Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Previous 1 2 … 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next

Topic: 9/11 truth documentary among 'most watched' on PBS
Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 09/15/12 08:40 AM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 09/15/12 08:42 AM
Here's a terrific NY Times article as found in the IHT. The writer does a great job of debunking controlled demolition: "The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck. Moreover, a demolition project would have required the walls of the towers to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up. All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other." Reposted from JREF All of the above is true and yet a demolition is still entirely possible. There were explosives and explosions heard at the bottom of the buildings according to many witnesses. There were even casualties from these explosions...before the plane even hit the tower. Also, puffs of explosives and lights were seen and recorded in video tapes of the collapse. The "security" company was a Bush controlled company. There was also an entire floor that was off limits to everyone. That floor gave access to all the elevators and it made it possible to use them to bring explosives to any floor of the building. There were witnesses who saw men coming and going from that floor dressed in cover-alls. There was no security in the basement and anyone could have driven a truck load of explosives into that building and loaded them into freight elevators and brought them up to the floor that was off limits. hit. The explosives would have made characteristic sounds and flashes in a sequence before the movement of the building ... which did not occur. Soundless, lightless explosives do not exist. Aside from the fact that you and the media ignore witness testimonies of hearing explosives, there are a lot of different kinds (and sizes) of explosives and not all of them are large and noisy. Armature video camera do not capture sounds much further than a block so those sounds would not have been captured. I recently had to purchase a long corded microphone to record a video that was fifteen feet away. People keep trying to prove explosives were not used because that is what they want to believe and that is what the story their lying government wants them to believe. This is not logical. That building was designed to withstand a plane that size. It would not have fallen that way from a plane hitting it. It would not have exploded into dust. If it had been a "pancake" collapse there would have been a huge pile of debris at the foot print of that building. Instead, the city was covered with fine dust inches deep everywhere. There are also videos of the explosions going off below the collapse and of course non-believers explain them away as "pressure" but they are all lined up very neatly, so um.... I don't buy that explanation. You people are in denial. yep,all 680 Tons of it,let alone placing them in specific Locations and Sequence! You're dreaming!And there are no VIDS of Explosives going off! Especially since other People saw Gravity-Weapons etc! They had MONTHS TO PLACE THE EXPLOSIVES. MONTHS. And YES there are videos of explosives going off just beneath the floors as they free fell and turned into dust even before hitting the street. Debris turned into dust BEFORE HITTING THE STREET... and still you people claim "pancake collapse." Denial.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 09/15/12 08:41 AM
And since the defenders of the official account of 9/11 want to be obnoxious and make fun of the truth movement, I am taking the discussion about the NORAD tapes to another thread if anyone is interested in discussing that subject in a civil manner. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/336331 so anyone not believing the Crap the CT-Movement is spreadin supports the Official Version?

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 09/15/12 08:45 AM
And since the defenders of the official account of 9/11 want to be obnoxious and make fun of the truth movement, I am taking the discussion about the NORAD tapes to another thread if anyone is interested in discussing that subject in a civil manner. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/336331 so anyone not believing the Crap the CT-Movement is spreadin supports the Official Version? So you don't support the official account? That's good to know. So then what is YOUR conspiracy theory? I would like to hear it.

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 09/15/12 08:48 AM Edited by Conrad_73 on Sat 09/15/12 09:19 AM
And since the defenders of the official account of 9/11 want to be obnoxious and make fun of the truth movement, I am taking the discussion about the NORAD tapes to another thread if anyone is interested in discussing that subject in a civil manner. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/336331 so anyone not believing the Crap the CT-Movement is spreadin supports the Official Version? So you don't support the official account? That's good to know. So then what is YOUR conspiracy theory? I would like to hear it. getting caught with their Pants down!(PANTSED)

s1owhand Joined Fri 05/18/07 Posts: 29437	Sat 09/15/12 09:08 AM
Here's a terrific NY Times article as found in the IHT. The writer does a great job of debunking controlled demolition: "The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck. Moreover, a demolition project would have required the walls of the towers to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up. All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other." Reposted from JREF All of the above is true but there is also additional scientific evidence that is even better proof that explosives were not used. There were many cameras and recording devices on the buildings by the time the second plane hit. The explosives would have made characteristic sounds and flashes in a sequence before the movement of the building ... which did not occur. Soundless, lightless explosives do not exist. What the ignorant C/Ters try to prove is that the glass windows being blown out from the air pressure of the floors above falling and pushing the air out of each floor like a bellows, are caused by explosives. The sequence is wrong and even a casual review by anyone who understands the process proves there were no explosives. ANYTIME, you read where a supposed expert mentions, IN ANY WAY, that there was a possibility that explosives were used, he/she is either lying or really doesn't have a clue. You claim to be a "scientist?" I find it really hard to believe that you can't see the obvious. All other scientists and engineers apparently now agree that the evidence for terrorist piloted planes flying into the buildings is "obvious".

Conrad_73 Joined Sat 09/29/07 Posts: 22488	Sat 09/15/12 09:52 AM
Here's a terrific NY Times article as found in the IHT. The writer does a great job of debunking controlled demolition: "The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck. Moreover, a demolition project would have required the walls of the towers to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up. All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other." Reposted from JREF All of the above is true but there is also additional scientific evidence that is even better proof that explosives were not used. There were many cameras and recording devices on the buildings by the time the second plane hit. The explosives would have made characteristic sounds and flashes in a sequence before the movement of the building ... which did not occur. Soundless, lightless explosives do not exist. What the ignorant C/Ters try to prove is that the glass windows being blown out from the air pressure of the floors above falling and pushing the air out of each floor like a bellows, are caused by explosives. The sequence is wrong and even a casual review by anyone who understands the process proves there were no explosives. ANYTIME, you read where a supposed expert mentions, IN ANY WAY, that there was a possibility that explosives were used, he/she is either lying or really doesn't have a clue. You claim to be a "scientist?" I find it really hard to believe that you can't see the obvious. All other scientists and engineers apparently now agree that the evidence for terrorist piloted planes flying into the buildings is "obvious". I wonder what it must be like,seeing a Conspiracy behind every Corner!

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 09/15/12 10:28 AM
Here's a terrific NY Times article as found in the IHT. The writer does a great job of debunking controlled demolition: "The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck. Moreover, a demolition project would have required the walls of the towers to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up. All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other." Reposted from JREF All of the above is true but there is also additional scientific evidence that is even better proof that explosives were not used. There were many cameras and recording devices on the buildings by the time the second plane hit. The explosives would have made characteristic sounds and flashes in a sequence before the movement of the building ... which did not occur. Soundless, lightless explosives do not exist. What the ignorant C/Ters try to prove is that the glass windows being blown out from the air pressure of the floors above falling and pushing the air out of each floor like a bellows, are caused by explosives. The sequence is wrong and even a casual review by anyone who understands the process proves there were no explosives. ANYTIME, you read where a supposed expert mentions, IN ANY WAY, that there was a possibility that explosives were used, he/she is either lying or really doesn't have a clue. You claim to be a "scientist?" I find it really hard to believe that you can't see the obvious. All other scientists and engineers apparently now agree that the evidence for terrorist piloted planes flying into the buildings is "obvious". Propaganda, and a Huge lie.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sat 09/15/12 02:55 PM
And since the defenders of the official account of 9/11 want to be obnoxious and make fun of the truth movement, I am taking the discussion about the NORAD tapes to another thread if anyone is interested in discussing that subject in a civil manner. http://mingle2.com/topic/show/336331

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 09/15/12 02:58 PM
I guess asking you people to discuss in a civil manner is too much to ask then. It figures.

Bestinshow Joined Mon 06/01/09 Posts: 5540	Sat 09/15/12 05:04 PM
I guess asking you people to discuss in a civil manner is too much to ask then. It figures. Of course it does if they used facts, logic and deductive reasoning they would be on our side.

metalwing Joined Fri 11/14/08 Posts: 26218	Sat 09/15/12 06:10 PM
I guess asking you people to discuss in a civil manner is too much to ask then. It figures. Of course it does if they used facts, logic and deductive reasoning they would be on our side. There are sufficient facts to carry the case. With every C/T theory debunked, there isn't much left to do but watch the sky for aliens.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 09/15/12 06:32 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 09/15/12 06:41 PM
I guess asking you people to discuss in a civil manner is too much to ask then. It figures. Of course it does if they used facts, logic and deductive reasoning they would be on our side. There are sufficient facts to carry the case. With every C/T theory debunked, there isn't much left to do but watch the sky for aliens. You have not nor has anyone "debunked" every C/T theory. What the 9/11 commission did was hire a movie producer (Michael Bronner) to fabricate a movie about UA fight 93 and sell that story as "truth" to the general public who spend their time watching movies and the boob tube. (What a bunch of suckers the public who believed that fiction!) That same Michael Bronner was the journalist who was given the NORAD TAPES that was used by the 9/11 Commission in their attempt to "debunk" the conspiracy theories about flight 93 that were hatched from real life testimony on national television about the military saying they had been ready and waiting for the order to shoot down the hijacked planes, and the "theory" about flight 93 being shot down. I'm sure Michael Bronner made millions on that movie. And the 9/11 Commission got to change the original account of 9/11 and PROTECT the Bush/Cheney administration from allegations of being complicit in the attacks. It is not such a stretch to believe that anyone who can produce a movie about UA flight 93 can surly produce fake or altered NORAD tapes for the 9/11 Commission to use in changing the official account. They were desperate to "debunk" theories about their conspiracies that, by the way, were based solely on FACTS AND INTERVIEWS done on national television and now preserved on youtube for anyone who cares and takes the time to watch. So you can include the 9/11 Commission in with your other fake "debunking" buddies because they did their debunking the Criminal Cabal old fashioned way....with Hollywood producers and bribes.

Jeanniebean Joined Wed 01/30/08 Posts: 40028	Sat 09/15/12 06:38 PM Edited by Jeanniebean on Sat 09/15/12 06:42 PM
So you can believe a journalist Hollywood producer over a Military General and a Colonel if you want, but I chose to believe the first account told by the General and the Colonel rather than the one by the 9/11 Commission director who majored in college in "public myth making." Check it out if you don't believe me. Its all facts. Public Myth making --- that is what the 9/11 Commission did. Created a myth.