You NEVER post decent arguments with me.

 

You're confused .its the othe way around...

Anybody - Watch the whole of this if you havent already......

 

911 - Eyewitness (google video link)

 

or get a large higher quality version through a torrent HERE

 

or a DVD quality version through a torrent from THIS PAGE

where is the proof that the "earthquake" sounds were not edited into the video. and if they are actual parts of the video, what does that prove. it is a general conclusion among architectural experts that the burning jet fuel weakened the steel of the floors affected by the fire, and the floors became unable to support the weight of the buildings above those floors, therefore the building collasped. you are the worst conspiracy theorist i have ever come across. why don't you turn your attention to the moon landing?

Don't mention the moon landings....it's a bad attempt to discredit any genuine questions about 9/11 and it's obvious.

Those architectural experts of yours who wrote in the Official 9/11 Story were lying through their teeth.

 

Those sounds were not edited in....and it shows quite clearly that detonations were used at the base of the buildings to destroy the core of the structure.

The officail commission actually states that the buildings don't have such core.

When in real life it truly does.

In the video hear endless amounts of people saying in real time...."there's been another explosion" and you can obviously hear them....then SEE the smoke rising at the base.

 

I'm sorry, but if anyone actually believes buildings fall down like that without the use of carefully places bombs is absolutely kidding themselves, 100%.

You can see the charges going off as the building falls, CLEARLY.

 

And as with the twin towers, building 7 (WTC7) fell down exactly on it's own footprint.....and they said it was because of fires....that's lies......

If you could do that to a building with random fires then I think demolition experts would be out of a job. Plus it was admitted that WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition by it's owner (Larry Silverstein, who owns all the buildings at the WTC).

This little detial was not included in the Official 9/11 'report' and they said it was down to fires, that's more fabricated lies.

Don't mention the moon landings....it's a bad attempt to discredit any genuine questions about 9/11 and it's obvious.

Those architectural experts of yours who wrote in the Official 9/11 Story were lying through their teeth.

 

Those sounds were not edited in....and it shows quite clearly that detonations were used at the base of the buildings to destroy the core of the structure.

The officail commission actually states that the buildings don't have such core.

When in real life it truly does.

In the video hear endless amounts of people saying in real time...."there's been another explosion" and you can obviously hear them....then SEE the smoke rising at the base.

 

I'm sorry, but if anyone actually believes buildings fall down like that without the use of carefully places bombs is absolutely kidding themselves, 100%.

You can see the charges going off as the building falls, CLEARLY.

 

And as with the twin towers, building 7 (WTC7) fell down exactly on it's own footprint.....and they said it was because of fires....that's lies......

If you could do that to a building with random fires then I think demolition experts would be out of a job. Plus it was admitted that WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition by it's owner (Larry Silverstein, who owns all the buildings at the WTC).

This little detial was not included in the Official 9/11 'report' and they said it was down to fires, that's more fabricated lies.

 

^ that's not even an acceptable response. you danced around the issue proving nothing. good try though.

I danced around the issue proving nothing??? Man, you are very very stupid.

Everything I said is fine you fool.

 

I bet your the type of person who thinks you know a bit about everything....always ready to put a few words in on a subject....and those words are either childish, ignorant dis-information or......well.....actually it's pretty much just childish, ignorant dis-information.

 

And of course you will respond to this with "No, what YOU say is ignorant and childish fiction" or something like that....something quite simple and meaningless.

 

You probably will use my above examples of what YOU normally write and say "Your right, I am going to say what YOU say is ignorant and childish fiction"

 

I feel sorry for your friends.

 

(and I bet you'll have thought about saying "I feel sorry for you friends, if you have any" in response)...

^ that's not even an acceptable response. you danced around the issue proving nothing. good try though.

 

 

And you think that being condescending and arrogant helps YOUR side of the argument?

 

 

Quite to the contrary, my friend.

 

 

Don't be a hypocrit. I can't STAND hypocrits.

And you think that being condescending and arrogant helps YOUR side of the argument?

 

 

Quite to the contrary, my friend.

 

 

Don't be a hypocrit. I can't STAND hypocrits.

 

you seem to think so.... dont get mad at me for the art you perfected... you must not like yourself too much...i mean if your just as arrogant and even more condescending then you are a hypocrit...and you hate those. that sounds like a problem to me. you cant stand hypocrits? well i cant either, so please STOP.

What?

 

 

I have no idea what you just said.

ok in simple english you are a hypocrit and VERY condescending.

ok in simple english you are a hypocrit and VERY condescending.

You seem to be a lot bitchier than normal lately. Something bothering you?

You seem to be a lot bitchier than normal lately. Something bothering you?

 

Yes alot of things.

Well, just a thought, but you don't have to reply to every political post. You might relax a bit. Its only a messageboard, after all.

im quite relaxed. i suggest others on here do the same. nothing on message boards bother me nor do i care what goes on.

And this stuff isn't fun, it's serious.

 

Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries

Dr. Steven Jones' analysis on WTC steel about to be released

 

Scientific analysis on WTC steel debris undertaken by BYU Professor Steven Jones proves that the twin towers were demolished by means of incendiary devices and the public release of the conclusive evidence is imminent.

 

Jones' has conducted over 40 peer reviewed scientific studies two of which were published in Nature and Scientific American.

 

Continue this great article HERE

there have been enought test to show that is not true. and the towers fell because of the planes. im gonna believe the experts on this one.

No no, there is the "official" report, which is full of lies.....

 

Believe what you wan't.....I'm not doing it to make you change your mind.....your TOO far gone and are very insignificant.

hahhaha keep pushing these fairy tales all you want. the majority of people see them for what they are. fiction.

:)

there have been enought test to show that is not true. and the towers fell because of the planes. im gonna believe the experts on this one.

 

Listen, until recently Dr Steven Jones was a faithful supporter of George W. Bush.

 

He's not trying to cover anything up or make up new things....he's saying it as it is.

 

And you just can't prove what he says wrong.

 

You can say "I don't believe it" but you can't say it's wrong because it's pretty water tight. Obviously the documents released by the government are going to clear them of blame....

 

Dr Steven E. Jones' paper — written by an actual professor who works at an actual research university — has made him a celebrity in the conspiracy universe. He is now co-chairman of a group called the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes about 50 professors from institutions like Clemson University, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Wisconsin.

I think Madonna said....

 

"I have truth on my side,

You only have deceit

You'll see, somehow, someday"

 

LOL......just to clarify....it's just a lyric which I am applying to the situation....I am not a big madonna nerd....lol......nor do I think see is in any way insightful.

A short animation with video and photos illustrating the final moments of Flight 77 on September 11, 2001.

 

This SUPPORTS the notion that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

 

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/jul...6casestudy.htm

 

This has me thinking onwards from my previous recent posts about the Pentagon crash.

 

The massive cover-up of information surrounding the Pentagon event is quite likely to be a purposeful one. And it's really quite clever.

 

All the cameras (70+ of them) which were taken by the FBI must show what truly happened. So, due to the awful footage we have seen up until know, we can't see exactly what DID hit and it does nothing but leave us with doubts.

 

These doubts and questions could be playing right into the hands of the corrupt section of the US Government (who I believe were behind these attacks) because all these questions which are based on the info/video we have seen could be quashed by the release of clear footage which shows flight 77 striking the Pentagon.

 

This would lead to a massive mainstream media attack on the 9/11 truth movement, with this Pentagon issue then being used to try and discredit the movement and shift attention away from all the more obvious and sustainable smoking guns which show far more clearly how much involvement the Government had.

 

I'm very cautious over this issure recently.

Listen, until recently Dr Steven Jones was a faithful supporter of George W. Bush.

 

He's not trying to cover anything up or make up new things....he's saying it as it is.

 

And you just can't prove what he says wrong.

 

You can say "I don't believe it" but you can't say it's wrong because it's pretty water tight. Obviously the documents released by the government are going to clear them of blame....

 

Dr Steven E. Jones' paper — written by an actual professor who works at an actual research university — has made him a celebrity in the conspiracy universe. He is now co-chairman of a group called the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes about 50 professors from institutions like Clemson University, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Wisconsin.

 

Yeah im still gonna go with the other experts that say otherwise....

http://911myths.com/html/wtc__demolition_.html

 

for all the myths about the towers not falling because of the planes hitting it.

 

AND

 

Collapse of the Towers: Construction

 

The complete collapse of the Twin Towers has more to do with the construction than anything else. Yes, it was the fires that collapsed the building but if it were not for the construction, a total collapse my not have occurred. Ironically the construction also saved many lives by letting the towers stand as long as it did. This page explains it's construction and provides evidence for collapse by fire.

 

"Tube in a Tube"

 

The designers coined the term "Tube in a Tube" to describe the buildings construction. The design was an innovation of it's day. Thick steel columns ran up the middle of the building. This houses the elevators, stairwells electrical conduits, water, sewer and other services which run up and down the length of the building.

 

The columns of the building normally found evenly spaced out on a given floor became the outer wall of the building. This left large open areas for renting. A good explanation of this can be found on PBS.

 

Instead of incasing each column in heavy concrete, (Normal fire proofing) the designers relied on 'sprayed on' fire proofing with a 2 hour rating to protect the load bearing columns and trusses from fire.

 

For you to understand the collapse you will have to remember four main elements.

 

* Core columns

* Perimeter columns

* Floor Trusses

* Fire proofing

 

The WTC was essentially bolted together like an erector set. Each average floor had 376 5/8" bolts, 188 Truss seats, 120 ViscoElastic pieces and 120 gusset plates.

 

Below is a diagram of the truss system with connections.

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/towers.htm

An article on the WTC collapse written by the head of materials engineering at MIT.

 

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

 

i got a million more post coming to debunk this sad theories about 911.

 

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/index_np.html

 

http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline03/0203feat.html

 

a plane did hit the pentagon

 

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

 

 

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