Digg

Call for questions
Submit and vote up questions you'd like to see answered by Kevin & Jay at the next Digg Townhall on 11/18.

No planes, Just manufactured video watch!

brasschecktv.com — -=Believe your own eyes not government lies=-

Bury

SaraLiberty 98 days ago

67 diggs
digg it

219 Comments
Who Dugg It?

SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -7/+22In memory of floatingorb
- jcm267, on 08/12/2008, -17/+15Don't forget floatingorb2, which I got banned as well.
- onetimer, on 08/12/2008, -18/+14You know, I really didn't want to get him banned, because his ramblings can be quite amusing (I think he suffers from some form of schizophrenia - seriously), but he had to go and call us "K****" (only word I wouldn't ever type) as well as threaten to kill me :(
  
  He is back, you know. I didn't realize your community was devastated by his loss.
  - card51short, on 08/12/2008, -10/+12so you'd have no trouble typing any other hateful slurs, just not towards the Jewish?
    Shocking!
  - onetimer, on 08/12/2008, -14/+10Oh my. Talk about your non-sequiturs. Only the limited mind of CarD could have come up with that one.
    
    Maybe it's because your acting purposefully dense, or that your mother drank in-utero, but what you don't understand is that word represents something more to me than it ever can to you. It represents centuries of discrimination and scapegoating (which still happens today). Out of respect, it is a word that I will never bring myself to write. This is something that you are clearly incapable of understanding, which is why you apparently (ignorantly) act as if it should mean the same thing as any other slur.
    
    Not that I have ever typed any kind of slur before (which kinds of destroys your pathetic smear attempt) in a hateful context. Your intolerance is staggering.
  - card51short, on 08/12/2008, -6/+13I wouldn't type any type of racial slur. I don't single out a certain slur as being worse than another. They're all equally hateful.
  - onetimer, on 08/12/2008, -12/+9I don't believe I ever accused you. I was just commenting on your apparent inability to recognize why one word may carry more impact on someone than other slurs might.
  - sullenbode, on 08/13/2008, -5/+8Onetimer,
    
    I'm sure that the guy would apologize, If he wasn't gone. But I saw the comment and took it to be that he was not calling any one person that word but that it was an expression of frustration over confusion of religion with politics why others might want to use the most inflammatory term possible. The wiki entry says that, amongst Jews, ~the word-word-which-must-not-be-typed~ was an 'inside' term of endearment only less than half a century ago. It also says it could refer to 'circumcision' (which, if one is not, then dick-cancer is more likely because ~natural~ is nasty anyways).
    
    I guess it is like other words reserved for specific ~ethnic groups~ and no one else outside the group. I guess it is a word that needs ~registered trade mark~ to be spoken or typed after someone says it or types it.
    
    I thought he was banned because he said "Belgians" Thank you for making that clarification.
    
    Peace (or trade marked words to that effect).
  - sullenbode, on 08/13/2008, -10/+4Onetimer: "threatening to kill you?" Really? Examples? Are you atf threatening to violate his property and burn up his kids?
humanerror, on 08/12/2008, -6/+27Anyone still think the TV news exists to inform the population?
- SaraLiberty, on 08/16/2008, -5/+19Never did and never will. TV exists for the ads. It's someone else's altered reality. Operation Mockingbird is alive and well. http://www.apfn.org/APFN/cia-media.htm
  - Hakib0, on 08/12/2008, -10/+10What flawed arguments...
    
    "Anyone still think the TV news exists to inform the population? "
    
    Of course it doesn't, it exists because people want the news and will pay for it, and therefore theres money in it.
    
    There's no money in decieving the populous. People find out, and people stop giving you money. Many a local newspaper have failed because they decided to take an unpopular stance on a local issue.
    
    There are far too many news sources and far too many editors in the world to believe that theyre all part of some grand conspiracy to decieve the people.
    
    Make your own decisions. Then you dont have to be afraid of the media, and you can live much happier lives.
  - OpMockingbird, on 08/12/2008, -13/+7Yah Operation Mockingbird is still alive and well, beaming secret messages into your brains. Be afraid, we're everywhere!
  - maxtangent, on 08/12/2008, -6/+9Oh, wow. Mockery in the form of rebuttal. Must mean opmock doesn't have an argument.
    Oh, and @hak - Fox news won a court decision saying that they can present false information as 'news' legally.
    How is their share price doing?
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/13/2008, -5/+9We're not 'afraid' "OpMockingbird", we're aware.
    
    And who said anything about being "afraid of the media", Hakib0? That's silly.
thedeviluno, on 08/12/2008, -4/+12Im willing to field any arguments.
- ozydingo, on 08/12/2008, -0/+2(Copy and pasted from my post below:)
  I would like simply to make one small point. The analysis of plane angles and whether or not the plane should be visible in the live news video was done assuming they were on the same timescale. Now, assuming the conclusion of slowed-down footage on the evening news, this is clearly an error.
  
  Note that the plane is out of view in the evening news video for about 5 seconds prior to the crash, and that's from that camera's perspective. Assuming half-speed as they concluded, this equates to 10 seconds of real time. From another perspective it could be out of view for longer. The live news footage they showed was approximately 10 second long prior to the crash. So, no dice until you redo the analysis of the horizontal angles and plane visibility compensating for time stretch and looking back further in the video if necessary.
caferrell, on 08/12/2008, -6/+27I watched it live on television that morning and I saw the plane before the idiots at CNN mentioned it. There was a plane.
There is no doubt that government subterfuge is involved, but if you want to be taken seriously, be serious
- humanerror, on 08/12/2008, -9/+17I saw it live too. But the evening news video is clearly doctored. Did they slow it down and add a visible airplane for better ratings?
  
  Is it really okay for TV news media to be doing that kind of thing without any kind of disclosure or oversight?
iancgi, on 08/12/2008, -5/+14Ive been working in 3D computer graphics and composting for about 6 years now. I have never seen this footage before but it is very interesting. The evening news video that shows a plane is very unsettling considering the buildings look keyed out and placed over a haze background in order to comp the plain in without noticing it.

This is very damning evidence though. It adds up with the fact that the 2 planes that supposedly hit WTC 1 and 2 were not even scheduled to fly that day.
- Hortnon, on 08/12/2008, -9/+11"plane"
- JohnReb, on 08/12/2008, -6/+20And yet I watched the second plane come in over the Hudson and bank into the southern tower with my own mk 1 eyeballs from 40 Wall Street.
  
  What CGI package do you think they used to accomplish that feat?
  - Coven, on 08/12/2008, -7/+16They'll just say you're a government plant here to spread disinformation. Just like they'll call me a government plant when I mention the guy sitting less than five feet from me saw the plane that hit the north tower with his own eyes. Also, look at the fireball in both videos. The "live" video is from a lower angle. Conveniently, the "analysis" ignores the fireball.
    
    Not to mention the videos are both grainy as hell. Youtube compression does not provide for compelling evidence.
  - TheHomeOffice, on 08/12/2008, -10/+12Troofers complain that I only insult them and do not debate them. This troofer submission claiming that there were no planes is the EXACT reason I do not debate with troofers. Anyone who is going to defend the idea that there were no planes on 911 that hit the WTC are not worthy of debate. They are not worthy of respect, matter of fact when someone makes such a stupid accusation they do not even deserve to be heard. The only thing the troofers who are defending the no plane idiocy only deserve ridicule and censure.
    Claiming that no planes hit the WTC or Pentagon is stupid.
    Claiming that explosives were used in the 911 attacks is stupid.
    Claiming that the terrorists are still alive or were trained by the US military is stupid.
    If you make these claims under the guise of "just asking questions" then you are no longer worthy of debate on the 911 issue, or any other issue for that matter. Only a retard falls for such utter *****. If you believe in such "theories" you can only be one of two things. First is that you are just plain mentally ill. In that case you should focus on taking your meds and therapy rather than debating anything. Secondly if by chance you are not ravaged by mental illness then you are just so brainwashed by AntiAmerican propaghanda that you are just naive enough to fall for anything as long as it makes the US look bad.
    So why do I no longer debate troofers? It is because I am not going to waste my time with traitors or the mentally ill.
    
    The only legit questions about 911 are:
    Why the US was not prepared?
    Why was the US not able to prevent the attack and what can be done to stop attacks in the future.
    Why after the attack did we use the CIA who paid the NA to help them track down Al Queda?
    Why did we just use small CIA forces and not launch a full scale ground forces to destroy Al Queda.
    
    Stupid people, with stupid theories making stupid accusations do not deserve debate. They only deserve scorn and ridicule.
  - iancgi, on 08/12/2008, -8/+9"Claiming that explosives were used in the 911 attacks is stupid."
    
    I must say your logic is flawless...
  - Herkimer56, on 08/13/2008, -8/+9There was no evidence of explosives found in the debris. Claiming that there were explosives in the buildings when the evidence clearly indicates otherwise is stupid. Did I clear that up for you?
  - card51short, on 08/13/2008, -4/+9it was all a big mistake! in which no one got fired for....
    we understand...you're coincidence theorists.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4"What CGI package do you think they used to accomplish that feat"
    
    You tell us.
- Hakib0, on 08/12/2008, -7/+7"Ive been working in 3D computer graphics and composting for about 6 years now."
  
  And in your experience, would you EVER take a job with source material as shoddy as the video you just watched?
  
  There are a myriad of true-physics optical effects that occur in a camera to distort an image, and an equally large number of compression and aliasing effects that happen during digital conversion.
  
  This argument has no ground whatsoever. Its ludacris. If you took this seriously you really need to back away from your computer, go outside and think about it for a while, and then come back in to reconsider. If at such time you still believe this crock, do your own research with the goal of proving that the video was not faked, and I guarantee you'll find more supporting evidence for that point of view than this one.
  - iancgi, on 08/12/2008, -4/+9If you think its that complex to comp a scene you are sadly mistaken. If you are speaking about running the comp live in real time then yea I will agree that's a bit harder, but still very feasible with the right equipment.
    
    Im not saying I believe this video or don't, all im doing is pointing out there are some things that catch my attention.
TheImaginator, on 08/12/2008, -8/+19It's a nice conspiracy theory, and much more believable than the theory that a bunch of 'construction workers' were in there plastering plastic explosive putty on the walls weeks or months beforehand, or simply planting thermite on some of the floors two thirds of the way up the building.
However - one thing bugs me.
If there were no planes, and no real witnesses; then why has nobody in New York spoken up?
Surely, in this, the age of the internet and alternative news sources so readily available, there would have been a massive outcry?
- Herkimer56, on 08/12/2008, -10/+19Because the truthers would have us believe that all 20 million of the people in the New York area were in on the conspiracy.
  - JoshReflek, on 08/12/2008, -6/+8do you know anyone that saw the planes, first hand, as opposed to only having watched it on TV?
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -2/+12@JoshReflek I saw it in person from within about a mile.
  - TheHomeOffice, on 08/14/2008, -6/+6I do not know anyone who saw the planes hit the WTC first hand but I know someone who as a Navy Commander and was in charge of every F-18 on the east coast who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. This is a man who has 36 years of Naval service under his belt who enlisted as a Airman Recruit and retired as a Captain, I would believe him over any troofer anyday.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/16/2008, -1/+4Why should we believe someone from the military? They couldn't even protect the country on 9/11. A most basic task = epic fail across the board.
    
    Seriously, what's the point of paying endless amounts of our tax money for billion dollar defense systems, "state of the art weaponry", a massive defense budget and enormous military industrial complex, only for the entire apparatus to become pathetically outsmarted by 19 boxcutter-wielding degenerate tin-horn terrorists from a desert cave across the world under direction of a crippled cleric hiding in a cave with a computer? All the US military might and power did nothing to protect us on 9/11. Asleep at the wheel. Why should we have it?
    
    "Beware of the military industrial complex" - Eisenhower
    
    Indeed.
    
    Beware of military deception...
    
    One feature of the attacks that suggests complicity by US officials is the twofold fact that the US military failed to stop the attacks on 9/11.
    
    And since then, they have given us *3 different stories* as to why they failed.
    
    These changing stories suggest that the military have been trying to cover-up the fact that a "stand-down" order was given on 9/11, canceling the military's own standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly hijacked airplanes.
    
    It is certainly clear that some agency, either the military or the FAA, failed to follow standard procedures on 9/11. It's a routine procedure, about 100 times per year, to intercept planes. On 9/11 however, it did not happen. Why not?
    
    The military's 1st story was that 'no planes were sent up until after the pentagon was hit.' The military leaders were admitting therefore, that they had left their fighters on the ground for almost 90 minutes after the FAA had first noticed signs of a possible hijacking. This 1st story suggested to many people that the 'stand-down order' must have been given.
    
    By the end of the week, the military had put out a 2nd story saying that it *had* sent up fighters, but that because the FAA had been 'very late' in notifying it about the hijackings, the fighters arrived too late in each case.
    
    One problem with this story is, if the FAA personnel had responded so slowly, *heads should have rolled*! But none did. Nobody was held accountable. Instead many were promoted.
    
    An even more serious problem is that, even assuming the truth of the late notification times, the military's fighters -still- had time to intercept the hijacked airliners before they would have hit their targets. The 2nd story implied therefore, the standard procedures had been violated by the military as well as by the FAA.
    
    To try to defend the military against this accusation, the 9/11 Commission report gave us a *3rd* story according to which the FAA, after giving the military insufficient warning about the first hijacked airline, gave it absolutely NO warning about the other 3 until after they had crashed. This account is wholly implausible.
    
    Besides betraying the FAA personnel from top to bottom as incompetent, bumbling dolts, the 9/11 Commissions account rests on claims that contradict many credible and mutually supporting testimonies. In some of these cases the fact the commission is simply lying is obvious.
    
    In addition, this 3rd story implies that the military's 2nd story - which it had been telling for almost 3 years - was almost entirely false.
    
    So if our military leaders were lying to us all that time, why should we believe them now?
    
    And if our military is lying to us, must we not assume that it is doing so to cover-up its own guilt?
    
    In sum, the behavior of the military, both on 9/11 and afterwords, combined with the fact that the 9/11 Commission had to resort to lies to make the US military appear blameless, suggests that US military leaders were complicit in the attacks.
    
    Who benefits? Common people have nothing to gain from 9/11.
- card51short, on 08/12/2008, -7/+9Herkimer, you know as well as I that only a small percentage of truthers believe this trash.
- JoshReflek, on 08/12/2008, -7/+11theimaginator: it wasn't putty, it was thermate.
  
  do you know what 'freefall' speed means for a building of that size?
  
  have you ever seen a controlled demolition?
  
  go watch something like http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm
- GovernmentSp00k, on 08/13/2008, -6/+6card51short: Did you ever consider the 'truth movement" is under the total control of the CIA ?
  
  If you understand history, you would know they infiltrate ALL movements. The 9/11 movement is no exception... And that the truth movement was infiltrated from the get go... That's how cointel works they control the information and viciously attack anything that may be close to or lead to the truth.
  
  If the truth movement is under their control, they can lead the whole movement away from the real 9/11 truth...
  
  If 9/11 was an inside operation, the perpetrators obviously have total control of the media. In this case, would it not make sense for them to plant propaganda in the media to distract those who are already suspicious of the attacks?
  
  If 9/11 was well planned, wouldn't the cover-up be even more well planned?
  
  The perpe-traitors are well aware about the problem of some people who never believe the 'official government story' so they don't just sit and wait and hope that no one discovers their lies, they just start the movement and control it, so they have the control about what you learn or not. The big lie is that the controlled media is not 'ignorant' but *complicit* in it. That's why you will never get the truth from the media, they are part of it.
  
  Finding out *how* they did it, is what will lead you to WHO did it...Think about it
  ..
  - sugarazor, on 08/13/2008, -5/+6So now the government makes up a crazy conspiracy to detract from the real conspiracy? Wasn't that a South Park episode?
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/13/2008, -3/+4You have no idea of real history, much less how those organizations work, do you "sugarazor." You're only capable of dumb insults to make up for an obvious lack of wisdom. You sound like another inexperienced, isolated unworldly kid with on TV programmed reality. Much like the rest of your government apologist minions who think they "know it all", anyone who isn't exactly like them is "crazy!" Everything is reduced to some cartoon TV episode to you folks huh. LOL. The 9/11 caveman boxcutter fantasy government conspiracy theory "official story" was tailor-made for easily manipulated simpletons like you. Wasn't that out of a Batman comic book?
  - sugarazor, on 08/13/2008, -5/+5I'm pretty sure Batman's writers could have come up with something a little more intelligent and well thought out than "there were no planes on 9/11" or "the government creates wacky conspiracies to hide the true conspiracy."
    
    You can call me a simpleton, an apologist, or comment on a lack of wisdom all you'd like. The fact of the matter is, through your own dumb insults, you lil troofers still don't have a single shred of credible evidence to support ANY 9/11 theory. You can twist any evidence debunking your theories into something supporting your theories, it's hilarious.
    
    Seriously, find me some sort of factual evidence and I'll come right across the line and join the cause... but you can't do it. And spare me the "do your own research" or "I'm just asking questions" nonsense.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3The "official" US government 9-11 story IS the 'conspiracy theory', dummy.
    : - )
    
    So you believe Al Quada did it huh, that's an unproven "conspiracy theory." You know what those are, right? And spare me the "well I saw Bin Ladel confessing on TV so that means he did it!" or "the 9/11 commission report said so" "George Bush says we were attacked on 9/11 by evil enemies of democracy who "hate our American freedoms and way of life" claptrap.
    
    Even if the conspiracy theory is false, there's the "what if?" (which you avoid..)
    
    It's because history (you know history right?) shows most big wars start with a false flag. If 9/11 wasn't, then it would be an exception to the rule.
    
    The government apologists and self-proclaimed "debunkers" call us "troofers" and "tin-foil hatters", because we want justice not policies, political rhetoric and dictatorial commands. Yet all they want to do is "explain it all away" "move along, nothing to see here" like there's nothing to it. When in reality, it's far more involved than they would like us to believe. The rabbit hole is VERRRY deep on this one yes it is.
    
    Go read about Nuremberg..
    
    The History Channel had a conspiracy theory about the anthrax being spread shortly after 9/11. Now we all know who was responsible for that, years later..It wasn't who they said it was. The anthrax fraud was a scam to scare Congress into passing the Patriot Act. Yet I bet back in October 2001 you were parroting the government scripts and defending the Administrations cover-up like your life depended on it. 7 years later we find the anthrax is *military grade* from a *government lab* and *FBI involvement*. So much for the religious fanatic jihadiers conspiracy theory the Administration marketed us like gullible suckers. Wait, I didn't buy what they were selling - you did!
    
    REMEMBER: only the administration has the authority to tell poor American serfs which conspiracy theories are the "accepted" ones. If government tells poor TV-manipulated serfs a conspiracy theory of 19 freedom-hating Arabs who "hate our freedoms and American way of life!" using box cutters to defeat the security systems of the most heavily armed country on the planet then THAT conspiracy theory must be true. They have yet to prove this wild conspiracy theory. But you assimilate into your belief system as "truth" just because they say so. You believe a criminal administration that has lied in our faces about everything and lied over 900 times about their Iraq war. But to you, they tell the truth about 9/11. LOL!
    
    Check out WTC 1 & 2 steel turning to DUST in the videos. That's not caused by jet fuel. Over 20 miles of steel girders are missing. The buildings were "dustified." That's not your average typical run of the mill "collapse" no sirree Bob. The damage is in no way consistent with a "pancake collapse." Therefore you have to abandon your silly Arab conspiracy theory. Yet you eat it up like it all means something! How about it, can you rise to the occasion and stop trying to gate-keep long enough to see the forest for the trees?
    
    9-11 - America got Punk'd. You've been Psyop’d, sugar.
- Herkimer56, on 08/13/2008, -6/+5@Joshreflek
  
  There was no thermate in the buildings either. That was a false assumption from Steven Jones based on incomplete and inaccurate research on his part. The building did not fall at "freefall" speeds. Watch any video of the collapse and you can clearly see pieces of debris falling faster than the main portion of the building. What do videos of controlled demolitions have to do with anything? These were not controlled demolitions.
sphira, on 08/12/2008, -11/+12
I new a long time ago, that the government was no longer about the ideals of the Constitution, has been hijacked by virtue of the process, and is rotten through and through.
Then I came to understand -

My God, there are 13 blood lines, Fabians, Committees of 300, Grovers, and Knights of Malta running around -
and behold there was light shone.

To be honest I have not looked into the 911conspiracy issue much for very long -
I considered it to be more or less a distraction.
I once considered that it was, really; unthinkable
Recently, my mindset was more or less to accept the dish -
I knew it was being used to stomp on our necks, and take what few liberties remain; but actual planning and execution of this as a black-op? I didn't want to believe it!
I didn't want to believe that all of such a precious thing as was America; is gone -

The truth is often frigid dinning!

Reminiscing:
I recall a short time after 911
video was no longer shown by the networks, independents, and on the web
they said it was out of:
"deference; respect"
I remember finding that very odd at the time -

It just occurred to me that TWA 800 could very well have been used as a test of the ability to control the system (NTSB, FAA, etc..) and information dissemination. Black-ops would be an easy matter. Those are the two key elements. The media was a given -

In any event, it appears glaringly more and more each day that the entire upper echelons of the power structure are insane -

I had problems with the vid -
here is a direct link -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh7cKDXnS_s
theright, on 08/12/2008, -5/+17United Airlines Flight 175 visible in the NBC News Chopper 4 footage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh2FazZmvuE
Don't forget the South Tower impact was also broadcast live on numerous other networks from different angles, and the plane was visible in all of them.

P.S. I thought all this "no-planer" stuff was a strawman argument put forward by debunkers to discredit the 9/11 "truth movement", right?
- sheasie, on 08/13/2008, -4/+8umm... no. your youtube video shows the same "orb" that is presented in this Digg article.
- dinsy, on 08/13/2008, -3/+6That does not look like a plane.
- GovernmentSp00k, on 08/16/2008, -3/+3It isn't. It's a psyop.
Pssdoff, on 08/12/2008, -9/+12It really wouldn't be difficult for them to program two unmanned planes on autopilot to crash into the buildings. This is technology that existed for years before 2001.

It would however be difficult for novice terrorist pilots to take over a plane with a box cutter, then flawlessly fly directly into the WTC tower without alerting NORAD, and to do it not once, but a second time an hour later. Plus, it is utter insanity to think that some debris and small office fires could also bring down WTC 7 in under 7 seconds hours after WTC 1 and 2 fell.

If anything this is proof that the media doctored the video, which isn't surprising to me. Honestly I think it would have been more difficult for them to fake a second plane hitting the tower. Controlling one plane's flight path is easy, controlling all the amateur videos showing the building exploding for no reason... that would be impossible.
- Hortnon, on 08/12/2008, -7/+12a) Prove it would've been easy. Technology existing != Technology easy
  b) If I held a razorblade to your throat, what would you do?
  c) Prove they flew flawlessly
  d) Prove NORAD was not alerted
  e) Prove it was small office fires
  f) Prove it was 7 seconds
  g) Prove the video was doctored using the video itself as evidence only. Other events have no bearing on whether the video was doctored or not.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/12/2008, -8/+11"prove prove prove prove"
    
    Yet you would never demand proof from your government, of their side.
    
    You would never hold the administration under such rigid hypercritical scrutiny to prove 9/11 happened as the said it was. An administration that has done nothing but lie to the American people at every opportunity and lied to trick us into war with Iraq. You think these deceivers are gonna be honest and truthful about 9/11? LOL
    
    Yeah right!
    
    We're still waiting for you government apologist Digg lifers to prove the official story you defend like your life depends on it.
    
    Quit your dumb diversionary BS and get to it. You conveniently avoid it when cornered and do the usual spin to change topic. Prove you caveman with boxcutters 9/11 fantasy.
    
    Let's see you prove the official story from start to finish. Then we'll all go away. Enough namecalling and disinformation. If it's true you should have no problem right? with all your proof.
  - Hangly, on 08/12/2008, -5/+9Deniers demand truthers provide proof, yet in their own "debunking" they more often than not appeal to ignorance, coincidence, or both.
  - ssn697, on 08/12/2008, -8/+7"Deniers demand truthers provide proof, yet in their own "debunking" they more often than not appeal to ignorance, coincidence, or both."
    
    Yes, using papers from MIT is relying on ignorance. Same with the ACSE, hundreds of eyewitness accounts, a dozens scientifically reviewed papers, etc.
    
    See? That would be me providing proof, and you talking more *****.
  - Herkimer56, on 08/12/2008, -6/+6The problem that Hangly and GovernmentSp00k have is that they can't provide proof of any of their claims or theories so they try to mock the people that ask them for that proof. I guess that we're supposed to accept their story at face value despite the fact that ten minutes worth of research blows their entire movement apart. I'm afraid that talking ***** is all they have or are ever going to have.
  - Hakib0, on 08/12/2008, -5/+6Are you two kidding? Spook and Hangly, we hold our side to the UTMOST SCRUTINY.
    
    The difference is that we have the presence of mind to "add it all up" subjectively and decide for ourselves that the "official story" has been tried, tested, and held up over and over again.
    
    EVERY truther argument I have ever seen has been disproved with official documentation, personal testimony, or computational analysis.
    
    You truthers are the ones who demand that we look at your propaganda websites, that we "consider the possibilities." And we, in turn, go out and find proof of why your arguments are sham. We then return them to you, where you deny them flat out simply because they come from "official sources."
    
    Dont you see? We are the ones who demand proof from our government because we dont believe the disinformation that you send us. And whereas the proof that we seek and find directly DISPROVES the information you send us, the information you provide NEVER replies to official reports or rebuttals.
    
    Take this into account: There has never been a peer-reviewed scientific paper assuming the collapse of WTC was a controlled demolition. Why? Because there has never even been a truly scientific analysis assuming the WTC was a controlled demolition. Dropping cardboard boxes on top of each other IS NOT a scientific analysis
    The NIST report was peer-reviewed by thousands of leading engineers all around the country, and found to be scientifically and physically sound many times over.
    
    You need to just STOP being so rude and ignorant to people who have, for the most part, been respectful in asking you to take a look at the other side of the argument.
    
    "Let's see you prove the official story from start to finish. Then we'll all go away. Enough namecalling and disinformation. If it's true you should have no problem right? with all your proof."
    
    www.911myths.com
  - Hakib0, on 08/12/2008, -5/+5Dammit it cut off the last part of my post...
    
    What I was saying was to Spook... Just stop being so insulting and ignorant. If you took our arguments with the same seriousness that we HAVE to take your arguments (because what you're alleging is so heinous) then you would see that we're not just feeding the party line.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/13/2008, -5/+4Wow did you blow a gasket or what Hakib0. You went off the deep end when I asked one of your fellow operatives to prove their sacred 9/11 story.
    
    How am I being "insulting and ignorant" by asking that. Why is your side so frightened to rise to the occasion and prove the government 9/11 conspiracy theory as has been requested countless times previously without citing a government agency URL as proof? Because you can't prove a lie? So instead all you have left is name calling and diversion of topic and calling someone "stupid" if they don't believe the official story word for word then calling them childish names like "troofer!"
    
    The delusional people are the one who believe the government's own conspiracy theory that Osama Bin Lanen did it. These same people have to believe the lies of their government--otherwise what is the alternative? It is something they can't deal with.
    
    Where is the proof muslim jihadists did it? This government has not showed any evidence yet. Why do you accept without evidence? who looks stupid? There has been absolutely no verifiable evidence of jihadist doing 9/11. Let me guess. They hate us for our "democracy" and "freedom", right?
    
    Every thing's odd about 9/11..all of it, nothing seems to add up, from the hijackers, to the 'planes', to the building collapses, to who owned what, and who was in charge of this and that, who knew what and when they knew it, and said thing's they shouldn't have after the fact..if you get what I mean.
    
    "EVERY truther argument I have ever seen has been disproved with official documentation, personal testimony, or computational analysis."
    
    Your last two sentences are actually a very accurate description of the propagandists who told us Iraq had WMD and many, still to this day, persist in promoting conspiracy theories involving Iraq secretly concealing its WMD in Syria, and an Iraq al-Qaeda connection. Those who promoted these official conspiracies have the blood of thousands on their hands.
    
    "The difference is that we have the presence of mind to "add it all up" subjectively and decide for ourselves that the "official story" has been tried, tested, and held up over and over again."
    
    LOL! You've got to be kidding me. the OBL + KSM +19 +boxcutters- myth. Are you for real? All this to back out of having to prove the official 9/11 story just by claiming it's "been tried, tested, and held up over and over again." You'll go to any length won't you.
    
    The reason why the events of 9/11 are still talked about to this day is because the official story does not stand logical scrutiny.
    
    I don't believe people can appreciate how much it takes for a building to simply "fall down." And how hard it must be to hijack 4 'planes' and fly uninterrupted across the airspace of the most heavily militarized nation in the world without any interference whatsoever, bypassing state of the art billion dollar defense systems without being shot down and also navigate outside the flightpath and hit three buildings. Give the mu-slims some credit... They achieved the impossible. "that was some bad pilot" - Yes sir mr. President!
    
    This administration has already proven what they are capable of. Please get your head out of the sand and stop apologizing, running interference and explaining everything away for them and demand some real answers.
    
    Why not let THEM explain it? Why not let the government come out an prove their story? Instead you & other operatives are here doing the dirty work for them on all 9/11 stories 24/7. Wonder why...
    
    Do you know where bush was during all this?.........Florida...in a class room...when has he ever done that before or since??....his people told him....he just sat there....and sat there.....listening to the story that the little girls and little boys were listening to..................while hundreds at a time were dying.............................that's what i call B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
    
    Every explanation provided by the Administration so far has been more or less a cover-up. The 9/11 Commission was not a real investigation - it was a presentation. It was setup to fail, under funded and understaffed. The government didn't want a 9/11 investigation. That would have embarrassed way too many "important" people.
    
    Sibel Edmonds knew. Yet John Ashcroft invoked the State Secrets privilege on her to silence her completely. She remains the most gag-ordered woman in history. They don't want her to tell what she knows of this cover-up. Her testimony in front of the 9/11 Commission was redacted from their report. Why? It's obvious. Sibel deserves to be able to tell her story, what she knows, in court under oath. But the government has gag-ordered her, threatened her and silenced her from doing so.
    
    What have they got to hide? Why all the secrecy? Is this the way an innocent party behaves?
    
    "we hold our side to the UTMOST SCRUTINY."
    
    Are you kidding? By believing everything fed to you by official government sources and Bush Administration talking pundits and government investigating government without a single doubt, question or hint of skepticism in the world? From a government that has done nothing but lie to us. They are trustworthy? to get the truth? I find that hard to call utmost scrutiny.
    
    Do you hold your blurry Bin Laden videos under the utmost scrutiny?
    
    What about the put options on airline stock days before that's not the least bit suspicious? Or do you prefer to sit at your computer and "debunk" everything to explain it all away rather than demanding real answers and real investigation from the Administration and get them to testify under oath in front of a citizens/9/11 family's investigative panel.
    
    And the PNAC document calling for a new Pearl Harbor to carry out their plans for war in the Middle East for centuries. Then conveniently America was Pearl Harbored on 9/11 -in spades-. No concerns there? Shouldn't the Neoconservative PNAC war planners have been investigated and put under oath for questioning? Why weren't they questioned? And Donald Rumsfeld and Richard Meyers should have been questioned on the number of military exercises taking place the morning of 9/11 but instead were given a free pass by the 9/11 Commission and let off the hook.
    
    The Commission also determined it "of little practical significance" to investigate who funded 9/11, "of little practical significance" to follow the money trail on a crime that killed over 3000 people. The first step in solving any crime is to follow the money. Yet on 9/11 this basic investigative step was avoided entirely. What kind of absolute **BS** is that? They don't want us to know the truth. We common people have nothing to gain from 9/11 while government has everything. Why should they bother giving us the truth?
    
    I have yet to hear one of your crew have even one question, concern or doubt about the official story during my entire tenure on Digg reading these types of submissions. You just say "it's all been answered" "move along nothing to see here" and call someone a "conspiracy theorist" or "paranoid!" for being skeptical of government explanations or offering a theory to evidence provided.
    
    "Everything happened the way they said it did" "no need to ask questions because your questions have already been answered" "no need to discuss new evidence or findings as all of that has been "debunked" "Osama and 19 muslims with boxcutters did it that's all there is to it" etc. is basically where your "side" is coming from.
    
    And where is NIST official explanation for WTC7? They still cannot explain what caused the mysterious collapse. Buildings don't just "fall down" like that. I don't care how ***** damaged it was it should never have neatly collapsed into it's own basement like that. 47 storys! Just falls to the ground nice and neat and tidy like nothing. Something definitely smells with the whole operation. Stinks to high heaven is a more realistic term.
    
    The mainstream media Will NOT show the collapse of WTC7 because any TV addled moron who looks at that video will realize that it was DEFINITELY brought down by a controlled demolition. Acceptance of that FACT will open the entire government hypothesis of 9/11 to mass scrutiny. Building 7 is the smoking gun to the whole operation.
    
    A September 6, 2007 Zogby Poll found 67% fault the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7 http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354
    
    The U.S. government administration lies about everything. Did they suddenly decide to break the lifetime trend and tell us the truth about 9/11?
    
    The perpetrators have basically got what they wanted, ie: payouts, the PNAC war manifesto in the Middle East, years of perpetual war & changed Laws, Patriot Act legislation, dismantled US Constitution and warrant-less spying on American citizens without probable cause, National ID cards, secret prisons where torture is committed, renditions, wiretaps, and so on. Can you feel the freedom? All brought to you by the numbers 9 - 1 and 1. None of this is of any concern to "your side". If anyone brings up any number of these topics, 'you side' immediately swoops in slander them as "delusional", "paranoid!" with even dumber "troofer!" "living in mothers basement" and other unsubstantiated rhetoric, unintelligent name-calling dis-info smear to avoid dealing with issues which conflict what you've been programmed to receive.
    
    Your "side" also completely ignores the fact 9/11 has been used to dismantle our Constitution, usher in police state legislation, surveillance, dozens of Signing Statements (over 1100!) National ID cards with RFID tracking chips, spying on American citizens and forfeit our most basic American civil liberties and privacy rights. This is no longer America.
    
    None of this absolute assault on the Constitution and American rights is ever questioned or of any expressed concern by "your side." NONE whatsoever. I wonder, are you even an American citizen? Don't you realize what is going on? Isn't that the least bit suspicious to you? Why such loyal support for the Bush administration while you rip apart American citizens who want the truth or present alternative information to what they've marketed to us. We've been lied to. By what logic can Americas rights and freedoms be protected by taking them away? It doesn't make any sense. Instead of defending our hard fought, won & died-for American freedoms, the Administration, Congress and Senate legislates them away! Once those freedoms are gone we will never get them back they are gone for good.
    
    Yet you scrutinize, name-call and personally attack people for the mere mention of "9/11 not being everything they said it was" to get them to shut up and go away. Because after all, the official story is not to be questioned since its "tried and true" right. Go figure.
    
    Most of us are very skeptical of the "government says so" evidence. And have every reason to be. This Administration has lied over 900 times about the Iraq war. They lied to trick us into war with Iraq under false pretenses. They lie in our faces at every opportunity and deny everything and tell us everything is fine and there's nothing to worry about move along nothing to see here. Ho hum.
    
    Are we to think these professional liars and war profiteers are telling us the 100% truth behind 9/11, the vehicle that made it all possible ?
    
    I guess you think is wrong for all of these U.S. Military officials to question the Bush Administration's actions and the 9/11 Commission Report?
    http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
    
    Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 – Official Account of 9/11 “Impossible”, “A Bunch of Hogwash”, “Total B.S.”, “Ludicrous”, “A Well-Organized Cover-up”, “A White-Washed Farce” http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Milit ...
    
    Of course, that's not an "official" US government or .mil website so to your side it's not to be taken as correct right.. The only correct info to be taken as honest truth comes from the Administration with an official government stamp on it...
    
    "If you took our arguments with the same seriousness that we HAVE to take your arguments"
    
    What arguments? You present name-calling and denial of every single piece of conflicting evidence to your 9/11 story. Your "argument" is to stereotype someone a "TROOFER!" just because they doubt 9/11, or have questions. And call them names. You would never consider any piece of evidence aside from the government version. Your presence here is not to seek the truth, but to instead obfuscate and bury it while propping up a full of holes "official story" and name-calling anyone who doesn't believe what you believe. Some might call that "disinformation."
    
    "then you would see that we're not just feeding the party line."
    
    Then why are all responses of yours just that, towing the party-line and parroting government narratives and so-called official soundbites? While name-calling anybody who isn't convinced of the official 9/11 explanation as "paranoid" "delusional" and likewise rhetoric.
    
    "The NIST report was peer-reviewed by thousands of leading engineers all around the country, and found to be scientifically and physically sound many times over."
    
    Link please.
    
    And who are these thousands of leading engineers all around the country" exactly?
    
    (continued)
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/13/2008, -4/+4(continued from above)
    
    Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report
    Gaps and inconsistencies reveal fundamental flaws in NIST's building collapse analyses
    http://stj911.org/press_releases/NIST.html
    "people have been paid a lot of money - and these are the 'experts'. They weren't looking at the more reasonable hypothesis of controlled demolition. Instead, they just worked the numbers backwards until their desired conclusion - collapse by fire - was supported."
    
    Why is it NIST refuses to provide data, or models, so none of their algorithms and conclusions can be verified?
    
    All of it should be provided for independent analysis for verification. All of it should be made available. WE PAID FOR THE REPORT!
    
    Yet it won't be released. As every FOIA document that gets filed also gets rejected because of the "Threat to National Security". And I believe they are totally right!
    
    What threat is there from releasing 5 yr old information on how the towers fell? I'll tell you what. . . The TRUTH may be revealed! That's the real reason behind it. For some reason our government doesn't want us to see all the evidence concerning this day because it may reveal things they don't want us to know.
    
    The whole thing stinks! But it will probably follow the same path thru history as the JFK assasination, the complicit shall live their lives & die without consequence, and the families of the victims, along with the rest of us, will never know the truth.
    
    We are denied access to the data, and they refuse to even publically debate the issue. What are they scared of? They should be ashamed of themselves. . .
    
    The "fact sheets" from NIST are also very amusing (justifying why they did not evaluate the global collapse, did not immediately collect evidence, did not find temps high enough to melt steel, etc.). An idiot would laugh at these ridiculous justifications.
    
    On ways official believers discredit those who question their official story:
    
    (i) NIST has covered all the bases - you need to refute NIST to win an argument here.
    (ii) Taunt opponent with "where's your evidence?"
    (iii) Question credentials - "Are you a scientist?"; "Are you an engineer?"
    (iv) Ask why there are no peer-reviewed journal articles refuting NIST.
    (v) Ask opponent if they are going to submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal.
    
    Science and "peer reviewed papers" cannot explain for half of what happened on that fatal day which changed America and our future forever.
    
    The report is irrelevant if it can’t explain the “structural behavior of the tower” after the collapse began. Essentially, the only focus of the report is to prove that the collapse started, not what happened after it started.
    
    As for "no peer reviewed scientific article" having any issues with their conclusions, how do you account for Dr. Quintiere's objections to the report? You cannot dismiss him as a "twoofer" seeing as how they quote him in the report.
    
    Since NIST has not tested their hypothesis it will always remain an hypothesis. Therefore why should anyone regard it as final?
    
    Also, I'm curious to know how you interpret NIST's conclusions. Do you regard them as an infallible testament of how the towers collapsed? Or just an hypothesis that must be tested?
  - Hakib0, on 08/13/2008, -2/+2Spook, you obviously didn't take anything I said seriously, like I asked you to. Im sick of this argument for this reason, so Im going to keep this short.
    
    Namecalling? We call you "truthers" (I never said "troofer") because that's what the movement is called (9/11 for Truth)
    We're not the ones calling other people "Sheep" or "Government operatives" (lol)
    
    As is true with many 9/11 myths, you assert that NIST documents are classified for national security. This is not so. Just because it's not available online doesn't mean its not available to REAL investigators at the Library of Congress...because it is.
    
    The NIST investigation and the 9/11 commission involved over 10,000 people. Just because one person quit, or one person dissented, doesn't mean that the investigations didn't serve a purpose. Link to peer reviews :wtc.nist.gov
    
    We do not simply deny any piece of evidence you give us. 90% of the time I see "deniers" supplying links to official, non-blog, non-editorial sources, which you ignore out of hand.
    
    Look, I understand if someone explaining the real physics of building colllapses sounds like jibberish to you. Structural Dynamics is not a simple subject. But I can tell you that the structural analysis tools available to engineers is 99% in agreement with reality. Dropping cardboard boxes on top of each other, is not. (hint: it has to do with momentum, impulse, and the fatigue stress limit)
    
    Spook, you seem like a pretty thorough debater. For that reason, I think you are capable of compiling a complete investigation containing all the confirmed evidence for and confirmed evidence against the WTC collapse. Emphasis on the word CONFIRMED. So far, no one has done this, because every site or movie picks and chooses the "strongest" arguments only. You're right, a complete picture is needed, and neither side has provided that yet. But even so, I believe in my heart of hearts that there is no way that a controlled demolition of the WTC could have occured. Or that the planes were drones (or fakes) or that a missile hit the pentagon. I believe this because of my engineering and analytical background. I dont hold it against anyone if they believe differently than I do. The only time I will hold it against them is when I provide the knowledge and it is ignored.
    
    So Spook, take the side of the scientist and investigate this unbiasedly. Perhaps with the help of other people who may not share the same viewpoint. Only then can you say that you are truly concerned with "the truth?
  - BrapAllgood, on 08/16/2008, -2/+3ssn697: "Yes, using papers from MIT is relying on ignorance. Same with the ACSE, hundreds of eyewitness accounts, a dozens scientifically reviewed papers, etc.
    
    See? That would be me providing proof, and you talking more *****."
    
    You need to learn the difference between proof and evidence.
    
    Tell me...how many of these interviews did you conduct? YOU are talking some serious *****.
- Hakib0, on 08/12/2008, -7/+9Pssdoff, I have a degree in Aerospace Engineering, and I can tell you without a doubt that it's not "easy" to "unman" a jumbo jet.
  
  Boeing has said repeatedly to truthers that their planes are not designed to be able to be controlled remotely. This is largely due to the fact that the avionics system is one of the most complicated parts of the jet, is heavily integrated into the design and is a closed system. Therefore if you were to install a remote control system, you would need to completely gut an existing plane, and then painstakingly recalibrate every control surface and sensor to work with your new control system. Its not a simple matter of plugging in a few transmitters and bingo you've got control. You have to interface with radar, communications, hydraulic controls, electronic controls, engine controls, de-icing systems, environmental systems, telemetry systems. All of which are proprietary and are the result of numerous companies working together to make their individual systems work as one. On top of that, the signals are likely encrypted.
  
  Therefore what you're suggesting would have added hundreds of people to the conspiracy (not that that stops you, since you seem to believe that multiple television directors are now involved). Flight testing and calibration would have to occur. Procuring the plane would be very public, as would the design of a new avionics system (it would likely be published in many scientific journals!). Not to mention the people who would be hired to paint the plane the exact colors necessary.
  
  Seriously PssDoff, you truthers force all of us "sheep" to watch your videos, listen to your opinions, and consider possibilities. But you're so reluctant to listen to the other, easily obtainable facts that dispute your points, that this argument never gets anywhere.
  
  Until you decide for yourself that youre REALLY concerned with the truth, and decide to take an objective look at BOTH sides of the argument, nothing we say will change your mind. You know and I know that the post you wrote was 100% intended to start an argument, and thats very different than a post that is trying to convince someone to change their mind.
- Kythas, on 08/15/2008, -3/+3Then what happened to the people who were on board the planes if they were unmanned? No troofer has ever explained what happened to the passengers and crew of the aircraft if the aircraft either 1) did not exist or 2) were unmanned and remotely controlled.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/16/2008, -1/+3That's because it's a secret.
GlobalistShill, on 08/12/2008, -5/+13Nearly all the known angles (42 total) shot of the 2nd plane hitting the South Tower of the WTC:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA_-w-fsI9Q
- JohnReb, on 08/12/2008, -8/+11What does that prove about all the individuals who saw the planes hit the towers with their own eyes that morning?
  
  We all paid government disinformation agents?
  - Hortnon, on 08/12/2008, -6/+11I *THINK* he's trying to discredit the "no-plane" truthers...
- Coven, on 08/12/2008, -3/+14Planes in damn near each and every one of them. Would you look at that...
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/17/2008, -1/+3http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BE3hvucKsRM
- GlobalistShill, on 08/12/2008, -8/+11@JohnReb
  
  It doesn't prove anything; I do not claim that no plane hit the South Tower. I felt that it was appropriate material for the topic, and might help people interested in this topic to focus and not go off on unnecessary tangents. And no, I don't think that you are a paid government disinformation agent.
  
  The planes misdirected attention away from the actual cause of the fall of the three (3) towers: controlled demolition.
  
  The events of September 11th, 2001, and how they were used as a political driver are the ultimate example of "Big Lie". The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. It was defined by Adolf Hitler in his 1925 autobiography Mein Kampf as a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously".
  - Herkimer56, on 08/12/2008, -12/+13Are you still pushing the controlled demolition fantasy? Surely you know by now that a controlled demolition did not take place. The evidence clearly indicates that there were no explosives present in the WTC buildings. I think the perfect example of the "big lie" is your controlled demolition story. The problem for you is that sensible, sane, educated people aren't going to buy that *****.
  - JohnReb, on 08/12/2008, -11/+12Even assuming there was a controlled demolition, something I don't believe as there has been absolutly no evidence of it in all these years, how did the pilots (local or remote) manage to hit the towers exactly where the explosives were planted and still manage to not detonate those explosives with the fireball.
    
    Planes make controlled demolition a non-starter.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/12/2008, -12/+12@JohnReb
    
    If we are going to question the skill of the pilots, perhaps we should talk about the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon (and what kind of skill was required for him to fly it in)? If we are going to suggest that the planes would damage the controlled demolition and therefore make it not work, perhaps we should talk about how controlled demolition can be rigged, and what would prevent them from going off? But in doing so, I would prefer it if we not make ANY assumptions here,... this topic is too important.
    
    But let me ask you this, since I feel it is more to the point: WTC7,... no plane hit that one. Any thoughts?
    
    http://www.chico911truth.org/images/wtc7.gif
  - card51short, on 08/12/2008, -10/+13johnreb, you should know by now that thermate is not activated by fire.
    If not, study up.
  - Herkimer56, on 08/12/2008, -13/+12Yeah. Hundreds of tons of debris from the towers fell on WTC7. Weren't you aware of that? There was a huge hole in the building which damaged some 20 stories of the building as well as taking out most of the southwest corner. Also, according to the FDNY, the building was heavily involved in fire with large fires showing on nearly every floor. There's no mystery about what happened to WTC7 unless you are deeply in denial about the truth.
    
    You also failed to explain how the remote pilots managed to steer their planes in to precisely the floors where the controlled demolition was to start. The collapse clearly begins at the point where the planes struck the towers so they would have had to hit the exact floor that they were aiming for while traveling more than 500mph in a huge jet that is not know for it's acrobatic capabilities or it's ability to turn on a dime. What you would like to do is ignore that fact and talk about explosives in the building. Okay, let's talk about explosives.
    
    Please explain how they managed to get hundreds of people in to the WTC buildings, tear out the interior structures to get at supporting members, run hundreds of miles of det cord, place what had to be tons of explosives, replace the interior structures so perfectly that no one noticed that they had been replaced and get out without one person becoming suspicious of all of this activity. Please don't give me that old lie about Bush's brother being in charge of security because he wasn't and he never had been.
    
    I'd also like to know what kind of explosives they used because those explosives left absolutely no evidence of their presence. No trace evidence, no unexploded ordnance, no pieces of blasting caps or detonators. How, exactly, was this miracle pulled off? It's been my experience that any known explosive leaves some kind of evidence behind when it is detonated. That debris was not only examined, it was sifted by crime scene investigators looking for any kind of evidence.
    
    So where's your evidence of explosives?
  - JohnReb, on 08/12/2008, -10/+9@CarD And you should be aware by now that there is no evidence of thermate in the debris of the towers. If not, study up.
    
    #GS Your response doesn't address the fact that CD theories have to explain how the pilots managed to impact the towers at the correct place to make the detonation seem correct, but not detonate any explosives prematurely. Nothing about the pentagon has anything to do with that issue.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/12/2008, -8/+10@JohnReb
    
    In all honesty, I see absolutely no problem with the impact location of the planes. What difference does that really make in the grand scheme of things? Considering that the Pentagon "lost" 2.3 trillion dollars by the time September 11th, 2001 came around, I figure that they've got the means to figure out how to blow up a building respective to a plane flying into it. What is the problem here? LOL! Really, IS that what is holding up the house of cards for your view of the world with respect to 9/11?
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/12/2008, -8/+13"There was a huge hole in the building which damaged some 20 stories of the building as well as taking out most of the southwest corner. "
    
    You present the same old stuff tweaked to suit your purpose. That is not evidence. It's quelling questions.
    
    Why didn't building 7 fall (tip) in direction of the damaged corner?
    
    Instead it collapsed perfectly *straight down* into it's own footprint. If the corner was as damaged as you claim, gravity would have forced the structure to collapse in direction of the huge hole, by falling over sideways, not implode within itself down into it's own basement nice & orderly like while taking the entire central support columns along with. The core fell straight down like it got melted into the earth. We are still waiting on the NIST evaluation..and they are still foot-dragging.
    
    "Also, according to the FDNY, the building was heavily involved in fire with large fires showing on nearly every floor. There's no mystery about what happened to WTC7 unless you are deeply in denial about the truth."
    
    Nice dis-info slur at the end there champ. Of course you would never be in denial about anything, as an unquestionable believer in the government 9/11 story without a single doubt or hint of skepticism behind any of it..Nothing so far has jogged you from your blind faith in this administration.
    
    No mystery huh? Yet NIST still hasn't concluded what specifically caused WTC7 to collapse. They have yet to provide a final official report.
    
    You ought to inform NIST about your discovery there. They have been hard at work for years and you do what, pull a quote from some government website? LOL I'm sure their team of expert government scientists and experienced engineers could use your knowledgeable assistance since they have not been able to provide any finalized, official explanation for mysterious collapse of WTC7 in over 6 years.
    
    Get in touch with NIST already! What on earth are you wasting your precious time here for, entire days and weekends hiding behind a computer cursing at people over the Internet. What a waste!! All for nothing too. You know all the answers and are so absolutely positively certain without a single doubt of what caused WTC7 to collapse into it's own footprint, why not log off here for at least 10 minutes and do some real positive good by helping NIST scientists conclude their official explanation. You can tell their engineers what you tell us here, and they can finally conclude their investigation at put it all to rest.
    
    World Trade Center 7 housed SEC files relating to numerous Wall Street investigations, as well as other federal investigative files. All the files for approximately 3,000 to 4,000 SEC cases were destroyed. While some were backed up in other places, others were not, especially those classified as confidential. Files relating Citigroup to the WorldCom scandal were lost. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission estimates over 10,000 cases will be affected. The Secret Service had its largest field office, with more than 200 employees, in WTC 7 and also lost key investigative files. All the evidence stored at 7 World Trade, in all the cases, went down with the building.
    
    Coincidence? Of course. What a sham.
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -9/+8@GShill Because if the planes hit the towers at about, for example, the 100th floor, but the detonation began at around the 80th floor, it would have been much too obvious that it was faked. The planes had to hit within floors of where the explosives were planted without detonating the explosives, or somehow the explosives had to be planted on the burning floors after the planes hit.
    
    Neither is even close to being a believable scenario.
    
    No CD theory is believable until it address that issue, and vague implications about how much money the Pentagon did or didn't have has no bearing on this issue. You need to prove an absolutely reliable way to avoid premature detonation or somw manner of post impact emplacement.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/13/2008, -8/+10@JohnReb
    
    Okay, so this is really a sticking point for you, eh?
    
    Let me break it down for you. First, the reason I mentioned the "lost money" is simply to draw attention to the fact that the government is WAY more technologically advanced than the rest of society. It has long been estimated that they are 10 years in advance of everyone else, and I think that this is low-balling it these days, big time.
    
    Why is that important? Well, it's just to make it crystal clear that the technology that they have is MORE than capable of setting up a controlled demolition with a varied explosion pattern based on the point of impact! In fact, I would strongly argue that you wouldn't even NEED advanced technology to pull this off, but I'm just trying to illustrate for you that this is like baking cupcakes for them. The military can look through WINDOWS with SATELLITES for targeting purposes, for God's sake. And you think they can't arrange explosives to be set off in a pattern based on entering which floor(s) to start the sequence?
    
    Think about it. All you need to do is arrange a BASIC system to start an explosion sequence from 'a' to 'b' and/or from 'x' to 'y'. Is that difficult to imagine a criminal group with access to the most powerful technological arsenal in all of human history?
    
    Now, how about that Building 7. That sure looks like a controlled demolition to me. Again, no plane. Any thoughts?
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -11/+9First, claiming they are advanced enough to do something does not prove theey are advanced enough to do it. Prove the capability exists
    
    Second you still haven't addressed how the explosives that you claim they detonated by some unproven methodology managed to not detonate at the time of the actual crash and resulting fireball, and managed to not cook-off in the fires for about an hour.
    
    All of this, of course, is simply the first problem for the CD theories. Until its proven that it is possible, you can't prove it actually happened. After that you have to try to prove it did actually happen.
    
    WTC 7 is irrelevant to a discussion of how WTC 1 & 2 could have been CDed. Stick to the subject.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/13/2008, -6/+12@JohnReb
    
    "WTC 7 is irrelevant to a discussion of how WTC 1 & 2 could have been CDed. Stick to the subject."
    
    Umm... no, it's very relevant. There are CORRESPONDENCES all around us! Things RELATE to other things. LOL! WTC7 is ENTIRELY relevant when you look at what happened on 9/11,... 3 steel-framed sky scrapers all fall Vegas Style (due to "fire") on the same day, when not even one (1) such building ever fell this way (due to "fire") in world history! Coincidence? I think not.
    
    As far as "proving" how this controlled demolition can be done down to tiny minutia, it is not my intention to PROVE in microscopic detail how each and every facet of the events of September 11th, 2001 took place. Instead, I support a new, independent investigation into the events of that day. That there is an overwhelming body of signs and evidence for a coverup is sufficient enough! The stakes are too high in this issue to just "let it go". But for the sake of argument, have you yourself done intensive and thorough investigation into how this controlled demolition could NOT have taken place, based on a plane hitting the building? :/
    
    Really, I still don't see how this issue is a problem. But if we NEED to, let's get a panel of demolition experts to duke it out so that all of us can concede that the three (3) buildings which fell Vegas style MIGHT, just MAYBE were destroyed by a controlled demolition. LOL! That's certainly what it LOOKED LIKE.
    
    Where there is smoke, there is fire, and there is LOTS of smoke and mirrors concerning 9/11. If you don't look at ALL the pieces surrounding the events of that day, you are fixating on a tiny, TINY piece of minutia, and missing what seems obvious to me: we've been deceived by an administration that has been PROVEN to lie over and over again to the public, at he expense of countless lives.
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -11/+8What actual proof have you presented for CD? None. But you still believe it happened that way. So what you have proven is that you will believe things without evidence.
    
    Got it. Thanks.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/13/2008, -7/+12@JohnReb
    
    What actual proof have you presented that it was NOT controlled demolition? Are you choosing to believe that it not only didn't occur, but *couldn't* have occurred, without proof?
  - Herkimer56, on 08/13/2008, -12/+8You made the accusation, shill, it's up to you to prove that you're not a lying piece of dog crap.
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -12/+8You made the claim it was CD. It's your job to prove it, not mine to disprove it
    
    I'm choosing to believe that if CD can't explain it's way past the very first and most obvious problem in how it could have happened that it then didn't happen. If you can't explain how the explosives survived the impact to detonate about an hour later, CD fails without even having to address the other issues it has.
    
    I most certainly will believe it was impossible since it defies common sense to believe that a large quantity of high explosives and/or incendiaries survived the planes collision, the ensuing fireball and about an hour spent in the resulting fire without detonating.
    
    Especially as you just admitted, when there is no proof to support a contrary position
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/13/2008, -7/+12@JohnReb & @Herkimer56
    
    Time for a new investigation, fellas. Oh, and this time maybe they should talk about WTC7, and consider controlled demolition, as well as the other evidence that they omitted the first time, and follow the money trail!
    
    The administration is the one who made the accusation when they blamed 9/11 on 19 hijackers. Let them prove their story.
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -11/+7You claimed CD, you couldn't prove it even over the very first hurdle.
    
    Now you want to change the subject.
    
    Which number was that on the "disinformation methods" list?
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/13/2008, -6/+11@JohnReb
    
    Do you believe the official story of 9/11?
    
    Also, the onus is on the administration to do the proving, they are the ones who made the accusation about the hijackers. It starts there. The 9/11 Commission failed to provide sufficient answers. I cannot give you the proof that would satisfy you. But perhaps a new investigation could.
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -13/+7You are ducking the plain fact that you failed to prove your claim of CD.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/13/2008, -6/+12If I agree with you, will you also agree that you didn't answer my question, do you believe the official story of 9/11?
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -11/+7Why is that relevant to the discussion of CD in WTC 1 & 2?
    
    My beliefs can't alter the facts of what happened. Nor do yours. I will not believe any theory that has so little evidence as CD.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/13/2008, -6/+12At the beginning of this thread, when I first addressed you, I described how 9/11 was the ultimate example of "Big Lie". So, my question for you is, do you believe in the official story? It's a simple enough question. We can talk all day about what we don't believe, why don't we start by talking about what we do believe,... or at least concede what is possible. In other words, shift from focusing on the negative (yin) to the positive (yang).
    
    My interest isn't really about the past, it's about the present, about spreading awareness and about taking action. So, government telling 100% truth on 9/11 or no? If not, what can we do (positive) about it?
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -11/+7I have no interest in any "big lie" theories. My interest, having run through one of those clouds you saw on TV this is personal to me, is what happened that day. I couldn't care less about the rest.
    
    My only interest in this thread is to prove or disprove your claim of CD. If you can't prove it, and we have pretty much established that you can't, you should simply admit that. The truth isn't something we bargain over, if you say I'm right, I'll say you're right. If CD isn't proven, it's false, regardless of what anyone believes.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/13/2008, -6/+11@JohnReb
    
    If this statement is true: "If CD isn't proven, it's false, regardless of what anyone believes."
    
    Does that mean that this statement is also true?: If the official story about 9/11 isn't proven, it's false, regardless of what anyone believes.
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -12/+5Do you have any proof of CD yet?
    
    If not, simply admit you are wrong.
    
    I'm not going to play along with your attempt to change the subject and avoid admitting your error.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/13/2008, -5/+12Do you have any proof that the official story is true yet?
    
    Now, if we are both hell-bent on getting an answer to whether there is sufficient evidence to prove controlled demolition beyond a shadow of a doubt, perhaps we can both agree in supporting a new investigation that attempts to answer just that! :) Nothing wrong with a little investigation, right? For the sake of truth, yeah? Then maybe we can put it to rest.
    
    Hey, I respect that you were there, and I respect that this topic is personal for you. My objective is simply about getting to the truth. A new investigation serves that purpose.
  - JohnReb, on 08/13/2008, -10/+4I'll support a new investigation...but first provide enough evidence to make it even possible CD was a cause. Until you do, calling for a new investigation is simply an attempt to avoid admitting that there is no evidence for CD..
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/14/2008, -4/+12@JohnReb
    
    Thank you!
    
    I tell you what, what if I said that I support the official story of 9/11... but first provide enough evidence to make it even possible that it was the cause of the fall of the three (3) towers? What if I said that until you do, not advocating a new investigation is an attempt to avoid admitting that there is no evidence for the official story being true regarding September 11th, 2001?
    
    The way I see it, a new investigation is a win/win here. No harm in looking deeper for either of us, right? :) In other words, the truth can stand up to scrutiny. So if I may ask, from your perspective, is there ANY need to resist a new investigation?
  - JohnReb, on 08/14/2008, -11/+4I'm not defending any theory. I'm proving that one theory, CD, is completely wrong. What does that have to do with your or my positions on the so-called "official story"?
    
    Stop trying to change the subject and either provide real proof of your claim of CD or admit that what ever else might or might not be true, CD is wrong..
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/14/2008, -4/+10@JohnReb
    
    The topic was ALWAYS broader than that of controlled demolition of the twin towers. You are choosing to focus on that, and now accusing me of changing the topic.
    
    You say: "I'm proving that one theory, CD, is completely wrong. "
    
    No, you have done no such thing. LOL!
    
    So, what do you say,... let's just have a new investigation! Want proof, right? What do you say WE LOOK FOR ANSWERS!
  - JohnReb, on 08/14/2008, -9/+5The only topic I have discussed in this thread is the so called CD of towers 1 and 2.
    
    I pointed out the simple fact that the explosives would have gone off when the plane hit and not an hour later. Which is just the first hurdle for your theory to get past before it can be accepted as true.
    
    You can not explain how that happened, so instead you try changing the subject repeatedly to distract from that one simple fact
    
    All you have proven is that you are willing to believe a theory that has no supporting evidence and fails to pass a simple logical examination, and that you aren't interested in finding truth but only in insisting that your failed theory is true.
    
    Feel free to have the last word, I'm sure any reasonable impartial reader can judge for themselves how much of what you are seeking is truth and how much fantasy at this point.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/14/2008, -6/+10@JohnReb
    
    Anyone interested in the truth about 9/11 would not resist a new investigation. Truth can stand up under scrutiny. Trying to peg things on the idea that I am just trying to justify a pet theory is an obfuscation, and it degrades the conversation into a standstill, where the truth is no longer at issue.
    
    I am interested in the truth. I support a new investigation into 9/11. You 1) do not admit what you believe to be the truth, and 2) do not support a new investigation. You aren't interested in the truth, are you?
    
    You know what, I'm now starting to wonder if you ARE a disinformation agent...
  - Herkimer56, on 08/14/2008, -12/+5The last thing that you are interested in is the truth. Your postings on this thread have made that fact more than obvious. John simply asked you to explain why the explosives went off nearly an hour after the impact of the aircraft. If you have evidence of a controlled demolition then it should be a very simple thing for you to provide him with a cogent, verifiable answer. Just provide him with a link to the evidence that proves your supposition.
    
    "I'll support a new investigation...but first provide enough evidence to make it even possible CD was a cause." JohnReb
    
    Here's a chance for you to convert someone to your cause. Are you capable of doing it?
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/14/2008, -5/+12@Herkimer56
    
    Do you believe the official story of 9/11?
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/14/2008, -5/+11Use your eyes. WTC7, a 47 story steel reinforced skyscraper that was never hit by a "plane', imploded neatly into it's own footprint nice and neat straight down, controlled demolition style @ free-fall speed, the entire core and building ended up in the basement. What could have caused that? to result in such a tidy and complete collapse. If the side was so horrendously damaged the building would have tiled to the side in direction of the "hole." Instead it fell straight down into it's own footprint.
    
    No wonder the TV news didn't show 7 if enough people saw that 47-story sham just neatly implode within itself straight down into it's own footprint they might have a whole 'nother situation on their hands..
    
    NIST still cannot explain this mysterious -for the 1st time in history- collapse anomaly. Yet all the machine-like "debunker" government apologists who spend their life here to 'explain it all away" to obfuscate the truth "move along, nothing to see here" have all the answers. LOL.
    
    Why not forward to NIST so they can put this thing to rest once and for all? You know it all, right? Log off your Internets and get in touch with NIST. Surely you want to help solve this riddle right? Or are you just postulating for the sake of it to do your part assisting the crime of this government cover-up.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/14/2008, -5/+12"first provide enough evidence to make it even possible CD was a cause"
    
    Just look at the video.
    
    What else could have cause that?? No building would just "fall" like that due to "big damage!." with nothing left standing of the core, the entire structure imploded within it's own basement. Over 6 years later, NIST still cannot explain it.
    
    GlobalistShill: the machines here aren't interested in the truth of 9/11. They're interested in "explaining it all away" in a questionable cover-up "debunker" effort. They're interest is in running interference for the government, ridiculing a real investigation, name-calling anyone who doesn't buy what they are selling, and spending their lives here apologizing for government cover-up. It's almost as if their life depends on it. Maybe it does...
    
    Interestingly the 9/11 commission report fails to even mention the collapse of WTC7. The NIST report on WTC7 is long overdue. NIST does have photos and videos of the collapse of WTC 7 which they have refused to release despite Freedom of Information Act requests. The excuse is that while they are still studying this, they will not release the videos and photos of WTC 7. These videos and photos were obtained mainly from the public at tax payer expense and I strongly suggest the public should have a chance to look at all the data and we can study this ourselves. Government investigating government. What do you think the results are going to be? Government investigating government=WHITEWASH.
    
    Anybody who sees video of 7 just "falling" out of thin air, straight down within it's own footprint nice and orderly, a 47 story skyscraper that was never hit by a 'plane" KNOWS something is fishy and "things aren't quite what they appear." Just use your eyes don't be blinded by science. Even science cannot rationalize that *****. Look at the video of that gigantic STEEL REINFORCED building just melting to the ground into it's own basement like nothing. That's why the TV news never showed footage of building 7 collapsing as part of the "war on terror!" marketing campaign. People would *know* something is up. They lied about Iraq and Afghanistan and just about everything else. Why should we be willing to accept their version of 9/11 that made it all possible?
    
    Who knows, a REAL investigation might implicate these government apologist "debunkers" as playing a role in the attacks, criminally accountable. Anyone who really wants the truth behind this scam would support a REAL investigation. Period. Make it both international in scope since this doesn't only involve the US. 9/11 happened to involve the mass murder of huge numbers of people who were not all from the USA, quite a lot of Canadians, British, Japanese, Filipinos, etc, etc.... people all over the world are rightfully pissed off that there has NEVER been a FULL AND PROPER investigation,.
    
    We never had a real 9/11 investigation. The 9/11 Commission was not an investigation - it was a presentation. The Commission report left out more than it revealed...And for good reason.
  - Herkimer56, on 08/14/2008, -13/+6@GlobalistShill
    
    "Do you believe the official story of 9/11?"
    
    What does that have to do with why you won't reply to Joe's request? Stop trying to change the subject and answer the question.
    
    @GovernmentSp00k
    
    I've seen all of your pointless, baseless theories before and repeating them ad nauseum isn't going to make them true. If the shill can't provide evidence supporting the controlled demolition theory then maybe you can. Please post links to the irrefutable evidence that proves that WTC7 or the towers were controlled demolitions.
  - JohnReb, on 08/15/2008, -14/+5A summary just for Sp00k, since he/she can't seem to grasp it.
    
    WTC 7 is irrelevant, the pentagon is irrelevant. We are only discussing WTC 1 & 2. Nothing that happened in either spot can prove the towers were subjected to CD.
    
    1) CD requires preplanted explosives.
    
    2) Explosives subjected to sharp pressure and/or fire, as during an aircraft collision, detonate.
    
    3) The explosives supposedly used to bring down the towers didn't explode when the planes hit.
    
    4) Therefore there were no explosives there when the planes hit
    
    5) Therefore it was not a CD
    
    QED
    
    But you guys keep right on proving how much you want to hold on to your 9/11 fantasy.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/15/2008, -5/+13Why bother to continue to ask for your irrefutable evidence & demand impossible 'proofs' when you deny every single time. There hasn't been 1 time you ever acknowledged anything, ever. Yet you INSTANTLY endorse every single "fact" about your official US government 9/11 conspiracy. Why is that?
    
    What else could have brought 7 down, "big damage" on several stories ? Why hasn't NIST figured it out over 6 years later. Buildings don't just fall like they're made of cardboard like that. Look at the video of WTC7 imploding. Use your eyes. Compare the collapse of 7 to any CD. It's a classic controlled demolition.
    
    Where is the *physical evidence* of planes hitting the WTC 1 & 2? 'nuff said.
    
    A "plane' crashes into the top fifth of a 100something-story building WTC 1-2 and the whole ***** thing comes down? I can understand maybe the top two-fifths becoming useless. But the entire building...right. I don't buy it. Yet the rubble barely covered the ground.......how could two huge towers be reduced to so little?
    
    And not all of the towers fell the same way.
    
    WTC 1&2, were both shredded into ultra fine dust, from the top down somehow. They were not "imploded", and no not even mini nukes could do that.
    
    Just compare how bldg 1&2 were shredded, to how Bldg 7 was obviously imploded, by controlled demolition.
    
    I can't understand how anyone could fail to see the difference.
    
    I mean we are a Hollywood generation. In each villain story you need a hero, brave courageous, ordinary people who take on the bad guys. Something to give ordinary people something to aspire to. And of course it makes them look the other way while you carry out the coup d'etat.
    
    What we see on "TV' by a controlled media is a fantasy that is being created. "Shock and Awe"
    
    Did you watch any videos of the tower collapse? The smoke rose for some time before the FIRST TOWER started to implode. The cloud rose strong and clear before the top started falling. You cannot have falling rubble before a collapse takes place. Something is very wrong here. There is anecdotal evidence of molten metal in the basements of WTC buildings 1, 2, 6, and 7 in the days and weeks after 9/11. Yet this was of ZERO concern to NIST or the 9/11 Commission. Obviously...
    
    What irrefutable evidence do you have of these hidden networks of terrorists 'ready to attack' that the government destroyed our Constitution, privacy rights, and most basic American civil liberties and freedoms for in order to "protect" us from ?
    
    What do you think of Ashcroft's "paradigm of prevention" ?
    
    'Al quaeda' is a fantasy that was politically expedient to sell...
    
    Where is the supporting irrefutable evidence of Al Aquada existence? Have you any evidence that Al Qeuda was responsible (other than the professional liars in the admin. told you so)
    
    You vehemently demand "irrefutable evidence" of anything which contradicts the government story,
    
    ..Yet where is your 'irrefutable evidence' that 9/11 happened exactly as they said it did? That Bin Laden did it and was the sole perpetrator? Or 19 hi-jackers boarded the "planes." That a 757 hit the Pentagon? A 757 made such a small hole? Where is the plane's wreckage? Where is Flight 93 wreckage and plane at Shanksville? There are just too many holes in the official "story." There's much more to the cover-up than buildings collapsing. You are hyper-critical and doubtful of strangers over the Internet, yet fail to hold your Government agencies under likewise rigid scrutiny. Wonder why?
    
    FBI says, "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" - this isn't any concern to you, one who is so hyper-critical of irrefutable evidence?
    
    There is no hard evidence that bogeyman Laden is responsible. why aren't you demanding the government for irrefutable proof on that?
    
    The official account states fire brought WTC7 down. How did the fires start? Do you know?
    
    What about the other buildings that were closer and had more debris fall on them and that there were even more fires in other buildings and yet, they did not collapse. Only Silversteins buildings did. Odd...
    
    People DID hear explosions. Sounds of 'bombs going off.' Look it up, there's hundreds of eyewitness reports of loud explosion sounds when the buildings fell. Including firefighters. And there's a lot of them. You mean in all your apparent research you conveniently missed this? Anything that contradicts your government story just isn't worth researching much less acknowledging right..
    
    Look at the video of 7s collapse. Use your eyes. Buildings do not just "fall" like that due to "heavy damage" to several floors one side. That's what the government FEDS would have us believe. "move along nothing to see here." Yeah right. Why should we believe a government that has done nothing but lie in our faces about everything? Any human being who watches video of 7 just "collapsing", the entire structure into the basement, straight down into it's own footprint at free-fall speed, with ZERO resistance from floors below, NOTHING of the building left intact afterwords, realizes something is up with this scam. They can tell "something isn't quite what it seems" and will demand to know why 7 just 'collapsed' like that, a huge 47 story skyscraper, and they will have questions. LOTS of questions. The government doesn't want that. That's why the controlled TV "news" failed to show footage of WTC7 imploding within itself. We saw mind numbing video of 'planes' hitting WTC 1 & 2 again and again and the buildings crashing down in a big fireball with people jumping out of windows and screaming etc, but not 7. Yet you on the other hand have an objective here. You are not here to seek the truth. You are here to discredit and smear anyone who opposes the official story. You are not about to "validate" ANYTHING which doesn't agree with what the government wants us to believe. You are never, ever going to acknowledge one single coincidence or anomaly about the Administrations account of 9/11 events. It's that simple.
    
    Name call me all you want. Despite videos and any evidence provided there forth (there has been plenty), you will vehemently DENY every single thing that contradicts your government story. Every time. Like clockwork, with your bury buddies in tow 1-2-3 swooping in to add insult to injury. Without considering any of it. What the lying administration has provided us has been more or less a cover-up. You can explain it all away ad nauseam but that still doesn't account for why a 47 story steel reinforced skyscraper would mysteriously collapse straight down with no resistance from floors below, with nothing left intact of the steel core, straight down nice and neat into its own basement like a piece of cardboard. NIST can't even explain it, but you can? LOL...
    
    If you look at the building 7 collapsing its like its collapsing from the bottom up, the top half looks completely stable as its falling down on the bottom. that's how it works in demolitions as well.
    
    NIST has yet to provide a final official explanation over 6 years later. Perhaps you can forward your evidence and government agency-created website material to them so they can put this mystery of the century for rest once and for all. How about it? Can you break from name-calling people who refuse to buy your official government story and get in touch with NIST since you "debunkers" have all the answers? Your time would be better served helping NIST scientists and engineers instead of trying to convince "crazy!" people who aren't buying what you sell. Certainly NIST will, right? since it's the truth. Why bother devoting your life with us? Get over to NIST with your evidence so they can put WTC7 to rest. Make a real difference. : )
    
    1 hour TV special presentation of 911 Eyewitness "Hoboken" that was shown in LA last June http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6498070204 ...
    
    Believe your eyes and ears or believe the official government al-ciada fairy tale.
    
    I mean why would our Government ever lie to us about anything. I cant recall a single time when a politician was being untruthful. It not like they would benefit from us not having all the facts.
    If our Government is telling the full truth about UBL and 19 Hijackers, then its the first time in history we have been given the whole story.
  - JohnReb, on 08/15/2008, -11/+5All that typing Sp00k, but still no explaination for why the explosives supposedly planted before the plane crash didn't detonate when the plane hit. That's all I'm asking for.
    
    "Believe your eyes and ears or believe the official government al-ciada fairy tale."
    
    Ironically, I am an eyewitness. So should I believe my eyes or your fantasy?
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/15/2008, -4/+12@JohnReb
    
    What do your eyes tell you about WTC7? It's been an awful long thread, but you still haven't proven the official story. A new investigation will help us ALL out!
    
    @Herkimer56
    
    What do you believe occurred on 9/11?
  - Herkimer56, on 08/15/2008, -11/+4If you can't answer the question, shill, just admit it. These constant attempts to change the subject just make you look like you're trying to cover something up. Could it be that you don't have any evidence?
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/15/2008, -4/+11@JohnHerkimerReb56
    
    I support a new investigation in order to bring forth the truth about 9/11. That's where the "proving" is to be done, if you like. Are you interested in finding proof? If you are, I suspect you will choose to support a new investigation as well, as this is really in the interest of ALL. :)
  - JohnReb, on 08/15/2008, -9/+4Shill, my eyes tell me the building fell to the south, towards the damaged partd of the structure....but I'm going by what I saw standing at the debris, perhaps you think the photos and videos are more accurate?
    
    And where did I ever endorse any theory? I'm simply asking questions.
    
    And please tell me what could have happened in WTC 7 that caused a CD in WTC 1 & 2? Either there were explosives in WTC 1 and 2 or there weren't. If they didn't explode when the plane hit, they weren't there.
    
    Again you try to change the subject to avoid admitting you have no evidence at all for a CD in the two towers.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/15/2008, -4/+9@johnHerkimerreb56
    
    If you follow the thread from the beginning, you will observe that it is multi-facetted. It is you who are attempting to narrow or re-define the thread to your liking,... which is fine except that your allegation that I am "changing the subject" is invalid.
    
    Now, if you REALLY want proof, there is a widespread movement of people who support a new and independent investigation into the events of September 11th, 2001. Those who seek the truth on these matters do not resist a new investigation, as they know that truth stands under investigation.
    
    Are you interested in the truth johnHerkimerreb56, or do you receive another form of incentive based on the number of comments you submit on Digg?
  - Herkimer56, on 08/16/2008, -10/+4No, you're not changing the subject because we won't allow you to. Just answer the question, shill. Either you have the evidence which proves that the buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition or you don't. Which one is it? I fail to understand why you're having so much trouble providing evidence to prove something that you say is so obviously true. It's time to cowboy up and prove your case, shill.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/16/2008, -4/+9@johnHerkimerrebbushmills56
    
    Do you support a new investigation into 9/11?
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/16/2008, -4/+9Do Herkimer56 and JohnReb believe Bin Laden did 9/11 ?
  - card51short, on 08/16/2008, -4/+11"Do Herkimer56 and JohnReb believe Bin Laden did 9/11 ?"
    
    Despite them having zero evidence (besides the word of bin laden himself...which is no doubt EXTREMELY credible), yes, they do believe that insane conspiracy theory.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/16/2008, -4/+10"5) Therefore it was not a CD"
    
    What was it then? Now nearly 7 years since the 9/11 event and still no report into WTC 7 by the govt...
    
    Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47 story steel framed structure, which was not struck by an "aircraft", mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at nearly freefall speed. How could this have happened?
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/16/2008, -4/+10Mr. 51short:
    
    The absolute worst conspiracy theory I've ever heard is the official version of 9/11. We were told that 19 muslim religious fanatic goat-herders who "hate our American freedoms and way of life" somehow bypassed our multi-billion-dollar defense systems, hi-jacked 4 commercial airliners simultaneously, causing their transponders to go off almost at the exact same time, were totally lost from FAA radar - not to mention lost from the satellite radar and NORAD radar, carefully navigated their way through miles upon miles of U.S. skies to New York and crashed into the the 2 most prominent landmarks, the 2 towers of the World Trade Center, and then another one crashed into the Pentagon, and then another one crashed in Pennsylvania, without any interference whatsoever from US military, NORAD, Air Force, or strategic defense systems. And all of this under the direction of a crippled Muslim cleric hiding in a cave in Afghanistan across the world with a computer. Craziest conspiracy theory I've ever heard! And yet that is what we are expected to accept as the legitimate version of what happened on 9/11. But as anyone here who isn't a FED (wink wink) that has studied the facts KNOWS, there's too many gaps in that whole story.
    
    Eisenhower January 17th, 1961 warned us to Beware of the Military Industrial Complex.".. "beware of military deception." Kennedy tried to warn us of "secret societies", a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that was affecting our country and the world, people that were in hiding within our own government that wanted to destroy us from within. Of course, he never got to live to tell that story..JFK was a "new world order" frontman who refused to play ball. The rest is history. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnkdfFAqsHA
    What greater psy-op on the American public than to instill the fear that if we can kill a president, we can kill anybody. Kennedy wanted to disband the CIA, toss it into the wind like that sharks that they are. You know, the CIA, the Cocaine Import Agency. Criminals In Action. He also wanted to stop supporting our leader-our rulers, I mean, our friend Israel. And their nuclear ambitions. And even worse, he made the ultimate mistake - he actually wanted to print their own money from the US Treasury. Understand the Federal Reserve Bank is neither Federal nor Reserve. They are the problem destroying our country. In order to understand 9/11 there's a lot more you really gotta' learn. And it's all UGLY!
  - JohnReb, on 08/16/2008, -11/+4Answer the question. It is simple and straight forward.
    
    Why didn't the preplaced explosives in WTC 1 & 2 absolutly required for your theory to be true, not detonate when hit with tons of foce and a fireblast at impact?
    
    If you can't answer that simple question, you need to drop CD as a reason for the collapse of 1 & 2 and, if you really want truth and not fantasy, find another mechanism for the collapse.
  - GlobalistShill, on 08/16/2008, -4/+11@JohnHerkimerReb56
    
    Are you still on about that? LOL!
    
    Since you appear to have an interest in 9/11 truth, here's a video you might find interesting:
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feIraieervY
    
    Also, will you receive special incentive on Labor Day this year with respect to Digg? :)
  - Herkimer56, on 08/16/2008, -8/+4It's interesting that the only person to stick up for you, shill, is Card. Everyone knows that Card is one of the biggest trolls on Digg and has never bothered to even try to prove the asinine accusations he makes. Obviously you're not going to make an attempt to prove your case, either. I'm guessing it's because you know that you can't. You're just some little kid playing make believe.
  - GovernmentSp00k, on 08/16/2008, -4/+8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=feIraieervY "the pentagon needed a new enemy to start a war that could be sustained for a lifetime"
    
    Amen.
    
    They got it in spades on 9-11. America was Pearl Harbored to extremes. The perfect vehicle for PNAC to carry out their manifesto. Endless years of war profiteering in the Middle East. AIPAC is estatic. Coincidence? Of course.
    
    9-11 was the creation of an 'external threat"
    
    "Shock & Awe"..
    
    9-11 - America got 'Punk'd"
  - Herkimer56, on 08/17/2008, -8/+4I see you got another troll helping you out, shill. Did you ever find that evidence that proves a controlled demolition? Don't expect spook to post it. He never posts evidence to prove his assertions, either.
  - Herkimer56, on 08/17/2008, -7/+3Well, libertythor has sleazed his way back on to Dig

No planes, Just manufactured video watch!