US fears Russian publication of satellite photos of 9/11

originally posted by: plube
but all three of those buildings could not have come down any other way than CD....not going to argue or try to discuss that....as I know it as FACT.

Funny that, it is not a fact at all, just a silly conspiracy theory....then you post

why lie to the people....

Pot, meet kettle.

originally posted by: soulwaxer

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: soulwaxer

This is really a no-brainer folks. LOOK at what is happening to that building. It is EXPLODING!!!

I notice your source comes from a for profit organization.

Who gives a crap about the source? Don't you trust your eyes? Or do you think this is cgi?

soulwaxer

"Who gives a crap about the source?" Riiiiight. As long as YOU buy what they are selling, who cares about the source or the validity of what they present, lol? Deny Ignorance, indeed.

originally posted by: rebelv

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: rebelv

Excellent point, and this seems to be something that the media
will not address, as the911 commission report refused to address.

No airplanes hit building 7. There was no jet fuel in building 7, and
yet 5 hours or so after the twin towers fell, so did building 7, like
a demolition just like the other two.

Silverstein even F&^%d up by saying they decided to pull it. Anyone
in demolition knows, that's term for demolition.

Sounds like you have indoctrinated by those 'for profit' conspiracy web sites.

Not trying to start an argument, but I'd rather talk facts.

Fact: 911 commission report never addressed building 7
Fact: building 7 fell at the same speed as North and South Tower

Explanation??????

Maybe you were being sarcastic, in which case, lol.


Rebel 5

The 9/11 Commission was not put together to address the structural failure of a building to the satisfaction of people who clearly do not heed the expert advice of actual engineers. The 9/11 Commission was to look into how 9/11 occurred. They did so. You want to know about Building 7? The answers are easy to find and have been provided to you on this very site literally DOZENS OF TIMES. You simply to keep using hand waving to ignore what you do not want to hear.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: rebelv

I don't know if you caught it or not but last night they had two different shows on about 9/11 and a few of the firemen that were there rescuing people said they were looking over their shoulders at building 7 while they were working cause it was on fire all day since the planes hit and they could not do anything about it. I personally think they were told to say that because someone posted a video of a camera man running around the inside of building 7 after the two towers had collapsed. I never seen any fire or structural damage on the inside, I know there were small fires seen on the outside but that building was huge itself and had massive concrete concourses.

The only legit excuse I have heard was that when the first two towers came down, it knocked most of the support columns out of the basement as the whole trade center was built over a large basement. What that doesn't explain is why that it did not fall till hours later.

I know that only a Telsa type weapon could have brought those buildings straight down and have metal beams disintegrate in mid air like that. That is why their was so much toxic dust! Never-mind the firetrucks that were completely melted yet nothing fell on them and the tires were not touched, all the while a large building ten feet away still had no broken glass or burn marks. Also they showed in computer sims that their should have been a massive pile of debris 3 times that size given the amount of metal in the buildings. Most was vaporized and melted. Go explain that one with standard physics.

I have no doubt it was a staged event but a lot of people did die that day and real planes did hit the towers. No, No plane hit the Pentagon, way too many Pentagon Police testified on film that they all seen the plane fly over just before the Pentagon was bombed by something and they all seen the plane bank and fly away.

The plane crash in PA was BS as well. That was too small of an area for a plane that large to come down. Even plane like the one that came down in Lockerbie Scottland that exploded 20,000 feet up left massive damage all over the town it came down on. It was a bigger plane but it wasn't a Lear jet that came down in PA.

Listening to all the confusion and outright bonehead mistakes made that day by our own military not being able to take control of the skies was nothing more than a criminal act. NEADS sent the two fighters out of Langley Virgina into the right area, Yet Giant Crusher sent them out to sea on purpose instead of over Washington where they would have intercepted or flat seen the plane fly over the Pentagon and bomb it. The Fact that it was only AFTER the attacks had ended did vice president Cheney order every plane that did not communicate with anyone be shot down is also telling, President Bush could have gave that order from Air Force One seconds after the second plane hit the other Tower. The fact that he said he could not communicate with the military was pure BS.

Thank you for that, and thanks for time to make such a lengthy and
eloquent reply. I concur with most of what you said. There are a lot
of questions I have regarding 9/11 and try not to get too fringe about
it but that sounds like a reasonable interpretation, the only thing I would
interject is The Tesla weapon idea, I have read and heard this before,
and I don't know what to think of that; I'm not an expert but it seems to
me that detonations from inside the buildings could have caused them to
collapse, almost certainly IMO there were charges placed inside the buildings
from weeks before. Maybe an exotic weapon was used in addition to the
explosives, I don't know. You've made me think

Rebel 5

originally posted by: mikell
I hope they didn't use the same camera they use for bigfoot or UFO's you know how bad they can be

/applause

It's sad we all need to waste time so badly we'll go to these lengths. I feel like I"m reading The National Enquirer and need to wash my hands.

a reply to: hellobruce

I applaud your tactics of dissembling content ...removing all context...you have skills...

But as stated...IMHO...FACT.

Just because fact is not agreed upon by all does not mean it is not fact...ask Copernicus.

Ask Columbus...is the earth round or flat....are you still part of the flat earth society.

Sometimes facts are not seen until all evidence is brought forward...so just because people say..."it can't be"... Does not mean it will not be shown to be true.

Einstein might say the universe through theory formed from a singularity...then will collapse into a singularity...but over time...facts might prove this not to be the case.

Fact....the reports say the buildings came down due to planes and fire...
Fact...no planes struck building 7
Fact...reports say building 7 came down due to fires
Fact...truck bomb exploded in WTC in basement near core structure
Fact...WTC did not collapse

But I know you will not understand what is being said here...as I believe that you might not be here to discuss things...but more in tune with trying to go of topic...so let's stay there...

Fact...pravda put out there US fears Russia's satellite imagery
Fact..no imagery has been put out there.
Fact..the thread is about discussing speculative evidence
Fact...you are not discussing speculative evidence

Now I hope that makes sense

Let's see...IF Russia did have irrefutable proof...and see the word irrefutable

Then...it does not change any of the facts mentioned above...but what it does do is raises questions of why the FACTS...were investigated so poorly in the first place.

originally posted by: SensiblyReckless
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

The only nation I see that was involved in the cover-up is the UK. I mean, they broadcast the collapse of WT7 before it happened... . they knew that tower was coming down.

I am confused...In your conspiracy theory..where some super-secretive government agency kills 3,000 of it's own people and pretends it's a terrorist attack..

They hand out the agenda, timeline, plans and talking points to the BBC so they don't flub their reporting when it happens? And the BBC accidentally reports it happening before it does?

Why again would the this super-secret false flag, inside job attack need be shared with the news media in advance?

originally posted by: plube
a reply to: hellobruce


Fact..the thread is about discussing speculative evidence

This cracked me up...

"Speculative Evidence" is a logical fallacy...and yes...that is what this thread is about...

There is no evidence provided by Russia ..none has been given...that leaves pure speculation (aka speculation minus evidence) or in your case 9-11 inside job conspiracy theory that seems resilient to facts.

a reply to: Indigo5

I think it's more likely that word got around they were going to bring the building down. BBC just jumped the gun on reporting it.

a reply to: SensiblyReckless

My money is on Bogotá....I always go for the real under dogs in a good fight

America might have all the shiny new toys....but Bogotá has grit and determination....which wins hands down.

a reply to: SensiblyReckless

My money is on Bogotá....I always go for the real under dogs in a good fight

America might have all the shiny new toys....but Bogotá has grit and determination....which wins hands down.

originally posted by: Flatcoat
a reply to: Indigo5

I think it's more likely that word got around they were going to bring the building down. BBC just jumped the gun on reporting it.

Yah...The super secret demolition agent guy must have told his wife, who told the neighbor that had a cousin working at the BBC, so they reported it early, but kept up the terrorist attack charade in the newsroom and from then ever after.

WTF do you mean "word got around"???

Again...Why would any news media need to be given advance knowledge or reporting of a super secret inside job attack...were the super secret agents worried no one would notice Building 7 when it fell? Geeze...get phil on the phone to give the BBC a play by play in advance so they don't miss it!

a reply to: Indigo5

IMHO...9/11 was an inside job...if Russia has evidence that proves this then that would be something else...I am trying to keep focused on what this could be...and trying not to get derailed with what people have been discussing on here and many other places over the years...if 9/11 was sooooooo clear about the collapse of the buildings this would not be getting discussed at all now would it.

Now I am clear...this thread was started because of was put out there by pravda....does it make it true...nope...is it worthy of discussion..well from the response I would think it is...I have said from the very beginning...this is a huge propaganda war....So I will ask you...IF....there was irrefutable proof provided...that 9/11 was an inside job...what would that do do to your belief system.

Pick pick pick at me all you might like...and catch me out here and there as I try to respond to comments...but ask yourself that very important question....that only a few astute people are getting at....

Ignore where the info comes from...just keep in mind the word .....irrefutable

a reply to: Indigo5

Wow..OK...you answer your own question

Why would any news agency report it coming down before it came down...did that reporter just decide on her own

Hey building seven is coming down.

originally posted by: Indigo5
Again...Why would any news media need to be given advance knowledge or reporting of a super secret inside job attack...were the super secret agents worried no one would notice Building 7 when it fell? Geeze...get phil on the phone to give the BBC a play by play in advance so they don't miss it!

It is funny how conspiracy theorists never stop to actually think about the silly theories they post, they post any crap from any source without checking it.

a reply to: Indigo5

WTF do you mean "word got around"???

I'm sure you been here long enough to see the videos of police and workers warning people to "Get back. The building is about to blow up." In which of your realities does "blow up" mean "fall down"?

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
The plane crash in PA was BS as well. That was too small of an area for a plane that large to come down. Even plane like the one that came down in Lockerbie Scottland that exploded 20,000 feet up left massive damage all over the town it came down on. It was a bigger plane but it wasn't a Lear jet that came down in PA.

Look at any plane crash where it was a high speed, high angle impact and the debris field is going to be small compared to the size of the aircraft. This is apples and oranges, as a high altitude explosion would spread debris over a huge area before hitting the ground.

Listening to all the confusion and outright bonehead mistakes made that day by our own military not being able to take control of the skies was nothing more than a criminal act. NEADS sent the two fighters out of Langley Virgina into the right area, Yet Giant Crusher sent them out to sea on purpose instead of over Washington where they would have intercepted or flat seen the plane fly over the Pentagon and bomb it.

The fighters from Langley were launched at 9:24. Flight 77 was reported to the FAA at 9:25, but wasn't reported to NEADS until 9:34. They were launched after it was reported that American 11 was still airborne, heading to Washington from the New York area. They were sent North to try to find it.

The plan, from the civilian ATC in the area, was supposed to be for the fighters to go off the coast near Baltimore, but be in contact with one Center, instead of handing off and handing back, but there was a breakdown with the Navy ATC in the area. By putting them off the coast, it kept them clear or traffic over the area. No one was sure where the flight was, as American hadn't confirmed that 11 had crashed until hours later.

www.vanityfair.com...

As a citizen of this country, I'm scared if/when information incriminating our own Govt. is released about 9/11... It scares me to think what would happen to my country... I dont see how we would ever be able to recover from something so damning like that coming out.. Not only would the whole world not trust us, the citizens within this country would likely revolt.. It would be a total mess, and I can't picture a pretty scenario if this ever played out...

a reply to: jhn7537

I starred you as your comments are the most honest...and reasonable ones in this entire thread...thank you so much for jumping in and responding with such honesty...I now have absolute faith in the human race...I applaud you to the Nth degree....