Should we just focus on Building 7?

I don't like this as a rule, but here's a link to a video I just found to get you started. You can hear the dispatches and see some news reports. I don't agree with all the conclusions of the video but it's not a bad reference to get started. Like I said before though, go to the original source. And could you please specify which sick hoax you are referring to? a reply to: Jchristopher5

Sorry mate. That was supposed to be for cardinalsfan. Hope he sees that. a reply to: TheBolt

Like I said in an saltier post, I don't like ding this but it's a collection of all I want to show you boiled Into one. I don't agree with all the conclusions, I can't substantiate and actually dont honestly believe the legitimacy of the photo of the van here either, but you can hear the dispatches and see some of the news reports.
youtu.be...

reply to: cardinalfan0596

originally posted by: TheBolt
Sorry mate. That was supposed to be for cardinalsfan. Hope he sees that. a reply to: TheBolt

he only sees what he wants to see. He has ignored my request for proof the Guardian pulled their story on some of the hijackers being alive, despite multiple requests.

a reply to: TheBolt

I see no link, but I did find the video on YouTube...which does not match the NYPD transcripts from that day. So, again, a sick hoax.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

Because I have long since learned that no matter what, you will ignore reality. It is that simple.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
Just to add on previously mentioned above, witnesses reported explosions BEFORE the planes hit the towers,

Funny that the Naudet brothers, who were filming and managed to catch flight 11 hit WTC 1 never caught any explosions, nor were any picked up by seismographs that picked up the planes hitting the buildings and their collapse.

Why do truthers keep bring up the same much debunked crap - all it shows is that they have done zero research!

It's you, hellobruce, who haven't done your research :

Journal of 9/11 Studies, Volume 34, November 2012, by Dr. André Rousseau.
Dr. Rousseau is a former researcher in Geophysics and Geology at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) of France and a specialist in acoustic waves.
He is also a member of Scientists for 9/11 Truth. Read his thesis :

Were Explosives the Source of the Seismic Signals Emitted from New York on September 11, 2001?

On the contrary, all the documented evidence points to explosions as the source of the recorded seismic signals.

If you want to read much more (tons of highly interesting science based information) on the subject, Christopher and other new 9/11'ers, you REALLY should start to read my four signature links, to the very end. And then read for a few months all the dark-blue links provided by Major Tom from his website page here, he made this impressive comprehensive 9/11 collection :

Author's Conclusions, by Major Tom.
and for WTC 7, this critique of the final WTC 7 NIST report.

These are three threads by me, which cover WTC 7 extensively, including the usual trusters :

WTC 7 was IMPLODED : irrefutable seismic evidence from LDEO and NIST itself.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Sequel of the above thread, to include my original seismic forum posts from the now defunct Study of 911 website :
www.abovetopsecret.com...

WTC destruction, the Leftover candidates, Pro&Contra Arguments :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

After reading and comprehending all of that Major Tom and I offered you already long ago, Christopher and other new 9/11'ers, you can easily battle off the usual truster-packs, and will also understand to avoid the whole heap of disinformation "facts" you were obviously reading from certain 9/11 sites, that were hoaxes that were proved as such, much earlier on already.
You then will be a 9/11 professional doubter, at last.

Be careful not to be lured into the "report please to staff" trap some of these trusters use, keep your posts as neutral as can be, if aroused, just wait a few hours and post without any signs of your previous red hot anger.
Psy-ops are used on 9/11 forums just as much as in politics and mainstream media.

You get used to it, and you are already showing to understand that it is used by certain types here. Don't fall for it. Stay civil. Don't give them a chance to report you. And get banned.
That would be a loss for this forum, you obviously all have potential.

Too many of my fine doubter friends have been banned here after the anger got to them.
Most of the really good ones, by the way. With lots of experience and professionalism.
So, don't thread on them. Most of the mods do not like to ban you, but if you become too personal in your rebuttals, the only thing left to them is ban you after a serious report.
Don't give them a shimmer of a chance. STAY here.

I think it's disgusting how the witnesses who were there and in the buildings that day have been treated by not just the investigators but also by some of the idiots on this thread.

Why would people lie about this? And why are there so many?

Additionally, as someone else also pointed out, those people who are suffering from severe cognitive dissonance, it's understandable but ignoring EVERYTHING that points to the official side of the story as being false, and there is a ton of information which points to that, there is no excuse for branding people without evidence just because it suits your beliefs.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Sorry, but Willie Rodriguez long ago proved that he was lying. In the days after 9/11, he said that there were noises above him that sounded like heavy furniture was being moved around. A couple years later, after the "Truth" movement started to grow, he started spinning a tale about explosions that blew the drywall off the walls, collapsed his office ceiling, etc....

Of course NOW, people will pay him to come and tell his tales.

You are disgusting and Rodriguez wasn't the only one who reported maintenance work on the upper floors.

a reply to: Jchristopher5

He has ignored my request for proof the Guardian pulled their story on some of the hijackers being alive, despite multiple requests.

What's the difference if the story was pulled or not ?
Where are the hijackers ?
Do you thing all the world is going to hide them ?
What better way to thumb your nose at the US than to tweet "You didn't get me!"?

Why don't you give us proof that they still exist?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Jchristopher5

He has ignored my request for proof the Guardian pulled their story on some of the hijackers being alive, despite multiple requests.

What's the difference if the story was pulled or not ?
Where are the hijackers ?
Do you thing all the world is going to hide them ?
What better way to thumb your nose at the US than to tweet "You didn't get me!"?

Why don't you give us proof that they still exist?

Do you want to know something that is very rarely, or if ever discussed? There is absolutely no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the respective planes. All that was ever produced was pictures of them, and even they were not from the flights they were alleged to have hijacked.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

How many of those witnesses have you actually spoken to? I know I have talked to at least a dozen members of FDNY that were there that day, and not a single one of them think the buildings were "controlled demolitions". Then there is Mr. Rodriguez, whose story has changed dramatically in the last 14 years.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Absolutely no evidence? Other than the Gate Manifests that the Gate Agents checked their names off of before closing out the flight? Then the calls made over the airline nets that gave the names and seat numbers of the hijackers?

a reply to: LaBTop

Linking to your own PhD posts is not proof.

Protec, an actual company that deals in demolitions, studied the records and interviewed the witnesses. NOTHING they found suggested a demolition that day.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Do you want to know something that is very rarely, or if ever discussed? There is absolutely no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the respective planes. All that was ever produced was pictures of them, and even they were not from the flights they were alleged to have hijacked.

Are you serious ?
Even Wiki has a picture with a time stamp.

What evidence do you have that they didn't board?

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Jchristopher5

Because I have long since learned that no matter what, you will ignore reality. It is that simple.

You are so disingenuous.

You stated that the Guardian pulled the story about several of the hijackers being alive as if it were a well established fact. I asked you to prove it a half dozen times, and you can't. So you were either lying, being intentional deceitful, or you made an honest mistake. Either way, it is not my fault. It's yours.

You should stop making claims that you can't prove, which is exactly what you say to truthers.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Do you want to know something that is very rarely, or if ever discussed? There is absolutely no evidence that the alleged hijackers even boarded the respective planes. All that was ever produced was pictures of them, and even they were not from the flights they were alleged to have hijacked.

Are you serious ?
Even Wiki has a picture with a time stamp.

What evidence do you have that they didn't board?

Timestamp says 5:45 mate

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Absolutely no evidence? Other than the Gate Manifests that the Gate Agents checked their names off of before closing out the flight? Then the calls made over the airline nets that gave the names and seat numbers of the hijackers?

There is still no total, one hundred percent confirmation that these guys ever gone on the flights, the above picture is a shot of them at the airport, where's the video?

My point is that wouldn't it just have been easier for the U.S. authorities to release not just the above video footage but also the other footage from the Pentagon? I mean, it may shut a lot of truthers up, but they haven't done this.

That in itself is extremely suspicious imo, additionally when you consider that there is no evidence of planes at either the Pentagon or Shanksville.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Timestamp says 5:45 mate

Quarter till 6 for a flight that boards at 7:30.
I take you have never flown.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

Timestamp says 5:45 mate

Quarter till 6 for a flight that boards at 7:30.
I take you have never flown.

It doesn't prove a thing, where is the video footage?

And also, where's the rest of the images of the other hijackers allegedly boarding?

Truthers & Debunkers can debate about 9/11 all day long with argument and counter-argument over various parts of the events, but why is this case? Why are there so many loose ends here? This event caused war, death and destruction, it ruined countries, it practically gave western governments total control over our lives in society, yet we still debate points with no conclusive outcome.

The very fact that the loose ends exist is reason enough to be suspicious.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Perhaps if WTC 7 was a controlled demo, whoever did the demo didn't need to rig the entire building. Maybe they knew that if they only took out 1 or 2 columns, and started a bunch of fires, the building would come down on its own. Exactly as the "official story" suggests it came down.

You mean like fire weakening column 79 ?
Just like the official report says. Hmmmm

Nist report summary paragraph 3

NIST conducted an additional computer analysis. The goal was to see if the loss of WTC 7’s Column 79—the structural component identified as the one whose failure on 9/11 started the progressive collapse—would still have led to a complete loss of the building if fire or damage from the falling debris of the nearby WTC 1 tower were not factors.

The investigation team concluded that the column’s failure under any circumstance would have initiated the destructive sequence of events.

Hmmmm

Now why doesn't the Grand Poobah Richard Gage address the issue of column 79 ?
He has had 13 plus years to come up with his own models/proof that column 79 could not have brought down the building !
It's simple he has a vested interest in continuing the 911 mythology.
It's his JOB ! If 911 goes away, his income goes with it.
No one in the business would ever hire him again.

Now some one, anyone please show us proof that column 79 could not have started the failure.

Just reposting this.

I noticed that the op seemed to "overlook" this post.

I wonder why???

a reply to: liejunkie01

Because everyone in the real world knows that fire has never EVER and cannot EVER weaken ANY column.

Column 79 LOL.