Want to Discuss the Facts about the Towers [Archive]

View Full Version : Want to Discuss the Facts about the Towers

therazor

07-07-2010, 01:01 AM

luciferhorus

07-07-2010, 02:04 AM

Since there are literally thousands of posts on this forum on this subject, if the subject is new to you, I would suggest that you do some reading on the matter as a means of initial research.

"Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely
Collapse?
By Dr. Steven E. Jones"
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

and

"Revisiting 9/11/2001 --Applying the Scientific Method
Dr. Steven E. Jones"

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf

Lux

therazor

07-07-2010, 02:12 AM

luciferhorus

07-07-2010, 02:24 AM

I refer you to the documents above.

therazor

07-07-2010, 03:12 AM

I refer you to the documents above.

I'll be honest in saying that I was under the impression that the CT community had rejected Steven Jones for some time. Guess I was mistaken. I read through most of the first pdf. Seems the other is having issues loading on my laptop.

I've heard pretty reasoned arguments against the whole free-fall issue, as well as the molten steel claims.

There's a lot there and its too much to discuss all at once. If you had to pick one major claim that Jones makes, what do you find most compelling?

luciferhorus

07-07-2010, 03:55 AM

I'll be honest in saying that I was under the impression that the CT community had rejected Steven Jones for some time.

Yes that is probably a view held by some of the "crazies" of the 911 movement; it seems to be for much the same reason that people read the National Enquirer instead of the New York Times; the more sensational and outlandish a theory is, the more publicity it gets, and in the opinion of some people, only those who constantly harp on about some of the more outlanding theories have any merit, whereas Stephen Jones is a professor with a PhD in Physics who was previously known for his work on Cold Nuclear Fusion; he and his research team still hold the world record for the most about of energy produced in a cold fusion experiment. Obviously such a person of scientific merit and integrity has absolutely no merit to those of a more sensationalistic National Enquirer mentality; but bear in mind also that most Americans are barely literate, barely able to read a cornflakes packet, most of them cannot locate Brazil on a map, most of them seem to believe that Jesus was an evangelical Capitalist, and they have an ex president (G. W. Bush) who despite having an expensive private prep school education, a graduate degree from Yale and a post grad from Harvard, has trouble constructing sentences ("Is our children learning"), believes that God speaks directly to him and was unaware that there were any "black people" in Brazil (in a converstation with the President of Brazil).

I've heard pretty reasoned arguments against the whole free-fall issue, as well as the molten steel claims.

I have not heard any reasonable arguments against these two claims.

There's a lot there and its too much to discuss all at once. If you had to pick one major claim that Jones makes, what do you find most compelling?

Well there are numerous threads here and despite some people's attempt to create a "single issue" out of 911, the evidence is rather more comprehensive.

Probably the major issue which first attracted mass attention to the 911 black military operation was the tiny hole a few feet wide at the Pentagon which a 767 supposedly dissapeared into. With the WTC it is probably the fact that three buildings were brought down in a controlled demolision, one of which was not even hit by an aircraft and whose owner admitted that it had been "pulled" down.

Lux

therazor

07-07-2010, 04:08 AM

one of which was not even hit by an aircraft and whose owner admitted that it had been "pulled" down.

Lux

This hit me as a little ridiculous. You don't think there is any chance whatsoever that when silverstein said to "pull it" he was referencing the fire fighting efforts in the area?

luciferhorus

07-07-2010, 10:28 AM

This hit me as a little ridiculous. You don't think there is any chance whatsoever that when silverstein said to "pull it" he was referencing the fire fighting efforts in the area?

1: Silverstein's Comment:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html?q=silverstein_pullit.html

Silverstein's Official Retraction of the "Pull it" Comment.

"On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ...

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

"As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State]"" Ibid

2: No firefighters were in "Building 7" to be pulled out.

"There is a problem with the above statement, namely there were no firefighters in WTC 7:

"No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." [Fema Report]

"There was no firefighting in WTC 7." [Popular Mechanics]

"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from [WTC 7] for safety reasons." [New York Times] (6 hours before the building collapsed)"" Ibid

3: Evidence of advance knowledge of a controlled demolition

" (New York Firefighter captured on video) It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

Video Link on http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein_pullit.html?q=silverstein_pullit.html

"INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..."
Ibid

The collapse of Building 7 announced live by the BBC while it can still be seen in the background.

http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/images/BBCBroadastWTC7CollapseCir.jpg

A picture can tell a 1000 words...........

So in summary. 1: You claim to be familiar with the facts; 2: You post a thread entitled, "Want to Discuss the Facts about the Towers?" 3: You claim to have read at least the first Stephen Jones essay hyperlinked above. 4: You find it ridiculous that Silverstein's "pull it" comment refers to a controlled demolition, when indeed all the signs of a controlled demolition did occur, and you suspect he was referring to pulling firefighters, who according to the FEMA report had not even attempted to fight the fire at building 7.

So really I conclude that in common with numerous other posters in various 911 forums, who wish to ramble on incessantly about their opinons, in an attempt to support the propaganda of the state terrorists who are real enemies of America and of humanity, that you may well just be similarly entirely disinterested in the facts.

I thus again refer you to the comprehensive arguments made by Stephen Jones in the essays hyperlinked above. Or alternatively just choose any of the numerous threads on this forum and ramble on incessantly regarding your opinions, and you will be quite at home among numerous others of a similar ilk, many of whom are probably barely literate enough to read Stephen's Jones' essays anyway and who consider their own opinions and those of the state terrorist propagandists to be a higher authority.

Lux

http://unitedstates.fm/pics/wtc7an.gif

ultima1

07-07-2010, 12:39 PM

This hit me as a little ridiculous. You don't think there is any chance whatsoever that when silverstein said to "pull it" he was referencing the fire fighting efforts in the area?

Well there are several reasons why we know that PULL IT did not mean the firemen.

1. There was no firefighting operaton going on in building 7.

2. The firemen there were in building 7 were evacuated early in the day BEFORE talking to Silverstein.

3. A fire chief stated they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings.

So the fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

throatyogurt

07-07-2010, 04:32 PM

Well there are several reasons why we know that PULL IT did not mean the firemen.

1. There was no firefighting operaton [sic] going on in building 7.

2. The firemen there were in building 7 were evacuated early in the day BEFORE talking to Silverstein.

3. A fire chief stated they were worried about fire jumping to other buildings.

So the fire commander could have only been talking about the building when he stated PULL IT.

Roger, can you please tell me what time the conversation took place between Larry Silverstein and the FDNY.

Thank you!

tabea_blumenschein

08-07-2010, 03:42 AM

Roger, can you please tell me what time the conversation took place between Larry Silverstein and the FDNY.
Thank you!

Yes, I'd like the answer to that question as well.

ultima1

08-07-2010, 04:10 AM

Roger, can you please tell me what time the conversation took place between Larry Silverstein and the FDNY.

Thank you!

Yes, I'd like the answer to that question as well.

Well we know it was after the firemen were evacuated due to Chief Nigro's statment that he evacuated the firemen WITHOUT talking to the owner Silverstein.

Chief Nigro became the fire commander later on in the day and talked to Silverstein about not being able to save the building and decided to PULL IT.

stannrodd

08-07-2010, 08:06 AM

I've gone back and forth on this topic. It seems most here subscribe to the idea that the towers fell in a way different than the official story.

Can supporters of this idea give me one fact they have as evidence to discuss?

Evidence of what ??

That the towers didn't fall as described in the media .. or as described in a document ??

Could you clarify. :)

Stann

helloperator

09-07-2010, 02:28 AM

This hit me as a little ridiculous. You don't think there is any chance whatsoever that when silverstein said to "pull it" he was referencing the fire fighting efforts in the area?

Yes I often call fire fighting efforts 'it'

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 03:06 AM

policestate

09-07-2010, 03:11 AM

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 03:21 AM

No what I mean is, seeing as there is a theory that WTC7 was not that damaged and therefore it must have been a controlled demolition that collapsed it, why would they have needed to destroy the building at all?

Oh I see, I took them to be worried about it collapsing from the previous posts quotes.

policestate

09-07-2010, 03:28 AM

it wasn't that damaged. had a few fires in, from what i have read. why did it go down like a pancake? don't know.

here's a screen cap

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc7_3pm.jpg

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 03:30 AM

Ok, but if the building was collapsed by CD then they must have had a reason, what was that reason?

macgyver1968

09-07-2010, 03:40 AM

Ok, but if the building was collapsed by CD then they must have had a reason, what was that reason?

To expand on that question...why did they wait 7 hours to CD the building?... and when were the explosives, that no one heard go off, planted?

policestate

09-07-2010, 03:42 AM

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that one, but i know a lot of security companies resided in that building, including the CIA, Secret Service and the IRS.

macgyver1968

09-07-2010, 03:52 AM

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that one, but i know a lot of security companies resided in that building, including the CIA, Secret Service and the IRS.

So they CD'ed the building because security companies resided there? But why? Did they have records there that needed destroying?

So....it was an "inside job"...so the government destroyed a whole building because government agencies were in the building.

h2pogo

09-07-2010, 03:52 AM

I am sure I have asked this before, but why would they blow the building up if they were already worried about it collapsing anyway? Isn’t that why they pulled all the fire fighters out earlier that day? What benefit would they have in using controlled demolition? Why did they need to? How did they get all those explosives into the building and rig them up without anyone noticing when it takes a demolition company weeks to rig a building and have miles of cable lying around everywhere?

I think they blew it up because they knew steel framed buildings dont collapse..
I doubt they would use conventional explosives as it would leave evidence like miles of cable.
considering brother bush was in charge of security for the building and there were separate maintenance entrances for all buildings to me at least it doesn't seem too far fetched that a well funded well trained team could pull it off..
destroying evidence may be the motive of why they wanted building seven to collapse..The whole operation would of needed a HQ and building seven would of been perfect..

architects and engineers for 911 truth have the best compilation of evidence IMO

ultima1

09-07-2010, 03:57 AM

What benefit would they have in using controlled demolition? Why did they need to?

Well 2 reasons come to mind real quick,

1. As Chief Hayden stated they were worried about fires jumping to other buildings.

2. They were probly also worried about the buidling collapsing to the side that was damaged and causing more damage to other buildings.

How did they get all those explosives into the building and rig them up without anyone noticing when it takes a demolition company weeks to rig a building and have miles of cable lying around everywhere?

1. Who said they needed explosives, as even you have stated the building was unstable and would not take much to bring it down.

2. It only takes weeks in a normal situation, this was an emergency situation.

3. Demo teams were on the site of building 7 by 3PM.

policestate

09-07-2010, 03:59 AM

So they CD'ed the building because security companies resided there? But why? Did they have records there that needed destroying?

So....it was an "inside job"...so the government destroyed a whole building because government agencies were in the building.

I never said that did I?

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 04:00 AM

Ok so if the idea is that they destroyed it to hide lots of top secret information, rather than blowing up the building to bury all of the secret information, spending weeks setting up the explosives secretly hiding all the wiring so they could blow it up 7 hours after the initial damage; why didn't they just spend the time shifting all of the top secret information out of the building?

h2pogo

09-07-2010, 04:05 AM

macgyver1968

09-07-2010, 04:06 AM

I never said that did I?

You said there was security agencies in the building. I assumed you meant that was the reason the building was CD'ed.

policestate

09-07-2010, 04:09 AM

Never assume. It makes an ass of u and me

macgyver1968

09-07-2010, 04:10 AM

Never assume. It makes an ass of u and me

So if they didn't CD the building because of the security agencies, then why would they need to destroy the building?

policestate

09-07-2010, 04:16 AM

I can't answer your question, but i'm sure ultima1 already did :)

ultima1

09-07-2010, 04:17 AM

So if they didn't CD the building because of the security agencies, then why would they need to destroy the building?

Please see my answers above.

Also look up Chief Haydens statements.

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 04:17 AM

why do think the used wires?
I am no expert but i am sure bombs can be set of without wires..

Ok say there were no wires for argument sake, why fill a building with explosives instead of removing the incriminating evidence? If the building wasn't that badly damaged as has been suggested in the past, why destroy an easily repairable building?

Ultima1's theory is far more plausible that the building was giong to collapse due to the damage and that they needed to prevent further damage elsewhere by the building falling over to one side or another. Although I do not believe the building was collapsed on purpose, his idea is better than a CD to hide supposed evidence.

ultima1

09-07-2010, 04:20 AM

Ultima1's theory is far more plausible that the building was giong to collapse due to the damage and that they needed to prevent further damage elsewhere by the building falling over to one side or another. Although I do not believe the building was collapsed on purpose, his idea is better than a CD to hide supposed evidence.

As i have stated explosives were not really needed since the building was already unstable, probly just some cut beams would have been enough to bring it down.

Oil companies have been using mechanical and chemical cutters for years.

macgyver1968

09-07-2010, 04:30 AM

As i have stated explosives were not really needed since the building was already unstable, probly just some cut beams would have been enough to bring it down.

Oil companies have been using mechanical and chemical cutters for years.

So firefighters ran into an unstable, burning building and started cutting columns in order to cause the collapse of building that was already going to collapse, to prevent it from falling on other buildings. If that's the case...then why keep it a secret? And who were these brave firefighters?

ultima1

09-07-2010, 04:33 AM

So firefighters ran into an unstable, burning building and started cutting columns in order to cause the collapse of building that was already going to collapse, to prevent it from falling on other buildings. If that's the case...then why keep it a secret? And who were these brave firefighters?

Well lets look at more facts.

1. There were no fires on the ground floors due to the fact of the EPA recovering most of the fuel from the fuel tanks.

2. There is the video of hard hat workers comming out of the safety zone area stating that the buidling is going to blow up.

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 05:09 AM

Well lets look at more facts.

1. There were no fires on the ground floors due to the fact of the EPA recovering most of the fuel from the fuel tanks.

2. There is the video of hard hat workers comming out of the safety zone area stating that the buidling is going to blow up.

Not to put a damper on things but you said that they didn't need to use explosives but just highlighted a video that said workers came out saying the building was going to blow up.

My 'take' on the whole WTC7 thing is that it was severly damaged, had fires raging for hours which weakend it further and fell down in a way that it looked like a CD to a degree.

It makes no sense at all to rig a building to collapse for the sole purpose of destoying secret information when you can just move the information.

magicalfairy

09-07-2010, 05:22 AM

The best evidence I've seen is that the plane goes all the way through the building:

WTC No Plane Truth (Part 1) - YouTube

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 05:29 AM

The above post is out of context with the current discussion however I will respond with:

Or is that more likely a debris ejection from the other side of the impact?

magicalfairy

09-07-2010, 05:30 AM

Sorry the thread says Want to Discuss the Facts about the Towers... You would have to watch the entire documentary and make up your own mind...

magicalfairy

09-07-2010, 05:31 AM

It's the best I've seen onthe subject: September Clues

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8045542387672451515#

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 05:43 AM

Sorry the thread says Want to Discuss the Facts about the Towers... You would have to watch the entire documentary and make up your own mind...

Yeah no probs, just was a bit random considering the discussion we were having.

However I have seen Zeitgiest, Loose Change and September Clues and I made my mind up long ago that they are all just sensationalised, heavily edited movies to suit the argument of the author with out a shred of plausible evidence.

policestate

09-07-2010, 05:52 AM

The above post is out of context with the current discussion however I will respond with:

Or is that more likely a debris ejection from the other side of the impact?

I don't mean to go over already discussed topics, but i have to reply to this. Debris ejection, that goes in and comes out looking exactly the same? How is that possible due to the laws of physics ?

Yeah no probs, just was a bit random considering the discussion we were having.

However I have seen Zeitgiest, Loose Change and September Clues and I made my mind up long ago that they are all just sensationalised, heavily edited movies to suit the argument of the author with out a shred of plausible evidence.

sorry, but you obviously haven't seen them then. or you would have known the entire story about the nose out and where the evidence videos are from.

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 06:15 AM

I don't mean to go over already discussed topics, but i have to reply to this. Debris ejection, that goes in and comes out looking exactly the same? How is that possible due to the laws of physics ?

For a start they don't look exactly the same and secondly which particular laws of physics have been violated.

sorry, but you obviously haven't seen them then. or you would have known the entire story about the nose out and where the evidence videos are from.

Oh no, I have seen them and I do know where the author says the evidence videos come from - I just think he is full of shit.

hadabusa

09-07-2010, 06:17 AM

This hit me as a little ridiculous. You don't think there is any chance whatsoever that when silverstein said to "pull it" he was referencing the fire fighting efforts in the area?

hey smartass, why dont you state outright that you're a sceptic who has made his mind up anyway?

policestate

09-07-2010, 06:47 AM

For a start they don't look exactly the same and secondly which particular laws of physics have been violated.

they do, try watching the video again.

Oh no, I have seen them and I do know where the author says the evidence videos come from - I just think he is full of shit.

well thats down to you, it doesn't change anything from the video.

Hey, i'll even be helpful and start you off with a link to the September Clues Source material....

http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive

hadabusa

09-07-2010, 06:47 AM

apollo_gnomon

09-07-2010, 06:47 AM

WTC 7 looked like a CD for the same reason CD looks like a CD - it's a cascade structural failure. CD uses explosives to cut beams and columns, and then gravity takes the rest.

WTC 7 was a novel engineering solution to an unususal architectural problem. It wasn't overbuilt the way older buildings had been, because they knew the properties of the materials better, and the engineers had access to computer-aided calculations to trim the excess out of the structure. When too many columns failed, the structure experienced cascade failure of the remaining supports.

Big ass buildings don't "fall over." They fall down. You have to accelerate the mass of the building sideways to get it to fall "over."

hadabusa

09-07-2010, 06:50 AM

Or is that more likely a debris ejection from the other side of the impact?
nice conspiracy you've made up there.

where did that particular debris fall too?

apollo_gnomon

09-07-2010, 06:55 AM

Debris ejection, that goes in and comes out looking exactly the same? How is that possible due to the laws of physics ?
Good cutting by the creator of the video. The object which looks like the nose of the plane changes over the next several frames, but do you see those frames in that clip?

Every cut is a lie. You want truth? Look at uncut film or video.

That "thing" alleged to be the nose of the plane is the right-hand engine of the plane, which has punched all the way through the building along with it's accompanying plume of smoke and debris.

It continues it's trajectory to the intersection of Church and Murray streets. Falling from that height would take (I calculated this to 3 decimal points for kooskoets in another thread, I'm estimating this time) 7 seconds; the calculated velocity would be 50fps, left from the original 250, after punching through two side of the building and killling unknown numbers of people on the way through.

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 07:25 AM

And that is precisely my point; the author edits and manipulates the footage to just show in that small snippet what supports his ‘evidence’ but then leaves out the rest of the footage which gives the full story which disproves his theory. This guy is not a truth seeker he is a charlatan who has tricked a lot of people into believing his own particular twisted ideas.

magicalfairy

09-07-2010, 07:42 AM

hmmm. so what do you think happened on 9.11? do you think it was osama/obama?

magicalfairy

09-07-2010, 07:47 AM

honestly i don't think any of us can figure out the whole truth of what happened. however, i think we can all conclude, 100% factually that it was the united states corps, not the taliban.

magicalfairy

09-07-2010, 08:06 AM

The Taliban is a joke.

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 08:34 AM

I don’t know who orchestrated the 911 attacks; it is not beyond the realms of possibility that it was terrorists. It could also have been the US government who paid a few guys to carry out the attacks, I have no idea. I am no lover of the US government. But you cannot 100% conclude that it was the US government any more than you can conclude it was tree frogs.

The only thing that I am concerned with is the fact that there has not been one piece of compelling evidence that proves that the events of the day did not occur the way that the ‘official story’ was presented.

Just because things don’t seem right to an individual does not make it evidence of foul play or physical anomalies.

It should have looked like this or that, it shouldn’t behave like this or that , why didn’t they do this or that. These are all questions to answers that really can only be explained by ‘It just did, on this particular occasion that’s how things happened.

The alternative explanations are just conjecture, no evidence whatsoever. And then you have the implied insult if you don’t agree with it.

“Any one with any intelligence can see this is obvious”,Implying that if you can’t see what they are telling you, you are an idiot.

Then you have the irrational reasoning; If (a) looks like this and we can’t explain it, it must be a conspiracy.

I am not a closed minded person, just because I disagree with the multitude and often conflicting, conspiracy theories does not mean that I am stuck in the official story mindset or am trying to support any particular government. I do have an engineering background so I don’t have the same problems with the physics of it all that many do.

magicalfairy

09-07-2010, 08:44 AM

Yea right. I can only read a few sentences of what you say before I can't stand the nonsense anymore. It was a con job. I have watched the evidence for a decade and there is no evidence showing it was not an inside job. If it was don't you think the govt would say, hey this is sillyness??? They aren't contradicting the nonsense! They know it and you know it.

Rise Against - Hero Of War - YouTube

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 09:09 AM

If it was don't you think the govt would say, hey this is sillyness??? They aren't contradicting the nonsense! They know it and you know it.

No I don't know it, but your whole argument here is exactly what I am talking about.

Your implication is that the government has done nothing to defend itself therefore the government obviously did it, because if it hadn't it would have defended itself. Just because it's not behaving as you think the government should does not implicate it.

The fact they have said nothing to defend their position means nothing. It could actually mean that there is nothing to defend because they weren't involved and really don't care what a bunch of conspiracy theorists are saying about them because it is total rubbish.

You can say it was them all you like but it does not make it true, show one conclusive piece of evidence that directly links the government to the attacks.

I am at work at the moment so I can't watch the vid you posted which is why I am asking you to just post one piece of evidence.

magicalfairy

09-07-2010, 09:11 AM

In their own court systems the common sense says silence is agreement.

aviatorexp

09-07-2010, 09:26 AM

So what, does that mean everytime some one says something untrue about another person, that person hasto defend themselves? The court system has nothing to do with common sense. Where is that bit of court law written.

If they knew that the person spreading lies was an idiot and they knew that the people that were important to them knew the truth, why would they bother?

You see it is not black and white, and once again just because they don't act the way you think they should means absolutely nothing.

ultima1

09-07-2010, 10:09 AM

Not to put a damper on things but you said that they didn't need to use explosives but just highlighted a video that said workers came out saying the building was going to blow up.

I stated that i beleive they did not need to use explosives, but there is a video that shows workers stating the buidling is going to come down and blow up.

"Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." - YouTube

My 'take' on the whole WTC7 thing is that it was severly damaged, had fires raging for hours which weakend it further and fell down in a way that it looked like a CD to a degree.

But you forget about the fact the fire commander decided to PULL IT.

policestate

09-07-2010, 02:29 PM

ultima1

09-07-2010, 02:33 PM

I appreciate your analysis, but can i see this uncut video you speak about?

You do not need a video to know that a nose of an airliner would not have made it all the way through the building. Same with the Pentagon.

The nose of an airliner is made of composite and would have been destroyed on impact.

policestate

09-07-2010, 02:34 PM

Oh I know that, but i'm interested in this uncut video apollo has seen that shows this is not a nose, but an engine?

ultima1

09-07-2010, 02:40 PM

Oh I know that, but i'm interested in this uncut video apollo has seen that shows this is not a nose, but an engine?

Or if it is something else.

apollo_gnomon

09-07-2010, 04:02 PM

Try this one - I found it with google -> wtc every known footage

All Known Footage of Second Plane Impact, Every Angle Covered - YouTube

In the very first clip you can see a projectile coming out from behind the first tower. It trails a plume of white smoke. Look for that same projectile in all the clips.

You can see that the rapidly evolving fireball first emerges from the hole punched by the projectile, which gives it a long narrow shape - the hole is like a nozzle. Pretty quickly the rest of the fireball emerges as the windows are busted out by debris and explosion.

Keep your eyes on it.

{eta}

If anyone knows of an internet video player with better controls (jog and shuttle would be nice . . .) can you please post it? I hate the youtube interface.

I counted the number of individual cameras in this once for koos. I don't remember exactly, I think it's 20 or so.

Keep in mind the "no Planes Theory" requires ALL of these cameras to be either performing blue-screen techniques on-the-fly in realtime (I assert this is impossible) and that ALL of the inserted images match exactly.

The NPT also requires NO random New Yorkers to have been filming the most significant news event for half a century with uncontrolled cameras, or for ALL the clips to have been grabbed up and modified by the Vast Conspiracy Of Evildoers, but none of the random citizens rat them out and say "hey, that's not what I shot!" when they see the modified clip.

apollo_gnomon

09-07-2010, 04:17 PM

Try this. Pause at 1:18 on the video linked above, then click the pause/play to slowly advance. What do you see at 1:20? I see a fireball emerging from the corner, with a narrow plume on the right hand side. It's not shaped like the nose of the plane. It's wider than the plane, but about the same height, since the plane is about the height of the gap between floors in a building.

Did September Secrets show this clip from this angle and say "see, there it is again!"

No. They show you the same short clip over and over and TELL YOU what you see. They cut the clip they use RIGHT when the cloud shows the narrow plume the most clearly.

apollo_gnomon

09-07-2010, 04:21 PM

Do it again at around 3:20. Look at the emerging plume again.

{eta}

Again at 8:00. If the "nose emerging" was a video compositing error, we would not see the pointed cylindrical cloud in ANY OTHER footage. It's clearly part of the emerging debris and explosion.

apollo_gnomon

09-07-2010, 04:44 PM

Good cutting by the creator of the video. The object which looks like the nose of the plane changes over the next several frames, but do you see those frames in that clip?

Every cut is a lie. You want truth? Look at uncut film or video.

That "thing" alleged to be the nose of the plane is the right-hand engine of the plane, which has punched all the way through the building along with it's accompanying plume of smoke and debris.

It continues it's trajectory to the intersection of Church and Murray streets. Falling from that height would take (I calculated this to 3 decimal points for kooskoets in another thread, I'm estimating this time) 7 seconds; the calculated velocity would be 50fps, left from the original 250, after punching through two side of the building and killling unknown numbers of people on the way through.

Looking at the footage again, I withdraw the statement in bold.

The pointed cylindrical shape that September Clues claims to be the nose in a compositing error is NOT the right-hand engine. The right hand engine emerges very near the corner of the building. The cylindrical shape emerges more toward the middle of the building. That would be from closer to the middle of the plane, perhaps the fuel.

ultima1

09-07-2010, 04:48 PM

Check out 4:44 on this video.

102 Minutes - The Attack on WTC, Part 1 - HD Version - YouTube

truegroup

09-07-2010, 04:48 PM

If anyone knows of an internet video player with better controls (jog and shuttle would be nice . . .) can you please post it? I hate the youtube interface.

An alternative (if you use firefox) download and install addon - 1-click youtube downloader - then every YT video has a little red button that enables quick and easy download in 3 different formats.

bryan

09-07-2010, 07:42 PM

Looking at the footage again, I withdraw the statement in bold.

The pointed cylindrical shape that September Clues claims to be the nose in a compositing error is NOT the right-hand engine. The right hand engine emerges very near the corner of the building. The cylindrical shape emerges more toward the middle of the building. That would be from closer to the middle of the plane, perhaps the fuel.

When you ditch a hopeless theory in favour of a new one, the new theory is supposed to be an improvement on the old one.

kooskoets

09-07-2010, 08:04 PM

Looking at the footage again, I withdraw the statement in bold.

The pointed cylindrical shape that September Clues claims to be the nose in a compositing error is NOT the right-hand engine. The right hand engine emerges very near the corner of the building. The cylindrical shape emerges more toward the middle of the building. That would be from closer to the middle of the plane, perhaps the fuel.

I remember a picture of the damage at the north face of the south tower. ( can't find it...)
All beams were still there...

So i guess that engine of yours as well as any nose flew out through a window.

sidlittle

09-07-2010, 08:45 PM

I counted the number of individual cameras in this once for koos. I don't remember exactly, I think it's 20 or so.

Keep in mind the "no Planes Theory" requires ALL of these cameras to be either performing blue-screen techniques on-the-fly in realtime (I assert this is impossible) and that ALL of the inserted images match exactly.

No. The majority of those images came out hours,days,weeks, months and years after the event.

Familiarise yourself with all the footage. See what was broadcast 'Live' and what wasn't. Look into the 'amateur' footage and indeed the some of the backgrounds of those responsible for said 'amateur' footage.

http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

sidlittle

09-07-2010, 08:55 PM

I remember a picture of the damage at the north face of the south tower. ( can't find it...)
All beams were still there...

So i guess that engine of yours as well as any nose flew out through a window.

Obviously, the engine and nose must have decided to take the lift down..

http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/images/TheHoleInWTC2ThatWasNotThere.jpg
911 Dust (Anybody? No?) - YouTube
[B]

kooskoets

09-07-2010, 09:35 PM

Thank you.
I searched for " the missing hole'... :)

Saved that pic on my own disc now...

3stepsahead

09-07-2010, 11:58 PM

is there any layout as to how the interior concrete walls look like on one entire floor?

macgyver1968

10-07-2010, 01:39 AM

is there any layout as to how the interior concrete walls look like on one entire floor?

There aren't any concrete walls. Only the floor slabs were made of lightweight concrete.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_ Elevator_Arrangment.svg

ultima1

10-07-2010, 03:43 AM

There aren't any concrete walls. Only the floor slabs were made of lightweight concrete.

Not lightweight concrete, steel reinforced concrete.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/godfrey.htm
Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.

macgyver1968

10-07-2010, 03:55 AM

Not lightweight concrete, steel reinforced concrete.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/godfrey.htm
Note that the buildings are stiffened by the composite steel-concrete floors. The floors are an integral part of the structural system. Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.

Virtually all concrete is reinforced with steel rebar.

From wiki:
The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls.[30] The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors.

The floors do provide stiffening, but the towers wouldn't collapse without them.

ultima1

10-07-2010, 03:57 AM

Virtually all concrete is reinforced with steel rebar.

Not all.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...tc/godfrey.htm
Without the composite floor slabs, the buildings would soon collapse.

1776

10-07-2010, 04:00 AM

Just so we all know... first and foremost...

The Art of Corporate Media Mind-Control
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

I have provided serious evidence that no one has yet to debunk or discredit that supports the No Plane theory on 9/11.

Witnesses you ask?

What about the Witnesses?
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

9/11 Fake: Missile Witnesses Cut Out!
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

How about the Top 10 Reasons why No Planes hit the Towers?
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

How did they sell this hoax to the public, you ask?

9/11 Fake: How the plane fraud was sold
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

9/11 Fake: Media make believe
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

9/11 Fake: FBI NY Confirms TV Fakery!
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

9/11 Rubble Piles & Dust (Impossible)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Colonel Tom Bearden on Military Energy Weapons (1985)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

The No Plane theory is the most solid theory for 9/11 thus far...

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

This IS possible... the technology has been around for DECADES....

[that was my first post (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059024900&postcount=139) on this thread (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122513)]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[this is the reply (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059026477&postcount=144) to Luciferhorus on the same thread (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122513)]

[and here is Luciferhorus' response (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059025242&postcount=142) to which I've replied below]

Well there is hard evidence to support the theory, and also some evidence that negates, at least, part(s) of it [see Thermate/Thermite issue]. Even this issue, however, doesn't lend discredit to those supporting the fact that No planes were used to hit the buildings that day. Both could have very well happened. Meaning, whether the buildings were destroyed using conventional demolitions, Thermate/Thermite, or otherwise (Directed Energy Weapons, Nuclear, etc.), they still could have used the No plane hoax to execute the operation and gain public support to invade Irak... I mean Iraq.

If you haven't noticed already, I do not have an agenda, like most people do here on this forum and abroad (most "Truth" researchers even). I'm after the Truth, whether it makes me look like a fool or a prophet! :)

An example being, I have both videos lending support to the "Thermite" demolitions theory (which is very strong, Richard Gage's presentation is bullet-proof), and the Dr. Judy Wood theories also. I'm undecided, as one can plainly see. There's evidence for both. Maybe it was? Who knows.

The bottom line, though, is this; The no plane hoax could have been perpetuated either way.

A couple good videos (two different theories, remember):

Relics from the Dust: The Demolition Issue
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
and
9/11: Blueprint For Truth (Pt. 1 of 13)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

We are in complete agreement here.

As am I, hence this discussion :) Let's continue...

I see some of your points, but some aren't realistic at all. For instance, you're arguing that a tree (wood) can demolish an automobile (steel), which we all know is true. But, this is apples and oranges when discussing how a Boeing 757 (majority Aluminum, some steel components) literally vanishes into the face of a 110 story sky scraper (reinforced steel columns and concrete.) I'm not a math buff, but the video evidence (and the witness testimony, the media lies & the politicians lies in interviews, etc.) has been more than enough for me to understand that TV fakery was employed on 9/11. Whether or not real planes did, in fact, hit those towers otherwise, is still a mystery (although I don't think real planes were employed, truthfully, no.)

Use your gut, what does it tell you here?
The Flight of the Hologram (slow motion) - YouTube

I'm not saying that holograms were or weren't employed that day, but I'm definitely of the opinion that planes were not.

The plane wouldn't have pierced through the tower like it did. This guy makes an excellent analogy to it, below

9/11 & the Laws of Physics (Pt. 7 of 16)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Is water less dense than steel or concrete?

Look at the end of Part 5, this video: YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Can't you see that something isn't right about the planes that supposedly crashed dead center into the Twin Towers on 9/11?? Even the most learned/experienced of pilots have also said it would be damn near impossible to fly the Boeing 757 into that building, let alone hit it DEAD CENTER... twice! Common sense has to be employed when investigating the Plane hoax on 9/11. I had to deflate my own ego before I was able to be open, honest & willing to believe something that went contrary to all my beliefs prior (2 years ago I believed that planes hit the towers)... the Truth is more important to me, today.

In fact, Part 4 of the video series referenced above was banned from YouTube (on behalf of NBC's complaints) permanently... let's take a look at it hosted on another video site, shall we?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/7FEF3DDC8B6544D3B795E86F61F28708/continuous-pieces-9-11-part.aspx

I wonder why it was banned? ;)

Of course that idea is ridiculous. It's also just as ridiculous to expect US to believe that a 100 ton aircraft can disappear into a 110 story sky scraper without it's wing(s) being ripped off or air craft pieces falling to the ground below in lower Manhattan! Is it not? This is not make-believe, this is science... this is physics.

Okay, this is really a non-issue. Let's stick to the facts, I'm not trying to use deception tactics to win an argument here. I doubt you are, either.

Did you look at Part 7 of the "9/11 Laws of Physics" video series?

Fair enough. The same goes for the opposite. Television & holographic technology have muddied the waters here, unfortunately.

Again, I'm not employing any 'debate' tactics, here. I hate straw man arguments and 'red herrings' as much as the next guy. Again, I can only refer you to Part 7 of that video series. The science is SOLID. This is proof. Is it not?

The technology is there, you and I both know it. With everything that was going on that day, they obviously didn't execute their operation as cleanly as they would have liked. This is just my personal opinion, of course. I'm not going to use a straw man argument and ask about your "nuclear incitement with Britain and America", and I'm not too sure why you even included that little statement. Regardless, the plane cannot just penetrate the building the way it supposedly did on TV on 9/11. The speeds were impossible, anyways!

Impossible Plane Speed with Boeing 9/11
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

From the Horse's mouth!! BOEING!

These are 'what ifs'. Perhaps you are right, we don't know. I know what can be seen, and it looks ridiculous to say the least.

It doesn't mean that ALL of it would be eaten by the building, because of it's kinetic energy... that just doesn't make sense! It doesn't agree with science. All the numbers in the world cannot justify what happened on 9/11 (the visible evidence from television that is). You wouldn't expect to find any pieces of the air craft at the base of the tower? The wings aren't expected to detach on impact? Come on, man, this is not rocket science here.

This IS a Straw Man, and we both dislike them ;) So let's continue, shall we?

This is also purely speculation, on your part. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but it's not something we can confirm or deny here.

Again, I agree with you. Same goes for the opposite.

All the media is ran and controlled by the Mystery Schools (those elites who are at the heads of all secret societies, major corporations, Nations, and cults/sects around the globe), the same outfit who ushered in the New World Order with 'Operation 911'.

You don't think it's possible (not you Luciferhorus)?

OutFOXed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (Pt. 1 of 8)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

It's more than possible... it's a reality.

This is, again, wide speculation on your part. But I will indulge...

Where do you think there is more room for error?

Do you think there is more room for error using REAL JET AIR CRAFTS hi-jacked by some idiot Egyptian 'terrorist' with no real flight training, and expect everything to carry out flawlessly and nail the tower with both planes?.....

Or....

Do you think there is more room for error using TV fakery and video image mapping, etc. and/or holograms?

The latter seems like the way to go to me.

If you're as serious as I am about the Truth, luciferhorus, I'd highly suggest you listen to this interview with 'killtown' (a no planer, yes.) It's an awesome interview from someone who believes that planes DID hit the towers. Listen to the entire interview from start to finish. This interview has hardly any views at all (on Youtube), but it's one of the best ones I've heard in relation to the No plane theory, anywhere!

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 1 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 1 / 5 - YouTube

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 2 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 2/5 - YouTube

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 3 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 3/5 - YouTube

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 4 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 4/5 - YouTube

KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 5 / 5
KILLTOWN Final Round Interview part 5/5 - YouTube

It does have bearing on the No plane theory. How doesn't it? Planes could not have done this! That's the point (yes, I understand that planes could have still hit the towers, and they were brought down using other means, this is also a possibility.)

When buildings come down, the height of the rubble pile that remains is about 12% of the building's original height. For example, when the Kingdome (sports stadium) was demolished, the rubble was about 30ft high, which was 12% of its original height of 250ft. The Twin Towers of the WTC in NY stood 110 stories tall, but when they came down on 9/11 they didn't topple over, they came STRAIGHT DOWN.

Given what is known about rubble piles, we would expect the pile for each tower to be about 12% of its original height. 12% of 110 stories equals 13.2 stories. The expected rubble piles at Ground Zero should of been about 10 stories higher than the lobbies of the Twin Towers, which were about 3 stories in height. The rubble piles are visibly less than 3 stories in height!!

Where did all the building material disappear to?

See the huge dust clouds immediately following the destruction of the towers?

What causes the dust to be so fine, to be suspended in mid-air and carried away with the wind (gradually, slowly)?

What on earth happened to the Twin Towers on 9/11??

Okay, fair enough. Given everything else we now know surrounding 'Operation 911', I'd say it is relevant, wouldn't you?

This is also wide speculation. After the evidence I provided above, you still think it's the least solid theory out there in relation to 'Operation 911'?

Have you used flight sims? I mean, real ones... professional flight simulators?

You cannot recreate what happened on 9/11 with a Boeing 757, NEVER! Try!

It's impossible! If you DID hit the building, it WOULD NOT be dead center! No way!

I'm guessing you haven't exercised your assumptions in a professional flight simulator with a Boeing 757 & the Twin Towers. It's damn near impossible.

I would, again, have to highly suggest you listen to the 'Killtown Interview' referenced above (all 5 parts).

9/11 ushered in the New World Order, this much I do know.

Hell, even the FBI admits to TV fakery being investigated!
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Thanks for taking the time to reply to me, I look forward to your response.

Peace&Love
God bless

ultima1

10-07-2010, 04:09 AM

The plane wouldn't have pierced through the tower like it did.

As stated and proven many times, the planes did not pierce through the towers. The airframes were shredded as they entered the buildings.

macgyver1968

10-07-2010, 04:23 AM

28 videos in one post...geez...that's got to be some kinda record.

1776

10-07-2010, 04:26 AM

As stated and proven many times, the planes did not pierce through the towers. The airframes were shredded as they entered the buildings.

Out of my entire post, you chose to debate 'piercing' or 'shredded' upon entrance of the building? :p

C'mon... Debate the Nose-Out clip then,
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
person who thinks the airframes were shredded as they entered the buildings.... ha ha

Peace&Love
God bless

macgyver1968

10-07-2010, 04:30 AM

Out of my entire post, you chose to debate 'piercing' or 'shredded' upon entrance of the building? :p

What point is he supposed to debate...when you post 28 different videos? Is he supposed to comment on each and everyone?

1776

10-07-2010, 04:32 AM

What point is he supposed to debate...when you post 28 different videos? Is he supposed to comment on each and everyone?

There was no text written from me? I didn't write out a bunch of points of which could be debated followed by video sources (for evidence and more references)?

People are so ignorant. The level of ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Even here on these forums.

Peace&Love
God bless

macgyver1968

10-07-2010, 04:36 AM

There was no text written from me? I didn't write out a bunch of points of which could be debated followed by video sources (for evidence and more references)?

People are so ignorant. The level of ignorance never ceases to amaze me. Even here on these forums.

Peace&Love
God bless

Don't call me ignorant and then sign your post with "Peace&Love God bless"...that's rather disingenuous. If your going to call me an idiot, I'd much rather you sign off with "Go fuck yourself...burn in Hell". :)

ultima1

10-07-2010, 04:50 AM

person who thinks the airframes were shredded as they entered the buildings....

I do not think, i have posted facts and evidence many times.

1. Purdue university study concluded the airframes did not casue the damage to the buildings.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html
A scientifically based video animation of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center by researchers at Purdue shows that it was the weight of the fuel combined with the fire, and not the aircraft itself, that caused the most damage to the buildings. Only a few parts of the airplane, such as the titanium jet propeller shafts, actually continued through the building, the researchers say. (Purdue University image/Voicu Popescu)

2. Go to 4:44 mark on the following video.
102 Minutes - The Attack on WTC, Part 1 - HD Version - YouTube

3. Photo showing how fragile the airframe of an airliner is.
http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n268/phixer6/911/INDONESIA_AIR_CRASH_03.jpg?t=1278733823

ultima1

10-07-2010, 04:53 AM

C'mon... Debate the Nose-Out clip then,

If you knew anything about what a airliner was made out of you would know that the nose is made of composite material and would have been destoryed on impact.

1776

10-07-2010, 06:23 AM

If you knew anything about what a airliner was made out of you would know that the nose is made of composite material and would have been destoryed on impact.

You just answered the question.

TV Fakery confirmed.

Peace&Love
God bless

trappedinameatsuit

10-07-2010, 06:26 AM

I think most people are aware that the towers were pwned via controlled demolition. GF twin towers.

ultima1

10-07-2010, 06:45 AM

[QUOTE=1776;1059039232]You just answered the question.

Thanks for being one of the few people to admit that factd were shown.

I said noting about TV fakery, stop being dishonest.

1776

10-07-2010, 02:34 PM

You just answered the question.

Thanks for being one of the few people to admit that factd were shown.

I said noting about TV fakery, stop being dishonest.

You said it yourself.

You said it was impossible for the nose to come out the other side of the building. Well, it did. Go look at the video I referenced. Can you explain that?

Nose-Out 9/11 (TV Fakery confirmed)
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Peace&Love
God bless

kooskoets

10-07-2010, 02:49 PM

Out of my entire post, you chose to debate 'piercing' or 'shredded' upon entrance of the building? :p

C'mon... Debate the Nose-Out clip then,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epwL34sAFRM
person who thinks the airframes were shredded as they entered the buildings.... ha ha

Peace&Love
God bless

http://www.antichristconspiracy.com/images/TheHoleInWTC2ThatWasNotThere.jpg

TV fakery confirmed.

But not for the wordgamers...

ultima1

10-07-2010, 03:18 PM

You said it yourself.

You said it was impossible for the nose to come out the other side of the building. Well, it did. Go look at the video I referenced. Can you explain that?

What you are seeing in the video is not the nose of an airliner.

As stated and proven by lots of facts and evidence the nose would have been destroyed on impact.

kooskoets

10-07-2010, 03:36 PM

What you are seeing in the video is not the nose of an airliner.

As stated and proven by lots of facts and evidence the nose would have been destroyed on impact.

Are you ready to confirm fake video's or else what are you doing here ?

ultima1

10-07-2010, 03:53 PM

Are you ready to confirm fake video's or else what are you doing here ?

I have never stated anything about the video being fake. I am looking for the truth and posting facts that i find.

Please do not be immature and try to put words in my mouth.

1776

10-07-2010, 09:00 PM

I have never stated anything about the video being fake. I am looking for the truth and posting facts that i find.

Please do not be immature and try to put words in my mouth.

In search of the Truth you must remain open-minded and willing to lose old belief systems when they're proven wrong by the facts presented, revealed or uncovered, whatever the case may be.

TV Fakery is old technology, it has been around for decades. Knowing that it's physically impossible for the nose of the aircraft to pierce or 'shred' through to the other side of the building and come out the other end, wouldn't you find it kind of suspicious when it does on the videos aired that day on television?

Here, check this out for perspective (this movie is from 1997)

'Wag the Dog' & TV Fakery
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

The only person being immature right now is yourself. You're unwilling to See the Truth in front of your Eyes. Do you think TV Fakery is impossible, or what?

If the nose of the aircraft didn't come through the other end of the building, than what the hell did? Use your common sense, man.

LOOK AT THE VIDEO AGAIN,
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
Yes, that is the nose of the "aircraft"!!

Here's another solid video proving TV Fakery. Let's hear your excuse for the following,

9/11 TV Fakery: Smoke & Mirrors
9/11 TV Fakery: Smoke & Mirrors - YouTube

and while we are at it, let's discuss this one too,

9/11 Fake: A Bridge Too Far
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

If you have some real evidence that debunks anyone of those videos above, I'd love to see it! If not, though, please don't give us your baseless opinion (again), because those of us "in the know" won't be insulted any further. This isn't some game! They hoaxed 9/11 with help from the media and many other outfits (and those in key positions are ALL members of the Mystery Schools, whom all have one common goal: New World Order.)

And guess what 'Operation 911' ushered in?

That's right, the New World Order. That's why 9/11 is still as important an issue today, as it was when it first happened. When I hear someone say "You're still discussing 9/11? Who cares... what does it matter anymore? It's over, it happened..." it just makes me sick! It's more important than you can imagine!

Peace&Love
God bless

ultima1

11-07-2010, 04:38 AM

In search of the Truth you must remain open-minded and willing to lose old belief systems when they're proven wrong by the facts presented, revealed or uncovered, whatever the case may be.

I am open minded to facts and evidence shown but so far i have not seen much that supoprts the official story or the theories and opinions posted.

In fact if you knew anything at all you would know that most of the evidence and official reports have not been released. So when the people that believe the official story say they know what happened are being very dishonest and closed minded.

TV Fakery is old technology, it has been around for decades.

You have ZERO actual evidence of TV fakery.

Knowing that it's physically impossible for the nose of the aircraft to pierce or 'shred' through to the other side of the building and come out the other end, wouldn't you find it kind of suspicious when it does on the videos aired that day on television?

It is not the nose fo the aircraft that comes out the other side of the building, you and others are only repeating what you have been told it was.

I have posted the facts of what happened to the planes as they hit the buildings from several sources, you need to open your mind to the facts and evidence shown.

If the nose of the aircraft didn't come through the other end of the building, than what the hell did? Use your common sense, man.

Please read my sources posted and use common sense, also open your mind to the facts and evidence shown in the sites or do your own research to find the facts.

There are a few parts of the plane that would have been strong enough to make it through the building, please open your mind to the facts and evidence shown or do your research to find the facts and the truth.

1776

11-07-2010, 05:15 AM

I am open minded to facts and evidence shown but so far i have not seen much that supoprts the official story or the theories and opinions posted.

In fact if you knew anything at all you would know that most of the evidence and official reports have not been released. So when the people that believe the official story say they know what happened are being very dishonest and closed minded.

You have ZERO actual evidence of TV fakery.

It is not the nose fo the aircraft that comes out the other side of the building, you and others are only repeating what you have been told it was.

I have posted the facts of what happened to the planes as they hit the buildings from several sources, you need to open your mind to the facts and evidence shown.

Please read my sources posted and use common sense, also open your mind to the facts and evidence shown in the sites or do your own research to find the facts.

There are a few parts of the plane that would have been strong enough to make it through the building, please open your mind to the facts and evidence shown or do your research to find the facts and the truth.

The official story? What are you talking about? You're a moron.

No evidence of TV Fakery? Are you really this ignorant? Have I not posted source upon source upon source of evidence? You choose to IGNORE it! GO LOOK ABOVE at the facts I've presented. There's nothing left to say to you. You ignore the Truth as it stares you in the face. Maybe it's denial? I don't know. Either way, we can't discuss anything any further. You choose to not discuss the facts or points I bring up. Pick someone else to double-think into circles, your efforts are futile here.

The FBI has confirmed TV Fakery problems on 9/11 (but there's no evidence, right? :rolleyes: )
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Peace&Love
God bless

ultima1

11-07-2010, 05:24 AM

The official story? What are you talking about? You're a moron.

So you do not believe that the 9/11 commission report is the official story ? Or you do not believe what the media has told us is the official story?

What do you believe is the official story?

Name calling is a sure sign you cannot have an adult discussion and deabte me with facts and evidence.

No evidence of TV Fakery? Are you really this ignorant? Have I not posted source upon source upon source of evidence?

No you have not posted any actual evdence with verifiable sources like i have and can.

1776

11-07-2010, 05:35 AM

So you do not believe that the 9/11 commission report is the official story ? Or you do not believe what the media has told us is the official story?

What do you believe is the official story?

Name calling is a sure sign you cannot have an adult discussion and deabte me with facts and evidence.

No you have not posted any actual evdence with verifiable sources like i have and can.

I do not believe the "Official Story", nor have I brought it up in this thread. I'm asking you why you're taking a stance on something I never brought into question. I checked out your post history here on the forums, and I didn't come up with much in the way of evidence or research from yourself. I'm not buying your crap, you're here to confuse and distract. Go find another piece of bait, I'm not it.

I've provided video evidence and otherwise, but you haven't challenged any of the facts. You are willingly ignorant to the facts, which leads me to believe you're a shill. You won't have any of my time any more on the forums. Good luck with your future endeavors

apollo_gnomon

11-07-2010, 05:38 AM

What you are seeing in the video is not the nose of an airliner.

As stated and proven by lots of facts and evidence the nose would have been destroyed on impact.

Try to keep up, Roger. Nobody is saying thats the actual nose of the actual plane. The No Planes fellows are claiming that the shape seen is an artifact of the video compositing process - the plane overlay image was not stopped in time.

Of course, this doesn't explain that the same shape is seen in different videos shot from different angles.....

ultima1

11-07-2010, 05:40 AM

Try to keep up, Roger. Nobody is saying thats the actual nose of the actual plane.

You need to read post,, some people think it is the nose because that is what they being told.

apollo_gnomon

11-07-2010, 05:47 AM

You need to read post,, some people think it is the nose because that is what they being told.

No, they're giving that as an example of the supposed errors that supposedly prove the video fakery.

Do you actually read?

ultima1

11-07-2010, 05:48 AM

I checked out your post history here on the forums, and I didn't come up with much in the way of evidence or research from yourself.

I gues you did not see or ignored the Purdue University study. Or the source from Boieing on the fuel tanks, and all the other facts and evidnece i have posted.

WHY ARE YOU BEING SO CLOSED MINDED AND NOT ACEPTING EVIDENCE POSTED?

I'm not buying your crap, you're here to confuse and distract. Go find another piece of bait, I'm not it.

You are a troll just repeating something you were told and not doing research to find the truth.

I've provided video evidence and otherwise, but you haven't challenged any of the facts.

You have posted videos that have been debunked many times and for many years, Please be adult enough to accept the facts and move on.

ultima1

11-07-2010, 05:50 AM

No, they're giving that as an example of the supposed errors that supposedly prove the video fakery.

Do you actually read?

Yes i do read, if you read my post i have stated and posted sources of sites with evidence of what could be on the video.

Please be adult anough to accept and admit when facts and evidence are shown.

bryan

11-07-2010, 09:46 AM

I gues you did not see or ignored the Purdue University study. Or the source from Boieing on the fuel tanks, and all the other facts and evidnece i have posted.

WHY ARE YOU BEING SO CLOSED MINDED AND NOT ACEPTING EVIDENCE POSTED?

The only evidence you've posted to support your belief the wing tanks were full at impact is to claim you used to be in the Air Force.

the shooter

11-07-2010, 10:10 AM

does anyone relize that two planes landed transfered people from one to the other and took off again ,now why would they do that if they were going to kill every body anyways ?it is proven that the pentagon was hit by a guided missel ,so where did that plane disapear too?so many questions ,now i live in the heartland of america ,and was very close to the oklahomacity okla bombing that was do by tim mcvay ,and there were many discrepancys about that also ,so many infact i could go on for hours telling how a engineer from los alomas national labs came here personally and picked up a sizemagraph reading from a nearby station to show that it was in deed a bomb he had designed built and tested at los alamos and had a sizemagraph reading from the testing and overlaid it and it fit perfectly except for the initinal explosion that was the bomb tim built as a detionator to set of this high tech tacktacal nuke ,and the building was destroyed befor his trial ,here thats called tampering with evidance,a huge hole was dug and it was all burried and a concreat cap put on it and a chain link fence with razer wire on that ?a lot of truble for some rubble ?i can shed much light

the shooter

11-07-2010, 10:13 AM

google the final jihad.....

ultima1

11-07-2010, 06:11 PM

The only evidence you've posted to support your belief the wing tanks were full at impact is to claim you used to be in the Air Force.

NO i have posted the source from BOEING on how the fuel tanks operate on several threads in here.

If 1776 said he did a history of my posts he should have seen it but as usual he just ignored it becasue it supports what i post.

ultima1

11-07-2010, 06:16 PM

does anyone relize that two planes landed transfered people from one to the other and took off again ,now why would they do that if they were going to kill every body anyways ?

The 2 planes were recorded as Delta flight 1989 and a NASA flight.

There is no evdience that the planes tha landed were any of the 9/11 planes.

it is proven that the pentagon was hit by a guided missel

You have no real evidence of this.

wwu777

11-07-2010, 09:57 PM

One new stunning argument I read from a researcher on my SCEPCOP forum where he debunked Dave Thomas' 6 points, which I hadn't thought of before, is this:

- If a few office fires burning for a few hours can bring down a whole steel skyscraper and pulverize it, why would control demolition companies need to spend MONTHS setting up rigged explosives around the core columns, when they could accomplish their task by burning jet fuel (ala WTC1+2) or gas (ala WTC7) for just a few hours? In other words, why spend months doing what you can accomplish in a few hours, which even a teenager could do? It doesn't make sense! The demolition companies would be out of business if that was true!

Likewise:

- If the failure of a single column can cause a 47 story building to implode and land mostly in it's own footprint, as NIST claims, then why do demolition companies rig and blow all the columns to accomplish the same thing?

See poster image below. I think I have a new business idea :)

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/two-men-and-a-match-new-1.jpg

wwu777

11-07-2010, 09:59 PM

Check this out folks.

This guy is as qualified and experienced as it gets when it comes to flying. This is NOT some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL with a long prestigious career in the US Navy and commercial Airline industry.

Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100. Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and Grumman F-14 Tomcat. 23,000+ total hours flown.

Listen to his interview with Kevin Barrett about the 767's flying into the WTC at 500 knots on 9/11. It's very revealing.

http://noliesradio.org/archives/FB20090929__RalphKolstad_web.mp3

In the first half of the interview, Kolstad explains why flying a 767 into the WTC isn't as easy as you think. You can't just point the plane at the towers. Steering an airliner is very tricky, especially at sea level. The aerodynamics are more complicated than people assume.

A 767 can only do 500 knots in two scenarios - at cruising altitude (above the clouds), or in a straight nose dive. If you were at the altitute of the WTC, you cannot do 500 knots on a 767. And if you pulled the throttle at full speed at that altitude, you'd lose control of the plane and could not even steer it. That's true even if you're the best pilot in the world.

Hitting a target he explains, especially a narrow one like the WTC, is very difficult and only achievable when you come in at LANDING SPEED, not at full throttle like the hijackers did.

In fact, he saw highly trained professional pilots in flight simulators try to hit the WTC and ALL of them failed. They were only able to hit it when they came in at landing speed. (which is NOT the speed that the 9/11 hijackers came under)

Most astonishing of all, he said that HE HIMSELF COULD NOT HAVE FLOWN those 767's into the WTC like the hijackers did on 9/11, despite all his vast experience, training and skill!!!!!!

Imagine that! That says A LOT.

As to how the planes on 9/11 hit the WTC, he admits he does not know the answer and does not like to speculate. To say that it was a military plane disguised as a 767 or a remote controlled jet, or whatever, would be speculating and he does not want to go there. All he knows for sure, he says, is that a trained professional pilot in a 767 flying 500 knots at sea level would NOT be able to hit the WTC, for various reasons. Anything else is purely speculative.

Now if one of the most experienced and qualified pilots in the world is saying this, that really does mean something. This is NOT some crackpot conspiracy theorist, but a TRAINED PROFESSIONAL with a long prestigious career in the US Navy and commercial Airline industry.

He also gives us some insight into what other airline pilots he's talked to thinks about the whole thing, and how many would rather not even talk about it at all.

And he said that most debunkers on the internet are not qualified to know what they are talking about (you know who you are).

Listen to the interview here:

http://noliesradio.org/archives/FB20090929__RalphKolstad_web.mp3

See Kolstad's official statements and qualifications here:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Also see these three clips from the film "Zero An Investigation into 9/11". They are compelling, riveting, engaging and feature many credible experts. This is the BEST film about 9/11 that I've ever seen:

Zero : An Investigation Into 9-11- part 4 - YouTube

Zero : An Investigation Into 9-11- part 5 - YouTube

Zero : An Investigation Into 9-11- part 6 - YouTube

To watch the whole film:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739#

tabea_blumenschein

12-07-2010, 04:29 AM

mythmath

12-07-2010, 07:15 AM

Let's look at it the other way around...

Could a controlled-demo company have legitimately brought down those
two towers with less collateral (building) damage than on 9/11...?

I wonder what the height was of the tallest skyscraper that has been CD'd...?

Try to imagine what the pile of debris would have
been like if the towers had been legitimately demo'd...

Say each 'floor depth+truss assembly' was 1.5' thick, with 110
stories, you'd end up with a stack of pancakes 165 feet tall... :eek:

Make that two stacks 165 feet tall... :eek::eek:

Even if 60 feet of the stacks could have ended up in all of the
subterranean levels, that still leaves two piles over 100' high...

And I didn't even include the tons and tons of the steel facades which, in
a legitimate demo, may have been pre-removed along with the windows...

Oh, or the tons and tons and tons of steel construction beams... :(

Also you may recall, there was an astronomically high estimate
on what it would have taken to (legally/safely) remove all
of the asbestos fire-proofing before legitimate C-Demolition...

(In theory) it behooved the towers' owner to be an accomplice in this phase of
the crazy, murderous plan considering how much money could be saved/earned
in the realization of his desired goal: the towers' destruction/removal...

camreeno

12-07-2010, 07:35 AM

I have one fact that single-handedly disproves the official government report:

MOLTEN METAL AT THE BASE OF THE BUILDINGS

aviatorexp

12-07-2010, 09:04 AM

And what do you think caused that molten metal?

hadabusa

12-07-2010, 09:37 AM

And what do you think caused that molten metal?

depends what metal.

alu?
iron?

im a cnc mechanic, molten iron would indeed be very odd.

:confused:

ultima1

12-07-2010, 12:18 PM

depends what metal.

alu?
iron?

im a cnc mechanic, molten iron would indeed be very odd.

Well there had to be a heat source that could keep that large of a debis pile at molten hot temps for up to 6 weeks.

The fires in the towers were buring out before the collapse.

Also molten metals were fouind in several of the buidlings basements like building 6.

wwu777

12-07-2010, 07:34 PM

Fire-induced collapses of buildings aren't a good idea for lots of reasons -- for one thing, all three 9/11 collapses did lots of damage to neighboring buildings. The reason demo companies prep a building for weeks or months beforehand is to avoid that sort of "collateral damage".

Not true. Building 7 collapsed neatly with no surrounding damage or casualties.

wwu777

12-07-2010, 07:37 PM

Check out the interview with Richard Gage and Kevin Ryan on Alex Jones Show. They present a very airtight case. There is no question that WTC7 was demoed.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

In this interview on KMPH Fox 26 Fresno, Richard Gage gets out a lot of convincing points in 7 minutes:

Richard Gage on KMPH Fox 26 in Fresno, CA - YouTube

shed7628

12-07-2010, 08:14 PM

I've gone back and forth on this topic. It seems most here subscribe to the idea that the towers fell in a way different than the official story.

Can supporters of this idea give me one fact they have as evidence to discuss?

The best evidence i can give you is what you see with your own eyes watch this, with no preconceived ideas.

wtc 7 collapse - YouTube

Now did that look like a building collapsing under the force of gravity or a building being demolished?

apollo_gnomon

12-07-2010, 09:10 PM

ultima1

12-07-2010, 09:20 PM

A building demolished with controlled demolition collapses under the force of gravity. Explosives are used to initiate and control the timing of cascade structural failure.

Not all cascade structural failures are controlled demolition.

But we know building 7 was brought down because the fire commander decided to, accordinng to the evidence and Silverstiens statement.

apollo_gnomon

12-07-2010, 09:28 PM

Can you provide any evidence that explosives were used to initiate the cascade failure of WTC 7?

ultima1

12-07-2010, 09:32 PM

Can you provide any evidence that explosives were used to initiate the cascade failure of WTC 7?

Who said explosives were needed? The building was already partially unstable.

But you do have that video of the hard hat workers stating that the buidling is going to blow up.

apollo_gnomon

12-07-2010, 09:33 PM

Then what initiated the cascade structural failure?

ultima1

12-07-2010, 09:35 PM

Then what initiated the cascade structural failure?

With the weakened structure and the way the building was constucted i am sure a few beams taken out would have been enough.

truegroup

12-07-2010, 09:42 PM

The best evidence i can give you is what you see with your own eyes watch this, with no preconceived ideas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

Now did that look like a building collapsing under the force of gravity or a building being demolished?

Yes it did!

However there appears to be a whole lot not being considered. My first impression was that it was a CD. But look at this video, with no preconceived ideas yourself:

9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kSq663m0G8

apollo_gnomon

12-07-2010, 09:44 PM

With the weakened structure and the way the building was constucted i am sure a few beams taken out would have been enough.

With the weakened structure and teh way the building was constructed, a few beams failing due to thermal weaking would be enough.

Can you propose a method for going into a burning building and "taking out" a few beams?

ultima1

12-07-2010, 09:45 PM

"Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9CXQY-bZn4&feature=PlayList&p=5FE2765B36026A11&playnext_from=PL&index=3

ultima1

12-07-2010, 09:47 PM

Can you propose a method for going into a burning building and "taking out" a few beams?

Well according to Chief Hayden they were worried abot fore jumping to other buildlings.

If the building would have collapsed on its own to the side that was damaged it would have casued more damage to other buildings and started more fires.

apollo_gnomon

12-07-2010, 09:52 PM

I asked you to propose a method for HOW they would initiate the cascade failure. You have not done so.

ultima1

12-07-2010, 09:54 PM

I asked you to propose a method for HOW they would initiate the cascade failure. You have not done so.

Well as stated they just needed to take a few beams.

They could have used small kicker charges or some mechanical / chemicle cutter.

apollo_gnomon

12-07-2010, 09:57 PM

. . . and you think they're going to wander into a burning skyscraper that might fall down and fuck around with explosives?

That's just wacky.

ultima1

12-07-2010, 10:00 PM

. . . and you think they're going to wander into a burning skyscraper that might fall down and fuck around with explosives?

That's just wacky.

The lower floors were not burning.

Fire rescue units go into burning, unstable buildings to rescue people all the time.

truegroup

12-07-2010, 10:06 PM

The lower floors were not burning.

Fire rescue units go into burning, unstable buildings to rescue people all the time.

I think your attention is uni-directional, but just on the off chance, watch this and give your comments please.

9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained - YouTube

ultima1

12-07-2010, 10:13 PM

I think your attention is uni-directional, but just on the off chance, watch this and give your comments please.

The video shows fires on the UPPER floors.

The EPA recovered most of the fuel from the tanks in building 7.

Question,

How come none of the other buildings hit be debris and burned collapsed ???

truegroup

12-07-2010, 11:30 PM

The video shows fires on the UPPER floors.

The EPA recovered most of the fuel from the tanks in building 7.

Question,

How come none of the other buildings hit be debris and burned collapsed ???

The video actually shows massive damage to the area below where the penthouse gave way. It showed an 8 second gap where that part of the building started to drop and put immediate pressure on the remaining supports.

Your question is not relevant, how come anything? Chance, luck, whatever. It happened that way. The CD theory just has less credence when you see the damage to the lower building. I can't see how anybody can dismiss it as being insignificant.

tabea_blumenschein

13-07-2010, 03:52 AM

Not true. Building 7 collapsed neatly with no surrounding damage or casualties.

Are you REALLY sure there was no damage to neighboring buildings? (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didwtc7fallintoa%E2%80%9Ctidypile%E2%80%9Dinitsown footpr)

ultima1

13-07-2010, 12:59 PM

Are you REALLY sure there was no damage to neighboring buildings? (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didwtc7fallintoa%E2%80%9Ctidypile%E2%80%9Dinitsown footpr)

There was very minimal damage. The buidling collapsed almost straight down in its footprint.

There would have been a lot more damage and fires spread if the building would have collapsed on its own to the side that was damage.

ultima1

13-07-2010, 01:05 PM

Your question is not relevant, how come anything?

Yes it is relevant since no steel skyscraper in the US has collapsed from fire before or after 9/11.

The CD theory just has less credence when you see the damage to the lower building. I can't see how anybody can dismiss it as being insignificant.

The damage to the lower buidling is one of the main reasons for the CD. As stated fire chief Hayden stated they were worried about fire spreading to other buildings.

If the building would have collapsed on its own to the side that was damaged it would have casued more damage and spread fires.

bryan

13-07-2010, 07:03 PM

The damage to the lower buidling is one of the main reasons for the CD. As stated fire chief Hayden stated they were worried about fire spreading to other buildings.

More idiocy. How long do you think it would take to wire a building like that for demolition?

tabea_blumenschein

14-07-2010, 03:29 AM

There was very minimal damage. The buidling collapsed almost straight down in its footprint.

There would have been a lot more damage and fires spread if the building would have collapsed on its own to the side that was damage.

Neighboring buildings sustained so much damage that they had to be torn down. Look at the second picture and see for yourself what the WTC 7 collapse did. (http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/didwtc7fallintoa%E2%80%9Ctidypile%E2%80%9Dinitsown footpr) And you call that "minimal damage"?

ultima1

14-07-2010, 12:14 PM

More idiocy. How long do you think it would take to wire a building like that for demolition?

Not long in a emergency situation like 9/11. This was not a normal demolition so they did not go by normal protocols.

Sources prove there were several demo crews at building 7 by 3PM.

ultima1

14-07-2010, 12:16 PM

Neighboring buildings sustained so much damage that they had to be torn down.

Not really that much damage, there would have been a lot more if the building would have collapsed on its own. Also how come no other building collapsed from fire that was hit by debris from the towers that had as much or more damage then building 7 ???

Building 6 was pulled down by contractors, it was hit by debris form the towers.

truegroup

14-07-2010, 02:08 PM

Building 6 was pulled down by contractors, it was hit by debris form the towers.

Sounds like more than MINIMAL damage then if they had to pull the damn building down!

ultima1

15-07-2010, 08:32 AM

Sounds like more than MINIMAL damage then if they had to pull the damn building down!

But why didn't it collapse if there was so much damage and fire ???

Wasn't that the official reason for building 7 collapsing ???

Why was building 7 the only building in the WTC to collapse from fire and damage ???

wwu777

10-02-2012, 06:45 PM

Kevin Barrett interviews Commander Ralph Kolstad, a retired US Navy Top Gun Pilot and Veteran Airline Pilot, who explains why the official version of the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers were not aerodynamically possible and can not be replicated by any pilot in the world. As one of the most experienced pilots in the world with over 100 combat missions under his belt, Kolstad's testimony and analysis carries a lot of weight.

Navy Top Gun Questions Official 9/11 Story - Ralph Kolstad Interview by Kevin Barrett - YouTube

To hear more about pilots, experts, scientists and engineers who dispute the official 9/11 story, visit:
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org
http://www.ae911truth.org

carlo_caci

11-02-2012, 02:31 AM

More idiocy. How long do you think it would take to wire a building like that for demolition?

it would only take one or two bombs to collapse the towers according to the official story believers as according to them, in building 7, fire weakened key colloumns and made the towers collapse. this logic means only a few bombs in the right places are needed. Therefore it wouldnt take much rigging at all.

bryan

11-02-2012, 09:13 AM

it would only take one or two bombs to collapse the towers according to the official story believers as according to them, in building 7, fire weakened key colloumns and made the towers collapse. this logic means only a few bombs in the right places are needed. Therefore it wouldnt take much rigging at all.

Demolition expert Brent Blanchard says that hundreds of columns would have to be blown to bring down the towers with explosives, yet he thinks they collapsed anyway without any explosives at all. :confused:

9/11 legos with The Love Police Charlie Veitch BBC.2011.9.11.Conspiracy.Road.Trip - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgGOlAWqHIg

dontdrinkurmilk

11-02-2012, 12:55 PM

carlo_caci

12-02-2012, 02:54 AM

Because thats where the first bomb was detonated

dontdrinkurmilk

12-02-2012, 08:28 AM

Because thats where the first bomb was detonated

Silent bombs?

infovore37

19-02-2012, 04:35 AM

Silent bombs?

not at all silent. willie rodriguez, a janitor in the south tower was in the basement at the time of the impacts. he said that before the planes even hit he experienced explosions so loud that he thought the generator a couple of rooms over blew up. the skin on his friends face was hanging loose. look up his interviews on youtube. or loose change. many people in the towers stated that they heard/felt explosions well before the planes hit. some claim that the propane tanks in the kitchens blew, but that is not possible, as class a buildings cannot have propane in them. it is safe to say that the south tower was not the only building that had bombs detonate in it, either.

air_bn

19-02-2012, 02:33 PM

not at all silent. willie rodriguez, a janitor in the south tower was in the basement at the time of the impacts. he said that before the planes even hit he experienced explosions so loud that he thought the generator a couple of rooms over blew up. the skin on his friends face was hanging loose. look up his interviews on youtube. or loose change. many people in the towers stated that they heard/felt explosions well before the planes hit. some claim that the propane tanks in the kitchens blew, but that is not possible, as class a buildings cannot have propane in them. it is safe to say that the south tower was not the only building that had bombs detonate in it, either.

This depends on the accuracy of accounts by William Rodriguez, and several others.What is safe to say now is that WTC's 1 & 2 were highly vulnerable to the type of attack experienced on 9/11,due to their structural build.

infovore37

19-02-2012, 09:18 PM

This depends on the accuracy of accounts by William Rodriguez, and several others.What is safe to say now is that WTC's 1 & 2 were highly vulnerable to the type of attack experienced on 9/11,due to their structural build.

I post again:

1. Hyman Brown was the Construction Manager for the World Trade Center. He stated: “It was over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, high winds, bombings, and an airplane hitting it.” This makes it remarkable that the buildings fell so rapidly.

2. “The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.”

No, it is not safe to say the buildings were vulnerable to this. The buildings were specifically made to withstand planes bigger than 757s hitting them. In 1945 a b52 bomber actually hit the Empire State Building, and very little damage ensued. The Empire State Building is a much older building than the WTC buildings.

As for Rodriguezs accuracy, i doubt that an explosion that tore flesh off of a coworker was actually just a guy falling off the shitter a floor above. I see no motives for him to lie about something like this, and if you dont believe him because he was a janitor, there are plenty of other employees working in the WTC who could verify his accounts.

dontdrinkurmilk

19-02-2012, 11:11 PM

not at all silent. willie rodriguez, a janitor in the south tower was in the basement at the time of the impacts. he said that before the planes even hit he experienced explosions so loud that he thought the generator a couple of rooms over blew up. the skin on his friends face was hanging loose. look up his interviews on youtube. or loose change. many people in the towers stated that they heard/felt explosions well before the planes hit. some claim that the propane tanks in the kitchens blew, but that is not possible, as class a buildings cannot have propane in them. it is safe to say that the south tower was not the only building that had bombs detonate in it, either.

Willie Rodriguez, You might want to read this by Mark Roberts on Rodriguez, It basically shows how he changed his story once he became famous.

https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/home

You say many people say they heard / felt explosions before the planes hit?

Have you got some examples?

infovore37

20-02-2012, 12:05 AM

Willie Rodriguez, You might want to read this by Mark Roberts on Rodriguez, It basically shows how he changed his story once he became famous.

https://sites.google.com/site/911stories/home

You say many people say they heard / felt explosions before the planes hit?

Have you got some examples?

it would not surprise me if he was told to shut up about what he experienced, but the link is interesting i will read it thoroughly.

i do not have many specific examples. however, simply google explosions felt in wtc towers, and many examples come up.

one example:
911 WTC EYEWITNESSES BASEMENT AND LOBBY EXPLOSIONS - YouTube

labouysse

20-02-2012, 01:24 AM

I post again:

1. Hyman Brown was the Construction Manager for the World Trade Center. He stated: “It was over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, high winds, bombings, and an airplane hitting it.” This makes it remarkable that the buildings fell so rapidly.

Hyman Brown "Construction Manager for the WTC" - er..............no :(

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-06-02/%E2%80%9Cchief-engineer%E2%80%9D-hyman-brown-patrick-marks

infovore37

20-02-2012, 01:33 AM

Hyman Brown "Construction Manager for the WTC" - er..............no :(

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-06-02/%E2%80%9Cchief-engineer%E2%80%9D-hyman-brown-patrick-marks

interesting link, never came across this before.

labouysse

20-02-2012, 01:53 AM

interesting link, never came across this before.

I think we can rule him out as an "expert".

BTW per your earlier post it was a B25 that hit the Empire State Building - not a B52.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash

Difference in size makes a helluva difference (even forgetting the speed at impact).

B25 Specs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Specifications_.28B-25J.29

B52 Specs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Specifications_.28B-52H.29

infovore37

20-02-2012, 01:56 AM

I think we can rule him out as an "expert".

BTW per your earlier post it was a B25 that hit the Empire State Building - not a B52.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25_Empire_State_Building_crash

Difference in size makes a helluva difference (even forgetting the speed at impact).

B25 Specs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell#Specifications_.28B-25J.29

B52 Specs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress#Specifications_.28B-52H.29

apologies, i was using that example off of memory.
i stand corrected.