FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
The Verdict
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 - The Verdict Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3232
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hombre wrote:

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. Wink

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....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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" Laughing Only their PC PROGRAMS told them it wasn't necessary so they didn't do it. Laughing 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. Laughing Wake me when it's over!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3232
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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. Wink

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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? Laughing 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!

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3232
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.



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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3232
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3232
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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

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


It's worth checking out for it's wealth of material.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


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? Laughing

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

Take care,

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3232
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


You must keep an open mind otherwise you'll get blindsided by the obvious when it presents itself and miss it.

I've said many times before that with a few million people living in and around NYC that there has to be footage that has yet to see the light of day.

As an example listen to this audio: Does that sound like a Commercial Airliner to you? How about the explosion? Does that sound like the vapor from 15,000 gallons of jet fuel igniting and exploding?

Yes I do believe something hit those Towers but You'll never convince me that they were 767's. You can search NBC vids and compare them to other network footage. I'm talking initial live feed, not re-racked tape. They differ, in other words the angle of decent the object takes in the second explosion doesn't match. NBC's is steeper as opposed to CNN's being more shallow. Further the sound of the ( I call it a thing ) clearly would not be heard if the THING was moving anywhere close to 400 plus mph. It would have a markedly higher pitch akin to a whistle of sorts. This thing sounds like it's coming in for a routine landing.

The sound would trail the thing by a long distance, so it wasn't moving anywhere near the speed told because you can clearly hear it on the tape.


Not trying to come off like an ass, just pointing out things people miss and are hesitant to discuss.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Posts: 554
Location: western pennsylvania

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote


Sep-11-2009 23:46printcomments
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies
Gordon Duff Salem-News.com

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?
The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11
John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″

(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...

The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission.

Farmer, Dean of Rutger Universities' School of Law and former Attorney General of New Jersey, was responsible for drafting the original flawed 9/11 report.

Does Farmer have cooperation and agreement from other members of the Commission? Yes. Did they say Bush ordered 9/11? No. Do they say that the 9/11 Commission was lied to by the FBI, CIA, Whitehouse and NORAD? Yes. Is there full documentary proof of this? Yes.

Farmer states...“at some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin.”

The 9/11 Commission head, Thomas Kean, was the Republican governor of New Jersey. He had the following to say... “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us, it was just so far from the truth. . . " When Bush's own handpicked commission failed to go along with the cover up and requested a criminal investigation, why was nothing done?

9/11 Commission member and former US Senator, Bob Kerrey, says, "No one is more qualified to write the definitive book about the tragedy of 9/11 than John Farmer. Fortunately, he has done so. Even more fortunately the language is clear, alive and instructive for anyone who wants to make certain this never happens again."

With the only "official" 9/11 report now totally false, where do we go from here? Who is hurt by these lies? The families of the victims of 9/11 have fought, for years, to get to the truth. For years, our government has hidden behind lies and secrecy to deny them closure.

In 2006, The Washington Post reported..."Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission..."

What does Farmer's book tell us? Farmer offers no solutions, only a total and full rejection of what was told and his own his own ideas concerning the total failure of honesty on the part of the government, a government with something to hide.

Farmer never tells us what. Nobody could keep a job in the public sector speaking out more than Farmer has. What were Farmer's omissions? There are some. Now that we know that intelligence given the 9/11 Commission wasn't just lies from our own government but based on testimony coerced through torture from informants forced to back up a cover story now proven false, a pattern emerges.

We know that, immediately after 9/11, many more potential suspects and informants were flown directly to Saudi Arabia by Presidential order than were ever detained and questioned. We will never know what they could have said. Their testimony would have been vital to any real investigation were they not put beyond the reach of even Congress and the FBI.

Putting aside all other questions of recent evidence of CIA involvement with bin Laden prior to 9/11 or altered physical evidence involving the Pentagon attack, any failure to call to account the systematic perjury committed by dozens of top government officials, now exposed as a certainty is an offense to every American.

What do we know? We know the conjecture about 9/11 still stands but for certain, we know we were lied to, not in a minor way, but systematically as part of a plot covering up government involvement at nearly every level, perhaps gross negligence, perhaps something with darker intent.

Are we willing to live with another lie to go with the Warren Report, Iran Contra and so many others? Has the sacrifice of thousands more Americans, killed, wounded or irreparably damaged by a war knowingly built on the same lies from the same liars who misled the 9/11 Commission pushed us beyond willingness to confront the truth?

Have we yet found where the lies have begun and ended? There is no evidence of this, only evidence to the contrary. The lies live on and the truth will never be sought. The courage for that task has not been found.

Can anyone call themselves an American if they don't demand, even with the last drop of their blood, that the truth be found?

How long have we watered the Tree of Deceit with the blood of patriots?


Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and a regular contributor to Veterans Today. He specializes in political and social issues. You can see a large collection of Gordon's published articles at this link: VeteransToday.com.

He is an outspoken advocate for veterans and his powerful words have brought about change. Gordon is a lifelong PTSD sufferer from his war experiences and he is empathetic to the plight of today's veterans also suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to feature Gordon's timely and critical reports on Salem-News.com, a news organization staffed by a number of veterans, particularly former U.S. Marines.

You can send Gordon Duff an email at this address: Gpduf@aol.com

Birth is the first example of " thinking outside the box"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 967

PostPosted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gordon was kind enough to respond to an e-mail where we discussed the book in Question. It's as if this stuff comes easy to me now, especially since I've grown to trust my instincts while ignoring the fools within.

The Book written by Farmer is an excuse that is dependent upon selling " INCOMPETENCE " as a factor that allowed 9-11 to take place only it's not accurate. The author of the Book and others who have come forward for various reasons have deemed the official report a LIE.

Most of us already know this as fact. Gordon says Farmer uses weasel words throughout the book. What would people expect? Says that Farmer felt like he had to speak out about the Report thus rendering it useless even though he doesn't say anything about the who's, what's, why's, or most importantly, how's.

Anyway: Why do I get the feeling that the people/some people, near the Investigation/fact gathering in regard to the 9-11 Commission report are being infected with guilt?

Time will tell but I'm sure there is more to come later if not sooner than people think.

Why would you let a Book that calls the Report a LIE ever see the light of day?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 - The Verdict Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.