'Top Ten Photos 9/11 Conspiracy Nuts Hate'

Originally posted by Vicious Jones

I don't give a flying f***. IF ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE STATES IT WAS A PLANE SHOW ME A VIDEO OF A PLANE. I know there is footage seeing as I lived in DC for 9 years and have seen plenty of cameras around the pentagon.

Perhaps you have never seen this:

flight77.info...

In Summary:

* She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
* Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
* Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
* The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
* No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.

Until I see that video, I don't know what hit the pentagon.

So, if you never had a video, how would you conduct an investigation? How would you be able to determine what happened?

Originally posted by bsbray11
I take it you have not seen the interviews of men from their hospital beds explaining that they were injured by heavy explosions that accompanied the "collapses." One witness in a video interview said it sounded like there were rapid gunshots, and then three big explosions.

So please point out in the Naudet video where the explosions are heard, and where people were knocked down by the concussive blasts. Is there any audio at all that one can hear "three big explosions". Being that the Naudet film was done at the base of the towers I would think they would pick them up the easiest.

Originally posted by Soloist
So please point out in the Naudet video where the explosions are heard, and where people were knocked down by the concussive blasts.

Why would it have to be captured by the Naudet brothers, who were blocks away from WTC1 when these explosions occurred according to the witnesses?

Are you saying that if something was not caught on film by the Naudet brothers, then it never happened? How can you reason that?

And are you saying all these people in hospital beds are making up what happened to them?











[edit on 13-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by bsbray11
Why would it have to be captured by the Naudet brothers, who were blocks away from WTC1 when these explosions occurred according to the witnesses?

Are you saying that if something was not caught on film by the Naudet brothers, then it never happened? How can you reason that?

And are you saying all these people in hospital beds are making up what happened to them?

Do you know that they were filming at the base of the towers when the first one came down????? That is not "blocks away". No explosions heard, no concussive blast, only the building falling down on top of them as they run for their lives.

So either there were silent, non-concussive magical demolitions, or the demolition conspiracy is bunk.

Originally posted by Soloist
Do you know that they were filming at the base of the towers when the first one came down????? That is not "blocks away".

No, they were blocks away when the explosions reported by these witnesses occurred, but I am not surprised that you never took the time to listen to what the other witnesses who were there actually had to say.

No explosions heard, no concussive blast, only the building falling down on top of them as they run for their lives.

And this also contradicts what the men and women in the hospital beds are saying, as they claim they were physically injured by the blasts YOU claim never happened.


Do you know how electronic audio equipment works? You know, frequency ranges, saturation, cut-offs, noise? Doesn't seem like it. I'll give you a hint though. When you listen to audio of the collapses and hear a lot of static-like noise and low-frequency rumbling, yeah, the actual collapses sounded nothing like that. Somehow I get the feeling the injured men and women in the above videos would tell you the same....

reply to post by bsbray11
Those videos of the eyewitnesses were one of the many reasons I don't believe the official story of 9/11.

I also clearly remember hearing reports of secondary devices planted in the building that fateful morning.

Good post Bray.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist
Do you know that they were filming at the base of the towers when the first one came down????? That is not "blocks away".

No, they were blocks away when the explosions reported by these witnesses occurred, but I am not surprised that you never took the time to listen to what the other witnesses who were there actually had to say.

So are you denying that they were at the base of the towers when the first tower came down? Yes or no.

Originally posted by Soloist
So are you denying that they were at the base of the towers when the first tower came down? Yes or no.

No.

Now actually read my last post and try to comprehend it before replying to me again.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Soloist
So are you denying that they were at the base of the towers when the first tower came down? Yes or no.

No.

Good, so please explain why no blasts were heard during the "demo" of the building and no concussive forces acted upon either the camera, crew, or firemen in the video.

Originally posted by Soloist
Good, so please explain why no blasts were heard during the "demo" of the building and no concussive forces acted upon either the camera, crew, or firemen in the video.

Prove that no blasts were heard.

This goes back to audio quality. When you have a bunch of static and low, rumbling noises, that is not what the "collapses" actually sounded like. Scores of witnesses at least reported hearing explosions, both well BEFORE the collapses started, as well as during them.

Again, how can you ignore all the witnesses who were there who testify to this, and instead favor poor digital audio that by design limitations becomes saturated and can't even pick up many sound frequencies to begin with?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Prove that no blasts were heard.

So you can point out where they are heard? I hear none at all. You can clearly hear others talking in the video and not being drowned out by the massive "demo".

Blasts that would have had to been enormous and numerous to take down a 110 story sky scraper from the top down, as many in the TM claim, wouldn't you agree?

However, everyone is able to run to safety without being knocked down, off their feet, etc. The camera doesn't jolt with any "explosions", we merely here the crumbling and falling building get louder as it falls to the ground.

No explosions are heard or felt. The video is ALL the proof needed.

If it was demo charges, they sure were silent.

Originally posted by Soloist

Originally posted by bsbray11
Prove that no blasts were heard.

So you can point out where they are heard? I hear none at all.

You should have been there in person.

Since you will never have that opportunity again, the best you can do is look at what the people that were there said they heard.

You keep ignoring them like they aren't important, but I will not.

Originally posted by bsbray11
You should have been there in person.

Since you will never have that opportunity again, the best you can do is look at what the people that were there said they heard.

You keep ignoring them like they aren't important, but I will not.

Hilarious. Funny how truthers talk about how since there is no video at the Pentagon that no plane hit it. Even though the the eyewitnesses say so.

Here we have video from the base of the towers right up to, during and after the first collapse that clearly shows no demolition, and you say that the video can't be correct. You even tried to hand wave it away claiming that surely the crappy digital audio couldn't have recorded it, when there are many examples of people with handhelds having NO problems catching the enormous explosions of conventional demolitions in urban environments.

Guess that only leaves Hush-A-Booms.

Originally posted by Soloist
Hilarious. Funny how truthers talk about how since there is no video at the Pentagon that no plane hit it. Even though the the eyewitnesses say so.

Funny how "truthers" to you incorporates every single thing any of "us" that you disagree with might say. Because I have said no such thing.

Guess that only leaves Hush-A-Booms.

Right, the hush-a-booms that blew out WTC1's lobby, injured the people on the hospital beds, destroyed a press in the basements, that scores of people testified to hearing as explosions.... right.


I have brought up the eyewitnesses in how many posts? And this is the closest you've come to even touching them, to hypocritically suggest I ignore them when it comes to the Pentagon (which I don't since I have made no such claim), while you yourself continue to blatantly ignore all of these witnesses at the WTC as if they make no difference.

As long as this is the kind of self-defeating logic "trusters" have faith in, I'm actually glad to be called a "truther."

[edit on 13-4-2010 by bsbray11]

The Naudet brothers were there, in person, as close as one could be to the towers. Have they ever said anything about demolition "explosions"?

The South Tower, second to be hit, fell first. Its collapse sent a tidal wave of debris into the lobby of the North Tower. Naudet had heard the roar and fled the North Tower's lobby, running for his life. He said he took refuge behind a parked van. The Engine 7 fire chief jumped atop him to protect him.

He heard the roar. NOT explosions. The EXACT thing you hear on the audio and neither him or anyone else with them has ever claimed otherwise.

So there you have it, the closest eyewitnesses on the scene that survived, how will you explain that one away?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Right, the hush-a-booms that blew out WTC1's lobby, injured the people on the hospital beds, destroyed a press in the basements, that scores of people testified to hearing as explosions.... right.

Are you being obtuse? Or intentionally misleading? Of course there were explosions BEFORE the collapse.

But where in the world are the explosions from the demolition of the building????

I like those pictures there are some really good shots of the pyroclastic clouds from the cement being pulverised by explosions.

Also a nice shot of the cement after it's been pulverised into dust on the ground.

reply to post by Soloist


How will I explain your cherry-picking of witnesses? As just that: cherry-picking.

When I say scores of witnesses not only testified to HEARING explosions, but being INJURED by them as well, or seeing physical destruction caused by them, I'm not just whistling you know. Those words stand for real people and real things that actually happened.

The fact that not everyone experienced these things, does not negate the people who did experience them, unless you are claiming hundreds of people are all liars.


I can see you have an obsession with focusing on things that validate your beliefs and excluding all things that challenge your beliefs, even when they are mentioned to you directly. That's fine. Not everyone is comfortable with this information and can handle it. I've said everything worth saying to you and my posts will stand. What you believe personally is of no consequence to me or anyone else here who is petitioning our representatives or other professionals or investigators for further investigation.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by bsbray11]

Originally posted by Soloist
Are you being obtuse? Or intentionally misleading? Of course there were explosions BEFORE the collapse.

And can you prove what was causing those explosions?

But where in the world are the explosions from the demolition of the building????

Again, look to the witness testimonies from people who were there. Are you still listening for them in your noisy, static-filled, digitally-converted YouTube videos?

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by Soloist

 

How will I explain your cherry-picking of witnesses? As just that: cherry-picking.

I guess if you want to consider "cherry picking" using those closest to the scene of the collapse, who happened to be filming at the time OF COLLAPSE, ok sure. Funny how you really want to avoid this, since it doesn't support your theory, instead attempting to distract with explosions that happened well before the collapse. Heck several floors were on fire of both buildings, yes things will explode, and there are audio and eyewitnesses to those pre-collapse explosions.

Now if the video showed people being knocked down by several dozens of demolition charge explosions and the accompanying audio that are noticeably absent from the video, I might be inclined to agree with you.

But they don't. The building only roared as it came crumbling down, this is supported by the witnesses and the video. The people at the base of the towers do not support CD, and neither does the video.