WTC collapse videos exposes the lies of the 9/11 conspiracy theorist movement

I think that to anyone who cares about this country and has half a brain they should know to question the government.

That being said and maybe you already adressed it but what gets me is Building 7.. the third tower that free fell that day.

And quite frankly I can really believe that a jetliner flew into the pentagon and the only thing that they retrieved was a wheel.

9-11 was a set up. Whether or not it was our government or the whole goverenment. There is alot more to the story than they let on.

Fact: our government lies, murders, cheats, and will do anything it damn well pleases to herd the sheep.

we are the sheep.

After reading your post. I really don't believe that you believe what you write. There is no heart behind it. Sounds to me like your just doing your job.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus
The pictures speak for themselves, and Judy Wood's opinions have nothing to do with it. How many times do I have to say this? Do you think your opinion of Judy Wood negates the photos themselves? Typical "debunker" nonsense is what that is. If you can't refute the photos, discredit whoever posted them.

Look who's putting words in other people's mouths now! I'm not debunking the photos as I have no reason to believe these photos are fake. You asked for a reason for what we're seeing in these photos and I gave you one. In typical truther form you don't give a flip as to whatever answers you're given, and in fact I have no doubt in a week or two you'll spontaneously suffer amnesia and post these photos demanding an explanation all over again.

If you didn't want an answer then why did you just waste my time AND yours asking for one?

reply to post by SimontheMagus


West Street Parking lot

smg.photobucket.com...

Slide show - watch the progression

When North Tower collapsed burning debris was projected north toward WTC 7 - it engulfed the parking lot
and was funnel up Greenwich/Church/Washington St between the buildings

The debris damaged numerous vehicles and set them on fire

Video of burning cars on Barclay St - North side of WTC 7

www.youtube.com...

Notice windows blown out of vehicles

Modern vehicles are highly combustible being built with large amount of plastics

Once ignited burn very well A vehicle on fire will set other cars on fire if close enough (Plastic bumpers filled
with styrafoam crush blocks) - once saw a car fire in parking lot ignite 4 other nearby vehicles

Opinion that there is a conspiracy is as usual false ..........

PS: Still have not answered why ladder truck in background is not burned by mythical "death ray" .....

Originally posted by thedman


The debris damaged numerous vehicles and set them on fire

Video of burning cars on Barclay St - North side of WTC 7

www.youtube.com...

PS: Still have not answered why ladder truck in background is not burned by mythical "death ray" .....

Interesting video. It shows vehicles on fire that appear to have been hit by little or no debris. No body damage, no paint damage, and most of them appear to have caught fire under their hoods, not the gas tanks. This means an electromagnetic pulse related to a directed energy, mini-nuke or high powered microwave weapon. Go ahead and ridicule that all you want, we have plenty of proof that the Pentagon has such weapons..... check out these lying fools getting all squirmy when questioned about it.... along with proof that weapons were used....

www.youtube.com...

Now about all that debris.... it was all superheated. This is the only explanation for how it could have burned these holes clean through the rooftops and several floors of buildings 5 and 6 without even partially collapsing them.... and this would also explain why some vehicles were more damaged than others....

reply to post by SimontheMagus

Interesting video. It shows vehicles on fire that appear to have been hit by little or no debris. No body damage, no paint damage, and most of them appear to have caught fire under their hoods,

Burning debris funnelled under engine compartment

If look at video (about 1:50) see small spot fires from burning paper. It was fires like these which started
many of the car fires

Other mode was when windowes blown out by debris allowing burning debris sparks to enter and ignite
interior

Just attended a drill on car fires - strange that instructors did not mention "death rays from above" as
possible cause of car fires........

LIE NUMBER ONE: there were no fires in the towers.

Who said that? Its the first time I hear this claim. The video exposes as a lie what you said the truthers said, nothing more. It comes off as a lame attempt to fish for newbies to this site.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by SimontheMagus

 

Interesting video. It shows vehicles on fire that appear to have been hit by little or no debris. No body damage, no paint damage, and most of them appear to have caught fire under their hoods,

Burning debris funnelled under engine compartment

If look at video (about 1:50) see small spot fires from burning paper. It was fires like these which started
many of the car fires

Other mode was when windowes blown out by debris allowing burning debris sparks to enter and ignite
interior

Just attended a drill on car fires - strange that instructors did not mention "death rays from above" as
possible cause of car fires........

Nice try but no sane and rational person would buy such claptrap. They have the weapons because they used them in Iraq. The signature matches perfectly. Watch the video. Goodbye OS'er.

Originally posted by Cassius666

LIE NUMBER ONE: there were no fires in the towers.

Who said that? Its the first time I hear this claim. The video exposes as a lie what you said the truthers said, nothing more. It comes off as a lame attempt to fish for newbies to this site.

edit on 27-6-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Oh, I get it, this is one of those "I said that but I didn't say it exactly in the same way you said it" deals. I have read with my own eyes how a) the fires were supposedly oxygen starved fires, implying the fires were smouldering and almost out and b) rhetorical questions such as "if there were fires then why can we see people standing in the impact hole?", implying that if there were fires we wouldn't be seeing people in those areas. Oh, and let's not forget the claim that "all the plane's fuel was burned up during the impact" to imply there wasn't anything to set any fires to begin with. Plus, as I type this I'm reading a report that AE911trith linked to on WTC7.net that goes into this bizarre discussion over the formula of jet fuel that "proves" the jet fuel only burns a few degrees hotter than paper, which implies even if there were fires, they weren't hit enough to burn anything other than itself.

If you truthers are claiming the fires were almost out, that people were safely standing in areas where fires were supposed to be, that jet fuel burns at a lower temperature than a scented candle, and the fuel was entirely burned up at the impact anyway, what the flip is the difference between saying that and claiming there were no fires? You've been caught dropping innuendo to get people to think there weren't any fires burning in the towers, without actually coming out and saying it. All I'm doing is coming out and saying what you mean in actual words.

Originally posted by kidtwist
You are disinfo dave, we know it, it's pretty obvious!

There are some out there theories, but the crazy ones were deliberately started by people like you to discredit anyone searching for the real truth.

Is that a fact? Well, I can prove the whole "cruise missile hit the pentagon" conspiracy claim was invented by French author Thierry Meyssan to sell a bunch of conspiracy books. The guy never even stepped foot in America, let alone anywhere near the Pentagon, so it's blatantly obvious his main motivation was to come up with an outrageous accusaion and profit off it. What evidence do YOU have that Thierry Meyssan is really a sinister secret agent sent to discredit you?

Or, are you just making that up because you don't want to accept the ugly fact the 9/11 truth rmovement is chock full of con artists looking to make a fast buck off the truther crowd?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Cassius666

LIE NUMBER ONE: there were no fires in the towers.

Who said that? Its the first time I hear this claim. The video exposes as a lie what you said the truthers said, nothing more. It comes off as a lame attempt to fish for newbies to this site.

edit on 27-6-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Oh, I get it, this is one of those "I said that but I didn't say it exactly in the same way you said it" deals. I have read with my own eyes how a) the fires were supposedly oxygen starved fires, implying the fires were smouldering and almost out and b) rhetorical questions such as "if there were fires then why can we see people standing in the impact hole?",

So nobody said there were no fires. Thats what you said. Why do you say "oh truthers said there were no fires" and now say something completely different when you are called out on it making it out as "one of those deals". I see you are not too keen on detail, but detail matters and it will matter to new people who come to the forums. And it matters in court too and about everywhere else for that matter, look up the difference between manslaughter and murder. There are more of "Your deals" .

Unlike most people on here, who see opposing camps, I value all input. Only because I have reason to believe the official conspiracy theory is, well, a conspiracy theory where the people who are supposedly "fighting an evil" were the ones who enabled the terrorists to begin with, to create a pretext for war, does not mean I want to replace one conspiracy theory with another. But if people show little interest for detail I dont think I can count on their contribution, wether they overlook a big airplane engine in the pentagon or wether a fire is just a fire to them and what anybody says open to interpretation, when it is not.

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Nice try but no sane and rational person would buy such claptrap. They have the weapons because they used them in Iraq. The signature matches perfectly. Watch the video. Goodbye OS'er.

You will of course have some proof of that!!!

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by SimontheMagus


Nice try but no sane and rational person would buy such claptrap. They have the weapons because they used them in Iraq. The signature matches perfectly. Watch the video. Goodbye OS'er.

You will of course have some proof of that!!!

Are all of your search engines not working?

It is well known that high tech weapons were used in Fallujah, among other places in Iraq, that produced matching signatures to what we saw on 911.

That is, unless you're a Falser.

The only WMD's in Iraq belonged to the Pentagon.

www.democracynow.org...

www.brussellstribunal.org...

www.veoh.com...

Originally posted by Doalrite
I think that to anyone who cares about this country and has half a brain they should know to question the government.

That being said and maybe you already adressed it but what gets me is Building 7.. the third tower that free fell that day.

And quite frankly I can really believe that a jetliner flew into the pentagon and the only thing that they retrieved was a wheel.

9-11 was a set up. Whether or not it was our government or the whole goverenment. There is alot more to the story than they let on.

Fact: our government lies, murders, cheats, and will do anything it damn well pleases to herd the sheep.

we are the sheep.

After reading your post. I really don't believe that you believe what you write. There is no heart behind it. Sounds to me like your just doing your job.

I agree 100% with what you are saying! As i said before we will never have enough proof to convince the majority
Whom don't want to believe for whatever reasons! Now with that being said the amount of name calling on this thread is desturbing and shows a lack of communication, understanding and respect for each other! With those of us who search for the truth not having any common decency to treat each other with respect, how will we ever
come togeather under truth, justice and equality to live in a world without petty biases! I realize this is off topic for what we are here to discuse but what's the point of trying to convince each other if we fail to remain civil! I believe if we are here on this site then there is a reason why! most likely because there is something about the official story that we disaggree with! Now if we are here for the opposite reason then that's fine but we must respect each others opinions and whether or not we believe those opinions is unimportant! For what are we if we can not agree to disagree without being persecuted by those with different beliefs! Now i realize your fustrations
when you see so much wrong with something but others fail to recognize what you are seeing but you will not convince them by cursing them belittling them or calling them stupid or ignorant! Everyone has a right to their own opinions no matter how wrong they are! There is nothing wrong with trying to convince them to switch sides!
I for one was not allways a 911 truther and i'm sure none of us were! There came a time where we could no longer remain comfortable with the official story and so we became unsure of the official story. This is when i went to great lengths to find the truth which was very difficult and there were times when i wanted to stop researching because if our government could do something so heinous then our freedoms, safety and equality
were in jeopardy! Today I am living in a shell of fear so i guess what they say about ignorance is true! This fustration should never be used to try and sway oppinion only in rational thought do we have that ability!
once again i'm sorry for the off post opinion and goodluck with all of you finding out your truth whether fact or fiction we will pay a price in the end!

Originally posted by SimontheMagus

Are all of your search engines not working?

It is well known that high tech weapons were used in Fallujah, among other places in Iraq, that produced matching signatures to what we saw on 911.

That is, unless you're a Falser.

The only WMD's in Iraq belonged to the Pentagon.

www.democracynow.org...

www.brussellstribunal.org...

www.veoh.com...

edit on 30-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-6-2012 by SimontheMagus because: (no reason given)

So if you think that what was used and when lets hear your great theory for 9/11 I need a laugh!

reply to post by SimontheMagus


I am reading some of your 9/11 theories on how the WTC came down. Why even go there with your speculations of unknown exotic weapons.

We have the proof in front of our eyes of the WTC building being taken down with controlled demolitions. What the demolition devises were is neither here nor there so why are you wasting time over this?

You are banging on about high powered out of space technology to make people who object to the official story look like kooks by associating your nutty ideas with their concerns.

.

Originally posted by Ilovecatbinlady
We have the proof in front of our eyes of the WTC building being taken down with controlled demolitions. What the demolition devises were is neither here nor there so why are you wasting time over this?

I'm assuming that you are meaning that the proof is in your imagination. In what world do you live in where demolition charges are completely silent and don't happen before a collapse starts? That is what you must have me believe if I am to agree with the conspiracy theory.

My problem is that there is not a single demolition that makes no noise before collapse. They all have the booms recorded by cameras, and THEN the building comes down. Nothing of the sort was recorded on 9/11. Why is that?

reply to post by Varemia
"They all have 'Booms' recorded by cameras..." You seem a wee bit confused, but I'll help you out. What the camera "shows' is evidence of an explosion. You're only fooling yourself. How stupid do you think people are? There is no reason to believe that conventional means were employed that day, so save your deductive reasoning for another topic, because this one is obviously way over your head.