Reportedly a new FOIA 2010 Video: Firefighters discuss explosions on 9/11

Originally posted by Black_Fox

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
Didn't a B-52 crash into the Empire State Building back in 1945?!

Last time i checked, that building is still standing.. Hmmmmm

Plane Hits Empire State Building

Oh right. Directly comparable ! where have you been for the last few years ?

reply to post by PonyoSon

Yeah the pile of rubble had to go somewhere, that fine, but you cant tell me after watching that video the building doesn't come straight down at all four corners of the building from asymmetrical damage? This is not physically possible! Mind you, this was so obvious that the 911 commission tried to just ignore it and leave it out of their report.

Typical truther diversion - reason 911 Commision did not mention WTC 7 was because not germane to their
mission which was to investigate intelligence failures in how bunch of terrorists coul;d infiltrate the country and live here and take flight training without anyone noticing. WTC 7 was collateral damage.

Note nobody ever complains about WTC 3 - Marriott Hotel where 40 people died

WTC was slammed by 110 story building falling on it and slashing open South facade, starting numerous fires

Fires were spotted on 13 floors of the building which burned out of control fror 7 hours

Indeed this may all be true, 9/11 was planned by our Secret Government, the proof is all over the internet with the video of what hit the Pentagon, Use your brain, there is no evidence of wings hitting the Pentagon and the video is of a missile with Plasma shielding

Originally posted by sweet6b9
Indeed this may all be true, 9/11 was planned by our Secret Government, the proof is all over the internet with the video of what hit the Pentagon, Use your brain, there is no evidence of wings hitting the Pentagon and the video is of a missile with Plasma shielding

Are you serious? Really, I recalled there being something about the plane hitting the pentagon at an angle, not a perfect horizontal strike. A missile with plasma shielding... dot dot dot is all I can think with that statement.

reply to post by Human_Alien


Maybe this video of a recount of a selection of over 500 Firefighters released on court order and withheld by the government will help convince.

reply to post by Alfie1


Alfie, I'm not here to convince you. I'm here to find new info regarding 9/11 and join all those who share my passion for the truth because the OS doesn't sit well with me. I am not here to convince you of Dr. Kelly's murder either. That would be another post entirely. I was just pointing out that people have lost their lives because of the info they've had. It's nothing to do with conspiracy, it has happened all throughout history.

You have a right to be here on this forum as we all do, except I wonder why you are here. You have added nothing to the conversation, you don't share the same opinions as the OP, and you have spent quite a few hours out of your life just to unload your dissatisfaction with our research and beliefs.

If I didn't believe in a topic, I would not spend hours and hours slamming people for their posts. So what gives?

Alex Jones has all the new video's presented in one page.

www.infowars.com...

thank you OP for the video.

i cant believe we have to argue over eyewitness testimony. atleast no one tried to say he was drunk or something ridiculous...

i wish someone in the know would say something. history holds a high place for them. perhaps an adition to mt rushmore..

reply to post by ExPostFacto


If I could, I would give your post hundreds more Stars & Flags!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There should be another category: Medals
I would give you hundreds of those too!

I'm going to take a guess here, at motivation, and end results.
Strip away the labels that we have either put on ourselves or have been put on us.
No, truther, truster, debunker, OSer, just for a moment for this purpose, take them off.
Abandon the 'positions' that have been taken up and argued or defended.
For just a brief time, dont align yourself to a position, and simply look at the reality of all you know, all youve been taught or learned, all youve studied and experienced, and be fair to eachother and yourself.
The argument over Who's right is senseless, the quest for the facts, the reality, are the real end result.
THAT is the common ground here shared by anyone and everyone participating in this, and like discussions.
The unaltered, uninfluenced, unspun and undoctored; information, facts, evidence, footage, interviews,
technical data, surrounding this day, this event, all being gathered and put on the table and analyzed, and the resulting reality, the end result, presented.
But that hasnt happened, yet.
ALL of the information hasnt been released, it hasnt been studied and the results havent been shared.
The continued division and arguments among the populace is nothing more than welcomed distraction to those who wish for the silence and suppression to continue.
There's no way, that I can subscribe to the theory offered to me by 'the commission' without first denying the education and intelligence that I have gathered unto myself as a man on all of the issues around this event,
on steel, on construction, physics, and plain simple math.
Something, needs to be done, to get all of the information released, but that will not happen as long as it's not demanded by all of us.
I dont gain any wealth or value or status by questioning this event, by not believing the offered story.
I dont see where anything is gained by readliy accepting it as well.
Collectively these group names of truther-or-truster are in reality just all of us separated off on our own, but shut in the same room.
We're noisy, at and with eachother.
I cant help but wonder how much would be revealed, how much more would come out, if there was a united din,
one not directed at defending a position, but one directed at fulfilling a need.
The NEED for ALL of the data, info, footage, pictures, communications, records etc, to be gathered and studied and all of THAT presented to us.
I guess there's a big difference between discussing a position, and discussing a need.
You can satisfy a need.

THEY LIE!!!! That's what the debunker's will say.

Again, no way could they have put those fires out using helo's, water, conventional means or whatever trash the debunkers like to say. They had to bring them down or those buildings would still be burning today.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by PonyoSon

 

Yeah the pile of rubble had to go somewhere, that fine, but you cant tell me after watching that video the building doesn't come straight down at all four corners of the building from asymmetrical damage? This is not physically possible! Mind you, this was so obvious that the 911 commission tried to just ignore it and leave it out of their report.

Typical truther diversion - reason 911 Commision did not mention WTC 7 was because not germane to their
mission which was to investigate intelligence failures in how bunch of terrorists coul;d infiltrate the country and live here and take flight training without anyone noticing. WTC 7 was collateral damage.

Note nobody ever complains about WTC 3 - Marriott Hotel where 40 people died

WTC was slammed by 110 story building falling on it and slashing open South facade, starting numerous fires

Fires were spotted on 13 floors of the building which burned out of control fror 7 hours

wow, never been called a truther before, "Typical truther diversion", give me a break... fires can not cause a building to fall like that. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. you would have to melt every beam on every floor to have it fall in the manner it did. not to mention no fire could be hot enough to even melt one of the beams in that building never mind all of them at once. you literally have to cut the metal with something really really hot to have a building crumble like that.

i mean look at Oklahoma city building that poor thing had the whole front half of it blown off and was still standing. these builds are incredibly strong. I'll say it again you literally have to cut every beam on every floor for them to fall! simple as that.

think about what your pots and pans you cook with are made of, could you melt one of those with a regular fire? now think how thick the steel in those beams were, their is no way a fire is melting them all at once. that's just plain common sense. ITS IMPOSSIBLE! simple as that.

As more and more videos are coming out it is becoming clear that the media sorted and censored their coverage of 9/11.

If you asked the media today why they dont release the unedited interviews now, their reasoning would probably be

"if the public saw the truth about 9/11, they would scream inside job every time there was a terror attack. The teorists would go free, while the public would riot at Washington"

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Maybe you haven't heard on here. Eyewitness testimony is not valid to debunkers. Debunkers say eyewitness testimony is rendered moot when someone questions it. Same thing with UFO's.

reply to post by PonyoSon


Why is it that every time any conspiracy theorist talks about WTC 7 they forget about the damage from the debris! It's ridiculous. And whenever the debris is mentioned, they say "oh, but NIST said the debris isn't what caused the collapse." But I thought you didn't believe NIST! Besides, NIST came to the conclusion that the only reason the building collapsed the way it did was a result of the fires, lack of water, AND the damage. Combination effect.

reply to post by Varemia

So the scattered and random fires and damage happened in just the right places and for just the right amount of time , perfectly, to create and allow for a syncronized text book collapse, and complete building failure,
one so exact and perfect in its random chaotic design that it simulated a controlled demo?
Like 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 odds of something like that ever happening and we, we were lucky enough to witness it?

reply to post by Come Clean


Maybe they should read the rules of evidence for our court system. Eye Witness testimony is Direct evidence:

Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

Direct evidence is believable to prove anything unless equally compelling direct evidence is offered. If 9/11 was ever tried in court, the government would be convicted. But apparently our government does not believe in holding themselves accountable to the legal standards they place on us.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by PonyoSon

 

Why is it that every time any conspiracy theorist talks about WTC 7 they forget about the damage from the debris! It's ridiculous. And whenever the debris is mentioned, they say "oh, but NIST said the debris isn't what caused the collapse." But I thought you didn't believe NIST! Besides, NIST came to the conclusion that the only reason the building collapsed the way it did was a result of the fires, lack of water, AND the damage. Combination effect.

the damage was so minimal their is no way it could cause all the floors to crumble at once. its not possible

look at this damage and the building wans't even close to a full collapse.

and they still had to use exsplosive to take it down a month later


these structures are not built to just fall if one section is damaged. YOU NEED TO CUT ALL THE MAIN SUPPORT columns to have a full out collapse. this is not really debatable. in the WTC 7 video you can see the upper floors fail at the same time as the bottom floors. this can only be achieved by cutting all the support beams on every floor.

you here some explosion anf firefighter say building will come down and the 2nd video is a truck on 9/11 manhattan demolition truck

1.WTC7 Firefighters "Keep Your Eye on that Building, It's Coming Down


Manhattan Demolition Truck - seen on the street in New York on 911 pass on the street at 2:05

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by Come Clean

 

Maybe they should read the rules of evidence for our court system. Eye Witness testimony is Direct evidence:

Evidence that stands on its own to prove an alleged fact, such as testimony of a witness who says she saw a defendant pointing a gun at a victim during a robbery. Direct proof of a fact, such as testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did.

Direct evidence is believable to prove anything unless equally compelling direct evidence is offered. If 9/11 was ever tried in court, the government would be convicted. But apparently our government does not believe in holding themselves accountable to the legal standards they place on us.

Exactly !
Giving testimony IS evidence, under oath, and with the new enemy combatant laws put into effect by our lovely congress, members past and present could be held without habius corpus, along with other private contractors and individuals for an indefinite amount of time, IF we had someone clean enough and with enough balls to do it.
(excuse the moment of fantasy).