More americans are “rethinking” 9/11?

Discussion in '9/11' started by Brother Jonathan, Dec 1, 2013.

You are viewing posts in the Conspiracy Theory forum. PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening.

  1. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The resemblance is purely superficial.
     
  2. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    This is not a 'fact',it's just a troother opinion
     
  3. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    a classic CD includes the sounds of explosives going off inside the building long before the building comes down.

    a classic CD also doesn't damage neighboring buildings.

    WTC 7's collapse damaged neighboring buildings and no explosions could be heard before or during its collapse.
     
  4. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Why does the video dishonestly not show the entire collapse of the WTC 7? It picks up building 7 way after the collapse started. You need better source material.
     
  5. leftysergeant

    leftysergeant New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2012
    Messages:
    8,827
    Likes Received:
    60
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where are the breaking-windows-in-Hoboken high explosive blasts?

    No HE, no demolition. FAIL.
     
  6. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    CDs take weeks to set up, with hundreds of carefully placed pieces of explosives.


    none of the occupants of WTC 7 have come forward to talk about strange operations in the evening, for weeks on end?

    they all must be in on it!!!!!

    ;)
     
  7. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,601
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The objective of a NORMAL controlled demolition is to minimize collateral damage. That means minimum explosives placed at the optimum points. If the controllers don't give a damn about collateral damage then the power of the explosives can be increased and the placement much less critical.

    Was there any collateral damage on 9/11?

    psik
     
  8. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If that were the case,then it wouldn't 'look' like a 'classic explosive demolition'
     
  9. cjnewson88

    cjnewson88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    1,133
    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    48
    mmm massive explosives placed anywhere around the towers... which made no noise...

    [video=youtube;QsETCJADIxI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsETCJADIxI[/video]
     
  10. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    the collapse of the towers looks NOTHING like a "classic" controlled demolition.
     
  11. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    somehow the government apologists around here cant accept facts that NIST was caught lying.
     
  12. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    See... this is why 9/11 truthism is such a pathetic joke. To the extent that a collapse looks superficially like a controlled demolition, you insist that is evidence for a controlled demolition. But when it's pointed out that the differences between a controlled demolition and what occurred on 9/11 are huge, that too becomes (in your bizarre little pretzel of a thinking scheme) evidence for a controlled demolition.

    For cripe's sake... pick a position and stick with for just a half dozen posts in a row, will ya?
     
  13. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    He only proves it for us that there were explosives planted.hee hee.while doing the rare thing and telling the truth for once mentioning that it takes weeks to set up explosives thats just proves it for us hee hee,thats why for several weeks prior to 9/11, they had construction going on in the towers.they had signs that said construction going on,keep out. they couldnt go into those areas and watch what was going on,you go into a construction area that has signs like that,you get arrested.the Bush dupes ignore that fact everytime and always change the subject.:roll:

    along with the other fact that the unknown workers there working there doing the construction,used service elevaters,elevaters that the regular workers there did not have access to.oh and in the several weeks before 9/11,the workers said they heard a lot of very unusual construction going on all the time that they found very strange and odd,ond of course there were many evacuations due to power outages in the prior weeks as well which was unpresedented.:roll:

    they evade these facts everytime and accuse you of making them up.:roll: they cant handle defeat.
     
  14. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    havent you learned yet? Bush dupes NEVER watch videos that counter the lies of NIST.
     
  15. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What evidence do you have for these claims? I can find no evidence for them outside of the bald unsupported claims of birther blogs.
     
  16. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    you're being dishonest still by not showing the complete collapse, your video begins after the west mechanical penthouse has already collapsed and begining from there. You formulate a conclusion from faulty evidence and your conclusion is wrong, no exceptions.
     
  17. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Haven't you learned yet? There are no valid videos that counter the findings of NIST. Or books, or publishings. You are confusing non-fiction and comedy.
     
  18. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are nothing more than a desperate truth debunker. The truth is getting out in spite of you truth debunkers making false claims. Both buildings went into freefall and that is evident in the videos I posted. Both buildings had a moment of failure prior to going into freefall. The video I posted is consistent with classic controlled demolition. Obviously.
     
  19. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,464
    Likes Received:
    14,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    you obviously have never seen a classic controlled demolition.
     
  20. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am obviously your worst nightmare. The only part of Building 7 that went into freefall was the north face, for 8 floors. The entire collapse was not at freefall acceleration. This is easily explainable as the WEST MECHANICAL PENTHOUSE had already fallen through the building removing most of the support beneath it. You keep making assumptions based on faulty evidence. Continue to do so and you will continue to be wrong. Here is a starting point, for Building 7 the collapse time 13.5 seconds, from the West Mechanical Penthouse to the ground. Its a 47 story building. Please dazzle us all with 7th gradde physics and show us how the building collapsed at freefall speed but it took 13.5 seconds to do so. Only when you do this will your claim of freefall speed be validated. I'll wait. Nevermind. I will do it for you. You can't do it. This is what I mean when you use faulty evindence your conclusions will be wrong everytime. This is no exception. You're Welcome.
     
  21. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are not my worst nightmare. You are a silly person posting nonsense on the Internet. A 47 story high rise building collapsing in 13 seconds on 9/11 should have made the nightly news on TV that night and every night until a proper investigation was approved. While a 13 second collapse for a 47 story building is not freefall the entire time, exactly the same as controlled demolitions are not freefall the entire time, it is significant. The NIST report did not come out until 2008. The first NIST report completely ignored WTC Building 7 collapse. Why?
     
  22. LoneStrSt8

    LoneStrSt8 New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because building 7 wasn't the target of a terrorist attack.

    Duh.
     
  23. djlunacee

    djlunacee New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because the building is insignificant in the grand scheme of things. NO ONE DIED. So what the MSM didn't cover it. That proves what? What interest is there in an empty building falling down? Your logic does not add up. Why would the FDNY put a transit on the building to brace it and keep it from falling, when it was supposedly wired to blow? What about the reports of the building leaning, and creaking becoming more unstable as the day progressed? Why do you ignore these facts to chase some fantasy of impossiblities? You do realize that more than just WTC 1, 2 and 7 were destroyed that day don't you? What happened to 3, 4, 5, 6? Why are you not upset about these buildings? What about the Duetsche Bank? The bolded part of your post must represent self reflection.
     
  24. Perilica grad Ameriku

    Perilica grad Ameriku Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Messages:
    662
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Right. Because it was otherwise such a slow news day that would have been the first thing people wanted to know about.

    /sarcasm

    :roll:
     
  25. Brother Jonathan

    Brother Jonathan Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,610
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It is more about the implications of what a controlled demolition would have done to the official story. They were able to sell the demolitions of the towers to the people because they showed an airplane hitting the buildings. They would have had a hard time selling building 7 so they buried that story because most people have watched controlled demolitions before. Even today the news media is not giving airtime to Building 7 when it is such a controversial event.
     

Share This Page