Still Think the World is Waking up to the Conspiracy?

originally posted by: lambros56

the damage done by the planes couldn't have done it without the help of something else.

Yep. Fire and gravity.

Just over a second for every ten floors.....how can that happen ?

Gravity

a reply to: lambros56

I myself have changed my opinion on what happened because I've looked at it from different angles as different theories have been presented over the years by more people researching the subject.

You and most conspiracy believers have changed their minds time and time again over 911.
But the OS has remained the same.
Hmmmmm.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: lambros56

I myself have changed my opinion on what happened because I've looked at it from different angles as different theories have been presented over the years by more people researching the subject.

You and most conspiracy believers have changed their minds time and time again over 911.
But the OS has remained the same.
Hmmmmm.

I wonder why that is!! Hmmmmm?

Would it be that more questions would be raised if they did change any part of the Official Narrative?

Conspiracy Believers as you call them change their minds because they research. Some of the info they pick up makes sense at the time and at other times it doesn't. They are searching for Truth. You are not.

Because you have accepted everything your precious 'can do no wrong' Government has told you!

originally posted by: Deveron
Because you have accepted everything your precious 'can do no wrong' Government has told you!

Just what is the OS?
4 planes were hijacked, 2 were crashed into WTC 1 & 2, fire and damage subsequently caused those buildings to collapse, the collapse caused damaged to several other buildings. 1 plane was crashed into the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field.

So what part of that do you not accept?

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Deveron
Because you have accepted everything your precious 'can do no wrong' Government has told you!

Just what is the OS?
4 planes were hijacked, 2 were crashed into WTC 1 & 2, fire and damage subsequently caused those buildings to collapse, the collapse caused damaged to several other buildings. 1 plane was crashed into the Pentagon, and one crashed into a field.

So what part of that do you not accept?

I'm sorry. I thought that since I'm agreeing to what others have said here (Others that you so eloquently call Truthers) that would be clear to you!

The OS is an unproven explanation for the events on 9/11. Fire and Damage cannot collapse Sky Scrapers. And large Commercial Airliners cannot disappear into earth. All these OS excuses do not make sense to me.

Hence I am a 'Truther' as you call them.

Actually a Truther or Conspiracy theorist has a more accurate title.

REALITY ANALYST!

originally posted by: Deveron
Fire and Damage cannot collapse Sky Scrapers.

According to who exactly?

And large Commercial Airliners cannot disappear into earth.

Funny that, only truthers make that claim, which is also not true!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Deveron
Fire and Damage cannot collapse Sky Scrapers.

According to who exactly?

And large Commercial Airliners cannot disappear into earth.

Funny that, only truthers make that claim, which is also not true!

Well according to thousands of experts not on the payroll of the US Government!

And regarding Earth Mole Aircraft? Have you ever shot a bullet into the ground? How far does the bullet go? Not very far. So how can a large Airliner disappear into the ground?

Not just truthers making that claim. Anyone with half a brain would too!

a reply to: Deveron

As opposed to the tens of thousands of experts who are also not on the Government payroll and agree with the "official" story?

And, Flight 93, did not just "disappear" into the ground, there was wreckage scattered all over the crash site. Comparing a bullet to an aircraft is silly.

a reply to: Deveron

Well according to thousands of experts not on the payroll of the US Government!

I assume you mean those on ae911.
You need to read the Bio's on those people.
They are NOT experts on what they preach.
Almost every one of them would be shot down by any first year law student if they were called as an 'expert' witness.

originally posted by: lexyghot

originally posted by: lambros56

the damage done by the planes couldn't have done it without the help of something else.

Yep. Fire and gravity.

Just over a second for every ten floors.....how can that happen ?

Gravity

Gravity ?
That doesn't answer the question.
Where is the time between each floor hitting the other ?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: lambros56

I myself have changed my opinion on what happened because I've looked at it from different angles as different theories have been presented over the years by more people researching the subject.

You and most conspiracy believers have changed their minds time and time again over 911.
But the OS has remained the same.
Hmmmmm.

At least we look for an answer and don't just accept a silly story that government gives out.
The government know who done it but there's nothing they can do about it because the ones who orchestrated it are above the government.

originally posted by: lambros56
At least we look for an answer and don't just accept a silly story that government gives out.

No, you accept any silly story that a truther makes up, like holographic planes, silent explosives, nanoo thermite, beam weapons, drones, cruise missiles, the Jews did it, etc etc.

a reply to: lambros56

Gravity ?
That doesn't answer the question.
Where is the time between each floor hitting the other ?

I don't believe in the full pancake theory.
Yes they found sections where floor(s) rested directly on top of each other.

I subscribe to the belief that steel and other debris punched through lower floors. Tearing them from their end mounting points. More of a chaos type destruction.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Deveron

As opposed to the tens of thousands of experts who are also not on the Government payroll and agree with the "official" story?

And, Flight 93, did not just "disappear" into the ground, there was wreckage scattered all over the crash site. Comparing a bullet to an aircraft is silly.

Well you better tell hellobruce that as he has an insane theory that planes can bury themselves!



And besides,,,,,,,,,What wreckage?



Ah hold on. Here's an engine that managed to bury itself in the dirt being excavated!



And by the way? That shape in the dirt with the scar with the crater in the middle was there before 2001. So it couldn't have been made by Flight 93.



This is what the Washington Post said:

"The Boeing 757 still heavily laden with jet fuel slammed at about 575 mph almost straight down into a rolling patch of grassy land that had long ago been strip-mined for coal."

Yeah ok. Whatever Lamestream Media Idiots!

Smoke plume supposedly from Flight 93 crashing. Notice the plume rises straight up into the air which suggests no wind in the area.



Photo comparing the Shanksville plume to an ordnance blast plume.



Smoke plume from a plane crashing.



Ordnance blasts from Iraq and Afghanistan!





Wow! Ordnance Blasts look like Flight 93 crash! Could it be that Flight 93 didn't crash and that it was actually an explosive of some kind? Could it explain the lack of debris and a Scar with Crater that has been there for years before 9/11?

Just like the Towers and the Pentagon. So many inconsistencies so little time!

a reply to: Deveron

So other planes didn't bury themselves. Fligjts like ValueJet, or the military A-6 that hit so hard they found the first pieces six feet down?

This is far from the first plane that hit hard enough to be found deep in the ground.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Maybe a part can be buried if there is loose soil but not the whole thing. There should have been wreckage left behind! Looks a bit fishy. Much like the Pentagon scenario!

This is what they said happened:



This is what should have happened:



With tail and wings lying about the surface. And of course you have the fact that this 'Scar' and hole pre-existed well before 9/11. Maybe they used this plane shaped hole to make up the Hoax.

And here is another strange thing. Ariel footage of the Hole plus the trees all burned in front.



But then here is a News helicopter at the scene looking at the crash site. Notice anything strange? Like the burned trees in front of the 'Scar' not being there?



And you wonder why people question the Official Story!

Value Jet Hits Swamp

A decontamination crew washed down torn and twisted pieces of airplane, none longer than several feet.

And this was 1998.
Long before this made up conspiracy.

a reply to: Deveron

Both United and USAir had 737s nosedive into the ground, one in Colorado, one in Pennsylvania. Neither left any recognizable pieces behind.

The ground where Flight 93 hit was soft and deep. Throw something hard enough at soft ground and it makes a hole.

It's always amazing that people think all crashes are identical. Large pieces are left in low speed shallow impacts. High angle, high speed impacts leave very little behind.

a reply to: Deveron

Oh...I see what you are worried about..... Okay, it was originally theorized that 85.5754678% of the airliner ended up in the hole. Then they found what was left of an armrest in one of the trees last week, so it was only 85.5754677% in the hole.

The only one here with insane theories, would be you. Jets, have burrowed themselves into the ground on numerous occasions, it is only uninformed folks who think different.

originally posted by: lambros56


Gravity ?
That doesn't answer the question.
Where is the time between each floor hitting the other ?

Well, you yourself like to quote 10 floors per second.

So there's .1 second per floor.

Explain why you object. Use maths. Incredulity won't cut it and expose your objections as baseless.