Debunked: NASA War Document Exposed (The Future is Now)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
So it's the mission of those here to try and show that it is not necessary to feel that fear. People reacting to imaginary dangers are dangerous themselves, and aren't really having a good time. So we try and make the world a better place in that small sense, so people can get on with living life well.

Bugger. Wish I'd read that bit before my last response. I like that bit about us trying to make the world a better place. Never really considered it like that, but then I tend not to see anything I do in a particularly positive light.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
...
But you have to know, maybe sometimes you are rude in the way you reply and "debunk", that way you don't generate any change in the mind of frightened people. On the contrary, you provocate more hate, which it's not evilness but FEAR.....
Well constructive criticism on how to do it better is appreciated. Do you have specific examples of the rudeness you're talking about?
Why do you think 'myth-busting' provokes hate, is it the fault of the myth-buster or the myth-believer?

ETA
Bugger. Wish I'd read that bit before my last response. I like that bit about us trying to make the world a better place. Never really considered it like that, but then I tend not to see anything I do in a particularly positive light.

Well you should - although it may be a slightly grandiose justification, anything that advances understanding and counter-acts misunderstanding should be seen that way.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
"sprayed with nanogases"

WTF? What's a nano gas? You can't use nanotech on gases, although the uses of gases in nanotech is common enough. I once built a website for a nanotech company in Cambridge, MA, and part of my work was to build a glossary. Over the six months I worked with that physicist, and his staff, I managed to get a decent appreciation and understanding of how nanotechnology works and how it has evolved.

It's not half as interesting as people think. Atomic Layer Deposition, ALD, is the cutting edge, and the machines that can do nano are far more interesting than the applications thus far. Of course, the future applications will be amazing. But when you think about it, medicine will be where the rewards are reaped, not weapons.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
"sprayed with nanogases"

WTF? What's a nano gas? You can't use nanotech on gases, although the uses of gases in nanotech is common enough. I once built a website for a nanotech company in Cambridge, MA, and part of my work was to build a glossary. Over the six months I worked with that physicist, and his staff, I managed to get a decent appreciation and understanding of how nanotechnology works and how it has evolved.

It's not half as interesting as people think. Atomic Layer Deposition, ALD, is the cutting edge, and the machines that can do nano are far more interesting than the applications thus far. Of course, the future applications will be amazing. But when you think about it, medicine will be where the rewards are reaped, not weapons.
Nanogases is a scary sounding term you can use to intimidate an audience that is not particularly tech savvy.
 

marcosbuuk

New Member
"sprayed with nanogases"
haha, that's common language among most people, that's what we can remember after reading about nanotechnology, because of the chemtrail myth, and it's scary for sure.
...

It's not half as interesting as people think. Atomic Layer Deposition, ALD, is the cutting edge, and the machines that can do nano are far more interesting than the applications thus far. Of course, the future applications will be amazing. But when you think about it, medicine will be where the rewards are reaped, not weapons.

I agree about the uses for medicine... but I still believe it's inocent to think that weapons aren't in the plans too... hmmm. And probably the rewards here are more interesting of course.
 

Alhazred The Sane

Senior Member.
haha, that's common language among most people, that's what we can remember after reading about nanotechnology, because of the chemtrail myth, and it's scary for sure.

I agree about the uses for medicine... but I still believe it's inocent to think that weapons aren't in the plans too... hmmm.

What you believe and what is predictable from available understanding of the science are different things. The future of weaponry is heading towards robotics, drones etc. Nanotech works at the molecular level. Perhaps it could be used to make better robotics, in the sense that circuitry might be able to self-repair. But it's really not the way forward in destruction and death. For that, you look towards automation and chemistry/biology. Existing viruses and existing chemical weapons are sufficient. Nanotech is a different branch of mechanics, and if you really fear it then I'd suggest studying it and its applications. It's not what you think.
 

marcosbuuk

New Member
What you believe and what is predictable from available understanding of the science are different things. The future of weaponry is heading towards robotics, drones etc. Nanotech works at the molecular level. Perhaps it could be used to make better robotics, in the sense that circuitry might be able to self-repair. But it's really not the way forward in destruction and death. For that, you look towards automation and chemistry/biology. Existing viruses and existing chemical weapons are sufficient. Nanotech is a different branch of mechanics, and if you really fear it then I'd suggest studying it and its applications. It's not what you think.

Well, I said before I am not the one who is afraid, I just try to answer the most obvious to give an idea. And it actually works... Thank you. I'll have to leave this trend, it's getting adictive.
 

macbroadcast

New Member
And again, it's 12 years old!

Yes and ? Its a future forcast for depopulating the planet earth till 2025 did you even took a closer look at the technologies involved ?

Nanotech, Low frequency generators and microwaves ? have you ever heard of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars ? its from the 70th and if Silent weapons is the vision this NASA dokument is the manual.


https://let.de/index.php/nasa-future-strategic-issues-future-warfare-circa-2025/

You might have a look at some papers or videos from Barry Trower http://geopathology-za.wikidot.com/barrie-trower

He simply explains how microwaves willd be use as weapons allready.

Have a nice day
 

Vivek

New Member
Anyone have any knowledge about these claims? They sound completely preposterous but I'd like to have something concrete to rebut this stuff. It's all about hyper weapons that supposedly the U.S. govt is planning to use on it's own people

I find that interesting, that you want to "rebut this stuff", without even knowing whether it has merit or not. Seems like a knee-jerk reaction that you are programmed with, since you apparently don't want to learn anything, but want to rebut it right off the bat! I'm not a conspiracy-theorist by any means, having spent most of my life arguing against wacko theories. But something that has happened in the past 30-40 years leads me to believe that there is something amiss. I don't know what it is, but I'm open to listening to anything that might shed light. What bothers me, and what I seek that light for, is the rapid acquisition of enormous wealth by a few at the very top, which has enabled them to acquire massive properties which are secured from all sorts of attack, from ground to air to nuclear to- and this is where my interest in comets is- meteor strikes, and incredible(and extremely expensive) technologies embedded there. I could see if a couple of extremely wealthy paranoids were doing this(like Howard Hughes used to do), but my observation has been that too many wealthy people(i.e., people with a lot more than just a few million) are setting up these "impenetrable underground fortresses", complete with autonomous redundant power generation and air quality/life support systems, that I just get a feeling that they know more than others do. And I want to know what that is, whether it is global anarchy, meteor strikes or disease epidemics. So when I read or hear about something, my instinct is not to "rebut this stuff", but to see if there is any merit in it. As we've found out lately, our government and its agencies routinely lie to us in the most egregious manner. You should be open-minded, not a foot-soldier.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I find that interesting, that you want to "rebut this stuff", without even knowing whether it has merit or not.

The subsequent posts discuss the merits quite well. Chuck recognized it as likely bunk, as it's the type of thing that has been covered many times before.

If there's something in particular you'd like to discuss, then perhaps start a new thread. Here are the posting guidelines:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Yes and ? Its a future forcast for depopulating the planet earth till 2025 did you even took a closer look at the technologies involved ?

Nanotech, Low frequency generators and microwaves ? have you ever heard of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars ? its from the 70th and if Silent weapons is the vision this NASA dokument is the manual.


https://let.de/index.php/nasa-future-strategic-issues-future-warfare-circa-2025/

You might have a look at some papers or videos from Barry Trower http://geopathology-za.wikidot.com/barrie-trower

He simply explains how microwaves willd be use as weapons allready.

Have a nice day
I've worked with some of the technologies. This is just one of many "what if" studies the government and think tanks produce on a regular basis. We also have contingency plans on what to do if Canada invades the US but I wouldn't get excited about it.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
I find that interesting, that you want to "rebut this stuff", without even knowing whether it has merit or not. Seems like a knee-jerk reaction that you are programmed with, since you apparently don't want to learn anything, but want to rebut it right off the bat! I'm not a conspiracy-theorist by any means, having spent most of my life arguing against wacko theories. But something that has happened in the past 30-40 years leads me to believe that there is something amiss. I don't know what it is, but I'm open to listening to anything that might shed light. What bothers me, and what I seek that light for, is the rapid acquisition of enormous wealth by a few at the very top, which has enabled them to acquire massive properties which are secured from all sorts of attack, from ground to air to nuclear to- and this is where my interest in comets is- meteor strikes, and incredible(and extremely expensive) technologies embedded there. I could see if a couple of extremely wealthy paranoids were doing this(like Howard Hughes used to do), but my observation has been that too many wealthy people(i.e., people with a lot more than just a few million) are setting up these "impenetrable underground fortresses", complete with autonomous redundant power generation and air quality/life support systems, that I just get a feeling that they know more than others do. And I want to know what that is, whether it is global anarchy, meteor strikes or disease epidemics. So when I read or hear about something, my instinct is not to "rebut this stuff", but to see if there is any merit in it. As we've found out lately, our government and its agencies routinely lie to us in the most egregious manner. You should be open-minded, not a foot-soldier.

I for one woul love to see a thread started documenting this. Properties which were acquired in the past 30-40 years secured from attacks, and what comets and meteor strikes have to do with it.
 

JeffreyNotGeoffrey

Active Member
Pretty sure that if a meteor of large enough mass hit the earth, the rich better get used to underground dwelling and have a renewable source of food, water, and energy to produce said things. As well as stockpiles of medicine and the ability to recreate said medicine after its shelf life expires. If the whole world ended except for me, I would have a few months or years of dicking around doing what I wanted, but then I would eat the business end of a .45. The best things in life are shared, and if there is no one to share them with then life becomes far less enjoyable.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
I for one woul love to see a thread started documenting this. Properties which were acquired in the past 30-40 years secured from attacks, and what comets and meteor strikes have to do with it.
How do you verify:
"something that has happened in the past 30-40 years leads me to believe that there is something amiss. I don't know what it is, but I'm open to listening to anything that might shed light."
?
It's to tenuous of a statement to work with. I'm more interested in where this came from:
my observation has been that too many wealthy people(i.e., people with a lot more than just a few million) are setting up these "impenetrable underground fortresses", complete with autonomous redundant power generation and air quality/life support systems, that I just get a feeling that they know more than others do.
The closest thing I could find is an AJ link that is a discussion with the guy that markets that product and claims that powerful people he can't name are buying his shelters but presents no proof to back up his claim and an NBC report about a group preparing for 2012. Jones is right to suggest that something like this would be nice to have if you live in an area prone to tornadoes.
AJ:NBC:
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.


http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/home-at-the-end-of-time

"I was inspired with a very powerful message around 1980 that I needed to build a shelter for 1,000 people deep underground to survive something that was coming that was going to be an extinction event,” he explained in an extensive phone interview. “That’s it, that’s all I had. But it was powerful. So powerful that I had a successful business with 100 employees and I took time off to go up into the mountains and search on weekends looking for an underground mine or cave that could be cartoned and converted.”
Today, Vicino is the owner and founder of Vivos, a company that sells space in luxury survival complexes around the country. It's what he likes to call “life assurance”--mini underground cities, in effect, for people ride out the end of civilization in a community setting with good food, television, even a potential dating pool. He says demand has increased 1,000 percent this year compared to last—itself a 1,000 percent increase over the year before.

More than 100,000 people have applied for a space in one of his various shelters around the world, in various stages of completion, he says; more than 1,000 people have bought some kind of shelter from Vivos so far. Vivos sells smaller, family-sized shelters for individual purchase, but most of the clients so far have purchased space in the community shelters—a nice bulwark, one supposes, against the kind of isolation and poor planning that could turn a single-family shelter into a Donner Party reunion.

aassets2.motherboard.tv_content_images_contentimage_no_slug_8d9316b0a0880f65f59259116abc895f.jpg

Entrance to a Vivos shelter.
“When we’re done, with the current shelters that are in tow or complete, we will only be able to accommodate 6,000 people,” Vicino said. “That’s less than one-in-a-million people on earth.” As far as he’s concerned, that’s “not enough,” but there’s only so much he can do. Business keeps growing, but he says he’s still several million dollars in the hole.

...


Today, six underground complexes are underway in undisclosed locations around the country, including one in Nebraska, and another in the Rockies, respectively designed to accommodate 900 and 1,000 people. Another, designed to hold 2,000 people, is in the works, with “a ton of interest in Australia.”
....

“What Vivos is, is a modern-day fortress or citadel, where our members are safe and secure, with all the supplies they need to ride it out. And we can defend the facilities. So if the rest of the world’s gone crazy, our people will at least be in a safe haven,” Vicino said. He wouldn’t elaborate on how, exactly, the fortresses were armed. But he emphasized that they're equipped for “not offensive, but defensive measures.”

“I can tell you, you will never get into the compound. And if you do, once the shelter’s locked down, unless you’re in the military, you’re not getting through the door.”

...

There’s a bit of antagonism between Vicino and the survivalists, some of whom have taken to threatening him and threatening to besiege his shelters recently, Vicino said. Kramer, who owns three spaces at the Indiana shelter, noted that there was no love lost. “Survivalists really kinda hate us,” he said. “And we thought we would really appeal to them. But, you know what? They go through so much work… and they don’t like us because people just basically write a check.”
Content from External Source
 

Bill

Senior Member.
I know Vivos and other companies are in the market and a few people have taken advantage of the service they offer, but how do you get from what they talk about to:
"too many wealthy people(i.e., people with a lot more than just a few million) are setting up these "impenetrable underground fortresses", complete with autonomous redundant power generation and air quality/life support systems"
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
I know Vivos and other companies are in the market and a few people have taken advantage of the service they offer, but how do you get from what they talk about to:
"too many wealthy people(i.e., people with a lot more than just a few million) are setting up these "impenetrable underground fortresses", complete with autonomous redundant power generation and air quality/life support systems"

From Pete Tar's external quote:
More than 100,000 people have applied for a space in one of his various shelters around the world, in various stages of completion, he says; more than 1,000 people have bought some kind of shelter from Vivos so far. Vivos sells smaller, family-sized shelters for individual purchase, but most of the clients so far have purchased space in the community shelters—a nice bulwark, one supposes, against the kind of isolation and poor planning that could turn a single-family shelter into a Donner Party reunion.
Content from External Source
Then again, I guess that doesn't explain who is doing the purchasing, if they're rich folk or not. That one Vivek will have to back up.
 
Last edited:

hemi

Senior Member.
From Pete Tar's external quote:
More than 100,000 people have applied for a space in one of his various shelters around the world, in various stages of completion, he says; more than 1,000 people have bought some kind of shelter from Vivos so far. Vivos sells smaller, family-sized shelters for individual purchase, but most of the clients so far have purchased space in the community shelters—a nice bulwark, one supposes, against the kind of isolation and poor planning that could turn a single-family shelter into a Donner Party reunion.
Content from External Source
Then again, I guess that doesn't explain who is doing the purchasing, if they're rich folk or not. That one Vivek will have to back up.

And as is pointed out, "most of the clients so far have purchased space in the community shelters". Not something you'd expect people with "more than a few million" to do when there's family-sized, and presumably more private units available.
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
I know Vivos and other companies are in the market and a few people have taken advantage of the service they offer, but how do you get from what they talk about to:
Yeah you don't really.
Supposedly these super rich constructs are commissioned privately and don't need to 'sold' or advertised, but there must be a company that specialises in doing them and has some stats on their orders.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
[
And as is pointed out, "most of the clients so far have purchased space in the community shelters". Not something you'd expect people with "more than a few million" to do when there's family-sized, and presumably more private units available.

quote="Hitheycallmejosh, post: 77647, member: 2045"]From Pete Tar's external quote:
More than 100,000 people have applied for a space in one of his various shelters around the world, in various stages of completion, he says; more than 1,000 people have bought some kind of shelter from Vivos so far. Vivos sells smaller, family-sized shelters for individual purchase, but most of the clients so far have purchased space in the community shelters—a nice bulwark, one supposes, against the kind of isolation and poor planning that could turn a single-family shelter into a Donner Party reunion.
Content from External Source
The Vivos Kansas facility runs $16k for a suite that sleeps six plus an additional $1.5k a year for food for each person. I don't think they price individual shelters because the cost is situational.
 

Josh Heuer

Active Member
[


quote="Hitheycallmejosh, post: 77647, member: 2045"]From Pete Tar's external quote:
More than 100,000 people have applied for a space in one of his various shelters around the world, in various stages of completion, he says; more than 1,000 people have bought some kind of shelter from Vivos so far. Vivos sells smaller, family-sized shelters for individual purchase, but most of the clients so far have purchased space in the community shelters—a nice bulwark, one supposes, against the kind of isolation and poor planning that could turn a single-family shelter into a Donner Party reunion.
Content from External Source
The Vivos Kansas facility runs $16k for a suite that sleeps six plus an additional $1.5k a year for food for each person. I don't think they price individual shelters because the cost is situational.
So basically the Kansas purchasers would have to put down $25k to get a 6 person shelter and food for one year for each individual. An additional $9k for each year after for food. I would say the average middle class American isn't fronting their hard earned money on this product. Probably more so the upper class, where that kind of money would be a drop in the well.
But also, that's just one example. What about folks who might have purchased a larger shelter (not just the space) that fits more in it?

Any way you slice it though, there's no substantiation for Vivek's claim:
but my observation has been that too many wealthy people(i.e., people with a lot more than just a few million) are setting up these "impenetrable underground fortresses", complete with autonomous redundant power generation and air quality/life support systems, that I just get a feeling that they know more than others do.
Unless Vivek has something to back it up with other than just their observation. What exactly did you observe to bring you to that conclusion?
 

Bill

Senior Member.
So basically the Kansas purchasers would have to put down $25k to get a 6 person shelter and food for one year for each individual. An additional $9k for each year after for food. I would say the average middle class American isn't fronting their hard earned money on this product. Probably more so the upper class, where that kind of money would be a drop in the well.
But also, that's just one example. What about folks who might have purchased a larger shelter (not just the space) that fits more in it?

The company provides financing. You don't have to provide you $25k in a lump sum. You also have the option of parking your RV or Trailer inside the facility if you don't want to purchase a suite. They are trying to keep the community shelters as inexpensive as possible. If you are genuinely worried about the coming apocalypse $25k isn't bad for a family of six.
 

jealouszealots

New Member
Steve no one here is getting paid. Why are you attacking us instead of the research?

You post false information and then refused to back it up, choosing instead to attack others.

Until someone can explain answer these questions:

1)WHO planted the explosives? Controlled demolition of a building is not something that an untrained (untrained in Controlled demolition) person can do. It would have needed a crew from one of the companies

2)HOW did they get the type of access needed to plant hundreds of explosives?

3)WHAT was used to protect the explosives from the fires and WHAT was used to detonate them?

I see no reason to waste my time on listening or watching or reading about an impossible scenario. I prefer well written science fiction for that.

Maybe you are impressed with that 2000 number, I'm not, there are hundreds of thousands of professional Engineers and architects. As to 'demolition experts' I don't know why they are considered, unless they are in the field of Controlled Demolition. Others are like asking your ophthalmologist for advice on heart transplant surgery. Not their field.

I deal in FACTS not opinions, and not agendas.

The key answer to 1, 2, and 3: Larry Silverstein
For the details, look here:
http://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it
More facts:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.html
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/forget.html
 

Bill

Senior Member.
You are directing us to conspiracy sites that reference news sources for mundane information (who owns what building and who knows who) and other conspiracy sites as proof this mundane information is evidence of a conspiracy. That's not actually evidence. That's cherry picking information that reinforces an existing opinion.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
So when did Larry Silverstein become and expert in controlled demolition? I can see it now, He hauls thermite in in his brief case and sets the charges when goes to the bathroom. And he did this without anyone noticing it.

Nope, I can make a better case for the existence of unicorns.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
So when did Larry Silverstein become and expert in controlled demolition? I can see it now, He hauls thermite in in his brief case and sets the charges when goes to the bathroom. And he did this without anyone noticing it.

Nope, I can make a better case for the existence of unicorns.
From what I can pick up from Wikispooks he doesn't have to be an expert in demolition. He just has to have money and be Jewish.
 

jealouszealots

New Member
You are directing us to conspiracy sites that reference news sources for mundane information (who owns what building and who knows who) and other conspiracy sites as proof this mundane information is evidence of a conspiracy. That's not actually evidence. That's cherry picking information that reinforces an existing opinion.

Since you reject my "answers" because they exist on conspiracy sites and, hence, obviously didn't even bother to read the information, I'll make the connections that are blatantly obvious even to the most casual (and unbiased) observer.


1)WHO planted the explosives? Controlled demolition of a building is not something that an untrained (untrained in Controlled demolition) person can do. It would have needed a crew from one of the companies
The WTC was bought just months before 911. It was known that the buildings required mandated renovations to remove its asbestos to come up to code. The cost of removal would have been astronomical. For this reason, any normal real estate developer would have seen such an investment (ie., buying the WTC) as a bad one. Yet, Silverstein overlooked this problem, seeing instead a means of profit. Why did he see profit when other people saw loss? Because he believed in Mossad's warning* about an al Qaeda attack against the WTC and took action to capitalize on the coming event. He even made sure to buy insurance that covered acts of terrorism. So with a minimum of investment, he came out ahead with 7.1 billions in just a matter of months. Hence, he arranged for a demo crew to prepare for what was to come.

*http://www.rense.com/general25/moss.htm


2)HOW did they get the type of access needed to plant hundreds of explosives?
-- The same security company that provided security for Dulles Airport and United Airlines also was in charge of security for the WTC. Two of the Commandeered 911 flights were United Airlines and one took off from Dulles. (A private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to the Bush family was one of the company's backers.)
-- Turner Construction Company** occupied the 38th floor of the WTC 1. It had been hired to demolish the Seattle Kingdome in 2000. It had also previously worked on upgrading WTC's fireproofing. It was hired to collect and dispose of the WTC steel wreckage.


**http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread985658/pg1

3)WHAT was used to protect the explosives from the fires and WHAT was used to detonate them?
See Turner Construction Company above.

These point-by-point answers are anything but mundane. Do I think they absolutely prove a conspiracy occurred? No, but any decent detective would consider these points justification for further investigation. The fact that they haven't been considered by the authorities speaks volumes. Thus we have a conspiracy that refuses to go away.

For more info: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
I have read them BEFORE, you are not the first 9/11 truther to come here.

I just fact checked Turner construction. They did not demolish the Kingdome. They BUILD buildings, so that is major error



abits.wikimedia.org_static_1.23wmf4_skins_common_images_magnify_clip.png
The Kingdome during the implosion. Controlled Demolition, Inc. demolished the Kingdome by implosion on March 26, 2000 (approximately the 24th anniversary of the Kingdome's opening), setting a record recognized by Guinness World Records for the largest building, by volume, ever demolished by implosion.[28] The Kingdome was the first large, domed stadium to be demolished in the United States and the demolition of the Kingdome was the first live event covered by ESPN Classic.[29][ex/]
Content from External Source
 

jealouszealots

New Member
From what I can pick up from Wikispooks he doesn't have to be an expert in demolition. He just has to have money and be Jewish.
[...]
Why ridicule something before you actually read the links and put the pieces of the puzzle together? [...]
 

jealouszealots

New Member
I have read them BEFORE, you are not the first 9/11 truther to come here.

I just fact checked Turner construction. They did not demolish the Kingdome. They BUILD buildings, so that is major error



abits.wikimedia.org_static_1.23wmf4_skins_common_images_magnify_clip.png
The Kingdome during the implosion. Controlled Demolition, Inc. demolished the Kingdome by implosion on March 26, 2000 (approximately the 24th anniversary of the Kingdome's opening), setting a record recognized by Guinness World Records for the largest building, by volume, ever demolished by implosion.[28] The Kingdome was the first large, domed stadium to be demolished in the United States and the demolition of the Kingdome was the first live event covered by ESPN Classic.[29][ex/]
Content from External Source
Wikpedia is not 100% accurate. (Which you quote.) It's written by ordinary people. Not experts. Here's the link you should consider:

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/seattle-kingdome
 

jealouszealots

New Member
This thread has drifted off topic, and diverged into a broad discussion, and will be closed. See:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
This thread has drifted off topic, and diverged into a broad discussion, and will be closed. See:

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
Actually, it's returning to an issue presented on the very first page of this thread made by Cairenn.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Since you reject my "answers" because they exist on conspiracy sites and, hence, obviously didn't even bother to read the information, I'll make the connections that are blatantly obvious even to the most casual (and unbiased) observer.

1)WHO planted the explosives? Controlled demolition of a building is not something that an untrained (untrained in Controlled demolition) person can do. It would have needed a crew from one of the companies
The WTC was bought just months before 911. It was known that the buildings required mandated renovations to remove its asbestos to come up to code. The cost of removal would have been astronomical. For this reason, any normal real estate developer would have seen such an investment (ie., buying the WTC) as a bad one. Yet, Silverstein overlooked this problem, seeing instead a means of profit. Why did he see profit when other people saw loss? Because he believed in Mossad's warning* about an al Qaeda attack against the WTC and took action to capitalize on the coming event. He even made sure to buy insurance that covered acts of terrorism. So with a minimum of investment, he came out ahead with 7.1 billions in just a matter of months. Hence, he arranged for a demo crew to prepare for what was to come.

*http://www.rense.com/general25/moss.htm


2)HOW did they get the type of access needed to plant hundreds of explosives?
-- The same security company that provided security for Dulles Airport and United Airlines also was in charge of security for the WTC. Two of the Commandeered 911 flights were United Airlines and one took off from Dulles. (A private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to the Bush family was one of the company's backers.)
-- Turner Construction Company** occupied the 38th floor of the WTC 1. It had been hired to demolish the Seattle Kingdome in 2000. It had also previously worked on upgrading WTC's fireproofing. It was hired to collect and dispose of the WTC steel wreckage.


**http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread985658/pg1

3)WHAT was used to protect the explosives from the fires and WHAT was used to detonate them?
See Turner Construction Company above.

These point-by-point answers are anything but mundane. Do I think they absolutely prove a conspiracy occurred? No, but any decent detective would consider these points justification for further investigation. The fact that they haven't been considered by the authorities speaks volumes. Thus we have a conspiracy that refuses to go away.

For more info: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html
Actually I did read the sites and I read the articles on which they based their claims. I found no substantial evidence to support their claims. Just a lost of innuendo and supposition. When I tried the trace the citation that tied the mundane into a conspiracy I kept getting linked to sites and stories that made claims but provided no original sources. All of this proof you seem to feel is more valid in blue is nothing but supposition and again you link to nothing but conspiracy sites. Where is the original data and documentation that supports these theories so I can read it and make up my mind for myself if their case is supported by the evidence. What I kept finding is sites that refer to each other as proof that the story they are spinning is true. That's not evidence of a conspiracy, it's a gossip circle.
 
Last edited:

Bill

Senior Member.
[...]
Why ridicule something before you actually read the links and put the pieces of the puzzle together? [...]
I did read it. It's overriding theme is the Jews did it.
Contents
[hide]
Content from External Source
There is no examination of other alternatives and they place heavy emphasis on the Jews and Israel throughout the article.
 

ksloth84

New Member
Says another graduate of YouTube University.




Promises, promises.
And how do you know that? Certainly by now pretty much every architect and engineer has had an opportunity to at least read the petition and only 2,000 signatures. Interesting.

Have you been to an AIA convention and watched how they were laughed at and ignored? I have.

Have you worked in the top two architecture schools in the United States and spent untold hours talking with architects about 9/11? I have.

Did you watch 9/11 unfold less than 15 blocks away in the offices of one of the top US architects? I did.

Do you currently work in one of the top technological universities in the world and spend your day talking with scientists and engineers? I do.

I'd be happy to walk down the hall with the petition and see how many science and engineering professors I could get to sign it - including at least one Noble Prize winner in physics.

Maybe I have joined the debate a bit late but still...

That's pretty impressive... but what about the list of scientists which Steve requested? I know that an official list probably doesn't exist but can you name some?

I should say that I myself am a supporter of a new investigation :) Actually at this stage I believe in many conspiracies but at the same time i'm open to other theories and opinions :)
 

NZF

Member
Actually I did read the sites and I read the articles on which they based their claims. I found no substantial evidence to support their claims. Just a lost of innuendo and supposition. When I tried the trace the citation that tied the mundane into a conspiracy I kept getting linked to sites and stories that made claims but provided no original sources. All of this proof you seem to feel is more valid in blue is nothing but supposition and again you link to nothing but conspiracy sites. Where is the original data and documentation that supports these theories so I can read it and make up my mind for myself if their case is supported by the evidence. What I kept finding is sites that refer to each other as proof that the story they are spinning is true. That's not evidence of a conspiracy, it's a gossip circle.
Are you stating that the PDF documents from NASA are not genuine. Because I can prove that they are.
 

NZF

Member
I'd like to know the Debunkers conclusion regarding this subject. What do you Officially declare about the documents from NASA, and also, what is Your reason for the topic to now be 'debunked'. Please bulletpoint in order of conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top