Massive Times Square Billboard to Show Video of WTC 7 Destruction During 9/11 Anniversary

originally posted by: randyvs

Molten steel hombre! I'm an iron worker and I
know damn well that a freefall as observed in
all three buildings is structurally impossible
unless demoed.

Ah! So we "established" (sarcasm here...) that it's impossible that a tower comes down from a plane impact AND it's impossible that a structure can come down in almost freefall.

If that's the case, those who allegedly staged the event with demolitions, causing TWO things which are actually "physically impossible", the actual collapse and then the collapse at almost freefall speed....must be entire MORONS, you will hopefully agree. They're such big morons that their alleged demolition of the buildings gave their entire scheme away since (according to you) a building simply cannot "normally" come down w/ 200kmph".

Again...you're aware that this theory doesn't make any sense whatsoever?

originally posted by: randyvs

Molten steel hombre! I'm an iron worker and I
know damn well that a freefall as observed in
all three buildings is structurally impossible
unless demoed.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips

So, steelworker, tell me what happens if a MINIMUM of 45,000t crashes downward on a floor which is designed to hold only 1,300t? Mind you, it started out with a min. of 45,000t and of course this weight increased with each additional floor.

(You could as well smash a house of cards with a large hammer, the cards won't pose any significant resistance to the hammer although they might be strong enough to hold up something light)

Also, the towers did not come down in freefall (which is about 300kmph) but at 200kmph.

I also recommend that people read www.tms.org...
It explains why and how the towers fell in detail.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

I'm no steel worker, I'm a structural iron worker, connector.

.must be entire MORONS,

I doubt if I'd be so kind but that's a start.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: randyvs

That's no fire.

Once again with the conspiracy site stuff.

But if you must.
Different construction compaired to WTC 1 2 3.

LOL you insult the 100 years of steel workers that made sure buildings do not crumble to the ground in piles of almost nothing.

originally posted by: GoodOlDave

originally posted by: gazzerman
I would love to see a poll/statistics of how many people know how many buildings collapsed.

I would argue its an injustice to the people that worked there and the owners, share holders etc.. and the business lost by not being able to work there for it to be forgotten.

I for one would like to see a poll of how many people know who Mohammed Atta is. I've asked several people myself and they didn't know what the significance the name has. To most people in the west, if it's a muslim name it might as well be some gibberish sound we make with our mouths when we're bored, as far as for anyone wanting to remember it is concerned..

Why would anyone care about Mohammed Atta ? What does he have to do with some of the toughest buildings in the world exploding into Mushroom Clouds and blowing away in the wind ??

The Deutschebank was hammered with WAY more debris than Building 7, why did it not fall ?? And for that matter, how is it that it did not go on fire.

In fact, NOTHING went on fire except for the most important buildings, I am wondering how Building 7 got those fires started when no flammable debris hit it, the fires did not start where any damage was seen.

Please tell us how those fires were started, what you think some of the thermite thermobaricly destroyed Steel Beams that were flying around, were like the embers from a campfire into a tinder dry forest or something ???

a reply to: real_one

Hooray! Good! Get the word out. Perhaps, if it's seen enough, something will click in the minds of those still sleeping and wake them up! I only hope it isn't offensive and trauma inducing to surviving families of that horrible day though.

a reply to: mekhanics

Thanks for Posting Operation NorthWoods

I was going to post this in my previous Thread

but like Always Wolfenz puts out To Much long Posted Information in a Post

that most People Would Skip Because of it ! I Now Tend to be a Little More Brief ..

It Begs the Question if Flight 93 was for Building 7
Tho Some say it was just a Hole in the Ground just Debris no "much" Resemblance of a Plane

From all the Photos of the Crash Site not Much Left of the Plane but should of been Right ?
just Left a Huge Imprint..

Unless ................. Flight 93 was Carrying Something With it like something similar to Termite or Much Much Worse.. Pehaps

9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t
Posted on February 17, 2010 by willyloman
willyloman.wordpress.com...

just a Wild Blind Guess ATS..






and what DID WTC 7 had within ?



The United States Tend to play Cry Wolf aka Making a False Flag SHIP!

So instead of Posting a Video Something a Little More Challenging of a "if you want to know "

Hollywood has a Game of " Tease" in their Movies .

On DVD, Blu Ray Etc.. instead of you tube to get the better effect..

Watch : Long Kiss Good knight. :: 5 years before 911
Watch : TV Series : The Lone Gunmen Episode :: 6 months

both plotted " Fund Raising Profit " for war..

This thread has me a little confused.

For the last year really there has been very little action on the 9/11 forum.

Now I am overwhelmed

Overwhelmed by the level of ignorance to events on display.

It is really quite shocking how many of you who chose believe in some kind of false flag conspiracy know so little about the events themselves yet you talk about the subject as if you are some kind of authority on it. It's like you have all gone out, watched lose change, saw a few Youtube clips of guys like Gage, Jones and Griffin and as if my magic have turned into experts on matters of physics, history, architecture, terrorism, fire fighting and so on.

Take WTC-7 as a example I have spent quite a bit of time studding into this building and I have never yet seen a "truthers" claim actually stand up that has significantly cast doubt on the fate of that building. Yet because Jones said the used thermite that must be true and "you would have to be ignorant to believe otherwise"..... according to some in the turth movement.

Just by reading over a few posts its really quite obvious that there are more than just a hand full of you who don't have a clue what you are talking about.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Now I am overwhelmed

Overwhelmed by the level of ignorance to events on display.

It is really quite shocking how many of you who chose believe in some kind of false flag conspiracy know so little about the events themselves yet you talk about the subject as if you are some kind of authority on it.

Very true - so far we have had:

Claims of thermite,
steel cut during cleanup is proof of demolition,
melted steel - a claim only made by truthers,
WTC 1 & 2 fell at freefall speed - which means that they never even watched a video of them falling, as it is obvious the debris is freefalling, the building collapse is slower,
Then there are the well known hoaxed letters used as "evidence",
the buildings fell into their own footprint - yet also damaged other buildings...
a missile, not a plane hit the Pentagon, yet it had 757 undercarriage, seats, engines and had the passengers on board,
They bought up the "pull it" discussion with firefighters, as if the NYFD demolished WTC 7,
The mythical "dancing Israeli's" are bought up,
mini nukes were used,
Larry Silverstein profited from 9/11,
Silent explosives were used,
A Bush brother was in charge of security,
The claim a van with a large silk screened image of the twin towers with a plane crashing into it.
There was no official investigation into building 7....

All silly false claims that have been discussed and debunked many times here before.

a reply to: hellobruce

wow!

you mean they have not started on Al-CIAdu, no-planes, mini nukes or space lasers

not as bad as i thought it was then...

Also people might not know but the MSM is self-censored when it comes to 9/11, and other stuff.
Really I didn't know just how much until ATS, The Internet, The Fed scam, and Ron Paul. It was in 2006 that I woke up, as to all the lies and propaganda.

The Media On 9/11

Maybe you still believe everything as presented, to you I say your trigger event hasn't happened yet, but it is most likely coming, maybe it will take something very personal, like a close encounter with police brutality or an unjustified TSA personal search. But I hope not for your sake, that is a brutal way to have the epiphany. But something powerful needs to break the cognitive dissonance, for me personally it was the aftermath of 9/11 and the bogus Iraq war.

So if that huge 9/11 billboard alerts even 1 person, it is well worth it, to bad it hurts so much, it's like Neo waking up out of the Matrix.

a reply to: TinfoilTP
the communist manifesto was a book describing mostly economics and sociology.

heck marx and engels mostly wrote about economics and sociology. They saw the revolution as an organic part of "end-game" capitalism.

I do see this as being a CIA-style play by putin possibly.

The point here is, I actually don't have anything "against" a good conspiracy. Whether it's an alternative explanation of why and how 9/11 happened, or someone claiming about the existance of chemtrails.

But *what* I do have a problem with if people make claims and don't provide evidence.

In this case, when people say thermite was used to demo the towers, then please don't just link to a youtube video or some "site" with some blahblah, BUT FACTS.

If you say thermite was used, where are the scientific reports where they found traces of the explosives which would strongly suggest that indeed explosives were used?

Otherwise you are just echoing the other conspiracy nut, you are NOT "thinking for yourself" even if you believe so. I can make some site with some theory in 15mins...but showing evidence that what I claim is true is an entirely different story.
(Observing a building coming down...better even..JUST from a youtube video..and then say it must have been demoed just from looking at the video is extremely silly...this is why most of you are not credible with your theories).

a reply to: ParasuvO

In fact, NOTHING went on fire except for the most important buildings, I am wondering how Building 7 got those fires started when no flammable debris hit it, the fires did not start where any damage was seen.

Please tell us how those fires were started, what you think some of the thermite thermobaricly destroyed Steel Beams that were flying around, were like the embers from a campfire into a tinder dry forest or something ???

Have you ever heard of an electrical fire?
What happens when you slice through the side of a building?
Do you think you might slice through wires?

There are almost no pictures of the side where the debris cut through.
But that is the side where the fire fighters said the 'bulge' started.
Then they set up a transit and watched the bulge get worse as the fires burned.
Do you think the fire department was lying?

Check out this video starting about the 50 second point.
You can get glimpses of the damage.


But then Richard Gage and his cronies don't bother to tell you about these details.

Listen and tell us if you hear any explosions.

You can see the debris hitting the south side in the first 7 seconds of this video.

I think a measly 161 stars for this thread is proof that "most people are waking up to the fact 9/11 was a sham" is an exaggeration to say the least

I think it would be more accurate to say that the billboard was a selfish and tasteless thing to do and the last place on earth it should have been done.

If you want to impact an investigation, buy a billboard in DC.

I think the most plausible conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 is the richard clarke theory

I think if someone did it, they smile every time someone puts to focus on controlled demolition and other nonsense

who knows, maybe those people are even behind the theory.

Even if there was not a coverup or conspiracy, which is unlikely, people need to be aware of the evidence. Some of my favorite pieces of evidence include the fact that people reported explosions occurring in the basement levels. Before the second tower was hit, there were reports of explosions in it, before ever being touched. Rodriguez, the man who saved many people that day and testified before the 9/11 commission about the explosions he heard, offered up many more witnesses who heard the same thing. None of the reports of these explosions were released to the public, rather they were labelled "restricted," and the commission did not offer up any explanations for what witnesses saw, heard, and felt.

Whether the government or the president were involved is difficult to prove. It has been claimed that Bush's cousin was the CEO of Securacom and that the company was responsible for security at the towers, and that Bush's brother was on the board of directors. The involvement of these relatives is true, but from what I have been able to research Securacom was not heavily involved in the security of the buildings, and the involvement they did have was years earlier. So that is not really a strong connection. I think that the witnesses are correct about hearing explosions in the building before and after the planes hit. If that is true then that points to one of two things: either it was the terrorists, or it was an inside job. If it was an inside job involving the government, then one would be hard-pressed to say that the top levels of government didn't know about this. That is usually not how it works.

One could say it was not the government, but a private group looking for financial gain, but then there is the fact that no group besides the intelligence community would have had access to the information about the terrorist attack itself. So if the terrorists didn't plant the explosives, who did? And again, the best evidence that the explosions were not caused by the planes is the fact that explosions went off in the 2nd tower before it was ever struck. There was the exploding freight elevator, which is very interesting. People need to be aware of these things, as well as the fact that a number of witnesses claiming they saw something contradictory to the official version of events turned up dead under highly mysterious circumstances. There are so many unusual facets to this case that are circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy.

I am appalled at the amount of money spent on the investigation as well, as it was so little. Exact numbers are hard to come by considering there were multiple parties involved, but it is hard to get to a very large number based on the facts. There really does appear to be some truth to the idea that we spent very little money, when compared with other disasters, investigating the greatest terrorist attack in US history. The fact that building 7 came down is just one of the many things that don't add up with 9/11, and it is a good place to start when educating the public, as it is the most glaring inconsistency in my opinion. For a building that was not struck by a plane to collapse seem highly suspect, first of all. And the building was not right up against one of the big towers either, but was hundreds of feet away. Fires simply don't bring down superstructures, especially when built like building 7. You really have to make a lot of assumptions to even get in the realm of such a thing being possible. You can say that some unlikely condition occurred, or something of that nature, but is that really very probable?

I wanted to start a new thread with this video but it seems I can't start a new 911 thread with out 10 of something. anyway this popped up and all though it is some what 'easy going' its worth a look . and I still don't know how to post videos so take this and run......... thanks Painfulhead.... a reply to: real_one
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Painfulhead
I wanted to start a new thread with this video but it seems I can't start a new 911 thread with out 10 of something. anyway this popped up and all though it is some what 'easy going' its worth a look . and I still don't know how to post videos so take this and run......... thanks Painfulhead.... a reply to: real_one
www.youtube.com...

Another hour and a half video speculating about a conspiracy.
There is no physical proof of any explosives of any kind.
There is no person who has come forward and said he planted explosives.

You need proof a conspiracy.
Not a he said- she heard type of thing.

But after 13 years NADA.