This guy admits something big, but falls short, why?

originally posted by: Another_Nut

>>
They magically held the towers up for what 30 + years.

Magic
>>
Yes, "magically" no 767 flew into them either. Even the architects admitted that while the towers COULD have possibly withstand the impact themselves (which they obviously did at first), the towers were not designed for the damage of such an impact AND 90.000l jet fuel.

>>
Making 2 plane crashes result in the global symetrical collapse of three buildings?

Magic
>>

The mass of the towers was too much to allow for much lateral movement. Or in plain English: That the towers came straight down ("symmetrical") was the expected outcome. There were no significant forces which would have pushed debris OUTWARDS. Heavy stuff falls...guess what...DOWN.

>>>
The fire in the 70s that burnt out like four floors but didnt result in collapse even though I believe there was no fireproofing

Magic
>>>

You cannot, not even remotely compare a normal fire which takes a very long time to even spread..with a fire fueled from 60.000l jet fuel which will ignite several floors etc. all at once.

>>
Making two 110 story buildings collapse into a pile less than the height of the lobby

Magic
>>
Yes...now let me ask you...you know what the "gray stuff" was which was all over Manhattan that day and make it look like in Winter? TATAA!!! Here is the rest of your towers. I guess the tons and tons of debris and ashes all over Manhattan don't count for you? Insofar your claim that the towers merely crashed into a pile...is wrong. (Besides, where else did you expect the towers to crash to, if not into a pile underneath [and the rest of Manhattan, as pointed out] ?

originally posted by: mcChoodles
Its taken all these years for our collective consciousness to bear the brutal blow to our world view.

The idea that our own government and other "friendly" governments were to blame for this sent most people into immediate denial.

The truth is coming.

The truth must be awfully slow. Because even now, after 13 (!!) years, most theorists have NO EVIDENCE let alone proof for their hideous claims. One example only: If some of you talk about controlled demolition etc. where is the *REAL PROOF* for that? I am not talking about Youtube videos and witness accounts like "I heard 'explosions'" I am talking about REAL PROOF for any of those theories. Scientists could easily look at debris and determine whether "termite" was used etc..etc.. I don't know ANY of such proof. However, I know Youtube videos with some "crazy dude" talking who SAYS it was a controlled demolition "because some people heard something like explosions". If this is what you use to base your theories on, even after thirteen years....

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: magicrat

I had cameras in my pockets

I always carry now a small camera since seeing something I missed because of no camera, it is small pocket size and than most people also have their phone which is a camera also so I don't find that statement odd.

It's very common now; it wasn't common in 2001. But it was definitely possible to carry cameras in your pocket, so it may not be that odd a statement.

Anyway, it was the way he said it that raised red flags in my mind -- it felt to me like he was lying or hiding something as he said it, and throughout the rest of the interview he seemed pretty honest and open.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Its almost like they shipped the steel to china so it could be melted down before any tests could be done...

Bet that would never happen....

Ill be back to reply more indepth to your nonsense in the post above but imma need my cpu for that

originally posted by: magicrat

originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: magicrat

I had cameras in my pockets

I always carry now a small camera since seeing something I missed because of no camera, it is small pocket size and than most people also have their phone which is a camera also so I don't find that statement odd.

It's very common now; it wasn't common in 2001. But it was definitely possible to carry cameras in your pocket, so it may not be that odd a statement.

Anyway, it was the way he said it that raised red flags in my mind -- it felt to me like he was lying or hiding something as he said it, and throughout the rest of the interview he seemed pretty honest and open.

Yes I guess you are quite right and rewatching I agree it almost seems like he is admitting to something he feels guilty about or there is some other missing information about why he has cameras in his pockets.

Right at the start of this video he mentions seeing the first plane hit. At this time he is standing, holding open the lobby doors when, the second plane hits. He then describes how he "turned around" and seen this plane "coming at him"....

How did he get from the lobby doors up to being directly beneath where the plane hit? Or, whatever it is he is claiming hit the building?

Also, being blown back 20 feet, requiring bolts from neck down spine...he also says he was helping people to get out.

Either this guy has a faulty memory (which would be understandable) or he is just lying.

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: scubagravy

why after all this time, hold back.

Money, when he say he will release the pic's, he actually say "i found out i couldn't sell them".

I don't get his story though, could be his memory of the event, it just seems weird.

I thought he said he didn't want to sell them and he's giving them away this Saturday at 2 pm.

originally posted by: kalunom

How did he get from the lobby doors up to being directly beneath where the plane hit?

Would you mind pointing out where he said he was "directly beneath where the plane hit".

I've looked and looked and can't find it anywhere.

It must be there somewhere though or I'm sure you wouldn't be calling a man, who tried to help people in a disaster, a liar.

originally posted by: violet

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: scubagravy

why after all this time, hold back.

Money, when he say he will release the pic's, he actually say "i found out i couldn't sell them".

I don't get his story though, could be his memory of the event, it just seems weird.

I thought he said he didn't want to sell them and he's giving them away this Saturday at 2 pm.

So he just kept them for himself for 13 years....MmmHmm

a reply to: Mianeye

To be fair, he says he didn't get the film developed for 11 years which implies his camera was a conventional film type. Digital cameras were in their infancy in 2001 and, even if you could get a phone with a camera then, the resolution was woeful like 300k pixels or something in that mediocre range.

If he had used a 2001 digital camera I doubt his pics would show any detail worth studying.

a reply to: Psynic

He said he was opening the door to the lobby which I assume is the entrance at ground level as that is directly below the impact point - well, over 500' below it and he says the blast that came down the elevator shaft(s) knocked him back. From that vantage point he could have seen the plane approaching albeit very briefly.

It all fits except for any suggestion he had time to get his camera out and snap a pic of the plane before it struck.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Hey, i normally don't post but I can put the entire jet fuel arguemnt to rest right now. As a welder I first learned using Oxygen and Acetylene in order to get a flame that is hot enough to weld with. An accelerant gets the fire going (my acetylene or the jet fuel) but the oxygen gets the flame hot enough to burn through the metal. You had both of those things in the wtc however when I am using my torch I pump in PURE oxygen in order to get the flame hot enough. Not only would there be less oxygen because of the atmosphere (only about 22% oxygen in air normally) but with the amount of dust and the already burning fire the amount of oxygen would be limited. The flames wouldn't have been hot enough to weaken to the steel to the degree that is required for the building to fail. Ask any welder/ironworker and they will tell you that the building was brought down on purpose.

I do not subscribe to the no-plane theory however I do believe it was a FF and that super-thermite was used. Anyways, sorry to keep the argument going. I just wanted to add in that little bit about the jet fuel.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

Im at work so i can't link any videos but I seem to recall an account of a woman who lived in a building near the wtc on a high floor who had her window blown open by the dust cloud. She sent some dust out to be analyzed and they found that a flake in the dust reacted like SUPER-thermite when heated.

I could be wrong or it could be proven false, im sort of new to official conspiracy theories.

a reply to: Divin3F3nrus

Bump for update today.

originally posted by: Divin3F3nrus
a reply to: SLAYER69

Ask any welder/ironworker and they will tell you that the building was brought down on purpose.

I do not subscribe to the no-plane theory however I do believe it was a FF and that super-thermite was used. Anyways, sorry to keep the argument going. I just wanted to add in that little bit about the jet fuel.

Your comparisons between acetylene and kerosene are correct. This has been widely discussed by the Association of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

But I was told by the most prominent and highly regarded ironworker in Canada and one who went on to become president of the two largest construction companies in this country, that the towers came down because of the fires weakening the structure.

This man was not only involved in the building of the WTC, but also had business there in the months (and weeks and days) leading up to the event.

In the aftermath, this man returned to ground zero to be debriefed and informed of the 'Official' story so he could disseminate it throughout Canada.

Only one problem, we had known him for so long, we knew when he was lying.

Sadly, he died mysteriously three years ago.

On the 13th anniversary of 9/11, I got together with a mutual friend who shared his pieces of the puzzle.

One, that our friend had brought another senior engineer into the picture, whose expertise lay in mega-hydraulics, by finding him a 'job' in NYC. Two that this engineer had let slip, one drunken evening, his interest in "bringing down a building". And three, that the mysterious death was a premeditated suicide brought about by his wracking guilt.

Even more peculiar, when this fellow took his own life by driving his boat full speed into a concrete wall, his only passenger was someone who also had credentials to be involved in a massive staged event, the long time assistant to a
Mr. D. Henning.

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Divin3F3nrus
a reply to: SLAYER69

Ask any welder/ironworker and they will tell you that the building was brought down on purpose.

I do not subscribe to the no-plane theory however I do believe it was a FF and that super-thermite was used. Anyways, sorry to keep the argument going. I just wanted to add in that little bit about the jet fuel.

Your comparisons between acetylene and kerosene are correct. This has been widely discussed by the Association of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

But I was told by the most prominent and highly regarded ironworker in Canada and one who went on to become president of the two largest construction companies in this country, that the towers came down because of the fires weakening the structure.

This man was not only involved in the building of the WTC, but also had business there in the months (and weeks and days) leading up to the event.

In the aftermath, this man returned to ground zero to be debriefed and informed of the 'Official' story so he could disseminate it throughout Canada.

Only one problem, we had known him for so long, we knew when he was lying.

Sadly, he died mysteriously three years ago.

On the 13th anniversary of 9/11, I got together with a mutual friend who shared his pieces of the puzzle.

One, that our friend had brought another senior engineer into the picture, whose expertise lay in mega-hydraulics, by finding him a 'job' in NYC. Two that this engineer had let slip, one drunken evening, his interest in "bringing down a building". And three, that the mysterious death was a premeditated suicide brought about by his wracking guilt.

Even more peculiar, when this fellow took his own life by driving his boat full speed into a concrete wall, his only passenger was someone who also had credentials to be involved in a massive staged event, the long time assistant to a
Mr. D. Henning.

So who was the boat suicide guy? And who is D. Henning

i look forward to any new information that might help nail the real perpetrators of 9/11

originally posted by: 8675309jenny

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: Divin3F3nrus
a reply to: SLAYER69

Ask any welder/ironworker and they will tell you that the building was brought down on purpose.

I do not subscribe to the no-plane theory however I do believe it was a FF and that super-thermite was used. Anyways, sorry to keep the argument going. I just wanted to add in that little bit about the jet fuel.

Your comparisons between acetylene and kerosene are correct. This has been widely discussed by the Association of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

But I was told by the most prominent and highly regarded ironworker in Canada and one who went on to become president of the two largest construction companies in this country, that the towers came down because of the fires weakening the structure.

This man was not only involved in the building of the WTC, but also had business there in the months (and weeks and days) leading up to the event.

In the aftermath, this man returned to ground zero to be debriefed and informed of the 'Official' story so he could disseminate it throughout Canada.

Only one problem, we had known him for so long, we knew when he was lying.

Sadly, he died mysteriously three years ago.

On the 13th anniversary of 9/11, I got together with a mutual friend who shared his pieces of the puzzle.

One, that our friend had brought another senior engineer into the picture, whose expertise lay in mega-hydraulics, by finding him a 'job' in NYC. Two that this engineer had let slip, one drunken evening, his interest in "bringing down a building". And three, that the mysterious death was a premeditated suicide brought about by his wracking guilt.

Even more peculiar, when this fellow took his own life by driving his boat full speed into a concrete wall, his only passenger was someone who also had credentials to be involved in a massive staged event, the long time assistant to a
Mr. D. Henning.

And who is D. Henning

LMGTFY

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4
i look forward to any new information that might help nail the real perpetrators of 9/11

And I look forward to reaching 60, which at this rate ain't feckin' likely.

any news yet?, looking forward to these pics.