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

reply to post by JonU2

Your reply, alone, prompted my replies about your 'no plane' theory - surely I'm allowed a right of reply? Especially when I know people who were there?

Then collaborate with me to prove your friend video taped an aluminum jet wing slicing into a steel structure like a hot knife through butter.

Without proof, you're just another Hooper to me, especially since I have given several examples of fraudulent images to support my premise.

If I am correct, you cannot be. Either prove me wrong, or prove your friends witnessed something.

Originally posted by galdur
They promote this notion of office fire downing 1300 feet skyscrapers to dust while suppressing evidence of firefighters - fire specialists - at the site. This is a huge problem with the official story, among many others.

There's a huge problem with your rhetoric, semantics and word choice. The towers were "down to dust" and nothing was suppressed. Just because testimony didn't make it into a given report does not then qualified it as suppressed. The fact that you are talking about it proves it was not suppressed.

reply to post by esdad71


I have provided several images, plus the Leslie Raphael piece dismantling the Naudet film. Not just the ones you were prepared to wave off.

Regarding the several iconic photographs you are discarding, you are hanging your hat on an explanation that is pretty far-fetched. The most memorable photos all taken from the same roof? Golly, where are all those non-staged "amateur" videos? With thousands of roofs, there should be hundreds of similar photos...with several folks all having the same perspective. Where are they? Should be hundreds.

One video was taken, and several "iconic" amateurs were created to provide incurious folks a leg to stand on.

Can you comment on the revelations from Leslie Raphael regarding the Naudet DVD?

The second hit which was on live TV is right out of Hollywood. Extreme fireball, mostly out of the building. It´s show business. Firefighters reported the resulting fire in the building was containable but then it suddenly collapsed to dust under its own weight. It makes no sense at all.

reply to post by waypastvne


When looking at propaganda photographs, it is important to use your head, not your heart.

With those engines falling a quarter mile or so, you'd think they'd leave a dent in the pavement. Folks don't seem to even notice them...follow their eyes. Anyone see the steel engine that just hit the street like a meteor? Nope? It's right in front of you!

reply to post by hooper


So, I take it that you´re also discounting the Pentagon witnesses, right? Can´t have it both ways.

It´s not a question of pick and chhoose. If you want to be credible in a discussion you have to be consistent.

reply to post by galdur


Who claimed it was containable?




(cue the line from Orio Palmer about just needing two lines)

Ther s not a snowball chance in hell that 1buildings would fall through themselves practically without resistance in a gravity driven event.iF YOU BELIEVE THIS NONSENSE, YOU CAN´T ALSO BELIEVE THAT PARACHUTES WORK.

reply to post by galdur

Firefighters reported the resulting fire in the building was containable but then it suddenly collapsed to dust under its own weight. It makes no sense at all.

Which firefighters might they be...? Considering how only few firefighters (Battalion Chief Orio Palmer with
some men from Ladder 15) reached 78th floor, lowest point of impact. Fires were several floors above them

Didn't have much time as building came down on them right after reached 78th floor

reply to post by galdur




The nonsensical part is people that believe they KNOW how things should have happened, in regards to the collapses that day.....without having ANY prior experiences with anything similiar.

reply to post by vipertech0596


They requested up two lines of fire suppression to deal with relatively minor office fire. It´s ignored in the official report though. Why would that be?

reply to post by vipertech0596


Even the most retarded here don´t dispute how the official story was concocted. Identify arguments.

reply to post by galdur


Because they had barely reached the very bottom of the impact zone. The photographic and video proof shows that the main fires were still a few floors above their position. And thank you for doing exactly what I said you would...you went to Chief Palmer's radio call....so very predictable.

reply to post by vipertech0596


This is void of any meaningful content. Identify arguments.

reply to post by galdur


You have this goofy idea that it was a little itty bitty fire in the Towers, and use flawed information to back your arguments. How is that?

reply to post by vipertech0596


Your post is meaningless. Identify the arguments,

reply to post by galdur


I did. You base your beliefs on flawed information and opinion. You claim the buildings should not have fallen the way they did...and yet, prior to 9/11, there was absolutely NO comparative history to be used in making a judgement. So you rely on your opinion.

You here that a firefighter said there was a small fire on the floor he was on, and yet don't seem to understand that they were several floors below where the photo/video evidence proves there were major fires.


You also ignore that Chief Palmer reported that there were quite a few bodies on the floor he was on.

reply to post by Yankee451


www.serendipity.li...

So, she thinks they were tipped off, right? Told when a plane (because they always leave on time) would fly by and hit the towers. Then she goes on to say the poor tourist who filmed it was in on it too.

Suprise Truther Test Question The District of Columbia borders Virginia and what other state.

Well you spelled surprise wrong,and you didn't put a question mark after the uh..question.But picking on someone's grammar has no bearing in this thread whatsoever.Exactly like your "truther test" lol.I mean honestly,what were you going to accomplish with that question?Anyone who has a computer knows google is but a click away!

That being said,can we talk about the plane instead?Since you seem to know exactly what went on on 9/11,can you explain how the plane went down and what speed it was when it went down!And explain where the plane went!Where are all the dead bodies and plane debris?You know like the normal things you see when a plane crashes!I see a hole..correction,2 holes side by side with some smoke coming out.

I want to know why you believe everything the government tells you?Especially when motives and the coverups are so obvious!

Here's what the government had to say about the motive for the 19 "hijackers".



And why the **** are they smiling??

What's so funny?And people actually believe them??That's your trusty government smiling like it's all a big joke!