[Drifty (OP)]

This video is a pretty good summary of all the important inside job proof.

September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)

The only important piece of proof the above video doesn't deal with is the fact that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.

http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm [nofollow]
(5th picture from top)


Here's some more stuff.

Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org

The Death of Controlled Demolition Expert Danny Jowenko after Speaking about 9/11 WTC 7 Building 7

ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version)

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org

These videos do a good job of explaining the government's probable motives for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

9/11 False Flag Conspiracy - Finally Solved (Names, Connections, Motives)

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/new-american-century/ [nofollow]


So do these articles.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=lithium [nofollow]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=iraq+oi [nofollow]


If people look at the above info and experience cognitive dissonance and go into denial, they should watch this video.

Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers

That won't sway these posters though.
http://cultureofawareness.com/2012/09/26/disinformation-campaign-exposure-confessions-of-a-paid-disinformation-poster/ [nofollow]
http://ombudsmanwatchers.org.uk/articles/twenty_five_ways.html [nofollow]


Beware of disinfo such as the no-plane theory.

provocateurs,shills and disinfo agents

(7:20 time mark)

People who say no planes hit the towers are disinfo agents trying to make the truth movement look silly. Real truthers believe that planes hit the towers.


If the YouTube links don't work, do YouTube searches on the titles.

[Don_1]

Please, not another conspiracy theorist.

[Drifty (OP)]

  Please, not another conspiracy theorist. 

If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.  Why don't you show us why it's wrong?

This analysis seems to prove that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm [nofollow]
(5th picture from top)

Let's hear your analysis of this.

[Aemilius]

Hi Drifty (nice to meet you), that's quite a compilation....

If a theory is wrong, it will fall by its own lack of merit.  Why don't you show us why it's wrong?

Hah! That sounds very much like the Scientific Method. I'm afraid you won't have much luck with that sort of thing around here. Just have a look at the thread "What is Free Fall?"....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.0

At the end of it (over five months ago), I posted a complete empirically verifiable scientific method driven graphical target system analysis and conclusion arrived at by process of elimination (really just an exhaustively stated eighth grade homework assignment) that clearly demonstrates why the only possible logical explanation/model for the behaviour of World Trade Center Building 7 that can fully account for the now long verified observation by both the NIST and various independent researchers of a significant period of gravitational acceleration is the sudden explosive removal of supporting structure by some form of energetic material having been physically transported into the building some time prior....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497

And Dr. Alan Calverd (an experienced Ph.D Research Physicist), who actually helped to guide the formatting of the animations, apparently has nothing to say. More recently, PmbPhy (another alleged physicist), just skipped over it completely and made some kind of useless irrelevant off topic quip about another forum member. Other than that.... nothing.

Not one of the other members here (longstanding or otherwise) have offered even one word of support either (except for a bizarre irrational interjection by Bored chemist) for alancalverds proposed, and no doubt still evolving, fantastic empirically unsupported simultaneous multi-stage "Catastrophic Aerostatic Blowout/Speed of Sound Stress Propagation/Spontaneous Structural Steel Disintegration/Natural Progressive Structural Gravitational Acceleration" contraption that, laughably, can neither match nor create the well known conditions required for the observed symmetrical gravitational acceleration of the upper part of the building to have occurred for even one inch, let alone over one hundred feet.... and neither has anyone offered any valid critique that would tend to confirm or deny the veracity of the analysis I posted, which, by the way, continues to stand unassailed in the sense of anyone coherently breaking some aspect of it by simply copying and pasting even one of its hilariously simple animations, along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text, that says anything like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) being compared to the control (source system) would not play out as depicted/described and here's why....".

The empirically established fact that WTC7 was brought down by explosives immediately shines a bright light on the only ones who could possibly have carried out a covert domestic operation of this magnitude.... the only ones who had exclusive 24/7 access to the highly secured building (WTC7).... the only ones who were in complete control of the security system for the building.... the only ones who had ready access to the quantity and quality of energetic materials required.... and the only ones who had the required expertise in the effective use of said energetic materials. The fact is that only the Department of Defense/Central Intelligence Agency could have done it, because just as there is no other possible explanation for the behavior of WTC7 other than energetic materials having been physically transported into the building, so there is no other possible explanation as to who could have done it since the building was in perpetual lock down as a highly secured government facility.
 
So to sum up, in this case anyway, one simple fact (free fall) leads to an inescapable conclusion (controlled demolition). That one simple fact and the inescapable conclusion it naturally leads to (as revealed by analysis), that WTC7 literally had to have been brought down by explosives, along with the fact (as revealed by the list of tenants) that personnel from the Department of Defense/Central Intelligence Agency are literally the only ones who could possibly have done it, really wraps it all up in one nice neat little package.
 
The US Government Planned and Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks

Hi Don_1....

Please, not another conspiracy theorist.

What do you get out of posting meaningless useless irrelevant one liners? There is no conspiracy theory, opinion, assumption or speculation in the analysis I posted, only empirically verifiable data top to botttom. If you (or any of the other self imagined geniuses here) can't manage to break the analysis in the above described manner or provide some more plausible empirically verifiable explanation that somehow supercedes it, analytically, you're screwed.... that's another fact.

[Drifty (OP)]

Hi Aemilius

Thanks for the support here.  You seem to be good at checkmating sophists.

[Ethos_]

And fairies are responsible for every case of schizophrenia.
And toads will give you warts.
And j******g will produce hair on the palms of your hands.

Give me a break........................................................................

[Aemilius]

Thanks for the support here.

Don't mention it.... the feeling is mutual.

[Aemilius]

And fairies are responsible for every case of schizophrenia.
And toads will give you warts.
And j******g will produce hair on the palms of your hands.

Give me a break........................................................................

"Silence is better than unmeaning words." - Pythagoras

[PmbPhy]

What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you know how to think clearly? All of those assertions have more than one interpretations. Claims made by others are always made with the impression that there is no other possible way to see it and that's how conspiracy theories stay alive. And there's never been one of you who'd even consider that it might just be possible. Also there's not one of you who would consider that the other person on the opposite argument isn't as intelligent as you are or can't put the pieces together as well as you have.

It's poor thinking skills that results in these conspiracy theories. I've seen it too many times to count.

[Drifty (OP)]

  What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you know how to think clearly? All of those assertions have more than one interpretations. Claims made by others are always made with the impression that there is no other possible way to see it and that's how conspiracy theories stay alive. And there's never been one of you who'd even consider that it might just be possible. Also there's not one of you who would consider that the other person on the opposite argument isn't as intelligent as you are or can't put the pieces together as well as you have.

It's poor thinking skills that results in these conspiracy theories. I've seen it too many times to count. 

Let's hear you address reply #2.

[Aemilius]

What the hell is wrong with you? Don't you know how to think clearly? All of those assertions have more than one interpretations. Claims made by others are always made with the impression that there is no other possible way to see it and that's how conspiracy theories stay alive. And there's never been one of you who'd even consider that it might just be possible. Also there's not one of you who would consider that the other person on the opposite argument isn't as intelligent as you are or can't put the pieces together as well as you have.

It's poor thinking skills that results in these conspiracy theories. I've seen it too many times to count.

Well, I'm open to correction. It just seems to me that in the same time it took you to compose that little tantrum, you could have (like a real physicist) simply pointed out some obvious error in the analysis I posted over in the thread "What is Free Fall?"....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497

If you'd done that, right now I would be saying "Thanks for the correction PmbPhy! When I have questions about things like this in the future I'll be sure to seek you out." and that would be the end of it.

And speaking of clear thinking.... What was the point of leapfrogging over the analysis I posted over there and making that irrelevant off topic quip about Bored chemist anyway? 

That's what I call poor thinking.

[Aemilius]

When I posted to the latest 9/11 conspiracy thread, "Please, not another conspiracy theorist." I had no intention of posting anything else to that thread.

So what did you get out of posting it then? If all you intended to do was post a derisive eye rolling one liner that you had no intention of providing any support for.... What was the point of posting? That doesn't make any sense.

I am proud to say that despite all, I have stuck to my guns. I will not be drawn into one of these threads' where there is no end to the pointless arguing.

Hah! So let me get this straight. You don't mind contributing four or five paragraphs to something like the literally ancient debate over whether or not there's a God....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=54280.msg450180#msg450180

....where it couldn't possibly be more obvious there will never be any end to the pointless arguing, but you really draw the line when it comes to confirming or denying the veracity of information conveyed by an eighth grade level empirically verifiable target system analyisis that firmly supports an inescapable conclusion arrived at by simple process of elimination.... and you draw that line by replying with nothing more than a derisive eye rolling one liner followed by a flat refusal to discuss the matter any further. Stick to your guns if you like then, analytically you're just shooting blanks so.... What does it matter?

Just like PmbPhy, nothing you've said has any impact on the analysis so.... What do I care? If you guys enjoy jumping up in front of a big crowd of people and pulling the rug out from under yourselves in debate and landing flat on your faces and then just walking away it's none of my business. Enjoy!   

So to repeat, I'm open to correction, but not by means of childish tantrums or derisive eye rolling one liners. Simply point out some obvious error in the analysis I posted over in the thread "What is Free Fall?"....

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=49603.msg440497#msg440497

If none of you can manage to coherently break some aspect of the analysis by simply copying and pasting at least one of its hilariously simple animations, along with a bit of accompanying descriptive text, that says something like "This animation and accompanying descriptive text is incorrect, the scenario (target system) being compared to the control (source system) would not play out as depicted/described and here's why...." or provide some other more plausible empirically verifiable explanation, there's really no reason for me to take anything any of you say seriously. 

Both the analysis and it's conclusion continue to stand unassailed.... the building was intentionally brought down by explosives on September 11, 2001.

[Drifty (OP)]

I want to add this video to the list in post #1.

Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out!

[darzovaikas]

Cosmored, I wish I could say it's good to see you again.

Cosmored has been haunting our forum for years and just popped back in, posting a link to The Naked Scientist and telling us he was posting under the name Drifty.

If he was banned under the name Cosmored, the moderators at TNS might want to deal with Drifty.

Though I have to say you guys have kind of a cool forum and I think I'll stick around.  But not because of Cosmo/Drifty!

[PmbPhy]

This video is a pretty good summary of all the important inside job proof.

While there are some strange things that I can't understand about some of the videos and pictures I saw, it's a very long way to a conspiracy. It's just bad science/reasoning to jump to conclusions like that, especially since it's unlikely in the extreme to convince all of the people involved to do what is being claimed that they did. More later.

[tkadm30]

I believe 9/11 was a inside job. I reject the mainstream theory that Al-Qaida is a independent terrorist organization as we can observe patterns in the method artificial terrorism occurs. This type of criminal activity must be supported by a network of supporters attempting to create a global war on terrorism - the new world order.

“All three buildings were destroyed by carefully planned, orchestrated and executed controlled demolition.” – Professor Lynn Margulis

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/10/27/professors-politicians-gather-to-warn-us-about-the-new-world-order-nwo/

The controlled demolition hypothesis is scientifically valid. Planes don't bring down buildings alone by crashing into them. There must be some kind of explosives to make the buildings collapse without resistance.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

-Arthur Schopenhauer

[RD]

I believe 9/11 was a inside job ...

I only need "the moon-landings were faked" for tkadm30 give me a full-house on conspiracy-theory bingo.  []

No matter how absurd the theory, as long as it's wrapped in conspiracy, the paranoid will accept it , as their brain is constantly in conspiracy-theory-mode ^[7], a manifestation of which is the phenomenon colloquially-known as crank magnetism.   

Surely there's a more suitable forum for tkadm30, e.g. Above Top Secret , you'll find kindred-spirits there , but not much logic.

[tkadm30]

RD,

Your out of context quote is once again irrelevant. The plausability of the state-sponsored controlled demolitition theory has been supported by many scientists and engineers. Hence, your accusations of my so called paranoia are evidences that you must be denying the truth one way or another.

[Jolly]

Please, not another conspiracy theorist.

Hey Don, interestingly the offical American Government line- is actually a conspiracy theory. So it appears whoever talks about 9/11 talks conspiracy.

[Jolly]

Still it is interesting to see this continuing...

The truth is out there somewhere. Personally I think there should be an international investigation into what happened on 9/11, and without American involvement.

I mean if the American Elites did carry out 9/11 and there is certainly evidence that motions in that direction- If they are allowed to get away with it,
what wont they be able to do in the future? 

Interesting site Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) apparently there are many.

http://www.ae911truth.org/