These People Are All CRAZY ... (Aren't They?)

George Washington's picture



Well, since you looked, here's some more information.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Ganja Jane's picture

It's so sad that americans are so fucking stupid that 'the powers that be' don't even have to try that hard to fool them; Another case-in-point: The Magic Bullet Theory.

RIP Critical thinking.

Inibo E. Exibo's picture

I'm of the 9/11 is irrelevant school, but I find this video to be pretty compelling.

windcatcher's picture

Damn, I missed the party GW, your post sure brought out the paid propagandist from the NSA, CIA, US Chamber of Commerce, Tri-lateral Commission and the Council on Foreign relations although their defense “debunking 9/11 truthers” was low level, unsubstantiated and laughable propaganda.

 

Ask yourself “Who are these people, what is their agenda, what do they want and who do they represent?”

 

To me the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth represents professional experts and the families who lost love ones on that day of a terrorist attack that was carried out flawlessly except for some glaring incongruities from the “official historical narrative” as Brzezinski would say.

 

Who are they? The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth are not interested in other 9/11 evidence of conspiracy and they are not placing blame. Their agenda is simple: A proper science investigation of the causes of the structural damage to the twin towers and building #7. They are professionals, not a pack of liars and will debate the forensic evidence with anyone.

 

Who are they? The Debunkers are low level paid propagandist and by the dialogue that they have provided, not very bright. You know, US Chamber of Commerce anti-American sovereignty, globalist stupid.

 

Their agenda is to debunk any science investigation with lies and propaganda. They are conspirators to defraud the American public of the truth behind the terrorist attack on 9/11.

 

The 9/11 terrorist attack is pivotal to the justification for the 12 year war in Iraq (troops now leave by 2012) and the war with Afghanistan (troops leave 2015). The United States of America is now involved in 5 wars of Terror. Al Qaida the terrorist who supposable attacked us on 9/11 are working for the US as paid mercenaries to invade Libya.

Now, who is the Terrorist?

Oh, and one more thing that is always overlooked, the Enron prosecution case, all the paper work and evidence; went down with building #7. I know, it was probably a coincidence, but still---

 

 

A Lunatic's picture

Yet in the end, though many had been burned at the stake as heretic and witches, the Round Earthers were proven correct. Before that there was a group known only as the Orb Scholars who had the audacity to think the sun was the center of the universe...............

Lord Welligton's picture

@ bill1102inf

You're scum bill.

You're not very good at it. But you are scum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrEl4Lxok0Y&feature=player_embedded

Lord Welligton's picture

Here's a controlled demolition of a skyscraper.

Look familiar?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=8U4erFzhC-U

 

Setarcos's picture

Very familiar.

WTCs 1&2 come to mind, not to mention WTC7 ... oops I did mention.

Setarcos's picture

Congratulations.

The person who provided your link is nearly illiterate in places.

Anyway what do you believe?

19 box-cutter-wielding-terrorists caused 911?   BTW no aircraft struck WTC7 and no steel-framed building has ever collapsed before.

Did you know about the aircraft that crashed into the Empire State building, causing a lot of structural damage and fire:  http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm  Of course that building is still there.

Amazing eh!

 

Tunga's picture

inconvenient truth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_UsC6GvKf0&feature=related

The plans for one of the WTC towers are posted on the ae911 website. Down to the 5th level below street grade. The elevation for this lowest sheet shows an elevation that is some 80 meters above the lowest footings. 
In the late 80's there was a scandal in NYC when it became common knowledge that a method of destruction (namely nuclear) was designed into the structure. Presto and voila! What you got is not what you saw on TV. All the networks live coverage fed from the same camera company who just happened to be set up in all the right places (not to mention they specialized in CGI). 
 
Nothing we were told or saw on 9-11 is true. It was and is the crime of the century.  

bill1102inf's picture

"They made a decision to PULL WTC 7"

 

YES, PULL THE FIREFIGHTERS BACK AWAY FROM THE BUILDING because it was damaged and had been burning for 7 hours straight. 20 Stories on one side had its exterior ripped off.  That buildings unique architecture had it carrying all its weight on the OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING MUCH LIKE WTC I AND II.

hivekiller's picture

So bill102inf

 

How long have you been working for the CIA/NSA/etc ?

Lord Welligton's picture

bill is too dumb for that.

He'd fail the entrance exam.

Actually he probably did.

That's why he's so angry.

Rick64's picture

So the fires weakened the structure evenly otherwise it wouldn't have fell symetrically. No chance.

Tunga's picture

bill1102inf you are a total idiot or a troll. Most likely both.

bill1102inf's picture

Yup, typical pos truther response.....

bill1102inf's picture

**********************************

THE STATEMENT: "No fire had ever caused the collapse of a steel building before"

 

IS AN OUTRIGHT LIE

 

***********************************

 

The only reason your mind thinks it is even possible this statement is true is because you think of steel as extremely strong. It is strong.  It is also EXTREMELY WEAK when there is a fire.

 

Here is a link to a collapsed single floor steel building, that did NOT HAVE millions of pounds of weight sitting on it, was not struck by a 747, and did not have tens of thousands of jet fuel all over it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=94474&mesg_id=94577

 

This is a single example of THOUSANDS OF STEEL BUILDING THAT HAVE COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE.  AND AGAIN, I repeat, NONE OF THEM had a fucking 747 flown into them, none of them had a million lbs of weight sitting on them, and none of them were doused with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

 

Do your own research.  Everything else you need to know is here http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

That explains WTC7. very well.

Have a nice day. 

 

 

hivekiller's picture

The metal frame is sagging. It has not collapsed. Nor does it show girders with slanted cuts which you would find with shaped charges laced with thermate. Try again idiot.

Lord Welligton's picture

"THOUSANDS OF STEEL BUILDING THAT HAVE COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE"

Hey dickhead.

I'll take twenty video links for starters.

bill1102inf's picture

Look it up yourself fucktard, its not my job to educate every fucking dumbass that runs their mouth about shit they know nothing about.

 

 

And btw, Id take 20 cracks at your fucking head if I ever heard you talk this shit in public, just so we are clear.  So keep talking shit online you fucking punk ass bitch.

Tunga's picture

Shit talking punk ass bitchez bitchez!

Lord Welligton's picture

Ha Ha Ha

Did someone annoy the little troll.

Hugh G Rection's picture

Bill

 

I'd like those 20 links as well.

 

I'll wait toughguy...

Dark Space's picture

I don't have a dog in this fight, but in Bill's defense, he did provide about 20 links - if you click the http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm link in his initial comment there are multiple videos and other documentation to support his point of view.

I guess its pretty easy to gloss over things like that behind the facade of the interwebs, though, and call people "troll" and "toughguy" because they have a different opinion - isn't the whole point of this blog to uncover what "they" don't want you to uncover? Maybe "they" are the conspiracy theorist? I'd find it more interesting if you whip out your degree in engineering (I don't have one, I'll have to rely on the expertise of others in this instance) and work on debunking the links he provided.

bill1102inf's picture

All you need to know complete with video and an engineering explanation regarding the LIES told regarding 'free fall'

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

bill1102inf's picture

Elite Delta Force Operators used the Top Secret Time machine to go back in time to the construction of the buildings and place futuristic explosives that produce no shockwave whatsoever all over the WTC buildings I,II,7.  They also wired the rest of the buildings but after 9/11 went back in time again, and removed the explosives from the other buildings.

 

Had the first attack on the wtc succeeded (all he needed to do was park a few feet closer) to a main support column, the building would have fallen, somehow, someway.  Im sure the clownery would claim it was rigged to be demolished in that instance also.

bill1102inf's picture

They knew who did it within hours because they looked at the flight manifests and saw the peace loving muslims on each of the flights.  That coupled with the fact that the pilots reported being hijacked while it happened.  They KNEW WHO DID IT, the second it happened. What is the big deal?????

 

"Because they knew who did it after, they had to know before"  what a rediculous statement and typical truther nonsense.

 

 

 

hivekiller's picture

There were no Arabs listed on the passenger manifests yet strangely enough the passports of Satam Al Suqami and Mohammed Atta flew out the windows of the planes hitting the WTC and landed unscathed on the sidewalk below. Yet another miracle on that day!

 

What's even more amazing is that the passports survived but not the black boxes in the planes which are specifically designed to survive crashes.

Lord Welligton's picture

WTC7 collapsed at "near free fall" speed. Look at 3:46 in the video.

The NIST Shyam Sunder PH.D, lead investigator NIST, says "World Trade Centre 7 collapsed because of fires fuelled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from fuel oil fires"

If you believe that you are an idiot.

QED.

bill1102inf's picture

Office/Interior fires bring down steel buildings all the time without haveing 20 stories of said building ripped off from the falling debris of a tower.

 

If you don't believe that, look it up, or else you are an ignorant idiot.

Rick64's picture

Even if the fires could bring down the building which they can't , they couldn't bring it down symetrically. Your thinking process doesn't involve any logic.

Lord Welligton's picture

You really are thick as shit.

So WTC7 had 20 stories ripped off from the falling debris of a tower?

Did you even look at the video?

Show some evidence that an office fire has "brought down" a building.

Meanwhile here is some video of buildings on fire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBjOe6BjzYg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Gp25REO8A

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FKCKXZm3HQ&feature=related

Guess what.

None of those buildings collapsed in seven seconds.

 

 

nmewn's picture

Ok...my thoughts.

It is beyond dispute to me that hijacked planes were the cause of I&II coming down. The collapse of those two buildings started at the point of impact of those planes just as the video evidence and my own eyes watching live show. To claim the twin towers were rigged at every floor to allow for wherever the planes might hit is beyond conspiratorial.

On 7...this one has always been an oddity with me.

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that (considering the tenants) it was rigged to be demolished if need be in the future? But possibility is not fact. Is it possible it was blown to avoid damage to other buildings? Again, possibility is not fact.

I did think the interview with the firemen was informative. But its hard to say what they actually think they saw. As what I saw at 9:49 of the tape "dripping" out of the side of "a building". Hard to say what it was, or what building even...as power had been cut to everything its doubtful that was some type of transformer fire...but another skeptic would say there is such a thing as video editing.

The "thermite theory" will have to be accounted for one way or the other which will involve government coming forward and confirming if they did or did not have "explosive and/or flammable material" stored in their offices, another possibility. Which of course would break every one of their own laws of storing such things in public buildings...just sayin that is a real possibility and their track record of being truthful & forthcoming is less than stellar in these matters as we see from Project Fast & Furious...walking guns across the border to Mexican narco terrorists.

But its clear the building came down from inside and closer to ground level as you can see the penthouse on top go through the roof as it starts...meaning the skeleton was compromised. There was extensive renovations done to the building by over the course of its life (Salomon Smith Barney for one) and to my mind all sorts of deviltry can come about in the process of approvals & permitting...the greasing of hands.

So yes, I support an investigation of WT7 with subpoena power.

My two cents.

hivekiller's picture

The planes did not bring down the WTC towers. Explosives did. The buildings were designed to take multiple hits since that is always a possibility with high rise buildings. In 1945 the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber. Guess what? The building didn't collapse. It's still there. The buildings came down in a symmetrical collapse which is only possible if the support columns were being blown out in a systematic fashion. Squibs can be seen at the major juncture points of the building since I believe it was built in three major sections. In addition, witnesses experiences explosions in the basement prior to the planes hitting the buildings. Either get a clue or STFU.

Rick64's picture

Ok thats better than saying you all are wingbats.

nmewn's picture

The term is moonbats ;-)

My problem with "truthers" has always been...that they set out with a theory first and they then try to make the facts fit the theory. This is not how its done.

As you know by now, my level of distrust for anything the government says is higher than anyones. However, to rule out everything else to the exclusion of government itself doing it is moonbattery.

Look back over the path you and I have travelled here with this sordid tale. Look at the absolute bullshit truthers have put forward and been proven false on. Remote controlled drones, Mossad suicide pilots, cell phones don't work, voice to skull technology...lol...the list is almost endless trying to make the theory fit the facts.

That is a disservice to truth not a promotion of it.

Until proven otherwise, my "theory" is the same as it has always been. It was gross incompetence by our government for allowing Atta and the rest into the country in the first place...the Gorelick Wall. Compounded gross incompetence by not following up on them when their student visa's expired. Compounded yet again by allowing them to purhase airline tickets (no APB was ever issued on them). After it happened we knew exactly who they were within a day...meaning intelligence knew they were here but were prohibited by law from telling INS or anyone else...the Gorelick Wall.

This Gorelick Wall needs to be addressed because I brought it up. The principle of it. I am actually in her camp and understand why it was put in place. This is one of the prices of living in an open society...such as it is today...lol.

However, I don't believe it should have ever been extended to foreign nationals visiting here.

We can't be pollyanish about the fact the nation has enemies and will always have them. And those enemies don't really care how many people of any religion or race get killed in the process of an attack on the nation.

And I do appreciate your defense of me, personally, up top. We are both after the truth, which gets harder the more BS that is thrown up on the wall. Now a lot of people just say "oh geez" and turn the page. If I were a conspiratist trying to cover something up that is what I would want. Put up a bunch of hoo haw to get knocked down easily while the real truth slips out of sight...just sayin.

Rick64's picture

 Even if I don't agree with you in some areas doesn't mean you are my enemy, like you said we both want the truth. I can respect your stance and you have some logical arguments.

You say incompetence, I say complicity meaning at least they were aware of it and let it happen. 

voice to skull technology... Come on? you know they have it. LOL

The Alarmist's picture

Yep, they're all crazy.  We all know our run-of-the-mill politicos are criminal, but to accept the story of this video would force me to change that to evil.

UGrev's picture

So what I gathered from this was that WTC7 was a "controlled", or I would like to say, "manufactured" demolition. What there is no evidence for,that I can absolutely agree to, is exactly who set the building up. Was it terrorists, was it our gov't...who was it? was it collusion? I think this is the direction it now needs to take. I get that it was planned.. but more evidence needs to be dug up as to who did it. I think the why is obvious. 

Who?[] What?[x] Where?[x] How?[x] Why?[x]

Setarcos's picture

Well it was an "inside job".

Had to have been, one way or another.

Leraconteur's picture

"A fine example of the verbose and semi-cogent sub-species of shill. Wonder if it's here via Megaphone, or the more fashionable persona management packages?"

Q.E.D.

I disagree, therefore I am a Shill.

How is it I predicted your response upthread?

No disproof of one word, note everyone.

Just Ad Hominem (I am a shill therefore I am wrong, I agree with 'The Official Version'therefore I am wrong, I am a government operative rather than a retired American living in Asia about to eat dinner.)

Ad Hom, by the way - another fallacy. Thus your point is wrong again.

You guys are notoriously bad at logic.

Escapeclaws's picture

"You guys are notoriously bad at logic." Why do you say notorious, M. Arnaquer?

Leraconteur's picture

"So, let's just use this to avoid the REAL discussion, that of the fact that the buildings were brought down with explosives."

Another standard Truther flaw.

When disproven, you ignore that your point is wrong and then you (basically) say:

"Ok - well then WHAT ABOUT THIS, then?"

This goes on forever. The rest of us have lives and don't have the time to logically deconstruct every single word of what you write as it takes us 30 minutes to disprove one sentence of your illogical nonsense.

BTW they were not brought down by explosives, but you lack the intellect to understand the differences between a building that was, and one that wasn't.

I could show you two videos, one of WTC 1,2 7 or a controlled demolition.

You would say they look the same.

I could then spend an entire day pointing out the subtle differences that you simply are incapable of seeing. 

Such as.

-The lack of det chord.

-The lack of det chord firing off. One can see the chord fire. It is fast, but not faster than one's eyes can see. To run lengths 1300 feet it would be visible everywhere. One can visible see the fire run up the chord, travel through its length as it is set off.

-The lack of enough puffs of smoke. You will point me to videos or stills of 2 to 10 puffs as the towers collapse. This is from compressed air blowing out windows as the building fell.

-The fact that explosions to demo happen for 5 to 15 seconds BEFORE a building 'falls down'. There is a visible and noticeable gap in time between all of the BOOM-BOOM-BOOM  and when the building comes down. This did not happen with WTC as the BOOMS happen AS the building falls down. Of course the BOOMS were floors impacting the one below, transformers going off, tanks of propane and gas blowing up at stores and shops and restaurants and concession stands in the buildings, elevators falling from cut cables and hitting the bottom of the shaft at 100+mph, etc.

-No blast wave visibly shaking building windows BEFORE collapses occurred. If brougt down with explosives, such a large demo job would have required massive amounts of material going off and the sound, blast and shock wave would have been very noticeable for 15 seconds or so as ripples in the windows of surrounding buildings.

This will never stop.

You are A Believer and this is now your Belief System, Religion.

You will never be convinced otherwise, no matter how vigorous the argument or proof. 

Are you kidding's picture

So you're telling me...3 WTC buildings failed and collapsed at freefall speed...and nobody has been found negligent?  I understand your reasoning...however...it does not explain HOW building 7 collapsed.  CAN one failed support take down a building at freefall speed?  Who was the fucking idiot who designed these buildings?  He should be hanging by his ball somewhere.  If nothing else...this is a case of EXTREME negligence.  Why DID the government hide everything?  No lawsuits means no REAL investigations.  We investigate liquor store robberies better than we investigated 9-11.  The steel was supposedly sold as scrap to China...really?  That's hallowed steel...should be.  There are too many questions.  Too many cover ups.  Like the questions of god and life...I don't know...at least not now, it's as simple as that.

Lord Welligton's picture

I could then spend an entire day pointing out the subtle differences that you simply are incapable of seeing.

Do it.

WTC7 collapsed at "near free fall" speed. Look at 3:46 in the video.

The NIST Shyam Sunder PH.D, lead investigator NIST, says "World Trade Centre 7 collapsed because of fires fuelled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from fuel oil fires"

If you believe that you are an idiot.

QED.

Leraconteur's picture

"Regardless, there's the issue of free-fall speed."

Another 5 seconds, another fallacy.

Look at the videos. Time 1,2 or 7 with a stopwatch and count the video frames, a very accurate timer.

They fell at speeds that had them fall in timeframes 20% or greater than at freefall speed. Thus they did not fall at free-fall speed as the time to impact subsequent floors, disperse that energy, and collapse next floor down added time.

Bet you cannot list the time, in seconds to the tens, that an object from the top of 1 or 2 would take to hit ground level.

Now time how long it took them to collapse.

Oh snap! The collapses took longer than free-fall.

Q.E.D. 

Guys I have done this for 10 years. It isn't 'Bias' or 'Being a Sheeple'. I listened to your ideas, looked at your proof, considered your premises, realized you were wrong, and I pointed out the flaws. 

Think. How is it possible I can so quickly point out the errors of your ways? Perhaps because your mistakes are obvious, and you repeat them in a known pattern when you "prove" you are right online. 

Escapeclaws's picture

"Bet you cannot list the time, in seconds to the tens, that an object from the top of 1 or 2 would take to hit ground level."

Quick M. Arnaquer, what is the formula--no, stop right there, don't ask your kid--give us the formula this instant with units!

TerraHertz's picture

Oh look, a fine example of the verbose and semi-cogent sub-species of shill. Wonder if it's here via Megaphone, or the more fashionable persona management packages?

Hey, you know it's only a matter of time till Anonymous finds a list of thousands of shill nics, real names, addresses and paycheck details on some .gov server, don't you? Won't that be fun.