100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: 911 WTC1 - New video shows explosions. This was a planned de | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has never been any evidence of explosives being used. The only ones who try to sell the "controlled demolition" theory are fools and liars... or both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/22/12 01:11 PM
|
|
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 The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs. For which there is no evidence whatsoever. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sun 07/22/12 01:31 PM
|
|
How old are you? BTW, The Chinese have done it. I would appreciate any information about how the Chinese have censored the Internet.
Even if they have prevented people from using it or succeeded in censoring it, they don't claim to be(or brag about being)a "free country" with "free speech" and they don't use that claim to send people to war. (The United States does.) They would find it difficult to get anyone to go to war for freedom if they openly began censoring free speech and controlling the Internet. The Chinese censorship of the internet is common knowledge, just google it and stop creating diversions. The rest of your argument is your usual rubbish. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs. So, you're just making crap up again. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs. So, you're just making crap up again. Nope, I'm just telling you the truth. You don't have to accept it. Deny deny deny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs. So, you're just making crap up again. Nope, I'm just telling you the truth. You don't have to accept it. Deny deny deny. YOUR truth. Because you believe doesn't make it real, and because you believe it you feel everyone else is ignorant, or stupid. That is really sad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 07/22/12 01:51 PM
|
|
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 The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs. 
'splain to me about a new way to demolish Buildings by Explosives that starts at the Top!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahhhhhh... I don't want you to be sad. Poor thing.
There is no such thing as "your truth" and "my truth" There is only the truth. You are either right or you are wrong. Same goes for me. I am either right or I am wrong. I wish I were wrong. I wish you or anyone could PROVE to me that I am wrong without any doubts. However, there is no evidence that 16 Islamic terrorists/highjackers (or anyone at all) even boarded the planes on 9-11. And there is tons of evidence and motives and opportunity that points to the guilty parties and a cover-up. So keep your head in the sand if you like your "own truth." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs. So, you're just making crap up again. Nope, I'm just telling you the truth. You don't have to accept it. Deny deny deny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has never been any evidence of explosives being used. The only ones who try to sell the "controlled demolition" theory are fools and liars... or both. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs.
'splain to me about a new way to demolish Buildings by Explosives that starts at the Top!
If you watch (and pay attention) you can see that the explosions were blown from the top down. There were also explosions in the basement heard and seen before the planes allegedly hit the towers. (I am not even convinced they were planes.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/22/12 02:01 PM
|
|
This thread was for the purpose of linking to the video, for people who are open minded enough to consider the alternative to the official bogus report that the 9-11 commission created (fabricated.)
It was NOT for the purpose of arguing with the same three people who can't accept the truth of what is behind this crime, or anyone else. If you don't want to consider any alternative that is your choice. So I will leave this topic because I don't intend to waste my time with more of that B.S. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs.
'splain to me about a new way to demolish Buildings by Explosives that starts at the Top!
If you watch (and pay attention) you can see that the explosions were blown from the top down. There were also explosions in the basement heard and seen before the planes allegedly hit the towers. (I am not even convinced they were planes.) you don't trust your own Eyes then?
BTW,what happen to Doctor Judy's Dustyfier-Beam,and the Gravity-Weapon? How many different ways did they blow down the Towers simultaneously? With Nukes,Nano-Thermite,New Bombs,Thermate,oldfashioned Dynamite! Hope I haven't left one out!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 The demolition was by no means a typical "controlled demolition." It was a terrorists attack. And it was NOT done by Muslims. (or Osama Bin Laden.) It was the Banking Cabal Criminals who were behind it. This was not your typical demolition explosives, but some kind of new bombs.
'splain to me about a new way to demolish Buildings by Explosives that starts at the Top!
If you watch (and pay attention) you can see that the explosions were blown from the top down. There were also explosions in the basement heard and seen before the planes allegedly hit the towers. (I am not even convinced they were planes.) you don't trust your own Eyes then?
BTW,what happen to Doctor Judy's Dustyfier-Beam,and the Gravity-Weapon? How many different ways did they blow down the Towers simultaneously? With Nukes,Nano-Thermite,New Bombs,Thermate,oldfashioned Dynamite! Hope I haven't left one out!
Don't forget the Nano Termites! The only theory NOT to be disproven!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/22/12 02:12 PM
|
|
you don't trust your own Eyes then?
I trust my own eyes just fine. But I was not there and I did not see any planes hit the tower. But if you are talking about the videos they showed on television.... no, I don't trust them at all. Have fun guys. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine how this planning session between Bush, Rummy and Cheney must have gone:
BUSH: So, what's the plan again? CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down. RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion. CHENEY: No, Don, we won't. RUMSFELD: We won't? CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers al-Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq. RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack? CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Don. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around. BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists? RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs, and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed, and needlessly complicate everything! CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of nowhere somewhere in rural Pennsylvania. RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of ****ing nowhere. CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile. BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile? CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by. BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers? CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane. BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right? CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here? RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York. BUSH: Oh, okay. RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do, and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork, and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them. BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world, and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo? CHENEY: Like pulling teeth! RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington DC fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI-5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose! BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? ****, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices? RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"! ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah! The Idiocy Behind the '9/11 Truth' Movement Why the "9/11 Truth" movement makes the Left Behind series read like Shakespeare. http://www.alternet.org/story/42181?page=3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sun 07/22/12 03:31 PM
|
|
ahhhhhh... I don't want you to be sad. Poor thing. There is no such thing as "your truth" and "my truth" There is only the truth. You are either right or you are wrong. Same goes for me. I am either right or I am wrong. I wish I were wrong. I wish you or anyone could PROVE to me that I am wrong without any doubts. However, there is no evidence that 16 Islamic terrorists/highjackers (or anyone at all) even boarded the planes on 9-11. And there is tons of evidence and motives and opportunity that points to the guilty parties and a cover-up. So keep your head in the sand if you like your "own truth." I'm not sad, rather I meant the fact that only your 'truth' is real. That is what I find sad and you seem to have trouble separating fact from fantasy. You clearly lack the education and the ability to think laterally regarding this material, therefore you follow any crap put in front of you, blindly believing in anything that supports your myopic prejudice. You can't prove the specious material you prate endlessly on about, for you lack the education required to explain your contentions, so you merely resort to ad hominem toward those who disagree, as evinced by your above response. That is what is sad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sun 07/22/12 03:53 PM
|
|
ahhhhhh... I don't want you to be sad. Poor thing. There is no such thing as "your truth" and "my truth" There is only the truth. You are either right or you are wrong. Same goes for me. I am either right or I am wrong. I wish I were wrong. I wish you or anyone could PROVE to me that I am wrong without any doubts. However, there is no evidence that 16 Islamic terrorists/highjackers (or anyone at all) even boarded the planes on 9-11. And there is tons of evidence and motives and opportunity that points to the guilty parties and a cover-up. So keep your head in the sand if you like your "own truth." I'm not sad, rather I meant the fact that only your 'truth' is real. That is what I find sad and you seem to have trouble separating fact from fantasy. You clearly lack the education and the ability to think laterally regarding this material, therefore you follow any crap put in front of you, blindly believing in anything that supports your myopic prejudice. You can't prove the specious material you prate endlessly on about, for you lack the education required to explain your contentions, so you merely resort to ad hominem toward those who disagree, as evinced by your above response. That is what is sad. You are either a kind and considerate person who really cares about me, or you are just being insulting and condescending. What ever the case may be, I do not know you and you do not know me and so you should not worry your head about what you think is sad or not sad. Your opinion of me is irrelevant and off topic (not to mention totally misinformed.) I think your are just trolling. So from this point forward, don't even try to make any of this personal. Besides, it is against the rules. Stick to the actual topic. |
|
|
|
|
