NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe!!
 

NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe, Citing "Overwhelming Evidence of Pre-Planted Explosives"

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...g-evidence-pre

Serious researchers all agree that the WTC buildings were destroyed not by a jet crash and "collapse", but by pre-planted explosives. Finally the entire NY Fire Commissioners are insisting on a new scientific investigation following their findings.If you want to really blow your mind, read the research by Dr. Judy Young, who demonstrates that the buildings were not blown up, but pulverized-- "dustified". This is Star Wars stuff, but hauntingly believable:

http://transmissionsmedia.com/directed-energy-weapons-turned-world-trade-center-into-nanoparticles-on-911/

and:

http://www.drjudywood.com/wp/

~Doc

Re: NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe!!
 

I imagine it's supposed to sound more significant/legitimate because it's "New York firefighters" or something, too, even though it looks like a seven-person panel in one district.

Also, this...

Serious researchers all agree that...

...is exactly the sort of unfalsifiable phrase that permeates most conspiracy theories. It alludes to consensus where there either is none, or is actually consensus the other direction, by tossing an undefined word ("serious") that, if examined, will obviously turn out to exclude dissent.

Re: NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe!!
 

And why were explosives pre planted ? Because George Bush wanted excuse to invade Iraq ?

Probably. They lied anyway, and no one did a damn thing.


BUT.... you can get 2 million to wear "pussy" hats in a snap. "Priorities"

I guess that's the line. :shrug: A lot of this stuff seems to work backwards from motive.

Re: NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe!!
 

And all the Jews were absent from work in world trade center that day:rolleyes::o:D:D

Re: NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe!!
 

I take the emojis to mean you're kidding, but just in case anyone reading believes it...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ab...thout-leave-2/

Re: NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe!!
 

What's interesting about conspiracy theories is: believers can hang their particular agendas on the event claiming that then as the cause of the conspiracy.

Re: NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe!!
 

Yeah I am kidding.

If you're asking if I disbelieve the conspiracy theories, the answer is yes, though the phrasing implies that this is somehow remarkable or out of character.

When someone presents compelling evidence for the theory that isn't easily explained/debunked by a light Googling (which, tellingly, most believers in the conspiracy have never bothered to do), I'll be happy to consider it. That just hasn't happened yet.

Heh, heh. What surprised me a little about your initial response was that, rather than comment about the article re the NYC Commissioners calling for a new investigation, based upon evidence that they evidently possess, your reply singled out my commentary for pedantry.

I don't believe the official explanation of 9/11. If you do, there's of course nothing wrong with that.

I'll be more circumspect in future...:cool:

~Doc

I believe the official explanation for 9/11.

In any huge event there are 'loose ends' that people can then string together to make a conspiracy theory out of. There's no logic to chaos, but people try to make patterns out of randomness. Like they say sh*t happens, it happens on it's own and that's properly called a coincidence. But humans have a hard time believing in coincidences so they connect the dots and make a new narrative for themselves that fits their own expectations.

It's much like looking at the stars and creating animals and people out of random points of light. So then the fact that some investigators act very human and choose to believe there's more to 9/11 as they can't account for all the loose ends, is in itself a very human act.

Re: NY Fire Commissioners Demand New 9/11 Probe!!
 

I tend to agree with Rules & Yoda & Ash on this one.

As far as Bush orchestrating it as an excuse to invade Iraq... then wouldn't it have made sense to have the 19 hi-jackers be Iraqis rather than (mostly) Saudis? I mean if you're going to go to the trouble of orchestrating a false flag mass murder on that scale, you wouldn't just "overlook" a detail like that (if your goal is to use the event to invade Iraq).

9/11 certainly raised emotions, garnered support for Bush & the military: things that probably helped set the scene for Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq, but the reason he went in wasn't 9/11, it was the alleged WMD that we never found.

I will share a personal story - where I worked, on the morning of 9/11/2001, they pulled down a screen in the cafeteria and projected CNN onto it. Many employees gathered there as news of the planes crashing spread. When the first tower went down live on TV my response to my co-workers was "that was a controlled demolition!"

So, I've since seen some of the various conspiracy documentaries and the counter-conspiracy documentary by Popular Mechanics, but that was the first thing I said upon viewing the tower collapse. Make of it what you will.

I would've loved to comment on evidential claims, but I didn't see any. They presented no evidence, and didn't even describe the nature of it. They also didn't claim to possess any, as far as I can tell. For all I know they all just watched "Loose Change."

If there had been any evidence presented, I would've replied to it. And then I would've highlighted the passage in question anyway, because it's important to establish in any discussion about conspiracies, upfront, the rhetorical maneuvers (conscious or otherwise) that usually allow them to thrive.

You obviously can't have a meaningful conversation if people aren't even evaluating or classifying evidence the same way, so this stuff has to be nipped in the bud. If someone is signaling that they're going to preemptively exclude dissent, that needs to be noticed and addressed before presenting that dissent. Not much point in me showing someone the research when they've got "serious researchers" already chambered as a way to ignore it.

I believe the broad strokes of the official explanation are mostly true, or at least are not being actively and deliberately misrepresented. But hey, it's a complicated and chaotic situation, so I don't really have any strong objection to this idea as literally presented that some of the explanations aren't completely right. That's just human.

That said, it's my experience that not "believing the official explanation" is usually not just a general statement about uncertainty in complicated situations. It's usually just a muted way of saying it was an inside job, or something similarly extreme.

Be whatever you wanna be. :) I'm happy to engage substantively on any specific claims.

BTW, if any of you are curious about some of the chief theories that differ from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce's NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report, below are several, in no particular order. These opinions are not from armchair "conspiracy theorists", but from scientists, academics, pilots, engineers and eye witnesses:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth
http://www1.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/867-how-it-was-done-911-and-the-science-of-building-demolition.html

9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out (2012)
Available on YouTube and Amazon Prime

9/11 destruction “controlled demolition” — fact or fiction?
https://canada.constructconnect.com/dcn/news/government/2017/11/911-destruction-controlled-demolition-fact-fiction

Pilots for 9/11 truth
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/index.html

Some of these may have to be cut and pasted into your browser. They're not all highlighting as links.

If you're interested in the subject, there are dozens more articles and websites available, along with a bunch of documentaries. I'm not interested in participating in a debate about the research highlighted in the articles. I'm fascinated by the subject, but I'm not an expert, and it is not my intent to be a chief defender of their opinions.

Happy reading!

~Doc