It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WTC Visual Explosives ('Squibs')

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
No matter how many pics you post with circles drawn within circles to make it appear that there are more individual "similar" things going on, the only egg you have in your basket is a couple of pressure expulsions that appear AFTER the collapse is initiated.


So the only difference you can pick out between them is that the WTC squibs emerged after the collapses initiated?

Well guess what? At least half of the squibs in the demolitions I showed you as an example also came out after the collapse had initiated.

And you know what else? The WTC Towers wouldn't have begun their demolitions with blatantly obvious demolition charges for reasons I shouldn't even have to go into. Thermite would allow initiation without visible charges.







What allows you to tell which of those are caused by supercompressed in a non-air tight building, and which are by controlled demolition charges?

The fact that the buildings are different? Is that the only real difference you can see? You don't want to believe the WTC Towers were demos, but you'll believe the Southwark Towers were? The only reason you've given so far for them being different was just as bogus, so why not.




posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

But, you can clearly see it looks like the whole damn building is sucked underground.


Do you mean the smoke being pulled backwards and down where the building was falling? This could've been because the building was being destroyed so quickly, and material ejected so quickly, that the vacated volume was being rapidly replaced by air.

No, I mean the frame and everything still attached to the building was going under ground level. Straight down, as if there was an empty space under the building of at least 40-50 foot. I'm telling ya, you could see an upright that was possible 30-40 foot tall go straight down without even leaning one way or the other.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:01 PM
link   


The credibility of the members involved in the ImplosionWorld conversation have not been verified.


What makes you think they are not credible? Let me see if I have this straight.

People who work with controlled demos for a living = not credible.
People who have no experience = credible

How does that work?



"Tell ya what. Keep the million. We at I-World promise to write a detailed rebuttal to this nonsense, and we'll post it prominently on this site. Furthermore, we promise that whatever we write won't appease most of the misguided chowder.s out there with too much free time. But even if our article only exists as a tiny bastion of reason in a sea of lunacy, we'll know we tried. We'll stick to the principles of building failures and explosives and demolition. We'll address the impossibilities and the contradictions. And most important, we'll stick with the facts."


You know its possible that these people are:
1. Busy
2. Simply disinterested in trying to convince people who will most likely handwave away their explanations and drown them with demanding answers to unrelated observations.
They promised to give a DETAILED rebuttal i.e. lots of details...........to be picked apart by people who don't know the first thing about CD's. It would not be unbelievable to assume that these people have heard most of the theories and gotten a taste of the criteria used for "evidence" and simply don't want to bother with people who refuse to accept the facts even when presented by experts in the relative field. All other expert testimony from people with the expertise to arrive at a qualifed conclusion have either been consistantly brushed off as robotic know-nothings or labled stooges "in on the payroll".
Why would these demo experts expect any more rational treatment. Right now--at first blush of them not buying into the CT theory---they've been labled "jerks" or have their expertise questioned. That they are not jumping to the timeline of the CTs is no suprise.
Maybe they have more important things to do.



Shortly following that statement, these questions were posed, and there has not been a response or never any answers, and no "detailed rebuttal to this nonsense"




* Can someone explain the rapid sequence of apparent shaped charges (noticeable squibs of smoke) going up the building of WTC 7? The answer they gave me was this was due to momentum from 'pancaking' but this wouldn't explain why they are going UP the building and not down in building 7. In the video, you can see this clearly in at least two different parts of the building.


That doesn't sound familar. Can you post a link?



* Trademark collapsing on its own footprint. Can anyone give a rational explanation as to why this happened in all three buildings? This has all the earmarks of a controlled demolition.


They didn't fall into their own footprint.
And no--it doesn't have ALL the earmarks of a CD. It has kinda 1.



* Major ejection of shredded debris firing out of WTC 1 and 2 (not as noticeable in 7) several hundred feet. There are countless photos and video of this. Is the reason again that momentum is destroying the building into pieces of fine debris shooting them out like a catapult? Surely, some measley jet fuel fires couldn't have done this.


Haven't seen that.
Momentum and more importantly--I think--MASS.

Jet fuel fires done what? The damage you're talking about was done by the momentum and mass of the collapsing structure.



* Pulverized dust of the concrete. Isn't this a hallmark demolition characteristic? Only high-octane explosives could do such a thing.


Thats how concrete fails. But the dust was not all concrete.



* Scores of eyewitnesses, including firefighters, police, rescue workers, and other bystanders all report of several explosions, loud crackling noises, and fine dust. Why would the federal government place a gag order on the NYFD from giving their testimony? It wasn't until a court order under the Freedom of Information Act that these testimonies were released in August of 2005. I wonder why that would be.


What gag order?



* Public firefighter tapes, people standing in the wounds of the building, obvious weak fires, and a little common sense shows that these fires were feeble. Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact in a giant ball of flame. How is it that some piddly fires brought down these massive skyscrapers designed to withstand 10 x the amount of damage?


You're joking.



* Historical precedent. Not a single high-rise steel-framed building has collapsed due to fire in history. Buildings built much more inferior blazed for hours and hours with 3 x the intensity of heat and the buildings remained solidly intact.


Apples and oranges. If you're going to point to Madrid, the steel framed facade DID collapse from the fire.



* 47 massive, solid steel columns which constituted the core of the building should have been sticking up several hundred feet into the air. Why did they collapse with the rest of the building as opposed to just the floors?


Why shouldn't they have. Their strenght came from being an integrated system. Once that was lost it was just a very tall skinny structure with an unprecedented collapse happening in it and around it.



* Incredible free-fall speed. How does "pancaking" cause a less than 10 second collapse in complete free-fall fashion?


Wasn't "freefall" --How long should it have taken and what are you basing that on?



* Evidence of molten steel found; debris shipped off expeditiously out of the country and sold for profit.


Not really.



We would like a response from suppposed experts on this implosionworld website.


"Supposed experts"??..You're already setting them up to be "unqualified" or part of the plot if they done say what you want they to.
Maybe they know this and simply don't want to waste their time.

But don't count them out. They'll probably come thru.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   


So the only difference you can pick out between them is that the WTC squibs emerged after the collapses initiated?


No.



Well guess what? At least half of the squibs in the demolitions I showed you as an example also came out after the collapse had initiated.


...and half didn't.

There are about what?..30-50 "squibs" in your example of a 26? story building?..all going off pretty much in unison.

The towers were about 5 X that tall. We should have seem how many "squibs"??all going off in unision..all along the lenght of the building 1300 ft. up? All the "squib" examples are---how many? about 5 random examples?
You call that "similar"?



And you know what else? The WTC Towers wouldn't have begun their demolitions with blatantly obvious demolition charges for reasons I shouldn't even have to go into. Thermite would allow initiation without visible charges.


There was no evidence of thermite.



What allows you to tell which of those are caused by supercompressed in a non-air tight building, and which are by controlled demolition charges?


None resemble explosive charges to me.
What allows you to tell the difference? Just curious.

Let me use a CT tactic. Will you show me some examples of a non explosive induced collapse of a skyscraper or any tall building in which the pressure expulsions look DIFFERENT than explosive squibs?



The fact that the buildings are different? Is that the only real difference you can see? You don't want to believe the WTC Towers were demos, but you'll believe the Southwark Towers were? The only reason you've given so far for them being different was just as bogus, so why not.


What do you mean? Yes the buildings are obviously different.
No thats not the only difference I see and have clearly stated that.
The difference I see is that the towers collapse looks nothing like the CD you posted.

What is the "bogus" reason I've given?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by maximusX
No, I mean the frame and everything still attached to the building was going under ground level. Straight down, as if there was an empty space under the building of at least 40-50 foot. I'm telling ya, you could see an upright that was possible 30-40 foot tall go straight down without even leaning one way or the other.


Ohhhhhh. I bet the sinking thing you saw was a piece of one of the corner box columns that went up WTC1. The spire, right? Some if broke off while it was standing there, then it just sunk straight down.

Well, there could've been a hole, I guess, but it could've also been blown up at the base like your typical demolitions, causing it to sink straight down. I haven't seen any footage of the base of the thing falling so I couldn't tell you, of course, but I would love to see any footage that could shed some light on that.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta

So the only difference you can pick out between them is that the WTC squibs emerged after the collapses initiated?

No.


Describe for me, then, how these things appear totally different from one another.

I'm not talking about the order in which they go off; that varies from demolition to demolition based on what needs to be done. Look through the web page I linked to for the real time vid and you'll see such differences.


There was no evidence of thermite.


There was molten metal glowing orange-yellow pouring out of the corner of WTC2 before it collapsed. There were thermal hot spots at Ground Zero for months after the collapses. There is another thread here that shows a big chunk of material glowing yellow. These things aren't achieved by the temperatures of hydrocarbon fires.


None resemble explosive charges to me.
What allows you to tell the difference? Just curious.


I don't think they are any different. That's the point. I'm asking what makes you think this puff of solid dust being ejected from a falling building is air, and what makes that puff of solid dust being ejected from a building an explosive. Because what I just showed you is a known demolition, posted on the website of a controlled demolition company.


Let me use a CT tactic. Will you show me some examples of a non explosive induced collapse of a skyscraper or any tall building in which the pressure expulsions look DIFFERENT than explosive squibs?


Impossible, because skyscrapers have never collapsed like that before 9/11. Or after.

But you're getting around at admitting they look the same, huh? Which would only be admitting the completely obvious, but you're getting there nonetheless.



What is the "bogus" reason I've given?


You suggested the WTC expulsions couldn't possibly have been explosives because they went off after the collapse started, while the building was still collapsing:


the only egg you have in your basket is a couple of pressure expulsions that appear AFTER the collapse is initiated.


And I responded that half of the explosives in the clips I provided went of after the collapse initiations as well. Doesn't mean they weren't explosives. It's an illogical line of reasoning.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 06:58 PM
link   
I loved these responses, Vushta:


Originally posted by Vushta

[WTC7 squibs]


That doesn't sound familar. Can you post a link?
[...]

[Major ejections of larger masses, such as what hit the Winter Garden.]

Haven't seen that.
[...]

[Mentioning of the gag orders.]


What gag order?
[...]

[Mentioning of all of the eyewitness testimonies of explosions, including firefighter testimonies.]


You're joking.



And no, he wasn't joking.

These link to video clips of firefighters testifying to bombs in the WTC:

Firefighter: "There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out"..."We got a secondary device in the building" (WMV format)

Firefighter: "We were trying to get some of the people out, but then there was secondary explosions and then subsequent collapses." (MOV format)

Firefigher: "As we were getting our gear on and making our way to the stairway, there was a heavy duty explosion." (WMV format)

Firefighter: "We really never even got that close to the building. The explosion blew and it knocked everybody over" (WMV format)

Hosted by WhatReallyHappened.com; www.whatreallyhappened.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">source.


And there were also gag orders and WTC7 squibs. The gag orders indicate that, for firefighters at least, you're not allowed to comment on anything specific of what you experienced on 9/11 unless you go through the chief first. A court ruling has also disallowed firefighter testimony such as "there were bombs in the building" from being released under the FOIA, allowing only statements on how the firefighters felt to be released.

India Singh, a corporate whistleblower and civilian medic in Manhattan on 9/11, is also under a gag order, and has mentioned in video clips of trying to have it lifted in court. William Rodriguez, in his case against the Bush Administraton, testifies to gag orders being issued upon relevant personnel to the events (you can find pdfs of his filings online).

You can also find video clips of the WTC7 squibs online. Here's an example, like the first result from a Google search.

And here's a link to what happened at the Winter Garden.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Simmer-down now, those weren't my questions posted on ImplosionWorld, although I'm sure a couple of us on this thread could pose even better questions.

And, Yes I'm going to question their qualifications.
What makes the presumed experts on their forums
any different from any of us discussing a subject?

Can their qualifications be verified?
Can their level of expertise be verified?

Go a., question Prof Steven E. Jones's qualifications, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University. He's provided more than Brent or any others on that website. I really don't know if his paper has been debunked, but he claims there was evidence of thermite/thermate at the site. If its bunk, explain.

"You know its possible that these people are:
1. Busy
2. Simply disinterested"
or
3. Feel threatened at such an idea, their beloved country doing such a thing! They didn't even approach the topic with an open mind, just immediately dismissed the idea. When presented more information than they liked, they promised us answers, and they LEFT! Months have gone by, if those questions were so easily answered by you (noooo expertise) certainly Brent (the unverified expert you're basing you're argument on) or some other presumeably qualified individual could easily enlighten us.

[edit on 7/3/2006 by aecreate]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I find replying to post on this board very cumbersome.




Can their qualifications be verified?


If they're working in the field their qualifcations are verified. Why do you doubt it?



Go a., question Prof Steven E. Jones's qualifications, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University. He's provided more than Brent or any others on that website. I really don't know if his paper has been debunked, but he claims there was evidence of thermite/thermate at the site. If its bunk, explain.


Jones is commenting in an area of expertise he doesn't have.

No one--NOT ONE other qualified person accepts his conclusions. BYU has issued statements disavowing any connection to his research and conclusions.
He has never been in the same room with any of the evidence he's examined. He's presenting a picture that even a child could see was a picture of a piece of concrete with re bar sticking out, and claiming the whole thing is "melted steel"...its absurd.
He also believes that Jesus visited and lived with the Mayans.

The people at IW are commenting on the EXACT field of their expertise.
You don't see a difference?



3. Feel threatened at such an idea, their beloved country doing such a thing! They didn't even approach the topic with an open mind, just immediately dismissed the idea. When presented more information than they liked, they promised us answers, and they LEFT! Months have gone by, if those questions were so easily answered by you (noooo expertise) certainly Brent (the unverified expert you're basing you're argument on) or some other presumeably qualified individual could easily enlighten us.


....orrr..they may realize that some people simply won't "be enlightened" regardless of the evidence.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
No one--NOT ONE other qualified person accepts his conclusions.


You obviously haven't been to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. Aside from engineers and architects directly signed on with his group, he's also posted emails from a couple of structural engineers that not only agree with him but are amazed how little informed their colleagues are. And there's an MIT engineer who agrees, and reported testimony from a military demolition engineer friend of his that knew the collapses were demolitions from the insant he saw the squibs.

Browse the site. www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 3-7-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Can their qualifications be verified?
"If they're working in the field their qualifcations are verified. Why do you doubt it?" The answer is still "No"
How do WE know we're communicating with Experts? I'm not doubting the information on ImplosionWorld, just the individuals on the forum that we are still presuming were Experts. What level of expert? What qualifications? How much experience do they have in the field?

And ATS's guest speaker this month Dr. James Fetzer and his peer panel believe Prof Steven Jones.
BYU could have disavowed his research because it goes against popular belief. Again, there's this reaction of distancing, cover-up, and scoffs at any hinkling of conspiracy. It's a knee-jerk reaction. It's alot easier to dismiss than explore with an open mind. Look at all the great Gov't cover-ups. Deny Deny Deny.

and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are already being questioned for qualifications and such. Which they should.

[edit on 7/3/2006 by aecreate]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Lets focus .
This blunderbus approach is annoying and pointless. I guess the intent is "throw enough sheet at the wall and something is either bound to stick or keep the person busy wiping up the smears and then throw another bunch at the wall.

I normally don't mind, but this board or my browser..or something, makes responding to bits and pieces a pain in the azz.

The vids you post from youtube are worthless. The "squibs" start after the collapse begins..Whats on the other side of the building? is it the side with the missing corner and 20 story hole? etc.

The "ejected debris" one is laughable. It tries to impart the idea that all that was "ejected" prior to collapse by some mysterious force...Its a result of the collapse.

Got a link to the "gag orders"?

The example you give implies a individual department policy with "having to talk to "the chief" first. Got a link?
No one actually saw explosions or "bombs". Why might they jump to that conclusion?..oh, I don't know..maybe because the wtc WAS bombed before?

He must have been joking. The out of context, edited "quotes" of the firemen have been debunked so many times no one can possibly believe them anymore.

Lets stick to one point at a time.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Vushta

So the only difference you can pick out between them is that the WTC squibs emerged after the collapses initiated?

No.


Describe for me, then, how these things appear totally different from one another.

I'm not talking about the order in which they go off; that varies from demolition to demolition based on what needs to be done. Look through the web page I linked to for the real time vid and you'll see such differences.


There was no evidence of thermite.


There was molten metal glowing orange-yellow pouring out of the corner of WTC2 before it collapsed. There were thermal hot spots at Ground Zero for months after the collapses. There is another thread here that shows a big chunk of material glowing yellow. These things aren't achieved by the temperatures of hydrocarbon fires.


None resemble explosive charges to me.
What allows you to tell the difference? Just curious.


I don't think they are any different. That's the point. I'm asking what makes you think this puff of solid dust being ejected from a falling building is air, and what makes that puff of solid dust being ejected from a building an explosive. Because what I just showed you is a known demolition, posted on the website of a controlled demolition company.


Let me use a CT tactic. Will you show me some examples of a non explosive induced collapse of a skyscraper or any tall building in which the pressure expulsions look DIFFERENT than explosive squibs?


Impossible, because skyscrapers have never collapsed like that before 9/11. Or after.

But you're getting around at admitting they look the same, huh? Which would only be admitting the completely obvious, but you're getting there nonetheless.



What is the "bogus" reason I've given?


You suggested the WTC expulsions couldn't possibly have been explosives because they went off after the collapse started, while the building was still collapsing:


the only egg you have in your basket is a couple of pressure expulsions that appear AFTER the collapse is initiated.


And I responded that half of the explosives in the clips I provided went of after the collapse initiations as well. Doesn't mean they weren't explosives. It's an illogical line of reasoning.


1. Explain to me how they're similar.

2. Thats not evidence of thermite.

3. You stated that the "sqibs" look the same whether air expulsions or explosive born. With no other evidence supporting CD, why do you conclude the "squibs" are explosive?

4. For one, theres no other indication of a CD.

4. Not quite. I stated that theres only one or 2 random "squibs" that only appear after the collapse starts.




Impossible, because skyscrapers have never collapsed like that before 9/11. Or after.


I didn't say just skyscrapers.



But you're getting around at admitting they look the same, huh? Which would only be admitting the completely obvious, but you're getting there nonetheless.


No. I stated they don't at all look the same to me. Where did you get that idea?



the only egg you have in your basket is a couple of pressure expulsions that appear AFTER the collapse is initiated.






And I responded that half of the explosives in the clips I provided went of after the collapse initiations as well. Doesn't mean they weren't explosives. It's an illogical line of reasoning.


Half of 100 squibs on a 26 story building is still 50.

Half of 2 on a 133 story building is 1.

No believable similarity. A line of reasoning stating otherwise is illogical.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Vushta
No one--NOT ONE other qualified person accepts his conclusions.


You obviously haven't been to the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website. Aside from engineers and architects directly signed on with his group, he's also posted emails from a couple of structural engineers that not only agree with him but are amazed how little informed their colleagues are. And there's an MIT engineer who agrees, and reported testimony from a military demolition engineer friend of his that knew the collapses were demolitions from the insant he saw the squibs.

Browse the site. www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

[edit on 3-7-2006 by bsbray11]


Anyone can say they're an engineer.

Do you mean the website that censors and ejects anyone what post questions they don't like?
No thanks
They very name "Scholars" is an insult.
The label "scholars" implies a detached unbiased look at the infomation. That is the last thing those clowns are. The least evidence to this is the ejection of any voice they don't like.

How gullible are you.? unname "engineers" and "experts" who claim "as soon as I saw it I knew"?..the is not only laughable, its pitiful.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
and yet, i was a military demo engineer, i dont see a CD (for reasons ive gone into ad nauseum) and my opinion is just brushed aside cuz i dont agree...

hypocrisy.


Frankly you could both not see a demolition and I would still not agree with you. I was responding to a comment that no one agreed with Jones. Please put things into context. I don't value your opinions that much. I'm not that easily persuaded.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:03 PM
link   
And you believe our Gov'ts fantastic report? Their detached unbiased look at the infomation? That is the last thing those clowns are. How gullible are you?

The fact that a group of individuals most likely more knowledgable than us are attempting to answer our questions that we feel weren't adequately answered in the Gov'ts official story or were dismissed because it goes against the common belief is an admirable endeavor.

In the end,
people are just gona choose to believe whatever information.
This has been a phenomenal discussion nonetheless.

[edit on 7/3/2006 by aecreate]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by aecreate
Can their qualifications be verified?
"If they're working in the field their qualifcations are verified. Why do you doubt it?" The answer is still "No"
How do WE know we're communicating with Experts? I'm not doubting the information on ImplosionWorld, just the individuals on the forum that we are still presuming were Experts. What level of expert? What qualifications? How much experience do they have in the field?

And ATS's guest speaker this month Dr. James Fetzer and his peer panel believe Prof Steven Jones.
BYU could have disavowed his research because it goes against popular belief. Again, there's this reaction of distancing, cover-up, and scoffs at any hinkling of conspiracy. It's a knee-jerk reaction. It's alot easier to dismiss than explore with an open mind. Look at all the great Gov't cover-ups. Deny Deny Deny.

and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth are already being questioned for qualifications and such. Which they should.

[edit on 7/3/2006 by aecreate]


So they're all fakes?
What are you basing that on?

If you doubt them, why not email them? Seems like an easy solution to expel doubt.

Fetzer and Jones are money grubbers. Fetzer travels the world spouting the JFK assassination ..we never landed on the moon..and Paul Wellstone was assassinated by a electromagnetic pulse weapon as part of a neo con plot.
Jones has no expertise in the area that is now making him a good living..believes that Jesus visited and lived with the Mayans and was up to his shins in the Pon and Flieschmann cold fusion fiasco.

Not all that solid on the ability to apply reasoned thinking.----but these are the type of people who are "believable" to you while hundreds of trained professionals working in conjuntion with credible institutions and facilities with their professional lives on the line are...are...are what?--Phonies? Talk about knee jerk reasoning.
Get real.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
The vids you post from youtube are worthless. The "squibs" start after the collapse begins..Whats on the other side of the building? is it the side with the missing corner and 20 story hole? etc.


No. There are no photos of the 20 story hole, but the other side of WTC7 had been photographed before its collapse from Ground Zero, and it looked just fine.


The "ejected debris" one is laughable. It tries to impart the idea that all that was "ejected" prior to collapse by some mysterious force...Its a result of the collapse.


Dude, you just freaking said there were no large ejections of debris. I posted that to prove there were, not to argue with you about how it got there, regardless of the fact that you interpreted that vid wrong anyway.


Got a link to the "gag orders"?


I have a .pdf file of Rodriguez's court case and a video of a conference with Indira Singh, if you'd like those.

I think this is the video: pittsburgh.indymedia.org...


The example you give implies a individual department policy with "having to talk to "the chief" first. Got a link?


Sure. I'll post it just so you can come up with some ridiculous 2-liner to explain it away.


NEW YORK CITY, N.Y.—On the morning of Sept. 11, 2005, New York City auxiliary fire lieutenant Paul Isaac Jr. asserted, yet again, that 9-11 was an inside job. “I know 9-11 was an inside job. The police know it’s an inside job; and the firemen know it too,” said Isaac.
[...]
Also, Isaac directly addressed a gag order that has been placed on firemen and police officers in New York.

“It’s amazing how many people are afraid to talk for fear of retaliation or losing their jobs,” said Isaac, regarding the FBI gag order placed on law enforcement and fire department officials, preventing them from openly talking about any inside knowledge of 9-11. There is more information related to Isaac circulating in on-line and print reports, so here again we are hearing first-hand evidence from individuals who were on the scene, such as live witness William Rodriguez, saying that the World Trade Center towers were brought down not by the airliner’s impact or the resulting jet fuel fires, but instead by a deliberately executed controlled demolition.

Tragically, due to heavy-handed pressure from officials at the city, state and federal levels, we are still not hearing the entire story.


Source.


No one actually saw explosions or "bombs". Why might they jump to that conclusion?..oh, I don't know..maybe because the wtc WAS bombed before?

He must have been joking. The out of context, edited "quotes" of the firemen have been debunked so many times no one can possibly believe them anymore.


Oh yeah, they were joking alright. They thought it was HILARIOUS how so many of their comrades died.

And what is out of context about 'there's a bomb in the building, clear out'? That's about all he freaking said!

No crap you don't agree with these guys, but at least try not to be so dense as you try to shrug them off. I've never seen these debunked in the least and I've seen these pretty often, but if you want to be the first then go a..

Go a. and try to debunk the freaking eyewitness testimony from firefighters.



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:27 PM
link   
"So they're all fakes?
What are you basing that on?"

Back at ya,
So they're all credible?
What are yooouuu basing that on?

We can rip right into your sources just as easily as you do ours.
It aint my job to find you credible links to base your arguments on lol, you email them. Maybe they'll let you know when they plan on giving that rebuttal?



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vushta
Anyone can say they're an engineer.

Do you mean the website that censors and ejects anyone what post questions they don't like?
No thanks
They very name "Scholars" is an insult.
The label "scholars" implies a detached unbiased look at the infomation. That is the last thing those clowns are. The least evidence to this is the ejection of any voice they don't like.

How gullible are you.? unname "engineers" and "experts" who claim "as soon as I saw it I knew"?..the is not only laughable, its pitiful.


Wtf are you on about? They're not anonymous, and they ARE scholars. They have formal educations in each of their fields of expertise.

www.scholarsfor911truth.org...

You would know this if you actually visited the link like I asked.

Seriously, dude, why are you so GD stubborn? You will not admit a single freaking point no matter how hard it can be drilled into your face.

There ARE experts who believe the towers were demolished. There WERE firefighters that said there were bombs in the buildings. There WERE ejections of very large masses of debris. There ARE people who agree with Dr. Steven Jones. Yet how many of these things will you recognize? None. And they've all been proven! I've showed you VIDEOS of the firefighter testimony, as no doubt if you had just text you would say it was all made up or some bs like that, and I've shown you the large chunk of steel that hit the Winter Garden, and lists of experts (names and brief resumes and all on the S9/11T site) that believe 9/11 issues are still unresolved, and instead of realizing that you've made some incorrect assumptions, you just post more total bull trying to justify your position rather than acknowledging a damned thing. WHY? Is what people think of you on this forum THAT important that you don't want to go back on a single damned thing you've said, no matter how ridiculous it becomes? I really don't understand.

You're arguing the most asinine things anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join