VIDEO: 911 Mysteries, Part 1: Demolitions

page: 5
45
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bovarcher
 


That was not an "interview with Osama" it was a video conveniently found
in a house in Afghanistan, which has been proven through biometrics, to be
an impostor
The reasons the official story is false: (in no order)
!. When the first building fell, the top was leaning out at about a 15 degree
angle, which would redistribute the weight to that corner, negating a
symmetrical global failure (which is impossible anyway), and it would have followed the law of conservation of energy, momentum, and inertia, by toppling over, if not acted upon by another force. This is not my opinion.
2. The fact that burning hydrocarbons cannot get hot enough to weaken
structural steel to the point of failure of integrity.
3. the lack of meaningful resistance when this improbable "symmetrical"
collapse occurs, especially given the fact that the lower 2/3 of the buildings
were constructed out of thicker stronger girders. Even if .375 of one second
of resistance were to occur at each floor (south tower) the top would have taken 33.75 seconds to reach the ground, which was not the case.
4. Steel girders were blown out and up. A feat that cannot happen with a gravitational collapse.
5.For six weeks afterwards, pools of molten steel were observed by those cleaning up, and by infrared satellite by NASA. There is no "official" source of
energy that would cause this.
6. The many, many witnesses to explosions in the buildings, including one
that occurred before the first plane hit, in which a 10 ton hydrolic press
was destroyed, along with a mans skin.
7. Edna Cintron waving out of the crash hole where if the heat was as high
so as to weaken buttresses at the same time all around her, couldn't have taken it.
8. Steel is a good conductor of heat, and hydrocarbon fires not hot enough.
9. Cars were incinerated all around the area.
10. There is video evidence of an anomalous burst of an incendiary device
coming from near the nose of the second plane which has no valid explanation.
11. Norman Mineta's testimony concerning a young officer informing Dick Cheney about incoming jet at 10 miles intervals, and the officer asking
Cheney "Sir,does the Order still stand?" Cheney "whipped" his head around and snarled " have you heard anything to the contrary?"
12. The lack of tumbling, and asymmetry, and the turning to dust of concrete.
13. There is testimony by a famous artist who was employed by the WTC engineering firm that the towers had explosives built into the design for insurance purpose, but he seems like kind of a nut. (Paul Lafolley"
14. The jets should have all been shot down, not just #93.
15. The Odigo employees who got text messages not to go to work that day.
16. 5 Dancing Israelis
17. Lap dancing, drinking, swearing abusive Devout Muslims.
18. Guilty actions by guilty parties after. Destroyed evidence, lying, stalling investigation, draconian legislation, more lying.
19. Promotions for those who "failed admirably" at their jobs on 911.
20. Put options on Airline stock which were not talked about again, when the trail led to a CIA asset Buzzy Krongard.
21 The incredibly inept smear job "debunking" by Micheal Chertoff's cousin
at PM, and others, that give validity to the question of 911, by deeming the question important enough not to just ignore, like I did for 2 years.
22. Alex Jones (who is controlled opposition) predicted it from current events as False flag before it happened.
23. The destruction of the lobbys and the absurd theory that jet fuel
traveled all that way, and changed elevators two times at the exchanges, and busting the place up. With no soot on top of it.
24. Bone fragments found on tops of building 100's of feet away, which ranged in size from microns to .0625 of an inch, which indicate velocities
far above jet airplanes and falling buildings
25. Later peace




posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Text Hi I just found this site and am doing some reading. I wanted to ask you what you meant by Alex Jones being a "controlled opposition"? Or if anyone can tell me what their impression of this means. I have my own thoughts but just wanted to make sure my thinking is in line with the assumption.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 07:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





 
45
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join