybe been more in mainstream terms, which is less dramatic but a good sign, in my opinion.

Quote:

An 18 year old today was 6 when 9/11 happened.  That is the demographic that you need to win over, and you haven't.

I don't agree. Most youngsters I know are far more sympathetic to 9/11 truth than crotchety old 40+ somethings , who have far more intellectual bias baggage to overcome than younger people do. I don't see it as a demographic to win over, since they're growing up with 9/11 truth. They understand propaganda is a major feature of civil life.

Russia Today Declares 9/11 Was An Inside Job! (and vid)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ugCIjzHptA

'911 and Operation Gladio'

jas wrote:

I don't agree. Most youngsters I know are far more sympathetic to 9/11 truth than crotchety old 40+ somethings , who have far more intellectual bias baggage to overcome than younger people do.

Right. I have yet to convince my Dad who is in his 80's that 9/11 was an inside job.

It doesn't matter what compelling evidence I present to him. It's a cultural thing where he can't believe western governments could ever betray their citizens.

And he's a transplanted Canadian (U.S. citizen)!

He visited ground zero a few weeks after 9/11. That was his proof that the official story must be true.

mmphosis wrote:

 

I appreciate you sharing.

This is a very difficult topic, often emotionally charged, and I think that we need to make room for our feelings and others's feelings.  I don't try to convince anyone about anything.  I simply bring things up, ask questions, and encourage others to ask questions. 

Yes it is important to be gentle with some people as you say, because they have a lot of emotions and feelings invested in their beliefs. Attacking the official story is often felt as an attack on them personally.

Quote:

Did you know a third tower fell on 9/11?

Yes. I recently asked my father this question (I made sure I ask him live on the phone to catch his immediate response) and he admitted he did not know about it.

After I began to present all kinds of evidence about WTC7, he agreed that it likely was brought down by controlled demolition.
I thought I was finally getting somewhere with him.

Sadly a few e-mails later he told me he wasn't convinced that WTC7 even existed!

Ironically, my father is a civil engineer and was in the construction industry as a general contractor.

9/11 After 13 Years  -  by Paul Craig Roberts

http://dissidentvoice.org/2014/09/911-after-13-years/

"For thirteen years a new generation of Americans has been born into the 9/11 myth that has been used to create the American warfare/police state..."

jas wrote:

Former airline attendant writes novel depicting what she thinks likely happened with 9/11 flights; picks apart the many anomalies and breaches of airline and flight protocols that day:

Rebekah Roth interview (starts part way through)

 

Apparently "they" did it:

“…Because they have been such a trusted ally of our nation, they have infiltrated our media, the Federal Reserve, the banking system and they control most of the lobbyists that manipulate far too many of our politicians. They also control most of the campaign contributions as well as both political parties…their complete control over the media is going to be very problematic for us.”

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/01/31/airline911/

jas wrote:

 

And what search terms did you use to end up at Veterans Today? Any search of her name first leads to her website. So you must have gone quite a bit out of your way.

 

It was on the first page:

https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=x5wHVYCFO4jQ-APi5oDoBA&gws_rd=ssl#q=...

I like the "written as a novel" ( and subsequently sold as fiction on Amazon ) blurb on her website.

That's not going to fool us here on the top floor of NWO towers.

Twirls Mustache

Oh, I'm here every day, I just never log in or comment.

This book was only worthy of comment because the marketing is extra funny.

Oh yea, no doubt it will work as a marketing ploy, picking up both the target truther audience and the casual reader looking for something interesting to read in the airport. It makes her pretty much impossible to cite as a researcher though, it would be like citing Pirates of the Caribbean in discussions about piracy.

That video runs close to two hours and the makers can't even be arsed to provide a transcript.

I can read way faster than I can watch a talking head

I'm acctually surprised that babble, as a progressive site allows the posting of videos without transcribtions as many people have video access issues which makes it an ableism issue.

An answer to Rev Pesky from this thread.

Floor failure in the Twin Towers was not, in the end, considered to be the collapse mechanism. Indeed, according to the NIST reports, the collapse depended on the strength of the floors initially to pull the perimeter columns in. NIST, in their 10,000-page report, doesn't go on to explain how the collapse progresses but the most widely distributed theory, incredibly enough, is that the top part of the building crushed down the rest of the building, column on column.

Personally, I think if you have to come up with a semi-believable gravitational collapse model that could maybe fool some children, pancaking floors is the better theory. But according to Kevin Ryan (and this is new information for me) that was ruled out by the Weidlinger report commissioned by Silverstein, as it would have pointed to design failure, thus dashing Silverstein's insurance claims for two separate collapse/terrorist events. The NIST reports (same people as the FEMA reports but completely different theories) dutifully complied with this mandate, and rejected floor failure as a theory, ultimately making their job of explaining that much harder.

Interesting presentation about how the WTC investigations evolved from ASCE to FEMA to NIST, mostly using the same players. It's from 2006, so much of the specific criticisms of NIST will be familiar to some, but I hadn't seen this particular presentation before.

Kevin Ryan: "A New Standard for Deception"

Except Chomsky is wong in this, he says its just a distraction. He doesn't like it because it takes away from other (problems he feels) are more pressing. Though I believe this to be an important event, that is CLEARLY bullshit. Whatever you MAY believe it certainly is not what the official report says. And It is very rare to just offshore and scrap all evidence when any other crime scene is scanned and catalogued for even dog shit. 9/11 doesn't pass the eye test or the sniff test. Too much BS on this one and I really can't understand people believeing the 'official' story. This isn't tin foil hat stuff. I am an expert on metals as I am a welder and metalurgist. So as an expert(as you put it) it doesn't hold water that the buildings collapsed from fire as the official report sites.

please watch what a building that is rigged to collpase looks like, even when it is designed to fall on its footprint.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDuUR7l3bgc

Well thanks for just ignoring 95% of the post. So Chomsky will ignore the many many experts that find the results in question, while a few other experts say it is plausible. Seems legit. You know the warren comission only found one bullet, but we now know there was more than one. Even if you want to say Oswald did it, one has to acknowledge it is not like how the official report describes it, much like 9/11.

jas wrote:

Chomsky's statement at the same event (around 03:40 of that video) that anyone who's ever been involved in political activism "knows" that it is a "risk-free activity" is bizarre however, and should give pause to anyone who uncritically accepts anything he says.

I understand this part of Chomsky's statement quite differently than you do. He isn't saying that political activism is risk free, since he himself was arrested multiple times for being an activist against the Vietnam war. He is saying that making a fuss about the details of the collapse of these buildings is risk free because nobody other than the activists cares, particularly the authorities who would be inclined to crack down on some more threatening form of activism such as the Occupy movement, or anti-fracking protests.

Mark Crispin Miller on the silence of the Left on 9/11 and other topics, and the collaboration of "left" and alternative media in placing barriers around discussion.

"The charge of 'conspiracy theory' is a kind of descendent of red-baiting..."

https://youtu.be/gfZrpSPy-ew

Cheney Waits Until Last Minute Again To Buy Sept. 11 Gifts

http://www.theonion.com/article/cheney-waits-until-last-minute-again-to-...

9/11 Fourteen Years Later  -  by Paul Craig Roberts (and vid)

http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/09/911-fourteen-years-later/

"Millions of refugees from Washington's wars are currently over-running Europe. Washington's 14-year and ongoing slaughter of Muslims and destruction of their countries are war crimes for which the US government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory was the catalyst."

'Incontrovertible' : New 9/11 Documentary By Tony Rooke (and vid)

http://www.incontrovertible911evidence.co.uk

jas wrote:

An answer to Rev Pesky from this thread.

Floor failure in the Twin Towers was not, in the end, considered to be the collapse mechanism. Indeed, according to the NIST reports, the collapse depended on the strength of the floors initially to pull the perimeter columns in. NIST, in their 10,000-page report, doesn't go on to explain how the collapse progresses but the most widely distributed theory, incredibly enough, is that the top part of the building crushed down the rest of the building, column on column.

There's plenty of video of both towers collapsing, and they both begin to collapse at the point the airplanes entered the building. That would have been the floors most damaged by the aircraft entering and exploding. The south tower collapsed first, even though it was hit some 18 minutes after the north tower. When the aircraft hit the south tower, it hit on a corner, and that is the point where the collapse begins. There is even a tilt of the tower at that point.

The north didn't collapse until somewhat later, but again, the collapse began on the floor where the aircraft entered the building. Floors, actually, because the aircraft is more than a single floor high. While the south tower collapse began with a tilt (because a corner of the tower was most severely damaged), the north tower went straight down. What made the north tower collapse look so much like an explosion was the floors pancaking, and causing a rush of air and smoke to the outside.

If the aircraft crashing into the buildings didn't cause the buildings to collapse, it was the most incredible coincidence in the history of the universe. If, as some believe, there were charges placed into the buildings before the crashes, one can only wonder at the superb flying skills of the pilots, who apparently manually flew the aricraft into exactly the spots on the buildings where those charges were placed. If they had missed, or if the charges had been placed on some other floors, the results of that would have been obvious.

Part of the reason I believe the individual floors couldn't hold the weight of the floors above is because I listened to an interview with one of the architects, after the fact. Of course he was asked the question about the WTC being able to 'withstand the force of a 747 crashing into it'. His reply was that he stood by that assessment, but that they hadn't counted on the fire caused by the airplane fuel. And that's when he mentioned about the floors being hung from the external structure, so as to provide the 'open flooring' that was becoming the thing in office buildings.

So perhaps he was lying, but the evidencce of the video doesn't lie. Two airplanes hit two buildings. One hit directly on, in fact almost perfectly in the center of the building, and the other came in on a descending curve, and entered the building across one of the corners. That building started to collapse on that corner, and the other building, while standing a bit longer, also collapsed, starting on the floor(s) where the aircraft hit.

Many people have spent much time and money ignoring that evidence. But that's their fault, not mine. 

And then there's the anthrax. Was that a part of the plan, or was that a coincidence?

Oh for goodness sakes
Hard to believe folks are still pedalling this nonsense