Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

9/11 theorist who changed his mind


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#16    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 06 June 2013 - 11:54 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 06 June 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

If you were a curious and open-minded person, most likely you would have already informed yourself about the evidence.  After all, it has been 11+ years now.

There are more than 2000 architects and engineers who are on record as opposing the official explanation as put forth by NIST and other government organizations.  There is ample evidence that explosives of some sort were used, but one must be curious in order to perceive it. www.AE911Truth.org

11 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and not one of the AE911T supports have actually had a scientific paper published by reputable journals?

Where is all the money going?  In their pockets?  

You do realize that back in 2011, Gage held a conference on 9/11 at the national AIA building.  80 attendees, not one of them an engineer or architect...right?

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#17    Squidfish

Squidfish

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined:06 Jun 2013

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:58 AM

That's going to help the truther cause, attacking one for "not believing."

Anyway, the biggest problem with the whole conspiracy is the lack of explanation as to why the "insiders" had to destroy the towers. I mean, as soon as the planes were hijacked - no matter the outcome - the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened in any case. Why bother with placing explosives within the buildings at all? Why risking exposing the whole conspiracy?


#18    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 07 June 2013 - 01:30 AM

View PostSquidfish, on 07 June 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

That's going to help the truther cause, attacking one for "not believing."

Anyway, the biggest problem with the whole conspiracy is the lack of explanation as to why the "insiders" had to destroy the towers. I mean, as soon as the planes were hijacked - no matter the outcome - the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened in any case. Why bother with placing explosives within the buildings at all? Why risking exposing the whole conspiracy?

We can also add that the United States didn't invade Afghanistan when terrorist planted and detonated a huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993. In that bombing, the steel beams were sitting in the middle of the crater and yet, WTC1 remained standing. We didn't invade Iraq when terrorist blew up the USS Cole and we didn't invade anyone when terrorist blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 June 2013 - 01:30 AM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#19    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:00 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 06 June 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

11 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later, and not one of the AE911T supports have actually had a scientific paper published by reputable journals?

Where is all the money going?  In their pockets?  

You do realize that back in 2011, Gage held a conference on 9/11 at the national AIA building.  80 attendees, not one of them an engineer or architect...right?

To me, the testimony of experts is useful, but in the end I make up my own mind.  Because experts must be closely examined, in the end.  For example, an expert whose very financial existence depends upon government contracts is suspect.  It is possible, or even likely, that they will make statements that serve their employer.  So the opinions of companies like Greenhorne & O'Mara, or Skidmore Owings & Merrill are to be taken with a major grain of salt.

I make my own analysis and draw conclusions based upon common sense.  Do you?


#20    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:02 PM

View PostSquidfish, on 07 June 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

That's going to help the truther cause, attacking one for "not believing."

Anyway, the biggest problem with the whole conspiracy is the lack of explanation as to why the "insiders" had to destroy the towers. I mean, as soon as the planes were hijacked - no matter the outcome - the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened in any case. Why bother with placing explosives within the buildings at all? Why risking exposing the whole conspiracy?

There are many many POSSIBLE explanations for motives to attack the towers and the Pentagon.  Quite a rich array of possibilities, including financial gain and destruction of evidence.


#21    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:40 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:



To me, the testimony of experts is useful, but in the end I make up my own mind.  Because experts must be closely examined, in the end.  For example, an expert whose very financial existence depends upon government contracts is suspect.

You can't dismiss scientific facts just because of where the financial backing comes from.  That is being biased.


View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

It is possible, or even likely, that they will make statements that serve their employer.  So the opinions of companies like Greenhorne & O'Mara, or Skidmore Owings & Merrill are to be taken with a major grain of salt.

Again, feel free to take it with a grain of salt.  However, simply handwaving evidence that doesn't support your conclusion (which btw, you do quite often) is really telling.

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

I make my own analysis and draw conclusions based upon common sense.  Do you?

I doubt you use any form of common sense since the entire stainless steel WTC facade debacle.

To answer your question, yes I do.  I form my own conclusions based on my own personal analysis.  In subjects that I have little to no knowledge in, I turn to reading scientific papers and posts by people relevant in the field with an objective mind.



No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#22    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:44 PM

Raptor

I'm not dismissing scientific facts, I am questioning the ethics and loyalties of companies and experts whose jobs depend upon government contracts.  Indeed, I embrace scientific facts and wish that you would.

Really?  You're still hung up on my inaccurate statement regarding SS v. aluminum?  That is funny.  Funny, but typical of how desperate and trivial people become when attempting to defend the indefensible. :innocent:


#23    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 07 June 2013 - 12:54 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Raptor

I'm not dismissing scientific facts, I am questioning the ethics and loyalties of companies and experts whose jobs depend upon government contracts.  Indeed, I embrace scientific facts and wish that you would.

Really?  You're still hung up on my inaccurate statement regarding SS v. aluminum?  That is funny.  Funny, but typical of how desperate and trivial people become when attempting to defend the indefensible. :innocent:

Yes I am hung up on that argument.  Why?  It actually shows to what measure you are willing to not accept that you are wrong.  It's a classic example of denial to support your conclusion.

Embrace scientific facts then BR.  Regardless of your opinions on ethics and loyalty, science recognizes neither.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#24    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,535 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 07 June 2013 - 01:07 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 07 June 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Yes I am hung up on that argument.  Why?  It actually shows to what measure you are willing to not accept that you are wrong.  It's a classic example of denial to support your conclusion.

Embrace scientific facts then BR.  Regardless of your opinions on ethics and loyalty, science recognizes neither.

Good morning RB, it's 7 June!  It's been several months now since I admitted in front of God & Everybody here at UM that I was wrong regarding the cladding at WTC.  I admitted that I was wrong in claiming that they were stainless.  I was in error RB, for neither the first nor the last time in my life.  I'm human, just like you.

Can we move on, or would you prefer to stay mired in that issue?  Shall I go to the corner with a dunce hat on?  Would that make you feel better?

I have embraced the facts RB.  As Wally Miller and others said and all the pictures show, there was no Boeing at Shanksville.  Further, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon.  There were explosive devices of some sort at WTC.

Those are the simple facts RB.  It is YOU who reject the facts.  It is YOU who embrace as truth the statements of a gang of known liars.


#25    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 07 June 2013 - 02:51 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:



Good morning RB, it's 7 June!  It's been several months now since I admitted in front of God & Everybody here at UM that I was wrong regarding the cladding at WTC.  I admitted that I was wrong in claiming that they were stainless.  I was in error RB, for neither the first nor the last time in my life.  I'm human, just like you.

Can we move on, or would you prefer to stay mired in that issue?  Shall I go to the corner with a dunce hat on?  Would that make you feel better?

I have embraced the facts RB.  As Wally Miller and others said and all the pictures show, there was no Boeing at Shanksville.  Further, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon.  There were explosive devices of some sort at WTC.

Those are the simple facts RB.  It is YOU who reject the facts.  It is YOU who embrace as truth the statements of a gang of known liars.

Why keep using Wally Miller when he already publicly came forward and stated conspiracy folk are twisting his words??

You take his initial statement, then dismiss his explanation then claim coercion.  Yet you have no proof of coercion other than his public statement disagrees with your opinions.  

If you want to talk about liars, then let me ask you why AE911T still publicly displays the collapse of WTC 7 without the initial part showing the collapse of the penthouses?  Why hide this fact?

Why have CTers posted WTC 7 collapse videos sped up to prove the free fall claims?

Why have no truther supporter published a paper in reputable science journals refuting the claims of NIST?

I can add more to this list, but I would spend all day listing the dishonesty of truthers.  



View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:



Good morning RB, it's 7 June!  It's been several months now since I admitted in front of God & Everybody here at UM that I was wrong regarding the cladding at WTC.  I admitted that I was wrong in claiming that they were stainless.  I was in error RB, for neither the first nor the last time in my life.  I'm human, just like you.

Can we move on, or would you prefer to stay mired in that issue?  Shall I go to the corner with a dunce hat on?  Would that make you feel better?

I have embraced the facts RB.  As Wally Miller and others said and all the pictures show, there was no Boeing at Shanksville.  Further, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon.  There were explosive devices of some sort at WTC.

Those are the simple facts RB.  It is YOU who reject the facts.  It is YOU who embrace as truth the statements of a gang of known liars.

Why keep using Wally Miller when he already publicly came forward and stated conspiracy folk are twisting his words??

You take his initial statement, then dismiss his explanation then claim coercion.  Yet you have no proof of coercion other than his public statement disagrees with your opinions.  

If you want to talk about liars, then let me ask you why AE911T still publicly displays the collapse of WTC 7 without the initial part showing the collapse of the penthouses?  Why hide this fact?

Why have CTers posted WTC 7 collapse videos sped up to prove the free fall claims?

Why have no truther supporter published a paper in reputable science journals refuting the claims of NIST?

I can add more to this list, but I would spend all day listing the dishonesty of truthers.  



No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#26    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 07 June 2013 - 05:32 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

Good morning RB, it's 7 June!  It's been several months now since I admitted in front of God & Everybody here at UM that I was wrong regarding the cladding at WTC.  I admitted that I was wrong in claiming that they were stainless.  I was in error RB, for neither the first nor the last time in my life.  I'm human, just like you.

Can we move on, or would you prefer to stay mired in that issue?  Shall I go to the corner with a dunce hat on?  Would that make you feel better?

I have embraced the facts RB.  As Wally Miller and others said and all the pictures show, there was no Boeing at Shanksville.

Let's take a closer look at what Wally Miller has said, because Wall Miller has addressed 911 Truthers who have distorted his words.

Quote


Another 14 victims of Flight 93 identified

Investigators have positively identified the remains of another 14 persons aboard United Airlines Flight 93 and Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said the investigation could conclude more quickly than expected.

At the same time, the high winds that buffeted the area over the last few days have dislodged additional airplane parts -- seat cushions, wiring, carpet fragments and pieces of metal -- from trees near the crash site.

"It's all aircraft parts, no human remains," Miller said. "We've collected them in 10 recycling bin-sized containers and eventually we'll turn them all over to United."

Yesterday's confirmation of victims' identities by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville, Md., means that 34 of the 44 people who were aboard the jetliner crashed Sept. 11. have been identified.

http://911research.w...7_flight93.html




In other words, Wally Miller confirmed the recovery of human remains from United 93 at the crash site.

Quote

Further, there was no Boeing at the Pentagon.

But, the B-757 crash wreckage was that of American 77, and confirmed by American Airlines and the Boeing Company, both of which sent conversion formulas that pertained ONLY to the FDR of American 77, and no other aircraft.

And, my Wing commander was inside the Pentagon when American 77 struck detailed events that occurred afterward during his going-away dinner recently, which I attended. Remember, you came along and substituted an P700 anti-ship missile, which summed it up as to where you were coming from.

Quote

There were explosive devices of some sort at WTC.

But, there are no bomb explosions in the videos and no sound of bomb explosions as the WTC buildings collapse and no bomb explosions were detected on seismic monitors as the WTC buildings collapsed and no evidence of bombs was ever found in the rubble of the WTC buildings. In other words, you are in serious error to claim that explosives were used when no such evidence exist.

Edited by skyeagle409, 07 June 2013 - 05:35 PM.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#27    Squidfish

Squidfish

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 42 posts
  • Joined:06 Jun 2013

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:03 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

There are many many POSSIBLE explanations for motives to attack the towers and the Pentagon.  Quite a rich array of possibilities, including financial gain and destruction of evidence.

That is a long way to go for the destruction of evidence. If they could orchestrate such an attack, then surely getting rid of some stacks of evidence is not much harder a task without having to destroy the towers with airplanes and explosives. Let's even extend that "they blew the building up" - then why not simply place a really powerful bomb at the first floor, like the Oklahoma bombings? Why not Place a smaller nuke in the center of the whole WTC complex?

Besides, how many people knew of any evidence at all before the attacks? Seems kind of strange since the result of the attacks were more people scrutinizing every floor of what had been WTC after they were destroyed.


#28    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:19 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 07 June 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

You're still hung up on my inaccurate statement regarding SS v. aluminum?

Why did you ignore the evidence for such a long period of time when it was very clear the facade was aluminum, not stainless steel? That was typical of the way you have been ignoring other evidence as well.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#29    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,146 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 08 June 2013 - 06:22 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 06 June 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

There are more than 2000 architects and engineers who are on record as opposing the official explanation as put forth by NIST and other government organizations.

But, you continued to ignore the fact that the majority of demolition experts, achitects and civil engineers support the official story.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#30    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,687 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 08 June 2013 - 09:27 PM

View PostSquidfish, on 07 June 2013 - 12:58 AM, said:

That's going to help the truther cause, attacking one for "not believing."

Anyway, the biggest problem with the whole conspiracy is the lack of explanation as to why the "insiders" had to destroy the towers. I mean, as soon as the planes were hijacked - no matter the outcome - the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq would have happened in any case. Why bother with placing explosives within the buildings at all? Why risking exposing the whole conspiracy?

Exactly. And why not "find" evidence that Iraq was building a nuclear weapon to use against the US? After all, the coalition forces practically owned the country at that point. It would have been easy to have rigged "proof" that Saddam was on the nuke path.... but they didn't. So people want us to believe that the US rigged such a huge hijacking / destruction scenario as motivation / justification for invasion / increased security and then *not* follow it up with evidence to vindicate their actions?

Edited by Obviousman, 08 June 2013 - 09:28 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users