Specific pieces of evidence showing 9/11 s an inside job

YYYYUUUUPP! Oh well...

 

RUN TRUTHERS RUN!!!! Once again the truth has proven itself to be the anathema of truthers. They predictably pretend they've been insulted so they don't have to answer the questions their theories present or to respond to the answers to their own questions. RWAF, do you honestly think anyone was fooled by your little act?

 

Do you need some help turning over that leaf? It appears to be too heavy.

 

I guess hoping people could stick to specifics and without all the "retard" type comments was too much to ask. I'll continue to treat respectfully, those that do the same. I wish I could pick just ONE thing out and have folks debate it honestly. I guess there are some who are heavily invested in the "official" BS Story...so much so that they'll do anything to avoid the specifics. They seem to enjoy the scattershot/insulting way of addressing anything. Yes...the leaf is too heavy, so it seems.

 

How do you know that what the firefighters heard were in fact explosions? Additionally, the firefighters do not provide any evidence to support the conclusion that the noises they heard that they ASSUME were explosions were the result of destructive devices planted in the WTC towers. Essentially, I'm at a total loss to understand why you think that noises that firefighters think may have been explosions constitute evidence of a conspiracy. Care to elaborate?

 

It establishes that there WERE indeed explosions. I don't know if you've noticed, but truth seekers are barely able to get "official" BS story supporters to acknowledge anything at all.
Secondly...how do you know WHAT made those explosions? You don't know it WASN'T demolition creating those sounds any more than anybody else.
Moreover...it's a PIECE of the suggestive evidence. When you can tell me specifically what made those sounds, I'll reconsider my position.

 

Yet every debunker here has admitted there were explosions. What we don't agree with is the absolutely RETARDED claim truthers make that every explosion has to be caused by explosives. Not one firefighter there on 9/11 has ever said they saw explosives. Not one firefighter there on 9/11 has ever come forward and even said they thought there might be explosives.

This is HYSTERICAL coming from you as you are absolutely sure the explosions were caused by explosives.

Yet you are constantly preaching that the explosions were caused by explosives. The hypocricy escapes you I am sure.

Really? Every other time someone has stepped forward and completely debunked your (*)(*)(*)(*) you've run away. Why would anyone expect any other reaction this time?

 

Your whining is nothing but hypocritical bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You claim you want to debate. You ask questions. When people SPECIFICALLY answer YOUR questions, you act offended that anyone would DARE answer your question (and make your point seem completely retarded) when you REALLY only wanted to talk about something ELSE. Your holier than thou attitude isn't fooling anyone.

 

Do you really think that the testimony of those FF is enough to unequivocally establish that there were indeed 'high explosives' at the WTCs? I certainly do not think so. Without any physical evidence the testimony of those FFs is marginal at best. I doubt any one would argue that 'low explosives' were NOT involved in the collapse of the WTC towers. However, do you have any reason/evidence to support your beliefs that 'high explosives' were involved the the collapse of the WTC towers. If you do believe that 'high explosives' were present at the WTC could you please enumerate the lines of evidence that you believe support your beliefs? Thank you, Cooky

 

So you know for sure what made those explosive sounds huh? Please...enlighten us...(and don't forget to source your answer, as you fellas always demand).

 

Actually what it proves is that you have no idea it was. You wish people to think that an explosion is heard and hours later the building fell down because of it. LOL

 

I don't know for sure but I trust a controlled demo expert when he says it wasn't controlled demolition.
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC STUDY 8-06 w clarif as of 9-8-06 .pdf

 

Gee....I can post demolition experts who say it was controlled demolition. Now what? Oh....the OCT version is correct. Never mind.

 

They are probably "experts" like you are.

 

Please do so.

 

He's probably going to post that foreign "specialist" where they only showed him the video, no audio, and didn't give him the background. Ah, the complete and utter dishonesty of truthers.

 

Rather than writing you could do so, why didn't you just do so?

That's how a honest debate "should" work.

 

Please do so.

Like I said, I like to read as much as possible from both perspectives and decide for myself which one seems more credible and logical.

 

Well, you do know that shills only offer one side of the story and (hint: it usually isn't anything close to what actually happened). Letsroll forum...They're talkin' un shilled truth over there. The goobment owns this one so....ummmm...BYE! Propagate, dance and spin on!!!

 

This is what you call debate? DDave has been very polite to you and simply asked you to present your side which you claimed to have. Instead you insult him and this board. I take it you've grown tired of the board and are trying to take the banhammer exit strategy?

 

Well, I try to get my information from outside of the forum. Though I may discuss it here I look at several sources of information.

Sounds like a bunch of folks all saying what they want to here. Doesn't sound much like debate.

 

Here's the cab driver who was in the wrong place at the right time. This 80 minute doc proves a flyover easily. Also, if the wings had come in contact with light poles the plane would have crashed before it got to the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o&list=PL1C1F97A9B8B8D8AE&index=125&feature=plpp_video

CIT - Lloyd was much more candid when he didn't realize he was being recorded.

Lloyd - Do you know what history is?
It's not the truth, it's his story!
It has nothing to do with the truth it's his story!
This is too big for me man this is a big thing
Man you know this is a world thing happeneing, I'm a small man
My life style is completely different to this
I'm not supposed to be involved in this
This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff
Lloyd - Well I'm not supposed to be involved with this, I don't have nothing
CIT - The people who have all the money........
Lloyd - This is their thing
This is for them
That's right
I'm not supposed to be in it
I'm in it

We came across that highway together
It was planned
One thing about it you gotta understand something
When people do things and get away with it, you eventually it going to come to me
And when it comes to me it's going to be so big I can't do nothing about it
So it has to be stopped in the beginning when it is small
You see to keep it from spreading..............

 

Let's start with this bull(*)(*)(*)(*) lie first. IF there was a flyover, how is it not one single person saw a plane past the Pentagon? A plane going that fast would pass over numerous populated attractions with tons of people outside. Much better truthers than you have put forth the flyover claim and ran away when confronted by the truth. At first they tried to pretend the national mall, a site attracting tens of thousands of people a day to outdoor attractions, was closed just prior to the crash. Once he was confronted with a list of everything that would have to be closed and cleared of witnesses, he gave up his claim of a flyover.

So, aside from the usual paranoid delusional rants and lies one usually encounters in your posts, what evidence do you have of a flyover and how do you explain the complete lack of witnesses who saw a large passenger jet fly right over the Pentagon at a very low altitude and at high speed?

 

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september122010/911-reflections-ew.php

An independent journalist in Oregon, Ersun Warncke, actually did perform this tedious task and came up with this data:

Out of 2,970 9/11 victims listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file.

Ersun Warncke Salem-News.com

I did an exhaustive check of the list of victims provided on the CNN website. What I found is that out of 2,970 people listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file. Of those, not a single one has a valid “last address of record” on file. That is a lot of clerical error, or maybe Simon Shack is not as crazy as it would seem at first glance[2].

 

Let's be really clear: are you saying that no one died in the attacks on 9/11?