100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: US Military Officers Demand 9-11 Investigation | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
All well and good say there were charges in the building........how do you know they weren't pre-placed by the terrorists.......it was a very elaborate plan.......and even if they could prove that charges were placed in the building with through blast patterns......they could inconclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was impossible for the terrorists to have planted them.......the theory then becomes a moot point amyways and a conspiracy theory that the government institutted the attack to go to war......poimt still not proven anymore than any other conspiracy theory throught history. Did Neal Armstrong land on the moon, is area 54 holding aliens, John F Kennedy and so many more...... You mean Area 51 right? Not fair to equate this CT with others...this one has hard evidences of a conspiracy. There had to be explosives in every building hit....especially the WTC's...weight does not turn cement into dust and send it flying all over the area much less cause these buildings to fall free fall into their own footprints. Again, people need to look before posting truthinesses...not a debate really, just people parroting the Duhnier's shill speak. Following the government issued lie is curious since so many don't trust the government these days you'd think they'd be the ones questioning all this...oh wait, 9-11 happened under the Dippic... I see. haha... there had to be explosives in every building hit... your assumptions are not built on any shred of tangible evidence. Like most "truthers" it's just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall and hoping that something sticks. There are hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane that hit the pentagon. Is Paul Begala one of the Bushies that lied about seeing the plane flying over the beltway? What about the lightpoles that were knocked over and the damage to the cars? Yeah a missile... Oh yeah... In the photo you posted there is a rim from one of the tires and a piece of the bulkhead. Not that it matters.. LMAO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All well and good say there were charges in the building........how do you know they weren't pre-placed by the terrorists.......it was a very elaborate plan.......and even if they could prove that charges were placed in the building with through blast patterns......they could inconclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was impossible for the terrorists to have planted them.......the theory then becomes a moot point amyways and a conspiracy theory that the government institutted the attack to go to war......poimt still not proven anymore than any other conspiracy theory throught history. Did Neal Armstrong land on the moon, is area 54 holding aliens, John F Kennedy and so many more...... You mean Area 51 right? Not fair to equate this CT with others...this one has hard evidences of a conspiracy. There had to be explosives in every building hit....especially the WTC's...weight does not turn cement into dust and send it flying all over the area much less cause these buildings to fall free fall into their own footprints. Again, people need to look before posting truthinesses...not a debate really, just people parroting the Duhnier's shill speak. Following the government issued lie is curious since so many don't trust the government these days you'd think they'd be the ones questioning all this...oh wait, 9-11 happened under the Dippic... I see. haha... there had to be explosives in every building hit... your assumptions are not built on any shred of tangible evidence. Like most "truthers" it's just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall and hoping that something sticks. There are hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane that hit the pentagon. Is Paul Begala one of the Bushies that lied about seeing the plane flying over the beltway? What about the lightpoles that were knocked over and the damage to the cars? Yeah a missile... Oh yeah... In the photo you posted there is a rim from one of the tires and a piece of the bulkhead. Not that it matters.. LMAO Not assumptions, simple facts using simple physics...like as fire cannot turn concrete to dust...that there's never been a steel and concrete structure to ever fall from fire..into it's own footprints at free fall speed..and what about the lightpoles? A missle with airliner markings may have fooled a few but some sort of aircraft DID hit the Pentagon..that's not the dispute. It does not take much intelligence to see a problem with the official story...all that resist and dismiss this have to be either shills or morons...Republicans that want to protect the Dippic's legacy..what a shame shilling for a man that should be in prison right now...getting the business end from his cellmate. A lot of innocent people died from this event and it's aftermath so I am glad you find that so very funny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
InvictusV
on
Wed 09/15/10 12:22 PM
|
|
All well and good say there were charges in the building........how do you know they weren't pre-placed by the terrorists.......it was a very elaborate plan.......and even if they could prove that charges were placed in the building with through blast patterns......they could inconclusively beyond a shadow of a doubt that it was impossible for the terrorists to have planted them.......the theory then becomes a moot point amyways and a conspiracy theory that the government institutted the attack to go to war......poimt still not proven anymore than any other conspiracy theory throught history. Did Neal Armstrong land on the moon, is area 54 holding aliens, John F Kennedy and so many more...... You mean Area 51 right? Not fair to equate this CT with others...this one has hard evidences of a conspiracy. There had to be explosives in every building hit....especially the WTC's...weight does not turn cement into dust and send it flying all over the area much less cause these buildings to fall free fall into their own footprints. Again, people need to look before posting truthinesses...not a debate really, just people parroting the Duhnier's shill speak. Following the government issued lie is curious since so many don't trust the government these days you'd think they'd be the ones questioning all this...oh wait, 9-11 happened under the Dippic... I see. haha... there had to be explosives in every building hit... your assumptions are not built on any shred of tangible evidence. Like most "truthers" it's just throwing a bunch of crap at the wall and hoping that something sticks. There are hundreds of eyewitnesses that saw the plane that hit the pentagon. Is Paul Begala one of the Bushies that lied about seeing the plane flying over the beltway? What about the lightpoles that were knocked over and the damage to the cars? Yeah a missile... Oh yeah... In the photo you posted there is a rim from one of the tires and a piece of the bulkhead. Not that it matters.. LMAO Not assumptions, simple facts using simple physics...like as fire cannot turn concrete to dust...that there's never been a steel and concrete structure to ever fall from fire..into it's own footprints at free fall speed..and what about the lightpoles? A missle with airliner markings may have fooled a few but some sort of aircraft DID hit the Pentagon..that's not the dispute. It does not take much intelligence to see a problem with the official story...all that resist and dismiss this have to be either shills or morons...Republicans that want to protect the Dippic's legacy..what a shame shilling for a man that should be in prison right now...getting the business end from his cellmate. A lot of innocent people died from this event and it's aftermath so I am glad you find that so very funny. A missile disguised to look like a plane... WOW... That is brilliant.. I would have never thought of that one.. LMAO Anyway.. I took the time to do a little research. I thought...Hmmmm.. what collapse of a concrete structure could possibly refute your theory about the impossibility of cement being crushed into dust.. and then... it hit me.. The viaducts that collapsed during the 1989 San Francisco/Loma Prieta earthquake. They were made of reinforced concrete and since we can safely assume there actually was an earthquake and the viaduct did collapse due to the earthquake, we can immediately eliminate "explosives" planted on every overpass.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cypress_structure.jpeg That is a link to a picture taken of the collapsed Cyprus Viaduct. You can clearly see pulverized cement that turned into dust and covered the road and surrounding area. A two story highway falling maybe 40 feet created enough force to turn the cement into dust. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/01/earthquake_in_haiti.html This link is a collection of pictures taken in Haiti after the most recent earthquake.. Explain what is on those peoples faces in picture #2.. What about picture #6? I guess there is no dust to be seen there.. Because you say it goes against the laws of physics. and now the free fall theory.. not much reason to debate this.. The video of tower 1 collapsing clearly shows debris from the very top falling faster and hitting the ground sooner than the main structure. Therefore, the structure did not collapse at free fall speed. Secondly, a building that large would need tens of thousands of pounds of explosives to collapse it at free fall speed. All the walls, ceilings and doors on the interior would have to be removed. do you have any idea what kind of undertaking this would have been? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP1HJoG-1Pg and finally... this is a video of the tallest steel structure building ever imploded.. Nothing and I repeat NOTHING in this video is even remotely comparable to the collapse of the WTC north and south towers. NOTHING.. So if you want to keep going I have plenty more.. http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store here is the link to CDI the company that imploded the Hudson Dept Store.. It took them 4 months to prepare the building for demolition.. 4 MONTHS.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings as high as the towers are rare to see how they would collapse so all the conspiracies really have no base to stand on.
I agree that our government failed us in the whole 9/11 thing but not that they were involved. They were complacent and this lead to deaths that could have been prevented. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings as high as the towers are rare to see how they would collapse so all the conspiracies really have no base to stand on. I agree that our government failed us in the whole 9/11 thing but not that they were involved. They were complacent and this lead to deaths that could have been prevented. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings as high as the towers are rare to see how they would collapse so all the conspiracies really have no base to stand on. I agree that our government failed us in the whole 9/11 thing but not that they were involved. They were complacent and this lead to deaths that could have been prevented. No actually they ignored intel and reports about the planning of 9/11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Buildings as high as the towers are rare to see how they would collapse so all the conspiracies really have no base to stand on. I agree that our government failed us in the whole 9/11 thing but not that they were involved. They were complacent and this lead to deaths that could have been prevented. No actually they ignored intel and reports about the planning of 9/11 that too...one hand washing the other... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 big difference in pics here.... My biggest issue is no way 3 buildings fell straight down crumbling to dust on the way down. simply impossible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't show anything.
I have studied this conspiracy and there isn't enough tangible proof of anything close to it happening. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't show anything. I have studied this conspiracy and there isn't enough tangible proof of anything close to it happening. Viaducts...did you see that? They want to compare the WTC's structures with viaducts? What a hoot! Sorry D lady, there's no way you could have studied the issue and concluded that these buildings (WTCs) fell free fall from just fire and planes hitting them. And WTC 7 was not hit and fell like a rock...look closer. I recommend Loose Change for starters. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Been through it all already.
They do not prove it. It is speculation and innuendo. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a good video of the WTC showing the buildings buckling before they fell... no explosions, just falling...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
heres one for you truthers out there... the X-Files and The Simpsons both kind of predicted 9/11...6 months before it happened and both on fox...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBp3URuMV28&feature=player_embedded#! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us
Ask an expert instead of the crap from the Duhniers shill sites, they don't show the burst of plumes from the windows as the building was detonated and fell. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us Ask an expert instead of the crap from the Duhniers shill sites, they don't show the burst of plumes from the windows as the building was detonated and fell. that wasn't an explosion...it wast the air rushing out... the air that is in the building has to go somewhere... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MiddleEarthling
on
Thu 09/16/10 12:32 PM
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us Ask an expert instead of the crap from the Duhniers shill sites, they don't show the burst of plumes from the windows as the building was detonated and fell. that wasn't an explosion...it wast the air rushing out... the air that is in the building has to go somewhere... Bull....there were explosions reported by many. Witness them for yourself. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCLRfxv6DWc And... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNVvZXR6VsI&feature=related And... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcRs1fv8i3I&feature=related |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think someone who doesn't understand that air has to go somewhere when it is displaced is mistaking air release for explosions.
I keep telling you there is so little experience with buildings the size of the towers coming down in that situation that it is all speculation anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think someone who doesn't understand that air has to go somewhere when it is displaced is mistaking air release for explosions. I keep telling you there is so little experience with buildings the size of the towers coming down in that situation that it is all speculation anyway. No, those are obviously explosions...but don't take it from me. Here's a great site with experts who talk about the attacks. "1303 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 9696 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation." http://cms.ae911truth.org/ I signed it...I hope others here do as well...if we do NOT expose this crime it may happen again...probably in 2012 before the elections... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think someone who doesn't understand that air has to go somewhere when it is displaced is mistaking air release for explosions. I keep telling you there is so little experience with buildings the size of the towers coming down in that situation that it is all speculation anyway. No, those are obviously explosions...but don't take it from me. Here's a great site with experts who talk about the attacks. "1303 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 9696 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation." http://cms.ae911truth.org/ I signed it...I hope others here do as well...if we do NOT expose this crime it may happen again...probably in 2012 before the elections... I read through all that stuff. Architects who have not brought charges against anyone for what they know to be certain, doesn't appear to be right does it? For all the "proof" they have they haven't been able to get a legitimate attorney to file a case? I am sorry, no offense intended, it just doesn't come out right. It is too much speculation and innuendo to be legitimate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think someone who doesn't understand that air has to go somewhere when it is displaced is mistaking air release for explosions. I keep telling you there is so little experience with buildings the size of the towers coming down in that situation that it is all speculation anyway. No, those are obviously explosions...but don't take it from me. Here's a great site with experts who talk about the attacks. "1303 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 9696 other supporters including A&E students have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation." http://cms.ae911truth.org/ I signed it...I hope others here do as well...if we do NOT expose this crime it may happen again...probably in 2012 before the elections... I read through all that stuff. Architects who have not brought charges against anyone for what they know to be certain, doesn't appear to be right does it? For all the "proof" they have they haven't been able to get a legitimate attorney to file a case? I am sorry, no offense intended, it just doesn't come out right. It is too much speculation and innuendo to be legitimate. Their goal is to get a new investigation on 9-11, a real one this time, they are not there to file charges...that would come after the crimes are exposed. People have filed lawsuits but you can't sue the government*, also they stonewall releasing information about 9-11...like the 70+ videos that would show just what really hit the Pentagon...why not release them and put this issue to bed? *"Generally, a sovereign government cannot be sued unless it allows itself to be sued." Question: Why is OBL not wanted for the attacks of 9-11? And hey, I am no CT nutbag...I am just asking questions and addressing the crazy answers...no offense to you either but those were obviously explosions. The news, witnesses as well as the videos prove that fact. watch them again and look for the plumes popping out...that's cement being pulverized into dust...something that is impossible w/o a high charged explosive. Love you anyway...lol. |
|
|
|
|
