Fandom Forums - View Single Post - The 9/11 Conspiracy
View Single Post
Old 10-15-2009, 06:18 PM   #117
The Truthseeker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 25
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SimonCP is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Actually, it is your responsibility, since you're making the claim that they didn't hit the towers. Therefore those people and those planes must be somewhere. If I ask the media or the government what happened to the passengers on those planes then they'll say that they died in a plane crash. It's not the government's or the media's job to prove your claims. It's your job. That's how logic works.
If you can't see the way that a magician performs his magic trick, but you can see discrepancies, and thus, evidence that it is a trick, does that mean the magic trick is real? Of course not.

The media/government has presented a story, and by disputing it with evidence/questions, I am not required to fill in the blanks that they left me with.

If I was a relative of one of the passengers, I'd demand that the government/media tell me the truth. After all, if the airplane story is a lie, then it's they who will hold the answers, not the conspiracy theorists. The conspiracy theorists weren't in attendance when this was being planned.

No, it isn't. First off, your analogy is flawed since it doesn't represent what you're comparing it to. Saying an orange is an apple is entirely different than saying a crater wasn't caused by a plane. If you showed me a video of a missile hitting the towers and the government is saying that the missile is a plane, then your analogy would be accurate. I didn't see any pictures like that though.
If I can provide evidence that the damage is clearly inconsistent with an airplane crash, then that is evidence that there wasn't an airplane crash. The simple fact is that airplanes don't vanish when crashing into fields or buildings. Airplanes don't crash while containing thousands of gallons of jet fuel and leave only a minor amount of smoke/heat damage. A huge tail section cannot hit a wall at 530 mph on it's sharp end and leave no mark. A lightweight aluminum plane cannot fly through a steel/concrete building as if it is flying through air. A Boeing 767-200 cannot fly at over 500 mph while at low altitude.

These impossibilities and others tear the "Airplane Story" that we've been told to shreds.

Also, in logic, there are things called non sequiturs. It's when a conclusion doesn't follow the premises. Which is exactly what a lot of evidence consists of. Saying "people did not see planes," "there was no wreckage in the pictures that were taken," etc. simply do not directly support the conclusion: "There was no planes."
Have you ever been to an airport? Commercial airplanes are extremely loud, even when they're not flying that fast. They are also very massive. The eyewitnesses on the ground report hearing no sounds of an airplane approach and not seeing anything, even though they were looking up at the Towers. This would be impossible, had a commercial jetliner struck the building while traveling at top speed.

Furthermore, when massive wide shots showing the Pentagon, the entry hole, and the lawn in front of it show no airplane wreckage, then that is evidence that no jetliner crashed into the building. As said earlier, airplanes do not fly into buildings and 'poof'. This is even more true in the case of the Pennsylvania "crash", which happened in a field! All we had was an empty hole and some smoke/heat damage. Try finding another airplane crash like that (There's plenty of airplanes that have crashed into fields) -- you won't.

I know this is tough to understand if you're not well versed in logic, since they sorta look like they're supporting it. But they're not. Here's an analogy that will help:

-I eat fish raw from a raging river
-I live in the woods
-I'm covered in thick hair
Therefore, I am a bear.

Looks like those premises support the conclusion, yeah? Guess what? They don't. I'm just a really manly dude, not a bear.
At the Pentagon:
-No damage above the upper floors where the 44ft tail section would have hit at 530 mph.
-No wreckage visible in the wide shots of the lawn.
-No disturbance to the grass on the lawn in front of the Pentagon.
-No serious fire damage on the inside of the first ring.
-An exit hole three rings down that could not have been caused by the plane.
-The entry hole is a square, despite the fact that the nose/fuselage is circular.

In this case, concluding that there was no plane would be quite reasonable.

There are lots of possible conclusions that could follow those premises. Someone or multiple people might be wrong or have wrong information. If they weren't plane crashes, then what were they? Where are the planes? And where are the passengers? Actual proof please, not speculation based on people grasping for straws.
The photographs surely weren't wrong -- the camera has no bias or confusion. Unless they were fake, then the grass around the crater was unburnt, dirt inside the crater was unburnt, and there was a surprisingly small amount of smoke/heat damage in the crater, despite the fact that it was a jetliner with thousands of gallons of fuel still in it, even though small planes have crashed and caused much more heat/smoke damage.

So, then we have the photographer who said he didn't smell any jet fuel -- Surely, someone who has made a statement like that has smelled jet fuel before. And he didn't smell it there. That was his statement. Had he smelled it, he wouldn't have said that he didn't.

We are left with the EPA -- they conducted tests and found that there was absolutely no groundwater contamination. I seriously doubt that they missed gallons of jet fuel contaminants in the ground.

If they weren't plane crashes, then what were they?
Susan McElwain saw a small white aircraft that had no wings. Her description matches that of an advanced drone aircraft.

And I googled september clues and found a bunch of debunkings for it too. Should I check those out as well? Nah, they're probably bullshit. = /
The debunking, "September Clues -- Busted" (Made by a former voiceover the British government's BBC scare/propaganda network), has been heavily debunked on all issues. Here's an old debunking of it that I wrote:

Busting Sept. Clues-Busted

They did not address nearly all of the points raised in the video, but instead attacked only a few of the points that they felt easiest to knock down. This is called straw man tactics. Finding a few weaknesses in your opponent's argument and inflating them to make them look as if they are the key points in the video.

In the introduction, Lawson promotes the 'many eyewitnesses' myth, which I have shown to be untrue above.

For what they did attack, they failed at attacking, however. First, they talk about how Simon Shack edited the testimony of Theresa Renaud. Shack has said that this was an innocent edit simply meant to shorten the video. For those who suspect that this is a cover story, stop and think. What value did the parts of her testimony that were cut out hold? Did they hurt his argument? I could not see how.

Lawson goes on to show that Renaud claims she saw a smaller plane, thus making her non-involved. If Lawson was orchestrating 9/11, would he really have Renaud, who was miles away, say she saw a large airplane hit the Towers?

He claims that 'Nose Out' is building debris, and not the actual nose, and that Simon Shack faded out the 'Nose in' to make it appear as if the 'Nose In' and 'Nose Out' were a microprecision match. Shack's response to this was a complete and quality analysis of the 'Nose In'/'Nose Out'. It can be found here: [link to]

Now, Shack also presents another video and claims that it shows that the 'Nose Out' is simply building debris exiting the other side of the Tower. In the WYNW video, do you think that it looks like building debris? The gray clouds were explained away as building debris, so what was this dark debris exiting the building? Also, he fails to consider the possibility that the video that makes the 'nose out' appear gray was damage control. He also fails to explain why there was no exit hole.

Shack's next attempt to debunk September Clues is by claiming that a plane is visible when the camera zooms out in the WNYW shot, claiming to debunk Shack's point that the plane is not in frame when it is supposed to be. This doesn't change, however, the fact that the plane is not in frame when it is supposed to be. This analysis will help you understand the problem with the WNYW zoom out: [link to]

"September Clues-Busted" is truly busted.

Anthony Lawson - the 10% truther
[link to]

Anthony Lawson's Nose Busted
[link to]

Anthony Lawson Schooled By Pilot
[link to]

As for the other person that the perps at Truthaction brought up to attack NPT, Jim Hoffman, it just so happens that he works for MSRI, which is funded by the NSA and DOE.

Hoffman the spook
[link to]
So, yes, the debunking is BS. Check out the movie here:

No. I'm asking you since you're the one making claims here.
It was the government that made the "Airplane" claim in the first place. I'm using the available evidence to dispute that claim.

You're saying we were lied to about what happened to these passengers. PROVE THAT. That's your job, don't pawn it off. Where are these passengers? They must be somewhere.
It's not my job. I can't explain how a magician does her/his magic tricks, but I know they aren't real and, if I am observant, I can see discrepancies.

It's Gon Rain!

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job':
The TV footage is fake:
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers:
SimonCP is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SimonCP For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-19-2009)