Tin Foil Hat Thread on 9/11
- Thread starter Mcluhan
- Start date
OK, so you post fraudulent information and you feel fine about it? I provided you with a link up thread describing the efforts of a couple of researchers to get ahold of this publisher and finding that all of the people who work there are fictional and that it's run by some guy in Pakistan.danmand said:
It USED to be a legitimate publisher but it looks like it's been acquired by someone who has propaganda intentions.
You've been had.
Don't I recall in the past, you demanding others apologize for comments you took offense to?danmand said:
You already admitted you aren't an engineer and therefore you are unqualified to make the assertions that you have been making. When someone pointed this out to you your response was that you've hired engineers. That does not make you an engineer.Mcluhan said:
As for your mystical handwaving, I'll leave you to your tarot cards, fake journals, and crackpots.
No offense, but this kind of smacks of the true believer chastening the unconverted. As far as this topic, I have spent quite a bit of time discussing it on this board and presented what evidence I found to be valid and from reputable sources. To go over the same ground time and again wears me out. I haven't seen anything that has been revealed there was a conspiracy, only the endless repetition from the usual suspects. What caused you to reverse yourself from what I thought was a fair grip on common sense I won't guess.Mcluhan said:
No offense taken. I never spent that much time discussing WTC. In the aftermath, i was mostly preoccupied with the resulting two wars which occurred practically the next day, for all intents and purposes. I was horrified and I suppose distracted over the war in Iraq at the time. There was a lot going on. I bought into the pancake explanation and moved on.Asterix said:
I suspect that the 'leaked' video of OBL demonstratively illustrating the pancaking of the WTC floors had a lot to do with my processing of information and conclusions thereof.
At the time, and for the last eight years, I believed that the US Gov knew that the attacks were imminent, and that BushCo (read Cheney) was tipped off and stood aside, enabling them to happen. It seemed to make sense at the time.
Back in '02 and right up to last month, I closed my mind to the controlled demolition idea, thinking it was beyond reason – probably for all the same reasons you do today. Then one fateful day, I found myself reviewing the towers coming down. As said, while watching about 20 different videos from all angles, some newly released in the last few years, the understanding occurred that these buildings were demolished with explosions. Next, I went looking for the scientific analysis to explain or even prove what I saw happening ( a controlled demolition). It wasn't hard to find and some of the data was just published this month, April '09.
Then i studied the structural elements, the floor plans, floor trusses, core column support, perimeter columns, floor cross sections and so on, to grasp what was involved. Later on, i went deeper into the design history of the project, and got a good understanding of the over-built nature of the structure, as to why.
I understand this subject gets tiring. Nevertheless I think you should go back and take a second look. You might be glad you did. You will have to wade through a coverup, and lot of disinformation and misinformation, but its pretty easy to deal with that. Just look at the science, and the facts. The coverup quickly becomes reduced to whitewash, and a poor one at that. (NIST's omissions, lies and not releasing data and so on. Its a long list).
While I can easily believe that BushCo would lie to the public to achieve their ends, this just stretches credibility. You are not just asserting that some inner circle around Bush lied.Mcluhan said:
You are asserting that there was a whole intelligence operation out there monitoring and tracking the AQ attacks in such detail that they knew exactly when and where they were going to strike and that NOT ONE of the people involved in that operation has come forward since. Note these are people who would have been involved BEFORE Bush became president--not his hand picked henchmen. And not one of them has come forward.
In addition to that intelligence operation there's the whole execution of wiring up the building which, as has been pointed out, is a huge job. You are asserting that none of the people involved in that huge job have come forward.
On top of all that is the bipartisan 911 commission report, which you are asserting is a cover-up: Hundreds of people were involved in preparing that report, people of all political backgrounds, and they are all in on it, and not one of them has come forward to talk about it.
I don't doubt that time will reveal that BushCo's inner circle lied about a lot of stuff, but those would be lies known to maybe five or maybe ten people, and ten people is pushing it because sooner or later somebody talks--they feel guilty about it, they have a political falling out, they get caught doing something else, or they get careless and let something slip.
Your conspiracy theory is just not credible.
Moreover at least one of the sources that has been posted to this thread has turned out to be a fake journal . OK, posted by Danmand not by you but still that is the sort of "evidence" that you guys are using--it's pathetic.
The same records being used by the FBI, Justice and the SEC to investigate the boys on Wall St. Kinda funny how we lost all those records in a bulding that had no damage.WoodPeckr said:
However the usual suspects are bothered by this not!WinterHawk said:
Of course anyone raising questions about this rather peculiar 'happening' is called a conspiracy nut!...
I chopped your post to be economical.fuji said:
One, I am not 'asserting' anything about the attacks. I am stating WTC was a controlled demolition. You can draw your own conclusions, but don't create a strawman in my name and then proceed to attack it.
Two, i never mentioned 'wiring', you and others did. In fact i never said anything about how they blew the buildings.
Three, yes for whatever reason, and there could be more than one, the NIST report is a cover up. It presents a bogus report full of flaws, omissions, lies by omission and so on. If its not a cover up, then its whitewash for some other reason. I can't think of another reason, but who knows, maybe just gross incompetence.
Four, Its not 'my' conspiracy theory. I am simply stating that the science and the scientific analysis proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the buildings were blown. But, you will need to do your own research to either prove or disprove the thesis. Its in plain view. I simply provided some links for anyone who wants to dig into it, as i have done.
Five. I don't know about Danmand's link. I saw it, i read it, but I didn't reference it. If you want to paint me with the same brush, that's your problem, not mine. There's loads of misinformation on the subject.
Personally, no. I wasn`t there on the moon landing either. If I may remind you, here`s what you had to say about it not that long ago.Mcluhan said:
https://terb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=153968&page=2
No one saw anything, reports by reputable independent experts say it isn't true.Mcluhan said:
But "it happened" even though you aren't "asserting" anything about who did it. There are only a certain number of "suspects" if it wasn't Al-Qaeda flying 767s into the two buildings, who was it? The U.S. Government - thousands of people politicians, bureaucrats, military all keeping this deep secret even those who didn't like (dispised) the Bush Administration, The Israeli Governement - hundreds of people keeping this dark secret (and if it ever got out talk about counter-productive), the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Toronto Fire Department????
This is like Alice through the Looking Glass.
Yes, thanks for that, i owe spheroyds an apology of sorts. I was referring to this part of his thesis at the time:` therefore the third building had to be imploded, otherwise the explosives in the basement would have been discovered. Nuts.Asterix said:
Yes, that was a nutty idea, and still is. (meaning a huge pile of explosives hidden in the basement). And, if i recall, the huge gaping hole in the side of the building was on the basis of a report. There might have been a photo too, i can`t recall. Since that time, i have looked at the structural damage from many other sources (visuals, vids and photos), and there is no way what we see in the form of damage could have brought that building down.
I wrongly assessed the matter at the time. Like i said before, its shameful really. I should have looked harder, and done the research.
Another strawman attack. Sigh...Aardvark154 said:
Yes Alice, some planes crashed into the WTC, apparently driven by Saudi terrorists, and apparently managed by a guy who was previously a CIA asset. I really haven't delved into the finer points on that phenomena. I have no clear idea as yet, on how they accomplished that, or who these people were. I don't think anyone has a clear idea.
I am presently looking only at the controlled demolition. Its the only thing i understand about the whole series of strange events. Someone blew the buildings, all three.
Mucluhan is ONLY providing links and information that support the idea that the WTC was felled by controlled demolition. Why that occurred is another question entirely.fuji said:
I'll just say one thing about the plausibitiy of a large conspiracy being behind it all. The reason that these can work when logic seems to say that they shouldn't is "The lie is different at every level"
Protoss
