Calling Out Demolition Deniers

[Chas]

No, it's (c.) People are mistaken and misinterpret what they see.

Okay, but regardless, I'm pretty sure that there are certain conspiracy theories that you believe in, such as conspiracies made by certain religious people, don't you?

conspiracy: "an agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act."

Nice try. Of course people conspire, but that's not what 'conspiracy theories' are about.

The conspiracy theory makes little or no sense; it is unsupportable.

But I have shown the contrary. I have supported almost everything that I said on this topic, and most of the things were not refuted by any of you.

No, you have not shown the contrary or supported everything. You have attempted to do so, but you have failed to present a convincing case.

The fact that you are a theist demonstrates that you are delusion prone.

Me being a theist doesn't have anything to do with this subject. Also, most Muslims that I've talked to do not believe that 9/11 was an inside job. How about that?

It is just learning and research that made me come to the conclusion that 9/11 was most likely an inside job. That's all.

Yes, your being a theist does - you are delusion prone.

[Aractus]

Yes, your being a theist does - you are delusion prone.

Chas, you're an idiot - and I think I've pointed this out to you before. By your logic, can you explain to me why one of the best astrophysicists in the world - and pretty much the authority on "dark matter" - is a member of my church?

I tell you what, the onus of proof is on you, Chas, since you made the statement - so it's now up to you to prove to us here that religious people are more likely to be 'truthers' or even 'conspiracy nuts in general' compared to non-religious, I await your response.

[Creed of Heresy]

---

Something of this scale and with this much complexity would have been exposed quite a while ago. One single whistleblower is all it would take; one guilty conscience.

Well then I have news for you, Creed: There are whistleblowers, and not just one, but numerous.


And the fact that you didn't even know about them shows how effectively the media and the government have censored the 9/11 whistleblowers from coming into spotlight. These whistleblowers oftentimes get put in prison, get fired from their job, threatened by authorities, or they get mocked by everyone by being labelled "nutty," "paranoid," "crazy" etc. ... which are just some of the corrupted ways of silencing them; that is how the government has managed to keep you completely unaware of 9/11 whistleblowers.

But if you just did a quick search in google about 9/11 whistleblowers, then maybe you would have known this. I did that and that's why I know.

Meet The 9/11 Whistleblowers

"On the contrary there have been literally dozens of whistleblowers from within the intelligence agencies, government, and the private business world who have been utterly ignored by the self-proclaimed skeptics and the corporate and foundation-funded media who realize that this is the biggest Achilles heel of the official 9/11 story."

"Many of them, in fact, have appeared at conferences, filed formal appeals, joined whistleblower organizations, and made themselves available for interviews throughout the past 12 years, but they have been scrupulously shunned by the so-called fourth estate whose monetary interests rely on the 9/11 terror paradigm to justify the ever-expanding warfare/surveillance state."

http://www.corbettreport.com/meet-the-91...leblowers/


One of the best and most courageous whistleblower on 9/11 is Susan Lindauer, a former CIA asset who was arrested without allowed to stand a court hearing nor being provided any evidence that she is guilty of a crime. She was indicted under a violation of the "Patriot Act" and judges didn't even allow her to serve a trial or hearing because they claimed that she was just "mentally unfit." They didn't even want this lady to speak. And this kind of extreme censorship is truly laughable to me.

Authorities imprisoned her because of "secret evidences" of an alleged crime while repeatedly denying her request to serve a trial, and yet she was subjected to one year in prison in Carswell Air Force Base in Texas and they even threatened her with indefinite detention as well as with forcible drugging ... but again, they did all this without presenting any evidence that she was actually guilty or even mentally unfit. And after five years of indictment without a conviction or guilty plea, the Justice Department finally dismissed all charges against her in 2009 because they couldn't justify any of the accusations made against her, so it turns out that she was right.

Lindauer is now courageously speaking out about the incredible experiences she claims landed her in prison. She presents powerful evidence that the real reason she was arrested, imprisoned, and declared incompetent was because she knew the U.S. government had clear foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks and much more.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/9-11_whis...n_lindauer


Here is a speech where she talks about her story and about the 9/11:




She also wrote a book about her story and about the whole 9/11 where she has described many specific dates, events, and intelligence agencies who unavailingly tried to cover up the "official" 9/11 story.

Extreme Prejudice: The Terrifying Story of the Patriot Act and the Cover Ups of 9/11 and Iraq


Another whistleblower on 9/11 is Sibel Edmonds, a former translator for the FBI, whom I learned of yesterday from this post.

Sibel Edmonds, a former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance, said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court citing the rarely used "state secrets privelege."

http://www.sunray22b.net/images/Flyer%20Page%202.jpg


Listen to this (from the 5 minute mark at least):




She has written a book also:
Classified Woman - The Sibel Edmonds Story: A Memoir

And here is a quote from a review of the book that I liked very much because I agree with it, and is a direct answer to your own question also:

Somebody would have talked. Somebody would have blown the whistle. It would be impossible to conduct such an elaborate operation without somebody, somewhere in the government coming forth and exposing the criminals ... right?

Well here you have it. In your face. A real-life, 100% credible 9/11 whistleblower. One who has a story whose facts are not even challenged by the government in any real way because it is widely known that those facts can be verified by classified documents in the possession of the government. Instead, those terrified of Sibel Edmonds have waged a war to silence her, using the full power of the Executive Branch to do so, making her the most "classified woman" in American history. This campaign started shortly after 9/11 and is waged to this day as the FBI tries to suppress the publication of this very book, which tells us how important this book must be.

So now, the "someone would have talked" or "someone would have blown the whistle" argument won't work anymore because people did talk, many of them. They just get ignored by the mass and the media as "crazy" or "liars." And hopefully, we might encounter even more 9/11 whistleblowers over the coming years if the President of America allows them to be more free and open.

It just might be a matter of time that the government itself admits that the 9/11 was a false flag terror (although I don't have much confidence in that either).

Afterall, governments from around the world did admit that they carry out false flag terror. 9/11 could be next.



I appreciate that you took the time to write a lengthy and verbose explanation on this subject. But, with all due respect, none of that really convinced me to be honest. You might think that I'm an absolute dumbass for disagreeing with you, but I don't care. Simply put, I don't think that smoke and fire from a jet collision would cause an entire steel building to collapse so quickly into its own footprint; there was very probably explosive materials pre-planted inside the buildings that made them go down the way they did.

And besides the issue of thermite and everything else that you said in your post, the most glaring thing that points to a controlled demolition behind the 9/11 attack is how the WTC 7 collapsed. I mean, look at the way the whole building came down in a symmetrical fashion at an accelerating, free-falling speed (in less than 7 seconds) just like a building collapses under a controlled demolition. Do you seriously think that normal smoke and office fires could have done all that in less than seven seconds? But before you answer that question, please listen to the following as carefully as you can ...

---

Dude, none of these people are telling an ounce of fact. I've heard these same people debunked. Over. And over. And over. These people aren't whistle-blowers, they're speculators and attention whores vying for 15 minutes of fame by spouting whatever sensationalist bullshit they possibly can to get cameras put in their faces; and if they happen to have a lick of knowledge "in the field" in regards to what supposedly happened, then they REALLY can cash in on it...never mind that most of these guys claim to be "engineers" or "demolitions" experts and then you dig things up on them and oh look, Michael Springmann is spewing bullshit!

This moron claims he was "ordered by high level State Dept officials to issue visas to unqualified applicants."

One little problem: The embassy's consular officer is the one who has final authority on the issuing of visas; not the guy who oversees the bureaucratic administrative offices of the visa credentials. Without signature, documentation, and declaration by the consulate, the visa is NOT VALID. They wouldn't order the third-in-command to do shit, they'd tell the consulate to do it and this attention-whore wouldn't have even heard so much as a peep about it.

Rayaan. Seriously. You're making yourself look like a blithering, foaming-at-the-mouth idiot. I have held you in intellectual esteem, but this is starting to seriously corrode it.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/0...1223.shtml

...How is this "deep running?" The FBI didn't even try to cover this up, the moment they were named he went and told them they were his room-mates. Are you actually saying that the FBI and CIA conspired together? Seriously? THE FBI. AND THE CIA. CONSPIRED TOGETHER. Dude, they can't even remember what the fuck the other agency's acronym stands for half the time! This is common knowledge! The FBI and CIA have been butting heads for decades over policies; their policies are all but anathema to one another! THE ARTICLE EVEN POINTS THIS OUT! Of course he wasn't gonna know who they were; THE CIA DOESN'T TELL THE FBI SHIT!

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/06/us/thr...sists.html

They don't want to release his or his handler's name BECAUSE IT'S AN EMBARRASSMENT TO THE ENTIRE FBI. Known terrorists were LIVING WITH AN UNDERCOVER AGENT? The guy would be lynched! They both would be! You're grasping at straws, AGAIN. Pay the slightest semblance of attention to the world and how shit works and the sharp hisses of conspiratorial whisperings suddenly sound little desultory mumblings and feet making uncomfortable circles on the ground.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/03/us/cia...-said.html

What? The CIA didn't tell the FBI something important?

CALL THE FUCKING PAPERS!

What? The State Department auto-renewed the visas? Bureaucratic inefficiency and rice-bowl-protecting made two wildly disparate bureaus not communicate with one another?

CALL THE FUCKING PAPERS!





Clearly, Tom had at least one customer.

Seriously, if at a mere cursory glance I can easily point out the first few links having problems that have been known for decades because of the fundamental basics of bureaucratic mis/dis/non/excommunication with one another, your hypothesis has serious problems. I didn't even bother addressing the others because that poor horse looks like a thick red paste and nothing more.

Debunked. Debunked. Debunked.

Whoa, sudden deja vu...

See, you stated something very telling...

But if you just did a quick search in google about 9/11 whistleblowers, then maybe you would have known this. I did that and that's why I know.

You did, and that's why you don't know. You did a "quick search in google" and immediately decided to throw up whatever shallow-surfaced tripe you read without even bothering to check the credibility of your sources? Do you seriously believe I'm going to consider that a strong point for your argument?? We're dealing with matters that, if true, are of immense importance; doing some basic fact-checking on the sources you're digging up instead of just mining for whatever it is that you think validates your belief is a necessity for such matters, especially if you want to sound credible yourself. If I was being consistently shown information that I couldn't easily tear apart by cutting a mere inch deeper into the surface than you have, I would say you're bringing up valid points.

Fact is, Rayaan...

You aren't.

One of the best and most courageous whistleblower on 9/11 is Susan Lindauer,

You mean the woman who, when declared mentally unfit, was given the option to take your standard garden-variety psychotropic medications, the only thing she would have needed to do to be declared mentally competent, yet she refused, something she loudly declared herself?

Richard Fuisz, an entrepreneur who DOES seem to have CIA connections, met with Lindauer weekly since 1994. He said that he had banned her from his office after 11 September 2001, when her ideas became "malignant" and "seditious". Lindauer later claimed that she had been a CIA asset during this period.

There's a reason people do not confirm nor deny anything when dealing with the CIA, the FBI, or any intelligence-gathering organization, and it has nothing to do with confidentiality, but rather to do with their own safety. You declare yourself a CIA or NSA asset publicly when you, in fact, are one? Well, get this, the US has a lot of enemies! Even our allies are constantly trying to pry their way into our national secrets! If you're an "asset," you don't have the same interrogation-resistance training that actual intelligence agents do. You will break far easier. All it takes s you making a wrong turn at some point in your day, and suddenly you're being tortured to death for top secret information by those who could use it against us to weaken our position.

The thing is this only happens if you actually are a legitimate asset. It takes most foreign intelligence agencies about a day to try to draw parallels and in what way. There's about six different US agencies with access to top secret information. Even if one is suspiciously neither confirming nor denying, the thing is, that is because to make a claim of denial actually draws a LOT of attention to you. Never heard the saying? "When asked if they could either confirm or deny their involvement, they denied...which is a confirmation of their involvement." Yes. No. I don't know. When it comes to your life, if you have connection in ANY way with ANY agency, even the fucking immigration office, YOU ALWAYS FUCKING SAY YOU DON'T KNOW.

The fact this dumb broad stated brashly that she is displays quite clearly that she isn't. She would not have declared herself a fucking CIA asset without having a plan for foreign asylum in place and the information clear enough to prove it that her disappearance would raise alarms throughout the fucking country. See Snowden's situation if you want confirmation of this!

Lindauer was also accused of meeting with an FBI agent posing as a Libyan, with whom she spoke about the "need for plans and foreign resources to support resistance groups operating in Iraq."

Here's the funny thing. The FBI is not a foreign-affairs agency; it is domestic. It is an investigative organization. She confirmed this meeting and said it was for her interest in filing a war crimes suit against the U.S. and U.K. governments. War crimes? Not TREASON AND CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE NATIONALS OF THE USA, if she actually understood what the fuck she was even talking about?!

What's more, the judges threw out the case against her because of the declaration by the judiciary that she was mentally unfit and delusional; if she DID have CIA connections, they would have tried her for exposing state secrets, which would have kept her in prison for life, where she would be easily silenced and forgotten, as opposed to letting her run free where, if she had a scrap of information to prove any of her claims and ergo being someone we could reliably consider an actual "whistleblower" and not a known anti-war activist, which is someone I have a hard time believing the CIA would trust with national security interests. You know why I have a hard time believing it? BECAUSE I'M NOT A MORON! She has nothing that would show her to be a reliable asset to the CIA at all. No history whatsoever that would show that she wouldn't come back and bite them in the ass later. Plus her loudly repeated declarations of being an anti-war activist kind of shows, I dunno, A BIAS?? It doesn't help her case to declare these things; if she were interested in maintaining her legitimacy, she would've fucking kept her yap shut about it instead of going on and on about her "peace negotiations." Seriously, peace negotiations? With the CIA? The CIA don't make peace negotiations, they kill and watch people. The fucking embassies handle diplomacy, and they have their own agents who handle matters of peace negotiations with both administrative and non-administrative contacts.

Her story has no credibility. She's your "best" whistleblower?

Well, now you see why I absolutely howl with laughter at your repeated attempts to find connections that don't exist.

REAL whistleblowers have credibility and information to back their claims up. Again; see Snowden for details. FAKE whistleblowers are people trying to get attention. And, oh, she published a book! And it's not free, of course! It costs money. That's what REAL whistle-blowers do, alright! They start profiting from the attention they received, instead of scrambling to gain asylum where they can actually release the information for free out of a sense of loyalty and perhaps guilt to any and all who can hear it. Silly Snowden, hiding in Russia; you should've published a book! THAT would've gotten people to listen!

Foundations of sand, Rayaan...



Foundations of sand.

[Angrboda]

But if you just did a quick search in google about 9/11 whistleblowers, then maybe you would have known this. I did that and that's why I know.

You did, and that's why you don't know. You did a "quick search in google" and immediately decided to throw up whatever shallow-surfaced tripe you read without even bothering to check the credibility of your sources? Do you seriously believe I'm going to consider that a strong point for your argument?? We're dealing with matters that, if true, are of immense importance; doing some basic fact-checking on the sources you're digging up instead of just mining for whatever it is that you think validates your belief is a necessity for such matters, especially if you want to sound credible yourself. If I was being consistently shown information that I couldn't easily tear apart by cutting a mere inch deeper into the surface than you have, I would say you're bringing up valid points.

I don't mean to cast aspersion upon an entire class of people without justification, but this appears to be a Muslim thing, that putting a few relevant words into a google search and counting any hits as confirmation is the equivalent of research and scholarship. It isn't. The last time I disputed Rayaan on a matter, his 'evidence' was the results of a google search, of which, the third hit in the search was a refutation of his claim. Yet for shitheads like Rayaan, this constitutes research and evidence. I've noted similar behavior among other Muslims I've encountered on the internet, and it's a behavior which seems foreign to other intellectual communities. And it's pathetic.

For what it's worth, sometime in the past two years, I spent several weeks doing dedicated research on the subject, reading both the claims and the rebuttals, and watching some of the videos. What I determined is that 'truthers' lie and distort things a lot. Whenever you go to research the facts on a truther claim, what you find is significantly different from what the truther led you to believe. When they aren't lying, they're misleading with illogical argument, emotional rhetoric, JAQing off (RationalWiki: ), or playing 'blame the skeptic'. Truthers are full of shit.

I have no interest in debating incompetents who are neither interested in the facts nor honesty, and like pressuppositionalists, just want to bury you in a mountain of bullshit questions and claims. Fuck that, and fuck truthers.

[Faith No More]

Clearly, Tom had at least one customer.

Epic.

[Creed of Heresy]

You did, and that's why you don't know. You did a "quick search in google" and immediately decided to throw up whatever shallow-surfaced tripe you read without even bothering to check the credibility of your sources? Do you seriously believe I'm going to consider that a strong point for your argument?? We're dealing with matters that, if true, are of immense importance; doing some basic fact-checking on the sources you're digging up instead of just mining for whatever it is that you think validates your belief is a necessity for such matters, especially if you want to sound credible yourself. If I was being consistently shown information that I couldn't easily tear apart by cutting a mere inch deeper into the surface than you have, I would say you're bringing up valid points.

I don't mean to cast aspersion upon an entire class of people without justification, but this appears to be a Muslim thing, that putting a few relevant words into a google search and counting any hits as confirmation is the equivalent of research and scholarship. It isn't. The last time I disputed Rayaan on a matter, his 'evidence' was the results of a google search, of which, the third hit in the search was a refutation of his claim. Yet for shitheads like Rayaan, this constitutes research and evidence. I've noted similar behavior among other Muslims I've encountered on the internet, and it's a behavior which seems foreign to other intellectual communities. And it's pathetic.

For what it's worth, sometime in the past two years, I spent several weeks doing dedicated research on the subject, reading both the claims and the rebuttals, and watching some of the videos. What I determined is that 'truthers' lie and distort things a lot. Whenever you go to research the facts on a truther claim, what you find is significantly different from what the truther led you to believe. When they aren't lying, they're misleading with illogical argument, emotional rhetoric, JAQing off (RationalWiki: ), or playing 'blame the skeptic'. Truthers are full of shit.

I have no interest in debating incompetents who are neither interested in the facts nor honesty, and like pressuppositionalists, just want to bury you in a mountain of bullshit questions and claims. Fuck that, and fuck truthers.

I have noticed this, too. I think it's a product of a desire of muslims who are more moderate or westernized to show that it wasn't others who share their faith that performed a terrorist attack that still hits people emotionally to at least some extent. Islam was founded on bloodshed and war, but the more modernized/westernized muslims realize that it's to no benefit of their own to incite violence; certainly, in their minds, Allah will forgive them for carefully choosing to ignore a choice few passages. They don't want to face the fact that there are others in the world who are fanatical enough to fly themselves into a building in a commercial airliner...

...And that the only theistic difference between the "moderates" and the "fundamentalists" is but maybe ten passages in the religious texts they both adhere to. They realize they are caught in the middle; between those who are "truer" to their core beliefs than they are, and between those who simply do not find their beliefs to be true at all. Both are armed, pissed, and shooting at each other. The "conspiracy" is an attempt to hold up a human meatshield, in this case the US government, for surely the corrupt western infidel leaders desire nothing but to pillage the peaceful, loving, gentle muslim world for all its "vast" resources.

Nevermind that if we REALLY wanted those resources we'd just build more offshore oil rigs to an extent that would completely sink Saudi Arabia. In fact that's the ONLY reason we don't; OPEC is the final arbiter on the oil market and they don't want the boat being rocked.

I almost pity such people...or I would, if it wasn't for the fact that they choose to adhere to a religion that makes the catholic church look like, heh, saints, rather than wondering just why it is they feel that there are certain ways they should interpret the quran...as opposed to interpreting it as the "fundamentalists" do...

[Chas]

Yes, your being a theist does - you are delusion prone.

Chas, you're an idiot - and I think I've pointed this out to you before. By your logic, can you explain to me why one of the best astrophysicists in the world - and pretty much the authority on "dark matter" - is a member of my church?

I tell you what, the onus of proof is on you, Chas, since you made the statement - so it's now up to you to prove to us here that religious people are more likely to be 'truthers' or even 'conspiracy nuts in general' compared to non-religious, I await your response.

There is no evidence for any gods, therefore you are delusional for believing in them. Given that you are delusional about that, you are prone to delusion.

How is that difficult to understand?

[Aractus]

But there is ample evidence for the life of Christ, and for the early Christian beliefs, which you're welcome to discuss here. But I see that of course, you are incapable of intelligent discussion, like so many people.

[Chas]

But there is ample evidence for the life of Christ, and for the early Christian beliefs, which you're welcome to discuss here. But I see that of course, you are incapable of intelligent discussion, like so many people.

I see that you are unable to separate fact from fantasy.

[Creed of Heresy]

But there is ample evidence for the life of Christ, and for the early Christian beliefs, which you're welcome to discuss here. But I see that of course, you are incapable of intelligent discussion, like so many people.

Please present this evidence, and cease ad homs.