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.

 

99% Undeniable Conclusive Evidence That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

page: 14
274
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
This entire thread illustrates just how weak your case is. (Official Story) If this is the best you guys can do, I would feel pretty feeble if I were you. If this wasn't so serious, I'd laugh it off. But, those of you that continue to push it, need to be held accountable because nobody can be that stupid. What joy could you possibly get from spreading the manure that is your opinions? You make me sick to think that people like you debunkers are allowed to post ad nauseum. We will make you answer for your treasonous behavior one day, I swear it.




posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by godfather420
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


First off they don't use 87 octane in semi's they use diesel. Second there is nothing underneath the bridge to make it stop falling so yeah i can believe that. But when there is a whole 70 story building that is undamaged structurally, underneath a 40 storiy one.....where is that 40 storys going to go?? Not through solid matter, and not at free fall speed.
edit on 25-6-2011 by godfather420 because: (no reason given)


They were tanker trucks full of pump gas and diesel, and the overpasses were designed to hold a lot more weight than an office building, even though the construction of the supports is similar with both structures.

But if burning pump gas can bring down a huge section of overpass, burning Jet fuel can bring down a building.



And there are plenty of support structures that keep the overpasses from falling, that;'s why they rarely do.

Is that seriously your arguement?



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I had an engineer tell me that my subdivision had adequate drainage for a 100 year rain.

It's flooded 6 times in the last 2 years.

Just because they say they designed it to withstand a 707 doesn't mean it was.

Did they fly a 707 into a similar structur to test their assertion?

Truthers claim to do their own research, but then post Youtube clips and cut and paste jobs. Do some research into the overpass collapses, they're very easy to find using Google.

So many claims in this thread that have been debunked to death.

1 Pyroclastic clouds, clearly there was no volcanic activity, so stop using the term, it makes you look dense.

2 Pull it being a demolition term, again, not a term used in the industry.

3 No pieces of wreckage bigger than a phonebook, when there clearly were.

4 Building collapsed on it's own footprint, again, this is not true, for any of the buildings.


I'm all for the truth, but when something is debunked you need to stop using it. Loose Change proves nothing, it only asks questions, and poor examples of questions at that. It's why it on like it's fourth cut, it gives you a fuzzy scenario then implies evildoing.

To be honest it's genious filmmaking, it makes the viewer think he/she is somehow smart for asking a question that has been already answered by the largest single investigation into a criminal act in mans history.

I work in medicine and have a very strong science background. And one of the first things you learn is that things are not always what they seem. And just because one thing seems odd to you it doesn't mean it impossible. They found all kinds of wreckage that defied common sense, like the passport. But just because it's unlikely it isn't automatically faked.

Just for kicks I took my old passport just now and tried to burn it with my lighter. The inner pages that get stamped will light, but not easily, and the outer cover and photo page are damn near indestructable.


Hehe, good point!

They found some passports, you're right they sure did. Hey, by the way, What about those black boxes, I believe they're larger than a passport and just a tad more difficult to burn. Were those recovered? Nope!

Remember your brain is a parachute, in order for it to work you must open it!



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by godfather420
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


First off they don't use 87 octane in semi's they use diesel. Second there is nothing underneath the bridge to make it stop falling so yeah i can believe that. But when there is a whole 70 story building that is undamaged structurally, underneath a 40 storiy one.....where is that 40 storys going to go?? Not through solid matter, and not at free fall speed.
edit on 25-6-2011 by godfather420 because: (no reason given)


They were tanker trucks full of pump gas and diesel, and the overpasses were designed to hold a lot more weight than an office building, even though the construction of the supports is similar with both structures.

But if burning pump gas can bring down a huge section of overpass, burning Jet fuel can bring down a building.



And there are plenty of support structures that keep the overpasses from falling, that;'s why they rarely do.

Is that seriously your arguement?


Dude shut up, planes don't bring down buildings. It's as clear as that. You could have flown 50 planes into them and they still wouldn't have come down like they did. explosives were definitely needed.

His argument is sound, your rebuttal defies physics. So if you're that intelligent. Don't bother talking.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CodexSinaiticus

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
I had an engineer tell me that my subdivision had adequate drainage for a 100 year rain.

It's flooded 6 times in the last 2 years.

Just because they say they designed it to withstand a 707 doesn't mean it was.

Did they fly a 707 into a similar structur to test their assertion?

Truthers claim to do their own research, but then post Youtube clips and cut and paste jobs. Do some research into the overpass collapses, they're very easy to find using Google.

So many claims in this thread that have been debunked to death.

1 Pyroclastic clouds, clearly there was no volcanic activity, so stop using the term, it makes you look dense.

2 Pull it being a demolition term, again, not a term used in the industry.

3 No pieces of wreckage bigger than a phonebook, when there clearly were.

4 Building collapsed on it's own footprint, again, this is not true, for any of the buildings.


I'm all for the truth, but when something is debunked you need to stop using it. Loose Change proves nothing, it only asks questions, and poor examples of questions at that. It's why it on like it's fourth cut, it gives you a fuzzy scenario then implies evildoing.

To be honest it's genious filmmaking, it makes the viewer think he/she is somehow smart for asking a question that has been already answered by the largest single investigation into a criminal act in mans history.

I work in medicine and have a very strong science background. And one of the first things you learn is that things are not always what they seem. And just because one thing seems odd to you it doesn't mean it impossible. They found all kinds of wreckage that defied common sense, like the passport. But just because it's unlikely it isn't automatically faked.

Just for kicks I took my old passport just now and tried to burn it with my lighter. The inner pages that get stamped will light, but not easily, and the outer cover and photo page are damn near indestructable.


Hehe, good point!

They found some passports, you're right they sure did. Hey, by the way, What about those black boxes, I believe they're larger than a passport and just a tad more difficult to burn. Were those recovered? Nope!

Remember your brain is a parachute, in order for it to work you must open it!


So you are assuming that all of the objects on board the plane went through the exact same conditions?

Even the parts of the plane itself?

That perhaps some items from an overhead bin, or anywhere else on the aircraft for that matter, were blown clear on impact?

Talk about a weak arguement.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic


2 Pull it being a demolition term, again, not a term used in the industry.

4 Building collapsed on it's own footprint, again, this is not true, for any of the buildings.



Pull it is a term used by demolition crews and means to demolish the building using explosives.

And the buildings (plural) both collapsed on it's footprint just like building 7. surrounding dust and debris doesn't mean it didn't. I'm sure you can clearly see the building drops exactly vertical at free fall speeds. Unless you were watching something else that day.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by godfather420
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


First off they don't use 87 octane in semi's they use diesel. Second there is nothing underneath the bridge to make it stop falling so yeah i can believe that. But when there is a whole 70 story building that is undamaged structurally, underneath a 40 storiy one.....where is that 40 storys going to go?? Not through solid matter, and not at free fall speed.
edit on 25-6-2011 by godfather420 because: (no reason given)


They were tanker trucks full of pump gas and diesel, and the overpasses were designed to hold a lot more weight than an office building, even though the construction of the supports is similar with both structures.

But if burning pump gas can bring down a huge section of overpass, burning Jet fuel can bring down a building.



And there are plenty of support structures that keep the overpasses from falling, that;'s why they rarely do.

Is that seriously your arguement?


Dude shut up, planes don't bring down buildings. It's as clear as that. You could have flown 50 planes into them and they still wouldn't have come down like they did. explosives were definitely needed.

His argument is sound, your rebuttal defies physics. So if you're that intelligent. Don't bother talking.


Clearly planes can, and do, bring down buildings.

What is a plane in reality, but a flying bomb. You rarely see airliners go down without the fireball, not to mention the sheer amount of energy that was absorbed by the buildings, but throwing a raging inferno into the mix put the cherry on the sundae.

If you truly understood physics you'd know that once that building started moving there was no stopping it.

Look, it's obvious you have a predrawn conclusion regarding 9/11, and all the science in the world isn't going to change your mind. But at least accept the realities of physics.

You can claim the planes were loaded with HE, or that they were remotely piloted, or that aliens did it, but clearly those were planes, and they clearly brought those buildings down.

The disservice you do to the victims of that day is huge, try thinking about that one.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by AGWskeptic


2 Pull it being a demolition term, again, not a term used in the industry.

4 Building collapsed on it's own footprint, again, this is not true, for any of the buildings.



Pull it is a term used by demolition crews and means to demolish the building using explosives.

And the buildings (plural) both collapsed on it's footprint just like building 7. surrounding dust and debris doesn't mean it didn't. I'm sure you can clearly see the building drops exactly vertical at free fall speeds. Unless you were watching something else that day.


Again, I challenge you to show me even one controlled demolition specialist who uses that term. Not some out of work plumber who knows a guy.

They have conventions you know, every year. 3 years ago it was in Vegas, and this "pull it" topic came up, when they stopped laughing they continued the meeting.

And your definition of footprint is obviously different from a professionals, because the after math looks nothing like a controlled demolition, it looks like a mess.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by AGWskeptic


2 Pull it being a demolition term, again, not a term used in the industry.

4 Building collapsed on it's own footprint, again, this is not true, for any of the buildings.



Pull it is a term used by demolition crews and means to demolish the building using explosives.

And the buildings (plural) both collapsed on it's footprint just like building 7. surrounding dust and debris doesn't mean it didn't. I'm sure you can clearly see the building drops exactly vertical at free fall speeds. Unless you were watching something else that day.


Again, I challenge you to show me even one controlled demolition specialist who uses that term. Not some out of work plumber who knows a guy.

They have conventions you know, every year. 3 years ago it was in Vegas, and this "pull it" topic came up, when they stopped laughing they continued the meeting.

And your definition of footprint is obviously different from a professionals, because the after math looks nothing like a controlled demolition, it looks like a mess.


Your false disinfo isn't going to work with me. That's why I am telling you how it is.
As you asked for how do I know. Well my uncle is in demolition, his son as well which is my cousin. I'm sure I know what I am talking about. That's why it's about me telling you.

Also there are more specialists around that back me up. they would eat you up on your argument and would love to have a chat to you.
ae911truth.org

But hey I bet you would be able to debate against 1000s of specialists right?

Also my mate Kevin....
Kevin

We all know what happened that day, you don't, but claim you do.

You're not even an expert.

I don't need you to tell me false information. I am so confident in my position on this. You're the one clutching at straws.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


Your story has no room for physics. The falling of all 3 buildings defied physics if you believe the OS. Don't talk physics if you are going to ignore the basic laws.

If you do want to talk physics....please explain resistance and how 30-40 floors just devoured the other ones. It is absolutely physically impossible for the building to fall that fast believing the "pancake" theory.
edit on 25-6-2011 by godfather420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
99% undeniable conclusive evidence....

txs for that, had a good laugh



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by MasterAndrew

Originally posted by AGWskeptic


2 Pull it being a demolition term, again, not a term used in the industry.

4 Building collapsed on it's own footprint, again, this is not true, for any of the buildings.



Pull it is a term used by demolition crews and means to demolish the building using explosives.

And the buildings (plural) both collapsed on it's footprint just like building 7. surrounding dust and debris doesn't mean it didn't. I'm sure you can clearly see the building drops exactly vertical at free fall speeds. Unless you were watching something else that day.


Again, I challenge you to show me even one controlled demolition specialist who uses that term. Not some out of work plumber who knows a guy.

They have conventions you know, every year. 3 years ago it was in Vegas, and this "pull it" topic came up, when they stopped laughing they continued the meeting.

And your definition of footprint is obviously different from a professionals, because the after math looks nothing like a controlled demolition, it looks like a mess.


Your false disinfo isn't going to work with me. That's why I am telling you how it is.
As you asked for how do I know. Well my uncle is in demolition, his son as well which is my cousin. I'm sure I know what I am talking about. That's why it's about me telling you.

Also there are more specialists around that back me up. they would eat you up on your argument and would love to have a chat to you.
ae911truth.org

But hey I bet you would be able to debate against 1000s of specialists right?

Also my mate Kevin....
Kevin

We all know what happened that day, you don't, but claim you do.

You're not even an expert.

I don't need you to tell me false information. I am so confident in my position on this. You're the one clutching at straws.




You're absolutely right about one thing, I am not an expert, and neither are you.

And unfortunately neither is your mate, or most of the folks at the link you provided.

Here's testimony from a guy who was there, saw it with his own two eyes.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

www.nytimes.com...
Banaciski_Richard.txt



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 
Expertise is not necessary when confronted with stupidity. We know where you stand. Good luck with your endeavor, you'll need it.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by The Baby Seal Club
 


And the specific theories on what actually happen & whatnot, is what makes OS deniers look crazy or like nutty 'conspiracy theorists'. I'm with you on that part, but if you think about it, what all could an independent investigation uncover? Who would run it? Who would fund it? Could it be allowed to procede without having Bush Inc. running it? If they found undeniable evidence that put hundreds or thousands of people in the crosshairs of the general public, wouldn't there be riots & anarchy? It would probably be the nail in the coffin of the economy. Just sayin'.

I'm totally with you, but I have a feeling any independent investigation would be tainted somehow, and it would be 'case closed'.. and the argument would go on forever still.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by AGWskeptic
 


the day I listen to anything that nytimes writes will be the day I lose my mind.

That story you just quoted is false disinformation.

Actual footage rips this guys eyewitness statement to shreads, as well as what you are saying.

Here is a video you need to watch before saying you know what your talking about.
YouTube vid of actual footage of building 7 NOT about to fall like you and your witness says

So shut up about that too.

And you must have accepted me ripping you on the buildings imploding on it's footprint. Like I said vertical free fall shows it imploded on its footprint and that surrounding dust and debris doesn't mean it didn't. So come on expert debate me on all your failings, stop being selective.

I clearly know alot more this than you. So don't even start with whose more qualified because you won't win.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 

Just show me an example where a demo was over a thousand degrees. hell, how about one where it stayed that temperature for days after?
I'll do that just as soon as you show me an example of jet fuel which burns at 287.5 °C melting steel which has a melting point of 1510 °C.


To which I watched, timed, and discovered it did indeed take longer.
Interesting, because using a stopwatch I got right at 10 seconds.



To which pictures show it was not perfectly symmetrical. And to which temperatures of 1000+ degrees have yet to be proven.




Which one? The temperatures? That I don't even believe, not until I see some real raw data.

I was referring to the passport which supposedly fell out of one of the hi-jackers pockets amidts the fiery explosion in the main towers and managed to be picked up by a pedestrian on the ground. But the molten metal down there was real and denying its existence despite the many witness testimonies and thermal images is beyond ignorant.


I've yet to be told what the presence of these debris, or their lack there of, matters. The debris are pretty consistent with accidents like Colombia. The two involve a fast-going plane hitting a sudden change in density. The recovered artifacts and wreckage are similar in consistency.
Well if you read the OP you would understand the significance. From the OP:
-- Debris from the Shanksville site was found 3-4 miles away from the impact site. The hundreds of investigators there found no debris larger than a phonebook.

-- Although there was no debris larger than a phonebook at the site, the FBI provided a myriad of evidence during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui which survived that catastrophic plane crash in good condition: A red bandana, a kingdom of Saudi Arabia drivers lisence, John Talignani's drivers lisence, and flight attendant CeeCee Lyles driver's lisence and Mariot hotel card. So a 757 obliterated itself upon impact leaving no body parts, but paper and fabric survived the crash intact.

--The FBI and state police closed off a second area 6-8 miles away from the crash site, which was another debris site from this plane.

-- The 9/11 commission states that the military was not informed of Flight 93 until 10:07, which was a few minutes after it crashed. However US Navy vet Barry Lichty believes otherwise, because his power went out and he says that it sounded like a missile went by his house, and he claims that it was coming from the direction of the crash, and it was not the aircraft that crashed. Despite the government and military's previous claims that they were unaware of United Flight 93 until afterit crashed and received no information from the FAA pertaining to Flight 93, a year later their story changed and they claimed that Flight 93 was indeed being tracked and that they were aware of it, which is a complete contradition of their earlier statements.

It changed from this:

Despite the discussions about military assistance, no-one from FAA headquarters requested military assistance regarding Flight 93, nor did any manager at FAA headquarters pass any of the information it had on Flight 93 to the military

To this:

We received a report from the FAA that Flight 93 had turned off it's transponder, had turned, and now was heading towards Washington DC. The decision was made to try to go in and intercept Flight 93...It was about 10:03 that the fighters reported that Flight 93 had crashed.

-Brigadier General W Montague Winfield

Colonol Bob Marr jumped on the dogpile and added this:

The words that I remember as clear as day was 'We will take lives in the air to preserve lives on the ground'...United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington DC



Won't deny its possible, but it is not common sense to think that. Common sense cannot derive an answer. There are to many variables. Silverstein's claims, the news claims, and the firefighter claims could also, equally possible, allow for the news to have simply picked up the report a fire chief told Silverstien. There is no data to go either way. Claiming it is evidence of a conspiracy is subjective, just as much as claiming it evidence of a technical mix up with a fire chief. It's speculation, and therefore not proof. Common sense can only tell that there was a mix up, but there is no way to factually derive it as definite proof of a conspiracy or a mix up. Considering the number of technical failures of the day, it is more logical to conclude it was a mix up, however, this is just an educated guess.
I am astounded that your common sense tells you that two different media outlets predicting WTC7s collapse several minutes before the collapse with no indication other than a few fires and an evacuation is a simple mix up.


Quite high if their source was a fire chief reporting that they were abandoning the building.
No. Not quite high, there is absolutely no chance that two media outlets independent of each other seperately predicted the collapse of WTC7 before it actually collapsed with only an evacuation and some fires as clues. The "technical difficulties" which conveniently cut off the interview over WTC7s collapse that had WTC7 in the background is a dead giveaway of prior knowledge.
Predicting the future is just your run of the mill mix-up? :puz"


Actually many buildings suffered dramatic damage, and many were demoed in the weeks and years after the incident. There were not only 3 buildings lost. The 3 buildings with the most damage collapsed, which is perfectly understandable. The other buildings, ranging from high to low damage, each met their end fate according to their condition. Those with unrecoverable damage were torn down, those with high damage were slowly taken down over a number of years, those with mild damage were repaired, and those with little damage were cleaned up. This is a perfectly logical account of the total damages. You are playing straws by making it look like only 3 buildings were destroyed by the incident, which is not true.
You and your straws dude...
"3 buildings with the most damage collapsed" -- You could not be any more wrong:
WTC 3
WTC 3
WTC 4
WTC 4
WTCs 5 and 6


I am talking about WTC7, which was entirely in flames. WTC towers we've already been through. Architecture deals with joints. The design style, much like a mosquito net, dealt with minimalism. One floor cannot hold the mass of 6 floors.
You are wrong, 6 out of the 47 floors were on fire. Since you clearly didn't watch the video in the OP or read the summary either out of laziness or refusal to consider an alternative perspective, I'll find the video for you:
2:13 - 2:45



What I can extract from such data is this. I don't know if they prepared the towers to resist the impact, or the fires. I don't know if they prepared the building for the fuel at take off, or less for some time at flight. What I do know is this. People can be wrong, and the statements of the designers is not enough for me to believe it was fit to resist that. I cannot judge therefore. And therefore don't have an opinion.

Then we just need to and agree to disagree at this point.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


99% undeniable conclusive evidence....

txs for that, had a good laugh

Yeah and your complete lack of contribution to the ongoing discussion?

Thanks for that, had a good laugh.

I find it funny that you focus on the thread title rather than the evidence presented within the OP.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by TupacShakur
 





I'll do that just as soon as you show me an example of jet fuel which burns at 287.5 °C melting steel which has a melting point of 1510 °C.


Old video.
5:20





Interesting, because using a stopwatch I got right at 10 seconds.


Building starts bulking at :07
Visible top reached point of fracture at :13
Last visible outer structure reaches close to the ground at :18, building hits ground at :19.
Visible upward shoot of pressure visible at :21, indicating inner core collapse.
Visible structure elements collapsing at :26
Visible plume from ground contact at :26 as well to the left side, probably hit the ground at :25.

25-7 is 18 seconds.




I was referring to the passport which supposedly fell out of one of the hi-jackers pockets amidts the fiery explosion in the main towers and managed to be picked up by a pedestrian on the ground. But the molten metal down there was real and denying its existence despite the many witness testimonies and thermal images is beyond ignorant.


There was visible molten elements dripping from the towers, but that doesn't mean there was a sea of magma at the base of the towers. Many people survived down there when the towers collapsed. Fact of the matter is that it is perfectly possible for a piece of paper to get shot out an explosion and land on the ground, just like with the Colombia tags.




Debris from the Shanksville site was found 3-4 miles away from the impact site. The hundreds of investigators there found no debris larger than a phonebook.


Sounds like a big boom. I don;t understand how that is somehow not expected.




Although there was no debris larger than a phonebook at the site...

Something that has been proven false.



the FBI provided a myriad of evidence during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui which survived that catastrophic plane crash in good condition: A red bandana, a kingdom of Saudi Arabia drivers lisence, John Talignani's drivers lisence, and flight attendant CeeCee Lyles driver's lisence and Mariot hotel card. So a 757 obliterated itself upon impact leaving no body parts, but paper and fabric survived the crash intact.


again, the same was true with the space shuttle. I don't see why this is unbelievable.




--The FBI and state police closed off a second area 6-8 miles away from the crash site, which was another debris site from this plane.


I would imagine large chunks of plane splattered about in many directions.




The 9/11 commission...


Something which seems to have a number of errors.




states that the military was not informed of Flight 93 until 10:07, which was a few minutes after it crashed. However US Navy vet Barry Lichty believes otherwise, because his power went out and he says that it sounded like a missile went by his house, and he claims that it was coming from the direction of the crash, and it was not the aircraft that crashed. Despite the government and military's previous claims that they were unaware of United Flight 93 until afterit crashed and received no information from the FAA pertaining to Flight 93, a year later their story changed and they claimed that Flight 93 was indeed being tracked and that they were aware of it, which is a complete contradition of their earlier statements.


It is not outside the realm of possibility that the military shot down the plane to prevent additional destruction and lied about it. That doesn't mean they perpetrated the terrorist attacks. That means they shot at civilians to prevent other civilian deaths, and then covered it up. I can believe this, in fact it even makes sense.




I am astounded that your common sense tells you that two different media outlets predicting WTC7s collapse several minutes before the collapse with no indication other than a few fires and an evacuation is a simple mix up.


A look back at the woman reporting it shows significant fire on all floors. She also said that the entire area had been evacuated. This is a blatant lie. If she was not correctly informed of the evacuation orders, I don't see how it is impossible she was wrong on other things too. I also looked up that the interview ended exactly at 5PM, an auto shut down sequence. This too is understandable. The length of time the interview went on for simply makes no sense that it was cut because it was an accident. If it was planned, and it was cut, they would have been watching the news. I cannot imagine how this entity would so precisely time demolitions, but fail to time a simple news release.




No. Not quite high, there is absolutely no chance that two media outlets independent of each other seperately predicted the collapse of WTC7 before it actually collapsed with only an evacuation and some fires as clues. The "technical difficulties" which conveniently cut off the interview over WTC7s collapse that had WTC7 in the background is a dead giveaway of prior knowledge.


If the cut out was at a random time yes, but for the BBC it was an exact timer release of the computer system at 5 PM. In addition, If the source was the same, it would not be unbelievable. In fact, if the source was the same, it would be entirely believable. I gave you examples of such muck ups in the news before. If it can happen for something like a Nasa probe, I don't see how its impossible to have happened for a fire fighter. Please do tell how this is impossible.




You and your straws dude... "3 buildings with the most damage collapsed" -- You could not be any more wrong: WTC 3


Well, considering I mentioned the scale of different damages of other buildings. How about this, why NOT bring down those buildings? I can see how smaller they are to WTC7 and see why they did not collapse. (although WTC3 I would call a collapse) The fact of the matter is the additional photographic evidence of those other buildings reveals a clear radius of scales. Different scales of damages. if they demoed it, then it would be an abrupt shift in damages and scales. However the photos you, yourself, posted, reveal expected damages of a building collapse. I mean, you're the one claiming that something happened at the base. yet... Clearly I see WTC3, very close to the base, with very little outer structure damage. One would expect that if the temperature was thousands of degrees for days, as certain government "claims" say, it would have completely annihilated the outer structure of the building. And yet I see entirely intact parts of glass facing the building.




You are wrong, 6 out of the 47 floors were on fire. Since you clearly didn't watch the video in the OP or read the summary either out of laziness or refusal to consider an alternative perspective, I'll find the video for you: 2:13 - 2:45


No, the entire building was in flames.

conspiracies.skepticproject.com...

wtc7.0catch.com...




Then we just need to and agree to disagree at this point.

No, I'm just confused by your complete disregard for government sources, but you feel no problem blatantly believing people whose primary role in such situation is to defend their honor and name. You are picking sides, when in fact you should just pick no side, and look at it objectively. There is evidence that 93 may have been shot down, there is evidence that WTC7 may have been demo'd. But there is no evidence the towers were demo's nor that the event was planned. I would say I am willing to believe that 93 was shot down, and I am willing to believe that WTC7 may have been abandoned and let to burn. I'm not so willing to believe insane claims like molten metal at the base of the towers days after the event, or demolitions, or planned attacks. I am willing to believe they may have let it happened because this seems logical given previous Bush activities and government statements and actions. Beyond these things, speculation plays a big role. I cannot believe speculation.



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AGWskeptic
Anyone else notice that the truthers refuse to reply to my posts about semi tanker trucks burning so hot they collapse concrete and steel overpasses?

There have been 2 in the last 10 years, one in Michigan and one in California.

In both cases tankers full of pump gas burned hot enough to collapse overpasses.

No wood furniture, no plastic, no paper, no carpet, no chemicals, just 87 octane pump gas, an no jet fuel.


It got hot enough in the towers to weaken steel, period.


Bringing down a overpass and bringing down a 2- 110 story buildings are two way different things...You're arguing it like its a apple to apples comparison, when in all honesty it is not. Structurally speaking the towers were built to withstand multiple 707 plane collisions (which were the biggest planes at the time the buildings were constructed), to think that a single plane hit took down 2 seperate buildings around 1 hour is crazy.....I really dont think people understand the shear size of the world trade center towers, they were Humungous.... And how about building 7, a 47 story building that wasnt struck by any planes coming down?? Strange right? Or how about the pools of molten steel found under buildings 1, 2 and 7? Or how about the eye witness testimoy from firefighters & rescuers who stated that it was like a FOUNDRY under the rubble? Do you think jet fuel can melt steel down to molten form? And Ill finish with this question for you, BYU Physics professor, Steven Jones, tested samples that were sent to him of the rubble from the WTC towers, he came across nano-thermite in the rubble, how do you think it got there????



posted on Jun, 26 2011 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Why would the government ship all the rubble from WTC towers to Europe before a thorough investigation could be conducted??? Shouldn't they of allowed a 3rd party team inside the area to test samples? Strangley, they just shipped it all away from the site in trucks with mounted GPS devices installed to monitor where the rubble was at at all times...



new topics

top topics



 
274
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join