The Verdict

9/11 Evidence: Fact or Fantasy?
User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

[left]Why indeed does it always seem that nobody intelligent is willing to take on 9/11? Are we afraid we are all going to end up like Nico? Acting ( :wink: ) crazy? I've met many 9/11 truthers throughout mid and downtown Manhattan from all different kinds of clans. Most of them were assholes, creepy or if not, clearly brainwashed. It's starting to end though. I've began to talk a bit with a few friends who have been shaken by the 9/11 truth bug as well, and they are beginning to see the bigger picture, even considering how incomplete it may be for most of us.
It's important that if one finds a friend struggling with these issues to help talk them through it (of course do your own thing, I don't mean hit them with a barrage of BreakforNews article). Think of where we all were just a few years ago and although we will always be learning, at least we have spotted out some of the bullshit. I'm so glad I didn't spend the last 4 years of the Bush Admin chasing little Rove CHeney Scandals, buying anti Bush Tshirts, and posting Bush/Hitler photoshops on the net.

I've recently talked to two older people in their late 30's, early 40's about their 9/11 distractions. They are both very cultured, middle-class Lift-Minded teachers. (Chomsky, Blum, and John Pilger fans) As I stated in my last post, obviously caught up in the Loose Brains game. One dealt with it well and has a very Next Level type mind. I'd almost consider inviting him here but it would be a weird situation and frankly I think some people are just not ready for this site.-- It finds them.---
The other one pretty much got divorced by his wife because of his drunken 9/11 ramblings. Forget the details, you know the psyop drill. [/left]

We are beginning to see now
through the fog a little bit.

We thought it was smoking guns
and pyro-flows the whole time.
User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

On a lighter note: This is so sick but it makes me laugh.

<embed src=" ... player.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowScriptAccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" width="480" height="430" flashvars=""></embed>
Posts: 967
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:58 am


I mean absolutely no disrespect but you've summed up
completely everything wrong, as well as right, when it comes
to all things 9-11. A confusing post overloaded with all sorts
of angles, 9-11 isn't that difficult, that's the beauty of it all.

K.I.S.S = Keep it simple stupid. It's called the kiss method, as
a skilled ( highly skilled ) negotiator I had that drilled into
my skull by my trainers for years, it works for a reason most
simply can't grasp, much less ever be able to employ.

Imagine if you will accepting the official accounts and writing
off anything and everything as simply being Normal business
as usual News reporting. Years pass 3-4 maybe 5 and then
for the very first time you see a video of Building 7 going down.
You watch it over and over asking yourself how is that possible.

Now employ the K.I.S.S. Method: How is that possible~~simple
IT ISN'T- End of story. So what next: again easy: Search for, find, and read or watch the reported reasons for 7's unlikely collapse, what
caused it and how-why aspects of all of it. Once you've done
that go back and watch the collapse again in an attempt to
prove the reasons MSM has reported as being POSSIBLE
PROBABLE or in this case even being PLAUSIBLE.

Be on guard for people who will ask certain leading open ended
questions in regard to 7, they are techniques I'm highly skilled
and trained at spotting. It's why EVERY SINGLE face to face
conversation I have with anyone who buys the official account
always ends the same way. To a man woman and child they ALL
are afraid to even consider that what they were told happened
from the very beginning~~( MAY ) see I always allow them an
out, ( MAY ) not be the real truth. This technique allows them
to decide for themselves without having it force fed to them,
it's far easier to LET IT BE THEIR IDEA because it allows them to engage
in discussion. If you say ( IT'S A LIE-I KNOW IT ) and in this case
that would be a fact, that kind of dialog only closes those who
accept the official account off from the POSSIBILITIES.

They simply shut down any and all thinking in that regard.

The Official Account is an absolute balled faced LIE of epic
proportion. It's so big that QUESTIONING it can become very
daunting to a NOVICE. 3,000 People were murdered, the thought
of being lied to about who the guilty party actually was is far too
much for the average person to understand, let alone really
want to know about. Most simply say " I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE THAT "
I've seen and heard that line too many times to count. It's as if
they subconsciously feel like a traitor if they ever think about
questioning 9-11, let alone going as far as questioning themselves
as human beings and all that THEY have been CONDITIONED
to THINK is REALITY. I mean nobody in their right mind would
condone, much less accept, a Leadership that willing murdered
3,000 plus of it's own now would they.

That is exactly how this psyop was run on the people,
herded into a demographic, divided and then conquered via
good old fashioned peer pressure induced by patriotic bullshit

Think Ryder Cup and the chant USA-USA-USA. I was there in Louisville last September for Saturday's matches. When I heard that all
I felt was SHAME, all I could do was just shake my head. So
many blind, so many lost, so easy for those in control.

That my friend is a very very large piece of the HOW when it
comes to 9-11. A very simple sales job when so many remain so

User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

Hombre wrote:Bri,

A confusing post overloaded with all sorts
of angles, 9-11 isn't that difficult, that's the beauty of it all.

K.I.S.S = Keep it simple stupid.
Yup, agreed. Overloaded or not, we still gotta trim. Like THelonius Monk and his music, "taking away is important as putting in". I'm just trying to jumpstart things because we've hardly posted in the "Verdict discussion" let alone the Verdict Section itself. We have to sift through all of the garbage for gold coins which is not easy.
Most simply say " I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE THAT "
I've seen and heard that line too many times to count
Yeah most people do say that in my experience. Especially when you mention:

Bombs in the Buildings
WTC 7 Bombs
Steel Beam THermate Cuts
Tons of Nano-Thermate
Just about anything pushed by the CIA websites ever. In fact, I'd say in the high 90% range but don't quote me. ;)

Know what? I don't buy it either.

Sorry, I'm trying to focus now. Yeah maybe Patriotic Americans aren't the only problem. Maybe dragging 9/11 truth through the mud and having it set up to fail from the start is another one.
If I lose you on this, check out FIntan's last few audios on 9/11, or any of them for that matter. He damn well articulates it better than I can at this point in my life.
He left us off on a good jumping-point I think.
Fintan wrote:
If the perps could take the Towers down without explosives, and then
have the 9/11 Truth Movement bust a gut trying to figure out how non-
existant explosives had brought down the buildings --they would be
breaking out the bubbly and peeing themselves laughing.
I'm simply saying they were built with reckless disregard for the
predictable consequences of a plane strike. They were uniquely
vulnerable to such a strike.
So tell me, what's so simple about taking down WTC7 with silent explosives? Wouldn't structural damage and 7+ hours of fires do the job? Okay you say it's impossible...but what if it isn't?...Nice little red-herring wouldn't you say? Actually a rather big one eh? Just start there....
Posts: 967
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:58 am

Built with reckless disregard for WHAT?

Sorry but that's a load of shit. Clarified by words like " IF " and " UNIQUELY VULNERABLE " by what standard would that be.

Silent explosives~~please.

You might want to ask yourself a question: why the sudden change in sentiment before you assume what Mr Dunne may or may not be implying, and WHY!

If I am to assume that they were brought down because someone realized that there poor construction DESIGN WOULD LEAD THEM TO THEIR OBVIOUS DEMISE and could easily be blamed on said design, making them an easy mark, then I'd be left with one giant phucking problem. Tons and tons of DUST all absent any real contents on the structures other than the steel. Another completely IMPOSSIBLE theory that can't be explained by anyone.

It's a no brainer, unless of course you have some sort of twisted agenda, one that includes ridiculously impossible scenarios designed to lead people astray. Sooner or later all that's left is simply pulling shit from ones asshole and saying " HEY WHAT IF " Are we there yet?

Kinda like what if the 12,000 pages of testimony provided by first responders, Fire, Police would have been accepted into the record for the 9-11 Commission to consider. Only they said they didn't need it, can you imagine, they didn't need it.

What if they would have tested and looked for traces of " SILENT EXPLOSIVES" :lol: Only their PC PROGRAMS told them it wasn't necessary so they didn't do it. :lol: Take that attitude into a court of law and you get your asshole re-sized on day one, only in dealing with this BULLSHIT it seems to be SOP. That's BS in reality.

Maybe I should consider that jumping off point, ya think! :wink: But before shall I ask a question:

Ever hear the radio interview Fintan did in regard to the first few days after 9-11 and the PDF's posted on his page? Ever hear his explanation as to why he pulled them down? One he refuses to elaborate on as if no one would ever be able to understand why!

Yeah it was their DESIGN I TELL YOU. :lol: Wake me when it's over!

User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

Okay Hombre so what's your theory?
How were the towers taken down and with what?
I have a feeling that I already know what your answer will be.
This type of back and forth crap isn't going to hold muster in the Verdict section so I'm just curious what theories you have and where they have evolved. Might as well spew it out here.
Wow...massive amounts of dust? That's all you got?
I mean...I'd actually expect that with a massive building comes down like a banana peel unzipping...maybe that's my own disillusion. ;)

As far as Fintan and Kathy's 9/11 research history, from what I've gathered they can't exactly prove what happened so they don't go into detail about it. That's fine with me.
If you think they are misleading us make a thread about it. Or at least spell your thoughts out.
Posts: 967
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:58 am

I don't have a theory, I simply do not believe the Official Story, nor do I accept it as the truth.

I consider POSSIBILITIES and consider how they relate to what is seen in video, photographic, and eye witness reports. Those possibilities lead to questions, some of which NOBODY seems interested in addressing.

You expect lots of dust when a 110 story building collapse do you, that's quite original. Do you also expect it to eliminate most all of it's contents in the process? That's impossible. Buildings don't simply disintegrate during a collapse, or do they? :lol: Much less eliminate everything other than the steel without some sort of energy producing aid. Now that aid is obvious and appears in every video available, what it actually is is anyone's guess.

I'm not accusing anyone of misleading anybody, only mentioning the obvious, which is scattered all over the place. The size of those buildings is lost on many many people trying to come up with a theory as to what really happened. They were huge structures and built like brick shit houses. So thinking that the top 10-12 floors of Tower one would be enough weight to completely crush the remaining 100 floors into a fine powder and do it in under 20 seconds ( that's a generous amount of time ) is pure insanity and completely impossible.

The design IDEA is a total misdirect simply because under that ASSUMPTION the collapses would have had completely different LOOKS to them. Both cores would have continued to stand only to eventually topple over in whole, not convenient 30 foot sections. But hey wait, if the cores are not compromised then how can the buildings collapse, and if the cores continued to stand then how could the rest simply OH SHIT I FORGOT: FIRE, yeah that's it FIRE. LOL~~ Fire weakened floors 10 thru 50 just like it did on floors 90 thru 100.

Ever see building Two at the onset of collapse? The top 20 plus floors magically corrects itself after it begins to topple. Surely a poorly designed building would have made that impossible as that section would have obviously continued to fall and eventually somersault away from the building falling intact all the way to the ground. It would have broken through the weak floors below like shit through a Goose gouging out the facade for several floors along the way.

The official theory doesn't come close to a proper explanation of what the videos actually show! Therefore I question it!

User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

Okay dude but it seems you are not willing to take a look at evidence contrary to your opinion. I've been through the "collapse is impossible" b.s. for years. Don't underestimate the power of those trusses failing. ... inity3.jpg

No I don't believe it was a "pancake collapse", but just because we've never seen it before doesn't mean it wasn't fires that brought down the towers.
Last edited by bri on Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

What we seem to be doing here Hombre is debating.
It is important that we don't clog up the forum with the same shit we've been at for years.

THen maybe, oh a year on Fintan creating this section, we can actually fucking move on to stage one.

I created this thread to find out who was ready to start posting, and what some of their thoughts are. Also to jot down some of my own. You may think it's pointless Hombre but sometimes it's good to pre-plan your approach.
Fintan wrote:

When you get right down to it, their alternative version of 9/11 has
easily trumped the government version for sheer volume of
complete and utter rubbish content.

It's time to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and reach
a final verdict on what happened, how it happened, why
it happened and what group(s) were responsible.

It's time to determine what are the persuasive questions about 9/11
which raise a "reasonable doubt" --on the same balance of probability
which determines the verdict in a civil lawsuit.

It's time to make the call on 9/11.
Fintan wrote:
The first Phase is opening now. It is not a debate. It is a presentation
of summary/overview evidence already in the public domain, or new

The emphasis is on overview and summary presentation -not detail.

Don't post long and arduous treatises on detailed specifics of the 9/11
events. Rather post lists of hyperlinks to material on the internet which
supports the point of the case you are making.

For brevity don't post images - just hyperlinks to images.
Pick resilient hyperlinks which are likely to remain online.

Don't just weigh in and post willy-nilly. You need to carefullly consider
all aspects of the 9/11 issue and ask yourself if there are specific
issues where you reckon you can make a cast-iron case for presentation
as evidence.

Don't even bother to post arguments where there are strong
counterarguments or where a judgement relies on highly personal
interpretation of visual images to reach a conclusion. Weak arguments
and poor evidence will simply not make it to the Trial phase and is
a waste of your time.

Remember, in a civil or criminal case, a good prosecutor invariably selects
to present to a jury the best evidence at his/her disposal. That's the way
a successful prosecution is obtained.

That's exactly the approach which we will be taking.

You must be hard-headed and skeptical of all evidentiary issues.
Verify that evidence is firm; that events actually happened.

Play to your strengths in expertiese. Present both sides of the argument,
and state why you think the evidence supports a firm conclusion.

Minimize the level of detail. Your presentation should follow the same
principles as the abstract of a clinical study. Summary -not detail.
User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

How are we supposed to post in the Verdict section if only Admins can post there? :lol:

Anywho...I've been doing some research on this website:

It's worth checking out for it's wealth of material.
Posts: 967
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:58 am


Maybe, just MAYBE if you'll read my post carefully you'll better understand why you can't post in that section. :wink:

Take no offense but it's a blatant fact that you're missing the message and falling into the 9-11 abyss: and to quote FINTAN the very same RUBBISH PILE of whatever you choose to call it.

You need not clarify things to me, I fully understand. Ever wonder how it is that ONE PERSON can accumulate such a monstrous Mountain of knowledge on such a vast array of Topics all by themselves? :lol:

Shall I use that word again, or do you follow?

Take care,

User avatar
Posts: 3265
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Capacious Creek

I don't follow. Well, I could make my guesses but your words are quite vague.

As far as falling into a 9/11 abyss, thanks for your observation. It is not the reason nor changes the fact that only admins can post in the verdict section.

I've had enough. I'm not "Grumpy" Hombre. Sorry.
Hombre wrote:I've always held the " no planes theory " as a more probable explanation than any other ever offered.
Yeah, keep cuttin' through all that B.S. to the truth Hombre.

Keep up the good work! Stay above the abyss. :wink:
Post Reply