Truther Thread

a reply to: wildb

What 911 thread is complete without the little posse of regulars who parrot the same things over and over,hell look at a couple of their post histories and they are quite clearly sitting and waiting for any opportunity to jump in....which then begs the question why...one would think a rational person would let it go instead of repeating themselves over and over..... so in my mind they are either completely nuts or have an agenda .....

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: wildb

911 is much bigger then most of us know, the hidden agendas, the corporate interests, the military industrial complex, the stealing of resources, poppy fields, Lithium, world weapon sells, and the erosion of our Constitution, with mainstream media propaganda, screaming terrorist, terrorist, Fear, Fear, propaganda on the American people to give up their liberties and Constitutional rights.

Look at the United States now 14 years later after 911, look at what our corporate bought and paid for Congress and President did to our great Nation, they striped this county of everything they could.

And they are not done yet.

Just getting started.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

To be clear, are you saying explosives were used to bring down the towers? If you are then uh oh, OP warned us about disinfo agents pushing that, among other things.

Yes I am saying explosives of some kind were used to bring down the WTC and the evidence points to that.

The WTC just didn't fall down, that was not observed while viewing all the un-tampered News Videos on the morning of 911.

No, they were blown to pieces, while vaporizing all the concrete, and hurling thousands of tons of steel beams over 600 feet in every direction, that just doesn't happens when a building just falls down, in fact it is impossible.

originally posted by: Informer1958
Yes I am saying explosives of some kind were used to bring down the WTC and the evidence points to that.

Then according to some truthers here you must be a disinformation agent!

originally posted by: Informer1958
a reply to: DenyObfuscation

To be clear, are you saying explosives were used to bring down the towers? If you are then uh oh, OP warned us about disinfo agents pushing that, among other things.

Yes I am saying explosives of some kind were used to bring down the WTC and the evidence points to that.

The WTC just didn't fall down, that was not observed while viewing all the un-tampered News Videos on the morning of 911.

No, they were blown to pieces, while vaporizing all the concrete, and hurling thousands of tons of steel beams over 600 feet in every direction, that just doesn't happens when a building just falls down, in fact it is impossible.

Yeah it is..

a reply to: hellobruce

Then according to some truthers here you must be a disinformation agent!

Do you believe I am disinformation agent?

a reply to: Informer1958

Back in the 1980's the EPA did an inspection on the WTC and discovered it was full of Asbestos.

The EPA ordered Port Authority to do an abatement program to remove the asbestos from the WTC which would have costs hundred of millions dollars for the removal.

Port Authority refuse to spend the money to do it. Port Authority wanted the WTC demolished, it was the cheapest way to solve their problems.

I don't know much about this subject. Would you happen to have sources for that info?

I searched a little and see that

The WTC Towers were built from 1968 to 1972. A slurry mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed on as fireproofing material. But this practice was banned by the New York City Council in 1971. This halted the spraying, but not before hundreds of tons of the material had been applied. Some but not all of it was later removed in an abatement program.

And

According to Eric Darton's 1999 book on the Twin Towers, the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal). 5

911research.wtc7.net...

All this over 800,000?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: wildb

What 911 thread is complete without the little posse of regulars who parrot the same things over and over,hell look at a couple of their post histories and they are quite clearly sitting and waiting for any opportunity to jump in....which then begs the question why...one would think a rational person would let it go instead of repeating themselves over and over..... so in my mind they are either completely nuts or have an agenda .....

everyone has an an agenda, what is so surprising about that..

this thread is not complete without this and this . have fun

originally posted by: vjr1113
this thread is not complete without this and this . have fun

This is the reality of truther research!

a reply to: Informer1958

The demolitions of the WTC were used as a Shock & Awe for the insiders for their new Pearl Harbor. And it worked!

Please explain what "New Pearl Harbor" means. After 9/11, I watched as the military suffered financial strains and in fact, there were units in Afghanistan that had to cut back on breakfast items, and other goods and services were cut at a number of U.S. military installations including my base.

a reply to: DenyObfuscation

I don't know much about this subject. Would you happen to have sources for that info?

I searched a little and see that

No I do not, that was many years ago when I found the News articles, and the fact is Google has scrubbed many News stories concerning 911. Many News Articles that exposed lies concerning 911 were removed.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

To everyone saying the buildings were a demolition job

a reply to: Informer1958
The information I posted seems to contradict your information. Is mine wrong?

a reply to: hellobruce

facepalm

yea that's an accurate representation of the wtc

this

is what it really looks like. 38k tons falling at freefall speed for about 12 ft wont have much resistance.


how embarrassing, is that your science guy?

Folks, you will now get a real idea what a OS supporters believe, it's down hill from here, I am out of here.

It was nice talking to you all.

a reply to: hellobruce

That video made Richard Gage a laughing stock in scientific community. Apparently, he never heard of Verinage demolition.

a reply to: Informer1958
Please answer my question before running away.

originally posted by: vjr1113
how embarrassing, is that your science guy?

Actually, it is Richard Gage, one of the truthers who has made 9/11 his job, paying himself a salary of $75,450 in 2009
from the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: Informer1958

Back in the 1980's the EPA did an inspection on the WTC and discovered it was full of Asbestos.

The EPA ordered Port Authority to do an abatement program to remove the asbestos from the WTC which would have costs hundred of millions dollars for the removal.

Port Authority refuse to spend the money to do it. Port Authority wanted the WTC demolished, it was the cheapest way to solve their problems.

I don't know much about this subject. Would you happen to have sources for that info?

I searched a little and see that

The WTC Towers were built from 1968 to 1972. A slurry mixture of asbestos and cement was sprayed on as fireproofing material. But this practice was banned by the New York City Council in 1971. This halted the spraying, but not before hundreds of tons of the material had been applied. Some but not all of it was later removed in an abatement program.

And

According to Eric Darton's 1999 book on the Twin Towers, the Port Authority had planned to pump $800,000 into the Twin Towers for a variety of improvements, the most costly of which was asbestos abatement (not removal). 5

911research.wtc7.net...

All this over 800,000?

Ya if that's an accurate number then ALL THIS over just THAT does seem ridiculous.

Fact is the buildings were old and had served their purpose and had their problems etc.

Not unlike an old car.

It all seems ridiculous though if you only think ALL THAT was just about some old buildings and one group's hatred for what another group stands for.

Maybe ALL THAT is BIGGER than a few old office buildings.

I like to think of it like a movie, like a car chase you sometimes see in a new movie etc. There you are watching them do the chase scene and on the highway are all these older model cars and you start thinking like, 'oh ya those are older cars because they can wreck them, they're old, cheaper etc.' They wreck older cars in chase scenes to save money - makes sense.

The point I'm making though is that the movie is more than the old wrecked cars or the chase scene... these things just serve the overall story line. Wrecking old cars in a dramatic chase adds danger and suspense to whatever the LARGER STORY is.

Seen this way 9/11 is like a car chase scene in Manhattan, involving some airplanes and some old buildings. It's not about the cars or buildings (or airplanes) really, the movie I mean. These buildings are just necessary elements for dramatic effect for a much larger plot being woven and told.