Japan Skyscrapers Sway With 8.9 Earthquake but the WTC collapsed !! still beleive the 9/11 version?

reply to post by Yankee451


Whats up no reply to this post re your newton v nist would it cause you problems Jim!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Yankee451

 

I have seen a lot more than a few camera angles of the plane hitting the tower. I know the plane is real. If it's not (meaning you can apparently prove that every single video of a plane hitting is a fake), then how in the heck can I believe anything at all in the world is real? Am I supposed to assume that all reality is not really reality? If that's the case, then honestly I would prefer to be ignorant since I am not interested in being a paranoid weirdo.

So you're saying you can identify better with the TeeVee than reality?

Here's just one example of fraudulent photographs. They all cancel each other out and they're easier and easier to spot using simple tools available to everyone.

letsrollforums.com...

I agree that many of the videos have been tampered with, but not to add planes in. In fact, most of the time it is just little skips here and there that are almost like data errors, except that they happen at just the right times. Those "glitches" are the reason I am open to other possibilities within the towers, but I am not sold on them yet. The planes still make more sense.

Why would any single image, much less every single image be tampered with?

Recommended viewing:

www.septemberclues.info...

reply to post by Varemia


Kid(going off your avatar only), you seem nice. I feel guilty about doing this I really do...

"I take it then that you claim to have the knowledge of God? Honestly, that is what you sound like you are saying. You appear to have researched 'every' 'single' 'detail' of 9/11, and yet you seem to have completely forgotten that WTC 7 was damaged by debris from WTC 1.
-- Why do you keep trying to interpret what I am saying? I don't claim to have the knowledge of God. That being said, God is in all of us, so maybe I do, you do too, try using it. I will state here that I have not researched "every single detail" about 9-11. Don't need to. Many buildings closer to WTC 1 were damaged but still stood.

"If you haven't even seen the many pictures of the WTC 7's damage (yes, only one segment of damage couldn't be captured because of all the smoke and the fact that no one thought to BRING A CAMERA into a disaster zone when they were still trying to recover from the collapses), I have to assume that you are, in fact, not knowledgeable about everything having to do with 9/11."
-- Let's think about your statement here. You are trying to imply that only one segment of the building was damaged and we couldn't see the rest of the damage that you're just positive was there, even though you can't see it either. See how funny that is? "Truthers" are often accused of using videos as evidence but here you are using a lack of video as evidence. And is it indeed a "fact" that no one thought to BRING A CAMERA into a disaster zone? Do you really believe this? Do you really believe that no one thought to bring a camera downtown to film the aftermath of the biggest event in US history because they were still trying to recover from the collapses? Seriously, just stop the madness. I tried to be nice to you, but man, you are making it really hard.

"I can admit that when I first saw a video of WTC 7 collapsing that I thought it was a controlled demolition. It was the only explanation that I could find. Then, I did my research, and it appeared to be otherwise."
--Finally we are getting somewhere. You saw what really happened. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Then you did, "your research" and it "appeared" to be otherwise. Read your own sentence. The appearance of something happening is not the same as it actually happening. What a relief your parents and teachers must have had when you started acting normal again. Look at those images again. Put it on repeat. Tell yourself its not controlled demolition. Rock a bye baby.

"You are right about the truth not changing, but you are wrong in thinking you have the perfect truth."
--Thank you. I am right and you are wrong. I never once said I have the perfect truth. In fact I said there is only one truth. What makes this so hard for you to understand?

"No one has the perfect truth of every detail of that day. To claim so is to be highly ignorant. You may FEEL all you want about your "truth," but in the end, it really is your honest-to-God opinion."
--No. The official story is a lie. That is what I stated and that is the truth. One truth. Not my opinion.

"I mean, that's how the Mormons tell people to begin believing in Joseph Smith. They tell you to read their text and feel in your heart that it is true. Unfortunately, truth does not just reveal itself to peoples' feelings as much as one might wish it to."
--Listen buds, I'll keep it easy on you. You seem like you have a good head on your shoulders and I believe that you are struggling with this just like we are. What you need to understand though, is that those who follow the OS are actually like those Mormons telling people what to believe. The "truthers" are actually like those who have left mormonism and are trying to explain it to someone who runs deep with the church. Get your analogies straight.

"Human beings have the ability to be logical and rational. Claiming to have all the answers without any appearance of true evidence is just silly! At least with the official explanation of events I have videos of fire, damage, and collapses."
--Notice how your fellow OS supporters are not rising to your side? Its because even they realize that you are putting our foot in your mouth with every other step. I never claimed to have all the answers. In fact I don't have any answers...I have lots of questions though...and they don't add up against the Official Story.

"There isn't a single report of an actual demo charge. Only the sound of booms that no camera in all of New York could catch... That sure is a solid theory, eh?"
--are you so sure no cameras caught those booms? Here is the part where I would obliterate you with various videos and statements from that day where booms are in fact heard. But you see this is 2011. We have done it before.

< snip >

Go brush up on your skills. Go read a book. Go read the OS. Go and read the Operation Northwood document. Go and read Sibel Edmonds testimony. Go and read about Abel Danger. Go and read about Osama and the CIA.

I want you to take this personal though buddy, cause I am talking to you directly. You are wrong. You have been mislead. I don't want you to feel with your heart. I am not appealing to your emotions. I don't care if you like it or not. The real world is not always pretty or easy. So keep on coming, if you want I will respond.

Mod edit: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

reply to post by Fitzgibbon


Oh, I get it...

We honor the dead by perpetuating a lie. That way their deaths can mean absolutely NOTHING.

I love the way you think. By the way, how much did your soul cost? If you have any of the money left that they gave you for it, I have beachfront property in Antarctica I'd like to sell you. Obviously, YOU'LL BY ANYTHING...except for the truth of course.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by Varemia


"Am I supposed to assume that all reality is not really reality? If that's the case, then honestly I would prefer to be ignorant since I am not interested in being a paranoid weirdo."
-- This has got to be the first true statemnt from a supporter of the OS that I have read in a long time.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Do you just ignore posts that explain how concrete "melts"? Look for the word degredation on page 12.

When you're not talking about anywhere near the same thing, yes, I do.

How does concrete "degrading" cause the guns to broken apart into pieces as they are encased? Hell, can you show me ANYTHING encased in concrete, that happened after the concrete had already been set?

My educated guess is no, you've never seen anything like this in your life either, and are just offering more layman guesses that will never amount to a legitimate study. There is nothing you can do online to determine what happened to those guns for them to be encased in concrete. You're going to have to learn to deal with that. If you don't care what really happened to them, or what happened at the WTC, and just want to argue with people online, that's all you and it's apparently all you really want anyway.

I'm sorry, you aparently didn't understand, so there really is no use trying to explain it to you.

Yes, I have seen this phenomenon once, and it was from a tanker fire under a bridge. Incredible fire. No, this was not the I-75 fire in Detroit, but simmilar.

Originally posted by bsbray11
Hey, when are we going to stop throwing around wild guesses in an internet circle-jerk and actually figure out wtf happened here?

When you stop ignoring responses, and listen and try to understand what is going on.

Or, maybe when you contact a physicist to try to understand it?

I recommen MIT or Harvard. Both excellent schools. MIT would be my first choice though.

Get cracken bsb!! Time's wastin!!

Originally posted by bsbray11
You give me enough money and I'll do the investigation myself.

Why must WE (General public who have been satisfied with the NIST and other investigations) pay YOU to do another one?

Get your own damn money, get your own damn resources, and do it.

Maybe ask Richard Gage to part with some of his 75,000 he makes a year!

Originally posted by Game_Over

I can illustrate this very easily to you by "discussing" the fact that WTC 7 was left out of the 9-11 Commission Report.

You do understand that 7WTC was not in the 9/11 COmmission Report because it was not a target, right? Just the same as 3,4,5, and 6 WTC were not there, the Verizon Building, Fitterman Hall, US Post Office building, the Winter Garden (Part of WFC) and dozens of other buildings too.

They weren't mentioned either!! OMG!!! Inside Jobbity-job!!!!1!1!11



The 9/11 CR is a POLITICAL report, not an ENGINEERING report.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Yes, I have seen this phenomenon once, and it was from a tanker fire under a bridge. Incredible fire. No, this was not the I-75 fire in Detroit, but simmilar.

Right, like I have any more reason to take your word for it than I do the plaque from the NYPD museum itself.

Thanks but I'd rather leave it to civilian professionals to analyze and decide.

Originally posted by Yankee451
As a military operation, electronic devices would be jammed in the combat theater. This was corroborated by the front linemen for the OEM, the NYPD and the FDNY.

And it had been documented for years the problem with the radios of FDNY.

urgentcomm.com...

Some dating back to 1993, after the bombing of the WTC.
911research.wtc7.net...

Heck, that is one of the reasons a repeater was installed. Too bad only about 1/3rd of the radios worked on that repeater.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Why must WE (General public who have been satisfied with the NIST and other investigations) pay YOU to do another one?

You don't, I'm just saying don't frikkin complain about us doing nothing if you don't have the funds to put up for it either, hypocrites.

And I paid for the NIST report too and I'm NOT satisfied with it! Neither are any of your other tax-paying friends here!

reply to post by FDNY343


You do understand that 7WTC was not in the 9/11 COmmission Report because it was not a target, right?
-- Dude, if that explanation works for you that's great. You see, often these government reports are set up to achieve a desired result. If you do not believe that, fine but it is true. Henry Kissinger was to lead the commission and I am sure that you would have been fine with that. Those who were actually on the commission were not entirely happy with the results either. You see, a real investigation wouldn't have left out something so major that many people were asking questions about just because it wasn't a target. Do you understand that there was no official target list ever acquired, so how can you say it wasn't a target?

"They weren't mentioned either!! OMG!!! Inside Jobbity-job!!!!1!1!11"
-- Either was your house...but it was still a target of 9-11. Oh it wasn't you say? I dare say it was, you have been affected greatly by the outcome of that day. After all the patriot act was made for you my friend.



The 9/11 CR is a POLITICAL report, not an ENGINEERING report.
--well then why do you keep using it to defend the Official Story? I guess if having a political report created and controlled by the very politicians it should be investigating works for you, carry on.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by FDNY343
Why must WE (General public who have been satisfied with the NIST and other investigations) pay YOU to do another one?

You don't, I'm just saying don't frikkin complain about us doing nothing if you don't have the funds to put up for it either, hypocrites.

And I paid for the NIST report too and I'm NOT satisfied with it! Neither are any of your other tax-paying friends here!

Where are the protests outside the NIST offices? Where are the dozens of congressman who are reporting that they are innundated with calls and letters from people that are not satisfied with the NIST report?

There are none. It is just a tiny fraction of the US population that believes the same as you, and when I turn off my computer at night, you all disappear.

We (the general public as a whole) DID put up the funds for it, and it was completed. I am sorry that YOU and a few others on the internet aren't happy.

Ask Gage et al. for some of their money. Why not get all the __________ For 9/11 Truth groups together, pool your finances, and do your own?

Oh, that's right. That would require work.

Originally posted by Game_Over
reply to post by FDNY343

 

You do understand that 7WTC was not in the 9/11 COmmission Report because it was not a target, right?
-- Dude, if that explanation works for you that's great. You see, often these government reports are set up to achieve a desired result. If you do not believe that, fine but it is true. Henry Kissinger was to lead the commission and I am sure that you would have been fine with that. Those who were actually on the commission were not entirely happy with the results either. You see, a real investigation wouldn't have left out something so major that many people were asking questions about just because it wasn't a target. Do you understand that there was no official target list ever acquired, so how can you say it wasn't a target?

"They weren't mentioned either!! OMG!!! Inside Jobbity-job!!!!1!1!11"
-- Either was your house...but it was still a target of 9-11. Oh it wasn't you say? I dare say it was, you have been affected greatly by the outcome of that day. After all the patriot act was made for you my friend.



The 9/11 CR is a POLITICAL report, not an ENGINEERING report.
--well then why do you keep using it to defend the Official Story? I guess if having a political report created and controlled by the very politicians it should be investigating works for you, carry on.

Lot's of words, no real substance. Anyway...

I have never not once brought the 9/11 CR up in my postings here without someone bringing it up first. I simply explained why it did not contain the accounts of 7WTC. Same reason they didn't address any of the other dozen or some buildings that were damaged/destroyed.

Originally posted by FDNY343
Where are the protests outside the NIST offices?

Why outside NIST offices? I don't control where protests are anyway. If you want to see 9/11 protests in general just go to YouTube and you'll find dozens. I don't guess they all think NIST was satisfactory regardless of them not being at NIST's offices. Of course you'll just ignore that and on to the next fallacy.

Where are the dozens of congressman who are reporting that they are innundated with calls and letters from people that are not satisfied with the NIST report?

You can also find videos of congressmen and other leaders being confronted about 9/11 on YouTube. Just saying. I wouldn't know what mail they get anyway brother. Why didn't you think of that one?