The idea that the writer would use the deaths of all those people who died on 9/11 just to make their own political agenda is offensive

This article is the only lie.

how is the writer using the memory of the dead to enforce his agenda? If this is what he believes is the truth then the memory of these people has been wronged...do people still really believe not even a part of this story is a bit suspicious? You would have to be pretty blind to ignore the obvious, why don't you go and watch some more BBC coverage?

well I have looked into 9/11, have read the official reports, and what the conspiracy theorists have to say.I am a long term activist, and think that truthers are peddling paranoia and fear, and are wrong. So why do you have this idea that anyone who does not think that 9/11 was an inside jerb has been watching too much BBC, or just hasn't looked into it?

I don't have a Telly.

Its still surprising that after 10 years there are still truthers lurking about.
If you trawl the internet long enough, you will find anything you are looking for.
Go back to your obscure little conspiracy sites written by someone trying to sell their book on the subject.

> do people still really believe not even a part of this story is a bit suspicious?

Obviously the vast majority of people.
But it is not a case of belief - its facts.

Dumb founded that anyone would think otherwise when you see videos of the terrorists saying "i did it" and bin laden saying "we did it"

Everything the truthers say is lies and has been debunked. Its all just regurgitated now

anon, what you say is patently not true. granted both sides peddle speculation - there has never been any tangible proof for the official or unofficial scenarios. but it has been proven that those suspected hijackers were cia asset while bin laden adamantly denied having anything to do with 9/11- if you think he's lying, well many don't. i live in asia and more believe him here than the western governments. and of those videos that you refer to: one has been proven to be bogus and the other is mis-translated - not evidence at all. btw - for all of you that were hooked like a fish on the official cheney-version of events, man, i can't believe that you actual bought that story about atta's passport falling out of the sky, intact. wow. you all have absolutely no credibility what so ever...as well as no common sense.

You put it a lot better than I did/could....

True though, the world is topsy turvy, the state wont educate, communities segregate how much more of this shit will we tolerate?


Peace


Mr Pen

"bin laden adamantly denied having anything to do with 9/11- if you think he's lying, well many don't"

Lol, you missed the video where he admitted it then?

Hush-a-bombs:

-Amazing invention by the U.S Military, used in on 9/11 that defy physics
1. Bombs that can blast through huge core members, yet not show up on any seismic data, nor video recordings from the day.

2: Thermite that can melt massive steel supports, yet not light up buildings like the fourth of July, and even more miraculously not super-heat the air through exothermic reaction in a relatively confined space (size of columns/amount of thermite needed - office space size), so that when the survivors in the stairwell get blown down by the wind pushed through the collapsing building, they do not get scorched, and paper flutters down.


That is why you guys are a bunch of fucking goons.

I think the vast majority of people agree that the terrorists did it.
..... With the possible exception of the "brown people" as the poster above puts it - but hey what do they know? Most don't have accesss to proper education and the internet, and most of their belief is just based on heresay rather than any actual investigated facts.

There is no credible proof that it is an "inside job". If there is, where is it?

RIP all the people who died on 9/11 - we will remember you

You mean somebody left on comment that you didn't agree with.

It is interesting to note that you feel threatened by this and are compelled to discredit it using some schoolboy sarcasm. Two conclusions can be inferred:
1. You are very much on the defensive, yet have no defence other than emotive sarcasm (the lowest form of wit?)
2. You are trying to be protective of your territory by attacking other posters that you do not agree with, thereby attempting to win an argument via "loudest voice" rather than "logical reasoning".

Apologise for using big words.

Continued observations.....
- patient has taken the next step of regression, moving from "sarcasm" to a "no platform" stance, whereby any reasoning is blocked out through a wholesale denial.
- A self-protective justification is achieved through the "you are not worthy" tone, indicating superiority complex.

Predict continued hands-over-ears-im-not-listening arguments following by further attack on credibility along the lines of "being sheep who follow the media" etc. As continued regression occurs expect a complete block out of all attempts of communication to the outside world except where information matches idealistic view of world.

This another anon is some piece of work.

Stop with your arrogant soviet psychiatry and make reply to the issue, or better still f### off.

>> This another anon is some piece of work.
Yes I am.

>> Stop with your arrogant soviet psychiatry and make reply to the issue, or better still f### off.
Stopped. Now what are you going to do?

>> You are a funny little man aren't you?
Thanks.

>> How we laugh.
Steady on - it wasn't that funny.

>> Still, it is easier to be the clown than answer any of the gaping holes and inconsistencies in the mime you seem to be pushing.
Life is full of inconsistencies. And the bigger it is, the more inconsistencies there are. Check out the moon landings. On the flip side, what we need is proof that it is an inside job instead of a big, fat zero. It is something that is severely lacking (or completely lacking actually).

>> Do you imagine you are making headway with the undecided? Do you care?
No, but I'm morally duty bound to refute your lies. Such lies are a disgrace to the victims of 9/11

>> Interesting that you use the word 'lies' about [my] claims.

Lets see who started that shall we.........

Your quote:
"911 was a mechanism of deceit, an instrument of warfare, a means to colonize your minds and prep it for the next round of imperial resource theft and grand chess games - played out on the lifeless bodies of the poorest by the merciless masters of the universe. "

"911 was a mechanism of deceit"...........
Interesting that you use the word 'deceit' about the [official] claims.

To those experienced in dealing with sociopaths, it suggests a mindset that is out to deceive and mislead, especially in regard of the issue at hand - which in this case is 911 and the known liars and psychopaths who used it to further their selfish agendas.

Anyway enough about you ...

>> The big difference being that my claims were about a system that is obvious in action, ruthless in operation and demonstrably criminal in result.

These are avid descriptions of Al-Qaeda. They are obvious in action (ie. from the evidence gathered), ruthless (from this attack and the 100s of others in the world), and obvious criminal.
Look beyond 9/11. Look also at the 1000s of terrorist attacks from various quarters of Islamic extremist terrorist. The whole idea that the CIA or whoever orchestrated all of this is clearly foolish. Repeat: There is no solid evidence that you can point to, to say this is an 'inside job'.

>> Your grandiose positioning has nothing to do with the military industrial complex, nor the people that operate it ... you are just some guy trying it out for want of better things to do with your time.
Irrelevant to the topic.

>> It is obvious that you seek to personalize some issue you have with those that have rejected you (those able to think independently) ... one must admit that you are actually quite good at diverting attention away from the issues and onto your self.
I'm diverting towards the issues, not away from them.

>> It is only because I do not know you that I limit my claims about you to sociopathy and psychopathy, although you do exhibit the grandiose outlook of both.
I am not the issue. The issue is 9/11 and preventing further attacks on us.

>> ... that last sentence should have said 'sociopathy and NOT psychopathy'.
Are you sure?

>> Tired, kids playing up at bedtime and zero sum fools to step over on the way to deeper >> understanding.
No worries, thanks for correction.

"Seismic data ...

Before even thinking that you can argue against the information contained in this link, I demand that you show - as have the authors of the piece - your scientific credentials and peer reviewed publications (lest we imagine you to be that most foul of creatures 'the spineless shrill'):

 http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Article911SeismicProof.html "

PMSL, right so what we have here is a group of truthers unable to get any papers published in a reputable journal, so what they do is invent their own journal exclusively run by truthers, and reviewed by truthers.

You might be interested to know that there are over 70 (properly) peer reviewed papers on the collapses of all three buildings, accepted in journals (not homemade vanity journals) outside of the NIST report that support the findings - in other words the scientific community at large also think you are nut jobs.

Nice try at passing of bunk as peer reviewed science though.

here are the (real, not bullshit) peer reviewed pieces, I expect that youre response will be " yes, but thay are all in the pay of the NWO", gotta love the cult conspiracist mind set.


Modeling pre-evacuation delay by occupants in World Trade Center Towers 1 and 2 on September 11, 2001
Kuligowski, E.D., Mileti, D.S. 2008 Fire Safety Journal

World Trade Center building disaster: Stimulus for innovations
Kodur, V.K.R. 2008 Indian Concrete Journal 82 (1), pp. 23-31

A collective undergraduate class project reconstructing the September 11, 2001 world trade center fire
Marshall, A., Quintiere, J. 2007 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

"A new era": The limits of engineering expertise in a post-9/11 world
Pfatteicher, S.K.A. 2007 International Symposium on Technology and Society, Proceedings, art. no. 4362228

Progressive collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple analysis
Seffen, K.A. 2008 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 134 (2), pp. 125-132

Scale modeling of the 96th floor of world trade center tower 1
Wang, M., Chang, P., Quintiere, J., Marshall, A. 2007 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 21 (6), pp. 414-421

Failure of welded floor truss connections from the exterior wall during collapse of the world trade center towers
Banovic, S.W., Siewert, T.A. 2007 Welding Journal (Miami, Fla) 86 (9), pp. 263-s-272-s

The collapse of the world trade center towers: A metallurgist's view
Gayle, F.W. 2007 MRS Bulletin 32 (9), pp. 710-716

Building code changes reflect world trade center investigation
Hansen, B. 2007 Civil Engineering 77 (9), pp. 22+24-25

The structural steel of the World Trade Center towers
Gayle, F.W., Banovic, S.W., Foecke, T., Fields, R.J., Luecke, W.E., McColskey, J.D., McCown, C., Siewert, T.A. 2006 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 6 (5), pp. 5-8

Progressive collapse of structures: Annotated bibliography and comparison of codes and standards
Mohamed, O.A. 2006 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 20 (4), art. no. 001604QCF, pp. 418-425

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics
Baum, H.R., Rehm, R.G., Quintiere, J.G. 2005 Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30 II, pp. 2247-2254

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center
Karim, M.R., Hoo Fatt, M.S. 2005 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 131 (10), pp. 1066-1072

High-fidelity simulation of large-scale structures
Hoffmann, C., Sameh, A., Grama, A. 2005 Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3515 (II), pp. 664-671

Collapses of the world trade center towers
[No author name available] 2005 Indian Concrete Journal 79 (8), pp. 11-16

Industry updates: Fireproofing, staircases cited in World Trade Center report
[No author name available] 2005 Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention 5 (4), pp. 34

September 11 and fracture mechanics - A retrospective
Cherepanov, G.P. 2005 International Journal of Fracture 132 (2), pp. L25-L26

Structural responses of World Trade Center under aircraft attacks
Omika, Y., Fukuzawa, E., Koshika, N., Morikawa, H., Fukuda, R. 2005 Journal of Structural Engineering 131 (1), pp. 6-15

Impact of the 2001 World Trade Center attack on critical interdependent infrastructures
Mendonça, D., Lee II, E.E., Wallace, W.A. 2004 Conference Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 5, pp. 4053-4058

Use of high-efficiency energy absorbing device to arrest progressive collapse of tall building
Zhou, Q., Yu, T.X. 2004 Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130 (10), pp. 1177-1187

Progressive analysis procedure for progressive collapse
Marjanishvili, S.M. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 79-85

Lessons learned on improving resistance of buildings to terrorist attacks
Corley, W.G. 2004 Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 18 (2), pp. 68-78

Anatomy of a disaster: A structural investigation of the World Trade Center collapses
Abboud, N., Levy, M., Tennant, D., Mould, J., Levine, H., King, S., Ekwueme, C., (...), Hart, G. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 360-370

World Trade Center disaster: Damage/debris assessment
Thater, G.G., Panariello, G.F., Cuoco, D.A. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 383-392

How did the WTC towers collapse: A new theory
Usmani, A.S., Chung, Y.C., Torero, J.L. 2003 Fire Safety Journal 38 (6), pp. 501-533

Microstructural analysis of the steels from Buildings 7, & 1 or 2 from the World Trade Center
Biederman, R.R., Sullivan, E.M., Sisson Jr., R.D., Vander Voort, G.F. 2003 Microscopy and Microanalysis 9 (SUPPL. 2), pp. 550-551

Brannigan, F.L.
"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

Analysis of the thermal exposure in the impact areas of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks
Beyler, C., White, D., Peatross, M., Trellis, J., Li, S., Luers, A., Hopkins, D. 2003 Forensic Engineering, Proceedings of the Congress, pp. 371-382

Clifton, Charles G.
Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers
HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

"Construction and Collapse Factors"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
"Addendum to 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis" (pdf)
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 3, (2002): 369-370.

Corbett, G.P.
"Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster"
Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Dissecting the Collapses"
Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C.
"Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation"
JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Therese McAllister, report editor.
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations, and Recommendations
(also available on-line)

Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A.
"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center"
The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48.

"Collapse Lessons"
Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Marechaux, T.G.
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering"
JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Monahan, B.
"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations"
Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Newland, D.E., & Cebon, D.
"Could the World Trade Center Have Been Modified to Prevent Its Collapse?"
Journal of Engineering Mechanics v. 128, no. 7, (2002):795-800.

National Instititue of Stamdards and Technology: Congressional and Legislative Affairs
“Learning from 9/11: Understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center”
Statement of Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., before Committee of Science House of Representatives, United States Congress on March 6, 2002.

Pinsker, Lisa, M.
"Applying Geology at the World Trade Center Site"
Geotimes v. 46, no. 11, (2001).
The print copy has 3-D images.

Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)
Why the Towers Fell: A Companion Website to the Television Documentary.
NOVA (Science Programming On Air and Online)

Post, N.M.
"No Code Changes Recommended in World Trade Center Report"
ENR v. 248, no. 14, (2002): 14.

Post, N.M.
"Study Absolves Twin Tower Trusses, Fireproofing"
ENR v. 249, no. 19, (2002): 12-14.

The University of Sydney, Department of Civil Engineering
World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects
A resource site.

"WTC Engineers Credit Design in Saving Thousands of Lives"
ENR v. 247, no. 16, (2001): 12.

I got to say, that the offensive term for activists who think that conspiracy theories are a distraction, and who are accused of being NWO operatives by truthtards is "Shill" not "Shrill".

>> Before even thinking that you can argue against the information contained in this link, I demand that you show - as have the authors of the piece - your scientific credentials and peer reviewed publications (lest we imagine you to be that most foul of creatures 'the spineless shrill'):

I totally disagree with this demand....
An argument stands on its own merit, not who says it or what credentials they have.
If Albert Einstein said an argument, and a babbling idiot said the same argument, then neither of them is more correct than the other just because Albert has lots of letters after his name.

The argument is either correct or incorrect based on reasoning, not how many peer reviewed publications the speaker has. Otherwise you would be questioning the "2 + 2 = 4" statement made by your local drunken tramp just because he hasn't got a peer reviewed paper in mathematics.

The thing is, no matter what counter argument is made, those believing that 9/11 was a conspiracy won't accept it, and they fail to recruit many new people to their cause or attract people who want to debate with them by calling those who disagree "sheep" and hurling insults.

So no progress is made.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – recently said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” And he said: “It’s almost a culture of concealment, for lack of a better word. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened”

More:

 http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/high-level-officials-eager-to-spill-the-beans-about-what-really-happened-on-911-but-no-one-in-washington-or-the-media-wants-to-hear.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>> For myself, I wish to see that there is a full and thorough investigation into the events before, during and after that day - a scientific, legal and public investigation. Until such time I am at liberty to expound my own theories and you are at liberty to counter them or ignore them.


Costs a lot of mullah - bean counters will be asking who pays for it ;-)

It's time to settle all this horseshit once and for all.

I have irrefutable evidence that WTC 1, 2, and 7 were demolished by Zonkorium rays from the planet Barbar. Every scientific paper from the experts is wrong because none of them, not one, includes the Zonkorium rays in their analysis. If you do not immediately accept my thesis, it is because you are a New World Order shill specially assigned by the CIA/FBI/MI-6/X-files/Mossad to publish disinformation. Nothing in the world can possibly, possibly dissuade me from this position. Note that anyone publicly disagreeing with me will be targeted by additional Zonkorium rays, which are undetectable by any known earth technology, except when they make planes appear quite realistically to fly into buildings. Thank you and have a nice day; I am now, as an anti-Zonkorium safety measure, going to remove my spleen with a spoon.

BUT DON'T CALL ME CRAZY!