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

originally posted by: defcon5
He was going to release the photos on Saturday...
Where's the pics?

Here they are.

Link

Doesn't appear to be anything we haven't seen before.

a reply to: FraggleRock
Ah, Okay, first few are interesting, but he's apparently not releasing the others for some reason.

originally posted by: FraggleRock

originally posted by: defcon5
He was going to release the photos on Saturday...
Where's the pics?

Here they are.

Link

Doesn't appear to be anything we haven't seen before.

I didn't see anything in the pictures that stood out, but the second image has an interesting filename: 1TowerIIJustHitZoom2Before-Tower2CollapseGiveAwayPlaneFlyingByPic309112001

It also seems that a few of them (mostly the ones prior to collapse) have the word Zoom in their filenames. I'd like to see the original, unzoomed ones too.

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Answer

Took an awful lot of words to express garbage theory.

Garbage theory... did you even watch the second video I posted? Use your eyes.

The videos of the collapse show pretty clearly what I'm saying. My theory is based on what I can SEE in the multiple videos of the collapse. Tell me what video proof you have of whatever alternate theory you buy into. I'd love to see them but I'm guessing you'll have a hard time finding any proof.

Instead of jumping to a conspiracy theory explanation, I look at what actually happened on that day and formulate my own opinion. Let's hear what you believe and how you came to that conclusion.

Now why would we want to rehash that all over again?

That's what I thought. You've got nothing because the "controlled demolition" crowd has zero evidence that holds up under scrutiny.

LOL Well most all of the evidence was destroyed. So I guess I hear what you're saying.

Ok simple question:

Why do you believe that the towers didn't come down as described? What have you seen that convinced you?

What is new about these photos?

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Answer

Took an awful lot of words to express garbage theory.

Garbage theory... did you even watch the second video I posted? Use your eyes.

The videos of the collapse show pretty clearly what I'm saying. My theory is based on what I can SEE in the multiple videos of the collapse. Tell me what video proof you have of whatever alternate theory you buy into. I'd love to see them but I'm guessing you'll have a hard time finding any proof.

Instead of jumping to a conspiracy theory explanation, I look at what actually happened on that day and formulate my own opinion. Let's hear what you believe and how you came to that conclusion.

Now why would we want to rehash that all over again?

That's what I thought. You've got nothing because the "controlled demolition" crowd has zero evidence that holds up under scrutiny.

LOL Well most all of the evidence was destroyed. So I guess I hear what you're saying.

Ok simple question:

Why do you believe that the towers didn't come down as described? What have you seen that convinced you?

Aside from being an architect who has worked on hi-rise construction? Pretty much everything.

Dug around a little about this Ricki DeSantis guy.

Here's some other times he spoke about other things:




This video is similar to the one that just came out, he tells a similar story in Mar 2012, and starts to talk about who the person was that he was going to save, among other things.




Also, not sure if this is the same Ricki DeSantis (it could also be this guy:

Obama's Czars by Ricki DeSantis, Jan 2012

I ran across this odd response to a page regarding tips for running for public office:

February 27, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Dear Jay;
Thanks for the insight. I agree wholeheartedly, a picture tells a thousand words, so make sure your words graphically paint that picture in your listener’s minds, in words, and phrases they understand. The shock effect out of the gate always works for me, and informing on facts that are so outrageous then following with the cause and effect of those facts and actions exercised by the guilty party coupled with what should be done to rectify the matter, always holding those responsible and accountable for their outrageous Un-American Acts seems to get the point across.
I love the examples you used. I was just explaining the other day how important it is to elect an administration that puts America interests first, benefiting the American citizen by making positive and exciting things happen in the economy creating opportunity and futures for Americans once again, instead of destroying their freedoms, and efforts to get ahead financially by mandating against the majority by inappropriately abusing powers such as Executive Order Powers, and CZARS to bypass the people, and impose immense hardship on all Americans with daily necessities such as food, healthcare and gasoline for our cars to go back and forth to work so they can take more taxes out of our paycheck too.
God Bless,
New York can only dream of the amazing and exciting things you would have made happen as the New York US Senator instead of the fraudulent puppet currently representing the Obama regime’s efforts to destroy this country, & certainly not representing the interests of the New York resident. Cuomo has raised the state excise tax on gasoline 3 times already since elected, and of course the PRAVDA like media in New York has not printed one single word in their newspapers or uttered one single word on their “make believe” news shows nightly, on this fact.
Ricki DeSantis

I don't buy Ricki's story and I am amazed that Luke Rudkowski is giving him the time of day. The pictures released have nothing to do with the story he told and are not taken from where he says he was when the alleged plane allegedly hit.

This is nothing new. Numerous people over the years have sworn up and down that they saw the impact but when you press them, you find out that they were on the wrong side of the building and saw nothing but debris being blown out of the north side of the South Tower .

A Pulitzer Prize winning photographer on the south side of the South Tower, looking up at the tower, heard the noise of an "aircraft" approaching and took a photo that shows debris being blown out of the building but did not see the plane.

My question out of all this is "Who got to Rudkowski?"

I think Ricki is either some kind of plant or somebody, like a lot of other phonies, who has "9/11 fever". It produces delusional ravings until it gets the attention it wants and then fades away quickly in the light of day.

Here is the earliest photo of the group released by Ricki_Rudkowski (no, not from the I Love Lucy Show), and it is of one of the controlled demo style detonations that preceded the collapse all the way down the building, which has already started as you can see from the shadow on the building above the puff of smoke.

wearechange.org...



I think Rudkowski, who is normally great, got "punked" by a gremlin from . . . somewhere not nice.

a reply to: ipsedixit

There is something fishy about the guy and the gaps of information. I'm not going to speculate one way or another, but something just seems a little 'different' about him. I was kind of expecting to see a picture of a plane that was not a commercial airliner, but instead got some pictures of dust, cops, and wreckage - and no planes.

I have some questions about who he is. There isn't much popping up from before 2012, except his Facebook page, and some references to a company called 'Ricki DeSantis, LLC' in 2007, and 'Smart Medical Transportation, LLC' in 2009, and 'WETHEPEOPLESHALSPEAK' in Florida (I believe he mentioned that in one of the videos too). He claims to be a COO/CFO/CEO of a company in a penthouse, but never said what that company was. Who knows...

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Bilk22
a reply to: Answer

Took an awful lot of words to express garbage theory.

Garbage theory... did you even watch the second video I posted? Use your eyes.

The videos of the collapse show pretty clearly what I'm saying. My theory is based on what I can SEE in the multiple videos of the collapse. Tell me what video proof you have of whatever alternate theory you buy into. I'd love to see them but I'm guessing you'll have a hard time finding any proof.

Instead of jumping to a conspiracy theory explanation, I look at what actually happened on that day and formulate my own opinion. Let's hear what you believe and how you came to that conclusion.

Now why would we want to rehash that all over again?

That's what I thought. You've got nothing because the "controlled demolition" crowd has zero evidence that holds up under scrutiny.

LOL Well most all of the evidence was destroyed. So I guess I hear what you're saying.

Ok simple question:

Why do you believe that the towers didn't come down as described? What have you seen that convinced you?

Aside from being an architect who has worked on hi-rise construction? Pretty much everything.

You're still not answering the question. Vague remarks do not explain why you don't believe your eyes.

a reply to: systemic.aberration

I don't buy this guy at all. He's like a lot of the fakes and phonies who were there and saw it clearly and were oh so serious and sanctimonious and even, in the case of Harley Man, had a quick summary of the Keane Commission report minutes after the collapses of the Towers.

If you go to the linked page from We Are Change. Click on the photo above, but on that page and click "save image as", Windows 7 gives me the "save" dialogue box with the picture's caption already filled in:

2ndStageCollapseExplosionPrematureRevealed2-600x463

I ask myself "What's going on Luke? Are you delegating too much stuff now?"

On the plus side, it is a good photo of one of the controlled demo "squibs" blowing out. I don't know, maybe Luke was having a really busy day that day and didn't give the whole thing a hard look before he went with the story.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: systemic.aberration

On the plus side, it is a good photo of one of the controlled demo "squibs" blowing out.

You're telling me that the dust blowing out of the side of the building has to be demo explosions and not debris being blown out by the downward rush of upper floors? It couldn't be possible that the accordion effect of the upper floors caused dust and debris to be blown out of elevator shafts and stairwells as the building collapsed onto itself?

What happens when you put baby powder on your hands and clap?

Oh well, this is disappointing... But here's a nice video that was uploaded a few days ago for anyone interested.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: systemic.aberration

On the plus side, it is a good photo of one of the controlled demo "squibs" blowing out.

You're telling me that the dust blowing out of the side of the building has to be demo explosions and not debris being blown out by the downward rush of upper floors?

Yes.

It couldn't be possible that the accordion effect of the upper floors caused dust and debris to be blown out of elevator shafts and stairwells as the building collapsed onto itself?

I don't think so. The dust clouds are way too small and they don't shoot out far enough. If it were an effect like an accordion there should be long streams of dust flowing out.

What happens when you put baby powder on your hands and clap?

Baby giggles.

a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

It wasn't a Boeing. That's why all the initial reports, including those to the police, described it as a commuter or corporate type.

a reply to: DarknStormy

Thanks for that outstanding video. No doubt in my old military mind that nuclear devices were employed to bring the towers down. That is the ONLY theory that answers all the questions I've held for years.

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: Agent_USA_Supporter

It wasn't a Boeing. That's why all the initial reports, including those to the police, described it as a commuter or corporate type.

You're quite correct, I've seen numerous witnesses say they seen a "business type" plane and not an airliner, from the Pentagon strike and Shanksville. Additionally professional pilots have described the speed the planes were supposed to be going at before they hit the towers as highly unlikely for regular airliners. They also alleged the maneouvers they performed at said speeds would probably have made the planes break up.

This is all of course after you convince yourself that the alleged terrorists could have even flown airliners in the first place

What some people fail to realize is that, all other things aside, there are numerous sources of evidence for temperatures that were high enough to melt steel and iron, and vaporize lead. A USGS report on the dust from the WTC discussed finding iron particles that were “sprayed into the air so that surface tension draws the molten droplets into near-spherical shapes.” And there were other reports by different organizations, including FEMA, that found other oddities that could not be explained by simple fires, even with the addition of jet fuel. And then there is the fact that numerous witnesses on the ground reported seeing molten metals, metals that are actually liquid and behaving as a liquid rather than a solid. The NIST report concluded that the collapses were the result of jet-fuel fires which did not get to high enough temperatures to produce molten steel or iron. Then they claim there was no evidence of molten steel or iron. They also claim that even if there was molten steel or iron, it would not have been relevant to the collapse. Considering that the fires could not cause molten steel or iron, if it is present it is VERY relevant. The only potential explanation they put forth is that the molten metals happened after the fact, which still makes zero sense considering the temperatures simply would not have been high enough.

I mean there are no examples of building fires producing molten metal, and to my knowledge no superstructure has ever been brought down by fire, and the jet fuel itself would not burn hot enough to produce molten metal which has been proven to be present. I think focusing on building 7 makes the most sense, since the argument cannot be muddied with the planes damaging the superstructure. I've noticed that most of the arguments against molten metal question the veracity of eyewitness claims. That is highly suspicious to me. There were plenty of credible eyewitnesses who saw molten metal, even soon after the collapse. Then there are the reports I referenced above, plus many others, including the reports made for the company who insured the buildings themselves, which clearly indicate fires that were hot enough to produce molten metal. Some of the collected samples could not have been due to contamination after the fact either, which is a claim I've heard, because they were collected soon after the attacks. Clearly the temps were hot enough to cause the high concentrations of spherical iron particles in the WTC dust from all the buildings.

The RJ Lee Group report, which was conducted at the request of Deutsche Bank for insurance purposes, entitled "WTC Dust Signature" determined that normal building dust contains iron particles constituting about .04% of the dust, while at the WTC iron accounted for almost 6% of the dust. They go on to state that the metals were "melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles," which again is consistent with the other reports who found the same thing. It seems that only the official investigation is the one that didn't think there was molten metal, which I find suspicious. Especially considering that by the time the NIST investigation started the majority of the steel had already been removed from the site of the disaster. I just don't understand why the evidence is ignored in this particular instance.

And I want to stress the credibility of those who saw this molten metal running. One firefighter described it as like "being in a foundry." Other witnesses include an engineer from the firm that designed the towers, numerous firefighters, a guy from the NCEH, the director of FEMA made a comment about molten materials, among many others. So to ignore this fact is absurd. So multiple reports prove there was molten steel/iron, multiple eyewitnesses saw it, even a buried pile of debris is not going to reach the temperatures required to melt these metals. There is no evidence that this is even possible in this instance, especially considering there would be no oxygen. Therefore for the NIST to claim that the molten metal is irrelevant blows my mind, as it clearly indicates that it must have occurred before the towers were a pile of rubble on the ground.

The idea that there were no planes is pretty absurd in my opinion, and is not worthy of debate. I like how people were saying the guy was a fraud and how there were no pictures. Obviously there are. They are interesting pictures and apparently he has more than what was shown. I suspect that he withheld the best ones, but it is impossible to know.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Psynic


I can't find any pics of the "vertical gash", even in the Wiki pic that supposedly shows it.

You didn't look very hard. Google images.

www.infowars.com...

That's not the third tower.

WTC7 was sheathed in red granite.

But you knew that, didn't you?

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Most of the points in your post are not worthy of debate.