Regardless of your opinions of 9/11 , you need to read this.

Originally posted by Yankee451

And then there's the Evan Fairbanks clip you like to peddle:

In "Heroes of Ground Zero," a New York fireman claims to have seen people jumping that day, a sight he still had nightmares about. Let's have it said, for the record, that anyone who says he can see a human being jumping out of a building, through flame and smoke, a minimum of 1,200 feet above the street — very nearly a quarter of a mile away — is either a complete liar or has the most incredible eyesight in medical history.

Thanks for posting that Witch Hunter, I really enjoyed this part. Parachute jumping is part of what I do. It's easy to see someone exiting a plane at 8000 ft. The average person can do it.

I have skimmed through your link, I found it to be an impenetrable wall of propaganda based on innuendo.
If you find anything in there worth looking at, separate it out and copy paste it for me.

Thanks

reply to post by waypastvne

Thanks for posting that Witch Hunter, I really enjoyed this part. Parachute jumping is part of what I do. It's easy to see someone exiting a plane at 8000 ft. The average person can do it.

I have skimmed through your link, I found it to be an impenetrable wall of propaganda based on innuendo.
If you find anything in there worth looking at, separate it out and copy paste it for me.

Thanks

Dear readers, voila.

Hey OP...

Just in case you've fled the scene due to the wall of obfuscation offered instead of joint collaboration, here's the score:

I am unable to find anyone from the opposition, either the OS or the "official truth" movement, who is willing to intelligently discuss the details.

Your long thread is evidence enough of the real intent of this forum.

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine

 

Something that massive doesn't bounce off of a building and the structure of the nose will not change it.

Something as massive as a concrete and brick building does not cause far less massive wings to fold-back after striking the brick facade, then unfold inside the building and still have enough of that evil kinetic energy to mow-down a forest of reinforced concrete pillars.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't even happen in cartoons...except on 911

Why do you say the wings folded and unfolded? If you think it was a missile, what missile do you think it was? Are you bringing back some of the concentrated idiocy from PFT?

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by Yankee451
reply to post by pteridine

 

Something that massive doesn't bounce off of a building and the structure of the nose will not change it.

Something as massive as a concrete and brick building does not cause far less massive wings to fold-back after striking the brick facade, then unfold inside the building and still have enough of that evil kinetic energy to mow-down a forest of reinforced concrete pillars.

I'm pretty sure that doesn't even happen in cartoons...except on 911

Why do you say the wings folded and unfolded? If you think it was a missile, what missile do you think it was? Are you bringing back some of the concentrated idiocy from PFT?

I appreciate your inability to discuss this like an adult, without including such unnecessary words like "idiocy", however now that you bring it up...here's Mike Walter, eye witness, describing the wings folding back.

Link

Originally posted by Yankee451

Dear readers, voila.

In "Heroes of Ground Zero," a New York fireman claims to have seen people jumping that day, a sight he still had nightmares about. Let's have it said, for the record, that anyone who says he can see a human being jumping out of a building, through flame and smoke, a minimum of 1,200 feet above the street — very nearly a quarter of a mile away — is either a complete liar or has the most incredible eyesight in medical history.

Are you saying this is not propaganda based on innuendo. After spending a half hour at your link, I could not find anything that was not propaganda based on innuendo, but I did miss the passage you posted above. Thanks again for posting it Witch Hunter.

reply to post by waypastvne

Are you saying this is not propaganda based on innuendo.

Yes.

I am also saying you are being disingenuous.

You have spent a few minutes scanning a very long and involved piece which took me a couple days to pore over, you did this evidently to scan it for some ammunition to use, but however impotent your example was, it only proved you are not intent on collaborating as an adult.

You also do not have the Naudet DVD. From Raphael:

Step 1 : anyone interested in 9/11, no matter what your views on who did it, should already have a DVD copy of the film "9/11," directed by Jules and Gédéon Naudet and James Hanlon. If you think you're an expert on 9/11, but you don't have that film, you're not. Everyone who cares about what happened that day, and wants to find out the truth, should have a copy, and should have some familiarity with the film. If you're not prepared to spend a few dollars or pounds, or give up some of your time and make a bit of effort, stop reading now and go elsewhere,

www.frankresearch.info...

Originally posted by Illustronic
One thing, I've never seen a demolition company proceed to implode a skyscraper from the middle or near the top down. A skyscraper demolition crew sets charges to weaken and direct the fall at various key points in the skyscraper but the base of the building is imploded last and the building falls from the ground up using gravity to crush itself.

That's not what I saw with the twin towers. The tops crushed the building below. All of the people who site 'they know a building implosion when they see one' are grossly mistaken. I'm sure they don't know what they are talking about, and use pseudo science to fill the gaps.

I don´t see how this can make sense.

The mass of the reinforcement of the tower is the greater the closer to the ground. As a result it´s obviously a physical impossibility that the tower would fall through itself practically without resistance in a gravity driven event.

Originally posted by galdur

Originally posted by Illustronic
One thing, I've never seen a demolition company proceed to implode a skyscraper from the middle or near the top down. A skyscraper demolition crew sets charges to weaken and direct the fall at various key points in the skyscraper but the base of the building is imploded last and the building falls from the ground up using gravity to crush itself.

That's not what I saw with the twin towers. The tops crushed the building below. All of the people who site 'they know a building implosion when they see one' are grossly mistaken. I'm sure they don't know what they are talking about, and use pseudo science to fill the gaps.

I don´t see how this can make sense.

The mass of the reinforcement of the tower is the greater the closer to the ground. As a result it´s obviously a physical impossibility that the tower would fall through itself practically without resistance in a gravity driven event.

also, we have to remember that most of the debris was flying outward which detracted from the weight of the rest of the debris that was still falling inside the building, meaning that a few floors down and the debris didn't weigh as much as the building itself weighed before the collapse...the walls were strong enough to hold the prior weight, why wouldn't it be able to hold less weight?

Originally posted by galdur

I don´t see how this can make sense.

The mass of the reinforcement of the tower is the greater the closer to the ground. As a result it´s obviously a physical impossibility that the tower would fall through itself practically without resistance in a gravity driven event.

With the exception of the mechanical floors, these were the same size all the way down the building.

There has been so much said about this topic.

9/11, while tragic, does not seem to me to be a "great disaster" except on a psychological dimension. We have more people dying from "friendly fire" in drug busts, from car accidents, from various things that we allow because prevention would be "too expensive."

More troops have died and "alleged enemies" killed in the name of 9/11 than were killed by that one act.

So why all the rancor?

The public can now accept that we "invaded Iraq based on lies" -- but apparently, it's a shrug. The REASON for invasion isn't brought up by the "pro security" people who don't think we should withdraw from Afghanistan or Iraq -- apparently, somehow we can do some good there and we have an "obligation" -- it's as much a lie as the invasion was.


>> So what I didn't understand for a while -- is how my brother, and other INTELLIGENT PEOPLE, could finally accept (after calling me a nut when I first brought it up -- and then forgetting how they treated me after they accepted it); the torture programs of Abu Ghraib and GitMo. The lies to war. The hacking of voting machines, throwing out 80,000 "black voters" in Florida and again with Ohio in 2004. The desire to hurt the economy -- lies, lies, lies.

The Bush government didn't just lie -- they were NEVER caught telling the truth about anything.

Yet here we stand -- arguing about the "single shooter" of JFK, or that "9/11 was an inside job" -- and the other thing that cannot be accepted; that the Katrina disaster was made worse on purpose.

>> There is more evidence for a conspiracy in all three of these situations. There are SO MANY weird coincidences and unexplained actions by the Bush government and their allies leading up to 9/11 -- that it would take some sort of "alien invasion" to justify. Like the Secret Service (after two prior attempts on JFK's life NOT from the single shooter), standing down -- just as NORAD was conducting 3 drills and were too confused to act at the behest of Dick Cheney. Just like the emergency response to Katrina where it took 3 months for ice trucks to arrive, but the closing of 144 Public schools happened before the helicopters showed up and was done with military precision. Blackwater guards showed up to protect rich homes. A Funeral agency from Texas was the only group collecting bodies with no oversight. Contractors were lined up to get huge government money and they hired illegal aliens to do the work so that NO LOCALS could get gainful employment fixing their own towns.



>> Certain HOLY TRUTHS exist in our society - that everyone accepts -- and anyone who says they are not true is a "crackpot." I can show people documents that PROVES in a court of law and Senate hearings that THEY were convinced JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy -- not a single shooter. We have documents now that admit that the USA was not attacked to provoke the Vietnam or North Korean wars -- yet supposedly the same for Afghanistan is unthinkable.

To think otherwise means that so much of what you hold true is a sham. It's like people react when they clutch a railing while overlooking a deep canyon -- the way they never would looking off the edge of a curb. The land below them is still solid -- but it's the threat of the fall that makes them unable to let go.

We can all lie to kids about Santa Claus -- because they WANT to believe in Santa Claus. The troops fighting in Iraq STILL think it's for Democracy and to help that country -- NOT to destabilize it and force Oil Sharing Agreements down their throats. The SAME corporations that Saddam kicked out of Iraq are now back in power -- and our 14 embassies lie along the pipeline route -- it's the ONLY thing we are protecting. In Afghanistan, we now have a Gas Pipeline that may one day supply India with energy. The USA will not get the money from that -- however -- just the companies that paid for our politicians -- but it will make India dependent on the same power groups.


>> Without 9/11 -- a LOT of things that take away our Constitutional rights, created a security "theater state", a few wars for resources, and a broken economy that is being used to force "austerity" and lower wages would NOT be taking place.

We've got a Criminal Record. We've got motive -- and we know the Beneficiaries were the same people who had access. We see that the Bush government had the means -- and THEY had the investigators and gave the world the suspects in the same day that they failed to act -- and the ONLY evidence of Al Qaeda is documents from a briefcase and some passports that survived the annihilation of planes and buildings. The ONLY EVIDENCE that was allowed to survive is from the same source that had the means, motive and opportunity -- and never showed any problem with lying or putting our people in harms way in two bogus wars for resources.

Their own 9/11 Commission says that the Bush Government obstructed the investigation -- why?




>> What is wrong with people, that CONTEMPLATING that 9/11 was in inside job -- is the same panic they feel when standing on the edge of a cliff -- they CANNOT let go of "truths" that they don't even trust. The PROBLEM is not so much with the conspiracy theorists -- it's with the Status Quo Apologists.

The probability that reinforced buildings can fall through themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event is zero. The probability that a large wing Boeing airliner can land at 530 mph is also zero.

Double post. Apologies.

I'll join in on this. Even though I despise this forum because of how redundant and unnecessary it is at this point.

Anyway, If it's ok OP, I want to ask some questions for both believers and skeptics. If you could sincerely answer these questions, and give your best explanation I'd appreciate it.

Let's see.

1. Why hasn't the gov released any real footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? Why when it is probably the most heavily surveilled building in the world? Why do we get a stop-motion clip of something we cannot even identify?

2. Why has Osama Bin Laden NEVER been officially charged?

3. Why is there no official evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11?

4. Why does the gov website NOT list 9/11 as one of Bin Laden's Crimes? I thought he did it? They said he did
it. Yet they don't list that as one of his crimes.. Ok.

5. Why was there explosive residue found in the dust samples of the towers?

6. WHY are 9 (or might be 11) of the hi-jackers still alive? As has been reported.

7. WHY no black boxes? Where's the audio for us to hear? First time in history for no black boxes too I guess. Nothing to see here.

8. Why was there absolutely no plane wreckage found in Shanksville? Just a hole. Why?

9. Why did the 9/11 commission report leave out, oh I dunno, everything?

10. How did the WTC7 building collapse in the same fashion as the towers, and in the same fashion as controlled demolition? How could minor fires in separate floors cause a building of this size to collapse in such a way?

reply to post by Yankee451


So you are going with a plane based on the eyewitness. Have you decided on an aircraft type yet or are you still working on it?

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst



bravo!!!! very well stated....i have found out from talking to people face to face that almost all of them can't keep more than one instant of a subject in the forefront of their mind at one time...which is why it's so hard to try to get them to connect the dots on a more spacial realm.....this is caused by the way that people have been programmed through the MSM and other media sources.....as soon as an issue breaks news and gets talked about, another one comes along and makes them forget about the last one, then after a while it just bogs the brain if you aren't used to categorizing your thoughts...it's a sad world, but it was all planned i guess, i don't even know anymore.....

Originally posted by galdur
The probability that reinforced buildings can fall through themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event is zero. The probability that a large wing Boeing airliner can land at 530 mph is also zero.

A Boeing can crash at 530 mph and 33% of the potential energy was used up to overcome the resistance of that gravity driven collapse.

reply to post by pteridine

So you are going with a plane based on the eyewitness. Have you decided on an aircraft type yet or are you still working on it?

I don't know what you mean, please explain.

reply to post by Yankee451


You said "I appreciate your inability to discuss this like an adult, without including such unnecessary words like "idiocy", however now that you bring it up...here's Mike Walter, eye witness, describing the wings folding back."

If you say the wings folded back on an aircraft and are using an eyewitness as evidence for such, you should be able to describe what aircraft would do such a thing. What is your theory and what was the aircraft?

Originally posted by ProphetOfZeal

6. WHY are 9 (or might be 11) of the hi-jackers still alive? As has been reported.

Can you give me anything dated after Sept 26 2001 saying that the hijackers are still alive ?

Any thing at all ?

The hijackers are dead...

They'r not only merely dead, they'r really most sincerely dead