Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"After the 9-11 event, the attitude at the Pentagon was said to be CYA (cover your ass) with no one wanting to put their job in jeopardy by doing anything other than singing from the song sheet. Those that sang for the song sheet were promoted; those that questioned or became whistle blowers were culled."
yeah. analysis of highly compressed video on the net and not from the ORIGINAL High Quality tapes (yes TAPES). Digital versions of video didn't exist in 2001, and were only encoded to digital formats in the days after 9/11.
Broadcast in 2001 was mostly analog and were done on TAPES.
This is precisely why low level IQs should not rely on information from debunking sites that are targeted at low IQs to engage in arguments that they don't understand.
By the end of 1999, all major market TV stations were required by the FCC to be transmitting digital broadcasts, which just kills your nonsensical claim that digital video didn't exist in 2001. Digital video in television has existed since the early 1990's, and the proof of that is the launch of Direct TV in 1994 ... which IS DIGITAL ... there is no such thing as analog satellite TV.
But this is just a side note to illustrate how clueless and out of touch with reality you are. Aside from that obvious fact, one need not have high def or even standard def original video to analyze the OBVIOUS frauds in the subject videos being discussed. It's a totally asinine contention that no one but those in possession of the originals could analyze the video.
You don't understand these issues ... you don't understand video or how video is analyzed ... you understand nothing about this subject ... PERIOD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
So please provide an anlysis from someone who ACTUALLY got ahold of the original source (and show us the FOIA requests to each news organization to show the paper trail)
OOPS. No 9/11 nutcase has done so.
Nose out? BS. that was the debris from the building (seeing as how much CRAP is on a floor the SIZE of a football field....like CABINETS, WALLS DESKS, all of which could look like a "nose" if video taped a certain way)
911 truthers ------ LYING for the past 10 years cause they just need to keep on grasping at straws.
You're a hopelessly immature person, and together, with your lack of understanding the issue, are left with only one course ... to hurl insults and nonsensical claims.
1) The lack of whistle blowers. Clinton can't hide a blow job, Bush can't hide WMD distortions and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet not one 9/11 conspirator has spilled the beans.
2) Lack of concrete proof. Truthers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their uneducated opinions) fishy about the official story - hence the nonsense about cell phones, passenger manifests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that Truthers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories
3) Conspiracy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't Truthers come to some agreement on what it is? They can't agree on what hit the Pentagon, what hit the WTC, what happened to flight 93, where the passengers are or whether the whole thing was pulled off by Arab mercenaries, Bush, or the Jews. In the mind of Truthers this simply proves what freethinkers they are; when it fact it simply serves as a glowing example of just how messed up they are. They regularly accuse each other of being "agents" for crying out loud!
4) lack of expert endorsement. The fact that not one reputable structural engineer anywhere agrees with the controlled demo theory should be a tip off that something doesn't add up for the Truthers. Needing the likes of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to bolster their case is another.
You cannot prove a falsehood ... that is impossible.
Give it up.
And yet you persistently try...why? The consensus is that you really believe that the 9/11 disaster happened the way all normal people believe it did, you just like to stir up the pot and create controversy.
1) The lack of whistle blowers. Clinton can't hide a blow job, Bush can't hide WMD distortions and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet not one 9/11 conspirator has spilled the beans.
"Inaccuracies" would be a better word to use rather than distortions. Other than that, I agree with everything else you posted.
This is precisely why low level IQs should not rely on information from debunking sites that are targeted at low IQs to engage in arguments that they don't understand.
By the end of 1999, all major market TV stations were required by the FCC to be transmitting digital broadcasts, which just kills your nonsensical claim that digital video didn't exist in 2001. Digital video in television has existed since the early 1990's, and the proof of that is the launch of Direct TV in 1994 ... which IS DIGITAL ... there is no such thing as analog satellite TV.
.
uhm
they has just started BROADCASTING in digital in 2001/2 (the 1999 requirement that you lie about was actually a 2001 rule and would be required within 8 years they would)..the camera's in the field were still analog
Congress set June 12, 2009 as the deadline for full power television stations to stop broadcasting analog signals.(I'm sure you remember when we all had to get converter boxes, for those that we still on rabbit ears).....to sit there tex, and say in 1999 they were braodcasting digital ..is an outright LIE...
In a victory for cable that took four years to achieve, the Federal Communications Commission voted 4-1 Thursday to reject a rule that would require cable operators to carry multiple programming services transmitted by digital-TV stations.
The National Association of Broadcasters pushed for multicast must-carry, saying that current rules that require carriage of just one programming service would handicap TV stations in their competitive struggle with cable and satellite systems offering hundreds of channels.
Voting to defeat multicast must-carry were FCC chairman Michael Powell and commissioners Kathleen Abernathy, Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps. Commissioner Kevin Martin backed broadcasters.
The vote was the coda to a monumental lobbying struggle between the NAB and the cable industry that started four years ago when the agency rejected multicast must-carry for the first time.
As a legal matter, cable systems are required to carry a TV station’s “primary video.” In 2001, the FCC said “primary” meant one programming service, not many. The ruling Thursday reaffirmed the 2001 decision.
The NAB insisted that “primary” could mean several, as in “primary” colors, and that the FCC should rely on that expansive definition to mandate cable carriage of all programming services that a TV station provides free-of-charge to over-the-air viewers.
The debate now shifts from the FCC to the courts and Congress. Litigation -- which would likely include a stop at the U.S. Supreme Court -- could take three years or longer. Congress is planning to overhaul telecommunications laws in the months ahead -- an effort that might include revisions to cable-carriage obligations for digital-TV stations.
In a 5-0 vote, the commission also rejected dual must-carry -- carriage of both TV stations’ analog and digital signals -- during the digital-TV transition.
at least get your story straight
Last edited by workingclasshero; 05-22-2011 at 05:28 PM..
The suggestion that someone would need to fly airplanes into two buildings and blow them up is in itself absurd. Could you imagine the meeting?...
Government: We want to cause a tragedy so great the American people will blindly follow us into war... What do you think gentlemen...
Accomplice #1: Well, the Towers are a perfect choice.. It's been bombed before. We can just blame Osama again. We've been priming the American people by having him blow up our warships and our buildings in other countries.
Government: Yeah, good idea! How will we do that?
Accomplice #1: We can hire Osama to get some of his friends to fly planes into it!
Accomplice #2: Wait... I have a better idea, We can BOMB the buildings!
Accomplice #1: Well, that means placing enough bombs into two 110 story buildings. That's going to take a lot of man power and risk us being uncovered...
Accomplice #2: Yeah, but that way, you’re sure to knock them down. Besides, maybe the hijackers won’t make it to the target. Maybe they'll be uncovered!
Accomplice #1: But you don't need to knock them down, all you need is the horrific sight of the planes hitting the buildings. People will get the message. It's an attack on American soil. We'll also have people like the blind sheik to cover for us. We'll even put a guy on a train with evidence.
Your plan isn't perfect either, you know. Do I have to remind you of Operation Towel Pop? We already tried to embarrass Clinton by knocking it down and failed.
Accomplice #2: Yeah, our Bay of Pigs, but I say the only way they can get the message is if we knock them down.
Accomplice #1: Do not
Accomplice #2: Do too
Accomplice #1: Do not
Accomplice #2: Do too
Accomplice #1: Do not
Accomplice #2: Do too
Government: Gentlemen, gentlemen... Please... What the hell, we'll just do both! How do we do that? I mean, how do you keep explosions from showing up on TV? We're going to have to investigate this at some point. How do we cover up the scene?
Accomplice #2: But why not just knock it down...
Government: I've made my decision. continue please
Accomplice #2: OK.. We install charges on every floor so that after the planes hit, we blow each floor under the crash floor one by one, very fast to simulate pancaking. We'll let the building burn a while just for effect. This will also give time for the trusses to sag making it LOOK like a fire caused the building to fall.
Accomplice #1: Nice touch...
Accomplice #2: Why, thank you. ...We'll set a charge off in the middle of the building AFTER the top is on its way down so everyone thinks the puffs of debris coming from the windows are from the tremendous hypodermic needle like pressure blowing debris from the weakest point in the building.
Government: What about the sound of explosions? Isn't that a dead giveaway?
Accomplice #2: No problem, We'll just let them think it's normal electrical explosions like transformers blowing up or the initial concrete and steel and floors hitting the floors below.
Accomplice #1: Yeah, it could also be the steel columns snapping like twigs from the tremendous weight of the floors above... Don't worry, we have disinformation specialists in key internet forums.
Government: WOW, You guys think of everything.. What about Building 7? Can we take that out at the same time?
Accomplice #1: We won’t be able to fly planes into it, that's for sure...
Accomplice #2: Leave it to me. If we set off the explosions just right, we can have one of the towers hit Building 7, missing the two next to it. After that, we can set fires on the bottom floors and let it burn for a while, you know, to make it look possible for a normal collapse. I'll call my agent in the fire department to get everyone out before we blow it. I'll figure a way to make the floors look buckled for effect as well.
Government: Amazing ... I also want to take out the Pentagon. Any suggestions?
Accomplice #1: What we'll do is hijack a plane just for effect, then fire a missile at the Pentagon. A bunker buster.
Government: But what about the people on the plane?
Accomplice #1: We'll land the plane in area 51, then shoot them all.
Government: Why not use the plane instead of the missile? That way, you take care of all the evidence at the same time... People on the highway can also see the planes hit. If you use a missile, there's going to be a lot of witnesses who saw a missile and not a plane.
Accomplice #1: Err... ah, don't worry about these small details. I have an undercover op in the DC police department who will take the names down and shot them all.
Government: How are you going to get all the people involved in this? Bush isn't exactly loved you know..
Accomplice #1: Don't worry, psych-ops will take care of the brainwashing of the American people. As for the media, we control the left and the right!
Government: GREAT! Nice work all! Let’s make the target date Sept 11, 2001.
Conspiracy theorists say that the government needed to create a "Pearl Harbor" type incident. Just so we could attack Iraq. But if they did blow up the towers, why would they go to such great lengths to point to Bin Laden? Why not fix evidence to point to Saddam? Conspiracy theorists say they needed terrorism to perpetuate an endless war. To take away our freedoms to fight this war. But Bin Laden wasn't the only way to do it. "They" could have planted evidence suggesting Bin Laden was working for Saddam. Why not? Remember, if they are setting up Bin Laden then why not set up Saddam at the same time? He wasn't "a few Arabs in the desert." He had an army and millions from oil profits. Why allow people to say "Saddam wasn't the one to attack us"? There would have been far fewer players if they placed a nuclear device in the towers’ basements and took out lower Manhattan. The government could have blamed Saddam's fictitious WMD for the device and Bin Laden for the delivery. We would have reason to invade Iraq the next day. Conspiracy theorists would have us believe they chose a plan which involves thousands over smaller, more controllable plans.
1) The lack of whistle blowers. Clinton can't hide a blow job, Bush can't hide WMD distortions and the CIA leaks like a sieve. Yet not one 9/11 conspirator has spilled the beans.
Let me get this straight ... that no one has come forward and confessed to being a part of the conspiracy to commit mass murder is proof of no conspiracy? This makes sense to you ? ... so, in order to get me to see your point .. tell me all the obvious reasons why someone would turn themselves in and confess to mass murder? While I wait for the answer, let us wonder out loud just how many crimes would be solved if Law Enforcement waited for people to turn themselves in and confess?
And THIS is your #1 reason? You're in trouble.
The reality is, there are thousands of "whistle blowers". You just fraudulently choose to call them conspiracy theorists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madcapmagishion
2) Lack of concrete proof. Truthers rely mostly on pointing out things that are (in their uneducated opinions) fishy about the official story - hence the nonsense about cell phones, passenger manifests etc. What gets lost in this flurry of "holes" is that Truthers have NO solid proof in favour of their theories
It is not necessary to prove or even speculate about the details of what actually happened in order to prove that the official conspiracy theory is a total fraud. The details of what actually occurred would best be left to a true, independent, legitimate criminal investigation.
I know, people love to speculate and solve mysteries. But that's all anyone can do .. speculate. And that's what these people are doing, speculating. But that doesn't affect the official story ... nor prevent one from proving that story is as phony as a three dollar bill. That the speculation varies is just the nature of opinion and speculation ... nothing new there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madcapmagishion
3) Conspiracy theories can't agree on anything! If the "truth" was as obvious as they claim it is then why can't Truthers come to some agreement on what it is? They can't agree on what hit the Pentagon, what hit the WTC, what happened to flight 93, where the passengers are or whether the whole thing was pulled off by Arab mercenaries, Bush, or the Jews. In the mind of Truthers this simply proves what freethinkers they are; when it fact it simply serves as a glowing example of just how messed up they are. They regularly accuse each other of being "agents" for crying out loud!
Again ... a lot of people engaging in too much speculation, and no doubt, some of it is indeed disinformation.
But your very narrow view is really very much a fraud right out of the blocks ... and you rely totally on "assumptive reasoning". You assume baseline facts to be true, and reason around them. But if those assumptions are not true, your reasoning falls apart completely.
Questions like "where are the real planes then" or "where are the passengers" or "what about the DNA of the victims" or any of the other questions that rely on the fundamental premise of hijacked planes being true. But if the fundamental premise is phony ... so are your questions. If there were no planes, there would obviously not be passengers ... no passengers ... no DNA. You see, this method of arguing is endless. I've heard all of the what ifs .... if there was no plane .. what made the hole in the buildings ... the answer is ... I don't know ... but having a hole in the building is no proof of planes! Are you claiming that only planes can create holes in buildings? Couldn't bombs do that? I mean, that's usually what creates holes in buildings ... bombs and missiles ... not planes crashing into them.
If grandma had balls, she'd be grandpa .... that's the answer to your "what ifs" questions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by madcapmagishion
4) lack of expert endorsement. The fact that not one reputable structural engineer anywhere agrees with the controlled demo theory should be a tip off that something doesn't add up for the Truthers. Needing the likes of Fetzer, Jones and Wood to bolster their case is another.
See ... this is where you fall flat on your face ... flat on your bloody face. You were doing fairly poor up to this point, but here you take a flying face dive into the pavement.
Not one reputable structural engineer? No you're right .. not one .... hundreds .... literally 1500 Architects & Engineers, along with 12000 other notable individuals endorsing their petition demanding a new investigation because of the nature of controlled demolition evident in all three buildings, WTC 1, 2 and 7.
And not just these guys ... but airline and former military pilots ... former heads of sate ... former intelligence officials and operatives ... FBI, CIA, MI5, German Intelligence, ex-US Government officials, ex US Military, including a General and several Colonels .... people with impeccable credentials ... all of them saying the same thing ... that the official story is a bloody farce.
So, contrary to your insinuations that only a small fringe crowd questions the official story ... NOTHING could be further from the truth. The fact is, never before in the history of government lies and misdeeds have so many high level people come forward to challenge the lies. NEVER BEFORE.
But according to you ... there is nothing to see here ... but a handful of loons who believe in conspiracy theories. WRONG
There is a massive and growing movement to expose this fraud, and the criminals behind it ... as well as those in support of it. And you are going to lose ... big time ... and that is guaranteed.
Obfuscation and denial that's your whole weak argument? The keyword was reputable not 1200 crackpots like you, great that's a reliable source, no wonder you all are laughed at and ridiculed as being the lunatic fringe. Lets see reputable peer review endorsement. not Idiot #1 saying Idiot # 2 is right because he agrees with me so there fore we are all right, all 1200 of us! And the other 800,000 Architects & Engineers in the country who say y'all are nuts are just plain wrong because they don't believe us.....Hmmm sounds seriously delusional to everyone who thinks with both hemispheres of their brains. But I am glad to see you got one point right... "there is nothing to see here ... but a handful of loons who believe in conspiracy theories" My Grandma did have balls ...she was a golf professional.
Last edited by madcapmagishion; 05-22-2011 at 08:54 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The consensus is that you really believe that the 9/11 disaster happened the way all normal people believe it did, you just like to stir up the pot and create controversy. 
The Secret Government Meeting to Destroy the WTC?
...We'll set a charge off in the middle of the building AFTER the top is on its way down so everyone thinks the puffs of debris coming from the windows are from the tremendous hypodermic needle like pressure blowing debris from the weakest point in the building.
