9/11 Deniers Speak - Ground Zero Edition

[Tom Clancy]

9/11 Deniers Speak - Ground Zero Edition

The next edition of 9/11 Deniers Speak, the Ground Zero edition focuses on the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement and their actions during the 5th anniversary of this tragic event. Mark Roberts - Author of the Loose Change Guide ( www.loosechangeguide.com ).

Goes to Ground Zero on weekends to confront the Truthers. Abby Scott - Another debunker who appears on Ground Zero every now and then. Created the parody of the Truthers in "9/11 Conspiracy Wars" Jason Bermas - Producer and Researcher of Loose Change Alex Jones - Texan radio hosting specializing in conspiracy theories. Viewed by the movement as the lead researcher. He is currently the Executive Producer of Loose Change Final Cut. Jack Blood - Buddy of Alex Jones and radio host.

 

[eots]

there are so many falsehoods is this video its unbelievable ..totaly pointless

 

[Tom Clancy]

there are so many falsehoods is this video its unbelievable ..totaly pointless

Like?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there are so many falsehoods is this video its unbelievable ..totaly pointless

Like?

He does not do facts, if he can not cut and paste it, it doesn't exist.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

there are so many falsehoods is this video its unbelievable ..totaly pointless

exactly.that guy in that yellow shirt is so obviously a government plant.He twists the words of Jones and he evades the facts by making up lies everytime Jones pointed out the facts and evidence to him and changed the subject many times when Jones tried to to tell the facts.He wouldnt let Jones talk,thats how all these disinformation agents act when people like Jones try to talk they wont let them talk and always talk over them.typical propaganda piece for a video.totally pointless video.HE is the 9/11 deniar in that video that speaks.

One example of how that agent lies all the time that was talking to Jones defending the official version is when it was pointed out to Silverstein in 2004 his comment of they decided to pull it and they asked him what he meant by it, Silverstein said what he meant by his comment was they decided to pull the firefighters out of the building because they knew it was going to collapse.Funny that silverstein is referring to the firefighters as IT.LOL.The more they lie,the more they expose themselves,lol. That guy left out that little detail that silverstein referred to the firefighters as IT.lol.

 

[misterflew]

The moon is not like swiss cheese in consistantcy only in appearance from closer distances. Also, been told it's cold there, any confirmation of this? Whose been?

The song we all live in a yellow submarine comes to mind for some reason, cheese is yellow, too. Who was living in the yellow sub and how did sandwiches come to be called subs? Conspiracy or.....? The Styx song too much time on my hands.

Peace
MisterFlew

 

[CurveLight]

there are so many falsehoods is this video its unbelievable ..totaly pointless

exactly.that guy in that yellow shirt is so obviously a government plant.He twists the words of Jones and he evades the facts by making up lies everytime Jones pointed out the facts and evidence to him and changed the subject many times when Jones tried to to tell the facts.He wouldnt let Jones talk,thats how all these disinformation agents act when people like Jones try to talk they wont let them talk and always talk over them.typical propaganda piece for a video.totally pointless video.HE is the 9/11 deniar in that video that speaks.

One example of how that agent lies all the time that was talking to Jones defending the official version is when it was pointed out to Silverstein in 2004 his comment of they decided to pull it and they asked him what he meant by it, Silverstein said what he meant by his comment was they decided to pull the firefighters out of the building because they knew it was going to collapse.Funny that silverstein is referring to the firefighters as IT.LOL.The more they lie,the more they expose themselves,lol. That guy left out that little detail that silverstein referred to the firefighters as IT.lol.

Silverstein could very well have been to referring to the firefighting operation as "it." Meaning, so many people had already died so just pull the firefighting itself.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Dude thats reaching.

 

[Fizz]

Dude thats reaching.

holy fuck.... talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

 

[CurveLight]

Dude thats reaching.

Can you show firefighters were in building 7 when silverstein made the comment? If there were no firefighters....firefighting....then you have a good point.

Here's a recent article from Fox shedding new light......

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building ’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives."
Http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...re-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/


First, let me apologize for using such an unreliable source like Fox, but I think this warrants a look.

The most obvious question is this: if silverstein thought the building was too unstable to have firefighters inside, who was going to plant the demo explosives?

Shapiro really fucks up by saying:

"Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was."

Any skyscraper coming down is not going to be quiet. He tries to argue against demos being used by his "surprised how quiet" it was. Is he fuxxing joking? The major problem is there are first responder eyewitnesses who heard the explosions that Shapiro somehow missed. His "quiet" theory is as laughable as Snitch Bitch trying to compare an F4 hitting a concrete wall to a 757 hitting a field in PA.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Dude thats reaching.

holy fuck.... talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

whatever you say disinformation agent troll.

 

[Fizz]

Dude thats reaching.

holy fuck.... talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!

whatever you say disinformation agent troll.

in order for me to be a disinformation agent you would need to show some facts for me to refute.

you dont have any facts.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Dude thats reaching.

Can you show firefighters were in building 7 when silverstein made the comment? If there were no firefighters....firefighting....then you have a good point.

Here's a recent article from Fox shedding new light......

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building ’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives."
Http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...re-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/


First, let me apologize for using such an unreliable source like Fox, but I think this warrants a look.

The most obvious question is this: if silverstein thought the building was too unstable to have firefighters inside, who was going to plant the demo explosives?

Shapiro really fucks up by saying:

"Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was."

Any skyscraper coming down is not going to be quiet. He tries to argue against demos being used by his "surprised how quiet" it was. Is he fuxxing joking? The major problem is there are first responder eyewitnesses who heard the explosions that Shapiro somehow missed. His "quiet" theory is as laughable as Snitch Bitch trying to compare an F4 hitting a concrete wall to a 757 hitting a field in PA.

Yeah its a well known fact that there were no firefighters in the building when he made the comment.interesting that they mentioned a controlled demolition.very interesting.thats what these news networks do,they will air something like that once and you never hear it again,they dont want important information like that to get out.

yeah his quiet theory is as laughable as snitch bitches theory.the other thing that exposes Silverstein as a liar is a radio show host once called in a demolition company and asked the operater if the word pull it is used in demolitions and she asked the show host to hold for a minute and she would check with one of the head CEO'S and she came back and said yes he was correct,that the term "PULL IT" IS used in controlled demolitions.this was all on a live radio broadcast.The tohert thing that exposes Siliverstein as the freaking liar he is have you seen those videos where they were going to demolish some of the other buildings that had been severely damaged by the debris and one of the demo specialists there says-Okay lets get ready to pull it.then shortly after he says that,they demolish the building.its in one of my canada wants the truth videos i have posted the link to here hundreds of times only to watch the agents that have penetratyed this site like FIZZ to not even bother watching cause they know they cant refute those videos everytime i ask them to comment on them.

 

[CurveLight]

Dude thats reaching.

Can you show firefighters were in building 7 when silverstein made the comment? If there were no firefighters....firefighting....then you have a good point.

Here's a recent article from Fox shedding new light......

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building ’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives."
Http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...re-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/


First, let me apologize for using such an unreliable source like Fox, but I think this warrants a look.

The most obvious question is this: if silverstein thought the building was too unstable to have firefighters inside, who was going to plant the demo explosives?

Shapiro really fucks up by saying:

"Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was."

Any skyscraper coming down is not going to be quiet. He tries to argue against demos being used by his "surprised how quiet" it was. Is he fuxxing joking? The major problem is there are first responder eyewitnesses who heard the explosions that Shapiro somehow missed. His "quiet" theory is as laughable as Snitch Bitch trying to compare an F4 hitting a concrete wall to a 757 hitting a field in PA.

Yeah its a well known fact that there were no firefighters in the building when he made the comment.interesting that they mentioned a controlled demolition.very interesting.thats what these news networks do,they will air something like that once and you never hear it again,they dont want important information like that to get out.

yeah his quiet theory is as laughable as snitch bitches theory.the other thing that exposes Silverstein as a liar is a radio show host once called in a demolition company and asked the operater if the word pull it is used in demolitions and she asked the show host to hold for a minute and she would check with one of the head CEO'S and she came back and said yes he was correct,that the term "PULL IT" IS used in controlled demolitions.this was all on a live radio broadcast.The tohert thing that exposes Siliverstein as the freaking liar he is have you seen those videos where they were going to demolish some of the other buildings that had been severely damaged by the debris and one of the demo specialists there says-Okay lets get ready to pull it.then shortly after he says that,they demolish the building.its in one of my canada wants the truth videos i have posted the link to here hundreds of times only to watch the agents that have penetratyed this site like FIZZ to not even bother watching cause they know they cant refute those videos everytime i ask them to comment on them.

It's not surprising they've ignored the Fox link I posted. If there were no firefighters inside then it doesn't make sense he said to pull it if there was no firefighting operation to pull.

 

[martybegan]

I am going to hate myself for jumping into this thread.....


The calling card of the conspiracy theorist is grabbing onto one or two single points and then twisting the analysis of said points to fit thier current view. Often these occurances happen during periods of great stress, which makes it hard for people at the scene at the time to remember everything with perfect detail and clarity. The smallest discepancy is blown out of proportion and slapped together with other points similarly construed.

Another calling card is what I call the spaghetti approach to alternative causes and effects. Multiple "plausible" reasons for something to not as the offical story states are brought up, often thsese points are contridictory. They are however used to make the case that since X Y and Z COULD have happened, then Case A (the widely held view of what happened) is suspect. They also hit Case A with trivial and often untrue defects that are designed to make case A unlkely in thier minds. Never mind Case X could not happen if Case Y was true, they market both as reasons Case A is wrong.

For me to even start to believe a conspiracy theorists viewpoints on an event I would need the following:

1. A clear comprehensive theory on what actually happened, not multiple explainations why each event happened. Give me 1 linear chain of how the whole thing happened for me to analyze compared to the base explaination.

2. A strong refutation of why the whole baseline explanation is flawed. Not 1-2 minor niggling points that take exercises in doublethink to believe. This has to be done indepentently of task 1

3. If your explanation includes a cover up explain who paid and how they got the money, or give me a ballpark figure of how many people had to "disappear" and how group X got away with it.

There are other points but I'm sure this is enough for the truthers to call me either a sheeple or a goverment plant. For the goverment plant part I would like to know where my coverup money is. I like small bills, $10's and $20's.

 

[CurveLight]

I am going to hate myself for jumping into this thread.....


The calling card of the conspiracy theorist is grabbing onto one or two single points and then twisting the analysis of said points to fit thier current view. Often these occurances happen during periods of great stress, which makes it hard for people at the scene at the time to remember everything with perfect detail and clarity. The smallest discepancy is blown out of proportion and slapped together with other points similarly construed.

Another calling card is what I call the spaghetti approach to alternative causes and effects. Multiple "plausible" reasons for something to not as the offical story states are brought up, often thsese points are contridictory. They are however used to make the case that since X Y and Z COULD have happened, then Case A (the widely held view of what happened) is suspect. They also hit Case A with trivial and often untrue defects that are designed to make case A unlkely in thier minds. Never mind Case X could not happen if Case Y was true, they market both as reasons Case A is wrong.

For me to even start to believe a conspiracy theorists viewpoints on an event I would need the following:

1. A clear comprehensive theory on what actually happened, not multiple explainations why each event happened. Give me 1 linear chain of how the whole thing happened for me to analyze compared to the base explaination.

2. A strong refutation of why the whole baseline explanation is flawed. Not 1-2 minor niggling points that take exercises in doublethink to believe. This has to be done indepentently of task 1

3. If your explanation includes a cover up explain who paid and how they got the money, or give me a ballpark figure of how many people had to "disappear" and how group X got away with it.

There are other points but I'm sure this is enough for the truthers to call me either a sheeple or a goverment plant. For the goverment plant part I would like to know where my coverup money is. I like small bills, $10's and $20's.

I look forward to seeing how you applied this scrutiny to the Official Conspiracy Theory. Surely I don't have to ask "if" you have done that because I'm sure you have.

 

[martybegan]

I am going to hate myself for jumping into this thread.....


The calling card of the conspiracy theorist is grabbing onto one or two single points and then twisting the analysis of said points to fit thier current view. Often these occurances happen during periods of great stress, which makes it hard for people at the scene at the time to remember everything with perfect detail and clarity. The smallest discepancy is blown out of proportion and slapped together with other points similarly construed.

Another calling card is what I call the spaghetti approach to alternative causes and effects. Multiple "plausible" reasons for something to not as the offical story states are brought up, often thsese points are contridictory. They are however used to make the case that since X Y and Z COULD have happened, then Case A (the widely held view of what happened) is suspect. They also hit Case A with trivial and often untrue defects that are designed to make case A unlkely in thier minds. Never mind Case X could not happen if Case Y was true, they market both as reasons Case A is wrong.

For me to even start to believe a conspiracy theorists viewpoints on an event I would need the following:

1. A clear comprehensive theory on what actually happened, not multiple explainations why each event happened. Give me 1 linear chain of how the whole thing happened for me to analyze compared to the base explaination.

2. A strong refutation of why the whole baseline explanation is flawed. Not 1-2 minor niggling points that take exercises in doublethink to believe. This has to be done indepentently of task 1

3. If your explanation includes a cover up explain who paid and how they got the money, or give me a ballpark figure of how many people had to "disappear" and how group X got away with it.

There are other points but I'm sure this is enough for the truthers to call me either a sheeple or a goverment plant. For the goverment plant part I would like to know where my coverup money is. I like small bills, $10's and $20's.

I look forward to seeing how you applied this scrutiny to the Official Conspiracy Theory. Surely I don't have to ask "if" you have done that because I'm sure you have.

From the data Ive seen the offical story is valid, and it isn't a conspiracy. If you want me to consider an alternative theory provide one, starting at the beginning and following a logical conlcusion to the end. One single alternative theory, not a hodgepodge of alternative meanings to small events unrelated to each other.

 

[DiveCon]

Can you show firefighters were in building 7 when silverstein made the comment? If there were no firefighters....firefighting....then you have a good point.

Here's a recent article from Fox shedding new light......

"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.
A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building ’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives."
Http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...re-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/


First, let me apologize for using such an unreliable source like Fox, but I think this warrants a look.

The most obvious question is this: if silverstein thought the building was too unstable to have firefighters inside, who was going to plant the demo explosives?

Shapiro really fucks up by saying:

"Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was."

Any skyscraper coming down is not going to be quiet. He tries to argue against demos being used by his "surprised how quiet" it was. Is he fuxxing joking? The major problem is there are first responder eyewitnesses who heard the explosions that Shapiro somehow missed. His "quiet" theory is as laughable as Snitch Bitch trying to compare an F4 hitting a concrete wall to a 757 hitting a field in PA.

Yeah its a well known fact that there were no firefighters in the building when he made the comment.interesting that they mentioned a controlled demolition.very interesting.thats what these news networks do,they will air something like that once and you never hear it again,they dont want important information like that to get out.

yeah his quiet theory is as laughable as snitch bitches theory.the other thing that exposes Silverstein as a liar is a radio show host once called in a demolition company and asked the operater if the word pull it is used in demolitions and she asked the show host to hold for a minute and she would check with one of the head CEO'S and she came back and said yes he was correct,that the term "PULL IT" IS used in controlled demolitions.this was all on a live radio broadcast.The tohert thing that exposes Siliverstein as the freaking liar he is have you seen those videos where they were going to demolish some of the other buildings that had been severely damaged by the debris and one of the demo specialists there says-Okay lets get ready to pull it.then shortly after he says that,they demolish the building.its in one of my canada wants the truth videos i have posted the link to here hundreds of times only to watch the agents that have penetratyed this site like FIZZ to not even bother watching cause they know they cant refute those videos everytime i ask them to comment on them.

It's not surprising they've ignored the Fox link I posted. If there were no firefighters inside then it doesn't make sense he said to pull it if there was no firefighting operation to pull.

dipshit, at the time that was said there were STILL fire fighters inside WTC7
thats why they were pulled out
"pull" is a fire fighter term dating back to the days before they had radios, they would "pull" the hose telling them to get the fuck out
get it yet?

 

[DiveCon]

I am going to hate myself for jumping into this thread.....


The calling card of the conspiracy theorist is grabbing onto one or two single points and then twisting the analysis of said points to fit thier current view. Often these occurances happen during periods of great stress, which makes it hard for people at the scene at the time to remember everything with perfect detail and clarity. The smallest discepancy is blown out of proportion and slapped together with other points similarly construed.

Another calling card is what I call the spaghetti approach to alternative causes and effects. Multiple "plausible" reasons for something to not as the offical story states are brought up, often thsese points are contridictory. They are however used to make the case that since X Y and Z COULD have happened, then Case A (the widely held view of what happened) is suspect. They also hit Case A with trivial and often untrue defects that are designed to make case A unlkely in thier minds. Never mind Case X could not happen if Case Y was true, they market both as reasons Case A is wrong.

For me to even start to believe a conspiracy theorists viewpoints on an event I would need the following:

1. A clear comprehensive theory on what actually happened, not multiple explainations why each event happened. Give me 1 linear chain of how the whole thing happened for me to analyze compared to the base explaination.

2. A strong refutation of why the whole baseline explanation is flawed. Not 1-2 minor niggling points that take exercises in doublethink to believe. This has to be done indepentently of task 1

3. If your explanation includes a cover up explain who paid and how they got the money, or give me a ballpark figure of how many people had to "disappear" and how group X got away with it.

There are other points but I'm sure this is enough for the truthers to call me either a sheeple or a goverment plant. For the goverment plant part I would like to know where my coverup money is. I like small bills, $10's and $20's.

I look forward to seeing how you applied this scrutiny to the Official Conspiracy Theory. Surely I don't have to ask "if" you have done that because I'm sure you have.

From the data Ive seen the offical story is valid, and it isn't a conspiracy. If you want me to consider an alternative theory provide one, starting at the beginning and following a logical conlcusion to the end. One single alternative theory, not a hodgepodge of alternative meanings to small events unrelated to each other.

rut roh, now you've done it
you are asking him to actually state what he believes
LOL
don't hold your breath!

 

[eots]

Yeah its a well known fact that there were no firefighters in the building when he made the comment.interesting that they mentioned a controlled demolition.very interesting.thats what these news networks do,they will air something like that once and you never hear it again,they dont want important information like that to get out.

yeah his quiet theory is as laughable as snitch bitches theory.the other thing that exposes Silverstein as a liar is a radio show host once called in a demolition company and asked the operater if the word pull it is used in demolitions and she asked the show host to hold for a minute and she would check with one of the head CEO'S and she came back and said yes he was correct,that the term "PULL IT" IS used in controlled demolitions.this was all on a live radio broadcast.The tohert thing that exposes Siliverstein as the freaking liar he is have you seen those videos where they were going to demolish some of the other buildings that had been severely damaged by the debris and one of the demo specialists there says-Okay lets get ready to pull it.then shortly after he says that,they demolish the building.its in one of my canada wants the truth videos i have posted the link to here hundreds of times only to watch the agents that have penetratyed this site like FIZZ to not even bother watching cause they know they cant refute those videos everytime i ask them to comment on them.

It's not surprising they've ignored the Fox link I posted. If there were no firefighters inside then it doesn't make sense he said to pull it if there was no firefighting operation to pull.

dipshit, at the time that was said there were STILL fire fighters inside WTC7
thats why they were pulled out
"pull" is a fire fighter term dating back to the days before they had radios, they would "pull" the hose telling them to get the fuck out
get it yet?

firefighters were out of the building for hours when the decision to pull the building was made