Lest We Forget - 9/11 Reflections

[RacerCool]

1 hour ago, HighlandTiger said:

Lol, it wasn't what they said. It was more of what they didn't say. Plus the fact that as a signatory of the official secrets act myself, they knew I couldn't divulge anything that was said or not said any further. 

The problem with talking about this subject on this type of forum is that silver collecting is a big part of the prepper and doomsday community, which is a fertile breeding ground for the collection of tin foil as well. This forum has a higher than average number of conspiracy theorists than other types of forum. 

I won't go into things on this thread, as I believe that it should not be hijacked by people with an anti government agenda. But I will say this. It is interesting that Julian Assange and wikileaks have managed to uncover lots of secrets, but they have found absolutely nothing major with regards to claims around 911. 

For 911 to be a cover up, it would need the assistance of thousands of people and yet nothing has ever "come out". The human race is rubbish at keeping secrets hence the governmental leaks on both sides of the Atlantic on a daily basis. 

But I'm not here to change people's minds, just to remember friends who died in this atrocity. 

 

That is a statement used to wave away anything that someone doesn't want to talk about. Forget that kind of thinking and simply observe things that happen and are stated, and engage your critical thinking skills. About anything. And you will then find that the official narrative too often doesn't fit reality.

[HighlandTiger]

If the official 911 story is such a lie, and every conspiracy theorist knows they are correct, then why are there so many different versions of what happened that day peddled by the tin foil brigade. 

No matter what you think actually happened, there can only be one true version. And yet, with all the alleged evidence that is out there, there are almost as many different theories as there are theorists. 

I might take everyone more seriously, if everyone could agree on a single narrative which everyone could agree on. But they can't , so I can't. 

For every "expert" brought up by the ct's, there is another "expert" with a counter argument. 

This speaks volumes. 

[HighlandTiger]

2 minutes ago, RacerCool said:

That is a statement used to wave away anything that someone doesn't want to talk about. Forget that kind of thinking and simply observe things that happen and are stated, and engage your critical thinking skills. About anything. And you will then find that the official narrative too often doesn't fit reality.

I've been using my critical thinking skills for over 25 years, writing about a topic that skirts onto the edges of conspiracies. (Yes I have been accused numerous times of being in the employ of the government). I've had articles in books, magazines and newspapers around the world. I've appeared on TV, (all major UK channels, and National Geographic), and radio stations in half a dozen countries.

Believe me, I know how to dig into a story.

[sixgun]

@RacerCool  i'd leave  it  - sometimes people are not ready to see the truth.

[HighlandTiger]

1 minute ago, sixgun said:

@RacerCool  i'd leave  it - for some people  there is no medicine strong enough.

That's about the only correct thing you've said so far.

[sixgun]

1 minute ago, HighlandTiger said:

That's about the only correct thing you've said so far.

That's why i edited it - i am here to speak the truth even if everyone else thinks i am a loon.

[augur]

My condolences to the families of all those brave first responders who lost their lives during the collapse of the twin towers, the thousands of people who sadly got trapped in the events unraveling on 9/11 and the millions of collateral damage who died in the subsequent war on terror. 

[RacerCool]

2 minutes ago, HighlandTiger said:

That's about the only correct thing you've said so far.

By the way, most of what's been said here by us tin-foil hat types is simply documenting the "what" of what happened. Conspiracy theories begin when we try to explore the "who" and "why" .

[sixgun]

16 minutes ago, augur said:

My condolences to the families of all those brave first responders who lost their lives during the collapse of the twin towers, the thousands of people who sadly got trapped in the events unraveling on 9/11 and the millions of collateral damage who died in the subsequent war on terror. 

"............and the millions of collateral damage who died in the subsequent war of terror. "

[KDave]

Subsequent war on Terra, against us all especially our liberty and privacy.

[RacerCool]

1 hour ago, sixgun said:

@RacerCool  i'd leave  it  - sometimes people are not ready to see the truth.

On the other hand, if we speak the truth reasonably then we just let the truth do its work in the hearts and minds of the hearers. They'll get it when the time is right, just like I did. But I had to hear it and see it first. 👍

1 hour ago, HighlandTiger said:

That's about the only correct thing you've said so far.

Everything I said is known and observable fact. Not theory. You can't debunk what can be seen and heard. You can only challenge interpretations and perspectives. 

[sixgun]

3 minutes ago, RacerCool said:

On the other hand, if we speak the truth reasonably then we just let the truth do its work in the hearts and minds of the hearers. They'll get it when the time is right, just like I did. But I had to hear it and see it first. 👍

 

Yes - quite often get into conversation knowing i will never convince the other side but they give me an opportunity to post about the topic. Onlookers sometimes come back to me to say what i posted has got them thinking. This is as much as i would wish for. If the readers arrive at their own conclusions rather than regurgitate the controlled media propaganda then great strides have been made.

[GoodAsGold]

Conspiracy theories are ignored by the majority of the UK general public because we accept that everything we are told on TV news is factual information.  Or we certainly did up to and including 9/11. Why wouldn't we believe our regular trustworthy TV channel newsreader? The official version is a convenient truth because if we stop and think who actually prepared a script in advance stating a nearby skyscraper building (not struck by any jet) had collapsed when it had not done so yet, and then we listen to the conspiracy theories and balance everything out using our own intelligence, then the alternative version is very scary for everyone. Surely there's no such thing as a conspiracy fact? 

A lot is already covered in the previous posts. However I also recall a YouTube clip which showed a 9/11 "eye witness" being interviewed live on camera on the street. 2 men in immaculate suits were stood behind him like supervisors, nodding and saying yeah as his story matched the official version. That eye witness was exposed as an actor who had also been used as an eye witness at a previous American tragedy. Why would they do this?

9/11 unfolded quickly and the perpetrators were swiftly identified to the convenience of us all. We were hooked on this event and needed our feed of news.  Bin Laden was responsible yet his relatives were permitted to fly out of the country when everything else was grounded.

Personally I don't believe a passenger airline being flown by a novice at a very low height struck the Pentagon. I also don't believe another passenger airline made that hole in the field in Shanksville. My eyes are now open to earlier "conspiracies".

 

 

 

 

[RacerCool]

2 hours ago, sixgun said:

Yes - quite often get into conversation knowing i will never convince the other side but they give me an opportunity to post about the topic. Onlookers sometimes come back to me to say what i posted has got them thinking. This is as much as i would wish for. If the readers arrive at their own conclusions rather than regurgitate the controlled media propaganda then great strides have been made.

Excellent. That's all we really can do: put the truth out there, and let them arrive at their own conclusions.

[silenceissilver]

11 hours ago, HighlandTiger said:

If the official 911 story is such a lie, and every conspiracy theorist knows they are correct, then why are there so many different versions of what happened that day peddled by the tin foil brigade. 

No matter what you think actually happened, there can only be one true version. And yet, with all the alleged evidence that is out there, there are almost as many different theories as there are theorists. 

I might take everyone more seriously, if everyone could agree on a single narrative which everyone could agree on. But they can't , so I can't. 

For every "expert" brought up by the ct's, there is another "expert" with a counter argument. 

This speaks volumes. 

There is probably not one version because probably more than one method has been used to bring the towers down. Regarding your comment that too many people would be involved and at least one would speak - only half a dozen, on the right positions were needed on the day - of course more for the preparation. About the wording conspiracy theorist - every police man who assumes there was more than one offender, is one as every crime with more than one person participating is a conspiracy. Regarding your comment "anti government" - how can one not be anti government?! Of course one in a few dozens top leaders will be well meaning but generally the density of psychopaths is well above the average, in governments. 

[RacerCool]

15 hours ago, HighlandTiger said:

If the official 911 story is such a lie, and every conspiracy theorist knows they are correct, then why are there so many different versions of what happened that day peddled by the tin foil brigade. 

No matter what you think actually happened, there can only be one true version. And yet, with all the alleged evidence that is out there, there are almost as many different theories as there are theorists. 

I might take everyone more seriously, if everyone could agree on a single narrative which everyone could agree on. But they can't , so I can't. 

For every "expert" brought up by the ct's, there is another "expert" with a counter argument. 

This speaks volumes. 

I didn't notice this one earlier.

The main reason there are differing, even conflicting theories, is because what we can observe really doesn't make sense. Giant steel and concrete buildings literally turning to dust before our eyes?? That makes zero sense according to anything we know. Yet that's exactly what we observe in many videos. 

So, how do you explain that? They weren't pulverized; that's something different, and it isn't what happened. And when the dust cleared, there was almost no rubble. Even Peter Jennings and George Stephopolous, the next morning, asked the same question: "where's all the rubble??" George doesn't know what to say other than, "they just disappeared..."

They didn't collapse as we might imagine. They actually disintegrated, then fell, which again makes no sense. Same thing with building 7, which we'll note again wasn't hit by any airplanes. 

And so, we try to explain what happened. Some say there were nukes under the buildings. Some say it was a combination of lots of thermite and TNT and other fancy steel-melting chemicals. Others say it was a DEW, a directed energy weapon, or laser (remember Reagan's "star wars" space weapons program? That could have resulted in such weapons, but again, what do we really know?) The last one seems the most absurd on the surface, yet when explored, actually seems to make the most sense of all the theories I've heard over the years. And still, TNT or some kind of explosives seemed to have been used as well.

By the way, all the theorists know they are correct in that the official story is fiction. But most of them will tell you that their ideas of what actually happened could be wrong, and that it's really only their best guess.

[Martlet]

25 minutes ago, RacerCool said:

So, how do you explain that? They weren't pulverized; that's something different, and it isn't what happened. And when the dust cleared, there was almost no rubble. Even Peter Jennings and George Stephopolous, the next morning, asked the same question: "where's all the rubble??" George doesn't know what to say other than, "they just disappeared..."

There was plenty of rubble, just not as much as one might think for something that appears so big.  Because most a high rise is space, there is only a small fraction of the volume once collapsed.  This is common theme of all conspiracies, people making or accepting others uninformed assumptions, misconceptions, seeing a discrepancy, then concluding the assumption must be correct and the discrepancy as evidence of something.  What exactly does "no rubble" mean happened anyway, the building certainly collapsed and the material left is what is left. 

[sixgun]

WTC Building 7 could not have collapsed due to fire - so how did it collapse?

 

[sixgun]

5 hours ago, Martlet said:

There was plenty of rubble, just not as much as one might think for something that appears so big.  Because most a high rise is space, there is only a small fraction of the volume once collapsed.  This is common theme of all conspiracies, people making or accepting others uninformed assumptions, misconceptions, seeing a discrepancy, then concluding the assumption must be correct and the discrepancy as evidence of something.  What exactly does "no rubble" mean happened anyway, the building certainly collapsed and the material left is what is left. 

But look at the videos of the collapse - look at the MASSIVE amount of fine dust. Turning concrete to dust requires a lot of energy - the only energy in the system was the potential energy of concrete at height - burning office fittings in a concrete and steel building can be discounted - there was insufficient energy to dustify all that concrete. Where did the energy come from?

[DaveNW]

3 hours ago, sixgun said:

But look at the videos of the collapse - look at the MASSIVE amount of fine dust. Turning concrete to dust requires a lot of energy - the only energy in the system was the potential energy of concrete at height - burning office fittings in a concrete and steel building can be discounted - there was insufficient energy to dustify all that concrete. Where did the energy come from?

I'm not saying you're wrong but there's certainly a substantial amount of thermal and kinetic energy involved in the collapse.

[sixgun]

16 minutes ago, DaveNW said:

I'm not saying you're wrong but there's certainly a substantial amount of thermal and kinetic energy involved in the collapse.

Observe the video - the building is dustifying in situ - the building in the video is turning to dust at the collapse zone of the building - at high storey level. If one were suggesting the concrete blocks turned to dust due to their kinetic energy we would expect this to happen when they had reached terminal velocity (max velocity in a fall) and then collided with something else and the kinetic energy was converted to forces which turned the block to dust. If i went to the top of a skyscraper and threw a brick off the top would you expect it to turn to dust as it fell or even turn to dust when it hit the pavement/road? It wouldn't happen. 

Thermal energy - there was an explosion - allegedly kerosene (aircraft fuel) - boom it is gone. Then we have office fittings burning. Where is the massive thermal energy? - when did putting a reinforced concrete block in a furnace turn it to dust? What about the lower levels of the building - was there an inferno at all levels that turned to concrete and steel to dust? It is just not credible. i would say it is just not possible on the basis of the circumstances of the official account. i do not even believe high explosives would be sufficient to do this - but i am not going down that rabbit hole for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[sixgun]

21 minutes ago, DaveNW said:

I'm not saying you're wrong but there's certainly a substantial amount of thermal and kinetic energy involved in the collapse.

Observe the video - the building is dustifying in situ - the building in the video is turning to dust at the collapse zone of the building - at high storey level. If one were suggesting the concrete blocks turned to dust due to their kinetic energy we would expect this to happen when they had reached terminal velocity (max velocity in a fall) and then collided with something else and the kinetic energy was converted to forces which turned the block to dust. If i went to the top of a skyscraper and threw a brick off the top would you expect it to turn to dust as it fell or even turn to dust when it hit the pavement/road? It wouldn't happen. 

Thermal energy - there was an explosion - allegedly kerosene (aircraft fuel) - boom it is gone. Then we have office fittings burning. Where is the massive thermal energy? - when did putting a reinforced concrete block in a furnace turn it to dust? What about the lower levels of the building - was there an inferno at all levels that turned to dust? It is just not credible. i do not even believe high explosives would be sufficient to do this - but i am not going down that rabbit hole for the purpose of this discussion.

 

[DaveNW]

You would have to include friction within your equation. With all that weight, there wouldn't need to be that much movement to build up sufficient energy to turn the concrete to dust. 

You cannot see the base of the building in the video. To me it looks like the entire building is turning to dust, not just the bottom. 

I'm very much open minded to there be alternative versions to stories but the onus is on the alternative to convince me. There's a lot about the original story that doesn't seem like the whole story, whether it's true or there's parts missing is up to debate, however, there is hardly a convincing alternative at the moment. 

[Martlet]

 

6 hours ago, sixgun said:

But look at the videos of the collapse - look at the MASSIVE amount of fine dust. Turning concrete to dust requires a lot of energy - the only energy in the system was the potential energy of concrete at height - burning office fittings in a concrete and steel building can be discounted - there was insufficient energy to dustify all that concrete. Where did the energy come from?

Does it take a lot of energy? How much? Is the potential energy insufficient? Is all the dust concrete or other materials?  

2 hours ago, DaveNW said:

I'm not saying you're wrong but there's certainly a substantial amount of thermal and kinetic energy involved in the collapse.

Of course there is, however we should discount this and look elsewhere for energy source.  Maybe a massive energy weapon directed through the atmosphere?

[RacerCool]

2 hours ago, DaveNW said:

You would have to include friction within your equation. With all that weight, there wouldn't need to be that much movement to build up sufficient energy to turn the concrete to dust. 

You cannot see the base of the building in the video. To me it looks like the entire building is turning to dust, not just the bottom. 

I'm very much open minded to there be alternative versions to stories but the onus is on the alternative to convince me. There's a lot about the original story that doesn't seem like the whole story, whether it's true or there's parts missing is up to debate, however, there is hardly a convincing alternative at the moment. 

We're not talking about concrete.  We're talking about structural steel.  Lots and lots of it.  You're talking about two 110 story steel-structured buildings that, according to the official story, collapsed under their own weight.  First off, think about the rubble pile you'd have.  Two 110 story buildings right next to each other, both crumbling (that's what's happening), crumbling *straight down* into their own foot prints, right next to each other.  What would you expect to see?  Think for half a second.  It's just going according to our common sense.

Do you expect this? This is just hours after the dust cleared.  Where are the two giant piles of bent and crooked steel?  Remember, they crumpled straight down, right next to each other.  The most prominent things you're seeing are the remains of the outer aluminum skin.