9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

Grasping at any possible explanation other than the blatantly obvious one.

 

Any reasonable person unaware of all of the witnesses (FDNY/NYPD/feds/field reporters/etc) who watches that video would come away with the knowledge that explosives were indeed used. And anyone familiar with the witnesses of explosives and very loud explosions and denies that they mean anything...well, we know what that means.

 

no sites are forbidden by me ... Link please

 

If you recall, the last time you asked me for a link, I provided it and you summarily dismissed all the eyewitnesses in favor of a "debunking" site's explanation that suited your mindset. Which wasn't the primary problem, it was your silly claim about my witnesses vs your witnesses. I don't own any witnesses and neither do you. They are what they are, none should be dismissed unless and until a careful forensic investigation reveals that any specific eyewitness statement (on a case by case basis) is irrelevant. The US government ignored thousands of eyewitnesses out of hand or failed to follow up on most claims. And that's what you seem to be doing.

To me the most likely explanation for well over 100 eyewitness claims of hearing, seeing, feeling and/or being injured by explosions is that the source is explosives, not everything else under the sun that might produce the sound, the vision and/or the force of an explosion that causes multiple injuries and subsequently 3 buildings are fully destroyed. This is such basic logic it's absurd to invent all these alternate explanations, one of the most idiotic ones being the sound of a body hitting the pavement being mistaken for an explosion.

In any case, I will oblige for now, you have a lot of reading to do.

Part 1 of 6: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...led-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-intro.html
Part 2 of 6: http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-...illed-with-fantasy-fiction-and-fraud-pt1.html
Part 3 of 6: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/197-news-media-events-3-of-6-nist-fraud-3.html
Part 4 of 6: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/206-news-media-events-4-of-6-nist-fraud-4.html
Part 5 of 6: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/215-news-media-events-5-of-6-nist-fraud-5.html
Part 6 of 6: http://www.ae911truth.org/news/217-news-media-events-6-of-6-nist-fraud-6.html

 

You have a mindset too Bob ... there are plenty of logical explanations for the sounds of explosions but you summarily dismiss them ... I mean, how many of these witnesses have ever heard explosions in their lives? ... look, I'm not going to change your mind on this and you're not going to change mine ... I've been doing this for years and we're just going in circles here ... but I'm happy to play ...

 

and all your links are related to 7 ... we were discussing 1 and 2 ..

 

Well you're wrong about my mindset. Of course some of these explosions may have a source other than explosives, but ALL of them? And that's YOUR mindset not mine. You concluded that ALL of them have nothing to do with explosives because some "debunking" site listed several alternatives and that had to be it. The US government (NIST) did the same thing, dismissed the possibility of explosives under false pretenses and summarily ignored all eyewitness statements regarding explosions. The problem is that NFPA protocol (a fire investigation standard that NIST helped develop) calls for an investigation for explosions, explosives and incendiaries.

Note, it's not about changing anyone's mind, I already told you that's not my job, it's about clarification, in this case anyway.

 

I'm discussing the destruction of all 3 buildings and you asked me for a link with regard to what I posted (remember "pull it"?). So does this mean you won't bother to follow up? You still haven't answered my question with regard to "pull it", what you think it means.

 

I read all the links ... government investigations are always a cluster(*)(*)(*)(*) ... I'm not shocked ...

but I thought we agreed to finish with 1 and 2 before we got to 7 ... ???

 

if you are going to crash airliners into buildings then why do you need explosives to bring them down? ... why go through the trouble? ... you have already made your point if you want to go to war ... or Silverstein's insurance scam ...

when you factor in the Pentagon, the plan makes absolutely no sense ... that's what it all boils down to Bob ... this elaborate scheme that you believe in makes no sense ...

 

Putting the cart before the horse. For now I'm interested in what really happened, not why it happened. It first has to be definitively established that it wasn't a fire induced collapse, that has not been done, we only have government theories based on fraudulent "investigations". Then it has to be established what actually did fully destroy the 3 buildings, that has also not been done. Then how it was done. Following that, we might start to uncover who may have been involved and that may lead to many trails that might uncover why. If we can't get to the first step, we're never going to get to the last step. And that's what you're doing, trying to work backwards.

I don't have a specific elaborate scheme that I believe in. I have no clue what that scheme is, no one does except those who were involved and even then, only the parts they were directly involved with. You seem to be chasing your tail with that mindset and reaching all sorts of conclusions, including introducing all sorts of red herrings before you can even ascertain the basics of what really happened.

 

But much of what you believe is based on these "investigations". So if they're "cluster(*)(*)(*)(*)" to you, they should all be absolutely worthless, not a basis for your belief system. But it's a good excuse not to follow up on the links I posted.

 

Sorry Bob ... you are the one chasing theories ... you have failed to establish any facts at all ... you so want to believe that this was a government planned event that you refuse to look at any of the evidence objectively ... you have an agenda plain and simple ...

as such, let's just finish this ... explain away the thousands of people that would have to be in on your conspiracy theory ... I'm done Bob ...

 

Yes I am, it's called the official 9/11 conspiracy theory, the same one you're chasing. We differ as to methodology however, you bought most of it (if not all of it), I bought none of it.

Absolutely, we all do and I explained what mine was. I have no idea what yours is, but you do seem to be peddling the OCT pretty hard though. Why is that? Is that your primary agenda?

I guess you didn't understand anything I posted. I'm not interested in your false premises and red herrings. I don't have a conspiracy theory, I have a conspiracy fact, it's the US government cover-up of 9/11. The evidence is enormous and ongoing.

That's cool, have a nice day.

 

1. But you have?

2. Unlike you, right?

3. And you do not?

4. Why do you assume that it would take 1,000+ people? Also, even if there were 1,000+ involved, why is that a non-starter for you?

- - - Updated - - -

Called it.

- - - Updated - - -

Strange how that works, eh?

 

And it makes sense to do human experiments with radiation, LSD or mind-control schemes? What about the Stargate Project? Did it make sense invading Iraq based on politicized intelligence? What about torture?

 

Certainly not what it means to us. But apparently, "pull it" is a simplified way of saying "Get everyone out of the building because there are fears that it too will collapse as suddenly and inexplicably as my Twin Towers did earlier in the day."

 

different context ... apples and oranges ...

 

It's something I'm still researching ... have patience ...

Quick question though ... Does the collapses of 1 and 2 look like a controlled demo to you? ... Jango says yes but without any examples of a demo that looks anything like this ...

 

How so? They were actions undertaken by the government, some of which involved conspiring against American citizens.

 

Not really strange, one can always find excuses if one's mind is fixed on a conclusion, even if it's blatantly contradictory.

 

Oh excuse me, and here I thought you were done.

No, not a classic controlled demolition, the kind we're used to seeing. But it certainly looks nothing like a fire induced collapse as one would expect to see one. You know, with big and small pieces falling down at various intervals, with the ones closest to the building bouncing off the building and others pretty much straight down the sides of the building. I would also expect a very large portion to remain standing, especially the core.

There are a couple of examples that look quite similar, for much smaller buildings that is.

[video=youtube;WYh6OO61zdk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYh6OO61zdk[/video]

As for WTC7, there are many examples that look almost identical. There is absolutely no example of any fire induced collapse that looks anything like any of the 3 buildings though.

 

not anything like the elaborate scheme you are suggesting ... all the people that would have to be in on it and not a peep or a screwup ... your giving the government wat too much credit ...

 

Many people actually swallowed that "pull IT" (singular) means "pull firefighters" (plural) out of a building that they knew no firefighters were in. Rudy Dent (now retired) claims in all his years as a firefighter and fire investigator, he never heard anyone use the term "pull it" in firefighting. He claims he was at Ground Zero when WTC7 went down and knew immediately it was a classic controlled demolition.

[video=youtube;nQrpLp-X0ws]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQrpLp-X0ws[/video]

 

They were very much elaborate. Setting up a twenty year program, like MK-Ultra, where they used chemicals on at least two different continents against unsuspecting people. And I see you subscribe to the "someone would have talked" nonsense as well. Thanks for continuing to confirm my initial opinion.