It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Third Tower

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Get a grip Dave..
It's just a site, not real life dude..Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they are hold equal weight..
It's almost like your life revolves around proving the OS, though it does seem you are losing..




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   

You are absolutely correct , 9/11 was totally unprecedented . Just because something has never happened does not mean that it can never happen .

Can you explain why WTC7 collapsed in the exact manner of explosive demolition, what is the evidence it collapsed from any other cause? I assume you can explain in detail what exactly would cause the progression to occur at such speed, and how do we know that's what happened? Furthermore, I am sure you can also explain how WTC7 collapsed at free-fall which is acceleration of an object acted on only by gravity. For WTC7 to fall through itself at freefall the columns on each floor must have been removed ahead of the collapse wave, which for me, is implication of controlled demolition as the chances of fire removing columns ahead of the collapse wave is slim.

NIST have presented a case whose most basic claims and predictions are untestable and unaccountable, at least as far as the general public is concerned since they don't appear forthcoming to provide the in-put data for their computer models to be tested independently (and have in fact circumnavigated numerous FOIA requests). Until they do, NIST's current theory remains unproven - at least to us and to the general public. If NIST have proven it to themselves they certainly are not letting on how they have proven it. How can we believe that it is really scientific and not mere pseudoscience? Also, I am amazed at how many stars debunkers get on this forum for their posts.
edit on 26-11-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Dude, you ARE new here. Go back and look at the previous threads being posted here, and a good 75% of them are on how the towers were destroyed by secretly planted controlled demolitions, how it was something other that flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, and how everyone from a taxi driver in a cab out by the Pentagon to a fire fighter at WTC 7 are all involved in the coverup and spreading disinformation. If you're trying to insist they aren't then you will be lying, becuase when we see threads with titles like, "Thermite experiments and evidence summary" we know right away what they're discussing.



Regarding the testimony and reliability witness of the 'taxi driver'.
Wasnt he proved to be lying in an interview with him? He stated the cab was actually in a different spot than what the pictures taken of both the cab and him have shown.
And then when he DIDnt realize he was still being recorded he made claims to what is believed to be a conspiracy theory? The powers of 'they'.
According to you, just the mere mention of this would make you think he is a crackpot, but you ignore this evidence.
So, you want to use this guy as a reliable witness with what he was caught lying about?
What makes you think that if one guy is lying, than the other is not?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 



Good point . I totally agree with this statement .


Then we can agree that the official conspiracy theory a based on a flawed premise.


My question is , why do scores of "truthers" oppose considering that WTC7 collapsed due to fires and damage that was incurred , even if they think it wasn't likely at all , especially since the explanation given (by those truthers) is completely unprecedented (that someone secretly rigged a building with explosives and no one noticed) ?


I consider it, as do many other people I know, which others would consider to be "truthers". However, we place a level of probability on each scenario, based on the available evidence.

Can we also agree that there is at least some evidence to suggest that controlled demolitions were used, even if you don't agree with that evidence? You may not agree with that evidence, but you should agree that it is evidence. I'm talking about eye-witness, forensic and circumstantial.

  • Eye-witness, in the fact that many people not only heard explosives (i.e. firefighters and bystanders), but also in the fact that some people who were there (i.e. Berry Jennings), report a different account than the official account.

  • Forensic in the fact that at least some scientists have to a conclusion that traces of controlled demolitions were present in the dust. You don't have to agree with these scientists, only acknowledge that they exist. In fact, every scientists who has publicly considered the idea of controlled demolitions and looked for the same, has found such evidence, regardless of whether you believe them or not.

  • Circumstantial in that the the phenomenon cited for the collapse of the building is unprecented. Furthermore circumstantial in that all scenarios aren't being considered and instead, it appears that the cited phenomenon was crafted to explained the pre-concieved official theory, as opposed to the other way around.

    I want to make it clear that the above list is certainly not limited to the incident and scenarios cited, though due to brevity and relevance to the point, I'll refrain from trying to point out everything.

    So, while I'm willing to consider all possible scenarios, I'm not willing to buy into the only scenario that is being considered, especially seeing how there is evidence that is being ignored.


    1) The building was Pre-rigged with explosives , before 9/11 . This would mean that the demo crew rigged a 47-storey building with explosives and there is not one single shred of evidence for this happening .
    Either the building was rigged during construction , and not one single individual questioned why the building was being fitted with explosives while it was being constructed , or , the building was rigged with explosives after construction was completed .


    Actually, there is evidence of demolitions and since these demolitions would have the highest probability of being pre-rigged, there is evidence of pre-rigged explosives in WTC complex. An over-whelming consensus (as in 100%) of experts who have admittedly looked into and tested for such evidence, has found it or agrees that it is valid evidence, regardless of whether you agree with themor not.

    Furthermore, the idea of rigged explosives having to been planted before 9/11 is what makes many people think that there is a conspiracy involving people supposedly on "our side".

    What you are doing is basically saying that the evidence can't be right because there is no way that explosives could have been planted before 9/11. That is basically fitting the evidence to a pre-concieved notion or theory, as opposed to allowing the evidence to dictate the theory and this is the very anti-thesis of objectivity. It allows your own personal biases or world-view to taint the evidence. The above quote basically proves that you aren't looking at this objectively and instead, you are allowing certain biases to mold your opinion.


    2) The building was rigged after construction was completed but before any tenants moved in . Again , this would mean that the demo crew spent weeks or months rigging the building and not one single individual questioned why and not one single individual has come forward with knowledge of it .



    3) The building was rigged after tenants moved in and none of those tenants noticed a demo crew going about the business of placing explosives in strategic locations , over a period of weeks or months . Again , not one individual has come forward with knowledge of this . To be fair , what does a demo crew look like ? Surely , they didn't walk around with "Demo Crew" tatooed on their foreheads . Still , no one from the crew has come forward .



    This is easy and I thank you for bringing it up. In a high-rise building, such as this 47 story skyscraper, there is construction on an almost daily basis. This means that the tenants would be used to work being done on the building and it wouldn't be out of the ordinary. If you worked there and saw construction worlers on any given day, you wouldn't really question what they were doing and even if you did, you could have been given a simple explanation such as switching out the ducts or rewiring the building for x reasons.

    However and with that being said, there were some extensive renovations that happened in the years leading up to 9/11. One was to upgrade the building with the emergency planning center. Another was when a company by the name of Securacom upgraded and provided security for the complex. It's important to note that during this contract, Marvin Bush, George Bush's younger brother, was on the board of that company, just another small piece of circumstantial evidence.

    The explsoives or demolitions could have been planted during any one of these instances, or during all of these instances, a little bit at a time, if explsoives were even used at all. Had this have happened, nobody would really know about it, other than the people implicated and just as murderers, inside traders and rapists don't usually turn themselves in on their own, especially when they are getting away with it, these guys wouldn't either.

    Think about it for a minute... Your friend winds up dead, with a few holes in her body and your excuse for her not being murdered is that nobody has come forward with information on the plot or a confession to the same. Then, the coroner admits that they refuse to even consider murder, and instead take a long time to contrive a phenomenon for her death that is not only unprecedented, but also untestable. It's also important to note that in the whole town, the coroner's office and family members are the only people who own firearms, giving them a motive to not even consider the use of firearms. Then, some detectives who go to the scene of the crime, find spent bullet casings and a few fired and smashed bullets that were in holes which match identically to your friends body and her position. Add this on top of the fact of the many witnesses who were there, had heard gunshots and then screaming from your friend.

    Are you then going to believe the coroner who admitted to the fact that they won't even consider that it was murder or that guns were used (which his family is the only gun-owners in town, implicating his family if guns were used) and instead take a very long time to come up with a possible theory for her death, that just happens to be not only unprecedented, but also untestable. Or, would you want to consider that she just may have been murdered and gunshots could have been used?

    I don't know about you, but I would want to consider the evidence and look at the coroner with suspicion that he won't even consider that a gun may be involved. I would then question why he refuses to considers it, which would ultimately point further to the idea that if he is trying to cover something up, there may be much more to the story.

    I do realize that some people however wouldn't want to admit that something as sinister as murder could have taken place, that they would be in denial. It's much easier to just acceptable a nicer scenario, regardless of how plausible it may be.

     


    Again, what you are doing, is allowing your own subjective reasoning to influence the evidence, by saying that the evidence can't be true because it doesn't fit in with your world-view. Instead, to look at this matter objectively, you should follow the evidence and then base your theory on that evidence, not the other way around. You can't dismiss evidence because you don't believe the scenario to which that evidence points. Not only is this counter to the applied scientific model, but it isn't intellectually honest.

    There are things that we want to believe and then there is reality and no matter how much we plug our ears or wish something away, it doesn't alter or influence reality.


    --airspoon



  • posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:12 PM
    link   
    reply to post by SphinxMontreal
     



    To properly predict when a large building like WTC7 is going to collapse, I think an inspection of the structure from the interior as well as the exterior is vital. And to my knowledge, no such interior inspection of WTC7 was conducted on 9/11, since firefighters obviously had more pressing concerns with search and rescue efforts at WTC1 and WTC2


    As usual you are wrong again...

    FDNY did have men inside following collapse of the towers. What they found convinced the fireground commanders to abandon WTC 7 as too dangerous

    OEM official Richard Rotanz, a FDNY captain assigned to OEM made an inspection of WTC 7 interior

    Here is what he found


    Deputy Director of the OEM, Richard Rotanz has to make an assessment on the damage to WTC 7. On the exterior he sees the upper 10-15 floors of Tower 7 on fire. "The skin of the building or the outside skirt of the building was taken out,¿ he says. "You see columns gone. You see floors damaged and you see heavy black smoke and fire." He then enters the WTC 7. "At the time the building wasn't safe but we had to make an assessment, just the same, and we didn't spend that long. You could hear the building creak above us, you could hear things fall, you could hear the fire burning. You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us. "There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."


    Columns gone, elevators blown out of shafts, gaping holes, debris falling

    Several other crews entered WTC 7 to attempt suppressing the fires beginning to grow

    Account of Capt Anthony Varriale, FDNY

    graphics8.nytimes.com...


    Found lack of water in the building standpipes. Without adequate water any attempt to extinguish fires would
    no only be futile, but risk more death and injury to men. For what? An abandoned building.



    posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:42 PM
    link   
    reply to post by thedman
     


    Either Berry Jennines or Richard Rotanz are lying, both tell a complete different story.

    I have a feeling Richard Rotanz was told to tell a story that would fit the OS because his career depended on it. And I will add, what Richard Rotanz says is not a proven fact, it is his opinion, just because he made the claim doesn’t mean any of it is true. I find it very strange with all the photos that were taken that morning on 911 not one person was able to capture this alleged gash in WTC 7.

    If anything, the government conspiracy was to cover up a building being demolition by insiders, and to help cover up the criminals, you would need many paid liars.

    The government stories of 911and their phony reports have been proven to be mostly lies. Sorry, I will wait to see what science has to prove before I start believing in hearsay information.

    edit on 26-11-2010 by impressme because: (no reason given)



    posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:57 AM
    link   
    reply to post by airspoon
     



    What you are doing is basically saying that the evidence can't be right because there is no way that explosives could have been planted before 9/11. That is basically fitting the evidence to a pre-concieved notion or theory, as opposed to allowing the evidence to dictate the theory and this is the very anti-thesis of objectivity. It allows your own personal biases or world-view to taint the evidence. The above quote basically proves that you aren't looking at this objectively and instead, you are allowing certain biases to mold your opinion.


    To the contrary , that is not what I am "basically saying" at all . What I am "basically saying" , is that out of all the thousands of posts I have read here , I have yet to come across a post or a thread , that shows conclusive "evidence" of explosives being placed in WTC7 , or even the towers , for that matter .

    Therefore , my "own personal biases or world view" are not capable of "tainting the evidence" , when the evidence is not there . I did not say "there is no way that explosives could have been planted before 9/11" . To be clear , those were your words , not mine .

    I showed several scenarios in which the explosives "could" have been placed in WTC7 .It is my opinion that those scenarios were , and are , unlikely , as no conclusive evidence has shown otherwise . You see , there is this pesky little thing that you , nor anyone else has proven ...Guilty beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT .

    Furthermore , for you to say that I am "allowing certain biases to mold" my opinion , is not only outright false , it is deceptive to all of those on this site who may not know my posting history and where I have stood on the 9/11 issue since I joined this site . You , of all people , should know that when I joined this site , I fell into the "truther" camp . I was right there with you guys , claiming that it was all a big conspiracy and cover-up , posting and making threads to show why I felt the big bad government was responsible for 9/11 , and how they were lying about all of it .

    So , let's stop with the little games , shall we , and stop trying to give everyone the impression that I haven't looked at this "objectively" . I have looked at all of this from both sides , and I have reached the conclusion that controlled demolition and explosives have neither been proven beyond a reasonable doubt .

    I would not want to have a jury of my peers convict me solely on the "evidence" that you and others are claiming is "proof" .

    For the record , please state exactly what you feel brought down WTC7 . If you think it was explosives , please state what type of explosives . And , why do you feel that WTC7 was brought down by CD ? In other words , given the fact that WTC1 and WTC2 , as well as the Pentagon , were struck by airliners , why do you feel that the perps found it absolutely neccessary to bring WTC7 down with explosives ?



    posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:53 AM
    link   

    Originally posted by DIDtm
    Regarding the testimony and reliability witness of the 'taxi driver'.
    Wasnt he proved to be lying in an interview with him? He stated the cab was actually in a different spot than what the pictures taken of both the cab and him have shown.


    I don't know anything about that, but this is probably more crap coming from those damned fool conspiracy web site bickering over something idiotic like his cab being five feet away from the spot he said it was. After all, everyone knows that after he saw the plane fly over the highway and strike the Pengon that it was his responsibility to grab a tape measure and note the precise distance his cab was from every local landmark in order to placate you conspiracy poeple.

    Indulge me. Where did this "he was proven to be lying" bit coming from?


    And then when he DIDnt realize he was still being recorded he made claims to what is believed to be a conspiracy theory? The powers of 'they'.


    What do you mean by, "what is 'believed to be' a conspiracy theory"? Who believes this, other than you conspiracy people who insist the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy anyway?


    So, you want to use this guy as a reliable witness with what he was caught lying about?
    What makes you think that if one guy is lying, than the other is not?


    Because a) he was physically there when the plane struck the Pentagon, b) his account coordinates with the accounts of all the other people who were physically there, and c) after you conspiracy people have been caught lying red handed yourself from your "no interceptors were scrambled", "there were no fires in WTC 7", "the hijackers were all illiterate cavemen" etc etc etc claims I'll want proof from you even if you said night was dark.



    posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 11:57 AM
    link   
    Exactly. It sounds exactly like the arguments of a disinfo agent...


    Originally posted by backinblack
    reply to post by GoodOlDave
     


    Get a grip Dave..
    It's just a site, not real life dude..Everyone is entitled to their opinion and they are hold equal weight..
    It's almost like your life revolves around proving the OS, though it does seem you are losing..



    posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:11 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by GoodOlDave
    I don't know anything about that, but this is probably more crap coming from those damned fool conspiracy web site bickering over something idiotic like his cab being five feet away from the spot he said it was. After all, everyone knows that after he saw the plane fly over the highway and strike the Pengon that it was his responsibility to grab a tape measure and note the precise distance his cab was from every local landmark in order to placate you conspiracy poeple.

    Indulge me. Where did this "he was proven to be lying" bit coming from?


    Sure Dave. Here is a link to the interview with him
    www.youtube.com...

    If you havent seen the documentary, you should watch it. There are many EYE WITNESS accounts of which direction the plane actually came from. But then again...these eyewitness' probably dont matter to you, since they conflict with the official story.



    What do you mean by, "what is 'believed to be' a conspiracy theory"? Who believes this, other than you conspiracy people who insist the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy anyway?


    This has been your claim since day one, I am sure. And that is fine. But you are using the testimony of someone who does believe in a larger conspiracy. I guess you can pick and choose what testimony to believe from certain witnesses.




    Because a) he was physically there when the plane struck the Pentagon, b) his account coordinates with the accounts of all the other people who were physically there, and c) after you conspiracy people have been caught lying red handed yourself from your "no interceptors were scrambled", "there were no fires in WTC 7", "the hijackers were all illiterate cavemen" etc etc etc claims I'll want proof from you even if you said night was dark.


    Youre right. He was there when the plane hit the Pentagon. His account does coordinate with SOME other witnesses. But then at another time his account does not. One, when he knows he is being recorded. One when he does not. Since they counter each other, wouldnt it best to ignore his testimony. He obviously is lying about one of them.
    And again you claim, 'you conspiracy people'. Way to generalize. Would it be fair to say that, 'you believers' are fools because you dont even know about a third tower collapsing that day? No it wouldnt, even though a large percentage of the nation doesnt even know about WTC7.



    posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 01:55 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by thedman
    You could see columns just hanging from the upper floors, gaping holes in the floors up above us. "There was an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall. This is the massive impact of Tower 1 onto Tower 7."


    'There was a an elevator car that was blown out of the shaft and it was down the hall'.
    Wow. From a fire?



    posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:06 PM
    link   
    reply to post by DIDtm
     


    It was on south face of WTC 7 - right where the debris from WTC 1 slashed open the building and scooped out a
    huge gouge in that side

    The one the FDNY men reported as extending some 20 floors

    The one that all the truther clowns seem to forget about when mentioning WTC 7



    posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:43 PM
    link   
    reply to post by thedman
     


    I couldnt find any reporting of that in the NIST report.
    www.nist.gov...
    Maybe I missed it. If it's there, I apologize, but it seems that if there was significant damage as is being portrayed by the believers, it should be mentioned in the very report you are so valiantly defending.
    It mentions structural damage, but not where or how much. This seems pretty significant.
    It also states the the building would have collapsed even if there was no structural damage.
    HMMM.



    posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:47 PM
    link   
    ALSO:
    Can NIST’s findings be used in court?
    As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses

    www.nist.gov...

    Why can't the official report be admitted as evidence?
    Doesn't this seem a tad strange?
    If not, please explain. I have an open mind.



    posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:50 AM
    link   
    reply to post by thedman
     



    It was on south face of WTC 7 - right where the debris from WTC 1 slashed open the building and scooped out a
    huge gouge in that side


    There is absolutely no evidence to support this ridiculous nonsense.

    I am so glad intelligent people do not take this seriously.

    Please explain to the readers how every joint, bracket, and floor Joyce on all 48 floors broke simultaneously and fell without any resistance?
    The WTC 7 fell at freefall speed, do you deny this to?



    posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 04:16 AM
    link   
    reply to post by DIDtm
     


    Can NIST’s findings be used in court?
    As part of the NCST Act, no part of any report resulting from investigations can be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages. Additionally, NIST employees are not permitted to serve as expert witnesses

    Plus Cheney and Bush giving evidence together and not under oath with no journalists, things to make you go hummmmmm.

    The level of propaganda and intellectual dishonesty from the resident (paid?) debunkers is amazing.

    Traditionally, an agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French for "inciting agent(s)") is a person employed by the police or other entity to act undercover to entice or provoke another person to commit an illegal act. More generally, the term may refer to a person or group that seeks to discredit or harm another by provoking them to commit a wrong or rash action.

    The use of agent provocateurs by the US is well established

    In regards to WTC7, all we want is an investigation to look at the facts and isn't run by political insiders. And yet I'm the one looking at the damn fool conspiracies... truly pathetic.

    A real supporter of the OS would embrace a new investigation, instead we get people who are good at arguing.

    Peace

    Oh yeah the NIST report is just like the spruced up dodgy dossier in the UK, good enough to go to war but not good enough to go to court.



    posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 10:58 AM
    link   
    reply to post by impressme
     


    No evidence huh? I guess Fire Chief Hayden was hallucinating then right, or lying? Or the photo and video of the gash shown on live TV as the WTC7 burned was also faked?





    Yeah no evidence. Even when its literally right under your nose, it's not there. I guess you just don't want it to be there. But sorry, no matter how hard you shut your eyes and plug your ears and shout, "No evidence!", its still going to be there, the 800lb gorilla in the room. That gash was there, and seen and reported by firefighters. It's funny how you cling to any firefighter account that mentions a loud noise sounded like a "bomb" or "boom" as PROOF!!! of explosives, but when they mention something you don't like, (ie a large gash, bulging of the building, leaning, tilting, sounds of structural failure, etc) you ignore it. So then why on earth would they put a laser transit on the building if it wasn't compromised?



    posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 01:38 PM
    link   

    To the contrary , that is not what I am "basically saying" at all . What I am "basically saying" , is that out of all the thousands of posts I have read here , I have yet to come across a post or a thread , that shows conclusive "evidence" of explosives being placed in WTC7 , or even the towers , for that matter .


    Which unambiguously means that they were not present.

    Nah I'm just kidding It doesn't mean that.

    However the evidence that explosives went off is staggering, and if you observe the news archives at the top of the page you can research;

    1. much more reliable information
    2. a larger volume of information.

    Tell us what you find.



    posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 06:23 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by DIDtm
    Sure Dave. Here is a link to the interview with him
    www.youtube.com...

    If you havent seen the documentary, you should watch it. There are many EYE WITNESS accounts of which direction the plane actually came from. But then again...these eyewitness' probably dont matter to you, since they conflict with the official story.


    Oh, for the love of Ronald McDonald. You're telling me your entire rebuttal showing you aren't simply just quoting drivel you found on some internet web site is...posting a conspiracy theory video off some internet web site, and your entire rebuttal showing they're not just makign stuff up is...a video where someone is making up his own map of the flight path of flight 77 and passing it off as fact. Is this what you're telling me? Is this REALLY what you're telling me?

    All right, look. This guy supposedly interviewed eight different people and got eight different flight paths, which he plots out on an overhead map on his own. The eyewitnesses didn't draw them on any map, he did. It's pretty obvious that only one object hit the Pentagon, which means by this guy's own admission, seven eyewitnesses had misjudged the actual distance to the south the plane was. SEVEN FLIGHT PATHS ON HIS MAP ARE FALSE. Where is it written on what stone that all eight eyewitnesses didn't misjudge the actual distance to the south the plane was, meaning this guy is trying to pull a fast one and it actually flew even further to the south and therefore flew on the path all the OTHER eyewitnesses said it did? There were more people who saw the plane than just those eight, you know.

    You accuse me of believing who I want to believe but froim what I'm seeing you're doing literally the exact same thing. It has nothing to do with who believes what. It has everything to do with recognizing a con artist when we see one.


    This has been your claim since day one, I am sure. And that is fine. But you are using the testimony of someone who does believe in a larger conspiracy. I guess you can pick and choose what testimony to believe from certain witnesses.


    No, actually, I listen to all the facts and I listen to all sides of the argument...which is why I know all your own conspiracy stories better than you do.



    posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:22 PM
    link   
    reply to post by GenRadek
     



    No evidence huh? I guess Fire Chief Hayden was hallucinating then right, or lying? Or the photo and video of the gash shown on live TV as the WTC7 burned was also faked?


    You can call a “shadow” a gash all you like, however that photo is completely useless.
    The photo only leaves one to speculate what the shadow is and nothing more.

    You need to show a “clear photo” of this alleged gash, not what you want it to be.


    Even when its literally right under your nose, it's not there. I guess you just don't want it to be there.


    The only evidence literally right under our nose that can I see is WTC 7 being demolished by demolition and that what the video proves.


    But sorry, no matter how hard you shut your eyes and plug your ears and shout, "No evidence!", its still going to be there, the 800lb gorilla in the room.


    Then perhaps you need to open your eyes and take your fingers out of your ears, it is many of you OS defenders who are denying the evidence and making up fallacies in hoping to win your case, in supporting your OS fairytales.


    That gash was there, and seen and reported by firefighters. It's funny how you cling to any firefighter account that mentions a loud noise sounded like a "bomb" or "boom" as PROOF!!! of explosives, but when they mention something you don't like, (ie a large gash, bulging of the building, leaning, tilting, sounds of structural failure, etc) you ignore it.


    Most of us are in here to “deny ignorance” not to embrace it, as some of you have been demonstrating year after years in defending your 911 OS. Many of us are not interested in your opinions that you call facts. You are entitled to your beliefs but not your truths.

    If you want a shadow to be your gash, then so be it, but don’t expect everyone else to believe what you make up to fit your beliefs.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    23
    << 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

    log in

    join