No.. it wasn't edited.. He just forgot to mention that the clip was from a recent interview.. and that the interviewer had his original comments and showed them to him.. He kinda fumbled with his explanation as to why the change of mind...
This was his original report on 9/11.. that he forgot to mention.. and his more recent comment.. What? Did he say ... cruise missle??
Hmm.. From cruise missile to American Airlines jet... Wonder why the change..

no, he expects a piece of shit gas station secuirty camera to to have the same quality as the next star wars.

thats the whole point.

there were several cameras pointing directly at the crash site.

1 from the gas station , (we dont know the quality but i would hazard a guess anything is better than the one we have seen :) )

1 from the marriot i believe roof mounted ( again i dont know the quality )

the most important is the DOT camera that i HAVE seen footage of what it looks like and the camera picture was pretty clear and centered

but i mean arguing about what the quality might or might not be is silly, why not just show them , if they are shitty, they are shitty oh well, i would rather see a shitty video of something than no video of nothing lol.


If your family was killed in plain view of several cameras, would you say " i dont need to see any videos because videos are usually shitty at gas stations " be honest with yourself.. you would want to see any and all videos / pictures / drawing/ mime's lol anything.. right or wrong ?

this is getting tiresome so here's the last link from me.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

there is a wonderful new tool http://google.com try it sometime.

:1orglaugh

Come on...

"It was like a cruise missile with wings... then it burst into flames."

Simile anyone?

He didn't change his story. He clarified using a more literal term instead of his original exaggerated term.

A cruise missile...

Ahaha.

No, I was asking about the quality of video because my line of thinking was... if a shitty video "looks" like a "cruise missile" but many spectators saw an actual airplane, I'm believing the spectators.

I'm still laughing about this whole cruise missile thing. Ahaha.

the video everyone saw..the famous one they re released..came form a pentagon camera


smokeys point was...that why the fuck does the pentagon have a shitty old camera...like 7-11

why not just ask what i expect instead of making silly juvenile claims.

no i didnt ask that .. i said show it .. i dont expect anything other than it to be shown. isnt a hard concept..

do you think accident investigators would simply not view the tape because they had eyewitness ? lol

anyone with a rational mind would review the videotapes and you know it. so instead of acting like a child and making up what i say why not act like an adult and answer the questions posed..

sly there was a missile reported missing from a nearby base


i cant be othered to look up the facts anymore for people
if you really want to know..i bet you could find it

see sig for the facts!

hyuk hyk yup ever heard of google , never heard that joke before hyuk hyuk..

what part of " i dont think anything fish happened at wtc7" do you not understand ?

All i asked is why they dont just clarify what was done, but the typical child you post irrelevent drivel that has nothing to do with what i said..

OMG OMG smokey is crazy look wtc7 debunked OMG ,

if you actually read what i said you would see im not questioning it idiot.. so posting your debunking links just shows you can't comprehend english very well..

I could read til my eyes were numb. My opinion probably wouldn't much. You could do the same. Your opinion isn't going to change much either.

who the fuck knows why they're not going to show it?

national security?

research?

suspicious people in the area caught on tape who are still under investigation?

out of respect for the victims?

then what are you trying to say? clarify it for me.

did you read that link even? if you did you would have seen silverstein's assistant did CLARIFY what he said when he said "pull it."

Silverstein's Quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"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."

ah cool..you know on that day the fire chief also made a report saying there were multiple explosions coming from the building

Its funny the excuses people will make to avoid reality..

Someone asks , " i would like to see the video " and the best answers he gets are

"there were eyewitness's"
"security cameras suck"
"it wasnt a cruise missile."

guess what .. i didnt ask "how many eyewitnesses were there ?"
i also didnt ask " so whats the quality on citgo cameras"

i also didnt ask " what wasn't it ? "

Its also funny how people "presume" to know what your thinking or your opinion even when its been pretty clearly stated..

Guess what.

I dont think wtc was bombed i think it happened much like what has been reported, i think the pentagon crash was just as it was described, i dont think anyone high ranking in the u.s. had any credible advanced info on 9/11.

and i still want to see the video tape.. and i still have questions.. being inquisitive is human nature

until you can look at things honestly from BOTH perspectives, your just kidding yourself..

links? proof?

have a friends dad who is an engineer, and a chemist. and familiar with the construction of the towers. he said, that the heat got the steel beams just hot enough to make them "plyable". Then the failure. Thats it folks. No bombs, etc.

bwahaha
lol
:1orglaugh wtf

haha thats the funniest excuse yet..

ask hi about the molten steel and how six weeks after the collapse it was still red hot and would burst into flames

The way you present your questions and opinions is quite similar to those who think otherwise. ;-)

But I hear what you're saying.

At the end of the day, I don't really care who did what and we will never know. Hell I still have my hot dog answer!

i said what i thought it could be. why do you think they haven't released it? spit it out.

links? proof? voices in your head?

whew , we can all go home now.. if it were only that simple..

You dont rule things out because of what might have happened or as soon as you find 1 explanation.. things should only be ruled out because they CAN be ruled out.. ( i'm not saying though that you must first rule things out to discern what happened ) , we dont have to rule out " aliens" to find the truth. but we also cant rule out aliens just because we found 1 possible explanation right..

fair enough..

sheesh i dunno , makes ya wonder , must be something good.. i dont have an answer for that..


I have few possible theories.. gotta remeber thes eplanes are flying wicked fast so even with a great camera you still might not capture anything usefull

so i think the most rational explanation is that they simply dont contain anything usefull and thus would just cause more fodder for the tinfoil hat crowd, i just dont happen to agree that we shouldnt release them because of it.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm...riendid=354 9

proof clean up crews discussing it
live on the news....they show the shit.
fire chiefs talking abouthow it must have been bombs
demolition experts etc etc


anyway...i got to run for a bit

can you guys call each other names a bit more? my ego cant handle it unless this thread hits 4 pages

Hmm.. he waited 6 years to clarify?..

You'll continue to believe what you believe regardless of my replies, so no need for a back & forth squabble..

Check out these facts in my sig! :thumbsup

Your constant requests for links tells me that you haven't done much reading on the matter..

How bout voices of the firemen?

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

you lost. next?

Phoenix mentioned molten steel and how six weeks after the collapse it was still red hot and would burst into flames..
You wanted a link..

The link I gave showed exactly that..

but you have this urge to throw up a debunk link that has nothing to do with anything he said..

You really should learn to read before thinking your replies have substance..

YOU lost.. Next? :)

Phoenix:

What is your educational level? high school... college? Do you have any specific training or analytical skills? How about courses in the physical sciences... chemistry or physics, or even basic scientific method? Have you ever worked in government, served in the military, have familiarity with explosives and demolitions, aeronautics, or cruise missile technology?

Why do I have the feeling you have little education, no analytical skills, little experience in the real world, few accomplishments, and basically sit in front of the computer all day and regurgitate the crap some other moron has written?

I love conspiracy theories, it keeps mi mind away from the important stuff

Like your job at Mcdonalds? :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

ronbotx

thanks for asking i have an honours degree in Mathematics. B.Sc.Mathematics..i also graudated with standing..meaning near the top of my class....for fun i threw in a BA minor. I have advancded analytical skills and many who actually know me refer to me as bottom line brad.

I breezed through my degree and got very high marks in physics which i loved. To this day im an avid reader of science fiction...i enjoy buying and reading mathematical themed books. In fact i make sure i buy one at least every second trip to chapters.

I read more books in a year then you will in your life.
I acquire facts on the largest scale possible....and i never discount information unless it seems irrelevant.

I hope that one day you will not believe what people tell you including myself. Learn to think for yourself.

I dont care who did what...i just present evidence.


anyway how about you?


since you are so keen on schooling what degree do you have?

how many other buildings had the mass of the WTC? :2 cents:

That is indeed impressive and I would have thought your obvious analytical skill-set would lead you, after your questioning of 9/11 possibilities, to run as fast and far away from the conspiracy camp as possible.

you man like the other buildings that burnt for much longer and at much higher temperatures?


how many of those buildsings fell down....zero


if the pancake theory is even correct...what happened to the structural beams in the middle there are 47 missing beams...they all fell in about 30 ft lengths...this is all documented.

i dont like to run from a fight

i dont like who i see behind it..so i really try to stay away form that now...i just like presenting facts

Oh please please tell us who you think is "behind it" :1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

inbred religious zealots just trying to start a holy war is my guess

Muslim or Christian? come on Phoenix stand by your beliefs lets get this out in the open.

lol i dont think he is referring to who is in the war i think he is referring to whom would want to "start" a holy war between the 2. ( incase your slow catching on , it wouldnt be christian or muslims )

So Al'Qaeda was smart and had a backup plan: If the planes weren't enough, detonate explosives to bring the building down. That's certainly plausible... Or are you hinting at something else?

My question is, if the WTC towers were brought down by explosives, then how did they manage to start the collapse of each tower at the exact same floors where the planes impacted? I dunno, but I don't buy it. This whole idea about the towers being brought down by explosives sounds like some crackpot government misinformation campaign to hide the real reason.

i think its highly unlikely the towers were brought down by bombs but it wouldnt be hard to start the collapse where the planes hit, they just pack each floor with explosives just like a reg demo. as long as the planes hit above halfway they could start it on any floor they want.

but the theory is highly suspect anyways , why not just bomb it and blame the bombings on terrorists , why use the planes..

This shit is fucking hilarious...

Im just curious if all these other steel buildings that didnt fall

A. had a huge chunk of their outer supporting structure destroyed
B. had a huge plane adding to the weight of the building.
C. had the main support of the building going directly down the middle of the building.
D. had jet fuel burning.

just curious. I have never heard of another incident involving all those different things.

the fires burnt much much hotter and for much much longer
yes some of them actually lost the outer shell. near the firezones...look at the pics.
small airplanes have hit buildings a lot..but lets not go there because the planes that hit the towere were much bigger...so id hate for you to focus on that one point and start screaming while you jump up and down.

btw the real main support at thw WTC was the 47 steel girders that ran up the middle....they should have been just fine and standing there when the supposed panackae theory was going on....but wouldnt you know it..there they were all over the ground in neat little 30 ft pieces....hey this is just facts..i dont know what they mean

the 47 main support beams should have been standing there shooting up way into the sky..but instead a huge building made of concret and stone collapsed on on itself neatly into a small pile....huge beams were thrown 400-500 meters away.
explosions in the basement when there is no direct passage to it doesnt get explained with some kerosene.

most of the kerosene btw probably blew up on impact and flooded the floors the planes went into....when it got there it probably accounted for the huge huge fireballs that ripped from the buildings whilst the planes hit...kerosene/gasoline etc does not take time to ignite..it goes right away...very little liquid got far away from the intial impact zone id guess

why were dogs ordered out of the building months and months before by the security firm running the WTC? who owns that firm?

why were huge sections of the building closed down to all but essential personell, deemed nessecarry by the security company. Not even the building maintenace guy, who could basically say hey this is my building i been here for 20 years i run this place..why wasnt he allowed anywhere....all of a sudden he doesnt have clearance to go where he wants.

i dont know..just some questions

why was the steel that was still red hot 6 weeks after shipped to china for melt down right after? it is a federal offence to remove evidence from a crime scene. how did that happen? no investigation was done on the rubble.
nothing notta zilch

more was spent on clintons blowjob investigation then was spent on the 9/11 investigation...does that sit right with people?

anyway...i know there are logical explanations for all of these...so if anyone can just show me...without going crazy and calling names...just give logical explanations...dont quote popularmechanics...you know many editors quit or were fired during the writing of that article. i could write an article saying whatever, if it was what the masses wanted to believe they would believe it.

hell id say it on tv with a pocket protector and some glases on wearing a lab coat...and i could say anything i want. Science is the new religion.

i