COMMENTS:
Come on you nutjob pussies! Where are the fucking witnesses? Buried next to Jimmy Hoffa?
Yes, its amazing these "tifoil hat" people can't use common sense, logic and reasoning to see how stupid and absurd their claims are. Their is a wonderful website (Debunking911 com) that explains just how much impossible work and effort it would take too plant explosives in such a busy and secure building (WTC) without raising even the slightest suspicion. The truth is, most of these conspiracy shills are well aware they are promoting nonsense; they simply do it out of malice, spite, hate and bigotry.
Yes but where are the fucking witnesses? It was the crime of the century and nobody did it? You cant find one person after five fucking years? Thousands of people would have to be in on this and you cant find one. Not one. Zero. Bombs were planted and NOBODY did it. Not even the fucking butler. Planes were piloted by remote control by people who then disappeared off the face of the earth. Where are the witnesses? Up you arse?
Oops that looks like I am dissing Jinn the Kafir which of course I am not. I am just having fun nailing these conspiracy nutjobs. Still no answer and no answers will ever come, not to my question anyway.
But don't you see?!?! A complete lack of evidence proves that the conspiracy is real! If there weren't a massive conspiracy then how else could they have covered everything up so well that absolutely no proof of it exists?
First off , why the hostility and profanity over another's opinion reguarding 9/11 ???
Secondly , you proprose an artificial representation of conspiracy theories of the events of 9/11.Who entirely endorsed all of the theories that you implied ? You seem to be moving the goal post here.
" If the twin towers were brought down with explosives who planted the bombs? "
An extension your logic implies that JFK was never muredered.
" Yes, its amazing these " tifoil hat " people can't use common sense, logic and reasoning to see how stupid and absurd their claims are. "
What about those of us who are sitting on the fence ? Are we half "stupid" ? Is it really absurd to withold judgement ? There are conciderable question marks and inconsistencies with the official version , just as there are with some of the other conspiracy theories.
" The truth is, most of these conspiracy shills are well aware they are promoting nonsense; they simply do it out of malice , spite, hate and bigotry. "
LOL,hypocracy and irony! *That* is a conspiracy theory jinn.What shills ? Where's your proof?
Actually there are plenty of witnesses that day including firemen and policemen describing what sounds exactly like a controlled demolition.There are more witnesses reguarding other aspects too.Again,I'm reserving judgement but you can't credibly say that there are no witnesses just because you are unfamiliar with all of the varying theories.Just how many witnesses cited by the conspiracy camp have you reviewed?If former senior official of the CIA Bill Christison states "The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center almost certainly did not collapse and fall to earth because hijacked aircraft hit them. A plane did not hit Building 7 of the Center, which also collapsed. All three were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11. A substantial volume of evidence shows that typical residues and byproducts from such demolition charges were present in the three buildings after they collapsed. The quality of the research done on this subject is quite impressive. " .... perhaps you should keep an open mind.The mainstream press ( save C-spn) has operated with complicity in that they have refused to give air time to the many credible voices who doubt the oficial version from eye witnesses to scholars to engineers to FBI whistleblowers and more.WHY won't they give them air time ? ?? That in itself looks very suspicious because I'm refering to "nutjobs" but rather credible voices that have been blacked out except for on the web.
Voted : Yes and I am also the Lindburgh Baby
Normally I’d try answering this ballot but I’ve grown to despise conspiracy theories thanks to a certain user.
by seon on Thu Aug 17, 06 5:29pm
[+]
Robotthinker, if you are willing to assume the conspiracy theories at those websites you visit is valid information, why can't you also visit a website that debunks it.
Searchlight, your irrational attempt to avoid certain facts by asking about less relevant facts really doesn't work.
Here's your problem;
It's impossible to prove that the WTC buildings were taken down WITHOUT controlled demolitions because
1) nobody has been able to do so with the empirical data and according to NIST's own models, it was impossible (they couldn't do it with even the worse case scenario)
2) EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Can you cite a single exception to this? With link to photos and/or video to back your BS
3) It's IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise to collapse straightdown through it's own structure without a controlled demolition at such speed because it goes against the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which is why it's never happened before or since Sept 11 2001.
Now considering this, there is only one conclusion - the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions.
Your carrying with other excuses can't get around this.
A man walks into a room full of people with an SMG and kills them all, but you would claim that despite the dead bodies and the bullets, and video evidence of the people being shot, that he couldn't have done it because the security guards didn't seem him bring in a gun.
Likewise, we don't need to have witnesses to people planting explosives, because we already know from science and previous evidence that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. However it was done, it was done. Just like the man with the SMG still shooting people dead despite nobody seeing him bringing in a gun.
Searchlight, your irrational attempt to avoid certain facts by asking about less relevant facts really doesn't work.
Here's your problem;
It's impossible to prove that the WTC buildings were taken down WITHOUT controlled demolitions because
1) nobody has been able to do so with the empirical data and according to NIST's own models, it was impossible (they couldn't do it with even the worse case scenario)
2) EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition. Can you cite a single exception to this? With link to photos and/or video to back your BS
3) It's IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise to collapse straightdown through it's own structure without a controlled demolition at such speed because it goes against the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which is why it's never happened before or since Sept 11 2001.
Now considering this, there is only one conclusion - the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolitions.
Your carrying with other excuses can't get around this.
A man walks into a room full of people with an SMG and kills them all, but you would claim that despite the dead bodies and the bullets, and video evidence of the people being shot, that he couldn't have done it because the security guards didn't see him bring in a gun.
Likewise, we don't need to have witnesses to people planting explosives, because we already know from science and previous evidence that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions. However it was done, it was done. Just like the man with the SMG still shooting people dead despite nobody seeing him bringing in a gun.
jinn what site debunks it? Ive been to 911myths.com (or something like that) which is ok. The other ones just attack the conspiracy theorists and don’t bother to attack the facts.
by seon on Thu Aug 17, 06 7:00pm
[+]
911myths .com is the site with the copy & pasted altered images showing bowing on the WTC towers without mentioning that they use parts of two different images stuck together to exaggerate this bowing. It's clear to see this because the windows on the left side of the image don't line up, and the smoke is a copy & paste.
They tell some lies too. I've caught out people before using those lies without realising it.
"Robotthinker, if you are willing to assume the conspiracy theories at those websites you visit is valid information, why can't you also visit a website that debunks it."
Jinn,I haven't made any assumptions either way.Everybody is familiar with the official version plus I have actually reviewed Popular mechanic's refutation of the controlled demolition theory as they brought up some challenging points.Perhaps I am leaning a little towards the controlled demolition camp because they have produced evidence that I myself haven't seen refuted sufficiently by anybody yet.Like I said though,I'm on the fence and I haven't placed a stake on either side yet ...
Benjamin Chertoff did the "research" on that Popular Mechanics article. He's a close cousin of Michael Chertoff, the head of homeland security. Small world, neh?
Try a google search on
"POPULAR MECHANICS 9/11 ARTICLE DEBUNKED"
Hmm copy and pasting sounds familiar doesn’t it?
I disagree with some of what that site says anyway. The parts about the prior knowledge anyway there’s moutons of evidence to prove there was.
by seon on Thu Aug 17, 06 8:53pm
[+]
(I disagree with some of what that site says anyway. by seon on Aug 17, 2006 8:53pm}
Which site? You are unclear
911myths.com
by seon on Thu Aug 17, 06 9:42pm
[+]
I used to chat at one time with a guy who "claimed" it was his site.
Lovelynice, where are the fucking witnesses? That is not an irrelevant minor point you frigging moron. If you went to court and accused somebody of murdering your old aunty and came up with some cock and bull fantasy version of events the judge might ask you to "call your first witness please" and you will say "Thats me your honour, the whole story runs around in my head. Nobody ever saw the accused do a single damn thing." No conspirators = No fucking conspiracy and I think Im entitled to be profane considering the bullshit you are peddling. People died you fucking idiot and all you can do is spout your rubbish and then ignore simple questions about evidence, logic and reason. I will ask again. Where are the witnesses? They dont exist do they? Because it never happened.
Seon, try visiting Debunking911 com
Its very professionally done...in a nut shell.
What troubles me the most is not the notion of a conspiracy behind the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, it's the fact that no one I've talked to has ever volunteered an actual THEORY.
I'm willing to accept certain ideas, such as the idea that the towers were brought down by explosives, but only if a person can go beyond the towers and come up with a theory about who was responsible. Otherwise there's no context; and without a context, there's no meaning.
{Lovelynice, where are the fucking witnesses? by Searchlight on Aug 17, 2006 10:28pm}
Witnesses to what? The witnesses to the EXPLOSIONS and the controlled demolitions?
Well, there are HUNDREDS OF THOSE! That's already been posted many times on this site, as you should know.
Check out HOW WERE THOSE BUILDINGS DESTROYED ON SEP11?
Just some of them;
Assistant Fire Commissioner: "I thought . . . before . . . No. 2 came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . . I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . the lower level of the building. You know like when they . . . blow up a building. . . ?”
# NYC firefighter: “It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . e originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
from The San Francisco Chronicle. Captain of Emergency Medical Services: "somewhere around the middle of the world trade center there was this orange and red flash coming out ... initially it was just one flash then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode ... and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides ... as far as could see these popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger going both up and down and then all around the building"
fireman2: We made it outside, we made it about a block.
fireman1: We made it at least 2 blocks.
fireman2: 2 blocks.
fireman1: and we started runnin'
fireman2: poch poch poch poch poch poch poch
fireman1: Floor by floor it started poppin' out ..
fireman2: It was as if as if they had detonated, det..
fireman1: yea detonated yea
fireman2: as if they had planned to take down a building,
boom boom boom boom boom boom boom boom ...
fireman1: All the way down, I was watchin it, and runnin'
9/11 Survivor Describes Multiple Explosions
"There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street toward Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
William Rodriguez, who was the last person out of the north tower, states that there was a massive explosion in the North Tower BEFORE the plane hit:
"When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above... Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center.
Should I post the whole lot? Is there any point considering that YOU, Searchlight, are just another shill using another alt name, and you're VERY OBVIOUS ABOUT IT.
{What troubles me the most is not the notion of a conspiracy behind the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, it's the fact that no one I've talked to has ever volunteered an actual THEORY.
by Applerod on Aug 17, 2006 11:38pm}
Ken from Dublin has, many times, but I guess you were too busy attacking his posts to notice.
Ah, Jinn, talking of nutshells
Common aspects of the Coincidence Theorist
1. Gullibly believes that buildings ALWAYS collapse symetrically into their own footprint, on every occassion.
2. Ignores all scientific evidence and commonsense which disputes (1) above.
3. Believes that winning the lottery four weeks in a row is easy, just like Arab hijackings succeeding in incapacitating the entire crew of a passenger jet before even a single crew member can press in the hijack alert code into any one of the keypads of the airphones or the FMC on the plane, not just once, but four times.
4. Believes that cellphones work in aircraft flying six miles up, in a plane flying at over 500mph, with a continuous long lasting connection - just by sheer luck!.
5. Allots superhuman powers to Arab hijackers, such as being able to incapacitate the entire crew of an aircraft before even a single crew member can type in the hijack alert code at any of several places on the plane, and the Arab hijackers succeed in this every time!
6. Key steps in argument rely on pejoratives, insults, and dodging of scientific studies by the excuse of saying "But this is not supporting the official version, therefore it's wrong!".
7. Complains about the use of 'common sense'; and completely ignores scientifically verifiable facts
8. Constant use of strawman arguments, assigning statements and arguments to the opposing person which have never been stated by said person, simply because these fictions are easier to argue with than what the other person actually said.
9. Ignores any evidence or scientific study which does not support the official version of events.
10. Relies on junk science based on blatantly erroneous and easily disputed statements of alleged fact.
11. Enjoys ZERO credibility whenever they make a statement, because their sources are using junk science as in (10) above.
12. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored whenever they do not support the official version of events. In other words, whatever the government says is "right", whatever anyone else says that is contrary to this is "wrong".
13. The coincidences and excuses to support them grow in the telling, and can swell to mind-boggling hallucinatory levels until the likelihood of the official version of events occurring becomes astronomically absurd.
14. The coincidence theorist attempts to use the false ascribing to the other person of more impossible beliefs than their own in order to make their own impossible coincidences seem more likely by comparison.
There you have it. The actions of a 9/11 "Arabs did it" coincidence theorist in a NUT shell
"It's impossible to prove that the WTC buildings were taken down WITHOUT controlled demolitions because
1) nobody has been able to do so with the empirical data and according to NIST's own models, it was impossible (they couldn't do it with even the worse case scenario)"
This is a lie. Popular Mechanics have a list of over 300 experts who can categorically prove the towers fell due to the plane impacts and subsequent fires.
"2) EVERY OTHER OCCASSION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel & concrete buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition."
A common logical fallacy - post-hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because the tower fell into it's own footprint it doesn't automatically mean it was demolition despite what happened to othe buildings. The truth is that there have never been identical situations to this.
"3) It's IMPOSSIBLE for a steel-framed hi-rise to collapse straightdown through it's own structure without a controlled demolition at such speed because it goes against the 3rd law of thermodynamics, which is why it's never happened before or since Sept 11 2001."
The "free-fall" data has been refuted many, many times. It is a myth.
Next!
{Popular Mechanics have a list of over 300 experts who can categorically prove the towers ...by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Aug 18, 06 12:17am}
You do know who Michael Chertoff is, don't you? The head of Homeland Security. His cousin, Benjamin Chertoff did the "research" and wrote most of that article. Small, small, small world isn't?
One his lies was about the 300+ experts. He told lots of lies in that article.
Like the lie that there had only been one intercept of errant aircraft before 9/11. This is a claim debunked even by one of Popular Mechanic's own cited "experts," Maj. Douglas Martin, who stated that there were, "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001."
He also used a lot of strawman arguments, and other false claims about what others had stated.
You can do a google search on POPULAR MECHANICS 9/11 ARTICLE DEBUNKED
By the way, your bullshit about them being able to prove the towers weren't controlled demolitions is just that, BULLSHIT.
{Popular Mechanics have a list of over 300 experts who can categorically prove the towers ...by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Aug 18, 06 12:17am}
{What about the 300+ experts that Popular Mechanics ...by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Aug 17, 06 7:39pm}
You do know who Michael Chertoff is, don't you? The head of Homeland Security. His cousin, Benjamin Chertoff did the "research" and wrote most of that article. Small, small, small world isn't?
One his lies was about the 300+ experts. He told lots of lies in that article.
Like the lie that there had only been one intercept of errant aircraft before 9/11. This is a claim debunked even by one of Popular Mechanic's own cited "experts," Maj. Douglas Martin, who stated that there were, "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001."
He also used a lot of strawman arguments, and other false claims about what others had stated.
You can do a google search on POPULAR MECHANICS 9/11 ARTICLE DEBUNKED
By the way, your bullshit about them being able to prove the towers weren't controlled demolitions is just that, BULLSHIT.
{ The "free-fall" data has been refuted many, many times.
by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Aug 18, 06 12:17am}
It's funny that you claim that, because not even once on this site, has ANYONE ever actually refuted it. You're just like the neothe1 the lying shill, aren't you? Always saying that something has been refuted without ever being able to do so.
Quotation gambit, 696~
"{What troubles me the most is not the notion of a conspiracy behind the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, it's the fact that no one I've talked to has ever volunteered an actual THEORY.
by Applerod on Aug 17, 2006 11:38pm}
Ken from Dublin has, many times, but I guess you were too busy attacking his posts to notice."
Ken, to his credit, did come forward with a theory, and I did notice. The word I so strategically used was: "volunteer" -- as in I had to really press him to put forth his theory. I applaud him for that, and encourage others to do the same; (I really mean that.) I'm just trying to find some sort of common ground.
Also, one of the things that is taught in sociology is that eyewitness reports are very unreliable. Not unreliable in the sense that the people giving the reports are lying, but unreliable in the sense that each person is having a separate, subjective view of a given situation.
If you are familiar with law then you understand this better.
And what's so ironic about drowning in all of these conspiracies is that the REAL truth gets lost, which I believe to be that Bush had a predisposition towards invading Iraq. Not to overstate the man's abilities, but I believe he twisted the information made available to him to suit the invasion of Iraq.
And for the record, I do feel very strongly that George Walker Bush is a disgrace to humanity.
Voted : Thousands have gone to the media - alas the media is their glove puppet - so not much hope there.
Take it to the media? I wonder who runs that circus? 
You want evidence?
Sorry, that was taken to China and melted down in a hurry. I guess it's too expensive to do here anymore. Glad they could save a few bucks.
No matter what evidence will ever be presented it will never be enough will it?
If you haven't seen the refutations of the freefall data you're not looking (deliberately?) hard enough.
I feel sorry for you in a way, Lovelynice. Your passion is admirable but your aim is way off.
Just for the record could you answer the following questions?
1) Who killed JFK?
2) How did "Princess" Diana die?
3) Have humans ever been to the moon?
4) Is there alien technology at Area 51?
Lovely Nice. I will answer all your questions once you prove to me that you actually exist and are not the creation of some Big Oil shill conspiracy. I dont have to explain WHY I dont think you exist and I dont have to give any reasons why I think the way I do. I am a conspiracy theorist and I claim that you are a conspiracy theory. Therefore all the balls are in your court. You have to do all the proving and I can just sit back and ignore your reality.
Furthermore Ken from Ireland does not exist. Need proof? Check out all the "Ken does not exist" web sites which are springing up everywhere. Nothing will EVER convince me that Ken is real. Therefore none of his reasoning can ever prove his existence because they are uttered by someone who does not exist and are therefore without value. I will now sit in the corner with my fingers in my ears singing loudly to myself so none of that "Ken exists" nonsense can infect my pure "Ken does not exist" thought processes. Protect your thought processes! Its all some of us have!
Interestingly Ken and Lovely Nice have gone quiet since I proved that they do not exist which is further proof that they are the creation of the mad duck himself. Note. There are no witnesses to any of the above but that doesnt matter because I am a Duck as well and therefore do not need evidence or witnesses or thought processes to reach any conclusions.
{ust for the record could you answer the following questions?
1) Who killed JFK?
2) How did "Princess" Diana die?
3) Have humans ever been to the moon?
4) Is there alien technology at Area 51?
by wideheadofknowledge on Fri Aug 18, 06 9:35am}
Irrelevant to 9/11, stay on topic. It's plain that you can't win the debate when you resort to trying to change the subject.
{Also, one of the things that is taught in sociology is that eyewitness reports are very unreliable. by Applerod on Fri Aug 18, 06 7:35am}
Which is why the Pentagon witnesses are easily dismissed.
But the WTC witnesses to explosions and controlled demolition supported by video evidence showing lines of explosions blowing out the floors before the falling debris could reach those floors, and there's seismic data showing impossibly short tremors revealing the use of explosives in those controlled demolitions.
Lovely does he have any proof? And jinn I will as soon as my Internet speed gets faster again. I still have some questions about 911.
by seon on Fri Aug 18, 06 4:45pm
[+]
more like a conspiracy without motivation.
kens, i challenge you to suggest an actual purpose for any of these things, some way that demolishing the towers or using missiles or faking confessions from the wrong person would help the U.S. government, a reason for them to use all the time, effort, and funds required to set up such elaborate methods of accomplishing a simple task. i challenge you.
you will disregard this challenge, paste some propaganda, insult me and others, proclaim yourself omniscient, and all the while, not answer the question. proceed.
{more like a conspiracy without motivation.
by neothe1 on Sat Aug 19, 06 1:06am}
I don't know if you noticed, neothe1, but Ken isn't posting on this ballot yet.
However, I can answer that. The motivation is obvious; POWER.
Some powerful people wanted more of it.
thank you for your expected non-response, ken.
Neothe1 - I want to know why you promulgate this dichotomy whereby on one hand you proclaim no US government involvement or conspiracy, and then on the other hand proclaiming that Bush knew the attacks were coming and allowed them to go ahead - in other words allowed the mass murder of thousands of innocent Americans in the greatest dereliction of duty by a US president in history - for ulterior motives - namely to invade Iraq as you rightly state, this is treason, plain and simple!
Is it treason or not neothe1 and should Bush be impeached?
Answer that question please.
Not too much to ask is it neothe1?
Here's some witnesses Searchlight - point your dim beam on these and suck George Bush's ________ ;
FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio:
"I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."
Here are some other quotes;
Chief Frank Cruthers:
“There was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse."
Wall Street Journal reporter John Bussey:
“I . . . looked up out of the office window to see what seemed like perfectly synchronized explosions coming from each floor. . . . One after the other, from top to bottom, with a fraction of a second between, the floors blew to pieces.”
Another Wall Street Journal reporter:
‘My God, they’re going to bring the building down.’ And they, whoever they are, HAD SET CHARGES. . . . I saw the explosions.”
Beth Fertig of WNYC Radio:
“It just descended like a timed explosion-like when they are deliberately bringing a building down. . . . It was coming down so perfectly that in one part of my brain I was thinking...They got everyone out, and they're bringing the building down because they have to.'”
Teresa Veliz:
“There were explosions going off everywhere. I was convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a control panel pushing detonator buttons. . . . There was another explosion. And another. I didn't know where to run."
Steve Evans:
“I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . there was a series of explosions.”
Thomas Turilli:
“...it almost sounded like bombs going off, like boom, boom, boom, like seven or eight."
Craig Carlsen:
“...heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down.”
Edward Cachia:
“As my officer and I were looking at the south tower, it just gave. It actually gave at a lower floor, not the floor where the plane hit. . . . we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation, explosives, because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.”
Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory:
“I thought . . . before . . . came down, that I saw low-level flashes. . . .
Lieutenant Evangelista . . . asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I . . . saw a flash flash flash . . . the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw.”
Captain Karin Deshore:
“Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.”...“Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."
Firefighter Richard Banaciski:
“...there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.”
Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick:
"We looked up at the . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up . . . . It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. . . . My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV."
Captain Jay Swithers:
“I took a quick glance at the building and while I didn't see it falling, I saw a large section of it blasting out, which led me to believe it was just an explosion.”
Battalion Chief Brian Dixon:
“I was . . . hearing a noise and looking up. . . . the lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out."
Firefighter Stephen Viola: “You heard like loud booms . . . "
Battalion Chief Dominick DeRubbio: “It was weird how it started to come down. It looked like it was a timed explosion."
Firefighter Kenneth Rogers:
"here was an explosion in the south tower. . . . I kept watching. Floor after floor after floor. One floor under another after another and when it hit about the fifth floor, I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I was there in '93."
Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman Paul Isaac:
“...there were definitely bombs in those buildings...” Isaac added: “...many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.”
The 9-11 Commission of pure farce:
William Rodriguez: "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.”...“I contacted NIST . . . four times without a response. Finally, I asked them before they came up with their conclusion . . . if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces.”
Firefighter Louie Cacchioli:
“I felt like I was being put on trial in a court room” .... “They were trying to twist my words and make the story fit only what they wanted to hear. All I wanted to do was tell the truth and when they wouldn’t let me do that, I walked out.”
** karma **
Loose Change has some slow motion video sequences
loosechange 911 . com
The following has further eyewitnesses
you tube . com / watch ? v = sCDUyV6aXeM & search = 911 % 20 eyewitness
you tube . com / watch ? v = CAAj544e1cc & search = 911 % 20 eyewitness
you tube . com / watch ? v = bQucQvXVhvc & search = 911 % 20 eyewitness
The best I've seen is a mainstream Italian TV documentary on the controlled demolitions. But I don't have a link for that.
i've already disproven that. move on to something else.
beter yet, answer the question.
{i've already disproven that.
by neothe1 on Sat Aug 19, 06 6:09pm}
WHEN AND WHERE. Cite the exact ballots and comments by time and date, with quotes.
Also, stop lying and claiming that you have proven anything, when you most definitely haven't.
{ paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste paste
by neothe1 on Sat Aug 19, 06 4:43pm}
That is that sort of thing that a braindead moronic shill like you posts when you can't back anything you state with sources, links, and quotes.
already proven, now answer the question, coward.
Stop lying and claiming that you have proven anything, when you most definitely haven't.
If you think that you have, then cite WHEN AND WHERE. Cite the exact ballots and comments by time and date, with quotes. Because so far, you haven't proven a thing except that you like to lie.
proven. answer.
You need to prove something before claiming that you have.
So stop lying and claiming that you have proven anything, when you most definitely haven't.
If you think that you have, then cite WHEN AND WHERE. Cite the exact ballots and comments by time and date, with quotes. Because so far, you haven't proven a thing except that you like to lie.
** karma **
I think it would be rather simple over a long period of time to place those demolition charges in the buildings. You get some John Smiths dressed up like "electricians" or "A/C repairman" with the proper tools, training, timing and access and i'm sure they can hide that stuff. When was the last time you hovered over a repairman in a big office complex asking what the hell was he doing?
There was plenty of time and ways to get the explosives in there. To say otherwise is stupid. They could've put them in over a period of MONTHS before that day. They could've brought them in on nights only when hardly anyone was there. They could've used areas of the building that were off limits for repairs to the regular sheeple workers.
There was plenty of time.
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9-11, there were a number of unannounced and unusual drills where sections of both the Twin Towers and building 7 were evacuated for 'security reasons'.
Daria Coard, a guard in the North Tower, told Newsday that security detail was working 12 hour shifts for two weeks before 9-11, but on Thursday the 6th, bomb sniffing dogs were abruptly removed from the building.
On the weekend of 9/8, 9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up... "Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower.
"I think it would be rather simple over a long period of time to place those demolition charges in the buildings. You get some John Smiths dressed up like "electricians" or "A/C repairman" with the proper tools, training, timing and access and i'm sure they can hide that stuff."
LOL! And of course the THOUSANDS of REAL repairmen, maitenence workers, janitors, electricians, telephone line installers, computer techs, air conditioning and heating techs, plumbers, fire saftey inspectors, security video camera techs, mechanics, office renovators, elevator mechanics, painters, delivery and courior people, window washers, security guards and the not to mention the day and night office workers themselves, would never ever notice the one iota of miles of the necessary wiring and tons of planted explosives, or those installing them. Com'on Lovelynice, not even you can swallow a miracle theory?
{...would never ever notice the one iota of miles of the necessary wiring and tons of planted explosives, or those installing them. by Jinn_the_Kafir on Wed Aug 23, 06 11:17am}
Jinn, why would they notice any extra wiring among the huge amount of wiring already in the building?
Also, why would there need to be huge amounts of wiring when radio signals and remote-controlled bombs are common these days. The USA produces hundred of thousands of remote-controlled bomb detonators every year.
Your bullshit excuse about window washers and couriers even recognising what was going on, let alone seeing it, shows up that all you were doing was using them as "filler" for your excuse.
As to the technicians, unless it's their own specialty, they aren't going to care - ore even recognise - what those other wires and materials are. You don't sersiously elieve the wires are going to be labelled as "wires going to bombs", and the explosives themselves would be placed around the steel beams (behind the drywall) not out in the open.
They had to plan for taking down these buildings one day, anyway. How to do it, wouldn't be some spur of the moment thing.
In any case, the mere fact they could only be controlled demolitions destroys all excuses along the lines of "We, don't know how it was done, so it didn't happen" - because it did happen.
It's like when a man is stabbed to death, and some idiot comes along and says "Yeah I know he's got forty stab wounds all over his body, but I don't see a knife, so he must've been strangled"
{LovelyNice. Hi you dont seem to be....
by Searchlight on Mon Aug 21, 06 2:50am (on the ballot "JINN THE KAFIR - SHOULD HE BE CHARGED WITH INCITEMENT TO HATRED?")}
How curiously similar to this
{LovelyNice, as your attitude, ....
by MegiddoDawn on Fri Aug 18, 06 5:51am (on the wiped old ballot "Which 9/11 witnesses were more credible?"}
and both engage in filling entire paragraphs with personal attacks and insults instead of citing facts backed by sources, links, and quotes.
You do know who Michael Chertoff is, don't you? The head of Homeland Security. His cousin, Benjamin Chertoff did the "research" and wrote most of that article. Small, small, small world isn't?
Same name, no relation.
NEXT!!!!
{You do know who Michael Chertoff is, don't you? The head of Homeland Security. His cousin, Benjamin Chertoff did the "research" and wrote most of that article. Small, small, small world isn't?
Same name, no relation.
by wideheadofknowledge on Tue Aug 29, 06 12:22am}
PROVE IT.
You couldn't cite anything could you?
"Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him."
Benjamin Chertoff
Straight from the man himself. Oh but this doesn't count, right because he's a shill too?
I tell you what YOU show US the family tree that ties them so close together that Benjamin would have been happy to cover up the murder of 3000 people (as well as persuading the other "9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story."
Just keep throwing us the softballs and we'll keep scoring every time.
You have NOTHING.
First off, i dont know where this is going to go, but here it is set. On 9/10, a CEO of the Building reported there being no access to the computers, and that the computers were all down, on 9/11 none of the ceos or major bosses went to work that day. On 9/11 at 6am in the morning the flight that hit the tower a worker that was going to work in the tower, didnt make it on the plane. How do you explain these facts. How do you explain that on 9/10-9/11 there were certain parts of the Building blocked off. How is it that in '93 the towers were hit but didnt collapse and one plane was a Double Decker. and this time there wasnt. "The Towers werent ment to fall" says a worker. Another thing is, when you were ever a kid an playing with lets say a style of blocks, and you were to hit the blocks near the top and near the middle, Where would hit the floor first? Yes the top would collapse into the rest and then go downward from there. The Twin Towers Fell from the bottom up, meaning, that something had to be ignitied or set off, for the towers to collapse, it is as simple as watching demolition to a old building if youhit the top of the builiding it wont all collapse if it is nothing but concrete and metal. it would create a giant gash an then fall from the top down to the bottom.
Now another thing to take into thought, how did tower 7 fall? if no plane hit it?
Biggest thing thought an disscused by people, The pentagon has a certain area where a certain person stays and it is a complete reienforced wall, pretty much a bombshelter. Now if the "Terrorists" did all of this planning and all of this work, why out of all 8-9 walls in the pentagon would they fly a plane into the only reienforced part of it? Notice no one was killed and noone, important was in that part of the pentagon.
Another fact, exactly 12 mintures after the pentagon was it, Shelly mitsui of a gas station less than a 1/2 mile of the pentagon. Has secrutiy camera set up at the station, not more than 12 minutes later, FBI and Government officials were seen going in and taking the tapes an going back to where ever they came from. Please Explain that.
The last fact and then you all can rip on me.For being nuts which i am not, i am a Certified Vet. and Father of 1.
Why is it, and Many people caught it on camera, that when the second plane hit the tower, well sorry let me rephrase that 2-3 seconds before the tower, was there an explosion right before the plane it, It is on over 30 video cameras that day. it is seen on tape. real footage. Also why wasnt any of the planes decoders found, and how come we didnt you our Airlines Coding system to manualy fly the plane some where else?
One more fact i some how forgot.
The pentagon was it after the towers, When it was hit there wasnt any site of a large plane hitting the building, it was more like a Small plane with about 20-30 people, also at that exact time a C1-30, (For all who didnt know is a cargo airplance) was seen flying and then made an immediate turn to and out of the area with in seconds, Reasons for people to believe and wittnesses that the c1-30 infact did shoot something from the plane.
Now im going to say something that was said from a man who wrote a book and is a retired General or something another from the us army.
On 9-8-9-11 the Us Airfoce were testing out, and doing what it would soon to be called test flights and emergency's is someone were to hit the towers? or do anything drastic in any time. How does one explain this and get this fiasco done.
Please someone tell me.
Isn't it interesting that the above comment was posted exactly 5 years after the event. That's FIVE LONG YEARS, and yet still, the same unproven completely ludicrious ballots keep appearing.
It's the Searchlight and alias party all again. Ignore the attention seeker,or he'll be denying you exist too.
Well now, if that isn't the box calling the kettle black...
Thoroughly vote-spammed ballot with a totally meaningless result so far removed from reality and any presented evidence, that you have to wonder why anyone posts these kinds of ballots. Propaganda games, maybe.
Watch as the votes for the vote-spammer's voices climb by upto hundreds of votes a day as he tries desperately to compensate for his small mind and flacid impotency.
Where's some real video of a huge plane hitting the Pentagon? You can't show any.
When is that you are you going to explain how it is possible for all the supports on a floor (both the undamaged structural supports and the damaged ones in varying amounts of damage), to fail on all sides of a building - at the exact same time - not just in 1 building, but in all 3 buildings on the same day?
When is that you are you going to provide links, quotes, and sources to back your claims about the cellphones, and show a scientific study that shows that cellphones can make successful many-minutes-long calls from passenger jets flying at passenger jet speeds, and at passenger jet altitudes?
When is that you are you going to cite any event where steel-framed hi-rises collapsed straight-down into their bases any time in the entire history of steel-framed hi-rise buildings without a controlled demolition being the cause - apart from the 3 buildings of 9-11 (WTC 1, 2, 7)?
When will you back your point of view about 9-11 with a link, source, and quote from somebody, anybody, whose mathematical simulation or computer simulation based on the empirical data (without distortion, deviation, or bullshit fictions) proves that there was enough energy for a gravity-driven collapse?
Please explain WHY if it was floors collapsing, then how the explosions were blowing out floors BEFORE those floors from above could reach them? This is visible on the videos in slow motion - you can see such on this video showing explosions going off many stories below the collapse, and eyewitness accounts of secondary explosions as well as their reporting of the first big explosions happening BELOW the plane impact point. Witnesses confirm this;
video . google . com / videoplay ? docid = 3249714675910247150 & q = 911 & h l = en
Please explain why the seismic tremors were shorter than the collapse times, and cite at least a couple of geologists and/seismic experts explaining this - because according to everyone I've asked, this is impossible and shows that the energy source for the tremors was not the collapsing buildings but could only be from another source (explosions).
You've been asked to provide real answers to many of these questions asked by Ken from Dublin, Lovelynice, Meteor7, Coldcircuit, Blackcat06, Tank Girl, but you have never answered them
|
