My sudden change of heart

reply to post by psikeyhackr


You're preaching to the converted. I totally believe 9/11 was an inside job. However, I was replying to the OP. I respect their views, and at the same time most reasonable people, even those who support the OS, must surely agree that there never was an investigation and that there should be one.... Although personally, I would go straight for mass murder charges.

Originally posted by GobbledokTChipeater

Originally posted by demonseed

#3 Fire does not cause buildings to collapse!

.....

Im not going to barrage you with explanations or theories, but contrary to conspiracy belief, this is NOT the first time a building collapsed due to fire.

Prior to 9/11, no steel-framed building had ever collapsed due to fires. Ever!

Originally posted by demonseed

1) Towers 1 and 2 fell due to the impact. The weight of the above floors would easily cause the floors below to give way. If this was a stone structure like a pyramid then sure, it would not collapse this way. But because the floors only hold enough weight to hold "ONE" floor above, having 30+ stories fall will give way and cause a systematic pancake collapse. This is not an outrageous claim and is easily understandable. I never fully believed this was a controlled demolition(poofs of smoke dont indicate a controlled demolition) but my earlier beliefs of WTC 7 caused me to investigate this further. However, looking at it now Towers 1 and 2 fell exactly as they should have.

What?? Are you really saying that the bottom floor (or any other floor) only holds enough weight to hold the floor above it? Then WTF holds up the rest of the floors above it?

You say it is easily understandable. I say you are gullible.

The fact is that the lower floors held up the above floors just fine before the collapse. The weight of the building didn't increase, so why were the lower floors suddenly incapable of holding up the same weight?

I think you need to either do some more research, or stop researching altogether

Or maybe you are pretending to support the OS so you can make it look bad from the inside-out. In which case, thumbs up!

edit on 20/11/10 by GobbledokTChipeater because: ?

You obviously aren't an architect, and you are obviously are very dumb. What holds up an entire building???? It surely can't be steel structures can it?

Second of all the truther movement to me is is like the jehovah's witness's. And the same goes for conspiracy theorists.

They alway's predict impending doom, and destruction, mass killings, doomsday, end of the world scenario's for decades, and yet all those scenario's havn't happened.

I just think the truthers and conspiracy theorists want attention, want fame. They aren't doing anything real to save or change the world. All they do is argue, complain, or babble on forums like this one, and spend 12 hours a day on their computers.

What have you done for society? Are you building robots that could save lives? Are you curing diseses? Are you a fireman that saves lives everyday? Are you a congressmen that wants to save the world? Are you out there in a third world country teaching the tribes how to make crops, and education???

If you doing none of these things? Then what are you doing then?

All this movement is, is just nothing but a movement that craves attention, complains and wines.

Go join the army and maybe you will know what it really means to be courageous. You haven't seen #.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"I don't claim to know everything about what went on, but a building doesn't get hit by a plane, burn for upwards of an hour, and then have nothing happen to it."

Watch out! A one hour fire caused the global collapse of two decrepit asbestos filled cash draining modern skyscrapers which were designed to withstand multiple airliner strikes, hurricane force winds and earthquakes. Yep...they designed those buildings to withstand cataclysmic natural disasters, but a one hour oxygen starved fire was enough to turn them into complete dust. I can see your point.

By the way, we won't mention the three hour

fire which occurred in the North Tower in 1975; a fire which apparently burned hotter than the one on 9/11 and caused little structural damage to the building.

whatreallyhappened.com...

And they thought the Titanic was indestructible. Look what happened to it. It got hit by an iceberg.

Just because they think its indestructible, doesn't mean it really is indestructible.

This movement lost its credibility the moment i got banned for questioning everything to do with conspiracy's and the truth on a conspiracy forum, and debunking things constantly.

I got banned for that. So who is really the oppressors? The government or the truth movement? Atleast the government listens to me, and atleast they respect me, but here on these forums, people that have decent opinions get attacked, teased, hacked, and banned for doing nothing at all.

All these guy's want are anti-government opinions, rebels. Not patriots. They ban patriots, they hate people who like the government, and they hate people who are rich.

You guy's are just as bad as any government if you act like this.

How can your movement be credible if all you do not treat anyone with any respect?


I had a very good experience the other day. There was an incident. Someone set a place a light, and the sprinklers went off like crazy, and flooded the place. It took the fire engine less then 2 minutes to arrive. They fixed up and problem, and they even pumped out all the water for us.

The police came, and they were very respectable to us, they investigated the siutation, took down all the details, and they did a great job. No one panicked, no one was screaming. They just did their job.

What would happen in a world without police or fireman, or doctors? Would any of us ever survive?

You guy's a demonizing the people who save our lives everyday. your destroying the very thing that saves lives.

I don't know whats worse. The government or this...

Oh, and the bit about the steel section of the Windsor Tower not collapsing?

edit on 21-11-2010 by roboe because: (no reason given)

According to the "scientists" in this thread:

NO plane hit that building yet it collapsed...
Clearly thermite was used.

"And they thought the Titanic was indestructible. Look what happened to it. It got hit by an iceberg. Just because they think its indestructible, doesn't mean it really is indestructible."

Awesome logic Buddy - comparing a pre-war moving ship to a stationary modern skyscraper built 60 years later.


"This movement lost its credibility the moment i got banned for questioning everything to do with conspiracy's and the truth on a conspiracy forum, and debunking things constantly."

In any event, let me be the first to congratulate you for destroying the movement's credibility and debunking things constantly. I shudder to think what society would do without a valuable individual such as yourself?


"At least the government listens to me, and at least they respect me"

Sure they do; as long as they are able to extort you out of your tax dollars and as long as you drop your pants and allow them to feel you up when you're about to board an airplane. And they'll really respect you if you allow them to taser you and arrest you next time you are involved in a peaceful protest.


"but here on these forums, people that have decent opinions get attacked, teased, hacked, and banned for doing nothing at all."

Like calling someone very dumb and insulting Jehovah's Witness' like you did in your last post. Kind of warms my heart when I see someone practicing the art of hypocrisy.


"You guy's are just as bad as any government if you act like this. I don't know whats worse. The government or this..."

You just said the Government listens to you and respects you. Would you make up your mind already?


"What would happen in a world without police or fireman, or doctors? Would any of us ever survive? You guy's a demonizing the people who save our lives everyday. your destroying the very thing that saves lives."

By the way, if this is becoming a little too much for you to take, here is another website for you

www.disney.com...

Go get 'em cowboy!

To the O.P. believe what you like, I am glad you are happy about your "convincing" that 17 guys could destroy the economy of the USA, Kill Thousands and Their boss got away with it.
So much for the powerful all controlling undefeatable United States of Amerika. Maybe Chick Norris and Steven Segal will make a nice picture of it as the super pilots...

My advice, research, go to manhattan, see for yourself.

If you think they did it, fine. Some of us (that actually have gone in a multi million commercial flight simulator and tried to fly that fast close to the ground know otherwise.

Sleep in well, cause living is easy with eyes closed.

reply to post by demonseed


First of all, the building didn't collapse, rather a small section did and only after 18+ hours of intense fire that was tantamount to an inferno. The building however remained erect and did not collapse and even that one little section certainly didn't collapse after a little over an hour, in spite of the fact that the fire was much hotter and enveloped much more of the building.

As far as thermitic material at the WTC, many people believe that thermitic material could have been used because that is the consensus among every single scientist who has thus far looked into the issue of whether explosives were used, at least those who have since gone public with their findings. Furthermore, there has been a peer-reviewed scientific study on the findings. I do however realize that you probably don't know what that means, though the peer-review process is extremely rigorous and only the research that is thorough, accurate and correct can pass the consensus of anonymous experts in the particular field, thus becomes published in the respective scientific journal. This paper or the research has not even so much as been countered by any other scientist and instead, it has been completely ignored by the media and truster scientists alike. If you can't beat it, ignore it and hopefully it will go away.

People didn't just pull thermite out of their butts. In fact, the thermitic material research is harder evidence and much more of an explanation than what TPTB have ever provided concerning 9/11. Some people don't mind just blindly believing the authorities and throwing both logic and reason out of the window, but the rest of us require some kind of evidence before, factual evidence before just going along with extraordinary claim.




--airspoon



reply to post by kix


I don't think that it really matters, as your comment was directed towards someone who based his/her opinion almost entirely on flawed facts and logic, then still stands by that opinion after it was all debunked. Some things were pretty self explanatory, such as a multiple story building being able to hold the weight of more than one "floor" above another and other things which could have been dispelled after a minimal amount of research, such as the TSA and pancake theory. Also, logic that my young son has already developed, such as the fact that established scientific studies based on factual evidence are more founded in reality and far more probable than some random event pulled out of a hat, concerning this statement:

Originally posted by demonseed
If you told me that aliens fired a laser beam to bring down the building, i would believe that over explosives.

That statement was in the face of the fact that a consensus of scientists and experts in the field have found evidence of nano-engineered thermitic material, then published a scientific paper on the issue that was peer-reviewed and which has not yet been countered in any viable manner. Do you really think that you can talk sense into someone who would believe in an alien death ray, over accepted science?

Hardly...


--airspoon

reply to post by demonseed


Also notice that it was the steel section which collapsed from the fire

The concrete core is still intact....

So much for steel buildings not collapsing from fire.....

Originally posted by airspoon
reply to post by demonseed

 

First of all, the building didn't collapse, rather a small section did and only after 18+ hours of intense fire that was tantamount to an inferno. The building however remained erect and did not collapse and even that one little section certainly didn't collapse after a little over an hour, in spite of the fact that the fire was much hotter and enveloped much more of the building.

As far as thermitic material at the WTC, many people believe that thermitic material could have been used because that is the consensus among every single scientist who has thus far looked into the issue of whether explosives were used, at least those who have since gone public with their findings. Furthermore, there has been a peer-reviewed scientific study on the findings. I do however realize that you probably don't know what that means, though the peer-review process is extremely rigorous and only the research that is thorough, accurate and correct can pass the consensus of anonymous experts in the particular field, thus becomes published in the respective scientific journal. This paper or the research has not even so much as been countered by any other scientist and instead, it has been completely ignored by the media and truster scientists alike. If you can't beat it, ignore it and hopefully it will go away.

People didn't just pull thermite out of their butts. In fact, the thermitic material research is harder evidence and much more of an explanation than what TPTB have ever provided concerning 9/11. Some people don't mind just blindly believing the authorities and throwing both logic and reason out of the window, but the rest of us require some kind of evidence before, factual evidence before just going along with extraordinary claim.




--airspoon

 

 

 

reply to post by kix

 

I don't think that it really matters, as your comment was directed towards someone who based his/her opinion almost entirely on flawed facts and logic, then still stands by that opinion after it was all debunked. Some things were pretty self explanatory, such as a multiple story building being able to hold the weight of more than one "floor" above another and other things which could have been dispelled after a minimal amount of research, such as the TSA and pancake theory. Also, logic that my young son has already developed, such as the fact that established scientific studies based on factual evidence are more founded in reality and far more probable than some random event pulled out of a hat, concerning this statement:

Originally posted by demonseed
If you told me that aliens fired a laser beam to bring down the building, i would believe that over explosives.

That statement was in the face of the fact that a consensus of scientists and experts in the field have found evidence of nano-engineered thermitic material, then published a scientific paper on the issue that was peer-reviewed and which has not yet been countered in any viable manner. Do you really think that you can talk sense into someone who would believe in an alien death ray, over accepted science?

Hardly...


--airspoon

edit on 21-11-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2010 by airspoon because: (no reason given)

I cant believe in alien death rays but im suppose to believe in super secret government nano-thermite capable of causing a skyscraper to collapse all while thousands of people remain silent about the biggest crime ever committed on mankind?

Whenever there is a crime, there is evidence.

According to you guys, the evidence was:
"Coincidentally burned in the buildings."
"Mysteriously disappeared."
"Shipped to china."

Imagine 200 people rob the biggest bank in the world. They kill everyone in the bank and make away with the money. 3000 employees and civilians die in the bank robbery.

10 years later, not a single person gets caught by the police. They are so good at their crime that they leave no traces of evidence whatsoever. Not a single person who committed the crime confesses.

Now multiply the 200 bank robbers by 10 and you have a better estimate of AT LEAST how many people would have to be involved in the 911 "crime."

So sure, you can say all you want about the "hard to believe" official story. But which one of these is really harder to believe?

reply to post by demonseed


First of all, there is evidence, not in only in eye-witness testimony, but also with expert analysis (as was published in this peer-reviewed scientific journal Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

Also, you clearly don't understand how the government works, particularly the intelligence services. I have worked for the government my entire life (up until a fiew years ago where I am now retired). Nobody but the planners really needed to know about it. There is a technique called compartmentalization, which our government uses extensively. Information is on a need to know basis and nobody really knows the big picture, they only know the specific element of the project that they are working on.

When you have a security clearance and work on classified projects, much of what is classified, you'd scratch your head wondering why on earth it would be classified because most of it is mundane. It's classified because it obviously something much bigger. So, all in all, only a very few select people would even know the plans or even a signoificant part of the plans, as each person or group only works on a very small portion.

Imagine that you want to bake a cake in secret. You could get a hundred people to work on this cake, with only you knowing about the cake, through a process called compartmentalization, a process that our government uses extensively. You would get one person to get a teaspoon of sugar, while you get another person to also get a teaspoon of sugar (so forth and so on until you have a cup of sugar). Then, you do the same for each ingrediaent. Then you get another person to put the powder in a jar. You then get another person to stir the jar and then another person to pour that jar into a dish and yet another person to turn the knob on the oven. On and on, usingdifferent people for each little task, all the while each person has no idea what anyone else is doing, or even that there is anyone else. All that one person knows is that he got a teaspoon of sugar or turned a knob. As far as he can tell, all he did was get a teaspoon of sugar or poured a white powder into a jar. If the cake was ever found and people started asking where the cake came from or who had, nobody would know. One person would only think about the teaspoon of sugar that he had, while not even knowing that there were other people with other ingredients.

Now multiply this by a thousand on a project that is much more conceliable than baking a cake.

That's how our government works and it's called compartmentalization.

With that being said, there have been whistleblowers. Sibel Edmonds for instance, the FBI translator who was slapped with a gag-order. Then you also have mant other whistle blowers who have since committed suicide, leterally.

Again, you are forming an opinion without all of the facts and then when you are corrected on the facts or logic, you keep denying it and spouting mroe flawed logic or facts. The point being that not many people had to know about it at all.

As far as the cover-up and the seemingly large number of people who go along with thiscover-up, it is a simple case of not wanting to lose your livelihood. The people who have come out and simply asked questions, qouckly found out that they either lost their jobs or lost their funding, while those who have helped in the ridiculing or cover-up, have been rewarded. This sets a huge example that you keep your mouth shut and certainly doesn;t mean that these people have been in on it from start to finish or that they were in on the plan, it just means that they don't want to lose their career. I know many people at the University that I work don't buy the OS at all, though they admit (jokingly even) that they dare not speak out for losing their job or losing their funding (which comes from the government). So, in affect, a tone has been set that keeps people quiet or that helps them cover it up without being "in on it".

We all saw what happened to Van Jones for instance. He simply signed a petition saying that more questions should be asked and he quickly lost his position. He wasn't making accusations or anything like that. It's things like this that sets a huge example and keeps other such as scientists and reporters from daring to publicly ask questions.

Furthermore, the experts, scientists, officials and reporters that have come out anyway, have almost been completely ignored by the MSM so even if you do come out and lose your livelihood, it is pretty much for no good reason at all.

So in short, 99% of the people who would have or could have been involved in 9/11, simply don't know that they were involved. As far as the cover-up, most people value their careers and ability to put food on the table, thus stay quiet. You are again using failed logic to come to your conclusions and I honestly don't think you are trying to be dishonest, I just think you are convincing yourself based on this failed logic. You are probably reading to many of those official conspiracy theory websites.

There is something called objectivity and I'm not trying to be mean by saying this, but you should really strive for it and hold of a conclusion before you can independently verify your facts. As far as your logic, run it by someone who may know, instead of those official conspiracy theory websites, where their only goal is to obfuscate the truth. You aren't doing yourself any favors by convincing yourself of a particular outcome and then seeking out the notions that confirm that outcome.

Look, I honestly could care less what you believe and I don't have an issue because you choose to believe the OS, but I just find it ridiculous that you are basing that belief on flawed logic and facts, then refusing to even acknowledge that your whole is built upon a flawed base. There are a few members on here that don't believe the government is guilty (though I don't think they believe the OS), geez, even I'm not certain that the government is guilty (thewre just isn't enough yet for me to come to a conclusion), yet I respect their view because they aren't basing it on flawed data or logic. At least have your facts right and acknowledge that your logic is flawed when it is pointed out in aobvious manner. Everyone gets something wrong every now and then and it's okay. Nobody is above using flawed logic every once in a while, though it's only okay if you can acknowledge it.


--airspoon

Also when I read this title, my sudden change of heart, it was in the wrong category to mean something positive, but a change of heart is what we all need, but not over the things that are glaringly wrong, and in our faces. Not the official stories with a hundred loop holes in them for all to see, and question.

And the way the luciferean/mystery school elites play this game is like a black and white checkerboard floor, the one they are all standing on in the pictures, and the Vatican plays its role out as well. The duality. And they put it all out in plain site, like the murals on the airport, to condition us, NLP.

The papal office played two white squares, in amidst some dark squares. The first was concering the charges of child abuse, and actions or proceedings taken on an official day, in which the papal office said to the world, "because the world doesnt' make sense, we turned to conspiracy theories to search for the truth!" paraphrased a bit, meaning is same.

Knock knock is anyone there, they seemed to saying to us, why haven't we got it yet, for the world surely doesn't make sense.

That one statement alone should have alerted the world, but sadly didn't.

Then the next move, naming their huge telescope in Arizona, Lucifer. Come on now guys, the world really don't make sense, research!

9/11 falls really short on just the surface scan of research, and a number of politicians including in Japan, have even brought this up repeatedly.

The world not only doesnt make sense but only a short amount of research finds a wealth of information, often from their own mouths. And the connects quickly.

But a change of heart, we all need. We're putting into the earth grid negative energy and this is not without consequence. Earth is a mirror to our collective consciousness, and to avoid the worst of their plans, to mitigate whats coming, we all need to wake up.

9/11 is a big wake up for many, and the illegal wars. NWO, their fema camps and underground bases. The murals in the Colorado airport and even on a bank's wall, in plain site.

We need to stop pumping negative in, and the wars and starvation and homelessness are all the big karma traps, so we need to really turn all our negatives into positives, our weakenesses into strengths, and start to Love each other, with kindness, without arguments, without forcing others, modeling goodness, goodwill, giving to others. We can turn the tables on all their plans.

Thats the change of heart we need.

Comparing baking a cake to 9/11 is pretty hilarious, but just for giggles ill go along:

Lets say it takes 5 people to bake the cake.

1 person to get the sugar
1 person to get the eggs
1 person to bake it
1 person to put frosting on it
and 1 person to "oversee" the procedure.

4 of the 5 people have no idea what the final outcome is, but they know its baking related and they know its "top secret and very important." They are simply instructed to do something.

After the cake is baked, it is shown to the entire world over television.
Its a "super secret cake" that nobody knew about but now its out in public. Hey, just like the cake that those 4 people made.

Except now, this cake ends the lives of 3000 people. You think our cake makers would just sit there idly going "well uh it seemed like i was making a cake but whatever, i doubt it..."


It sounds really silly, but it is if you compare it to a freaking cake!

Imagine a company is hired to put explosives inside a high-rise skyscraper. Then a week laker that skyscraper gets hit by an airplane and the explosives are detonated.

Your telling me that the company who put the explosives in, even if they had no idea why they where hired for the job, would just sit there and allow the government to get away with it?

Not ONE person has come out saying they put explosives anywhere around the WTC towers.

Not ONE.

Oh let me guess, they hired the people and then "mysteriously" killed them. They conveniently ALL died on the day of 911, right?

Nobody was on lunch break during the incident and managed to escape. The government is so diabolical and perfect that it was the perfect crime.

As for "finding things inside dust samples"...

here you go:
www.rense.com...

Apparently because some scientists did a blind study of some of the rock found off of the walls of the concentration camp there where no traces of gas. This means that Auschwitz never had gas chambers. Its PROOF i tell ya! PRoof!

After reading that they find Aluminum and Iron on the microscopic level. Wait... your telling me that the rubble of a collapsed skyscraper contains microscopic amounts of Aluminum and Iron?

Did you actually READ the link you posted? Or did you just assume it as fact because some Steven Jones is 100% qualified?

I really dont want to sound as harsh as i am right now, but your demeanor leaves me no choice. If you are going to go about this in a condescending way calling your links facts and me a "paid disinfo agent" i see no other choice..

I should have just not responded to your first post like i told myself before hand because i knew exactly where this was gonna go.

reply to post by demonseed


Well somebody put explosives in the WTC towers, they did not just blew themselves up.

reply to post by psikeyhackr

There had to be enough steel on the 81st level of the south tower to support another 29 stories.

And there was . I've seen you shout 'distribution' in almost every post of yours . Even I have offered to help you calculate what you have asked for , and you have scoffed . This only shows to me that you aren't looking for legitimate answers but , you feel the world should notice your shiny soap-box .

Do you really have any idea as to the true nature of the design and construction of the towers ? I firmly feel that you do not , otherwise , you would not have made the above statement . To someone who knows a bit about the design and construction of the towers , this statement is patently absurd .

I will not give a detailed description of the design of the towers to you again . You are hell-bent on 'proving' an inside job , and you will never listen to serious answers , that actually Answer the redundant 'questions' that you pose .

Calculating the weight , mass , and distribution of live loads and dead loads , does not take a friggin rocket scientist . I am convinced that you are intelligent enough to do this so , what is your gig ?

Do the friggin calculations and tell all of us what it is , that you find wrong . Quit waiting for someone else to come along and do the math for you . Or , just admit that you can't and ask for some help . But , don't ask for mine , as I offered to help you calculate the mass and weight of concrete on each floor level and , you actually scoffed at me .

So , good luck , hope you find whatever the hell it is you are looking for . It certainly isn't facts .

"Let's see..

- Asbestos filled: False. Tower 1 had abestos used to up the 40th floor, Tower 2 had none. Asbestos was banned while the towers were being construced. www.nytimes.com...

- Cash draining: False. The towers held a 98% occupancy rate in February of 2001. www.panynj.gov...

- Designed to stand multiple airplane strikes. Which they did. However, noone had calculated the effects of the massive fires.

- Oxygen-starved fires: False. Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke. www.hse.gov.uk...

- The 1975 fire. Let's take a closer look at that fire, shall we?"


Yeah, let's see.

Asbestos - "May 14, 2001 - U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell earlier this month threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties." www.allbusiness.com...

Port Authority loses in court to have the insurers pay for the asbestos abatement and four months later the buildings are conveniently demolished. Coincidence, huh? You still think the astronomical cost for asbestos abatement was not a major issue for those buildings and heavily contributed to the subsequent insurance fraud perpetuated on 9/11?

- Cash draining: Silverstein wins 99-year WTC net-lease findarticles.com...

Are you telling me that the Port Authority (the owners of the WTC) gave Silverstein a 99 year lease for the Towers because they were profitable? You can come up with all of the mainstream media garbage stories you want, but the fact of the matter is that the P.A. would have never given up control of those two decrepit aging skyscrapers if they were profitable and raking in the bucks. So while your precious piece of crap controlled and treasonous mainstream media says one thing, common sense says another. I wonder which is right.

- Oxygen-starved fires: False. "Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke."

Plastic? What was made of plastic? The structure of the building? The windows? The pipes? The walls? The elevator doors? The stairwells? The filing cabinets? The desks? The chairs? I don't know of too many executives who use something as cheap as plastic to decorate their offices. You certainly can do better than that.

- The 1975 fire.

I stopped reading your pathetic explanation when it said that the fireproofing prevented the steel from melting, since not even the 1975 fire (which was hotter than the 9/11 fire) was hot enough to melt the steel.

Got anymore garbage to throw my way? I especially enjoy the stuff from the lying scumbags in the mainstream media and the Port Authority, who were also obviously in on this scam, since they were still the owners of these buildings and they had to give the go ahead for this oh so convenient demolition.

reply to post by roboe




And just HOW long did it take for any part of the Windsor building to collapse?
Did its collapse take longer than 9/11? Why and how?
Where is the entire collapse pulverising the concrete of the Windsor tower?

Hell, show me ANY high rise to have collapsed in the SAME manner as
any of the 3 on 9/11

I'm sure you can't but avoiding my post is:
Tacit agreement you're FOS

reply to post by _ibid


Excellent post.

Isn't it ironic you may not get a response with facts, but with
emotional conjecture reaffirmed by self insecure innuendo?

reply to post by Chinesis


Show me any highrise in the exact situation as on 9/11 and I will be equally pleased. Problem is, no other steel high-rises have been hit by 767s and/or had a massive skyscraper collapse on top of it.

Originally posted by civilchallenger
reply to post by demonseed

 

The evidence is that Bush said on national television that watched the first tower on video going into the first building live on TV. I don't know how much evidence you could possibly ask for, but thats essentially a confession. Then of course there is the guy who said "I was in on it". I mean seriously when there are people saying "I was in on it." and you are not taking that as evidence that everyday Americans were involved there is clearly nothing to convince you.

Cheney & team didn't get away with it. They left the obvious clues all over the place. They did it right in our faces.

Then there is the trading activity EVIDENCE of high bets on UAL stock going down leading up and especially on the trading day before 9/11. Maybe it was a group of psychics making the trades. Or more likely, someone knew what was going to happen and cashed in on it.

The CIA already *admitted* to staging the Gulf of Tonkin in a false flag incident to get us into Vietnam. And they have already *admitted* trying to staging other false frag incidents to start other wars. Admitted, on paper. So you have a situation where you have one successful attempt at a false flag and one not so successful in a 25 year period. And the rumors of other false flags go back to the early days of America. Yet according to you, this is no longer happening all of a sudden. America is good now and reformed. These false flag events are EVIDENCE that 9/11 was a false flag attack.

Then of course they tried to destroy all of the evidence by shipping the WTC steel off to China for melting, when local steel yards would have paid HIGHER prices for the steel. Then of course they didn't manage to hide all of the the traces.... undetonated explosive were found, and photographs of molten concrete are everywhere to see. That is evidence. Did you know that?

The very first promise Bush made on 9/11 was that he would commit the "full resources of the federal government" to investigating what happened. But he immediately changed his mind and had zero interest in any investigation. How suspicious can you get? Not any more suspicious, until a few months later when he admitted guilt on mistake.

Silverstien skipped his daily breakfast visit to the WTC and reportedly warned her daughter not to go to work. Suspicious behavior. Then he later said he overhead the words "pull it" during his conversation with the fire chief. And yet again, you discount yet another accidental admisssion. All of the top people involved all accidentally admitted guilt, and you don't call that evidence. I don't know what to tell you. It sounds like you want to believe one thing regardless of the evidence.

I don't know what you've been reading but from what I've seen on ATS the evidence pile is always going up and the idea that the US government was involved is always getting less credit every day.

edit on 21-11-2010 by civilchallenger because: Clarity

Sorry i missed your post. I wont be debating random antics like "silverstein skipping his daily breakfast in WTC." as that , even if validated, has no bearing on what we are worried about.

The important thing i recommend for you is to double-check and verify your facts and information. A huge majority of stuff on the internet is pure horse crap. Just because a youtube video says something happened does not make it true.

Thats the biggest problem with these "truther" sites. Is that they aim for truth but they ignore information as well as mislead with other information.

For example:
We all know that you cant make a phone call if the airplane is at high altitude. If you're traveling over water and/or rural areas, you can forget about making a cell phone call altogether.

For this reason the United AIrlines(i believe) spent money to put cell phone antennas into their airlines.
Most of the calls on 9/11 where made using the airline phone but some people did actually use their cell phone. A lot of cell phone calls where dropped however some did go through.

In New York, the cell phone companies say that you can achieve a signal at roughly 35,000 feet and above. So, if you are still flying near manhatten you can probably get a cell phone signal.

So rather than research this, Loose Change "loosely" connects the investment in cellphone antennas with "nobody could have made a phone call that high so it was all fabricated."

My point here is, take everything on the internet with a grain of salt.

Almost everything you mentioned is some kind of personal " i said something inconsistent" or "so and so was not suppose to be there!" as if these people are robots that are always suppose to be at a set location and time.

To show you how things can be blown out of proportion, ill address your first statement.

"Bush said he saw the first plane strike the tower."

Yes, thats on record that he said that. There is no denying that.

However, here is another "loose" way of analyzing a situation:
Truthers love to use the video where Bush is informed of the first plane hitting the tower as he is reading a book with an elementary class.

Here is the infamous video:
www.youtube.com...

So first, the truthers say "bush did not move and they did not evacuate him for safety. This indicates that they knew he was safe from terrorists."

The evil black-hating bush decides to stay in the class, mostly comprised of black children. Ignoring the fact that his entire demeanor changes and he looks nervous as he constantly swallows and looks around scared, he clearly is unfazed by this incident according to truthers.

Just watch the entire video. Im probably the only guy to make Bush look good on this entire site(and trust me, i dont agree with bush on a lot of things), but could it just be possible that maybe Bush values these children more than his safety? Maybe he just has the guts to stay with the kids and not bailout randomly in the middle of the class.

Also, you can blow the whole theory out of the water immediately with this quick analysis:
If they knew in advance of 9/11, why in the hell would he even be in a class-room in the first place?!?!
Wouldnt he be far away watching the Evil plans unfold?

That evidence alone suggests that they knew nothing or at least very little of the attack in the first place

Unless....

Bush has a clone made. One is watching the first plane diabolically strike the tower while the other is pretending to not know anything and sit in a classroom!

How far down the conspiracy hole shall we go my friend?

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Chinesis

 

Show me any highrise in the exact situation as on 9/11 and I will be equally pleased. Problem is, no other steel high-rises have been hit by 767s and/or had a massive skyscraper collapse on top of it.

Are you for real?

Are you trying to tell me that an ordinary fire wouldn't have collapsed the buildings but
BECAUSE of the planes hitting the buildings? THIS somehow warrants your mind
to now think the Jets hitting the buildings + Jet fuel coupled to the fires=near free fall
collapse and pulverisation?

As far as I'm aware only one plane hit each building...
Jet fuel was burned off by initial explosion...and does not burn hot enough to melt
steel, let alone an entire building over 1,000ft high.

Do you know the composition of a 767 Jet liner?