The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

by **isachar** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:04 am

The only evidence necessary to disprove the phony official story of the WTC's collapse and complicity of others in events of 911: A). Temperatures as 'hot as inner earth' - sufficient to melt high quality structural steel <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14789146/">www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14789146/</a> "In any other museum, it could be passed off as a meteorite. And while this was born of intense heat, this is altogether different. This formation is really four separate stories of the World Trade Center, compressed, compacted, incinerated — exposed to temperatures as hot as the inner earth." No jet fuel sparked office fire is capable of reaching such temperatures, meaning that other methods that produced exceptionally high heat were at work. (Note, the eukarytic sp? acid rain explanation is a red herring since no other fire in NYC or elsewhere has ever been shown to demonstrate the characteristic swiss cheese/melting of structural steel elements as in the WTC's on 911). B). Sibel Edmonds. C). Virtually every known attempt by FBI field agents to investigate, stop, interrogate or arrest some among the 19 'hijackers' were purposely thwarted by well-placed higher ups at HQ in Washington, DC. Two of the hijackers - who were actively being sought at the time they entered the country - lived with an FBI informant in LA prior to 911 (per Agent Rowley and Edmonds and other Agents and translators, et.al.). Of course there's more, but that's all that is necessary to disprove the official whitewash coverup story and demonstrate complicity. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 10/27/06 1:09 am

by **orz** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 5:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You laud the main stream media?<hr></blockquote>No, not at all, where did you get that from? I just think that if you have a theory that you wish the masses to understand and that is a big piece of cognative dissonance for people already, then why go out of your way to make the media more of an enemy than they already are? Why give them ammunition to hurt your own cause? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>and you assume alienation from the so-called "more moderate anti-war crowd" <hr></blockquote>I don't assume it, i've seen it. Not universal of course but undoubtedly the infighting over 9/11 is dividing people and diluting dissent. How can this be a good thing? <blockquote>Quote:<hr>These are covert efforts at ridicule - not logical and empirically-based arguments. <hr></blockquote> Well they're not supposed to be EITHER. Believe me, any ridicule i throw around will be very overt! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> And it wasn't an attempt at logic, but rather an emotional rant against some aspects of the 9/11 truth movement that I see as harmful and dangerous to its own cause and to the success of resistance and dissent generally. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":("> As for the spaggetti thing that was just a silly way of pointing out that saying the flying beams prove CD is rash without thinking of other options.. If you state such a thing so boldly without considering possible alternatives, you're setting yourself up for a fall. Why give debunkers + journalists ammo to discredit your own theories? One of the most notable properties of steel is its springiness. It seems to me plausible that a collapsing steel building would involve a lot of steel beams bending and then being released, right...? surely this is something to at least consider if you want to make your theory stronger, even if only so you can explain why it is not the case when skeptics suggest it? Also if the explosives were just cutting charges then why would beams fly right out like that? I've never seen that happening in demolition videos. Seems inconsistant, what type of explosion are you claiming here?

by **Byrne** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:33 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Were there any news crews, guys with an camcorder, etc, reported as having filmed it and had their videos taken by the FBI? <hr></blockquote> What about the pictures taken by FEMA employed photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld? <blockquote>Quote:<hr> Kurt was a photographer for FEMA who was one of four Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) photographers with digital cameras, who shot all the video footage and still photography of the restricted 9/11 site, following the WTC collapses. After completing his duty as one of the only videographer allowed on Ground Zero at the WTC, his wife, Nancy Sonnenfeld, 36, was found dead on New Years Day January 2002. Kurt Sonnenfeld was then arrested for the murder of his wife (although she left a suicide note!?). Only his wife's prints were on the gun, and only her hands had gushot residue. Kurt Sonnenfeld was bound over for trial on a first-degree murder charge, with bond set at $600,000. . Then exactly ONE day before his trial was to begin, murder charges against him were completely dismissed and he was set free. He then filed a lawsuit for $20 million, claiming false arrest, false imprisonment, deprivation of civil rights, and brutality, among other things. Prosecutors wouldn't comment on specific reasons for the dismissal, but the defense investigation found a note written by Nancy Sonnenfeld which police had not taken into evidence, said public defender Carrie Thompson. "Our investigators found a letter written in Nancy's own hand consistent with a suicide letter, although it was very cryptic," Thompson said. She said the letter said, "What is more beautiful than love and death?" with the word "love" scratched out. "Kurt, please get help." The letter was found behind a framed photograph of Kurt Sonnenfeld. ...Nancy Sonnenfeld's sister, Amy Leek, said the family knew this was coming but would have no comment on the news. Three years later, the charges against him were re-filed because they say they found two convicts he suposedly "confessed to"! He was re-arrested in South America and has been held in prison there for some time. Info on the re-filing of the murder charge here. <a href="http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=b0025fc4ea9ea587a339b0e5ee03815b&showtopic=3108&st=4680" target="top">source</a><hr></blockquote> Read more about the strange story of Kurt Sonnenfeld <a href="http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060913_KurtSonnenfeldFEMA27sWhistleBlower.php" target="top">here</a> Also letting people know about the latest info on the NIST report on WTC7 - see my post <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=6673.topic" target="top">here</a>

by **orz** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:57 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>What about the pictures taken by FEMA employed photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld?<hr></blockquote> Wow, hadn't heard about that,... crazy stuff! Will be interesting to see if anything comes from this.

by **Hugh Manatee Wins** » Fri Oct 27, 2006 4:40 pm

Thanks for this name and story. This seems to go straight to the issue of foreknowledge of 9/11 and thus the Inside Job. This man has evidence and is now an enemy of the state cover-up. His FEMA resume is one of a spook with high-level clearances and he seems to be framed-up for the murder of his wife. <a href="http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20060913_KurtSonnenfeldFEMA27sWhistleBlower.php">signs-of-the-times.org/si...Blower.php</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In an interview with Argentine daily newspaper el Pais on September 10th 2006, Sonnenfeld, now 41, stated that the fact that he continued to be harassed even after he moved to Argentina led him to begin to understand that the core of the problem was the tapes he had made at ground zero: "At that point I realised that they were after something else: the tapes of ground zero in my possession." "In faltering Spanish and with the help of his wife Paula, Kurt answers each question with abundant documentation. He produces papers, signed by the Deputy District Attorney, which show that he was finally cleared as the author of his first wife's murder. He offers copies of American newspaper articles in which the Denver police are denounced for having dismissed evidence that his wife committed "suicide", and the police photos of his bruised face, evidence, he says, of police brutality. Sonnenfeld also makes reference to the testimony of the two prisoners who, in exchange for a reduction in their sentences, swore to the same police that I accused of torture, that I had confessed to the murder of my wife" The testimonies reopened the case and dismissed my suit against the Denver police. Sonnenfeld displays documents to show that he never attempted to hide his identity and even presented himself to the US embassy in an effort to return to the US with his new wife, an act which, two weeks later, led to his arrest and the serving of an extradition warrant. - What exactly was he able to document at the WTC site? I was the only person, with camera in hand, with total and absolute access to any area of Ground Zero and the WTC. Any other cameras that were within that area would have been confiscated and the the person carrying them arrested. - But what exactly are in these images of yours that could contradict the official US government version of events on 9/11? What I saw at certain moments and in certain places...is very frightening, I don't know who to put it in words, what I saw leads me to the terrible conclusion that there was foreknowledge of what was going to happen. The precautions that were taken to save certain things that the authorities there considered irreplaceable or invaluable. For example, certain things were missing that could only have been removed with a truck, yet after the first plane hit one of the towers, everything in manhattan collapsed and no one could have gotten near the towers to do that. - What things were removed? Several offices of the US intelligence agencies were located in the WTC, including the second most important CIA building in the country. From some of these locations certain documentation that was irreplaceable was removed. I don't want to give too many details because our future, our lives, depend on this. The information of which I speak is already distributed in several places." On February 23rd 2006, Sonnenfeld displayed a selection of his photographs from Ground Zero at the La Bohéme Salón gallery in Buenos Aires. The Buenos Aires Herald reported: A fireman works amid the debris of Ground Zero just hours after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack that razed the Twin Towers in New York, as pictured by US citizen Kurt Sonnenfeld, who claims to be the only videographer given full access by the US government to record rescue works. An exhibit of 28 Ground Zero pictures taken by Sonnenfeld and never shown before opened yesterday for about a month. The United States has requested that Argentina extradite Sonnenfeld on charges that in 2002 he killed his first wife and the case is in the hands of Argentina’s Supreme Court of Justice. Sonnenfeld, 43, claims that she took her own life. He was detained for several months in Denver, Colorado, and one day before a trial was due to start a judge dismissed the charges and he was released in June 2002. He publicly accused US police of torturing and persecuting him. In February 2003, he came for a month’s holiday in Argentina, where he married an Argentine citizen Paula. The pictures he is now exhibiting came to Buenos Aires in a make-up box, hidden in his furniture. Asked by the Herald in an interview last October whether he thought that the alleged persecution was linked to his work as a videographer, he simply said, “The US authorities are trying to extradite me under false pretenses.”<hr></blockquote>

by **robertdreed** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:22 am

"I don't give a crap if it is grainy, one frame at a time or whatever the case may be. I want to see what they've got because my tax dollars paid for it. And I think they're lying." I don't get it. You're already coming from a place of complete mistrust of the government's version of events...except if they give you pictures to watch, you're apparently willing to do an about-face and accept whatever they hand you. Or maybe you aren't...but if that's the case, why bother to insist that they hand over material that you'll decline to find credible? (Unless it tends to support your preconceived notions, I suppose...) Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/27/06 11:28 pm

by **robertdreed** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:32 am

Somewhere deep in the pages of Robert Anton Wilson's speculative fiction trilogy, Schrodinger's Cat (somewhere in the second half or last 1/3, I seem to recall), Wilson provides a quite succinct breakdown of the Double-Cross Theory of Intelligence, and the exploitation of logical paradox and "strange loops" by espionage agencies. Quite a few of the people frequenting this board, and in the wider "9-11 Truth Movement", really, really, really need to read that passage. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=robertdreed>robertdreed</A> at: 10/27/06 11:32 pm

by **Bismillah** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 8:05 am

From the Sonnenfeld interview: "- But what exactly are in these images of yours that could contradict the official US government version of events on 9/11? What I saw at certain moments and in certain places...is very frightening, I don't know who to put it in words, what I saw leads me to the terrible conclusion that there was foreknowledge of what was going to happen. The precautions that were taken to save certain things that the authorities there considered irreplaceable or invaluable. For example, certain things were missing that could only have been removed with a truck, yet after the first plane hit one of the towers, everything in manhattan collapsed and no one could have gotten near the towers to do that. - What things were removed? Several offices of the US intelligence agencies were located in the WTC, including the second most important CIA building in the country. From some of these locations certain documentation that was irreplaceable was removed. I don't want to give too many details because our future, our lives, depend on this. The information of which I speak is already distributed in several places." ---------- Weird. Here he is, giving an interview and having an exhibition in Buenos Aires, yet allegedly in fear of his life. Here he is, saying: "what I saw leads me to the terrible conclusion that there was foreknowledge of what was going to happen." Yet, when questioned, he barely gives any details at all. "From some of these locations certain documentation that was irreplaceable was removed." - Well, how does he know it was irreplaceable? Was he allowed to examine that 'irreplaceable documentation' closely? That seems very unlikely. In any case, removing 'irreplaceable documentation' while you have the chance is neither sinister nor incriminating in and of itself, any more than removing your jacket, or your mobile phone, or your framed photo of your wife and car. (Presumably he's referring to WTC7 here, but even that is never made clear.) This is an interesting story, but I'd be very, very careful with it. If the US authorities wanted to extradite someone with 'state secrets' from Argentina, or even just suicide him, they could surely do so very easily. And if Sonnenfeld is really so frightened, then I wonder why he's giving interviews that could get him into serious trouble, while providing no verifiable evidence whatsoever for his claims (which remain nebulous in the extreme).

by **sln70** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:51 am

This is COMPLETELY a stretch, just a gut reaction ... Hunter Thompson was from Colorado. Kurt and he were in the same line of work, in a way. do you suppose they knew each other?

by **orz** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 9:56 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> You're already coming from a place of complete mistrust of the government's version of events...except if they give you pictures to watch, you're apparently willing to do an about-face and accept whatever they hand you. <hr></blockquote>My sentiments exactly... it's certainly fair enough to question what evidence is and isn't avaliable, but if you already believe the government orchestrated 9/11 with an elaborate sequence of lies and fakes then why would some CCTV photos of a plane released 6 years later be so credible?

by **orz** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:04 am

missed this before: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>drop another, shorter piece of spagetti on top of the first one, end to end.<hr></blockquote> Oh please <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> My only point with that analogy was that springiness and energy being released when things break exists in physics, and could possibly explain the beams shooting outwards... something to consider before jumping to conclusions... make your argument stronger by anticipating comebacks. Your point is.... the WTC was not made of spagetti? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **pugzleyca3** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:22 pm

"You're already coming from a place of complete mistrust of the government's version of events...except if they give you pictures to watch, you're apparently willing to do an about-face and accept whatever they hand you." Actually you are correct that I am coming from a place of complete mistrust NOW. However there was a time, which has long passed, that the government had at least a chance of appearing as if they were being forthcoming and acting in the interests of the people regarding 9/11. You are right, if they upped the info now, I'd probably say they were full of crap. But that is not to do with my shortcomings, it is to do with their behavior and what I consider not to be secrecy for security reasons, but burying information because they were complicit. Their own behavior is what calls into question what what they knew, especially now, when the window for being open about this has long slammed shut because of years of questions not being answered. So, I'll concede you're right about the pictures in that it is too late to convince me now. They had their chance to be transparent with the people on this Pentagon issue and they didn't do it. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=pugzleyca3>pugzleyca3</A> at: 10/28/06 12:45 pm

by **Mel** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:46 pm

Oh please to your oh please. My only point was that your spagetti analogy is untenable and completely unrelated to the collapse (demolition) mechanics. If, as your analogy seemed to suggest, a steel column falling vertically onto the end of a larger steel column (this is the mechanism you were trying to portray in your analogy, correct?), then in the real physical world, the stronger, fixed steel column MIGHT bend a little, but the free-floating (weaker) falling column would be deflected to the side or come to a complete stop. NEITHER piece would bend in short lengths and explosively snap, but that is exactly what appeared to happen, repeatedly, for 80 floors, on 9/11. Hogwash, to say the least.

by **sunny** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:54 pm

RDR: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"You're already coming from a place of complete mistrust of the government's version of events..<hr></blockquote> Geez, Robert, you say that as if people have no reason to do so. Poor widdle gubmint, those conspiracy theorists are so mean. I mean, come on, read the constitution, the whole thing is based on a mistrust of gov't. We are under no obligation whatsoever to believe a word that ever comes out of the mouth of any official, either personally, in a court of law, or in the news media. Ronald Reagan said "Trust, but verify." I say a better policy would be "Mistrust until proven wrong."

by **robertdreed** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 7:52 pm

"Geez, Robert, you say that [ referring to mistrust of the government] as if people have no reason to do so." Actually, that wasn't the stance I was taking. In fact, I wonder how you got that impression. I was simply pointing out the inherent contradiction implicit there. More generally, I was expressing my impatience with people who seem to always want a complete 360 squared video account for every event- to the point where they make an absence of one part of their indictment. That's no more logically valid than demanding that the UN inspectors prove a negative about Saddam Hussein's legendary WMD stash. If that's the crux of your case- and I've heard the point reiterated enough times in relation to the 9-11 Pentagon attack to think that for at least some folks, it is- you might as well drop it.

The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement

Re: K.I.S.S.

no

Kurt Sonnenfeld

!

Re: Kurt Sonnenfeld

?

Strange Loops

The vagueness of it all

Colorado, hmm...

yeah

and..

Re: ?

Re: and..

Re: and..

Re: and..

Who is online