9/11 Journey for Truth

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 




Because its been 11 years and we're still listening to crap like this. I too lost someone


If this topic upsets you so much maybe you should ignore this forum like you ignore your friends who could have been murdered on 9/11?



I have avoided looking into who might be dead that I knew

I am sure their families are thrilled that some feel their family members died for TPTB. (???). What a crock and what an insult to the memories of those people. SO YEAH, I YELL.


How ironic that you wrote that in the same post...



I hope all of you is as smart as your a$$.


I'll just take this as you're having a bad day..




Oops, you mistake me for a 9/11 believer. Building 7 came down because of damage from debris from the towers. No buildings dont blow themselves up and there is zero evidence to show that the buildings were blown up. Planes flew into them. I know its a harsh reality but it is what it is.


So you don't believe 9/11? Confusing a little bit. And there is evidence that show buildings blow up you just don't get it.
edit on 26-10-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
Oops, you mistake me for a 9/11 believer. Building 7 came down because of damage from debris from the towers.
You might think that Karen, but that is a Falsehood repeated so often, it is believed to be FACT.

Now as a Believer of the OS, you would trust who? NIST Perhaps?

Did debris from the collapse of WTC 1 cause damage to WTC 7's structure in a way that contributed to the building's collapse?
The debris caused structural damage to the southwest region of the building-severing seven exterior columns-but this structural damage did not initiate the collapse. The fires initiated by the debris, rather than the structural damage that resulted from the impacts, initiated the building's collapse after the fires grew and spread to the northeast region after several hours.


So, we are back to the unbelievable TRUTH, Fires brought down Building 7, and that happens a lot.

www.nist.gov...



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by maxella1
 


Oops, you mistake me for a 9/11 believer. Building 7 came down because of damage from debris from the towers. No buildings dont blow themselves up and there is zero evidence to show that the buildings were blown up. Planes flew into them. I know its a harsh reality but it is what it is.


Not the first one:



A close examination of the Naudet clip actually shows that no 767 airliner crashed in there.

I know that's a harsh reality but that's what it shows.

I attempt to explain why in the above pic, for a more detailed explanation and analysis see some of my most recent posts on it from a month or so back.


Cheers



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
There's no way a 757 would weaken the building. It's like taking a full can of pop and throwing it full force at your garden shed. It's gonna make a dent at most. most of it will fall down in front of you, and not pass into it. So the planes were likey fake. Might have been missles. the fire was not there. All there was was tons of smoke. That means no fire. Where there's tons of billowing smoke there's 'not much fire". If you see tons of fire there's not much smoke. And all we saw was smoke. It might not have even been controlle demo as there wasnot enough rubble. It had to have been a secret energy weapon that vaporized the buliding. It turned most of it to dust which blew away and make everyone sick. It was completely compartmentalized by the f--deral g==v. It was a successful OPP!



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by maxella1
 


Oops, you mistake me for a 9/11 believer. Building 7 came down because of damage from debris from the towers. No buildings dont blow themselves up and there is zero evidence to show that the buildings were blown up. Planes flew into them. I know its a harsh reality but it is what it is.


Not the first one:



A close examination of the Naudet clip actually shows that no 767 airliner crashed in there.

I know that's a harsh reality but that's what it shows.

I attempt to explain why in the above pic, for a more detailed explanation and analysis see some of my most recent posts on it from a month or so back.


Cheers


In addition to this i would like a "debunker" to study these blueprints and tell me how on earth these towers could collapse without the use of explosives : 911research.wtc7.net...

As you should be able to see (if you understand how to read them) , the damage caused by airliners would not be great enough to compromise the structural integrity of the towers , and the argument that fires buckled / bent / melted the steel are equally pathetic.
edit on 27-10-2012 by JeZeus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by JeZeus
 


What I don't understand is that if planes actually hit those buildings how they they seemed to slice right into them like a hot knife threw butter. What should have happened in real physics would be most of the plane would bounce off and would fall to the ground below. Basic physics tells us this is the reaction that would happen. You take two hard objects one hitting the other at speed, if the other object is harder then the other would bound off. The building is only "concrete and steel". It certainly wouldn't somehow pass in between a floor the way they try and depict it. That's only like 10 ft of space gap, plus steel beams all over. But people are stupid and thats' how they get away with stuff like this.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 



What I don't understand is that if planes actually hit those buildings how they they seemed to slice right into them like a hot knife threw butter. What should have happened in real physics would be most of the plane would bounce off and would fall to the ground below. Basic physics tells us this is the reaction that would happen. You take two hard objects one hitting the other at speed, if the other object is harder then the other would bound off. The building is only "concrete and steel". It certainly wouldn't somehow pass in between a floor the way they try and depict it. That's only like 10 ft of space gap, plus steel beams all over. But people are stupid and thats' how they get away with stuff like this


Bounce off like this .....



or this



or this

www.youtube.com...

(48 seconds into video)

So a WWII aircraft can punch a hole in a ship or knock a hole into the masonry shell of a building

Yet 60 years later a jet airliner cant do the same?


The exterior wall of the WTC was made of steel columns held together by welded spandrel plates and bolted
in sections 30 ft high

The plane did not penetrate the wall - it snapped the columns at the welds and bolts then pushed the broken
sections out of the way ....

Here is a section of the North tower lying in street after it was dislodged from the building





You lose........



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by JeZeus
 


What I don't understand is that if planes actually hit those buildings how they they seemed to slice right into them like a hot knife threw butter. What should have happened in real physics would be most of the plane would bounce off and would fall to the ground below. Basic physics tells us this is the reaction that would happen. You take two hard objects one hitting the other at speed, if the other object is harder then the other would bound off. The building is only "concrete and steel". It certainly wouldn't somehow pass in between a floor the way they try and depict it. That's only like 10 ft of space gap, plus steel beams all over. But people are stupid and thats' how they get away with stuff like this.


I agree , I understand where you`re coming from , but "in real physics" the jet would have crumpled up on impact and passed through the floors whilst being torn apart by the steel work until the fuel ignited , (matter of seconds ) , so it would not have got anywhere near the core , nor would it have caused enough structural damage to bring either of those towers down . And the kerosene couldn`t burn hot enough to melt the steel or blow the basement up.

The towers we`re very strong and the foundations , colossal.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Seems like you put a lot of time into that post , you could have just told the guy that planes dont bounce off buildings.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by JeZeus
And the kerosene couldn`t burn hot enough to melt the steel


Who claimed that it melted steel?


or blow the basement up.


Who claimed the basement was blown up?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce



Who claimed that it melted steel?


Well , NIST , considering the fact that they claim the fires compromised the structural integrity ~ which could only happen if the fire was melting the steel.


Who claimed the basement was blown up?


A lot of people , including first responders.



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by JeZeus
Well , NIST , considering the fact that they claim the fires compromised the structural integrity ~ which could only happen if the fire was melting the steel.


Care to show the exact quote where NIST said that.


A lot of people , including first responders.


They did? care to show these quotes?



posted on Oct, 27 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   

Care to show the exact quote where NIST said that.


www.nist.gov...

" Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. "


They did? care to show these quotes?


I can do better than quotes :

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



edit on 27-10-2012 by JeZeus because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


That was all planted....plus we don't know if a plane even hit the towers.



5000 + people died here. We're trying to get to the bottom of it and get some insight into what happened. Telling everyone that you have an ego to protect doesn't help anyone. this isn't a grade school game of win or lose, this is the real deal my friend. Cuz if this event is a fraud then every american has major issues to have to worry about, especially when tptb start attacking there own people in broad day light.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
reply to post by JeZeus
 



I still think it would have bounced right off. Or at least much of it. Instead teh whole thing passes right into the building. What a fraud



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


Like i said i can see where you`re coming from , maybe the tail would have dropped or something since i cant really see an actual airliner being capable of passing through that much steel in one piece. So depending on the area of impact yes , maybe some of it would have fell to the streets below , but the word bounce does not do the description much justice.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 




I still think it would have bounced right off. Or at least much of it. Instead teh whole thing passes right into the building. What a fraud

And somehow they managed to get all the physics experts across the entire planet to cover up the fact the plane should have crumpled up and fallen to the ground???

How did they get Iran to tow the Bush line??? Is Ahmadinejad and Bush drinking buddies?



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by r2d246
 




I still think it would have bounced right off. Or at least much of it. Instead teh whole thing passes right into the building. What a fraud

And somehow they managed to get all the physics experts across the entire planet to cover up the fact the plane should have crumpled up and fallen to the ground???

How did they get Iran to tow the Bush line??? Is Ahmadinejad and Bush drinking buddies?



Probably , considering the fact that they are both puppets of the powers that be ... i mean the Bush and Bin Laden families have a good relationship so it would not surprise me at all.

How many physics experts is there across the entire planet ? i`m sure atleast one of them is smart enough to understand what happens when a jet hits a building , let alone a building that was designed with airliner crashes in mind.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   


A few more things... (in case the smoky arm guy doesn't do anything for you).

Over on another 9/11 investigation site there is an entire thread about the release of this 'I See Fake People' clip (prior to the youtube guy pointing out the people are fake) and the discussion centers around the action of the windows and "shutters".

Are there shutters in or on the windows or is it the reflection of helicopter blades flickering there?

Hard for them to tell.

But one guy says like: "I see the shutter move or whatever, and right next to it is a guy in a window and HE DOESN'T REACT. He doesn't look, he doesn't seem to notice... etc." Oh really? Now why is that? I think I already told you why.


The guys on that site haven't realized yet that the people in that clip aren't real. Hence the lack of noticing and reaction.

Another thing, check out 'Giant Spyglass Guy' in the center of the pic. How tall you think that guy is? 17 feet? Hey, you know, we could probably find out the name of that guy by looking in the Guinness Book of Records.


I'll get to the rest of this Class of 2001 later, just wanted to mention those two things.

People always say: "Why would they use fake planes when it would be just as easy (or easier) to use real ones?!" Right? People ask that.

Well, right back at you.

"Why would they use fake people when they could just as easily use real ones?!"

I don't know. I guess you'll have to ask THEM.

Because the 'people' in the clip and in the pic above, hanging out the tower here, are FAKE.


Cheers



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Oh, it's all a hologram! Please tell me the bodies lying on the ground were also holograms, along with the officials cleaning them up, and the vehicles responsible for carting them away.
edit on 28-10-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join