Yahoo News reports story: "1,270 Architects/Engineers Reveal Hard Evidence of Explosive Demolition

page: 16
306
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
 



... not a shred of evidence?...
Do a search on the forums and you will find that we have been discussing this topic for years.. You just appeared out of the blue this year and want to claim we don't have any proof...
Many of us have been in these forums since 2003 and 2004. I joined the website under another name and for reasons which are none of your business, back in 2004, and we have had pages upon pages of evidence and arguments over this topic meanwhile you just arrived a few months ago...

Americans/members like me are tired of people like your trying to use this tragic day to make people believe in the fantasies you people come up with...

From the claims of "thermite" to some "space ray weapon", and every other claim in between has been discussed and re-discussed in these forums and every time the facts show that these claims were false...

Even the claim that tower 7 had been pulled was shown to be wrong. We have seen even videos posted by believers that show how the building was collapsing by parts before the main collapse, and this proves there was no demolition...

whatreallyhappened.com...

In a demolition the entire building falls at once meanwhile WTC7 collapsed in parts and within several seconds. there is no way that WTC7 was "destroyed by controlled demolition".

You people like to take comments of the survivors out of context and even lie just to satisfy your need to make people believe that "the U.S. government must have done it"...

edit on 12-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors




posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
We have a word over here an i feel its appropriate its (Bollocks!) I am not alone about thinking this is an inside job! there are thousands over here in Europe who think the same!
PS how dare you speak to a fellow member like that! i am a member of 6 forums around the world since 2002, an none of them would resort to the reaction you have shown to an other member of any of the forums! but its cool because i think its a sign of weakness!

edit on 12-9-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
Spacey..

You lost your loved one at the hands of the US govt.....great country eh??

Sadly, this has given you a bad case of Islamaphobia....and a dirty mouth too..

Sadly, in the US, you are not alone....

edit on 12-9-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)



Islamaphobia?... really?... People like you are entirely ignorant on the fact that Islamic extremism has existed for over 1,300 years...and despite the fact that this is described in several history books people like you want to deny it..

Europeans, and other people around the world, like to claim that "Americans are ignorant", but in fact it seems obvious who is ignorant of the facts, and the evidence...

What the heck happened to the European educational system?... I studied and grew up in Spain for 9 years from 1980 until 1989, and I visited old castles and historical places where battles were fought with Islamic extremists...

Islamic extremism has shown it's ugly face since the 7th century A.D., and that is a fact... From the Barbary wars fought in 1801-1805 when the first war was fought because several north African/Islamic nations used piracy as their way of life, and the second Barbary war which was fought in 1815...

In between that time and now several other battles have been fought against Islamic extremism but the list would be too big.

A more recent tragic event which IS in fact a GENOCIDE caused by Arab Muslims by orders from the Islamic president of Sudan, Bashir, who ordered the two jihads which caused the deaths of at least over 2.5 million people and millions of others were forced to flee from the Arab Muslims and their jihads...

But people like you want to deny the facts even when they are right in front of your face...

www.youtube.com...

You people want to claim there is no Islamic extremism despite the fact that RIGHT NOW there are SEVERAL DOZENS CONFLICTS/WARS AROUND THE WORLD CAUSED BY ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS...

From the Ivory Coast, Burkina Faso, Mali, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Nigeria, Kenya, Yemen, Chad, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Kashmir, Philippines, Nepal, Thailand, Iran, (yes even Iran, many people love to forget that millions of Iranians took to the streets to protest the election of Ahmadinejad and the government responded with force which killed from 36-72 Iranian protesters, and the suppression, and torture being done by the Islamic regime doesn't end there, from young girls being hanged for being raped, to homosexuals being hanged, and protesters killed, or even never heard of again)

I don't like the Chinese GOVERNMENT but even they are having fights and conflicts with Islamic extremists, as well as Russia in countries like Uzbekistan, and let's not forget Gaza, and of course Iraq...

But despite these facts you people want to claim that islamic extremism does not exist....


edit on 12-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
We have a word over here an i feel its appropriate its (Bollocks!) I am not alone about thinking this is an inside job! there are thousands over here in Europe who think the same!
PS how dare you speak to a fellow member like that! i am a member of 6 forums around the world since 2002, an none of them would resort to the reaction you have shown to an other member of any of the forums! but its cool because i think its a sign of weakness!


Now you want to play the victim?...
the typical tactics used by people like you...

It is not the first time we see people like you resort to these red herrings...

I respond in the same manner that members like you respond to me, so don't come now crying, and playing the victim when you began with the name calling, and the belittling comments...

BTW, there are tens of thousands of people who believe that Elvis is alive...does it make it true?...


Just because there are people who believe in something IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY MUST BE RIGTH... now, that sort of comment you made is the real "sign of weakness" and shows that you have no real argument to support your claims/beliefs...

edit on 12-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
A man in a cave,

3 buildings all come falling down, (controlled demolition)

A Mickey Mouse little hole in the most protected building on earth,,,(A missile)

An a even smaller hole in a field,,that's supposed to have swallowed up a 757 jet liner with out much of a trace!

These are the things that you believe! well im happy to say yea can believe all you want,,ill walk my side of the street you an your little gang can walk the other side!



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by space cadet
Show me the bomb material. Plain and simple, that is one thing you could do for proof. Then you need to show how it was obtained and by who. That is a start.


How would you suggest I go about doing this?

How do I know which chemicals I'm looking for? There are uncounted different varieties of explosives. Can you tell me which one I would be looking for? Because I have never claimed to know what kind were used.


Or you could show me some kind of proof on paper, or a computer disk, if such an operation were planned there would be a paper trail or computer trail


Says you, and what is your expertise in covert black ops again?



You could show me who might have been involved, other than Bush, he obviously wasn't there when it happened, or Cheney, so who do you think did it? Why can't any name or proof of that come to light?


Well in a real criminal investigation we would have subpoena power and would be able to pointedly question many officials to find out what exactly they were doing at various times and investigate their actions. I could list off many people I find suspicious, but you would just say I have no evidence, which is true because they were never investigated. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Securacom, the Port Authority, David Rockefeller... Bush refused to even testify alone before the 9/11 Commission and went behind closed doors with Cheney at his side to give his testimony. I find that behavior very odd. But of course no one would second-guess it or ever consider THAT suspicious.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



In a demolition the entire building falls at once meanwhile WTC7 collapsed in parts and within several seconds. there is no way that WTC7 was "destroyed by controlled demolition".


So what is your hypothesis for why that building came down? WTC 7 is the clincher - the smoking gun. If you can't plainly see the controlled demolition, you are willingly staying in your comfortable state of denial:


Honestly, I can't believe you would even have the nerve to say such a thing(even anonomously!).

Why did you not respond to my previous post regarding your statements?

I apologize if I was a bit harsh, but I get frustrated when I see someone that displays such little knowledge in such an important debate.

And if you can't see the controlled demolition plainly with open eyes in that clip - you have to concede that you don't understand physics enough to make such a statement that it was not a controlled demolition.

The cat is outta the bag, better to concede now than be ridiculed by the intelligent majority later.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Quote,,Originally posted by space cadet
Show me the bomb material. Plain and simple, that is one thing you could do for proof. Then you need to show how it was obtained and by who. Unquote..

No one can because they cleared the site so fast! now why do you suppose they did that?

edit on 12-9-2010 by DCDAVECLARKE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 



The fantasy is the NIST report! You need to go back to sleep!


You want to talk about atrocities? Let's start with the Christians eh?

We can do the "God" card if you like. What do you have selective

religions that only committed atrocities throughout history?


"Al Queda is probably controlled by the Mossad-CIA. People now call it "Al CIA-duh"

Americans are Rothschild Proxies in Iraq.

George W and his cronies who belong to a secret society, Skull and Bones,

are paid off with a share of the Iraq boondoggle.

His father is a major investor in the Carlyle Group, defence contractors." ETC.






posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

What reality do you have on your side?


... Let's actually see what YOU call reality shall we?...


Originally posted by getreadyalready
You honestly believe that Norad was offline,


SHOW EVIDENCE of this claim...not the ramblings from another "believer", but EVIDENCE...


Originally posted by getreadyalready
the command structure was displaced,


AGAIN show EVIDENCE, and not CLAIMS...


Originally posted by getreadyalready
the president heard the country was under attack and continued reading a kids book, the secret service heard the country was under attack and they didn't evacuate the president,


Oooh, i see, so you expect the president and the secret service to read minds right?... What the president was PROBABLY told is that an ACCIDENT occurred when the first plane crashed... THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON... When the second plane hit is when they most probably realized this was not an accident but something else must have been going on, but STILL they wouldn't know right there and then what was going on...

It is easy for people to claim NOW AFTER THE FACT, "oh they should have known right away"... but when it was happening PEOPLE didn't know what was happening...

My girlfriend woke me up that day and told me to watch the tv, when i saw one of the towers on fire I asked her "what movie is that"?...


Originally posted by getreadyalready
the FAA and airlines heard there were hijackings and they didn't take precautions,


Please do tell us what precautions you think they should have taken...



Originally posted by getreadyalready
there were fighter jets in the air, and they didn't respond,


Oooh so you wanted fighter planes to start shooting at AMERICAN PASSENGER PLANES?...

First of all this was the first time that this happened to us, in our soil...

Second of all shooting down AMERICAN PASSENGER planes is not as trivial as you, and others like you seem to think, and they would have had to shoot OVER A BUSY CITY.. you think the plane, and the bullets or missiles would have desintegrated in the air?... There could have been even more casualties, not to mention that later the govenrment would have to respond to the AMERICAN PUBLIC as to why they had shot down several AMERICAN PASSENGER planes... and the reason that they would have to give is... "we lost communication with them, and they deviated from their path"... and you think these are enough reasons to shoot down AMERICAN PASSENGER PLANES OVER AMERICAN CITIES...


I can actually imagine now the response from people like you if they actually did something like this...



Originally posted by getreadyalready
a jet crashed into a building designed to withstand a jet crash, and caught on fire in a building designed to withstand more than 12 hours of the hottest type of chemical fire, but somehow it miraculously fell down, while a similar jet crashed into the Pentagon and left a minor hole that workers were able to walk through and wonder what happened?


Oh boy..now you got your proof right?....

You want to compare the Pentagon, which has concrete walls, and several walls of CONCRETE which is extremely strong with a building which was mostly glass, and a steel structure DESIGNED NOT TO BE RIGID but instead to move with strong winds, and this is your proof?...

The building was desined to withstand a SMALLER plane crash... and second of all the WTC didn't fall just because of fires... but because TWO LARGE PASSENGER PLANES CRASHED into the two buildings WHICH ARE NOT MOSTLY MADE OF CONCRETE LIKE THE PENTAGON IS. There is also the shockwaves from both explosions, plus the fire of not only the fuel but all the flammable materials in the building... Since the crashed planes had opened large holes and had weakened the structural integrity of the towers, and then the fires which further weakened the structural integrity, plus the shockwaves from both crashes WHICH WERE EVEN RECORDED BY EARTHQUAKE STATIONS IN NEW YORK.. all of this together is what caused the towers to fall...

As for WTC7... you people like to forget that tower 7 was hit by falling debris from the twin towers, and at least one large hole, if not more, was opened in this building by the falling debris, not only this but the tons, upon tons of debris falling to the floor would also affect the integrity of tower 7, and then the fire/s which caused tower 7 to collapse BY STAGES...

You people like to dismiss the fact that we can see in video that WTC7 did not collapse in one step LIKE WHAT HAPPENS IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS, but since you people don't want to believe in reality, and instead make up your own claims and theories NONE of which are based on physics, or math, or even on chemistry, but on exagerations and claims which have no base on reality at all...



Originally posted by getreadyalready
There was a story of a subcontractor inside the Pentagon, that supposedly was thrown 80 feet by the impact, slammed into a closet, the door closed, the explosion followed but he was protected, and then he got up, and walked down the hall and out of the hole in the wall with unburned jet fuel on his clothes, relatively uninjured and he was one of the main eyewitnesses verifying it was a plane crash at the Pentagon. Really? Hollywood has made more realistic action scenes than that!


Oooh i see, so according to you NOONE can survive tragedies such as what happened in 911... I guess every survivor which is still living and survived terrible crashes shouldn't be walking around... And this is the sort of proof you want us to accept?...


Originally posted by getreadyalready
What reality have you seen? None of this stacks up in the reality I live in. Of course, my world is bound by physics, math, and chemistry. I suppose if I lived in the pop-culture mtv world, I would believe whatever the TV told me to believe, and then the reality would be whatever they tell me it is.


Actually EVERYTHING of what you stated is what doesn't "stack up to reality"...

I am sorry but your world is not bound by physics, math, and chemistry, but by statements which make no sense at all...

So let's see...every time there is a problem with an AMERICAN PASSENGER PLANE, like they deviate from their path, or communication is lost for some reason you want AMERICAN jet fighters to shoot them down without a second tought.... suuure....


You are comparing a CONCRETE STRUCTURE which is very rigid, and several times stronger than the WTC tower were, and you want to claim that this is proof of your claims because the same thing didn't happen to the Pentagon as what happened to the WTC?....



edit on 12-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Disproven by dozens of ATS members and yes including me...
You put an S on the end of dozen! i think more like 5 or maybe 6or7! at the most, theres just as much or maybe more honest men like me who say otherwise..


.... I was talking about GIVING EVIDENCE, and yes there are SEVERAL DOZENS of us who have given ACTUAL EVIDENCE, and not "made claims"... A thousand people making CLAIMS doesn't equal to a thousand people giving evidence... All you are giving are CLAIMS...

If you want to talk about "beliefs" i am sorry to tell you that you lose again because of three reasons which obviously you didn't think about...

First, BELIEF is not PROOF or EVIDENCE...
Second of all, there are MILLIONS of people who don't believe what you claim...
Third of all, since when does BELIEF, even if there is a mayority, became "PROOF"?...


BTW, please do not use the word honest when you people use exagerations, and even lies as proof...

BTW, before you go crying again that "EU is attacking me" I guess your mentioning that you and those who believe like you MUST be honest doesn't imply that you also mean people like me are dishonest?...


You might think you are right, and you might think the end justifies the mean, but that does not make you honest. At least not concerning this topic...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE

No one can because they cleared the site so fast! now why do you suppose they did that?


Humm lets see once again... I guess it had nothing to do with first finding survivors and second having thousands of Americans dead, and the pieces of their bodies strewn all over the rubble which would not only have caused bad smell, but would have caused disease in New York city... Agian you continue to ignore this fact... Not to mention that people like you would not have been satisfied unless YOU, and others like you would have been allowed to walk all over our dead, and desecrate their memories in your attempts to blame the U.S. government...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs

Oh my god... where to begin...


Yes...once again...


Originally posted by beebs
Do you really believe what you are saying?


I believe it is a lot more possible than the claims WITH NO PROOF that you people support...


Originally posted by beebs
WTF


Source please... Part of the burning fuel would have gotten to the basement through elevator shafts... really? I mean really?


Yes really... jet fuel doesn't burn instantly like you seem to be claiming... Yes a large protion did burn in the initial crash but ALL of it didn't just burn away and dissapear in th initial crash...


Across the country, diesel-powered generators are used in buildings like hospitals and trading houses, where avoiding power outages is crucial. Partly for that reason, a definitive understanding of what happened in 7 World Trade Center is vital to investigators, said Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

sites.google.com...


WTC 7 contained up to 43,000 gallons (162,273 liters) of diesel fuel for its emergency generators. It is believed that at least some fuel pumps did kick on after the Con Edison power plant went down at 9:59 (see FEMA, NIST reports), perhaps fueling the fires, although this remains speculation.

sites.google.com...

In the above it state that it is speculation that the storage tanks of fuel fed the fires, but if you read further down...


Of particular interest in the investigation are the two 6,000-gallon diesel tanks installed below grade for Salomon Brothers in 1990. Through pressurized pipes, these fed nine emergency generators on the fifth floor. When the tanks were found beneath the debris, they were empty, but diesel fuel was not detected in the ground below, which seems to preclude leakage directly from the tanks

sites.google.com...

Even the report from NIST states this.


NIST reviewed the report of an environmental contractor hired in the months after the collapse of WTC 7 to recover remaining fuel and mitigate any environmental damage from the second system’s two 6,000 gal tanks. The tanks were damaged and appeared to be empty and the report stated that neither the underground storage tanks nor their associated piping contained any residual petroleum product. No residual free product or sludge was observed in either underground storage tank. Evidence suggests that this fuel did not leak into the underground soil and contaminate it, and, therefore, could have been consumed in the building.

wtc.nist.gov...

BTW, I am not saying that the NIST report is accurate 100%... Much of what happened depends on many variables, and none has anything to do with "controlled demolition"...



Originally posted by beebs
Please tell me you don't believe that. You think a trickle of fuel from the jet(most of the fuel exploded on impact...) went down some of the maintenance shafts along a few of the 47 central columns - what, like 70 floors - and seeped into the facilities in the bottom that are full of fuel...?


I think it is a lot more possible than the claims you support, which have no EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER...



Originally posted by beebs
Ok, so how did all of the floors in between the point of impact and this "basement bomb" get compromised? Where did those 70 or so floors go?


You are kidding right?... They collapsed when SEVERAL FLOORS which had several tons of debris fell on top of other floors, which added more debris, hence more weight and which caused the underlying floors to have less, and less resistance as more and more weight was added from each collapsed floor...



Originally posted by beebs
Surely your 'trickle of fuel' theory didn't ignite in a fiery inferno and compromise each and every joist and intersection of steel and concrete along every floor the whole way down - and even if it did the fuel would be used up insanely quickly - with nothing left to burn.


lol, the fuel would be used insanely quickly?... really?...

Here is a video of a plane on fire, and how "insanely quickly the fuel burns"... Oh and do notice the black smoke coming out of the flames which was/is another claim by the believers that this is not possible...

www.youtube.com...



Originally posted by beebs
Which... IMO, this statement is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read - no offense.


.. It isn't, one of the most ignorant statements is that because the buildings fell a # of seconds slower, and that "it was close to free fall' that this is somehow evidence of a demolition... Now THAT is an ignorant statement... And yes either something falls at free fall or it doesn't... the "near freefall" term seems to have been invented by the "believers that the government was behind it"...

Video evidence of the north tower shows that it took 15 seconds for the debris to reach the ground

You have created a false dichotomy in which either there was free fall, or there wasn't.


Originally posted by beebs
In reality, there is a gradual and dependent spectrum. Almost free-fall is just as suspicious as free-fall... you have to remember there are thousands of tons of concrete and steel that must be eliminated/compromised the whole way down. For those buildings to come down anywhere near free-fall is beyond any capabilities of an aluminum jet liner and your "trickle down" theory.


... It is not "beyond the capabilities of a jetliner, and the trickle down effect to have caused the buildings to collapse at the speed they did...

Pretty much what you seem to suggest is that nomatter how long it took for the towers to collapse in your mind any time should be viewed as "suspicious"... Obviously you are biased in favor of the claims that "the government was behind it" hence your "belief" interferes with what common sense should tell you...



edit on 12-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



edit on 12-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   
hey Electric...

you said..." The rubble, and tragically lot of pieces of the Americans who died that day had to be removed as fast as possible so they wouldn't rot and cause disease in new York...."


Do you not find it odd that the "pieces of americans" were immediately shipped to China????

I find it VERY odd that you are not questioning this strange, suspicious incident.....all those pieces of americans shipped to China.....why??
What about their families?
Why China?
Why ship at all?

Could it maybe, just maybe be the case that it was shipped offshore immediately so as to remove any incriminating evidence??

You seem confused and naive when it comes to logic and what questions we should all be asking...questions that we dont have answers for, contrary to what you say in your confusion..... and contrary to how long you have been a member at this site, which has clearly done you NO good as your research levels and understanding seem, based on your comments on this thread, well, lets just say "lacking"......

Shame on you Mr. Universe.....you do your murdered Americans no justice with your head in the sand.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs

More weight does not equal faster gravity...


STOP TWISTING WHAT I AM SAYING.... LEARN TO READ... I said because of more weight THERE WAS LESS AND LESS RESISTANCE...


Originally posted by beebs
And how do you know there was more weight? Are you assuming that all of the debris above the point of impact was a single object, exerting a single force on the floors below?


There is NO ASSUMPTION in the fact that as debris hits a floor, and the floor collapses THERE IS MORE DEBRIS HENCE MORE WEIGHT...



Originally posted by beebs
I can't honestly figure out how you think WTC 7 came down... because your trickle down theory will not work, and there was not hardly a scratch on the building - no compromised structural features.


Oh riight and your claim alone is enough evidence to support what you "believe"...

There was hardly not a scratch on WTC7? really?...


Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.


www.911myths.com...

In the above link there are also some photos that show part of the damage...

But hey according to you "a hole 20 stories tall" is "hardly a scratch on the building"...




Originally posted by beebs
Source? Are you just blowing hot air?


several members have shown over the years the evidence SEVERAL TIMES... Obviously you haven't researched this topic AT ALL...

Here is some of the real evidence...

In this link you will find at the bottom right a table of content from MIT discussing the WTC collapse.

web.mit.edu...

Here are some others

www.nae.edu...

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

www.civil.northwestern.edu...

sydney.edu.au...

web.mit.edu...

www.fema.gov...

winterpatriot.pbworks.com...



Originally posted by beebs
What are passenger planes made of then? And how did WTC 7 collapse?


.... They are not like "cans of alluminum"... There are thousands of gallons of fuel, there is steel, and the aluminum parts are THICK... i would like to see you punch the side of a passenger plane and then tell me is "like a can of aluminum"...




Originally posted by beebs
I'm done. It's not rocket science.


Oooh riiight, please show us your structural engineering degree, and your physics degree... According to you it is very easy to understand right?...



Originally posted by beebs
I am sorry you hold the opinion that you do.


No, i am sorry that people like you still have the galls to use a tragic day like 911 to try to force your false claims on people...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by benoni
 


YOU , are the one who seems to be confused and naive .

The steel WAS NOT immediately 'shipped off to china' . This is nothing more than a LIE started by some truther .

I , amongst others , have shown this to be a blatant lie NUMEROUS times .

I will post links that prove this is a lie . Although , I will admit , it gets very tiring , showing over and over again , that this is nothing more than a lie that the TM started .

Geez ...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by benoni
..
You seem confused and naive when it comes to logic and what questions we should all be asking...questions that we dont have answers for, contrary to what you say in your confusion..... and contrary to how long you have been a member at this site, which has clearly done you NO good as your research levels and understanding seem, based on your comments on this thread, well, lets just say "lacking"......


Me naive?.. No, i am not the one basing my statements on exagerations, false comments, and lies...

Oh, and btw please SHOW US the time table on "how fast the rubble was sent to China"...

First of all, as i remember correctly they removed as much of the bodies as they were able... You can't ship rubble with dead bodies inside even to China...

The rubble was separated, steel was melted down, some of it was used to build the U.S.S. New York, which was built with 24 tons of scrap steel from the WTC.
homeschoolcommunity.wordpress.com...

Some of the rubble was taken for investigations. All of it was slowly sifted through to find every piece of the Americans killed in that disaster...


Washington - Remains of victims have been discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center nearly nine years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, a news report said.
...
The experts sifted through 645 cubic metres of debris over three months to find the remains. The debris was the last from the World Trade Center that had yet to combed.

www.earthtimes.org...

They did not just send, or sold the rubble to China with body pieces in it...

Again, this shows that you people do not even take the time to find out THE FACTS...


Originally posted by benoni
Shame on you Mr. Universe.....you do your murdered Americans no justice with your head in the sand.


No, SHAME ON YOU BENONI for not knowing what you are talking about, and just using a tragedy like this one to force your false beliefs...

edit on 12-9-2010 by ElectricUniverse because: errors



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Oh and btw, i love it how you people vote for each other even when your statements are shown to be false...


It is clear evidence that most of you, if not all, are basing your conclusions in belief, and not on FACTS, and EVIDENCE...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by truthseeker1984
 


Apparently , you are one of those who missed this , although I have posted it numerous times .

The 45-degree cuts were made by ironworkers using cutting torches , during the clean-up process . Nothing sinister about those cuts .

sites.google.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


" ... brought down the most stringently built building in the world ..."

Maybe you should clarify which building you are referring to here , surely , you are not referring to the twin towers ?

I will await your answer before I reply further .





top topics
 
306
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join