"100 Critical Points About 9/11 "

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rroval

Member
Came across this article:

http://truthfulmedia.wordpress.com/2013/04/22/100-critical-points-about-911/

Regarding WTC7:
1. Rapid onset of collapse.
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor reported immediately before the building’s destruction (link).
3. Symmetrical “structural failure” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration (link).
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint.
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds (link).
6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional — referring to the evidently bias-free testimony of the late Danny Jowenko (link).
7. Foreknowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY – numerous announcements more than 20 minutes prior to destruction (link).
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples (link).
9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses (link).
10. Very few visible fire deformations prior to complete collapse of WTC7.
11. No evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel.
12. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed (One Meridian Plaza, First Interstate Bank).
Regarding the Twin Towers:
13. Leading hypotheses with academic endorsement include (link): explosives to initiate ROOSD (runaway open office space destruction), total explosive and controlled demolition, and/or use of nuclear fission devices.
14. While an “Explosives + ROOSD” hypothesis best explains collapse progression and debris patterns, certain anomalies of varying degree have only been explained, thus far, in part, by processes including a large quantity of additional explosives and/or nuclear fission (link).
15. Extremely rapid onset of destruction.
16. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes offset from actual collapse (link).
17. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally.
18. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking.
19. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds.
20. 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no “pancaked” floors found.
21. Rapid sequential explosive ejections with isolated ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front.
22. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame.
23. Several tons of molten metal found under both high-rises.
24. Evidence of explosives/incendiaries found in steel and dust samples (link).
25. Prominent figures including the head structural engineer for the WTC stated that the Twin Towers were over-engineered and more than capable of withstanding the resulting fires and impact of a large jetliner (link).
Regarding Flight 77:
26. Hundreds of highly-trained pilots have contended that Hani Hanjour’s training as a pilot (link) would have made him essentially incapable of his alleged flight path into the Pentagon. FBI authorities have yet to release Pentagon security footage including at least 16 video tapes and one hard drive (link) surrounding Flight AA77′s approach and collision.
27. According to the FAA memo of May 21, 2003 and other statements from relevant authorities, the US military had adequate time and resources to have defended an incoming attack on the Pentagon. However, their failure to do so might be explained by the numerous “war games” training exercises being conducted on 9/11 under the management of Vice President Dick Cheney, a former Halliburton chairman and a recent board member for the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), who had been appointed as a director of these training exercises only four months earlier (Ruppert, M. 2004. “Crossing the Rubicon”). These made it nearly impossible for the Air Force to respond and included a “live-fly” simulation drill of a commercial plane hijacking as well as “false blips” on FAA radar screens.
Regarding Flight 93:
28. The plane’s near-vertical crash into the ground created an unusual, widespread debris field that supports the probability of mid-air trauma prior to the crash. A one-ton engine part was found far from the scene that was alleged to have been due to a highly-improbable trajectory (link). Dozens of witnesses have made statements that corroborate a theory of mid-air trauma including many statements regarding jet sightings and sounds of missiles and/or explosions prior to the crash (link). In December of 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had a ‘slip-of-the-tongue’ where he clearly states Flight 93 was “shot down” in Pennsylvania (link). Private investigators were not permitted at the crash site.
29. Cell-phones are said to have been in-use on Flight 93 (link) with altitudes and conditions that would have made this virtually impossible on cell-phone technology available in 2001 (link). A relatively reasonable hypothesis suggests this may have been achieved with the use of an on-board cell phone repeater, small enough to be hidden within a piece of luggage, forwarding communications to an encrypted channel moderated by remote operatives. Any mention of the designated Arab patsies as suspected hijackers would be permitted for transmission while other conversation that might potentially threaten the desired narrative would be promptly cut-off (link).
Regarding legitimacy of the 9/11 Truth movement:
30. At least 220 senior military, intelligence, law enforcement, and government officials (link) have been willing to compromise their official reputation to demand a new investigation.
31. Hundreds of retired or active military in the United States have signed a petition for the truth movement; at least thousands more are keeping silent.
32. The expertise of nearly 2,000 qualified architects and engineers (link) have led them to express serious doubts about the official narrative surrounding WTC collapses; they are now demanding a new investigation after reviewing the compelling evidence for controlled-demolition.
33. Professional pilots with a combined flight experience of more than 200,000 hours (link), as well as thousands of medical professionals, scientists, firefighters, lawyers, political leaders, scholars, and family members of victims are among those demanding another investigation.
34. Nearly half of Americans, overall, have expressed doubts of the official Arab-terrorist conspiracy theory after being introduced to evidence presented by advocates of the 9/11 Truth movement (link). In 2008, a World Public Opinion poll of 17 countries has shown that at least one-third of surveyed citizens around the globe do not believe the official storyline (link).
35. Support for 9/11 Truth has been increasing steadily over the years which suggests that propagated media themes and confirmation bias are being gradually overcome by grassroots campaigns for an honest approach (link).
36. Trends in the recent rise of genuine skepticism and secular thought throughout Western society are similar to 9/11 Truth in that both are oppressed by authoritarian entities and social dogma.
Regarding potential motives, methods, and suspects:
37. Two months prior to 9/11, the WTC complex changed ownership for the first time in 33 years. It was acquired by Jewish Zionist and private property developer Larry Silverstein along with his long-time friend and real estate tycoon, Frank Lowy (link). Silverstein was a former chairman of the United Jewish Appeal, the largest Zionist organization dedicated to raising money and support for Israel. Lowy is a fervent Zionist and former member of the Israeli terrorist organization “Haganah” (link).
38. Silverstein acquired the WTC property from the New York Port Authority. A press release from the Port Authority on 24 July 2001 (link) tells of the privatization shift that ultimately enabled Silverstein’s acquisition of the complex. The chief lobbyist and principal force behind this privatization was Ronald S. Lauder, chairman of the New York State Research Council on Privatization. Lauder is an active member of numerous prominent Zionist organizations and has previously funded a school for the Mossad (Israeli spy agency), developing the Lauder School of Government Diplomacy and Strategy in Herzliya, Israel.
39. One of the companies in charge of security at the WTC, Securacom (later became Stratesec), had George Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, as a leading director. Bush’s distant cousin and lifetime family affiliate, Wirt Walker III (link), was its CEO. In the years prior to the attacks, Securacom also provided security for Dulles International Airport and United Airlines. During the “World Trade Center Project”, Securacom spent several years leading up to 9/11 having unrestricted access to highly-sensitive areas of the buildings. Another major security provider was Kroll Associates, led by co-owners Jules and Jeremy Kroll, COO Michael Cherkasky, and managing director Jerome Hauer — all of these men are overt Zionists from wealthy Jewish families. Cherkasky oversaw investigations of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing before being subsequently appointed to help “reorganize the World Trade Center’s security” prior to 9/11 (link).
40. Chairman of the NY Port Authority, Lewis Eisenberg, an avid Zionist and former leading member of the United Jewish Appeal, oversaw the negotiations that won Silverstein and Lowy the 99-year lease despite being outbid by a competitor, Vornado Realty Trust. According to a New York Times article from March 2001, entitled “World Trade Center Deal Remains in Doubt”, Eisenberg had “imposed a news blackout” surrounding these negotiations.
41. The WTC buildings Silverstein had purchased required a combined total of at least a billion dollars in maintenance ranging from asbestos to electric problems that Silverstein ‘lucked out’ of when they collapsed (link).
42. Silverstein was recorded as having said, when referring to WTC7, “…they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘we’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.”. The fire department commander with whom Silverstein claims he spoke, Chief Daniel Nigro, confirmed that he hadn’t spoken to Silverstein on 9/11, nor has any other member of FDNY corroborated Silverstein’s story that “pull” did not imply an order to demolish the building (link).
43. The insurance policy for the WTC complex was initially raised to 3.6 billion dollars just two months prior to the attacks but Silverstein advocated an obscure clause which enabled him to claim twice — once for each attack — totaling 7.2 billion dollars (there has been a final settlement for approximately 4.55 billion). The New York Attorney General at the time, Eliot Spitzer, another well-networked Jewish Zionist and close friend of Kroll Inc.’s COO Michael Cherkasky, became involved with Silverstein’s litigation suit against the insurance companies, even demonstrating his partiality by filing an amicus curiae brief in Silverstein’s favor on January 15, 2003 (link). Silverstein has since pursued litigation against airline insurers for an additional $12.3 billion (link).
44. According to a Sep 9, 2002 article entitled “Up In Smoke” from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu and Larry Silverstein were such great friends, even for years prior to the attacks, that “every Sunday afternoon, New York time, Netanyahu would call Silverstein. It made no difference what the subject was or where Netanyahu was, he would always call”.
45. Larry Silverstein and his children were all supposed to work in the North tower that day but, luckily, Larry had a dermatologist appointment that he couldn’t miss and both of his children were “running late for work” (link).
46. High-rise buildings not belonging to Silverstein Properties on 9/11, despite being much closer to the Twin Towers, did not manage to collapse.
47. Ordained Rabbi, Zionist and citizen of Israel, Dov Zakheim was appointed as comptroller and chief financial officer for the Pentagon during the Bush administration, from May 2001 to March 2004. Zakheim had been one of Bush’s closest advisers while he was Governor of Texas, then became his senior foreign policy adviser during the 2000 presidential campaign.
48. Rabbi Zakheim had earlier held the position of Chief Executive Officer at Systems Planning Corporation (SPC). One of the products offered by SPC is a “Flight Termination System” for remote control and flight termination of airborne test vehicles (link). For each of the attacks, the use of flight control devices appears to be a credible hypothesis (link).
49. A subsidiary of Zakheim’s SPC firm, known as Tridata Corporation, oversaw the investigation of the first World Trade Center terrorist attack in 1993 (link), which would have provided vital first-hand knowledge of the security systems and structural blueprints of the World Trade Center.
50. Zakheim holds dual Israeli-American citizenship, is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a founding member of the neoconservative movement, and co-authored a publication released by Project for a New American Century (PNAC) a year prior to 9/11 which called for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor” to foster American support for war in the Middle East.
51. One of the airline security companies responsible for the shocking security lapses on 9/11 is a wholly-owned subsidiary of an Israeli company, International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS), headed by men with clear ties to Israel’s military intelligence agency, Mossad. The owners of ICTS Huntleigh USA, Menachem Atzmon and Ezra Harel, are both Israeli Jews. Atzmon has very close and controversial ties to former Israeli PM, Ehud Olmert. Another company responsible for passenger screening for three of the four planes (UA175, UA93, AA77) was Argenbright Security. Regarding former Passenger Screening Operations Manager, Dan Boelsche, “90 percent of his [Argenbright] employees at Dulles airport were not even born in the United States; some were foreign nationals with work visas who had come to this country less than a year ago from places like Russia, Africa and the Middle East [Israel?]“. Also, in 2000, “federal prosecutors indicted Argenbright Security for supplying applicants at Philadelphia International Airport with phony high school diplomas, falsifying test scores, and lying about background checks that were never conducted” (CBS News, 2009 Feb 11). According to FBI interviews with Katherine Goudreau, a Director Project Manager with FMC Airport Systems, Argenbright Security, Inc., maintained that “a high number of the employees with security responsibilities appeared to be of Middle Eastern descent”. The only plane without screening by either Israeli-owned ICTS or Argenbright Security was Flight AA11. It had the only Israeli who died on 9/11 on-board: Daniel Lewin — a potential hijacker and Zionist martyr, and former Israeli military captain for “Sayeret Matkal”; a deep penetration unit that has been involved in assassinations and other covert operations outside of Israel (link).
52. A four-part investigative series by Fox News reporter Carl Cameron was aired in December 2001, which outlined how the Israeli-controlled company Amdocs had installed a communications system for the White House during the mid-1990s. The evidence presented in this series demonstrated, clearly, that Amdocs was spying on the White House (link).
53. An Israeli spy ring of more than 120 agents, many posing as “art students”, was discovered between March 2001 and September 11, 2001. Media coverage on the matter became stifled rapidly following the attacks, although this was almost certainly the largest spy ring ever discovered within the United States (link). At this time, all Israeli suspects and detainees were released and deported by Michael Chertoff, a Jewish Zionist who served as head of the Justice Department’s criminal division (link). Chertoff also co-authored the PATRIOT Act and was later appointed by Bush to head the Department of Homeland Security.
54. As the Towers came down on 9/11, five Israelis were witnessed ‘dancing’ near the scene. Police arrested them and found that their van tested positive for explosives, contained $4,700 cash as well as photographs of them “clearly smiling” in front of the wreckage, maps with places highlighted, and other suspicious contraband (link). The suspects claimed to be employees of a company by the name of “Urban Moving Systems”. The owner of the company, Dominick Suter, promptly fled to Israel after being questioned by the FBI (link). Despite failing lie-detector tests regarding their involvement in the attacks, all five terror suspect detainees were quietly released and deported back to Israel after their case was heard [behind closed doors] by Chief Judge Michael Mukasey — another fervent Zionist with a strong background in Orthodox Judaism, representing the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Mukasey has been a leading advocate of the PATRIOT Act and received criticism for defending the U.S. government’s waterboarding torture program (link). Three of the ‘dancing’ suspects were later interviewed on Israeli television, stating that their purpose in the United States on September 11th was “to document the event” (link). This suggests, at the very least, they had prior knowledge of the attacks.
55. In the months that followed, U.S. Authorities were reported by Fox News to have detained 60 such Israeli “movers” and “art students” in various locations throughout the country. Several leading Jewish institutions aggressively backlashed against Fox News and other media outlets that reported suspicions of Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks, and petitioned high-level officials at the White House to close down investigations of Israeli spies (link).
56. The motto of Israel’s foreign intelligence service was, until recently, “by way of deception thou shalt wage war”. This is confirmed by former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky.
Regarding the 9/11 connection to Zionism and the Iraq war:
57. As Adbusters editor Kalle Lasn has pointed out, 26 of the 50 most influential neoconservatives who induced America to wage war in Iraq are Jewish (52%). In appraising how the US was deceived to wage this war, he noted: “The point is simply that the neocons seem to have a special affinity for Israel that influences their political thinking and consequently American foreign policy in the Middle East.” Lasn was promptly attacked as “anti-Semitic” when he titled his article, “Why Won’t Anyone Say They’re Jewish?”.
58. A leading source of fabricated ‘evidence’ for Iraqi WMDs was Ahmed Chalabi (link), a long-time friend of the “godfather of neoconservatism” and adamant Zionist, Albert Wohlstetter, who later introduced Chalabi to Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. Perle and Wolfowitz became two of the foremost advocates of the Iraq War, citing Chalabi’s falsified WMD ‘evidence’ as justification for an invasion. Perle, Wohlstetter, and Wolfowitz are all secular Jews and prominent Zionists.
59. In 1982, a Zionist publication entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s” (link) made the following statement: “Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets… Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel.”
60. In 1996, a report was presented by Zionist and Iraq war advocate Richard Perle for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”. It recommended “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right”.
61. In November 1997, the Zionist-founded publication Weekly Standard ran an article entitled “Saddam Must Go” (link) that stated: “We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable”.
62. In 1998, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative group consisting of members such as Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and other prominent Zionists, published a letter to President Clinton urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein on the pretext that he was a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.”. PNAC co-founders William Kristol and Robert Kagan, both adamant Zionists of Jewish descent, co-authored the 1997 Weekly Standard article “Saddam Must Go”, above.
63. In 1999, David Wurmser, another Zionist-Jewish member of PNAC, published his book “Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein” which argued that America was failing to contain Iraq and that the US Military should be used in order to redraw the map of the Middle East. Wurmser would go on to serve as Mideast adviser to VP Dick Cheney from 2003-2007.
64. On September 15, 2001 at Camp David, four days after 9/11, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (link) suggested a US attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan because it was “doable.” In the lead-up to the war, he assured Americans that it was “wildly off the mark” to think hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to pacify a postwar Iraq; that the Iraqis “are going to welcome us as liberators”; and that “it is just wrong” to assume that the United States would have to fund the Iraq war.
65. In the year following 9/11, numerous statements and press releases aimed at distorting the public’s view of Iraq were made by prominent Zionist-Jewish figures including Senator Joe Lieberman, Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman, columnists William Safire, Eliot Cohen, David Frum, Norman Podhoretz, and Charles Krauthammer, among many others (link). Their statements appeared nationwide in well-known publications such as the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and The New York Times.
66. In a September 20, 2002 Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled “The Case for Toppling Saddam,” current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Saddam Hussein could be hiding nuclear material “in centrifuges the size of washing machines” throughout the country.
67. A Zionist of a predominantly Jewish background, Philip Zelikow, made the following candid admission to a foreign policy conference held on September 10, 2002 (link): “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 — it’s the threat against Israel.”. Despite this revealing admission, Zelikow, as a member of President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, authored the National Security Strategy of September 2002 that provided the justification for a preemptive war against Iraq.
68. Other prominent Zionists playing key roles in the progression toward war in Iraq include, but are not limited to, Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby, National Security Council member Elliot Abrams, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith.
Regarding exposure to propaganda:
69. According to a July 2006 World Public Opinion Poll, 50% of Americans believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the US invaded (link).
70. A recent poll conducted in May 2012 by YouGov (link) has shown that these widely-propagated, false notions continue resonate in the minds of the public for more than a decade after they were originally expressed. It found that 63% of Republicans, 27% of independents, and 15% of Democrats still believe Iraq had WMDs when the US invaded.
71. Public misconceptions about WMDs and other false assumptions show that most Americans are not examining their evidence critically but, rather, are acquiring the bulk of their opinions from mainstream media outlets and institutional authorities.
72. A set of comparative analyses for 2004, conducted by the organization “If Americans Knew”, led by freelance journalist Alison Weir and supported by various authoritative figures in government; reviews media coverage from major media outlets including Associated Press, The New York Times, ABC, CBS, and NBC. These studies (link) have demonstrated, quite clearly, the extreme bias in media coverage of issues pertaining to Israel. Despite the fact that since late 2000, there have been more than six times as many Palestinian deaths as Israelis (6,638 vs. 1,097) and ten times as many Palestinian children killed as Israeli children (1,516 vs. 129), these media outlets in 2004, on average, reported Israeli vs. Palestinian deaths [Israeli : Palestinian] at a ratio of [3.3 : 1] for all ages and [8.2 : 1] for children.
73. A 2006 Zogby poll has shown that, nearly five years after the attacks on 9/11, only 57% of Americans were even aware that a third skyscraper (WTC7) had collapsed (link).
74. In 1999, in an article featured in the Los Angeles Jewish Times, entitled “Yes, Virginia, Jews Do Control the Media”, the following revelation is made: “Four of the largest five entertainment giants are now run or owned by Jews. Murdoch’s News Corp (at number four) is the only gentile holdout — however Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so.”
75. In July 2012, from The Times of Israel, Jewish journalist Elad Nehorai reveals: “Let’s be honest with ourselves, here, fellow Jews. We do control the media. We’ve got so many dudes up in the executive offices in all the big movie production companies it’s almost obscene. [...] Did you know that all eight major film studios are run by Jews?”
76. Jews represent only 1.8% of the US population and 0.5% globally. Zionist Jews comprise only a fraction of these figures. This suggests that, by any reasonable measure, Western institutions are vastly, disproportionately dominated by ethnocentric Zionists.
77. Comcast/NBCUniversal is currently the largest media conglomerate in the world, led by Jewish/Zionist CEO and president Brian L. Roberts (link). The corporation’s executive vice president, David L. Cohen, is another unwavering Zionist and former vice chair of the Jewish Federations in Philadelphia.
78. The Walt Disney Company is the second-largest media conglomerate in the world and is led by Jewish Zionist Robert Iger (link). His predecessor was Michael Eisner, another well-known Zionist Jew.
79. Google, Inc. is currently the third-largest media conglomerate and is led by pro-Israeli directors from Jewish families including but not limited to Larry Page (link), CEO, and Eric Schmidt, executive chairman and former CEO.
80. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, which includes more than 800 media companies in 50 different countries, is the fourth-largest media conglomerate on the globe. Murdoch is a renowned Zionist and notorious for imposing his views within subordinate media networks (link). According to the Los Angeles Jewish Times, “Rupert is as pro-Israel as any Jew, probably more so”. Murdoch is considered “legally Jewish” as his mother, Elisabeth Joy nee Greene, was born of a (wealthy) Jewish family.
81. Viacom is the fifth-largest global media conglomerate and is run by executive chairman and former CEO Sumner Redstone, and by president and CEO Philippe Dauman (link). Both are Zionists and Jewish.
82. Time Warner is the sixth-largest media conglomerate and is led by adamant Zionist Jeffrey Bewkes, who was given a Human Relations Award in 2001 from the American Jewish Committee (link). Several of Bewkes’ most substantial and recent individual political campaign contributions have gone to Senator Chris Dodd and Rahm Emanuel (link). Dodd boasts that he has “supported substantial foreign aid for Israel” since he was first elected to the Senate in 1980. Rahm Emanuel is a former member of the Israeli military and son of an Irgun terrorist, Benjamin Emanuel.
83. Most other Western institutions including but not limited to education, law, finance, government, and other corporate entities also exhibit similar disproportionate Zionist and Jewish dominance (link).
Regarding the moral justification to conspire among ethnocentric Zionists:
84. Theistic religion has consistently allowed people to justify their immoral acts with references to perceived notions of ‘divinity’. In the case of Zionism, we have an extremist sect of Judaism (link) combined with tightly-woven networks of political and financial power. With inherently shared motives and overwhelming means, history has shown, conspiracy becomes inevitable.
85. According to Israeli professor Ehud Sprinzak: “In a thirty page study that examined all Halakhic [Jewish religious law] authorities on the subject, [Israeli rabbi David] Ben-Haim proves that according to the vast majority, the Torah, when speaking about Adam (a human being), never includes Gentiles [non-Jews] in this category. He points out that ten recognized Halakhic authorities repeatedly proposed that Gentiles are more beast than human and that they should be treated accordingly; only two authorities recognize non-Jews as full human beings created in the image of God.”
86. From renowned historian Norman Cantor: “The Talmudic [based on a certain Jewish scripture] mind is hostile to ethnic equality and to universalism. It is very anxious to enforce an ideal of communal purity. All possible contacts with Gentiles are to be avoided.”
87. ‘Baba Kamma 37b’ of the Talmud states: The gentiles are outside the protection of law and God has “exposed their money to Israel.”
88. ‘Yebamoth 98a’ states that all gentile [non-Jewish] children are animals.
89. ‘Baba Kamma 113a.’: Jews may use lies (“subterfuges”) to circumvent a Gentile.
90. ‘Sanhedrin 57a’ states: When a Jew murders a gentile (“Cuthean”), there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.
91. ‘Moed Kattan 17a’: If a Jew is tempted to do evil he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.
92. Beyond those addressed above, there are numerous explicit and implicit references in Talmudic scripture that clarify an interpretation of “gentiles” or “goyim” as second-class human beings compared to any Jew; and that gentiles may be used, however necessary, to empower Jews or fulfill a given prophecy.
93. Numerous leading figures in Zionism have advocated in favor of killing or enslaving non-Jews (link). According to an interview with Rabbi Manis Friedman in Moment Magazine’s June 2009 “Ask the Rabbis” feature: “The only way to fight a moral war is the Jewish way: destroy their holy sites. Kill men, women, and children”.
94. According to the Jewish Press, June 9, 1989, p. 56b, Israelis annually take part in a national pilgrimage to honor the grave of Simon ben Yohai, a rabbi who advocated the extermination of non-Jews. Rabbi ben Yohai has said, in Soferim 15, Rule 10: “Tob shebe goyyim harog” which translates to “even the best of the gentiles should all be killed”.
95. Rabbi Yaacov Perrin said, according to NY Daily News, Feb 28, 1994, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail”.
96. Moses Maimonides is considered the greatest codifier and philosopher in Jewish history. He has this to say about non-Jews: “Accordingly, if we see an idolater (gentile) being swept away or drowning in the river, we should not help him. If we see that his life is in danger, we should not save him.”
97. Jewish author Douglas Rushkoff outlines the threat of organized Judaism and summarizes the world-view many Jewish extremists and Zionists possess: “The thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody — to every race, to every nation, to every idea — is that we smash things that aren’t true. We don’t believe in the boundaries of nation-state, we don’t believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people. [...] In a sense, our detractors have us right in that we are a corrosive force. We’re breaking down the false gods of all nations and all people because they’re not real. And that’s very upsetting to people.”
Regarding the assumption that any criticism of this type is “antisemitic”:
98. When asked about why people are called “antisemitic” in the United States for criticizing Israel, former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni explains: “Well, it’s a trick, we always use it. When from Europe somebody is criticizing Israel, then we bring up the Holocaust. When in this country people are criticizing Israel, then they are ‘antisemitic’. And the [Jewish] organization is strong, and has a lot of money, and the ties between Israel and the American Jewish establishment are very strong. [...] Their attitude is ‘is Israel, my country right or wrong’, identification. They are not ready to hear criticism and it’s very easy to blame people who criticize certain acts of the Israeli government as ‘antisemitic’ and to bring up the Holocaust and the suffering of the Jewish people, and that is to justify everything we do to the Palestinians.”
Regarding the notion that everything is fine in America and 9/11 ‘truthers’ are crazy:
99. In a 2008 poll by the New York Times, 81% of Americans agreed that the U.S. is on the wrong track, up from 35% in early 2002 (link). This figure is likely even higher, today.
100. According to Dr. Robert Hopper, a clinical psychologist: “9/11 truth challenges the beliefs that our country protects us and keeps us safe, and that America is the ‘good guy’. When your beliefs are challenged, fear and anxiety are created. In response to that, our psychological defenses kick in and they protect us from these emotions. Denial, which is probably the most primitive psychological defense, is the one most likely to kick in when our beliefs are challenged.”




Anyone debunk all of this? Oh yeah BTW I just doubled checked the site and it appears to be a antisemitic conspiracy site.
 

Rroval

Member
Why don't you try debunking one?
Why not you debunk it? That's why I created this thread since I'm not a expert debunker (but rather I don't know how to debunk things) but rather I'm just posting "can you tell me what is this all about and can you debunk this for me?".
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
Why don't you start with offering the evidence of #17 , steel beams ejected latererly needs more explanation. I noticed that the post that came from didn't offer any evidence of that. We need to know what is means before we can discuss it.
 

Rroval

Member
Why don't you start with offering the evidence of #17 , steel beams ejected latererly needs more explanation. I noticed that the post that came from didn't offer any evidence of that. We need to know what is means before we can discuss it.
Actually I just posted a link and I thought you are supposed to debunk every single one of those claims. There isn't evidence for #17 so there I guess.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
If we were to start trying to do all 100 at once the thread would quickly become too unwieldly.

Pick One or not more than 3.

Many of those have allready been debunked and there are already threads about them. They are here, and available to anyone that is willing to read them.

You need to offer some EVIDENCE for why that point has any part of being a fact, several of them are outright misinformation. such as #23.
 

Tommy1234

New Member
#23 is misinformation? You're very confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

Re: #17:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djwBCEmHrSE

Antisemitic? What, exactly, is antisemitic about this list? Antisemitism implies an indiscriminate hatred of Jewish people. I see nothing of the sort but, rather, references to certain political and cultural affiliations within elite Jewish networks. I'd say that's a pretty major difference, especially when the author (myself) has Jewish ancestry (which I am proud of).
 

BombDr

Senior Member
I'll have a go...

2. Sounds of Explosions: My questions would be to the person making this claim would be what is their experience of explosions prior to 911? Demolition blasts (if that is what they are claiming) are not like Hollywood 'Ka-boom" sounds followed by a large fireball. The fireballs in films are flammible liquids experiencing combustion to create a visual effect. In the true techinical sense, the footage of the planes colliding with the buildings are not true explosions, but fuel combustion. Splitting hairs perhaps, but we are in the business of facts and measurable data. In any case, the claimant (Janitor?) claims the 'explosions' came from the basement which add more problems to the theory - the fist being that the building buckled exactly alomng the crease of the plane impact points, and secondly they fell from these points making the 'underground explosions' redundant. Could he have heard the elevators and other debris falling donw the shafts? Certqainly more plausible than 'controlled demolitions.

4. "Imploded into its own footprint": Please look at the 'after pictures' of all three buildings and please explain how this chaos constitutes 'its own footprint'. http://www.space.com/12867-september-11-nasa-military-space-security.html
 

BombDr

Senior Member
6. Danny Jowenko: He was asked to look at some footage on a screen and a diagram. That is not analysis and the person asking the questions asked questions that fitted with his agenda. My questions as a resonably experinced demolition expert would be:
a. How long do you imagine it would take to rig up the building for demolition?
b. Please show me your calculations.
c. If it was dones hastily after the original attack, how does one rig a burning building for demolition, and how does one move in several tonnes of explsives into a burning building with no-one noticing? Where does one get explosives at short notice? How does one get around normal traffic restrictions of transporting explosives through lower Manhattan dueing the City's biggest ever emergency?
d. How would you account for not a single piece of demolition paraphinerlia (demoliton tape, detcord, shockcord, junctions, misfired charges, detonators, fixtures, cutting charges and housings) being recovered?
e. WEhy do you think no other demolition expert in the world, active or retired agrees with your conclusions?
 

BombDr

Senior Member
7. "Foreknowledge" - Chief Nigro NYFD (unfortunate name!) already debunked this as the buildng was creaking and sagging. The BBC have already acknowledged that the report of "about to collaspe" went through several people and through a scientific process known as 'Chinese whispers' got changed to "has collapsed". The next question I would ask is if anyone things it plausible that the CIA/Mossad/Builderbergers/Shape-Shifting Lizard people would involve a Foreign news organisation such as the BBC as part of their plot?

9. "Molten Metal" - Planes are made of metal. Soft metal, usually Alluminium alloy. Im no metalurgist, but the truthers make this claim, and even back it with credentialed professionals, none of whom feel compelled to apply their massive brains and intellect to tell us what type of metal was found. Im guessing it is not the same metal that the building columns are constructed from.


10. Very few visible fire deformations prior to complete collapse of WTC7. - Apart from the Penthouse?

13 and 14: This is an area I feel most confident - If I were tasked with the demolition on one of these buildings, the planning alone would take weeks. The inner walls would need to be removed and Id need to get donw to the bare metal. The during the placing, there would need to be several weeks of preparation work in order to remove exces support beams. Then the placing of TONNES of explosive would take a very long time and Im not sure how you would sneak all those linear cutting charges in with no-one noticing. One these are placed all the connections would need to be placed. These are usually done on a 'ring-main' system to add redundacy for failed charges. These would need to be recovered and destroyed post-demolition, but in this case it was a historical first on 100% reliability of all charges and detcords, with not a single example of 'run-off'. That is when the detonation wave skips due to a too obtuse angle in the cord. So a demolition completed over several months leaving no evidence and in total secrecy?
 

BombDr

Senior Member
17. "Lateral ejections" - This is actual evidence of chaotic structural failure, rather than controlled demolition.

21. "Rapid sequential explosive ejections with isolated ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front." - It varies, but as a rule of thumb in the British Army we use 8000m/sec as the rate of detonation. I do not see anything being ejected from any windows at that rate. The other thing that the truthers never explain, even after asking several hundred times, is if we agree that the building failed where the aircraft impacted, how did they manage to develop fire-resistant charges?
 

BombDr

Senior Member
26. I have 32 hours in a cessna 152 and pretty confident I could manouvre an aircraft already in flight to the tallest buildings in Manhattan. I think Mick did a movie with a simulator? Another question to the truthers - why dont you pay for some simulator time and prove its impossibility?

27. How long do the Truthers think it takes for a modern jet to start up, even rapidly when the jet has already been 'cocked'? I know the answer but I'm not sure we ought to tell the world our reaction times. Secondly, Id like a truther to explain how to find individual airliners in the soup of returns that day, and how long they think it would take to get to them, and lacking ROE already, what they suppose the crew were supposed to do even if they miraculously could find any of the jets?

30. So what?

31. So what?

32. None of these 'experts' are demolition experts, so Im not really interested in a IT consultant's opinion about controlled demolition, in the same wahy he might not care for my opinion of Linux.

34-36: So what?

37. Those pesky Jews again... I have duel British and Israeli citizenship, so guess I could be guilty of everything that ever happened in the world - and a demolition guy too - I am a one-man false-flag operation in motion...

42. (Yawn) "Pull-it" is not demolition slang.

30-55. I cant see what possible motive the truthers would have for all these Jewish referrences... Hmmmmm

56. On US coins it says "In God we trust" and I see no evidence of god. The motto of the Royal Engineers is "Ubique" which means 'everywhere'.. Is the motto of the Mossad supposed to prove anything, as Im pretty sure every intelligence service in the world's mission is to decive their percieved enemies?
 

BombDr

Senior Member
57-68: pesky Jews again... evidence of what exactly? In fact, could anyone tell me the benefit to Israel of any of the subsequent wars in the middle east, to this day?

69. When I invaded Iraq in 2003, I ws convinced they had WMDs too, as it was my job to find them and destroy them. If the truthers consider it plausible that 3 buildings could be rigged with invisible explosives in secret, that planes could be flown by simpletons, that defences were 'stood down', that Jews failed to get into work that day, that lasers were fired from space, that thermate/thermite was used as has never historically been used before or since, that a missile was flown into the pentagon and all of this was done without a single mistake or a single plot member speaking out resulting in riches beyong imagination, (deep breath) why, FFS could the plotters not have planted a modest half-ton of Sarin gas shells in the very empty and witness-free western desert of Iraq to justify it all?
 

BombDr

Senior Member
70-100: More pesky Jews... they are EVERYWHERE... Wuh huh hu huh huh huaaaaaaaahhhhhh!....

Sorry that was all a bit rough and ready, but I got more annoyed at it as I was going through them. Happy to be refuted by anyone...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Why not you debunk it? That's why I created this thread since I'm not a expert debunker (but rather I don't know how to debunk things) but rather I'm just posting "can you tell me what is this all about and can you debunk this for me?".
Because I'm trying to teach you to fish.

What we have here is what is called a "Gish Gallop"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
What we have here is a list of VERY weak points. Either they are things that were debunked many years ago (or at the very least quite plausible explanations offered), or they are basically nonsense (such as quoting Maimondes from 800 years ago).

So it's an ideal teaching opportunity. Not for the author of the list (who is likely a "true believer"), but for the new debunker.

What would help you most? If I were to offer you terse explanations of each point, or if I were to explain to you how best to handle such a list?

Firstly, you don't try to address the entire list. In the mind of the believer, every card is an ace. Remove 50 items, and they still have a 50 item list. And without knowing which items they think are best, you waste your time. Instead, you need to focus, in great depth, on what they consider to be the best items.

If they won't pick, they you can pick ONE that best illustrates the problems with their reasoning, and then try to explain those problems.

I start with #17 "Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally." because it does indeed describe something that happened. It is evidence. The bunk here is the suggestion of what it is evidence of. How do we (you) debunk this?

There are two main ways of debunking, and it's best to use both of them.

A) Look it up on the internet
B) Figure it out

They should be done in that order, so as not to waste time. B is good mental exercise, but it's best to use A as a jumping off point. The simplest way to do A is usually to just copy and paste the question into Google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Multi-ton+steel+sections+ejected+laterally

Give A) a go. See what you find. See if you agree or not. Then follow up with a bit of B. These explanations of ejection without explosives sound reasonable. But what's the opposite case? How much explosives would it take to throw just one 6 ton girder hundreds of feet? You can even do some math, calculate the force required, then calculate the blast wave pressure, then figure out likely explosive placements and types and quantities, figure out the noise level of the explosion, figure out how the girder detached, and concoct a scenario in which this could happen. In doing all this you should be able to demonstrate it's inevitable that such ejections would happen during a explosive-less collapse, and that it's basically impossible that they were caused by explosions.

Then, when you've debunked this one point, don't move on to the next. Stop and ask yourself why this point is in the list. Why is this point on the AE911 web site? What does it say about the people making these lists? Why do they have things on the list that are bunk? What does it say about the quality of the list? Why will they not remove things when they have been debunked? Is their argument really anything more than personal incredulity? Get the author of the list to address this one point. Ask them to either remove it from the list, or to discuss why they think it should remain.

Give it a go.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
#23 is misinformation? You're very confused:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs_ogSbQFbM

Re: #17:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djwBCEmHrSE

Antisemitic? What, exactly, is antisemitic about this list? Antisemitism implies an indiscriminate hatred of Jewish people. I see nothing of the sort but, rather, references to certain political and cultural affiliations within elite Jewish networks. I'd say that's a pretty major difference, especially when the author (myself) has Jewish ancestry (which I am proud of).
So would you like to discuss #17 then? Do you think that's incontrovertible proof of explosives being used?
 

Rroval

Member
Antisemitic? What, exactly, is antisemitic about this list? Antisemitism implies an indiscriminate hatred of Jewish people. I see nothing of the sort but, rather, references to certain political and cultural affiliations within elite Jewish networks. I'd say that's a pretty major difference, especially when the author (myself) has Jewish ancestry (which I am proud of).
Well look at the site and list very carefully again and it will become very clear since it talks about the "Jews" "Zionist connections" and such.
 

Tommy1234

New Member
BombDr said:
2. Sounds of Explosions: My questions would be to the person making this claim would be what is their experience of explosions prior to 911? Demolition blasts (if that is what they are claiming) are not like Hollywood 'Ka-boom" sounds followed by a large fireball. The fireballs in films are flammible liquids experiencing combustion to create a visual effect. In the true techinical sense, the footage of the planes colliding with the buildings are not true explosions, but fuel combustion. Splitting hairs perhaps, but we are in the business of facts and measurable data. In any case, the claimant (Janitor?) claims the 'explosions' came from the basement which add more problems to the theory - the fist being that the building buckled exactly alomng the crease of the plane impact points, and secondly they fell from these points making the 'underground explosions' redundant. Could he have heard the elevators and other debris falling donw the shafts? Certqainly more plausible than 'controlled demolitions.
2. This point refers to WTC7, specifically. The witnesses we've heard describe exactly what they had witnessed in relevant detail. Former NYPD Craig Bartmer is very confident in his statement:

"And the whole time you’re hearing, ‘THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM!’ So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know?"

We have a description of an explosion from Barry Jennings that doesn't remotely fit the "natural collapse" narrative, referring to an "big explosion" that "blew us back":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlcI58BnFjM

He goes into greater detail in this extended interview, repeatedly asserting:

"I know what I heard. I heard explosions."

"When the police officer came to me, he said 'we've got reports of more explosions, so you'll have to run'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tr0TZa3WeI

In the following audio/video clip, you can hear the "shockwave" just prior to collapse that is referred to by several witnesses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPETuvLUtRM

We might even go as far as to expect there to be differences between the explosions used in a standard controlled demolition and a covert operation that is meant to be disguised. Either way, these references provide ample support for the notion that explosives were, indeed, heard prior to the collapse of WTC7.

If you're still in doubt, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtU01qcZBM

BombDr said:
4. "Imploded into its own footprint": Please look at the 'after pictures' of all three buildings and please explain how this chaos constitutes 'its own footprint'.
4. This point refers exclusively to WTC7 which fell into its own footprint, even more seamlessly than many known controlled demolitions. The Towers are discussed in later points.

BombDr said:
6. Danny Jowenko: He was asked to look at some footage on a screen and a diagram. That is not analysis and the person asking the questions asked questions that fitted with his agenda. My questions as a resonably experinced demolition expert would be:
a. How long do you imagine it would take to rig up the building for demolition?
b. Please show me your calculations.
c. If it was dones hastily after the original attack, how does one rig a burning building for demolition, and how does one move in several tonnes of explsives into a burning building with no-one noticing? Where does one get explosives at short notice? How does one get around normal traffic restrictions of transporting explosives through lower Manhattan dueing the City's biggest ever emergency?
d. How would you account for not a single piece of demolition paraphinerlia (demoliton tape, detcord, shockcord, junctions, misfired charges, detonators, fixtures, cutting charges and housings) being recovered?
e. WEhy do you think no other demolition expert in the world, active or retired agrees with your conclusions?
6. You won't be able to ask Mr. Jowenko those questions because soon after his interview on this subject, he became one of the numerous mysterious deaths of 9/11 witnesses, allegedly crashing his car into a tree. Nonetheless, with 30 years of experience in the controlled demolitions business, he is very clear about his convictions pertaining to WTC7 and later confirms his position in this phone interview:

http://archive.org/stream/DannyJowenko022207

Taken from the interview, above, Jowenko explains why many demolitions professionals may hesitate to speak out about perceptions of WTC7:

"When FEMA makes a report that it's come down by fire and you have to earn your money in the states as a controlled demolition company, and you say "no, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone, you know?"

Still, retired demolitions expert Tom Sullivan of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., explains the process by which WTC7 may have been brought down and why no explosive paraphernalia would have been found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg

The issue of transportation is easily explained by the numerous Israelis who were captured under the guise of a company called "Urban Moving Systems". As stated in point #54 of my list, their van tested positive for explosives. Some reports and police radio transmissions of when these suspects were arrested on the George Washington Bridge mention it having "a ton of explosives" and a "mural painted of an airplane diving into New York city and exploding":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VeJuiJv6Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKj6uJ5Mt4

BombDr said:
7. "Foreknowledge" - Chief Nigro NYFD (unfortunate name!) already debunked this as the buildng was creaking and sagging. The BBC have already acknowledged that the report of "about to collaspe" went through several people and through a scientific process known as 'Chinese whispers' got changed to "has collapsed". The next question I would ask is if anyone things it plausible that the CIA/Mossad/Builderbergers/Shape-Shifting Lizard people would involve a Foreign news organisation such as the BBC as part of their plot?
We might suppose this "creaking and sagging" to have been largely due to explosions that were occuring throughout the day as stated by Barry Jennings and other key witnesses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtU01qcZBM

In either case, based on the observable conditions at WTC7, there was no reasonable indication that we were about to witness the first complete and symmetrical CD-style collapse of a steel-framed high rise in history. Chief Nigro admittedly based his assessment on what he and others had previously witnessed on that same day with the Twin Towers:

"...prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse."

Thus, his evaluation was not independent of the series of events in question.

On the issue of foreknowledge contributing to the numerous early media reports of WTC7's collapse, more questions are raised. While it is possible that several media companies all mistakenly reported the same false story of a collapse that had yet to occur, this is an outstanding error worthy of investigation. If we can find a common influence among these media networks and the potential perpetrators of 9/11, we might go as far as to presume that orders to demolish WTC7 and orders to report it's collapse were given concurrently and that unexpected delays occurred in the final demolition of the building; leading to the early media reports on the BBC, Fox, and several other major networks. From the evidence outlined in my list that demonstrates the Zionist influence in Western media, I'd say this is hardly farfetched.

BombDr said:
9. "Molten Metal" - Planes are made of metal. Soft metal, usually Alluminium alloy. Im no metalurgist, but the truthers make this claim, and even back it with credentialed professionals, none of whom feel compelled to apply their massive brains and intellect to tell us what type of metal was found. Im guessing it is not the same metal that the building columns are constructed from.
Superheated aluminum appears silvery and reflective and does not remotely have the appearance of "molten metal", "molten steel", or "lava", as reported in-detail by numerous authoritative eyewitnesses.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf

BombDr said:
10. Very few visible fire deformations prior to complete collapse of WTC7. - Apart from the Penthouse?
I don't see the relevance of the penthouse to whether or not the fires were hot enough to cause a total collapse. A limited region of the building burned for a relatively short period of time, with relatively cool fires, and managed to be brought down symmetrically with the precision of a controlled demolition. This is ground-breaking and the first time such a thing has ever happened before.

BombDr said:
13 and 14: This is an area I feel most confident - If I were tasked with the demolition on one of these buildings, the planning alone would take weeks. The inner walls would need to be removed and Id need to get donw to the bare metal. The during the placing, there would need to be several weeks of preparation work in order to remove exces support beams. Then the placing of TONNES of explosive would take a very long time and Im not sure how you would sneak all those linear cutting charges in with no-one noticing. One these are placed all the connections would need to be placed. These are usually done on a 'ring-main' system to add redundacy for failed charges. These would need to be recovered and destroyed post-demolition, but in this case it was a historical first on 100% reliability of all charges and detcords, with not a single example of 'run-off'. That is when the detonation wave skips due to a too obtuse angle in the cord. So a demolition completed over several months leaving no evidence and in total secrecy?
They didn't have several months to do the job -- they had nearly a decade. Whether it be the upgraded fireproofing near the impact floors from 1995-2000, the modifications of electronic security led by Securacom known as the "World Trade Center Project" from 1996-2001, or any other operations led by Zionist-dominated companies such as Kroll Associates, they had ample time to set any necessary preparations. This is all mentioned in my list. Of course, as I'll address in my response to your rebuttal to point #21, below, they most likely would not have required tons of explosives to initiate a collapse.

As mentioned by Tom Sullivan in the link, above, detcord wouldn't be necessary and RDX would leave nothing behind. But, again, as I'll discuss below, neither of these would be required for the demolition of the Towers.

BombDr said:
17. "Lateral ejections" - This is actual evidence of chaotic structural failure, rather than controlled demolition.
It is evidence of a structural failure, that has not been adequately addressed -- not remotely -- by either NIST, Bazant, or any other questionably-honest advocates of the 'official' narrative.

BombDr said:
21. "Rapid sequential explosive ejections with isolated ejections 20–40 stories below demolition front." - It varies, but as a rule of thumb in the British Army we use 8000m/sec as the rate of detonation. I do not see anything being ejected from any windows at that rate. The other thing that the truthers never explain, even after asking several hundred times, is if we agree that the building failed where the aircraft impacted, how did they manage to develop fire-resistant charges?
They wouldn't necessarily need fire-resistant charges if the collapse was initiated by some other mechanism within or below the impact region. In the case of the Twin Towers, there is at least one method for collapse initiation that wouldn't require any explosives, whatsoever, to at least contribute to the initiation of a progressive ROOSD collapse. For example, since the fireproofing was redone on several of the impact floors and surrounding floors in both Towers during the years prior to 9/11, a substance such as ammonium perchlorate could have been combined with fireproofing to increase temperatures far beyond the point to weaken steel once an ignition had occurred:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/the-ammonium-perchlorate-theory-t87.html

At this stage, the alleged perpetrators may or may not feel the need to install an additional number of thermite-based cutter charges or other high explosives in order to ensure a complete collapse. This might explain the significant quantity of unignited red-gray chips as discovered by Jones et al.

BombDr said:
26. I have 32 hours in a cessna 152 and pretty confident I could manouvre an aircraft already in flight to the tallest buildings in Manhattan. I think Mick did a movie with a simulator? Another question to the truthers - why dont you pay for some simulator time and prove its impossibility?
Point #26 refers to Flight 77 at the Pentagon. Have another look.

BombDr said:
27. How long do the Truthers think it takes for a modern jet to start up, even rapidly when the jet has already been 'cocked'? I know the answer but I'm not sure we ought to tell the world our reaction times. Secondly, Id like a truther to explain how to find individual airliners in the soup of returns that day, and how long they think it would take to get to them, and lacking ROE already, what they suppose the crew were supposed to do even if they miraculously could find any of the jets?
Here is a better question: how does the U.S. military have more than an hour to stifle an upcoming attack on the Pentagon and completely fail to intercept a plane that was headed directly for it?

More importantly, where are the 16 video tapes and one hard drive of Pentagon security footage? Why have these not been released?

BombDr said:
30. So what?

31. So what?

32. None of these 'experts' are demolition experts, so Im not really interested in a IT consultant's opinion about controlled demolition, in the same wahy he might not care for my opinion of Linux.

34-36: So what?
30. If we find hundreds of senior military and government officials denouncing assertions made by the military and government, I fail to see how this may be regarded as 'insignificant'.

32. An IT consultant? Try again:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
I see quite a few PhD's and structural engineering degrees.

34-36. In other words, the movement for 9/11 truth isn't going to be stifled anytime soon.

BombDr said:
37. Those pesky Jews again... I have duel British and Israeli citizenship, so guess I could be guilty of everything that ever happened in the world - and a demolition guy too - I am a one-man false-flag operation in motion...
No, but if you were arrested in New York during 9/11, I would certainly regard you as suspect -- significantly more so if you had traceable ties to elite Zionist-Jewish networks.

What percentage of the US population do you suppose possesses dual Israeli-American citizenship? What percentage of these do you suppose have notable affiliations with Zionist elites in government and other leading institutions?

BombDr said:
42. (Yawn) "Pull-it" is not demolition slang.
Controlled Demolitions, Inc. would seem to disagree with you:
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/audio/cdi_pull_it.mp3

BombDr said:
30-55. I cant see what possible motive the truthers would have for all these Jewish referrences... Hmmmmm
Perhaps, it is to expose the elite Zionist-Jewish networks that disproportionately dominated almost every major institution holding a direct connection to the 9/11 attacks; including passenger screening at airports, security companies at the WTC, mass media subsequently influencing public opinion, government and political committees that shaped American support for war in Iraq, and a Mossad front-company with several suspects being caught with explosives, suspicious contraband, and later being set free and deported by the Zionist-Jewish Attorney General and Chief Judge -- after failing polygraph tests? Should we regard this as "pure coincidence" even when acknowledging that Zionist Jews represent only about 1% of the US population? By comparison, ethnic Chinese in the United States also represent about 1% of the total population; would you not find it unusual if a majority of the most significant people in American institutions with relevance to 9/11 were Chinese? At the very least, you'd find it worthy of a *very* extensive investigation (at least, I'd hope so).

There's nothing "antisemitic" about discussing these topics unless you wish to change the definition of "antisemitism" to meaning "suspicious of Israel" (as so many Zionist political figures have done). I don't hate Jews and I think it's absolutely ludicrous that one is forced to defend himself whenever addressing this sort of evidence.

"BombDr said:
56. On US coins it says "In God we trust" and I see no evidence of god. The motto of the Royal Engineers is "Ubique" which means 'everywhere'.. Is the motto of the Mossad supposed to prove anything, as Im pretty sure every intelligence service in the world's mission is to decive their percieved enemies?
When we are being lied to by Zionist-dominated institutions that have led us into trillion-dollar wars, it's pretty revealing that the Israeli secret service has a motto that states: "by way of deception, thou shalt wage war". If you don't see any implications in that, feel free to ignore this point. However, I think most people will agree that it's worth mentioning.

BombDr said:
57-68: pesky Jews again... evidence of what exactly? In fact, could anyone tell me the benefit to Israel of any of the subsequent wars in the middle east, to this day?
The most significant benefit has been the creation of instability in the Arab-dominated region with the greatest perceivable threats to Israel.

What have the American people stood to gain from any of these wars in which they've lost trillions of dollars, thousands of soldiers, and a good reputation?

No one has accused "da jooz" of anything.

BombDr said:
69. When I invaded Iraq in 2003, I ws convinced they had WMDs too, as it was my job to find them and destroy them. If the truthers consider it plausible that 3 buildings could be rigged with invisible explosives in secret, that planes could be flown by simpletons, that defences were 'stood down', that Jews failed to get into work that day, that lasers were fired from space, that thermate/thermite was used as has never historically been used before or since, that a missile was flown into the pentagon and all of this was done without a single mistake or a single plot member speaking out resulting in riches beyong imagination, (deep breath) why, FFS could the plotters not have planted a modest half-ton of Sarin gas shells in the very empty and witness-free western desert of Iraq to justify it all?
It was your job to find and destroy WMD's? What evidence were you presented to demonstrate there were such weapons present?

It should be expected that we find ridiculous theories presented by random Internet-users from around the world. We should not expect the same from our leading institutions.

BombDr said:
70-100: More pesky Jews... they are EVERYWHERE... Wuh huh hu huh huh huaaaaaaaahhhhhh!....
That's a great way to skim past even more evidence but your willful ignorance has failed to refute anything. Anyone who reads these points with an open mind will almost certainly agree.

Again, thank you for the response. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. I simply want to know the truth about these events and engaging in discussions such as these have brought me closer and closer to understanding.

I look forward to more challenges from you.


What we have here is what is called a "Gish Gallop"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
What we have here is a list of VERY weak points. Either they are things that were debunked many years ago (or at the very least quite plausible explanations offered), or they are basically nonsense (such as quoting Maimondes from 800 years ago).
These points demonstrate, clearly, that the 'official narrative' is overwhelmingly inconsistent and disregards outstanding variables. The Maimondes quote is clearly in-context of the category it is listed under. At the very least, we are in need of a far more thorough and independent investigation into these events to include a much broader range of suspects.

If something like the NIST report can be shown to be false based on the visual record, alone, it is not necessary to elaborate and spend countless hours in an attempt to refute every corresponding contribution to the evidently-false conclusions. Had I converted these points into an essay-length for each, they would be far less accessible to those who wish to simply "catch-up" on recent developments in the 9/11 truth movement (the entire purpose of my list). Nonetheless, I'm eager to defend any of them if you'd wish to help me strengthen this list for future edits by demonstrating how, exactly, any of these points are invalid.

Contending that something is a "gish gallop" and unworthy of being addressed simply on the basis that it happens to be formatted as a list is an obvious cop-out for any serious discussion. If you believe these points have been "debunked many years ago", it should be relatively simple to cite a link where this 'debunking' can be shown. Otherwise, one might suggest you appeal to an authority that does not exist.

Mick said:
Firstly, you don't try to address the entire list. In the mind of the believer, every card is an ace. Remove 50 items, and they still have a 50 item list.
Here, you express an intent for the categorical marginalization of any and all so-called "truthers" while forgetting that most of these people are simply independent investigators with varying degrees of education. The fact that some "truthers" do not follow an intellectual method while gathering evidence does not disqualify those that do.

Mick said:
And without knowing which items they think are best, you waste your time. Instead, you need to focus, in great depth, on what they consider to be the best items.
If we play the "best evidence" game, you're going to have a hard time defending something even as widely-accepted as the Holocaust. Historians admit there is no particularly outstanding piece of Holocaust evidence that withstands scrutiny but, rather, that it is a corroboration of evidence that proves the case. Do you agree, Mick?

Careful, now. You don't want to be accused of "antisemitism".

While I can't necessarily regard any particular item on my list as the "best piece of evidence" (I tried; I love too many of them), I'll give you a narrowed-down list of some significant ones from a variety of categories to refute and we'll see how many you're able to demolish, debunker-style:

Point #10
Point #13
Point #28
Points #37-40
Points #44-45
Points #53-54
Point #57
Point #67
Point #72
Point #84

There's a total of 15/100 there. Pick only a few, if you feel overwhelmed.

Mick said:
I start with #17 "Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally." because it does indeed describe something that happened. It is evidence. The bunk here is the suggestion of what it is evidence of. How do we (you) debunk this?
You might 'debunk' it by demonstrating how this observation fits into the official narrative propagated by the NIST report, Bazant, and others.

Mick said:
Then, when you've debunked this one point, don't move on to the next. Stop and ask yourself why this point is in the list. Why is this point on the AE911 web site? What does it say about the people making these lists? Why do they have things on the list that are bunk? What does it say about the quality of the list? Why will they not remove things when they have been debunked? Is their argument really anything more than personal incredulity? Get the author of the list to address this one point. Ask them to either remove it from the list, or to discuss why they think it should remain.
Other than the assumption that anything I've addressed is "bunk", there are some excellent questions and suggestions here. I should note that I'm definitely willing to edit my list if anything is demonstrated to be false or irrelevant. I may portray myself as a run-of-the-mill "truther" but I'm more than willing to admit when I'm wrong.

Mick said:
Give it a go.
Let's do this! So you know, if this thread picks up, I may not be able to address all inquiries but I will try to at least address those made by you (Mick) and BombDr whenever time permits.

Kind regards.
 

BombDr

Senior Member
2. This point refers to WTC7, specifically. The witnesses we've heard describe exactly what they had witnessed in relevant detail. Former NYPD Craig Bartmer is very confident in his statement:

"And the whole time you’re hearing, ‘THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM! THOOM!’ So, I, I think I know an explosion when I hear it, you know?"
Is that a statement or a comment to camera shortly after the event? What does he say now?

We have a description of an explosion from Barry Jennings that doesn't remotely fit the "natural collapse" narrative, referring to an "big explosion" that "blew us back":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RlcI58BnFjM
Again, what is Barry Jennings experiences of explosions? Does a loud bang constitute an explosion to him? I am unable to watch youtube videos on this PC.

He goes into greater detail in this extended interview, repeatedly asserting:

"I know what I heard. I heard explosions."

"When the police officer came to me, he said 'we've got reports of more explosions, so you'll have to run'"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Tr0TZa3WeI
Him saying it appeared to be an explosion, does not make it an explosion.

In the following audio/video clip, you can hear the "shockwave" just prior to collapse that is referred to by several witnesses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPETuvLUtRM

We might even go as far as to expect there to be differences between the explosions used in a standard controlled demolition and a covert operation that is meant to be disguised. Either way, these references provide ample support for the notion that explosives were, indeed, heard prior to the collapse of WTC7.
Not really sure how you dull the sound of an explosion, nor again, covertly or disguise one. Certainly not one of this size.

If you're still in doubt, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtU01qcZBM


4. This point refers exclusively to WTC7 which fell into its own footprint, even more seamlessly than many known controlled demolitions. The Towers are discussed in later points.
Really dont see how this is evidence of controlled demolition. Who is suggesting it should fall sideways, somersault, back-flip or indeed do anything other than fallow the path of least resistance once its structural integrity has failed?


6. You won't be able to ask Mr. Jowenko those questions because soon after his interview on this subject, he became one of the numerous mysterious deaths of 9/11 witnesses, allegedly crashing his car into a tree. Nonetheless, with 30 years of experience in the controlled demolitions business, he is very clear about his convictions pertaining to WTC7 and later confirms his position in this phone interview:

http://archive.org/stream/DannyJowenko022207

Taken from the interview, above, Jowenko explains why many demolitions professionals may hesitate to speak out about perceptions of WTC7:

"When FEMA makes a report that it's come down by fire and you have to earn your money in the states as a controlled demolition company, and you say "no, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone, you know?"
Mr Jowenko is dead, a fate that everyone will suffer - proves what exactly? He also made his assessment from the Netherlands, without anything other than a diagram and a video. He is also alone in his theory amongst explosive engineers. His assertion that no other engineers agree with him, that this is purely for economic self interest does not stop foreign engineers speaking out, nor does it stop retired explosive engineers speaking out. None have.

Still, retired demolitions expert Tom Sullivan of Controlled Demolitions, Inc., explains the process by which WTC7 may have been brought down and why no explosive paraphernalia would have been found:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg
Mr Sullivan is not a demolition expert.

The issue of transportation is easily explained by the numerous Israelis who were captured under the guise of a company called "Urban Moving Systems". As stated in point #54 of my list, their van tested positive for explosives. Some reports and police radio transmissions of when these suspects were arrested on the George Washington Bridge mention it having "a ton of explosives" and a "mural painted of an airplane diving into New York city and exploding":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VeJuiJv6Rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aKj6uJ5Mt4
Easily explained? I'm not sure you understand the tonnage of explosives required, then the time necessary to perform the task. Of course it is necessary for them to be Jews right?

We might suppose this "creaking and sagging" to have been largely due to explosions that were occuring throughout the day as stated by Barry Jennings and other key witnesses:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtU01qcZBM
That is your assertion based on your world-view. Question: Were the NYPD bomb-squad called to the scene if there were all these firemen and NYPD guys, not to mention Barry the amateur bomb-spotter? If you have already decided as fact that explosives were used, then I guess you are not interested in the report in 'Structure' magazine, which explains exactly how the building fell.

More to follow....
 

BombDr

Senior Member
A terrible illustration of the principle:


Good use of doodle. I think your reality version is the most accurate. The buildings both failed at the impact point (thereby negating the possibilty or need of explosive charges) and the energy contained by all that tonnage of building falling was never likely to fall very elegently, but this is my assetion rather than calculated examination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ColtCabana

Senior Member
#6 - Jowenko didn't believe that WTC 1 & 2 were controlled demolitions - something the CTs never want you to know. He wasn't also told of the catastrophic damage done to WTC 7 either.

#7 - It is still impossible to believe that WTC 7 was demolished without believing that either the FDNY are liars and/or "were in on it." You just can't, through implication, believe otherwise. I'll let Chief Daniel Nigro explain - https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro
 

BombDr

Senior Member
In either case, based on the observable conditions at WTC7, there was no reasonable indication that we were about to witness the first complete and symmetrical CD-style collapse of a steel-framed high rise in history. Chief Nigro admittedly based his assessment on what he and others had previously witnessed on that same day with the Twin Towers:

"...prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse."

Thus, his evaluation was not independent of the series of events in question.
There was a lot of firsts that day, none of which prove or suggest controlled demolition.

On the issue of foreknowledge contributing to the numerous early media reports of WTC7's collapse, more questions are raised. While it is possible that several media companies all mistakenly reported the same false story of a collapse that had yet to occur, this is an outstanding error worthy of investigation. If we can find a common influence among these media networks and the potential perpetrators of 9/11, we might go as far as to presume that orders to demolish WTC7 and orders to report it's collapse were given concurrently and that unexpected delays occurred in the final demolition of the building; leading to the early media reports on the BBC, Fox, and several other major networks. From the evidence outlined in my list that demonstrates the Zionist influence in Western media, I'd say this is hardly farfetched.
Jews again. Just so I know where you are coming from, please explain how Jews control the BBC.

Superheated aluminum appears silvery and reflective and does not remotely have the appearance of "molten metal", "molten steel", or "lava", as reported in-detail by numerous authoritative eyewitnesses.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf
'Appearance' is not a test. What does a metallurgist say?

I don't see the relevance of the penthouse to whether or not the fires were hot enough to cause a total collapse. A limited region of the building burned for a relatively short period of time, with relatively cool fires, and managed to be brought down symmetrically with the precision of a controlled demolition. This is ground-breaking and the first time such a thing has ever happened before.
You stated there were no serious deformations to the building prior to collapse. I respond that the Penthouse had collapsed, but that is irrelivant? Please explain. Also, please define a 'cool fire'.

They didn't have several months to do the job -- they had nearly a decade. Whether it be the upgraded fireproofing near the impact floors from 1995-2000, the modifications of electronic security led by Securacom known as the "World Trade Center Project" from 1996-2001, or any other operations led by Zionist-dominated companies such as Kroll Associates, they had ample time to set any necessary preparations. This is all mentioned in my list. Of course, as I'll address in my response to your rebuttal to point #21, below, they most likely would not have required tons of explosives to initiate a collapse.
Please define for me what you mean by Zionist, and its relevance. Please give me your demolition calculations and quantities. Please give me your charge types and composition, and how exactly you can make a building of that size collapse with a small amount of explosives AND have the charges survive the fire.

As mentioned by Tom Sullivan in the link, above, detcord wouldn't be necessary and RDX would leave nothing behind. But, again, as I'll discuss below, neither of these would be required for the demolition of the Towers.
Mr Sullivan is not a demolition expert. More to follow...
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
He is also alone in his theory amongst explosive engineers. His assertion that no other engineers agree with him, that this is purely for economic self interest does not stop foreign engineers speaking out, nor does it stop retired explosive engineers speaking out. None have.
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/332051#ixzz2Ud6uy4eR
 

BombDr

Senior Member
Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/332051#ixzz2Ud6uy4eR
I'm afraid I cannot watch videos as NATO gets a bit upset about us eating up the bandwith with youtube etc, but could you cut to the chase and tell me who the explosive experts are? Not architects, plumbers, bricklayers, photographers, dentists or civil engineers - Explosive Engineers please...
 

BombDr

Senior Member
It is evidence of a structural failure, that has not been adequately addressed -- not remotely -- by either NIST, Bazant, or any other questionably-honest advocates of the 'official' narrative.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

happy to discuss, but I;m really hoping you are not going to imply some Zionist-overlord influence.


They wouldn't necessarily need fire-resistant charges if the collapse was initiated by some other mechanism within or below the impact region. In the case of the Twin Towers, there is at least one method for collapse initiation that wouldn't require any explosives, whatsoever, to at least contribute to the initiation of a progressive ROOSD collapse. For example, since the fireproofing was redone on several of the impact floors and surrounding floors in both Towers during the years prior to 9/11, a substance such as ammonium perchlorate could have been combined with fireproofing to increase temperatures far beyond the point to weaken steel once an ignition had occurred:

http://the911forum.freeforums.org/the-ammonium-perchlorate-theory-t87.html
This would require the planes to impact exactly on those floors, and secondly there is no evidence of theramate, thermite, nano/super or fantasy-thermite. There were no beams or columns recovered with heat-induced cuts, bulk explosive shattering or linear cutting charges cuts. no chemical traces of explosives have been discovered, RDX or otherwise.

At this stage, the alleged perpetrators may or may not feel the need to install an additional number of thermite-based cutter charges or other high explosives in order to ensure a complete collapse. This might explain the significant quantity of unignited red-gray chips as discovered by Jones et al.
why is it necessary for any charges to be laid? Are the plane impacts not enough? Lets just suppose there was a conspiracy, why was it necessary to go to all that trouble and risk of being caught, rigging 3 buildings with tons of charges and connections, to drop some buildings that would otherwise needed demolition even if they survived the initial attack? If the Deutche bank building was not hit by a plne and was condemned, do you think it possible for the WTC towers to be restored? The evil, pesky Jews would still have got their insurance cheques and Iraq would still have got its war... BTW, the chips are not evidence of a super-special-never-used-before-or-since-thermal-demolition-slicer...

Point #26 refers to Flight 77 at the Pentagon. Have another look.
My apologies, I misread it. Some pilots agree with you, many don't.

Here is a better question: how does the U.S. military have more than an hour to stifle an upcoming attack on the Pentagon and completely fail to intercept a plane that was headed directly for it?

More importantly, where are the 16 video tapes and one hard drive of Pentagon security footage? Why have these not been released?
As you already know, there was a poor link between the FAA and NORAD, F16s are not like WW2 Spitfires where a chap jumps in with a parachute and a moustache and 5 minutes later he is dogfighting Dorniers, and theye did not know where to fly to. To intercept you need to identify the aircraft, heading, altitude and ROE, all information not available to the aircraft due to transponders being switched off and no-one being able to interpet what they were seeing on their screen. An hour is a very short time during chaos.

30. If we find hundreds of senior military and government officials denouncing assertions made by the military and government, I fail to see how this may be regarded as 'insignificant'.
Are they infallable?

32. An IT consultant? Try again:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
I see quite a few PhD's and structural engineering degrees.
How many explosive engineers?

34-36. In other words, the movement for 9/11 truth isn't going to be stifled anytime soon.
How many Americans believe in angels? Saying lots of people of people watched Loose Change and looked at A&E still is not evidence of conspiracy.

No, but if you were arrested in New York during 9/11, I would certainly regard you as suspect -- significantly more so if you had traceable ties to elite Zionist-Jewish networks.

What percentage of the US population do you suppose possesses dual Israeli-American citizenship? What percentage of these do you suppose have notable affiliations with Zionist elites in government and other leading institutions?
Please define what you mean by Jewish Network. Does that basically mean any two Jews together makes a network? Duel nationality is not illegal, and still no evidence of conspiracy.

More to follow...
 

BombDr

Senior Member
Controlled Demolitions, Inc. would seem to disagree with you:
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/audio/cdi_pull_it.mp3
Ill get back to you on this as I cant recieve mp3's.


Perhaps, it is to expose the elite Zionist-Jewish networks that disproportionately dominated almost every major institution holding a direct connection to the 9/11 attacks; including passenger screening at airports, security companies at the WTC, mass media subsequently influencing public opinion, government and political committees that shaped American support for war in Iraq, and a Mossad front-company with several suspects being caught with explosives, suspicious contraband, and later being set free and deported by the Zionist-Jewish Attorney General and Chief Judge -- after failing polygraph tests? Should we regard this as "pure coincidence" even when acknowledging that Zionist Jews represent only about 1% of the US population? By comparison, ethnic Chinese in the United States also represent about 1% of the total population; would you not find it unusual if a majority of the most significant people in American institutions with relevance to 9/11 were Chinese? At the very least, you'd find it worthy of a *very* extensive investigation (at least, I'd hope so).

There's nothing "antisemitic" about discussing these topics unless you wish to change the definition of "antisemitism" to meaning "suspicious of Israel" (as so many Zionist political figures have done). I don't hate Jews and I think it's absolutely ludicrous that one is forced to defend himself whenever addressing this sort of evidence.
I have not accused you of anti-semitism, but you are developing a narrative of a non-related subject in order to direct you blame elsewhere. I do ot understand your view with phrases like 'zionist controlled' and 'Mossad front'... what is your evidence of any of this? What explosive traces were found? You do seem to make unfounded connections to anything Jewish.

When we are being lied to by Zionist-dominated institutions that have led us into trillion-dollar wars, it's pretty revealing that the Israeli secret service has a motto that states: "by way of deception, thou shalt wage war". If you don't see any implications in that, feel free to ignore this point. However, I think most people will agree that it's worth mentioning.
The motto of the Mossad is "Where there is no guidance, a nation falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety." You are incorrect and again, its a baseless and irrelivant observation.

The most significant benefit has been the creation of instability in the Arab-dominated region with the greatest perceivable threats to Israel.
Iraq was no threat to Israel in 2001. I still do not see how Israel has benefitted from the US invading a country that does not even have a border with Israel.

What have the American people stood to gain from any of these wars in which they've lost trillions of dollars, thousands of soldiers, and a good reputation?
I do not know.

No one has accused "da jooz" of anything.
Apart from having undue influence in US Airports, Media, Government, Police, FBI, and Security companies.

It was your job to find and destroy WMD's? What evidence were you presented to demonstrate there were such weapons present?
Intelligence, and the precendent of previous use in the Iran/Iraq war and against his own population. When given intelligence we do not routinely demand depositions from the Intelligence Officer.

That's a great way to skim past even more evidence but your willful ignorance has failed to refute anything. Anyone who reads these points with an open mind will almost certainly agree.

Again, thank you for the response. Your efforts are greatly appreciated. I simply want to know the truth about these events and engaging in discussions such as these have brought me closer and closer to understanding.

I look forward to more challenges from you.
Because all of your zionist or jewish connectionshave no relavance, and they sound paranoid. Israel is a country that struggles to form a government, hold together a coalition, bumbling economic policies, cannot control the basically unarmed peole that it occupies and is mired by scandels of corruption, sexual assault and incompetence daily. Am I to believe that these people can secretly have this immense influence over eveyone and everything, and pull off the most unspeakably complex covert operation imaginable, without a single stge going wrong, and with a single member of the thousands of people required to make this work speaking out? It is simply not credible. You have presented no evidence of Zionsit control of anything, other than some Israeli companies being involved in security (with no actual accusation of what theye did on 911) and some people have duel citizenship. I have duel citizenship, was I in on it too?

Ill check out the links to audio and video when I can, but you have nothing other than specualtion, assertion and misunderstood science.

Show me a SINGLE piece of explosive evidence. Just one.

These points demonstrate, clearly, that the 'official narrative' is overwhelmingly inconsistent and disregards outstanding variables. The Maimondes quote is clearly in-context of the category it is listed under. At the very least, we are in need of a far more thorough and independent investigation into these events to include a much broader range of suspects.
There were demands for another investigation into the death of Princess Diana, and the British Government foolishly caved in and spent millions on it. The same conspiracy theorists, remained convinced of their delusion as before. Please explin what a new investigation would do, and if it turned out that 19 blokes flew some planes into buildings, what would your next move be? Also, would you preclude anyone Jewish from being an investigator?

Let's do this! So you know, if this thread picks up, I may not be able to address all inquiries but I will try to at least address those made by you (Mick) and BombDr whenever time permits.
Thanks. As I have already mentioned I am in Afghanistan right now and doing this in between taskings, and while I'm waiting for stuff to happen. I might not be able to respond immediately, but I will get to it eventually.

Kind regards.
 

hiper

Active Member
Show me a SINGLE piece of explosive evidence. Just one.
The evidence for possible use of explosives is contained in the WTC 7 dust. And what did NIST do?
It did not test the dust.

There is no reason for them to not officially test the dust other than to cover up certain elements that would contradict their predetermined conclusions.
Obviously NIST also knows that a genuine investigation would have tested for accelerant & explosive residue.
 

BombDr

Senior Member
The evidence for possible use of explosives is contained in the WTC 7 dust. And what did NIST do?
It did not test the dust.

There is no reason for them to not officially test the dust other than to cover up certain elements that would contradict their predetermined conclusions.
Obviously NIST also knows that a genuine investigation would have tested for accelerant & explosive residue.

What evidence of explosives is in the dust? What chemicals were present? Why the focus on NIST, were the FBI not investgating it either? Where is the evidence on the steel that explosives were used? simply saying someone failed to test for something does not equate to that something being present.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member
In an autopsy of say a gunshot victim, or someone with an obvious cause of death, they do not check for poisons and such. No conspiracy, just being reasonable
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The evidence for possible use of explosives is contained in the WTC 7 dust. And what did NIST do?
It did not test the dust.

There is no reason for them to not officially test the dust other than to cover up certain elements that would contradict their predetermined conclusions.
Obviously NIST also knows that a genuine investigation would have tested for accelerant & explosive residue.
This argument is pointless:

A) If they were covering something up, they would have pretended to test the dust, and pretended to find nothing.
B) The dust has been independently tested since, and no explosive residue was found.
 

hiper

Active Member
Ok so 9/11 happens... why hasn't anything happened since then?
Don't you think the people that pulled off 9/11 could have knocked down another plane or something like that?
The official explanation is just ridiculous.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Ok so 9/11 happens... why hasn't anything happened since then?
Don't you think the people that pulled off 9/11 could have knocked down another plane or something like that?
The official explanation is just ridiculous.
There have been various attacks and attempts. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber being two obvious ones. The bombs in printer cartridges. Then there were the London 7/7 bombings in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_bomber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwear_bomber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_planes_bomb_plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings
 

hiper

Active Member
There have been various attacks and attempts. The shoe bomber and the underwear bomber being two obvious ones. The bombs in printer cartridges. Then there were the London 7/7 bombings in 2005.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_bomber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwear_bomber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_planes_bomb_plot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

Again don't you think the people that pulled off 9/11 would be able to reattack some soft target in the US?
Of course they would be able to and would have done so.

The fact that no serious attempts where undertaken toward the US post 9/11 is another clear indication of the absurdity of the official explanation.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Again don't you think the people that pulled off 9/11 would be able to reattack some soft target in the US?
Of course they would be able to and would have done so.

The fact that no serious attempts where undertaken toward the US post 9/11 is another clear indication of the absurdity of the official explanation.
Who are "the people that pulled off 9/11" that you are referring to? Where are they now.

Or could it possibly be that the counter-terrorism efforts are working (at least for now)? The leadership of al-queda was greatly compromised by the immediate effects of the war on terror, and continues to be held down by the continued US policy of assassinating anyone who seems to be even thinking about such things. In the mainland the FBI seems to have put up a web of honeypots to ensnare anyone with an inclination. Only a few semi-lone-wolf attacks have got though (Boston, maybe Fort Hood, and in the UK there's the recent soldier attack).

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden are hardly in a good position to re-attack, are they? In that sense the official story fits very well.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
57-68: pesky Jews again... evidence of what exactly? In fact, could anyone tell me the benefit to Israel of any of the subsequent wars in the middle east, to this day?
They disagree:



...could the plotters not have planted a modest half-ton of Sarin gas shells in the very empty and witness-free western desert of Iraq to justify it all?
If it suited the plotters then they would have. Why do you suppose that it didn't? I'd imagine that it was the same reason that their scapegoat was left to read "My Pet Goat" on 911. But that's just me, you can imagine what you will.

But with respect to this:
In fact, could anyone tell me the benefit to Israel...
Seriously?

P.S. thanks for your service to our country... or at least, your attempt at it. Truth is, it wasn't in our interests to attack Iraq just as it won't be in our interests to attack Syria (If they ever get around to finding WMDs in Assad's underwear, etc. Chertoff should probably find another dual citizen to help ship some of his Rapiscan underwear scanners over there, etc.) but we don't seem to have political leaders that aren't corrupt or competent intelligence services that aren't compromised at this point.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top