View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
kc Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 359
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:48 am Post subject: What was your "smoking gun"? |
|
|
Curious as to what started people doubting the official line, could I ask, what was your epiphany? Your Smoking Gun?
Cheers |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:06 am Post subject: Re: What was your "smoking gun"? |
|
|
kc wrote: | Curious as to what started people doubting the official line, could I ask, what was your epiphany? Your Smoking Gun?
Cheers |
For me, the lack of NORAD response was always the bit I couldn't figure out. There was just no way that interceptions of the hi-jacked airliners - and so many of them - could not have been effected. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 1201
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
KC, here is one for you :
'A Political Deception' (4 mins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=360fCOvFLaU _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels
Last edited by prole art threat on Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:03 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John White Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The state claiming to know who was responsible within an hour. Being an "eye's open" kind of guy, I'd also noted the submliminal building up of the "Al-queda threat" in the six months before. As a keen student of history, I was already aware of how the power game gets played, and I could spot a "problem" looking for a "solution" _________________ Free your Self and Free the World |
|
Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006 Posts: 1873 Location: Upstairs
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patrick Brown wrote: | It was just all the inconsistencies and coincidences which even today, five years on, are still mounting up. The amount of evidence is just overwhelming. |
I am continually fascinated by the use of the word 'evidence' in the context of 9/11.
It matters not what we believe, it is entirely about what can be proven and I have zero clue what constitutes anything other than hearsay, read/write, coincidence, or supposition/assumption.
So whilst I am a firm believer in the official story being fabricated, if tomorrow you were being called upon to present 'evidence' to a new enquiry - what could possibly be presented as 'proof positive'? A simple list will suffice.
I realise we have been over this a thousand times, but the use of the word 'evidence' is just plain wrong. _________________ I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kc Moderate Poster
Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 359
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TBF Tele, I'm not bothered about that, I'm curious as to what made people start on this track, a hunch will do me :) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Brown 9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 1201
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
telecasterisation wrote: | Patrick Brown wrote: | It was just all the inconsistencies and coincidences which even today, five years on, are still mounting up. The amount of evidence is just overwhelming. |
I am continually fascinated by the use of the word 'evidence' in the context of 9/11.
It matters not what we believe, it is entirely about what can be proven and I have zero clue what constitutes anything other than hearsay, read/write, coincidence, or supposition/assumption.
So whilst I am a firm believer in the official story being fabricated, if tomorrow you were being called upon to present 'evidence' to a new enquiry - what could possibly be presented as 'proof positive'? A simple list will suffice.
I realise we have been over this a thousand times, but the use of the word 'evidence' is just plain wrong. |
Unfortunately most of the evidence is being withheld or has been destroyed as in the case of the steel columns. Explain this:
Quote: | Why were the released tapes of emergency calls from people in the WTC edited?
Read here: http://cbs2chicago.com/911/topstories_story_090125653.html
Quote: | The words of the operators — but not the callers — were released after The New York Times and a group of victims' relatives sued to get them. An appeals court ruled last year that families should have the option to release the tapes made by 28 callers who could be identified.
The following audio files are samples from the materials released Friday, with silence replacing the voices of the callers. |
|
Indeed inconsistencies and coincidences are not evidence but are at the very least highly suggestive of foul play. NIST is holding 6000 photos and videos which may be evidence but their not releasing them to the public. Even if NIST does start releasing photos and video footage they've had a long time to play with them!
What governments don't lie? Oh Blair was so sure that Saddam had WMD that school kids essay proved it!! _________________ We check the evidence and then archive it: www.911evidencebase.co.uk
Get the Steven E Jones reports >HERE< |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The revelation during "F 9/11" that G Bush Snr was in a meeting with one of OBL's brothers in a Carlyle Group meeting. That was the initial hint for me that something wasn't quite right. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bicnarok Moderate Poster
Joined: 03 Sep 2006 Posts: 334 Location: Cydonia
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
When I first saw a plane hit a building on TV something in my head went "wait a minute something isn´t right here". That the airplane didn´t look like a normal passenger jet, started it off followed by "why wasn´t it shot down".
And after it came out that one plane had crashed and no debris was shown,I thought originally it had been shot down and they didn´t want to admit it.
It went on from there. _________________ "Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our mind..." Bod Marley |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 557
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Patrick Brown wrote: | Explain this:
Quote: | Why were the released tapes of emergency calls from people in the WTC edited?
Read here: http://cbs2chicago.com/911/topstories_story_090125653.html
Quote: | The words of the operators — but not the callers — were released after The New York Times and a group of victims' relatives sued to get them. An appeals court ruled last year that families should have the option to release the tapes made by 28 callers who could be identified.
The following audio files are samples from the materials released Friday, with silence replacing the voices of the callers. |
|
|
The edited tapes were released to the public. The unedited tapes were released to the families of the victims. The families had the option of releasing these unedited tapes to the public, if they wanted to. This was done to protect the privacy of the families.
Quote: |
The appeals court ruled that families would have the option to release tapes made by the 28 people who were identified. One of those, involving trade center victim Christopher Hanley, was made public Thursday after his parents released it to the Times.
Hanley's call came in at 8:50 a.m. — four minutes after the first plane struck the World Trade Center.
"Yeah. Hi. I'm on the 106th floor of the World Trade Center. We just had an explosion on the, on the like 105th floor," the 35-year-old tells a dispatcher.
|
It seems that if you do a little research, the mystery goes away. Funny how that works. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 557
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: Re: What was your "smoking gun"? |
|
|
chek wrote: | kc wrote: | Curious as to what started people doubting the official line, could I ask, what was your epiphany? Your Smoking Gun?
Cheers |
For me, the lack of NORAD response was always the bit I couldn't figure out. There was just no way that interceptions of the hi-jacked airliners - and so many of them - could not have been effected. |
I'm sure you base this on the many times that similar incidents occured, and NORAD was able to respond much more quickly? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 557
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bicnarok wrote: | When I first saw a plane hit a building on TV something in my head went "wait a minute something isn´t right here". That the airplane didn´t look like a normal passenger jet, started it off followed by "why wasn´t it shot down".
|
Very simple. The order to shoot down planes was never given to pilots because it was feared they would shoot down friendly aircraft, which were largely indistinguishable from hijacked planes -- especially to young, freaked-out pilots who have never experienced anything like this before.
Do you think they should have rushed in with guns blazing and shot down any aircraft with no transceiver? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John White Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aggle-rithm wrote: | Bicnarok wrote: | When I first saw a plane hit a building on TV something in my head went "wait a minute something isn´t right here". That the airplane didn´t look like a normal passenger jet, started it off followed by "why wasn´t it shot down".
|
Very simple. The order to shoot down planes was never given to pilots because it was feared they would shoot down friendly aircraft, which were largely indistinguishable from hijacked planes -- especially to young, freaked-out pilots who have never experienced anything like this before.
Do you think they should have rushed in with guns blazing and shot down any aircraft with no transceiver? |
Thats the most stupid comment you've ever posted Aggle rithm. A bleeding heart the militaty aint. And doh! transponders!
If thats what youve got, your bankrupt indeed _________________ Free your Self and Free the World |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aren't we STILL waiting for Condi Ricin and her '9/11?OBL dunnit' smoking gun more than five years and TWO AND A HALF WARS LATER?!!?
Then there was honest Tone' and his (snigger) intelligence proving OBL did it.
The official story is full of holes and keeps changing, always a bad sign. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 557
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
John White wrote: | aggle-rithm wrote: | Bicnarok wrote: | When I first saw a plane hit a building on TV something in my head went "wait a minute something isn´t right here". That the airplane didn´t look like a normal passenger jet, started it off followed by "why wasn´t it shot down".
|
Very simple. The order to shoot down planes was never given to pilots because it was feared they would shoot down friendly aircraft, which were largely indistinguishable from hijacked planes -- especially to young, freaked-out pilots who have never experienced anything like this before.
Do you think they should have rushed in with guns blazing and shot down any aircraft with no transceiver? |
Thats the most stupid comment you've ever posted Aggle rithm. A bleeding heart the militaty aint. And doh! transponders!
If thats what youve got, your bankrupt indeed |
You're right, it's transponders, not transceivers. Brain cramp there.
As to the military never giving the "shoot-down" order: It wasn't so much a moral decision as it was a cost/benefit analysis. They decided that potential loss of life from an accident outweight the benefit of getting one of the bad guys -- especially since none of the fighters ever got into position to make such a shot. The only planes they COULD have shot down would have been friendly. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
prole art threat Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Apr 2006 Posts: 804 Location: London Town
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yo! Alex Jones predicting 9/11 two months before the attacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGtOFudmHG8 _________________ 'Maybe if I can show some lurking kids that this is all a pack of lies, then maybe I can make a difference. I don't plan on converting any of you because you're all mad.'
-Johnny Pixels |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006 Posts: 833
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Prior Knowledge...OMG! Doesn't that prove that he was in on it?!?!!?!???! _________________ "They, the jews, also have this thing about linage don't they?
We know a person from recent history who had a thing for linage and gene pools don't we?"
--Patrick Brown |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 557
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Funny we haven't heard much about this before now. Could it be that this was made AFTER 9/11/2001?
Naw, he wouldn't lie, would he? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think from day one I thought it was US government 'action rather than omission' that was behind the events of 11/9/2001, I remember thinking blimey! they REALLY hit the target BIGTIME! and why is the pile still smoking 8 weeks later? but didn't make any connection. Anyone equipped with normal human suspicion response would have questioned how they "knew who did it" micro seconds after 'through their intelligence' but were in no way forewarned by their intelligence. Then there was the readiness to atack Afghanistan and the oil pipeline in place once they'd conquered.
What really got me was the fact that the mainstream media were not informing and educating all of us in the free world of the many 9/11 anomolies, just covering them up or saying 'move along, there's nothing to see here, we had to find out the truth from other sources.
I seem to recall there was a very odd President Bush time window for two or three days after 9/11 when he went undercover, I distinctly recall Kilroy commenting negatively on it in his daily talkshow. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: Re: What was your "smoking gun"? |
|
|
aggle-rithm wrote: | chek wrote: | kc wrote: | Curious as to what started people doubting the official line, could I ask, what was your epiphany? Your Smoking Gun?
Cheers |
For me, the lack of NORAD response was always the bit I couldn't figure out. There was just no way that interceptions of the hi-jacked airliners - and so many of them - could not have been effected. |
I'm sure you base this on the many times that similar incidents occured, and NORAD was able to respond much more quickly? |
No, I base this on a conversation with a fighter pilot and his wife from Virginia the weekend after the attack, but I was suspicious from day one. I'm a Cold War kid, 4 minute warnings etc. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ignatz Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006 Posts: 918
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For me the 'smoking gun' was the first time I saw (almost 5 years after the event) the "CD" of WTC7 -
This is me, Aug 2006, having just watched the 911revisited.com video, bolding added :
"Cheers <name removed>.
Having never before paid any attention to any of the detail of 9/11 conspiracy theories, I've watched that film in a growing state of shock.
The collapses of the twin towers always looked, intuitively, as though they could be 'natural' - what the investigation called 'pancake' collapse - until you learn about the 47 steel cores that provided the main structural strength. I'd never heard about these before, or seen any analysis from architects or engineers before.
Personally I had never seen any film of the collapse of building 7 before. It was instantly obvious that this was a controlled demolition.
In fairness, this stuff might be old hat in the conspiracy world, and any major event like this will attract impressive-sounding cranks who are more than willing to go out on a ridiculous limb, not to mention make films. So I for one am perfectly willing to be put straight. For example, has it ever been admitted that building 7 was knowingly and deliberately demolished? Is there any good reason why the evidence was disposed of in such an unnatural hurry?" _________________ So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006 Posts: 1628
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL wrote: |
The official story is full of holes and keeps changing, always a bad sign. |
Absolutely, quite unlike the consistant and clear story the truthshirkers have proved, which is that Bush let 19 Arabs fly planes into buildings, the planes were taken over by remote control, there were no planes, the planes fired missiles from pods, the hijacked planes were substituted by other planes, or missiles. Fortunately we know from leading scientists exactly how the towers were destroyed, it was a hitherto unknown derivative of thermite used in a way thermite has never been used before, and it was by some Star Wars weaponry of an unknown type. Could not be clearer, and no holes there! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 557
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: What was your "smoking gun"? |
|
|
chek wrote: | aggle-rithm wrote: | chek wrote: | kc wrote: | Curious as to what started people doubting the official line, could I ask, what was your epiphany? Your Smoking Gun?
Cheers |
For me, the lack of NORAD response was always the bit I couldn't figure out. There was just no way that interceptions of the hi-jacked airliners - and so many of them - could not have been effected. |
I'm sure you base this on the many times that similar incidents occured, and NORAD was able to respond much more quickly? |
No, I base this on a conversation with a fighter pilot and his wife from Virginia the weekend after the attack, but I was suspicious from day one. I'm a Cold War kid, 4 minute warnings etc. |
At it's height, NORAD probably could have responded much more quickly, but cutbacks during the Clinton administration left it pretty impotent. I believe there were only a total of 14 fighter planes to protect the entire country. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aggle-rithm Moderate Poster
Joined: 22 Aug 2006 Posts: 557
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | Anyone equipped with normal human suspicion response would have questioned how they "knew who did it" micro seconds after 'through their intelligence' but were in no way forewarned by their intelligence.
|
Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the administration received adequate warning about an impending al Qaeda attack beforehand, and yet did not have information linking the attacks to al Qaeda afterwards. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
chek Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2006 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: What was your "smoking gun"? |
|
|
aggle-rithm wrote: | chek wrote: | aggle-rithm wrote: | chek wrote: | kc wrote: | Curious as to what started people doubting the official line, could I ask, what was your epiphany? Your Smoking Gun?
Cheers |
For me, the lack of NORAD response was always the bit I couldn't figure out. There was just no way that interceptions of the hi-jacked airliners - and so many of them - could not have been effected. |
I'm sure you base this on the many times that similar incidents occured, and NORAD was able to respond much more quickly? |
No, I base this on a conversation with a fighter pilot and his wife from Virginia the weekend after the attack, but I was suspicious from day one. I'm a Cold War kid, 4 minute warnings etc. |
At it's height, NORAD probably could have responded much more quickly, but cutbacks during the Clinton administration left it pretty impotent. I believe there were only a total of 14 fighter planes to protect the entire country. |
Er...no, it was nothing to do with Clinton. 911 was the Day of the Drills: Global Guardian, Vigilant Guardian, Northern Guardian and about a dozen others. I'd recommend Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley to dispel the Clinton myth you seem to have fallen for somewhere along the line. It's very well reviewed:
"I sit here, a 54-year old, liberally educated, two graduate degrees, war college, a life overseas, 150 IQ or so, the number #1 Amazon reviewer for non-fiction, a former Marine Corps infantry officer, a former CIA clandestine case officer, founder of the Marine Corps Intelligence Center, and I have to tell anyone who cares to read this: I believe it.
I believe it enough to want a full investigation that passes the smell test of the 9/11 families as well as objective outside observers. I believe it sufficient to indict Dick Cheney and other neo-cons. Sadly, the Executive is now in the service of corporations that benefit from high crimes and misdemeanors, rather than in the service of the American people who suffer great ill from these terrible mis-deeds".
Robert Steele
http://blog.inquirylabs.com/2006/10/19/robert-steele-endorses-tarpleys -synthetic-terror/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006 Posts: 1628
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was and am vigourously opposed to Bush and everything he espouses, I believe he could do anything at all and justify it to himself, convinced of his own righteousness, so I was emotionally disposed to believe the worst of him. When I saw the video of WTC7 going down it looked so like controlled demolition that I thought it must be.
I started looking at the various conspiracy websites and I kept coming up against things that were quite illogical and gross distortions of evidence. Things like the "pull it" nonsense, and the claim that the invasion of Afghanistan was to enable a pipeline to be built, when that scheme had been abandoned. The more I looked, the more I found that those who claimed to be truthseekers were actually those putting out distortions and lies, not the official sources. I could simply not find any convincing evidence at all that 9/11 was an inside job, despite all the effort put in by those trying to prove it so, and all the alternative explanations put forward were frankly ludicrous. The deeper investigations went into the matters, the more the official story was supported, every attempt to shake it failed totally, and I became convinced that essentially it was correct. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scubadiver Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Apr 2006 Posts: 1850 Location: Currently Andover
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bushwacker wrote: | The more I looked, the more I found that those who claimed to be truthseekers were actually those putting out distortions and lies, not the official sources. |
So you think we should believe these official sources without question? I suggest you read "Towers of Deception" by Barrie Zwicker. Superb analysis of the reasons why the media refuse to question 9/11.
MSNBC are opened by General Electric, one of the world's largest arms manufacturers. Do you think MSNBC are going to question 9/11 if they are getting so much money?
If the Guardian newspaper were to question 9/11, how much advertising revenue do you think it would lose from the Government?
It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of journalists have doubts about 9/11 but can't do so publicly because it is career suicide. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006 Posts: 1628
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
scubadiver wrote: | Bushwacker wrote: | The more I looked, the more I found that those who claimed to be truthseekers were actually those putting out distortions and lies, not the official sources. |
So you think we should believe these official sources without question? I suggest you read "Towers of Deception" by Barrie Zwicker. Superb analysis of the reasons why the media refuse to question 9/11.
MSNBC are opened by General Electric, one of the world's largest arms manufacturers. Do you think MSNBC are going to question 9/11 if they are getting so much money?
If the Guardian newspaper were to question 9/11, how much advertising revenue do you think it would lose from the Government?
It wouldn't surprise me if the majority of journalists have doubts about 9/11 but can't do so publicly because it is career suicide. |
No, read what I actually said, dear boy, not what you think I might have said.
Do you really think that British newspapers are afraid to ask questions that might embarrass the British government, let alone the US government? Have you ever read any British newspapers? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SHERITON HOTEL Moderate Poster
Joined: 18 Jun 2006 Posts: 988
|
Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2006 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aggle-rithm wrote: | SHERITON HOTEL wrote: | Anyone equipped with normal human suspicion response would have questioned how they "knew who did it" micro seconds after 'through their intelligence' but were in no way forewarned by their intelligence.
|
Well, you can't have it both ways. You can't say that the administration received adequate warning about an impending al Qaeda attack beforehand, and yet did not have information linking the attacks to al Qaeda afterwards. |
Like I said, more than 5 years ,two and a half wars, countless thousands of fellow human beings reduced to dead meat and we still await the "smoking gun" proof OBL did it. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|