Originally posted by Arabesque
Ah Brooklyn, more silly disinformation.
First of all, have you seen the rubble from WTC7? wtc7.net...
thewebfairy.com...
How high is it? Most people reasonably agree that THIS was a controlled demolition (maybe not CB; maybe he thinks it was destroyed by a "space
beam"), and yet look at where the building went--into a small pile. Not surprising since buildings have a lot of space for air in them, and is
EXACTLY characteristic of controlled demolition since the interior columns are cut into many small pieces, allowing the structure to fall into a small
pile.
The fact is, photographs of the debris at ground zero do not reveal the debris UNDERNEATH the top. Nor do they reveal the fact that tons of debris
was moved by trucks. It takes 10 seconds on a Google search to figure out how many trucks were needed to move the debris from ground zero (which took
months of course), and how much debris there was.
Why does Arabesque call my posts disinfo? Sounds like he's trying to discourage people from looking at the evidence for themselves! Why does he do
this? What's his
real objective?
I do
not think a "space beam" destroyed the towers. Why is Arabesque making things up? Why is he lying to you?
A directed energy weapon does not
have to come from space. So why is Arabesque promoting the "space beam" term? What's his objective? Take a
look at the documented information
here.
Notice how he derails the topic away from the towers and onto WTC 7.. a red herring designed to distract people from the towers. Let's not forget
Jones promotes both WTC 7 & molten metal.
Debris UNDERNEATH Ground Zero? This shows how truly unknowing he is to the facts. The
photos
here show the mall (1st subbasement) intact and not crushed. So where is all the debris Arabesque is talking about? It's certainly not in the
following pictures:
Note how Arabesque calls my posts disinfo when my information is confirmed by the evidence. Why does he do this?
Originally posted by Arabesque
These arguments that the debris at ground zero is "missing" are all classic, misleading, disinformation arguments. Of course all these arguments
have been debunked and yet you continue to promote them.
"Second, Arabesque is asking the reader to take the "scientific findings" of Steven Jones as fact. "
Jones' findings are corroborated by other official studies. You can read his paper for your self and go to the sources he quotes to see that his
research is supported by other INDEPENDENT studies. Don't think for yourself... indeed Brooklyn. Stop telling people what to think about Dr. Jones
for starters!
USGS for example corroborates Jones observations of molten spheres. They reported a very high amount of iron rich spheres (they are "frequently
seen"), which means that yes, there was molten metal.
www.journalof911studies.com...
[edit on 10-8-2007 by Arabesque]
Arabesque must be joking if he thinks a report from a government source (USGS) proves molten metal. One must look at the evidence. The evidence in my
OP shows the molten metal evidence to be fabricated. So why trust a government report?
If there was molten metal at Ground Zero, where were all the steam explosions after the FDNY sprayed water?
It rained the week after 9/11. Where were the multiple steam explosions, and the burned rescue workers? Did this happen?
Why does Arabesque link to a paper written by Jones when it's already been proven that Jones tries to deceive us with doctored photos? Why does
Arabesque trust Jones?
[edit on 11-8-2007 by CB_Brooklyn]