WTC Hero janitor blows 'Official 9/11 Story' Sky High!

Here's a nice read called Debunking Conspiracy Theorists

www.serendipity.li...

It's actually very humorous at some points and shows just how nutty some disinfo agents get when they want you to believe the events of 9-11 were as the government wants you to see them.

I feel it is related to this thread becuase it puts together all of the events that have been argued and let's you make a clear decision that you are not stupid or crazy as some disinfo agents would want you to believe.



I also want to encourage anyone who believes this to be a cover up to sign the petition to Investigate The Terrorist Attack On The U.S. on September 11, 2001

Your input counts secure.reopen911.org...



[edit on 27-6-2005 by Lanotom]

Here's another nice video for those who have just joined our programming.

reopen911.org...

You can watch more here.

reopen911.org...

You're gonna like this video.


www.godlikeproductions.com...

www.godlikeproductions.com...

Originally posted by Lanotom
I also want to encourage anyone who believes this to be a cover up to sign the petition to Investigate The Terrorist Attack On The U.S. on September 11, 2001

Your input counts secure.reopen911.org...

[edit on 27-6-2005 by Lanotom]

you want me to sign a petition asking for the people who covered it up to launch another investigation?
i don think thats going anywhere
thanx for the other links though

Sticking to the topic involving 'key eye witness' to a control demolition William Rodriguez, I advise you check out this Alex Jones interview...

www.prisonplanet.tv...




Just keep in mind who's shaking who's hand here, not a whole lot of average Americans get to shake the Presidents hand. Actually, we know a huge portion of Americans would have stepped into the spotlight and declared fame after performing the heroic acts of one William Rodriguez. However, others like him simply cannot live a lie in the pursuit of justice.



[edit on 28-6-2005 by syntaxer]

Originally posted by Woodside

Originally posted by syntaxer

Originally posted by Lanotom
If you look at this video
you can clearly see that there was some type of explosion at ground level before the collapse. And please don't try to tell me that was parts of the plane that were burning on the ground because it would have been immediately extinguished upon arrival by NYFD.

Hey great stuff Lanotom, i have never seen this video before. It's undisputable now, this smoke at the bottom of the building plays directly into Rodriguez's claims.

Like video evidence baby!..

Am I the only person who noticed this??? The puff of smoke in the video can have NOTHING to do with Rodriguez's claim. His report states that the explosion occured before the plane impacted the building. The puff of smoke in the video occurs before the building collapses, NOT BEFORE THE PLANE HITS. Nice try though

The smoke has nothing to do with any explosion at all. If you take a look at any of the docus with the firefighters going into the building, you'll know that smoke filled both buildings. You can tell even from that video that the smoke been venting for a while. Why do you think none of the firefighters were paying any attention to it? Don't you think if it was an explosion they would have noticed? (it wouldn't have been puffy white smoke either had it been an explosion. And the firefighters would have looked at the bottom first, not immediately look straight up. And the building definately wouldn't have fell the way it did had there been an explosion in the lower levels - it would have fell, not collapse)


Anyway, most of the stuff in this thread has been discussed extensively in other threads...

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
The smoke has nothing to do with any explosion at all. If you take a look at any of the docus with the firefighters going into the building, you'll know that smoke filled both buildings. You can tell even from that video that the smoke been venting for a while. Why do you think none of the firefighters were paying any attention to it? Don't you think if it was an explosion they would have noticed? (it wouldn't have been puffy white smoke either had it been an explosion. And the firefighters would have looked at the bottom first, not immediately look straight up. And the building definately wouldn't have fell the way it did had there been an explosion in the lower levels - it would have fell, not collapse)

Thank you for explaining the exact process involving "pulling" a building during a controlled demolition.



Gotta luv that smoke!

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
The smoke has nothing to do with any explosion at all.
Anyway, most of the stuff in this thread has been discussed extensively in other threads...

Like I said. You're gonna like this video. And the reason is all of the eyewitness reports from "THAT DAY" telling of secondary explosions and more so. Not somebody trying to make things up after the fact.

www.godlikeproductions.com...

www.godlikeproductions.com...

Watch them. You'll like them I'm sure. No misdirection, no sweeping under the carpet. Just facts.

Originally posted by Lanotom
You're gonna like this video.


www.godlikeproductions.com...

www.godlikeproductions.com...

i have just started watching the video, 4 minutes in talking about the flash.
Now the flash is facinating, but IT IS NOT A MISSILE! fact
not a missle launched from that aircraft or any such thing.

i dont know what the flash is, but these guys just said it was a missle, and it is 10000% not a missile launched from that aircraft.

Hmm..a while when last time posting but just wanted to join this .
Some1 seen that video where some dude admits that during building of all wtc towers they putted explosives to main structural points? Kind of freudian slip when asked why wtc 7 came down. Saw it once from link at here ats but can´t find it anymore.
Also about the issue that usa government was informed about the attack is very true to my perspective. Me myself who live in Finland across the globe, got an phonecall about the attack just before it happened. It´s one of my relatives who works with international agencies and he said that uk, russians and saudis had warned usa but they didn´t take any actions what so ever. Kind of situation where the damage to the country is smaller than the benefit of the upcoming oil war at iraq. Well enough said.
-ap

i saw a website talking about a documentary of the the construction where areas were sealed off, and you needed a security clearance to access them.
I have never found that doucmentary.

It strikes a cord with me though, i think that is the most likely way it was done in a building that size. Maybe it was built to be destroyed.

Originally posted by AdamJ
It strikes a cord with me though, i think that is the most likely way it was done in a building that size. Maybe it was built to be destroyed.

A very interesting angle. It would require the previous buildup of a layer of misdirection, involving imagery of black arabs and airplanes spiralling over New York. Of course, the ones writing the story over decades would be the same ones that are able to disintegrate volumes of concrete and steel.

i agree, very farfetched. but it just might be possible.

interesting organizations involved, namely the port authority.
which i heard owned the buildings right up until they were leased to silverstein just before their destruction.
the fact that some contruction regulations and rules dont apply to their buildings might be relevant somehow.

also the name Rockefella crops up in their past, which again catches my attention

1945
David Scholtz, a real estate developer and former governor of Florida, first proposes a concept for a "world trade center" in Lower Manhattan to encourage port and maritime activities in New York.

(key historical date in terms of major events)

1946
The New York State legislature authorizes a World Trade Corporation to develop the proposed World Trade Center and appoints Winthrop Aldrich, chairman of the Chase Bank (and uncle of David and Nelson Rockefeller), to explore the feasibility of the concept.

December: Encouraged by his sons Nelson and David, John D. Rockefeller Jr. donates $8.5 million to the United Nations to purchase a site along the East River for the world organization's permanent headquarters.

Interesting

1955
November: David Rockefeller announces a plan to construct the new headquarters for the Chase Manhattan Bank in Lower Manhattan. Built at a cost of $121 million, the 60-story building, known as 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, is intended to initiate the revival of the downtown financial district.


1960
January: The D.L.M.A. releases its formal plan for a five-million-square-foot World Trade Center on the East Side of Manhattan, and proposes that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey "study" the concept's feasibility.

December: Austin Tobin agrees that the Port Authority will begin planning for the World Trade Center project.

1961
March: The Port Authority releases its plan for a World Trade Center along the East River, featuring several office buildings and a major exhibition hall for industrial products. New Jersey governor Richard Meyner claims the proposed project will do little for his state.

Spring: The New York and New Jersey legislatures approve the joint Port Authority Trans-Hudson/World Trade Center bill. It is quickly signed by Governor Nelson Rockefeller and newly elected New Jersey governor Richard Hughes.

December: Responding to objections from New Jersey, the Port Authority relocates the World Trade Center site from the East River to a 16-acre parcel of land along the Hudson River. The new site is located above the Manhattan terminus of the Hudson & Manhattan Railroad, a deteriorating commuter line which the Port Authority has agreed to take over, renovate, and rename the Port Authority Trans-Hudson line.

interesting history

[edit on 28-6-2005 by AdamJ]

[edit on 28-6-2005 by AdamJ]

WOW! You are all really nuts. Go see some doctors.

This 'conspiracy' will end up just like all the others unfortunatly.

Theres no way to link together all the oddities. Theres no hard proof to lean on, and theres no way to tie it to any one person, or group of people.

All we can do, is lean on oddities, videos, pictures and a few quotes. Again, they all may add up to some awesome conspiracy, but until the FOIA actually allows us to view the materials in question (which they wont) we're stuck here with our hands in our pockets.

Originally posted by csulli456
WOW! You are all really nuts. Go see some doctors.

history is nuts, and its cram full of nutty people.

only people who cant see that need to see doctors

Originally posted by QuietSoul
Theres no way to link together all the oddities. Theres no hard proof to lean on, and theres no way to tie it to any one person, or group of people.

Especially here, there seems to be a huge gap between what we see (on the images, the videos) and the technically possible explanations. When confronted with this seeming impossibility, most people retreat to some sort of handed-down half-explanation that uses only known concepts. How does a height of more than 200 meters of concrete and steel (the core of the building) suddenly disintegrate?

Originally posted by csulli456
WOW! You are all really nuts. Go see some doctors.

You have a nice shiny red "warn" badge.

Try Happy Days, or some 1950s-60s Disney movies.

Originally posted by csulli456
WOW! You are all really nuts. Go see some doctors.

When faced with overwhelming evidence, one will often resort to last gasp classic moronic accusation!

Originally posted by turbonium

Originally posted by csulli456
WOW! You are all really nuts. Go see some doctors.

When faced with overwhelming evidence, one will often resort to last gasp classic moronic accusation!

Not always, sometimes they will make claims that they spotted the 9/11 hijackers loitering in the building in the weeks before the attack.