Most people don't even know about a third tower demolished on 9-11

What prompts you to insult my intelligence by stating that most people do not even know about a third building demolished on 9-11? Just because a plane never contacted WTC 7, this does not mean that your "no planes" idiotic theory is even worthy of reading your article . . . if I "put down my smart phone".

 

I say that because 'most people' CAN'T put down their cell phones long enough to stop texting their other lemming friends about some nonsense, and 'most people' DON'T even know that a third building fell that day that WASN'T hit by any plane. If that ISN'T you then, no offense.

 

Your tone to even those that actually knew what went on that day is demeaning.

 

Well, if the truth hurts then, what can I cay? If the shoe doesn't fit then, why worry about it?

 

So you believe in circular logic !

In your world the absence of evidence is evidence.

That analogy sums up your view. Also works for flat earthers.

 

The Truth Hurts, Lies KILL
Think about it ........

also it is NOT simply the absence of evidence to
prove there were hijacked airliners used as weapons,
there is also the presents of evidence that indicates clearly
that something is very wrong with this picture.

The "collapse" of WTC1,2, & 7,
the whole scene at the Pentagon ( not characteristic of an airliner crash )
and for those who would accuse me of suddenly becoming an expert
in airliner crash analysis, how is it that YOU so well understand that
the alleged evidence matches up perfectly to the way an airliner crash
should look?

 

Yes and the truth is this. There is overwhelming evidence that the hijacked airliners were used as weapons. That evidence is publically available and you know it exists so you are stating an outright lie claiming that there is an absence of such evidence.

There is no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.

This is why the only thing you can offer is vague feelings such as claiming it is not charachteristic of an airliner crash when in fact yes it is.

Vague feelings and impressions are not evidence. You and all the other twwofers have failed miserably to offer even the slightest bit of evidence to support your claims.

 

SO you are making a comparison between the 9/11 crashes and other crashes.

Let us compare the characteristics of your example crashes that you are using and compare them to the characteristics of the 9/11 crashes. How many of those crashes you are using had the pilots WANTING to crash into something instead of saving the plane. Let's start with that characteristic first.

You game?

 

Thank you for the opinion,
This is NOT a matter of "vague feelings" this is a matter of having evidence
and in the case of the alleged airliner hits to the Towers & Pentagon, there
is so much about these events that prove beyond any doubt there was not
any commercial airliner used in the attack.

I'd like to ask you to examine your own motivation for defending
the official story as intensely as you do, what is in it for you?

 

Yes you have only vague feelings and opinions. I have facts and evidenc eproving them to be factual. There is nothing " alleged " about the Airliners hitting the pentagon and twoers. It is proven beyond all question. You may as well argue that earth is flat than to deny those facts.

You can name no fact or piece of evidence of any kind that there was not any commercial airliner used it is only your opinion and vague feeling.

The official story is not an official story it is what happened and no you need to support your opinion with evidence rather than spinning.You have utterly failed to do so.

 

OK, lets have it, what "facts" convince you beyond a reasonable doubt
that hijacked airliners were used as weapons on 9/11/2001?

 

What "facts" convince you it was explosives?

 

Look at the pictures of the towers "collapsing"
see the explosions? and also the fact of total destruction
the fact is, tall buildings simply do not pulverize themselves
into the sort of destruction that was observed on 9/11/2001
no matter what. The magnitude of the destruction and the
features of it like the mass quantities of pulverized material.
make the case for controlled demolition.

 

That not a fact! That's you looking at a picture and making an assumption. It "looks" like an explosion to you. I want facts that back up why you think it was explosives.

Based on what facts?! That's you opinion. You have been asked, yet never provided, examples or information to show why you have this opinion. You have been asked to show where a 208' x 208' x 1300' tube in tube skyscraper was hit by a jet, had resultant fires from that impact and stood.

Again. Where are your comparative facts?! How do you know this is the cased for the types of buildings involved? You never present any comparative evidence that contains similar characteristics top show this to be the case. That's like me saying that ALL vehicles will burst into flames if struck from behind based on data for the Ford Pinto. You are basing your claims on generalizations when there are differences that need to taken into account.

 

This is an often cited excuse for having the towers "collapse"
as they did, however, skyscrapers are designed to stand, not
fall down. Therefore in the specific design of WTC 1, 2
there would be features that would tend to keep the structure
together, rather than have it come apart. The manner of the
"collapse" is worth looking at in detail, because the alleged
mode for the destruction of the towers was that the floor
loading was exceeded by so much that an unstoppable
cascade failure ensued. In theory the decks were connecting
the central core to the outer wall and because of load sharing,
if the deck were to suddenly be removed, the outer wall and
core would both be destabilized and thereby collapse. is it a
total guaranteed slam-dunk to have the central core collapse
the moment that any given deck was removed?
and how about the uniformity of the event? the cascading collapse
continued downward at a pace ( actually accelerating ) and did not
jolt or halt at all but continued on with the plane of destruction being
very near level all the way down. good trick, no?

I stick to my earlier statement about expecting an event
that is the result of very careful planning & preparation,
to then be accomplished by chaotic damage & fire......
that is some serious magic!

 

the disinformation artists at this site and other message boards who defend the lies of the governments version everyday always end up with egg on thier faces,they never can get around that fact that there were other buildings in the area much closer and to the towers,had far more significant damage and worse fires than bld 7 did,yet they did not collapse,they have failed miserably ever since to debunk that.they can only whine and cry in defeat like they always do here.hee hee

 

Interesting thing, nobody ever answered up
and explained what motivated them to support
the hijacked airliners used as weapons theory.

oh well ......

 

The preponderance of the evidence.

 

So you do not have a super special bit, that
closed the deal as it were, you take the quantity
of evidence as a factor, no?

 

I take the veracity of the evidence as a factor, yes.

 

So when, in a taxpayer funded report
you see "total collapse was inevitable after collapse initiation.... "
you believe it totally and do not question this at all?

People need to QUESTION EVERYTHING!

Our "leaders" are crooks who got where they are
by lies & fraud, and they stay rich & powerful by being crooks.

The mainstream media = propaganda machine
and the whole thing has become an empire that
is controlled by a few individuals who have their
own little exclusive club, along with the military
industrial complex.

Do you even believe your own eyes when you
see "B movie" special effects presented as alleged
NEWS on TV.

When you are shown pix of a controlled demolition
and told that the building collapsed because of fire.

White is Black, up is down, slavery is freedom
2+2=5 ...... do you see?

The criminals are damaging our world!

 

Quite the contrary, I did research on my own, including taking the NIST report to structural engineers and architects. I asked the opinions of engineering schools and professionals. I asked the opinion of people that work in controlled demolition.
I read, I researched, I asked.

et, tu?

 

So in the case of the "B movie " special effects
being presented as an airliner crash on TV,
and there are experts who will tell you that
it was perfectly logical for an airliner to do exactly that,
and other experts who will tell you that its totally wrong,
so now, how do you decide who to listen believe?

What do YOU think?

 

The other buildings were discussed as part of the live coverage. That people don't remember things does not make it a conspiracy and, I don't know if you ever visited the WTC prior to 9/11, but those buildings were massive to say the least. The only thing the surprises me is that more buildings did not come down with them. That had to be like the epicenter of a large earthquake when those things fell.

 

"large earthquake" .... have you seen the seismic data for the day?
there are events recorded that match up with the "collapse" of
the towers however its not as if there was a huge earthquake.
and the feature of the short time to destroy the towers & 7
+ the fact of complete demolition, adds up to the fact that
there had to have been some additional source of energy brought
to bear to make it happen as it did.