Really? where is and what is the "alot more proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire" ?

Link me up!

:D

Really...? So produce the "proof that it was destroyed by planes and fire".

I have already posted and can do so again actual evidence to the contrary. Can you and your contrarian, obsessed friends actaully post to the contrary?!?

So far, the answer have been "No".

Most of the responses have been unsubstantiated name calleing.

wtf?

:D

No...you have not and cannot post any "actual evidence" to the contrary...because said evidence does not exist...other than in your own mind.

On the other hand...there is actual evidence of planes hitting the towers...there is actual evidence of the fires in the towers and there is actual evidence of the towers collasping...a case of what you see is what you get.

All of your questions...speculations...inferences and total bs or those of others is not actual evidence.

And I'm telling you I've flown an airplane with about sixty seconds of instruction without so much as stepping foot in a classroom. Could I land the plane? Highly unlikely. But all of these guys went to flight school, so it's not like they couldn't do it.

Clearly your not understanding this.

The entire building, flood by floor, was airtight. When you stepped into the lobby, there was a breeze going through the entire floor - which was like five or six stories tall. Every floor was airtight. Every elevator shaft was airtight. When you stepped outside on the observation deck, you had to fight with the door because of the suction.

You slice that building with an airplane, that changes everything. You have multiple floors with a huge gaping hole. The elevator shafts - which had access to nearly all floors - were no longer airtight. The floors with sky lobbies were no longer air tight. The lobby had it's windows blown out, and was no longer air tight.

This was a massive firestorm farmed by strong winds.

And the explosions on the 48th floor in the sky lobby when the elevator shaft was blown open and the emergency back up generators there caught fire weren't reported.

So much happened that day that they couldn't report it all in three hundred pages. At a certain point in time, they had to pick and choose what to put in the final condensed report.

This is one of the things I don't get.

Let's just say the US Government - or any other organization - wanted to take down the towers using explosives such as Mediaguy claims. Why wouldn't just light a simple fire to get the bulk of the people to leave and then just blow it? Why all the planes and such nonsense?

Another thing that doens't make sense in their claims.

Everyone saw the plane hit the fucking towers, and the resulting fire.

Done.

Unfotunately for your belief system, you're incorrect. And you should refer to links in this thread for confirmation.

These are facts... however they did not and could not have led to complete collapse, and you cannot provide evidence or facts to back this up.

Uh... and they failed miserably. What are you trying to corroborate here?

Who cares? What the fuck are you talking about?

So you're saying as I did that the bulding was no longer "air tight" once the jets broke into them.? I mean be consistent. You're contradicting yourself and all your contentions here....

So you're saying that the 9/11 Commission Report was inaccurate and edited for length considerations... ok. So they lied just because they "had to" considering length... and what else? I mean you're the expert so what's with all this false reporting?

:D

But all "these guys" failed all aspects of their flight school formation.

So you're completely contradicting your earlier "belief" about what happened here...

Ok. So somehow these did not weaken the impact of the fireballs on the other floors?

Really? Where did they report this failure?

No. I'm saying after the impact it building was not entirely air tight. The bottom and the area at the point of impact had been violated, but this only added more fuel to the fire by making it a firestorm. The amount of wind that must have been moving through that tower must have been huge.

Of course it was edited for length. That's exactly what a report is - it stats the relevant facts. It doesn't mention that there was a suspicious blue Mercedes parked outside of the WTC at the moment of impact because it's not relevant.

Over 1200 people were interviewed and they reviewed over two million documents... Then they reported on what they found. If it wasn't important or relevant, it wasn't reported.

If you wanted every last detailed reported, it would be millions of pages long.

I'm not a chemist, I'm not a physicist, I'm not an architect, I'm not a scientist. I'm not a demolition expert, I'm not a forensic expert.

And neither are you.

You and I and everyone else here can only say what we believe based on what we have seen on TEEVEE and read in magazines, newspapers and online, by experts, and "experts". The best we can ever hope for is to take all of the info in, and use it as a basis for our OPINION.

My -opinion- is that WTC was felled by planes, fire and damage. What you say should be opinion as well, and not -fact-. No one here is an expert, so words like fact, truth, proof, etc should be left out unless quoted.




I have already posted and can do so again actual evidence to the contrary. Can you and your contrarian, obsessed friends actaully post to the contrary?!?

So far, the answer have been "No".

Most of the responses have been unsubstantiated name calleing.

wtf?

:D[/QUOTE]

Your OPINION is that they did not lead to complete collapse.

The fact that the fire was dying at the point of the building's fall, that there was only dark smoke coming from those compromised floors, apparently means nothing. There was no "firestorm". Firefighters at the 72nd floor said they could "knock it out" with only a pair of hoses. They were actually on the compromised floors, and reported no problems breathing.

No, it was edited to reflect no contradictions to its own pre-conceived conclusions. Any objective, contradictory testimonies (such as that of all the firefighters reporting explosions, witnesses testifying to explosions before the impacts, Norman Mineta describing how Cheney knew about the flight into the Pentagon, Sibel Edmonds outlining the relationship between bin Laden and the CIA, etc. etc...) were excluded.

Wrong. Your blind faith in the government is incredible condiring your intelligence and skepticism. While excising minor relevancies is normal, the 9/11 report is shockingly devoid of any mentions of all testimony contrary to it's ultimate conclusions.

Since I know and admit I'm not an expert, and my "common sense" told me on the day they occurred that the buildings were taken down on purpose, I don't rely on religious-style belief, but forensic experts who do have the knowledge and expertise to pronounce themselves to back up what my "common sense" told me to start with.

My opinion based on what I saw, on what has been shown as evidence, and what has NOT been shown by the government and those that claim the contrary, leads me to think that the buildings were taken down by incendiaries and other external agents, yes...

:D

By that time the damage had already been done.

You keep going back to the fire saying "the fire wasn't enough". It wasn't. It was a combination of the impact damage, the fire, and the stress put on the remaining support. It failed.

Yes, we are all sheep.

Don't you think if there was one shred of evidence that the truth was otherwise the press would have jumped all over it? It would have been the story of all times.

And yet still not one person has come forward saying "I helped do it".

I don't have blind faith in the government. I don't believe JFK went down as we were told.

But I have not found on bit of evidence that proves to me it went down any other way than we were told.

Common sense should tell you that a huge plane with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel hit a building at nearly six hundred miles per hour, and as expected the building caught fire and fell.

That is something to consider.

However consider also how dramatic and pervasive the iconic imagery of the burning towers has become.

Consider how much the "attack" contributed to George W. Bush's presidency, and the so-called war in the middle east and the whole 'War on Terror".

The falling and imploded towers gave new life to Rudy Guilianni's career, and were used by all the war hawks to illustrate their ambitions, but WTC7 was not - in fact most people didn't even know about it, a prominent New York judge actually said "World Trade Center What?". and many still don't know about it.

That's because the towers were "useful" and tv-friendly, but not WTC7.
Right. And anyone involved will tell you they were designed to take planes hitting "the fucking towers".

Has anyone explained why they fell?

No.

Even NIST claimed they couldn't explain it, and their report describes everything that occurred prior to collapse, without going into why or how...

:D

Regardless, this would not have compromised the entirety of the structure.

No, the press were embarassingly pro-administration after the event. For corroboration look up Dan Rather, Daniel Ellsberg, Karen Kwiatkowski, and so on...

It HAS only been a decade. It took a long time for the JFK killers to come forth. And there have been people who have come out about involvement in the 9/11 attack - they just haven't been covered by the mainstream media...

You've simply not done enough inquiring....

Common sense would expect that the building would catch fire. Not that it would fall.

:D

Wow I missed that.

The fireball is hypothesized, not documented at all.

:D

http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/...07/20rle2s.gif

:stoned

ADG

This video is really powerful. This guy was in the basement when the plane hit and talks about the fireball that ripped open the elevator doors.



Here's Lauren Manning, who was in the lobby who was burned on 82% of her body. This is what she says about that morning:

With an enormous, screeching exhalation, the fire explodes from the elevator banks into the lobby and engulfs me, its tentacles of flame hungrily latching on. An immense weight pushes down on me, and I can barely breathe. I am whipped around ? I see people lying on the floor covered in flames, burning alive.

The fireball wasn't hypothesized at all skippy.

So how did these victims determine that the "fireball" was coming down from a thousand feet above or up from basement explosions??

Oh lord.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5083/...303a5779fb.jpg

"In the day of the great slaughter when the towers fall" - Isaiah 700 BC

"For your Hamas against your brother Israel you shall be cut off forever" - Obadiah 1

Dude.... seriously...

I think that was his attempt at humor.

Russia Today are brave enough to voice their concerns

911 reasons why 9/11 was (probably) an inside job
Introduction
http://rt.com/usa/news/911-attack-job/

Part 1 - 3 towers, 2 jets
http://rt.com/usa/news/911-attack-reasons-towers/

Part 2 - The Pentagon Crash
http://rt.com/usa/news/911-reason-why-911/

Part 3 - Bin Laden
http://rt.com/usa/news/911-reasons-conspiracy/

The so-called 'Illuminiti Playing Cards' have a habit of getting their predictions right


Here's another one, notice the Olympic colors and possibly Big Ben


Now here's a scenario from a recent Rockefeller scenario planning document

"The years 2010 to 2020 were dubbed the ?doom decade? for good reason: the 2012 Olympic bombing, which killed 13,000, was followed closely by an earthquake in Indonesia killing 40,000, a tsunami that almost wiped out Nicaragua, and the onset of the West China Famine, caused by a once-in-a-millennium drought linked to climate change. Not surprisingly, this opening series of deadly asynchronous catastrophes (there were more) put enormous pressure on an already overstressed global economy that had entered the decade still in recession."

It was hard for me to believe that Towers 1 & 2 could be completely destroyed but when I saw Building 7, I knew it was a demo job. Buildings don't collapse into their own footprint for any reason. It never happened before and it will never happen again, unless by a highly skilled demo team. Even highly skilled demo teams can't always get it right.

That building went straight down in record time, without lateral movement or delay. How can something so obvious be ignored?

It takes weeks of carefully planning by highly skilled techs to successfully bring a building down into it's own footprint and even at best, it doesn't always go as planned.

Why is so much time and money spent? Simply because buildings aren't designed to collapse into their own footprint! If it were that easy, they would just knock out one corner of the building and let gravity do the rest.

This alone is absolute proof of a demo job. Just open your mind and watch the footage. The building went straight down with not so much as a wobble from resistance! I understand the building had damage. If you kicked the leg out from under a table would it collapse straight down?



If this could happen, then why wasn't a single building code change to prevent it from happening in the future?

Can you honestly say that if you saw this footage before 9/11 that you would think it was anything other than a controlled demo?

I understand there was a very strong motive behind this and that we couldn't just go camp out in Iraq to keep an eye on our oil without a good reason but I'm surprised they couldn't come up with a better way than killing thousands of innocent civilians.

I've been out of the military for 22 years but people still ask me questions like "When do you think we'll pull out of Iraq?". I tell them "As soon as we pull out of all the other countries we occupy".

It's not "our oil". It never was. We don't get "our oil" from Iraq. We are get our from fucking Canada. I'm so sick of hearing that the Middle East is all about oil. We get most of our oil from Canada and Mexico.

Didn't we pull out of Iraq?

Page 33. Did any of the nutters...eerr truthers post ANY evidence for their claims yet? Like anything? Even the slightest piece of evidence will do.

After 10 years you'd expect some kind of evidence that the government was behind it right? Well, show me please.

Oh ok, I must be misinformed along with everyone else in the world. Why are we in Iraq again? So what's the story? A small group of terrorists attack a few US targets and we invade a country over it? Or is it because they had WMDs?

We did? There are no troops there right now?

C'mon man, you know the government is the judge, jury and executioner. There's plenty of evidence. If you don't think Building 7 alone is enough evidence then this mission was a huge success! Some people look, others see.

So why in bloody fuck do you think anyone with any skidmark of a brain cell would risk getting caught wiring it up with explosives? For April Fools? A dare?

*edit* Forgot for a second I'm trying to argue with people with blind religous faith.

It was almost like something very important was contained in Building 7. Hmmm, what could that be?

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...63/866/403.gif



:stoned

ADG