Thread: 9/11 Truth

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Another example is your point that hijackers turned up alive. That is not a proven fact. It is a speculation that is under discussion by some left wingers, not an actual news story of fact.

As a matter of fact, it is proven fact, and it was an actual news story.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Even if it were a proven fact, it could very well mean that the government got some identities wrong because of some fake ID's. It does not put any government officials at a crime scene with criminal intent.

This statement brings me to one question that puzzles me. According to your story, the airplane explosion was so intense, the fire from the burning fuel was so hot that it caused the buildings to collapse. How then were the investigators able to find the IDs/passports of those said hijackers? Shouldn't they have been incinerated along with the rest of the airplane?

Universal Mind your response is dishonest and more lies. You can't explain anything other than state this illusion to try and convince those who still have that thread of ignorance too lazy to research. Now please address the evidence I posted above before you continue any more rants. Or I'm going to have to complain to the moderators from your irrelevance to the topic.

The hi-jackers turning up alive is fact.
The knowledge of the threat ahead of time by the government is fact.

And, as for the rest you haven't responded to any evidence properly. You keep avoiding it all and trying to distract with your evasive measures because there is nothing else you can possibly do to face it.

Now face this evidence and what has being mentioned above that you avoided.

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers

Originally Posted by tyrantt23

As a matter of fact, it is proven fact, and it was an actual news story.

It is not a proven fact. The BBC jumped to the conclusion that it is about ONE of the hijackers. Other news sources jump to the conclusion about six, and I found one that jumps to seven. It seems that the more in competition and therefore check a news company is with rivals, the less leap prone it is. It is speculation at this point.

LA Times

CNN

More importantly, such a mistake would not be proof that the government pulled off the most insane conspiracy stunt in history.

Originally Posted by tyrantt23

This statement brings me to one question that puzzles me. According to your story, the airplane explosion was so intense, the fire from the burning fuel was so hot that it caused the buildings to collapse. How then were the investigators able to find the IDs/passports of those said hijackers? Shouldn't they have been incinerated along with the rest of the airplane?

They were inside the airplane until the building collapsed and the airplane was destroyed. If that were an issue, don't you think the greatest conspiracy team in history would have done something much better to fool you in that regard?

Can you explain this for me?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Specific areas to address are how the planes were flown, how the "real" commercial jet airliners could have been hidden without being reported missing if the crashed airplanes were military jets, why so many friends and family members of the victims reported that they heard hijackings taking place and that they were directly told by the victims that hijackings were taking place, how so many people would be contacted about participation in such an evil and major conspiracy and enough of them were insanely evil enough to do it, why the government would roll such big dice, why there could possibly have been no leaks about the conspiracy itself even though tons of people would have been involved, why one of the planes crashed in a field, why Al Qaeda would have taken credit, why the people we are fighting in the Middle East would happen to have the same mentalities and tendencies as the imaginary hijackers, and why the government would go through such an outrageous amount of trouble and risk when it would have been so much easier to just blow up the buildings and say the buildings were bombed by terrorists just like they were in 1993.

Mystic and others run for the hills every time I bring up those major questions about what they have the burden of proving.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Universal Mind your response is dishonest and more lies. You can't explain anything other than state this illusion to try and convince those who still have that thread of ignorance too lazy to research. Now please address the evidence I posted above before you continue any more rants. Or I'm going to have to complain to the moderators from your irrelevance to the topic.

The hi-jackers turning up alive is fact.
The knowledge of the threat ahead of time by the government is fact.

And, as for the rest you haven't responded to any evidence properly. You keep avoiding it all and trying to distract with your evasive measures because there is nothing else you can possibly do to face it.

Now face this evidence and what has being mentioned above that you avoided.

1. The Mastermind, the Hijackers and the Planes
2. The Twin Towers
3. The Pentagon
4. Flight 93
5. The President's Response
6. Osama and WTC 7
7. How the Case was Cracked
8. The Deep Mystery of Melted Steel
9. The Undead Hijackers

1-9 = CIRCUMSTANTIAL... and very weak, just like the examples I talked about. The burden is on YOU to explain how those circumstances prove that the big inside job idea (Not story. You cannot even give me a plausible hypothetical story.) is true. The burden is not on me to explain stuff that might have happened, and I asked you at least twice to show me credible sources of that information. I also asked you what "evidence" you have that is not circumstantial. You obviously do not have an answer to that, now do you?

Do you understand that your weak circumstantial case that does not explain how an inside job conclusion can even be drawn from the weak circumstantial evidence that you will not even back up with credible sources and that has no hope of presenting a plausible story concerning the accusation would be laughed out of court? I am not making that up. It is a fact. Your case would be laughed out of court. A grand jury would be laughing so hard they would be crying if they were presented with your outrageous attempt at a case. It is unheard of for a prosecution to not have a story to tell. It is unheard of for a prosecution to completely avoid issues brought up by the defense. It is unheard of for a prosecution to not back up the evidence they use. Cases that are entirely circumstantial are extremely weak cases, especially when the circumstantial evidence is never tied to the conclusion, which is unheard of. Saying, "Uh, well explain these things," is not a basis for evidence, much less a case. You would be laughed out of court. That is absolutely the truth.

Universal Mind tries desperately again to distract from the evidence and denounces all proof calling it all absurd and circumstantial while nothing could be further from the truth.

Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report
Pilots for 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals and pilots throughout the globe who have gathered together for one purpose. [committed to seeking the truth surrounding the events of the 11th of September 2001].
Eyewitness
PHYSICS 911 is created and maintained by a group of scientists, engineers and other professionals known collectively as the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven.

Architectural and engineering professionals and 497 other supporters including A/E students have joined us in demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation website here at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

And key evidence which Universal Mind continues to avoid.

911 COMMISSION
HIGH-LEVEL OFFICIALS
PRIOR WARNINGS OF PLANES CRASHING INTO BUILDINGS
WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
EXPERTS TALK ABOUT CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
CREDIBLE SOURCES SUCH AS NEW YORK FIREFIGHTERS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
HOW DID THEY KNOW?
WHAT ABOUT THE PENTAGON?
BUT COULD THIS REALLY HAPPEN IN MODERN AMERICA?
911 FACT SHEET

The attack on Pearl Harbor actually had similar themes: the government had foreknowledge of a possible attack, and for some reason virtually the entire navy was just sitting in port, sitting ducks to the Japanese bombers(just a coincidence, or a sinister plot?). One may suspect that the Japanese couldn't have done so much damage as they supposedly did, and that in fact some of the vessels were rigged with explosives beforehand to make sure the damage was severe enough to justify an invasion of Japan. The government intercepted communications that indicated an attack, yet for some reason delayed its response until after the attack had already begun!

In a similar vein, some believe the levees of hurricane Katrina were bombed(there's a familiar pattern) to create a disaster to pull attention away from the government's evil plans(that seems nonsensical, doesn't it?). Isn't incompetency enough to explain 9/10's of the evidence in these conspiracy plots?

No one argues that Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was to blame, either by negligence or active involvement in promoting the devastation, probably because the government of the 1940's acted responsibly instead of abusing the fear created by WWII. Our current suspicion of conspiracy is aroused by the havoc-wreaking policies of officials who are universally described as incompetent, even though their incompetence is more than adequate an explanation for the event.

Originally Posted by R.D.735

The attack on Pearl Harbor actually had similar themes: the government had foreknowledge of a possible attack, and for some reason virtually the entire navy was just sitting in port, sitting ducks to the Japanese bombers(just a coincidence, or a sinister plot?). One may suspect that the Japanese couldn't have done so much damage as they supposedly did, and that in fact some of the vessels were rigged with explosives beforehand to make sure the damage was severe enough to justify an invasion of Japan. The government intercepted communications that indicated an attack, yet for some reason delayed its response until after the attack had already begun!

In a similar vein, some believe the levees of hurricane Katrina were bombed(there's a familiar pattern) to create a disaster to pull attention away from the government's evil plans(that seems nonsensical, doesn't it?). Isn't incompetency enough to explain 9/10's of the evidence in these conspiracy plots?

No one argues that Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration was to blame, either by negligence or active involvement in promoting the devastation, probably because the government of the 1940's acted responsibly instead of abusing the fear created by WWII. Our current suspicion of conspiracy is aroused by the havoc-wreaking policies of officials who are universally described as incompetent, even though their incompetence is more than adequate an explanation for the event.

You are quite right that Pearl Harbor was anticipated, provoked, allowed, and then used for fear-mongering. What would have happened if this information was made public within a few years of the attack?

Similarly, Operation Northwoods would have shook the nation to the core, and still would now if everyone knew about it. It proves the govt plans terror attacks to create an excuse for war, a massively illegal and unethical practice thought only to be used by ruthless dictators.

One thing you mentioned was that no one has come forth alleging they saw people wiring th building before the attacks. But this is not true, and there are at least a few people on the record making such claims. Either way this doesnt prove anything in my opinion, but simply adds to the mountain of evidence all suggesting an inside job.

What does prove an inside job and cannot be refuted, is the evidence of thermate-like reactions coming form the South Tower. A thermate-like analog is the only possible explanation, and has been proven to a high degree of certainty by independent scientific investigation.

And as Mystic pointed out, and independent group of almost 200 Architects and Engineers have concluded that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Any other explanation is impossible because it requires all the support columns be severed simultaneously and consecutively such that the building accelerates into itself. This has never happened, and cannot happen to a steel framed building.

The thermate-like reactions appear to be very compelling physical evidence, though it is difficult for me to tell by the video whether the sparks falling from the building are liquid iron or ignited jet fuel. How does one tell the difference between the two?

I've heard that WTC7 had a structural design that lent it to likely possibility of the structure falling symmetrically. If a truss bridge fails at a single point, for example, the entire bridge will most likely fall nearly straight down because the forces that were supported by the failed member redistribute themselves instantaneously, creating a cascade of failures across the structure. In fact, here's some evidence of that:

From Popular Mechanics
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

An unusual structural design and long-term exposure to fire that weakened supports that were already damaged and under unusually high stresses to begin with seems a likely explanation. It is simply untrue that progressive collapse cannot happen in a steel-framed structure(remember the Minnesota bridge collapse?).

It isn't hard to imagine that a similar kind of collapse may have occurred in the twin towers, as there was high heat, structural damage, and higher-than-normal stresses on the members. It isn't hard to imagine that the core columns would buckle under the force of the building collapsing onto them, snapping them into twisted segments, as they were found in the rubble pile.

Mystic and Memeticverb,

1. Back up your claims with credible sources.

2. Explain how your supposed "evidence" proves that the government planned and orchestrated 9/11 and even proves anything beyond the classified nature of certain government intelligence and possible government incompetence, if anything at all. Link the "evidence" to the supposed crime. Explain the connection. Do you realize that you have not done that?

3. Tell us specifically one piece of evidence you have that is not circumstantial.

4. Tell a plausible 9/11 inside job story.

The burden of proof is on you, the accusers/prosecution.