9/11 American Scholars Symposium aired on C-SPAN

Then don’t listen

 

ooooohhhh, oh no he ditint!

 

Hey Everybody, I'm new to this thread.

and must apologise, not having read all of the posts.

But let me ask, What about the newspapers ? For one, I'm convinced that
there are no secrets in this world. Our President can't even enjoy a little
B J in his private office without the whole world finding out.

All of these newspapers earn money by exposing stories. Imagine the prestige
earned by a reporter for breaking a big story like a 911 conspiracy ?

Bob Woodward is still earning kudos for breaking his big Watergate story in the 1970's!

There are all kinds of diferent newspapers out there. Remember it was the
rags who broke the story that the marriage of The Prince of Wales was a sham and then the mainstream media had to follow.

Mainstream papers reluctantly jumped in to cover Clinton scandals after fringe media broke the story.

Look at all of the attention paid to the tragic death of White House Lawyer Vincent Foster in the 90's. Reporters are always digging for a story.

Its not as if all of these media is friendly to the current administration. Remember CBS & Dan Rather ran hard with a story about bush using forged documents about bush's national guard service.

Perhaps, feeling chastised by Rather-gate the media is doing its fact checking.

I'm going to continue reading my papers ( its a compelling addiction )
and looking for stories about 911.

My apologies but I'm not going to give a lot of credibility to the internet just yet.

 

Ask Sibel Edmonds how she feels about going public. She blew the whistle on 911 being an inside job and she works as a translator for the FBI who translated all of the OBL admission tapes and said they are frauds. did she get national attention and great book deals and lots of money and fame? no, she became the most gagged person in US history and still hasn't been able to release her info. As a journalist for major news outlets, you aren't allowed to do 911 conspiracy stories unless they are against them and make them lok like tin foil conspiracy theories. The people who control the media know who did 911 and they aren't about to let it out because they are making billions off the new "terror scare". Everyone who has the ability to blow the whistle is either in on it, not spilling the beans because they benefit politically or finanacially or both, and the people who do blow the whistle are gagged and their credibility is destroyed. How about you stop saying stupid things like that like "ohhh our media would never let this go" and actually investigate 911 truth for yourself, don't listen to these idiot shills on hipforums that don't know their head from their ass, go around and make up YOUR OWN MIND. The fact that the movie "flight 93" had a bigger budget than the 911 commission itself should lead you in the right direction.

 

I was thinking about the reporting and media coverage of the Vincent Foster Conspiracy. How it might relate to the 911 mystery.

Vincent Foster came to Washington with President Bill Clinton in 1992.
He was an attorney, a Friend of Bill, and a partner in the same Arkansas law firm as Hillary Clinton. He was appointed White House Counsel by The President.

Early in The Administration Foster was found dead, outside in a park with a gunshot wound to the head. Of course, the media had a field day.

But then there was a divergence in the media. The papers in opposition to the Administration kept digging for more clues while mainstream media moved on.

The right wing opposition media floated all kinds of mad theories about Fosters death. They used the story to flog the Administration.
They showed lack of objectivity.

In the end, the opposition media proved nothing about Fosters suicide
only causing more stress for Fosters family.
The opposition media was embarraed and shamed by its
over-the-top theories, they lost credibility and prestige.

Perhaps it is the thought of this lost credibility and prestige that is restraining the media on the 911 story?

I really doubt that its bribes or intimidation. Hard nosed reporters wont be intimidated. But I will keep reading and following the story.

 

What is restraining the media on 9/11 is two things: Controlled Thought Processes which automatically conclude any alternative 9/11 information is "Conspiracy theories", and Money coming from the "terror threat" that 9/11 gave them. Now if the media wants a lot of money they can just print a front page picture of a plane hitting a building and saying "are we safer?". The big heads of Corporate Media know what happened that day but them and there friends are making billions.

 

You need to get Pam Anderson or Rosie McGowan, J-Lo or some such
to endorse your theories: TOPLESS.

Then you will get media attention.

 

Well we got charlie sheen and look what the media did to him...threw him out to dry. According to Him a lot of Hollywood knows about 9/11 but is too afraid to come out. Now of course I dont look at hollywood people as god and just because they believe it doesn't make it true, it's the fact they are too afraid to come out and say their opinion because they will be ripped to shreds in the media about their credibility, not the actual questions they raised.

 

The media and the public didn't treat him any worse than they would treat you or Lickherish. (Actually they might be a little easier on you seeing that LickHerish denies the very existance of Islamic extremist groups and you just undermind them). The reason that people who believe in these "consiracy theories" are ripped to shreads by the media is, and I know this is near impossible for you to grasp, is that most of their points have been discredited! At least to the point where they are less believable than "official story" events. It is that simple. Most of the angles that "conspiracy theorists" use are exagerated and have simply been refuted. The ones that cannot be refuted do not have the scientific evidence to back them up, but that does not make them a conspiracy.

Do you ever wonder why there is such a small percentage of people who believe in "conspiracy theories"? Do you think the masses have been brainwashed? Hold on, don't answer that. Do you ever wonder why the people that believe in 9/11 conspiracy are also likely to believe in other conspiracies? Why do you suppose that is? Do you think that the ones who are behind this are really that good and you and a select few have somehow managed to avoid the mind control that the vast majority of the world has fallen victim to?

 

Then why did not one single hit piece against charlie sheen ask about the questions he raised like the Norad Standdown, the Collapse of the towers, etc. Why did they, instead, just attack him personally about his past?

If you feel all these points have been thoroughly discredited, then why have you yourself not even discredited my long and arguous post about the wargames that day, its obvious that i have an extreme knowledge of the day of 911 and you know zip, so unless you got the facts to argue or debate me with, then don't talk.

Edit: " Do you ever wonder why there is such a small percentage of people who believe in "conspiracy theories"?"

http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Scientific Poll Shows 1/3 of Americans believe in a 9/11 government conspiracy.

Alternative 9/11 information isn't a conspiracy theory, area 51 is a conspiracy theory, elvis being alive is a conspiracy theory, this is deadly serious and could be the death of our republic.

 

Who knows, but his points have been discredited. There are many sources that have debunked 9/11 conspiracies or alternative views. How would I know why some dumbfuck reporter would bring up Charlie being a cokehead or a john when with little research they could have countered his claims with scientific evidence? Laziness perhaps.

Discredit what? How the question "is this real world or excercise?" was answered. Ok, it was answered "this is real world". How you claim the Otis birds were sent chasing some phantom blip? They weren't. They followed standard scramble pattern to military airspace and waited for instructions on an intercept heading.

I wouldn't float your own boat on your "extreme knowledge of 9/11". I give you credit for having an open mind and the willing to research the events. This is much more than most people are willing to do, but you clearly have tunnel vision and trapped in this government plot mindset.

If you want to prove your knowledge on the subject at hand and give backing to loose claims, then could you debunk a debunk? I have seen the movie Loose Change and a member on here had posted a debunk of that movie, which can be found at http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
If you are so faithful in your evidence, show me that the claims in this debunk are flimsy and give some merit to the orignal Loose Change points.

The following is my favorite statistic in the poll you provided.

I love that one.

Don't you find it a little suspect that virtually none of the theories on websites such as PrisonPlanet, AlexJones, FromTheWilderness, etc.. are believed by the majority or have been substantiated by the mainstream media? The argument that the mainstream media is part of the propaganda machine is absurd. Credibility. These lunatic fringe websites do not have to hold credibility because their audience shares one common trait: that they will believe practically anything that they tell them.

 

You just discredited yourself to everyone on this forum anyway as someone who is a shill and someone who states everything as fact even know you don't look at the real facts and i do. I used the 911 timeline as my source which is a collection of credible statements all taken from mainstream media, you use a link by some shill with no credibility who is cleary just angry at the points that loose change raises, free speech hurts sometimes doesn't it...

 

I know you are but what am I?

I am not disputing the 9/11 timeline. I am disputing your explanation that NEADS was in confusion whether the threat was real world or excercise and why the Otis birds were scrambled to the coast. Quick question for you...How much information provided by the "mainstream media" do you hold credible? I am not denying that it is credible, I just have a hard time keeping track of who believes what on these forums.

The Loose Change Guide I provided was not backing up any claim that I have made. It was provided as a tool for you to excercise your extreme knowledge of 9/11. If in fact Loose Change holds as much water as you believe, then you should have no problem blowing the Loose Change Guide (the debunk of Loose Change) out of the water. Remember, you are the one with something to prove! You are the minority. If you do not or cannot do this then you should at least admit that many points in this movie are brought up to make people subconciously question the events of 9/11, without provided any factual claims regarding 9/11. Again, with your extreme knowledge of 9/11, it should not be a difficult task.

 

We are not the minority, the majority of americans think there is a coverup, the majority of New Yorkers think the government consciously failed to act on 911, YOU are the minority sir.

 

The link that Lodui posted shows an example of buckling of unprotected steel in the Windsor fire on the 9th floor. The WTC south tower showed a similar feature.

If you look at videos and stills carefully, you'll see the east side of the south tower bowing inward. It wasn't noticed until about 20 minutes after the aircraft strike, which makes sense since time was required for the metal to heat up and weaken.

The bowing of the south tower got gradually worse with time, consistent with the fact that the weakening of steel gets worse the higher the temperature and the longer the duration. The bowing reached a point where the steel columns could no longer support the load and buckled catastrophically.

It wasn't due to slow thermite, planted charges, silent explosives, or anything exotic like that. Just bowing due to steel under load that was weakened at high temperature.


Windsor fire:

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

Bowing at 9th floor of Windsor:




Bowing of east side of WTC south tower:




South tower bowing worsens (just before collapse):



Note that the south tower collapse initiated at the location of the bowing.

.

 

Shaggie, I didn't say anything about Controlled Demolitions, stick to the point.

 

Sir, In My Opinion that buckling helps the 911 truth movement's thesis because when a tower collapses due to buckling, it takes a little time, but in this case it bucks RIGHT before the collapse, leading to the thesis that the core columns were compromised by something OTHER than jet fuel in a VERY fast manner, which made the outer columns buckle so quickly. It didn't collapse JUST from buckling, or like all you guys used to shill out that it "pancaked" which has been completely abandoned by NIST while you guys still went around preaching like gospel...now the NIST is thinking it MAY have been bombs in WTC7...your story is collapsing.

And for a liberal you seem strangely against the 911 truth movements right to their opinions, you liberals are always the ones who claim to be for free speech while you do everything possible to take it away.

 

Where has Shaggy ever tried to take away anybodys freedom of speech? He has never said you or any other lunatic fringe cannot believe that GW Bush and the government flew remote control aircraft, fired missiles, or planted thermite and explosives on the towers, he is just proving that that theory is bullshit.

 

In his own words.....

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=180773&page=2&pp=10

 

yeah that's what i said you jackass. nothing is perfect.