Tags for this video have been changed from '911 Truth, inside job, corporate criminal network' to '911 Truth, inside job, corporate criminal network, truthers' - edited by volumptuous

Tags for this video have been changed from '911, truth, we, are, change, infowars, george, carlin' to '911 truth, we are change, infowars, george carlin' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Fade:
Jeez dude you really have drunk the coolaid.
If there is evidence then why isn't it public? The video evidence and interviews, the photographs, all that stuff that the architects and engineers for 911 truth have access to?
NIST's model for the collapse is a secret. So you tell me, is that not the definition of a conspiracy? At any rate, their model doesn't even match the reality. there are plenty of videos comparing the NIST collapse model to the actual footage and it clearly doesn't line up.
fwiw, I have read the full report, everything that is public. I still don't buy it. Sue me.


Wait, what? You're claiming, "I have read the full report, everything that is public", but also "If there is evidence then why isn't it public?". Uh, dude, most of the evidence *is* public.

There are 3 reports specifically related to the WTC 7 investigation. The one I assume you've read is probably the NCSTAR 1A report. But I already pointed out, there are two others, NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. The NIST NCSTAR 1-9 report is ~800 pages containing loads of photographs and stills from video clips on which they based on the investigation. On top of that, videos and photos from their collection they used for the investigation are also available on their web site.

The only thing I can't find are the interviews. I don't know if that means they are not public (although there could be any number of reasons for that, not necessarily "ZOMG it's a conspiracy!"), or if I just can't find them.

So yeah, I don't know what else to say. You don't buy it, that's your choice. You want another investigation, go help fund one then.

Jeez dude you really have drunk the coolaid.
If there is evidence then why isn't it public? The video evidence and interviews, the photographs, all that stuff that the architects and engineers for 911 truth have access to?
NIST's model for the collapse is a secret. So you tell me, is that not the definition of a conspiracy? At any rate, their model doesn't even match the reality. there are plenty of videos comparing the NIST collapse model to the actual footage and it clearly doesn't line up.

fwiw, I have read the full report, everything that is public. I still don't buy it. Sue me.>> ^shponglefan:

>> ^Fade:
re. your point about evidence. I have read the NIST report. I trust you have too. If you can point me towards the section about evidence then I would be much obliged. All I am able to find are assumptions and estimations. Which are about as scientifically valid to the theory as my arse is.

First of all, every single model of any real life event is going to involve assumptions and estimations. That's the nature of constructing models of real life events, since information about any event is never going to be 100% complete or 100% accurate. Your complaint is invalid in this regard.
Second, I don't believe you actually have read the NIST WTC 7 report. If you had, you'd have noticed they refer to reports NIST NCSTAR 1-9 and NIST NCSTAR 1-9A. And if you look at NIST NCSTAR 1-9 in particular (all ~800 pages of it), they detail a lot of the evidence they used in their findings (photographs, video, interviews).
Now, if you choose to look at that and still believe it's all fraudulant (since you've already made that charge), that's your prerogative. But to suggest there is no evidence for their report is simply false.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'BBC, 7WTC, 911 Truth, demolition, Barry Jennings, explosions, Alex Jones, Jason Bermas' to 'BBC, 7WTC, 911 Truth, demolition, Barry Jennings, Alex Jones, Jason Bermas, WTC7' - edited by marinara

This article debunks Jesse Ventura's conspiracy theory about 9/11
http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/911-truth-conspiracy-theory/

Asside fromt he whole consiprcy thing , history has shown repatedly that it dosenot matter whether the event was faked real , or whatever , you will not progress by atacking it.

it would be vastly more constructive attacking the current wars directly or attacking current actions of bush and oabama administration as these can be proven very eseaily with scientific verifiable evidence ( more importantly for political issues scientific verifiable evidence the public will go along with) .

The amount of time some of these people have investead in 911 truth maby they could have gotten into goverment and had mroe of an impact ? maby not ,

>> ^rougy: I'm not saying that I know what happened there, but I'll bet money that what we were told happened, didn't.


http://www.videosift.com/video/JFK-telling-us-the-911-truth

Thank you twice!

In reply to this comment by NordlichReiter:
Dont pay attention to the title or the text about the "911 truth" because it has nothing to do with his speech, and is only connected by conjecture.

Here is a transcription of the speech: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm

http://www.videosift.com/video/JFK-telling-us-the-911-truth (video sift version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces (another version with pics of JFK)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladiator_(2000_soundtrack)

Music Composed by Hanz Zimmer and Lisa Gerrard

In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
What's the source of this video? It only has 884 views on YouTube as of now. This all sounds made up. I can't find anything reliable when I google: Rothschilds "first bank" "second bank".
* Lies?

The music is nice though, anyone know what song it is?

Also, does anyone know which Kennedy speech that is?

Dont pay attention to the title or the text about the "911 truth" because it has nothing to do with his speech, and is only connected by conjecture.

Here is a transcription of the speech: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm

http://www.videosift.com/video/JFK-telling-us-the-911-truth (video sift version)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces (another version with pics of JFK)

In reply to this comment by cybrbeast:
What's the source of this video? It only has 884 views on YouTube as of now. This all sounds made up. I can't find anything reliable when I google: Rothschilds "first bank" "second bank".
* Lies?

The music is nice though, anyone know what song it is?

Also, does anyone know which Kennedy speech that is?

Earlier I saw what seemed to be a senate hearing. The speaker was showing "terrorist" web sites (the ones that are how to sites). They also showed a site having to do with 911 truth/engineers. It seemed to me this was about the internet= threat to the U.S., and possibly government control due to threat.
I was talking to someone at the time thus my poor recollection. Ill have to go look for it.

eric3579:
I have one question. Are you fucking serious? Did you read it? Out of all the material out there you chose this to reference. Is it just me?

Yes, I guess I am "fucking serious". Yes, I read it (and you didn't, see bellow). Yes I chose to reference it and...wait...what is you argument again ? Ho, that's right, you have none. You're just dismissing a source because you don't like it. Care to come up with an actual reason?


eric3579:
and where is the info for the 30 second collapse?

You ask me if I read it and you can't spot that sentence located *three lines* bellow the pictures I linked to? Can I ask you if you are "fucking serious", please? Here's the quote:

"The visible collapse of WTC 7 was fairly quick. But seismic readings time the rumblings of the building (culminating in collapse that measured 0.6 on the Richter scale) to 30 seconds before the mechanical penthouses on top start to cave in"

So the internal structure started to collapse 30 seconds before the building caved in. That's quite different from "Explosives sent the building down in 6.5 seconds tops".
Also thanks for your link which, again, shows you didn't read the websites I pointed to, as mister Jones's arguments are discussed at length there...

* * *

blankfist:
Is it true? I don't think it is. It sounds baseless. Because a lot of the claims made by people who are critical of the current 911 theories aren't based on assumptions and opinions, like you seem to think, but instead are made from real research and from experts.

A few points first:
* Being suspicious of a government who has in the past started things like the Phoenix Program or MK Ultra is completely understandable. I do not question that.
* The 911 Report is an unconvincing (I would say "incomplete") piece of work on some points. Namely if you ask me, the guys who wrote down that finding out where the terrorists funds came from was "not important" should be thrown down into a pit full of hungry talibans.

That being said:
The most vocal "Conspiracy Theorists", and more specifically those giving themselves names like "911 Truth Movement" do focus on stuff that is, frankly, preposterous. Imagine you are the government and DO cause the 9/11 attacks...why in hell would you, on top of that, sneak in several tons of explosives in buildings occupied by several tenth of thousands employees? Can you imagine the logistical nightmare of doing this? Seriously, why do it? And if you do, why make it a (supposedly) "clean" controlled demolition? Why hide the result and not say the terrorists placed the explosives too?
None of this makes sense, but still a few nutjobs broadcast long-debunked claims. Cellphones don't work in airplanes: Lies. Building free-falling into their own footprint: Lies. Signs of explosions and use of thermite during the collapse (erm, I thought thermite did not explode?): Lies. It's all been proven wrong, but they still repeat it. Each and every "evidence" I have looked at has been debunked, and none has been actually PROVED.
Again, if you have any "real research", with actual solid evidence, please provide it. I doubt you will, because if any hard evidence was found (and by hard I mean which cannot be refuted), here's what would happen:
* Governments hostile to the US would use it and put it under scrutinity.
* Neutral media (independent or foreign media) would report it.
* Eventually mainstream media would have to report it, if only to downplay it.
Do you see any of this happening?

Meanwhile, the real issues (like "where did the money come from", "how did the terrorists operate" or "why did the administration repeatedly ignore warnings from its allies prior to 9/11") remain unanswered. I guess they don't sell as many books.

I am not dismissing any and all dissent toward the official 911 explanation, but in regard to those making claims about "the 911 physics", I do stand by my statement and think it is them who are baseless: they're all talk and no proof.

yah, i would buy an enormously powerful sniper rifle and then shoot at 50m targets!!!! hahahah as IF!!!

imagine these guys in the bar later... "we shot a piece of metal 50m away! yeeehaaaaw!!!!"

Nah, i think the target was far, far away.

In fact, the totally incredible thing about this thread is that people are prepared to assert that these guys bought this rifle and video camera in order to make a fake ricochet off a close target! You are so keen to call fake that you'll believe anything! I refer you to Alex Jones and the 911 "truth" movement... off you go...

He has some interesting points, certainly, but this wasn't a brilliant interview. The interviewer doesn't really probe Bartmer assertions, rather just agrees with him (almost short of putting words in his mouth at times).

The fact that not even anything has been leaked regarding the installation of demolition charges in the WTC, just makes me discount the whole 'controlled collapse' theory. Be they blueprints, executive orders, memos or whatever, show me anything that gives evidence for such a claim - but don't try to tout a theory as being irrefutable. Something the 911 'Truth' guys like to do.

These failings of the authorities to properly investigate the wreckage is concerning, but this does not therefore conclude that something dodgy went on behind the scenes. There is definitely a story we're not hearing, so lets push for investigations (like Bartmer says) rather than trying to prove negatives.