One million New Yorkers to see Building 7 fall (AE911truth)

page: 3
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
I remember watching building 7 fall a few days later if im not mistaking 2-3 days later. i really cant remember but i do remember watching the news and they reporting it. For flying a plain into a building i really dont see it being that hard. Just pick your target a few miles out and fallow it.

I really dont know what your getting at about the plane. are you saying a plane never hit the building after millions of people in NY said it did or are you saying highly trained people flow the plane into the building?

PS i thought they found an engien in the street and at a church. i could be very wrong on this.

[edit on 12-8-2010 by camaro68ss]




posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


nice find yyyyyy S & F from me,
I think Architects for 911 Truth would fare much better if they specifically targeted Americas celebrities, perhaps Richard Gage should concentrate on making the following people understand fully the events of that day

Britney
Madonna
Brad and Anjelina
Operah

If they get on-board, they could then form a collective media company to raise awareness to 911 truth. Standing together they would be near impossible to be discredited or destroyed by The establishment.

Sad state but the people WILL listen to celebrities, a movement such as Hollywood for 911 truth may actually make a difference, question is, can they be bothered.

Problem is the AE911 movement is making progress but it is very slow, Unless some real weight gets behind this and soon, i fear it will just turn into another John Lennon or JFK type case.

hope i am wrong,

PEACE,
RK



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
Lumping 'truthers' into one big pile saying we 'all subscribe' to crazy things... you make the truth movement sound like a cult.(which is probably exactly in line with your opinion of the TM)


That's the problem with calling yourselves "truthers" as in to imply that anyone who disagrees with you won't care about the truth. Problem is, EVERYONE refers to themselves as truthers, even the "no planes hit the WTC" people, becuase noone is ever going to say they're a member of the liar movement.

...and no, I don't believe you're a cult. I believe you all went to some stupid conspiracy web site out on the internet and were suckered by the paranoid drivel it was putting out. The incredibly diverse assortment in all the "blatantly a conspiracies" you're all putting out is dependent on which conspiracy web site you all went to.


If you got challenged in public to a debate on this issue by an engineer or an architect or a physicist... what would you do?


I would bring Physicist and materials engineer Dr. Judy Wood with me so she can explain to all of you in detail how the towers were destroyed by energy weapons from outer space. Hell, I'd actually pay you all to get together to beat each other up with all your individual conspiracies. I'd laugh my [censored] off.

You people are only seeing what you yourselves want to see, and you'll happily manufacture whatever evidence you'll need to back your claims up. It couldn't be more obvious even if you put up a neon sign.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


If you haven't heard of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon I cannot imagine where you have been looking :-


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 





its just to bad a bunch of nut jobs flew planes into buildings and you guys cant accept the fact and must make a conspiracie out of it. whats the motive for the goverment to take the buildings down? to go to war? whats the motive to go to war? whats in it for us? oil? notice how oil prices have not been going down if that was the case. get over it. tehy prob took building 7 down because it was not safe. Ever think of that.



And the winner of today's bonehead award is....



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
Yes, and I wonder where the path leading to the source of these fringe theories would lead? My guess is right to the front doors of one of our U.S. government agencies. Then they have people like you out there to create the illusion that the these theories are widely believed among the majority of those involved in the "truth movement."


...so in other words, it simply can't be that the world is full of con artists and crackpots spewing conspiracy gibberish in the hopes of making a buck off of paranoid people''s gullibility. Everything in the flipping world just has to be some sinister gov't plot or another to you.

Well, here's the answer you're looking for: the "cruise missile hit the Pentagon" conspiracy was invented by French political activist Thierry Meyssan, publishing it in his book, "9/11 The Big Lie". I don't know how much money he made off the book but it was published in 28 languages so it's obvious what his true agenda was.

Thierry Meyssan bio

So go ahead, accuse Meyssan of being a gov't disinformation agent. I triple dog dare you.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by camaro68ss
 





its just to bad a bunch of nut jobs flew planes into buildings and you guys cant accept the fact and must make a conspiracie out of it. whats the motive for the goverment to take the buildings down? to go to war? whats the motive to go to war? whats in it for us? oil? notice how oil prices have not been going down if that was the case. get over it. tehy prob took building 7 down because it was not safe. Ever think of that.



And the winner of today's bonehead award is....


you!...

Second line!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by yyyyyyyyyy
 


Of course. I think plenty may have seen 7 collapse, but then again it has been years (almost 10) and you really don't see much video anymore on 9/11 except maybe around the anniversery.

My point is, more or less, that I just don't know what a marketing campaign could accomplish. If you are just going to replay the video I don't know how that is going to change anymore minds, and if it is going to be "talking heads" than unless the heads are well known and trustworthy that too won't get much further.

Noting, of course, that it has been 10 years and a lot of young adults today were only cchildren then and there maybe an opening for some mind changing there.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
My point is, more or less, that I just don't know what a marketing campaign could accomplish.


The only thing it is meant to accomplish is to get $500,000 into the hands of truthers, their talk circuit must be running dry!

[edit on 12/8/10 by dereks]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


If you haven't heard of witnesses who saw a plane hit the Pentagon I cannot imagine where you have been looking :-


911research.wtc7.net...


OK, I have read through all of your link, and some of them say it was coming in low and level (other links claim that light poles were knocked down by the plane as well, even though there are photos of the poles down several days earlier). Some of them say the plane was coming in "head first." But most of them just say that they heard a blast and a giant explosion, and they ran outside to see billowing smoke.

For the record, kerosene does not explode on impact. Neither does it burn white hot, or with enough velocity to create a shockwave. The impact would have sent a shockwave through the building, but there would have been none on the street away from the building.

Do any of these quotes sound like a plane hit....or a missile?

Many report that "the blast literally rocked all of our cars." "The room filled with this real bright light." "Bomb! the Gulf War vet immediately thought as he was knocked down." "It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head." "The car moved a foot to the right when the shock wave hit." "I heard two loud booms - one large, one smaller, and the shock wave threw me against the wall," she said.Burgess, reporting by telephone from the scene at about 4 p.m., said that five hours after the blast, still no one was able to get into the building. "



"But when I looked at the site, my brain could not resolve the fact that it was a plane because it only seemed like a small hole in the building," he said. "No tail. No wings. No nothing."


How about this one:

John Bowman, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel and a contractor, was in his office in Corridor Two near the main entrance to the south parking lot. "Everything was calm,' Bowman said. "Most people knew it was a bomb. Everyone evacuated smartly. We have a good sprinkling of military people who have been shot at."
www.dcmilitary.com...



Just saying. Pentagon personnel should be the first to know what happened, and they said, and I quote, "BOMB!"

How about this from your linked site:

Soon after the crash (Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it. I think this was also a reason for the false threat of another plane about to crash which caused rescuers to have to evacuate for a short time after the initial crash. I have done my research onthis and according to time magazine it took 24 minutes before Norad was supposedly notified about this particuliar jet and fighters were scrambling to intercept at that time. Isn't it odd how there is Not a single mention of this aircraft in ANY of the articles written about this crash?


I think we have plenty to be skeptical about. And as for the eyewitnesses, they either contradict themselves or each other, and most of them didn't actually see the impact, they only saw a whir and an explosion. Several saw the jet fly over lowly with a C-130 following it, but very few, if any, actually saw the impact.



[edit on 12-8-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


There is also this account:

"It was striking to me how little of the building was involved in the fire," said Dr. Corley, who has reviewed the Pentagon report. The fire, he said, "didn't spread and and trap other people in the building. "While 125 Pentagon workers and 59 passengers and crew members on the plane died, few if any of the workers who died were from outside the immediate impact zone."
www.nytimes.com...


So we are to believe that similar planes strike buildings, and two of them create enough heat to plasticize concrete encased, fire retardant covered, steel beams within a couple of hours, while the other one spreads very little and creates no casualties inside the building? Anybody that believes both stories is a fool.

If you want to believe that some miracle combination of events made two buildings fall from a kerosene fire, I think you are naive, but fine, believe it, but that means a plane did not strike the Pentagon. If you want to believe a plane struck the Pentagon, didn't leave much of a hole or a fire and managed to do some acrobatic flying at high speed with an amateur pilot, then fine, believe it, but that has to mean that fire did not bring down the WTC.
How can you believe both miraculous stories with opposite results at the same time?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:05 PM
link   

"was thrown about 80 ft down the hall through the air. As he was traveling through the air, he says the ceiling was coming down from the concussion. He got thrown into a closet, the door slammed shut and the fireball went past him," recounts Hahr. "Jet fuel was on him and it irritated his eyes, but he didn't get burned. Then the fireball blew over and the sprinklers came on, and he was able to crawl out of the closet and get out of the building through the courtyard."
www.designbuildmag.com...


Really? He was behind a blast proof window, thrown 80 feet through the air, saw the ceiling collapsing around him, landed in a closet, the door blew shut, the flames went by, the sprinklers came on, and he walked away? With unburned jet fuel on him? Really?

And, he happened to be a mechanical subcontractor on the site? I don't typically call people plants or disinfo agents, but.....really? Are you sure you weren't there helping expedite the explosion, pouring around some kerosene for effect and then witnessing after the fact to support the official story?



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I really dont know what to belive anymore. your making me question things. i guess thats a good thing. I really really need a solid motive for all this to make myself start questioning what really happened that day.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Selectively choosing witnesses from the list who said they didn't see the impact of the plane at the Pentagon is hardly proof of anything.

How about the ones who did ? For example, how about Sean Boger ? He was the air traffic controller in the Tower within yards of the impact point.
He said " I just looked up and I saw the big nose and wings of the aircraft coming right at us and I just watched it hit the building ." " It exploded. I fell to the ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."

Btw, if you have evidence of the light poles being down before 9/11 I would appreciate seeing it please.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


You provided the link, and I was only proving that not that many actually saw the "impact." AND, for every one that claimed to have seen the impact there was another one that claimed it couldn't have been a plane. AND, among those that did see the plane, there were a variety of contradictory views. Was it straight and level or headfirst? Was it low over the treetops many miles away, or was did it make a steep and almost impossible highspeed turn at low altitude from the Washington monument? The Citgo station and cab driver have been debunked many times on ATS, if there trajectory was accurate, then the plane did not hit the building at all.

I will admit that I have no idea what the hell happened that day, but my experience in chemistry and engineering along with a lot of research, all of which is posted in ATS somewhere, tells me that kerosene did not bring down the WTC.

Just reading your link alone has proven that we cannot believe both accounts. Either the Pentagon or the WTC is a lie. Either Kerosene flashes white hot and burns intently enough to take down two of the most fire retardant buildings in the world, or it doesn't. If it does, why did it not happen at the Pentagon? If it doesnot, why did the WTC come down?

I know with 100% certainty that an impact and a kerosene fire will not provide a "shockwave" that can move a car a foot. Nor will it provide a white hot flash, nor will it burn hot enough to plasticize concrete encased steel beams covered with retardant.

I don't know what did happen, but I surely know what did not happen.



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


" ...concrete encased, fire retardant covered, steel beams ..."

I would be interested in seeing a source that validates the claim that the 'beams' were encased in concrete .

I've seen this claim many times here on ATS but , no one has ever provided a source to substantiate this .

NOWHERE , have I seen this , other than right here .

Please don't link me to some truther site without a credible source to back it up .

As Alfie mentioned , a source for the lightpoles being down , days beforehand , would also be appreciated .

[edit on 12-8-2010 by okbmd]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I am leaving work right now, and I have orientation for my son's school tonight. I'm sorry, but the link exists in one of my posts on ATS. It is included with ANSI fire ratings, and fire codes for buildings similar to the World Trade Center. The WTC was unique in its size and capacity, and it had stricter standards than other high rises in the area, but even the most basic high rises had to be fire retardant for many hours of ideal fire conditions. Chemical fires with adequate ventilation burn as much as 10x hotter than kerosene, and every high rise in Manhatten is built beyond those standards. Kerosene in an oxygen depleted "damped" environment could not have produced enough heat in any amount of time to bring down a high rise. The fact that it happend in just a couple of hours, and it happened to the most strictly built building in the area is what makes it entirely impossible.

I will check back tomorrow with you guys!



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
you also have to remember half the support of the that floor was knocked out on impact as well. That would speed up the fail rate on that floor



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Dave, you don’t know what happened on 911 except what the media and government told you in their proven fraudulent reports. You talk about conspiracy websites, what do you think you are blogging on 24/7.
You can lump all the Truthers in one basket calling us all the names you like, you can lump all of us together and continue to post nonsense that all Truthers believe Judy Woods’ garbage of space beams, holograms airplanes, and invisible space martins did 911. Dave, most people do not believe in these ridiculous nonsense you continue to post in every 911 thread.
If you want to believe our entire governments are Holy Saints then that is your right, but do not tell us how we all think, or what we all believe in. If A&E911.org wants to raise money to run an add then that’s their business, your not paying or donating any money, so why does this bother you so much. Oh, I know, because A&E punches a hole in the government fairytales. WTC 7 just fell down all by it’s self with only a few office fires and fell at freefall speed, the fact is Dave, science says it is not possible. So, Dave regardless what you think of the truth movement you cannot fight or deny the truth movement science. True science is the truth Dave.

Dave, why don’t you tell all of us why A&E should not raise money to run their add?



[edit on 12-8-2010 by impressme]



posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Nevermind that this thread is about NWC, and the WTC 7 building...


For the record, kerosene does not explode on impact.


...and I think that was in reference to the Pentagon? Well, we also saw the fireballs in NYC, especially Tower 2, since so many cameras were trained in that direction....

...when you get back from the school orientation meeting, care to watch this video, of an un-related airplane crash?

Then, could you clarify the "kerosene does not explode on impact" statement? (I am assuming you maybe mean, 'absent a source of ignition...'??:



Here's another --- different circumstances, but still....lots of "exploding" flames, fueled by kerosene (well...Jet-A):



Note: Low speed (landing accident...pilot error, unfortunately. MD-11s have a strange tendency to "pogo" like you saw...incorrect pilot response causes it to oscillate out of control, as seen. Called "PIO", or Pilot Induced Oscillation. Lufthansa just lost one similarly, in Dubai. No fatalities, though, in the recent accident).



[edit on 12 August 2010 by weedwhacker]





new topics
 
41
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join