Here it is! The final ad for the 9/11 global campaign!

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Well not all conspiracy theories are the same. Some people are closer to the truth than others. The bottom line is that there were plenty of questions left unanswered by the official investigation and many suspicious events took place.

Hellobruce was quoting an official usa government story trying to excuse the DOD for not being able to track 2.3 trillion dollars and "erroneous accounting" up to 7 trillion dollars. We are not talking millions or billions, we are talking half the american debt and america will eventually collapse because of too much debt and poor credit. I am not able to believe lack of technology and lack of cordination is to blame. The military gave us the internet we have today and is generally many decades more advanced then what we have in the public. For this reason alone that excuse holds no water. People have every right to be mad as hell.

Buildings fell straight down that can only happen with controlled demolition. There was no airplane that hit the pentagon. These are all facts without me having to speculate further.

The government will never have a proper investigation, just like there was no investigating body in rwhandan genocide, stalins dictatorship, hitlers dictatorship, milosevics dictatorship, etc. Bush was no more credible than the dicatotors I listed. America is NOT superior to any other country in terms of democracy. True democracy does not exist anywhere. Just because there are no concentration camps yet does not mean FEMA is not getting ready.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Buildings fell straight down that can only happen with controlled demolition. There was no airplane that hit the pentagon. These are all facts without me having to speculate further.

I am sorry but that is complete nonsense. If you drop something does it not tend to fall straight down ? It's gravity; you can't really expect it to shoot off parallel to the ground or something.

So far as the Pentagon is concerned I suppose you can say there was no plane if you are prepared to ignore 100 plus witnesses, aircraft wreckage from a Boeing 757, multiple radar tracks, dna identified body parts of passengers and crew, flight data recorder containing information not only of AA 77's last flight but multiple earlier ones etc.

Originally posted by Alfie1

I am sorry but that is complete nonsense. If you drop something does it not tend to fall straight down ? It's gravity; you can't really expect it to shoot off parallel to the ground or something.

Gravity pulls objects down. It does not mean a deformed building will fall straight down because the damage is not uniform on all sides for this to happen. The building should not even have come down at all because the fire damage was very localised. So right off the bat we have two very high abnormalities to the official story.

So far as the Pentagon is concerned I suppose you can say there was no plane if you are prepared to ignore 100 plus witnesses, aircraft wreckage from a Boeing 757, multiple radar tracks, dna identified body parts of passengers and crew, flight data recorder containing information not only of AA 77's last flight but multiple earlier ones etc.

edit on 13-6-2013 by Alfie1 because: (no reason given)

Anyone can get 100 PAID "witnesses" just like public relation companies can get paid endorsements for advertisements on any given product. Its not that hard. Why are there not thousands of witnesses, maybe even millions of witnesses?

There was no boeing 757 aircraft wreckage deemed credible. Just some aircraft wreckage that could have been planted there by the ntsb from some previous accident.

Multiple radar tracks of what exactly? That some aircraft was flying in the general vicinity and ASSUMED to have crashed into the pentagon? There is a major airport like dulles international closeby that means aircraft fly over washington on a constant basis.

DNA evidence of crew and passengers OR DNA evidence of burned pentagon employees? I doubt there was DNA evidence of anyone, let alone people aboard a non-existant flight that supposedly crashed into the pentagon and so few folks saw it all.

Lastly there is no video of any airplane striking the pentagon. The pentagon has no footage to prove anything, local business has no footage either probably cause it got destroyed by the feds.

We invaded two countries on flimsy "evidence" of 19 saudis with box cutters.

I know this has probably already been brought up

but why have they used a picture that shows WTC-7 after the mechanical penthouses have collapsed?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I know this has probably already been brought up

but why have they used a picture that shows WTC-7 after the mechanical penthouses have collapsed?

Becuase the sequence of the penthouse collapse is being used by NIST as evidence the building did NOT fall straight down symmetrically, but rather the south side (facing the towers) folded in and collapsed before the north side (the side shown in the footage). You can see by watching the collapse video that the penthouse doesn't really fall straight down, but actually topples over toward the south. The only way it can topple over is if there was nothing left beneath that side of the penthouse holding it up anymore.

All this is complete poison for conspiracy theorists like Richard Gage who want you to believe there were secret contolled demolitions so you'll give him your money to "learn the truth" about the 9/11 attack. There's no way he can include the penthouse collape in his conspiracy stories without causing people to ask him embarassing questions he cannot answer so he simply pretends it never happened. There's no way this could have been ommitted accidentally. Someone specifically realized the penthouse collapse contradicted what they were claiming about "symmetrical collapse" and they altered the evidence to suit their claims.

In short, if it deliberately excludes the penthouse collapse, odds are it came from that con artist Gage.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


dude, I know that, the question was more directed at the "truthers"

I am working on quite a large WTC-7 thread just now and as part of it I have subjected myself to looking at all sides of the WTC-7 conspiracy and something i have noticed is a really bad habit they seem to have of editing the footage of WTC-7 that does not show the penthouse collapse (granted not all of them). Just seems so strange to me they would do this, by the very fact that they have to do it surly that would tell them that perhaps their "smoking-gun" is not as strong as they really do believe.

I have spent the past few weeks looking at all these conspiracy videos that have included WTC-7's collapse and they edit out the penthouse collapse, one i saw even noticeably skipped so that they could say it was total free fall.

I was asking that question more to the truthers because i want to know, if their "theory" is so strong why do they have to make these kinds of edits to the raw footage.

anyway although my question was not directed at you, thanks for the response

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
I know this has probably already been brought up

but why have they used a picture that shows WTC-7 after the mechanical penthouses have collapsed?

Becuase the sequence of the penthouse collapse is being used by NIST as evidence the building did NOT fall straight down symmetrically, but rather the south side (facing the towers) folded in and collapsed before the north side (the side shown in the footage). You can see by watching the collapse video that the penthouse doesn't really fall straight down, but actually topples over toward the south. The only way it can topple over is if there was nothing left beneath that side of the penthouse holding it up anymore.

All this is complete poison for conspiracy theorists like Richard Gage who want you to believe there were secret contolled demolitions so you'll give him your money to "learn the truth" about the 9/11 attack. There's no way he can include the penthouse collape in his conspiracy stories without causing people to ask him embarassing questions he cannot answer so he simply pretends it never happened. There's no way this could have been ommitted accidentally. Someone specifically realized the penthouse collapse contradicted what they were claiming about "symmetrical collapse" and they altered the evidence to suit their claims.

In short, if it deliberately excludes the penthouse collapse, odds are it came from that con artist Gage.

The backside away from the camera falling a second before the front side can still be characterized as controlled.

youtu.be...

This video shows the penthouse falling to one side, not straight down and it is an obvious controlled demo.

reply to post by FirstCasualty


You posted a link to a video of demolitions carried out by Controlled Demolition Inc ; presumably you thought it supported your idea that WTC 7 was a cd ?

But do you realise that the president of Controlled Demolition Inc, Mark Loizeaux, has made it perfectly clear that he regards possible cd of WTC 7 as nonsense ?


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by FirstCasualty

 

You posted a link to a video of demolitions carried out by Controlled Demolition Inc ; presumably you thought it supported your idea that WTC 7 was a cd ?

But do you realise that the president of Controlled Demolition Inc, Mark Loizeaux, has made it perfectly clear that he regards possible cd of WTC 7 as nonsense ?


www.youtube.com...

Given the circumstances, I'm not sure if I would take the word of the contractor that was awarded the cleanup of the WTC collapse. I didn't watch the video yet (I will) but there is a bit of conflict of interest here i think.

And keep in mind that just because It was a "controlled demolition" does not mean that it MUST fallow the same characteristics that are needed in the usual cases.

WTC 1 and 2 were shock and awe. It wasn't about a clean demo, if they even could with a building that size. In fact I believe it was stated on here that the WTC was denied demolition permits prior to the attacks.

WTC7 seemed a lot more quiet and hush hush. It was barely acknowledged that it even happened for a couple years. It would likely have needed the same characteristics as the usual cases (clean and quiet) but it was also not prepped the way a normal demo would be. The walls were not gutted, the wiring could not have been done the usual way since it was a working office building at the time.
It was the best they could do to just get it done and hopefully nobody would make a big deal about it like was the case with 4,5 and 6. Collateral damage of the real shock and awe.

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
In fact I believe it was stated on here that the WTC was denied demolition permits prior to the attacks.

That does not make it true, in fact the poster that made that comment was asked for proof but ran away from providing it....

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
In fact I believe it was stated on here that the WTC was denied demolition permits prior to the attacks.

That does not make it true, in fact the poster that made that comment was asked for proof but ran away from providing it....

Alright I will take that. Not sure i even remember where i heard that. "Stated on here" was not misleading at all I would say but thanks for pointing that out.

Are you SURE it wasn't true? I suppose I should look for my self since "running away without proving it" sounds a little sensational and possibly slanted.

Curious though...

How would you CD a 110 story highrise in a densely populated urban area?

Has that been done before? Any plans that it is going to happen?

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
Are you SURE it wasn't true?

Yes - if it was true where is the evidence for it? You forget the one making the claim has to provide proof for that claim, not others disprove it.

How would you CD a 110 story highrise in a densely populated urban area?

Put some excavators and a bobcat etc. on the roof then start knocking the building down piece by piece, cutting it up with oxy and pushing the rubbish down the lift shafts.

Basically the reverse process of building it.

Has that been done before?

yes, high rise buildings are torn down all the time like that. The fact it was 110 stories high does not change the process, just makes the time longer

Originally posted by hellobruce

Yes - if it was true where is the evidence for it

Got it! There is no evidence yet you still arbitrarily state that it is not true. Unknown or unverified would be less bias choice of words but at leas now I know that you do not waver in you beliefs. That is a trait in some peoples eyes i suppose.

Put some excavators and a bobcat etc. on the roof then start knocking the building down piece by piece, cutting it up with oxy and pushing the rubbish down the lift shafts.

You make it sound so simple. I have seen the process you speak of, but you failed to mention it also requires a crane to hoist the bobcat and/or excavator down to the next floor. I am not aware of a 110 story mobile crane that can pull that sort of duty. It sure would be expensive to build a crane back into the towers to complete the "reverse process of building it" We need to leave a little in the budget for redevelopment. That method would take more than 2 years to complete.

No matter how you cut it, those planes hitting the towers was the cheapest and most profitable way to drop those buildings. That is no proof that it was the plan obviously but its crazy how stuff always works out for good people like Larry Silverstein.

yes, high rise buildings are torn down all the time like that. The fact it was 110 stories high does not change the process, just makes the time longer

That was a statement, it was not an answer to my question. If you don't know of any 100 plus story building that were chipped apart with a bobcat you can just say so. don't be scared.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

That has nothing to do with the US and you know it. That has to do with the screwed up sociopolitical idology that plagued the mideast since the middle ages. Sunnis hates the Kurds who hated the Shiites who hated the Hindus who hate the Sunnis back. Tribe A are sworn enemies with tribe B because of some grievous insult they committed five hundred years ago and tribe B in turn hates tribe C for reasons noone can even remember, and in the middle of this there's a bunch of religious nutball Islamic fundamentalists fantasizing they're fighting for Saladin who want to bring the whole mideast back a thousand years. That doesn't even count the incredibly corrups sheiks who have been swindling the peasantry as bad as the mafia. Now that Saddam Hussein and his conveyor belt to the killing fields keeping all this in check has been dismantled all the petty blood feuds that's always been there is coming back out of the closet.

Now you are saying.



I don't have much to say. I have many ignorant people who just think about two holes (an expression)

There is no way to unite these people , but under a religious umbrella or something similar.

But some govts want these people more divided.

My friends are clergy and they say that there are lobbies who want people divided.

Muslims were chopping each other's heads off over incredibly petty [censored] long before the US ever even existed,

That is ignorant.

WE , Iranian have been trying to get some democratic religious dominion to work for about 100 years.

And I am sure that other nations have done something to live better and in peace.

And another fact is that we don't chop each others head in Iran.

Blame the idiots who think it pleases god to strap a bomb on their chest and blow themselves up in a crowded market place.

Like you may say , blame the drug users , don't blame the dealers.

reply to post by GoodOlDave

There's no way he can include the penthouse collape in his conspiracy stories without causing people to ask him embarassing questions he cannot answer so he simply pretends it never happened.

Here you go Dave....2.32 in this video by AE911truth "Solving the mystery of WTC7" . Tell me what you see.

reply to post by Flatcoat


I have watched most of their stuff, i have watched their documentary "The experts speak out", the first 50 minutes or so are dedicated to WTC-7 and guess what, they only show the full video of WTC-7 collapse once.

Again if they are so sure of their "truth" then why the hell do they not include the collapse of the penthouse in their videos or why not even include it in the campaign add.

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
The backside away from the camera falling a second before the front side can still be characterized as controlled.

youtu.be...

This video shows the penthouse falling to one side, not straight down and it is an obvious controlled demo.

edit on 16-6-2013 by FirstCasualty because: (no reason given)

All up until now Gage has specifically used the symmetric fall model to "prove" controlled demolition, and thus he snipped off the penthouse collapse specifially because it contradicted his whole symmetric fall model. Now you're claiming Gage is wrong in that it's really an assymetrical collapse that "proves" controlled demolition. In other words no matter how the heck the building fell you're you're still going to claim it's proof of controlled demolition. Does that pretty much sum it up?

You seem to know more about architecture and controlled demolitions that even Richard Gage does. May I ask what your qualification are so that I'll know you're not just making things up off the top of your head because you don't want to believe your conspiracy stories are wrong?

Originally posted by Flatcoat


Here you go Dave....2.32 in this video by AE911truth "Solving the mystery of WTC7" . Tell me what you see.

I saw Gage attempting to claim "there were mysterious explosions" six seconds before the collapse of the buildings. The "Mysterious explosions" become less mysterious when you realize the building didn't collapse symmetrically as Gage claimed it did. The "explosions" were the banging and crashing of the south side collapsing six seconds before the north side did, and the penthouse toppling over in the footage (a ghastly mistake on the part of Gage to leave that in) proves he's full of it.

Gage is manufacturing his own evidence throughout this whole "Secret contorlled demolitions" bit. We know that's what he's doing because there isn't a single eyewitness of the day who believes there were any secret contorlled demolitions or else they would be quoted on every conspiracy web site in creation. You know that and so do I.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
The backside away from the camera falling a second before the front side can still be characterized as controlled.

youtu.be...

This video shows the penthouse falling to one side, not straight down and it is an obvious controlled demo.

edit on 16-6-2013 by FirstCasualty because: (no reason given)

All up until now Gage has specifically used the symmetric fall model to "prove" controlled demolition, and thus he snipped off the penthouse collapse specifially because it contradicted his whole symmetric fall model. Now you're claiming Gage is wrong in that it's really an assymetrical collapse that "proves" controlled demolition. In other words no matter how the heck the building fell you're you're still going to claim it's proof of controlled demolition. Does that pretty much sum it up?

You seem to know more about architecture and controlled demolitions that even Richard Gage does. May I ask what your qualification are so that I'll know you're not just making things up off the top of your head because you don't want to believe your conspiracy stories are wrong?

What proves a controlled demolition is that there is no way under the sun that building 7 could have fallen without one. Explosives were used because there was no way that the building could have sustained enough undetected (by video and photo) damage that would allow the ENTIRE building to collapse. Even Oklahoma city bombing left the building partly standing and that was WAY more damage than could even by speculated in WTC7.

the visual comparisons I already stated in a previous post (this is my position) could not have looked exactly like a typical controlled demo anyway. It would have had to be rigged with explosives while the building was in use in the weeks or months leading up to the attack. The building was still filled with T.I's and many more variances that a normal control demo would not include. I don't imagine it would look exactly like a typical CD since it wasn't a typical CD.

I am not sure of the positions Richard is taking or if he is editing his footage to avoid any explanation, I do no know him personally. It seems strange that you would ask ME that. Maybe by asymmetrical he meant that it was asymmetrical ENOUGH to not be a structural failure that caused the collapse. If that is the case then i would believe him.

I am not an engineer no, I have no credentials to argue force loads and such but I do feel comfortable in the topic of what a building can withstand. I am a site foreman for a large company that builds steel structures inside or on Iron and concrete structures. I don't get into numbers too much but I do have to know how to attach to the building to allow the base building to do its thing. I am not qualified to make any calls about this and I don't believe i have except for making ONE painfully obvious observation that it is pretty retarded to think that a tin can with the help of a bit of kerosene, managed to completely level the ENTIRE WTC COMPLEX.

I lost my vivid imagination sometime in my early 20s, but clearly there are folks on here that still want to believe that SUPER PLANES can swoop in and level 300 or so stories of highrises without firing a shot. I wish i still had that.... it sounds amazing!

Originally posted by FirstCasualty
What proves a controlled demolition is that there is no way under the sun that building 7 could have fallen without one. Explosives were used because there was no way that the building could have sustained enough undetected (by video and photo) damage that would allow the ENTIRE building to collapse. Even Oklahoma city bombing left the building partly standing and that was WAY more damage than could even by speculated in WTC7.

Then do I assume correctly that you've read the NIST report and can identify the areas they did not address properly? Literally every OTHER conspiracy proponent here not only didn't read the NIST report, they don't even take the time to find out what it or anyone else even says on how WTC 7 fell..

For example,deputy fire chief Peter Hayden was on site diring 9/11 and he reported seeing the out of control fires were causing severe deformations in the side of the building that needed transoms to prop up. Why is what he's saying wrong?

the visual comparisons I already stated in a previous post (this is my position) could not have looked exactly like a typical controlled demo anyway. It would have had to be rigged with explosives while the building was in use in the weeks or months leading up to the attack. The building was still filled with T.I's and many more variances that a normal control demo would not include. I don't imagine it would look exactly like a typical CD since it wasn't a typical CD.

So of course you realize just how ludicrous it is to claim sinister secret agents were able to plant hidden demolitions on an occupied building without anyone noticing anything or leaving any evidence of demolitions behind, right?