Does Anyone Have Any Questions?

Is it 'not done' to criticize Jones and Griffin? They are also highly selective in their quotes from the oral testimonies, which doesn't of course disprove anything , but it weakens their credibility somewhat.
 
Nothing against you Andrew, but now I remember why I stayed away from this stuff.

I can't prove one way or the other what happened.
 
Nor do I want to spend COUNTLESS hours talking about it...

I like to be like BAM take that... oh yeah... BAM take that... how ya like me now... BAM again... BAM he's down for the count...

When talking about 9/11... I prefer the lazy man's approach.
 
Forgive me for being honest but I sense a hostility in your tone. Is that something to do with my not being American? I have heard it said that we Brits are never really welcome on US forums, which is kind of sad. Still, maybe that's just how it is.

In that case, I'll respectfully bow out .
 
AndrewLoweWatson said:
I've found the site.

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm

But you don't want to talk about it? Isn't that playing into the hands of the enemy? I don't get you .
Click to expand...

It's not that I don't want to talk about it. I promote the theory of Controlled Demolition on this board because I believe people like Professor Jones deserve to be at least HEARD.

I see how people like Tucker Carlson obviously do their best to discredit the Professor, and I have to wonder why.

I promote the theory of Controlled Demolition on this board because to me, the untrained eye, it certainly LOOKS like Controlled Demolition.

I have to wonder why they won't allow access to the steel sitting at JFK airport.

I have to wonder why people like Willie Rodriguez says what he has to say.

The explosions that were obviously heard (from the numerous witnesses) were not mentioned in the 9/11 Report, so I have to wonder why.

WTC 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Report, so I have to wonder why.

The 9/11 Commission was charged with giving a "Full and complete" accounting of 9/11, yet it's obvious they have not in regards to the collapse of those buildings, so I have to wonder why.

However, I am not a metallurgist. I am not a structural engineer. I am not a physics professor. I can not argue the theory of Controlled Demolition because I am not an expert. Period.

Nor, do I find it interesting. From a personality point of view. It's just not my "thing".

So when I come across someone (you) who obviously has looked into it, and has an "opposing" point of view, I go look for someone who likes to argue about it... it's just not my "thing".
 
AndrewLoweWatson said:
Forgive me for being honest but I sense a hostility in your tone. Is that something to do with my not being American? I have heard it said that we Brits are never really welcome on US forums, which is kind of sad. Still, maybe that's just how it is.

In that case, I'll respectfully bow out .
Click to expand...

You're MORE than welcome here. I'm not hostile. I know Dr. Griffin from meeting him in person, corresponding with him, etc... and he does not come across as someone who is dishonest. He may have theories I don't agree with, but there are several people who have theories I don't agree with.

I still respect the man TREMENDOUSLY, and I will defend him if the need arises. Has the need arisen?
 
Gold9472 said:
However, I am not a metallurgist. I am not a structural engineer. I am not a physics professor. I can not argue the theory of Controlled Demolition because I am not an expert. Period.

Nor, do I find it interesting. From a personality point of view. It's just not my "thing".

So when I come across someone (you) who obviously has looked into it, and has an "opposing" point of view, I go look for someone who likes to argue about it... it's just not my "thing".
Click to expand...


You should know by now that I am serious about 911 stuff. How many people use ther professional name on these noticeboards? With me, WYSIWYG, always has been. Ask anyone who knows me.

I certainly do not want to argue against controlled demolition, I just think we need to be aware of all the arguments that are used by the Truth deniers. It is important we remain open-minded about everything. While I respect both Steven Jones and Dr Griffin enormously I think they would be the first to want their work to be treated as scientific and thus open to scrutiny, rather than as some sort of sacred text.

I am genuinely surprised that you don't like to discuss the Controlled Demolition theory. I thought that was what this forum was all about. You certainly encouraged me to attend your class and to ask questions. Now I feel I have gone outside the bounds of respectability by doing so.

I remain convinced that 911 was staged.

I will look for help on the wtc7 issue.

No hard feelings.
 
Last edited:
AndrewLoweWatson said:
Forgive me for being honest but I sense a hostility in your tone. Is that something to do with my not being American? I have heard it said that we Brits are never really welcome on US forums, which is kind of sad. Still, maybe that's just how it is.
Click to expand...

Andrew, I'm Irish and I'm on mod on this forum! We have people from all over the world on here (well, USA, UK, Germany, Canada and Ireland at any rate, probably other places too) - your nationality has nothing to do with anything here!

As to your questions re: controlled demolition. I'm certainly no expert on 911 and CD theory especially. But I've briefly glanced over the link you provided, and noticed this final line: "If the building fell to the south as conspiracy theorist point out, it is evidence for a normal collapse by fire. I think they're right."

But as we know, there is no such thing as 'normal collapse by fire' in a steel frame building, because prior to 911 (to the best of my knowledge), no such building has ever collapsed due to fire. There's nothing 'normal' about it.

I do agree with the criticism of the 'Pull It' comment though, that is not real evidence of a planned CD in my opinion. But it does raise the question (again) of 'how did they know, or guess, that WTC 7 would collapse' given that there was no precedent for it in history.
 
I'm new and dumb and am not going to read 15 pages of posts to see if this question has already been answered, so here goes it:

Why have we not had a major whistle-blower yet?
 
Ignatius Riley said:
I'm new and dumb and am not going to read 15 pages of posts to see if this question has already been answered, so here goes it:

Why have we not had a major whistle-blower yet?
Click to expand...

If you're asking why have we not had a major whistle-blower from those who were involved... I think the answer is...

If someone was involved, and they come forward to tell the world what really happened because they suddenly grew a conscience, here's what I think would happen.

1. They would be chastized just as badly as if they didn't come forward at all.
2. Their families would be in danger just as badly as if they didn't come forward at all.

The reason being, 3000 people died, 100's of 1000's of people have died. Yet, this presumed whistle-blower waited 5 years, allowing all of those atrocites to take place. No matter what they do, they are still guilty as sin, and they would rather stay quiet, and safe than open their mouths, and risk what I mentioned.

In regards to Whistle-blowers, a lot of whistleblowers have come forward regarding 9/11. #1 Sibel Edmonds, #2 Indira Singh, #3 Mary Schneider, #4 Coleen Rawley, etc...

Sibel's been gagged. Indira and Mary can't get enough media exposure.
 
Three more:

1) Can you get me some links to those you mentioned that did come forward? I am lazy.

2) In the second edition of Loose Change, it is reported that a hijacked plane, possibly Flight 93 was landed in Cleveland or Pittsburg or somewhere. Got info?

3) Recommend some reading. So far I've read the official Commission Report and, recently, Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror." What else is must-reading?

<b>Herring follows.</b>

Your explanation works to a certain degree. Those who were on the inside face capital murder charges, treason and such. The moles face international law violations, such as international conspiracy to committ aggression, which is punishable by death.

Nonetheless, it seems like all it would take would be one, one major whistle-blower, and the whole facade would crumble, it being as weak as it clearly is. Said whistle-blower trades information for clemency, amnesty or something.

Going further, it is utterly baffling to me that some of the suspicious incidents logged in day-of accounts were never thoroughly investigated by the media. If there is a conspiracy theory worth gathering evidence towards, it would be massive collusion between major media outlets to not only blatantly fail to investigate much of what happened on that day, secondary explosions at almost all of what were reported airline crash sites for example, but to stifle the flow of information that would have seemingly arisen of its own accord, widespread eyewitness testimony of secondary, tertiary and finally regular explosions throughout wtc 1 and 2.

Thoughts?
 
Ignatius Riley said:
Three more:

1) Can you get me some links to those you mentioned that did come forward? I am lazy.

Sibel Edmonds
Indira Singh
Coleen Rawley
Mary Schneider

2) In the second edition of Loose Change, it is reported that a hijacked plane, possibly Flight 93 was landed in Cleveland or Pittsburg or somewhere. Got info?

The Cleveland airport story is probably not true. I spoke with the person who originally posted it, and she sent me this...

Jonathan,

A newswire like the AP or Reuters is a pretty common thing. I think it'd benefit you to check out some textbooks on journalism. They will explain that when wire bulletins are recalled, no one literally "calls" you. Instead, there's a retraction on the wire itself.

Most of the questions we receive about this story are centered on how a newsroom works.

http://blogs.scripps.com/wcpo/staff...t_93_story.html

Liz

3) Recommend some reading. So far I've read the official Commission Report and, recently, Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror." What else is must-reading?

A New Pearl Harbor By Dr. David Ray Griffin
9/11 Report: Omissions & Distortions By Dr. David Ray Griffin
The Terror Timeline By Paul Thompson
Crossing The Rubicon: The End Of The American Empire At The End Of the Age Of Oil By Michael Ruppert
War On Truth Nafeez Ahmed

Just to name a few...

Herring follows.

Your explanation works to a certain degree. Those who were on the inside face capital murder charges, treason and such. The moles face international law violations, such as international conspiracy to committ aggression, which is punishable by death.

Nonetheless, it seems like all it would take would be one, one major whistle-blower, and the whole facade would crumble, it being as weak as it clearly is. Said whistle-blower trades information for clemency, amnesty or something.

Going further, it is utterly baffling to me that some of the suspicious incidents logged in day-of accounts were never thoroughly investigated by the media. If there is a conspiracy theory worth gathering evidence towards, it would be massive collusion between major media outlets to not only blatantly fail to investigate much of what happened on that day, secondary explosions at almost all of what were reported airline crash sites for example, but to stifle the flow of information that would have seemingly arisen of its own accord, widespread eyewitness testimony of secondary, tertiary and finally regular explosions throughout wtc 1 and 2.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

The Military Industrial Complex requires several things in order for it to be fruitful. Government, the Military, and the Media. A 4th thing talked about are the "think tanks" within Washington D.C.

The media is very complicit in the events surrounding 9/11.

Here's a for instance... on 9/9/2004, in NYC, Cynthia McKinney chaired the 9/11 Omission Hearings where the Vice President of the United States was publicly accused of orchestrating the attacks.

Don't you think that's newsworthy? No one covered it.

Thanks for signing up, and stop being lazy. :)
 
You mean the Wall Street-Washington complex, whose capacity for total sociopathy manifested itself in the insider trading on the days immediately preceding 911.

Perhaps it is time we invent new terminology.

We'll call it: The Wall Street-Washington/military-industry complex

or how about WSWMIC?

Glad to be here. Am a hardened believer that a parallel or shadow government is at the reigns of this great country, that said shadow government, spearheaded by neocon multinational oligarchs, invented, planned, and oversaw the enormous military operation we refer to simply as 911.

Needless to say, my views are not popular.

I hope to fit in here.

And I want some answers.

Got anything on Flight 93 landing in Cleveland or wherever?

You have seen the new Loose Change?
 
Ignatius Riley said:
You mean the Wall Street-Washington complex, whose capacity for total sociopathy manifested itself in the insider trading on the days immediately preceding 911.

Perhaps it is time we invent new terminology.

We'll call it: The Wall Street-Washington/military-industry complex

or how about WSWMIC?

Glad to be here. Am a hardened believer that a parallel or shadow government is at the reigns of this great country, that said shadow government, spearheaded by neocon multinational oligarchs, invented, planned, and oversaw the enormous military operation we refer to simply as 911.

Needless to say, my views are not popular.

I hope to fit in here.

And I want some answers.

Got anything on Flight 93 landing in Cleveland or wherever?

You have seen the new Loose Change?
Click to expand...

The Cleveland airport story is probably not true. I spoke with the person who originally posted it, and she sent me this...

Jonathan,

A newswire like the AP or Reuters is a pretty common thing. I think it'd benefit you to check out some textbooks on journalism. They will explain that when wire bulletins are recalled, no one literally "calls" you. Instead, there's a retraction on the wire itself.

Most of the questions we receive about this story are centered on how a newsroom works.

http://blogs.scripps.com/wcpo/staff...t_93_story.html

Liz

Yes, I've seen Loose Change. Congratulations to Dylan & Co. on their success.
 
Don't think the link discredits the "Flight 93 landing in Cleveland" story. Just shows that the right moles made the right calls to the right people at the right time.

Newsrooms have a command structure similar to that of a military. Boss says jump, online content guy says how high.

Dude posts a link to an AP story. Gets and email from his boss that says "take it down." He takes down the link. Is told that if he enjoys his job he will tell those that inquire that the story was bogus and incorrect. He behaves to keep his job.
 
Ignatius Riley said:
Don't think the link discredits the "Flight 93 landing in Cleveland" story. Just shows that the right moles made the right calls to the right people at the right time.

Newsrooms have a command structure similar to that of a military. Boss says jump, online content guy says how high.

Dude posts a link to an AP story. Gets and email from his boss that says "take it down." He takes down the link. Is told that if he enjoys his job he will tell those that inquire that the story was bogus and incorrect. He behaves to keep his job.
Click to expand...

Now you're getting into Occam's Razor. If they did divert a plane to Cleveland, what did they do with the people? Murder them in cold blood, and throw their bodies in incinerators? I doubt it. It would have been a lot easier for them to somehow use the actual planes.
 
Gold9472 said:
Now you're getting into Occam's Razor. If they did divert a plane to Cleveland, what did they do with the people? Murder them in cold blood, and throw their bodies in incinerators? I doubt it. It would have been a lot easier for them to somehow use the actual planes.
Click to expand...

The folks that have no problem killing 2000+ people who work in skyscrapers aren't going to have a problem gassing or poisoning a few hundred more. Hell, they've killed perhaps 700,000 in Iraq depending on your source.

Don't underestimate these folks. Throughout the 1980s the CIA employed ex-Nazis to build, run and oversee death squads in Latin America. So assume they know everything the Nazis knew and more about gassing and poisoning people in bulk and destroying bodies.

Hell, who is to say it was passenger jets to hit the wtc bldgs. The black boxes were never admitted to have been found, at least that is what the gov't says. Why not? Truth is the black boxes were found and they reveal nothing except what the black boxes of cargo planes that resemble jumbo jets and that were remote controlled into the bldgs would reveal. No voices. No piloting activity. Nothing. Nothing was on those planes except explosives of some sort, I would say.

The CIA or some privatize organization with ties to or simply functioning as an extention of the CIA landed those planes, murdered those people, destroyed the bodies and such.

Hell, the flights that allegedly slammed into wtc 1 and 2 weren't even scheduled for that day. Does anybody have the flight manifests from them. Perhaps the names on them were fictitious. Funerals staged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top